So who's gong to buy Dr Dre's extravagant headphones?

[groovacious]

"I have no experience of them but they're crap!"

[Steve Hill]

"I have no experience of them but they're crap!"

Nobody is quite saying that, although since they are made by Monster it is quite possible to do so! They are priced to compete with the very top end offerings from AKG Sennheiser etc, and with that competition they need to be completely flawless. Actually they are priced at nearly £100 more than the going rate for Sennheiser's top-of-the range HD650 reference headphones (about £189) or the AKG K701 studio headphones (about £185).

They contain controversial active noise cancelling technology (they have mics facing the outside world and play back external noise, mixed with the wanted musical signal, out of phase, allegedly at the right volume level to cancel it out). If you believe this technology is anything like effective let alone mature, good luck to you. I would not try to make serious music on a set of headphones which decide to treat my ears to out of phase external signals to enhance my mixing pleasure. I don't need to try then out to know I don't want this "feature". I do my mixing in an environment where external noise is not an issue anyway.

The Beats/Monster website does not appear to include any technical specifications or information. They link to two reviews, one in Time Magazine, where the writer compares them to the similar-price Bose Noise Cancelling headphones (ugh!), and a populist piece in the tabloid USA Today. Nothing from a hi-fi mag, still less a serious music-making publication. I wonder why?

The selling proposition, per the Apple website, seems to amount to "Most headphones can't handle the bass, the detail, the dynamics."

Well that's true. Most headphones are $1 pieces of s*** given away with $10 mp3 players. But you could probably get a respectable listening experience at a decent listening level from say a set of Sennheiser HD215s which have a street price of about £29 if you shop around. Go to £100 or thereabouts and you are starting to get good, monitoring quality equipment. Well short of £200 and you're in headphone nirvana.

I repeat what I said earlier: shame on Apple for being taken in by this snake oil peddling, and shame on Dr Dre for lending his name to it.

Although in fairness they are probably not aimed at the recording market...

Buy them if you want to though, it's a free country.

[sharpeye]

here we go - tech specs

Beats By Dre: Technical Specifications
Speaker: 40mm
Frequency Response: 20Hz - 20kHz
Sensitivity: 110dB (+/- 2dB)
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): Less than or equal to 0.8% at 1Hz out 1mW
Maximum Output: 115 dB
Active Noise Reduction: -16dB +/- 2.0 dB at max
Operation Voltage: 2.0 to 3.2V DC
Rated Wattage: 0.15W (1 kHz @ 1mW)
Weight: 260 grams
Cable Length: 1.3 meters
Connector: 1/8 inch (3.5mm) gold plated
Type: Over Ear

what do we think?!

[Steve Hill]

We think impedance would be useful information, since it will very significantly affect the volume you get from a given headphone amp. And a 150mw output does not look very spectacular (K701s are 200mw). Since they necessarily include amplifiers and mics for the noise-cancelling technology, some specs on those components would be useful too.

The frequency response is only average: HD650s go from 10Hz to 39,000Hz. K701s go from 10Hz to 40kHz.

THD of nearly 0.8% (at only 1mw output) looks very unspectacular. HD650s are less than 0.05% - 16 times better.

These are toys for consumers with more money than sense.

[groovacious]

I pretty much agree with your response, Steve, from a music making perspective. It's just that these cans aren't marketed to music makers but rather listeners so all the negative commentary seems a bit pointless.

[Zukan]

I pretty much agree with your response, Steve, from a music making perspective. It's just that these cans aren't marketed to music makers but rather listeners so all the negative commentary seems a bit pointless.

Not really Groov.

Whether it's for production, creation or simple listening the specs do not match up to the competition and certainly against the budget.

Listening to music follows the same technical criteria as creating music when it comes to auditioning via headphones.

The bottom line is: if you can get better specs, better overall representation of the audio at a cheaper price then is it worth the named endorsement?

I am not commenting on whether these cans are good or bad as I have not demoed them but simply pointing out that technical specifications do play a part in selecting the right headphones at the right price.

[Steve Hill]

I pretty much agree with your response, Steve, from a music making perspective. It's just that these cans aren't marketed to music makers but rather listeners so all the negative commentary seems a bit pointless.

Well I didn't ask the original question! I think in a forum dedicated to recording it is important to flag up the apparent weaknesses in the product, especially when so many of us (OK, all of us) are recording on a budget, and even more especially when a leading respected record producer has lent/sold his name to the product, which at first blush would suggest these things are targeted at music producers.

Against that background, it is wholly appropriate to point out that there are a couple of competing models which have better specs, reviews to die for from all over the world, are used in countless studios and by many "names" who swear by them, and which are about £100 cheaper!

(And that advice is equally applicable to ordinary listeners)

[Hugh Robjohns]

here we go - tech specs

Only in the very loosest 'we know none of you understand this stuff, so it doesn't matter if it's jibberish' kind of way.

Frequency Response: 20Hz - 20kHz

Utterly meaningless without amplitude tolerances. They could be 1dB down at 20Hz and 20kHz, or 20dB. The amplitude variation between those limit frequencies could be 0.5dB or 20dB. Who knows?

Sensitivity: 110dB (+/- 2dB)

Sensitivity relative to what exactly? Sensitivity implies an acoustic output level for a given input level. The latter hasn't been given... which makes this line utterly meaningless too.

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): Less than or equal to 0.8% at 1Hz out 1mW

I very much doubt these headphones can reproduce 1Hz. If we assue that's a typo and it should be 1kHz, then the figure is reasonable for a cheap ipod style earpiece, but not particularly inspiring for a quality headphone system.

Maximum Output: 115 dB

I presume they mean 115dB SPL -- but this also requires a weighting and reference to be meaningful.

Active Noise Reduction: -16dB +/- 2.0 dB at max

Over what kind of frequency range and relative to what levels? Another meaningless but impressive sounding figure...

Operation Voltage: 2.0 to 3.2V DC

Lovely. The first useful piece of information

Rated Wattage: 0.15W (1 kHz @ 1mW)

Utter jibberage!

Weight: 260 grams

Does that include the weight of the connecting cable or not?

Cable Length: 1.3 meters

Impressive. A second meaningful specification (even if they can't spell metres

Connector: 1/8 inch (3.5mm) gold plated

Technically, they should have specified that it is a stereo or three-terminal plug, but who's counting anymore?

Type: Over Ear

The correct terms here are circumaural if the sit on the skull around the ear, or supraural if they sit on top of the pinnae... but I guess we can translate this one fairly easily.

what do we think?!

I've not heard them, but if I was looking to buy headphones, I would have serious reservations over these because of a) the general principle of using noise cancelling headphones for critical mix applications, b) the very poor technical specifiations which give no coinfidence in their design c) their marketing through the Apple website and d) their association with Monster -- although that is an entirely personal bias!

Compare and contrast these 'specifications' with those Sennheiser publishes for it's headphones to see what I mean about design confidence.

My advice would be to steer clear of these, unless you feel noise cancelling is an important factor for you. In which case, I'd compare the Sennheiser, Bose, and other noise-cancelling headphones first.

Hugh

[Ian Stewart]

I would guess that headphones let down your image if you are into bling, so these may designed to fill a gap in the market. However if image, rather than quality, is the object they should be produced by a real name designer label.

As said above, if a known record producer endorses something, it is expected that they have a record producer's specifications. If Kate Moss endorses them I would expect them to look good with a designer mini-skirt.

[chris...]

I would guess that headphones let down your image if you are into bling,

At least the connector is gold-plated.

[chris...]

Only in the very loosest 'we know none of you understand this stuff, so it doesn't matter if it's jibberish' kind of way.

ROTFL.

[Gelled_Fringe]

here we go - tech specs

Only in the very loosest 'we know none of you understand this stuff, so it doesn't matter if it's jibberish' kind of way.

Frequency Response: 20Hz - 20kHz

Utterly meaningless without amplitude tolerances. They could be 1dB down at 20Hz and 20kHz, or 20dB. The amplitude variation between those limit frequencies could be 0.5dB or 20dB. Who knows?

Sensitivity: 110dB (+/- 2dB)

Sensitivity relative to what exactly? Sensitivity implies an acoustic output level for a given input level. The latter hasn't been given... which makes this line utterly meaningless too.

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): Less than or equal to 0.8% at 1Hz out 1mW

I very much doubt these headphones can reproduce 1Hz. If we assue that's a typo and it should be 1kHz, then the figure is reasonable for a cheap ipod style earpiece, but not particularly inspiring for a quality headphone system.

Maximum Output: 115 dB

I presume they mean 115dB SPL -- but this also requires a weighting and reference to be meaningful.

Active Noise Reduction: -16dB +/- 2.0 dB at max

Over what kind of frequency range and relative to what levels? Another meaningless but impressive sounding figure...

Operation Voltage: 2.0 to 3.2V DC

Lovely. The first useful piece of information

Rated Wattage: 0.15W (1 kHz @ 1mW)

Utter jibberage!

Weight: 260 grams

Does that include the weight of the connecting cable or not?

Cable Length: 1.3 meters

Impressive. A second meaningful specification (even if they can't spell metres

Connector: 1/8 inch (3.5mm) gold plated

Technically, they should have specified that it is a stereo or three-terminal plug, but who's counting anymore?

Type: Over Ear

The correct terms here are circumaural if the sit on the skull around the ear, or supraural if they sit on top of the pinnae... but I guess we can translate this one fairly easily.

what do we think?!

I've not heard them, but if I was looking to buy headphones, I would have serious reservations over these because of a) the general principle of using noise cancelling headphones for critical mix applications, b) the very poor technical specifiations which give no coinfidence in their design c) their marketing through the Apple website and d) their association with Monster -- although that is an entirely personal bias!

Compare and contrast these 'specifications' with those Sennheiser publishes for it's headphones to see what I mean about design confidence.

My advice would be to steer clear of these, unless you feel noise cancelling is an important factor for you. In which case, I'd compare the Sennheiser, Bose, and other noise-cancelling headphones first.

Hugh

in the world of the online hip hop message board, we would describe this as 'sonned'

[sharpeye]

at this stage i would just like to point out that i was idly surfing the sos forums at work, came across this thread, did a bit of digging, and found the 'tech specs' for these (pretty gimmicky) headphones, so thought i would post them up!

the 'what do we think' bit was a bit tongue in cheek - i personally dont need to hear them to know they are a complete and utter con, and i also wouldnt spend that much money on headphones anyway

just wanted to clear that up as Hugh was bracketing my comments as if i was bigging them up!

[groovacious]

Well I didn't ask the original question!

And I ain't buying these cans so we're both winning, eh.

I just thought it was kind of funny that I click on a thread and see loads of negativity about something no-one seems to have used.

Makes me want to check 'em out now, heh.

[groovacious]

I pretty much agree with your response, Steve, from a music making perspective. It's just that these cans aren't marketed to music makers but rather listeners so all the negative commentary seems a bit pointless.

Not really Groov.

Whether it's for production, creation or simple listening the specs do not match up to the competition and certainly against the budget.

Listening to music follows the same technical criteria as creating music when it comes to auditioning via headphones.

The bottom line is: if you can get better specs, better overall representation of the audio at a cheaper price then is it worth the named endorsement?

I am not commenting on whether these cans are good or bad as I have not demoed them but simply pointing out that technical specifications do play a part in selecting the right headphones at the right price.

"Do I like what I hear?" closely followed by "how much of a dork do I look wearing them?" are pretty much the only specs most users would bother with.

Audio geeks are different, of course. "Special" is the word which springs to mind.

As in "olympics".

[Yago]

I'll bet good money that Dr Dre won't use these .

[Tui]

I just thought it was kind of funny that I click on a thread and see loads of negativity about something no-one seems to have used.

That's the beauty of the internet: Everybody can be an expert, and have an authoritative opinion on something they have never seen, touched, or even heard of.

[Hugh Robjohns]

just wanted to clear that up as Hugh was bracketing my comments as if i was bigging them up!

Fair enough... we'll believe you!

Hugh

[Hugh Robjohns]

That's the beauty of the internet: Everybody can be an expert, and have an authoritative opinion on something they have never seen, touched, or even heard of.

True enough! Scary isn't it...

But by way of some form of weak and feeble defence, the original poster asked about using these headphoens for mixing, and I am 100% certain that they'll be rubbish for that task -- based on the fact that no pair of noise cancelling headphones I've ever tried (and I've tried a lot, across all prices ranges) has sounded in the least bit transparent, neutral or accurate. It's not possible with current technology!

Hugh

[ken long]

These are toys for consumers with more money than sense.

Ergo - Sold By Apple Inc.

ken

[sharpeye]

just wanted to clear that up as Hugh was bracketing my comments as if i was bigging them up!

Fair enough... we'll believe you!

Hugh

Its true - I'm saving my pennies for the Signature Range Snoop Dogg Acoustically designed studio ashtray, with gold plated roach clip and triple multi wound back to front cabling connector, soon to be pushed by Dell Computers

[jayzed]

This is another in the longer and longer line of products where 'branding' taking over 'core competence'. Sure, Dr Dre can put out music that millions think is fantastic quality and there is, I suppose a small link (he might use headphones, but I doubt it)but he's really a producer/musician, not even an engineer that I know of.

It's a slightly scary thing happening in our celebrity obsessed world, I think it probably started as some sort of joke then someone realised that xxx (insert celebrity here) brand floor polish sold because enough people thought it must be better because xxx said so. An extension of having a celebrity tell you something is good, make it their product. They must REALLY endorse it then (or in reality, just get MORE money).

As for the poster who said Dre had enough money, well that shows a charming naievety about American and in particular, Bling culture. There is never enough! Affulenza, red in tooth and claw.

Slightly OT, but I haven't really had much experience with Monster cables. I've put them in the category of slightly nutty audiophile products - not as bad as ones like green felt pens for CDs, or 'tuning rocks' for your listening room but still a bit of a con. I was a little shocked at the vehemence this brand brought up - why is Monster, in particular, so bad? I'm certain they are overpriced and make stupid claims but what in particular has raised the ire of people I respect highly on the topic of audio? Have they made particularly outrageous claims that I haven't heard about? I'd love to know more. Depite mis-representing like crazy at least they actually do something, unlike much barking mad stuff you will see in the HiFi magazines.

I really want to know.

[Steve Hill]

Johnny T

Google on say "monster cables litigation" and read some of the results.

Ask yourself why Monster products are peppered all round "discount" High Street retailers like Comet, so you can have a £70 mains distribution board to go with your £200 stereo, instead of a £3.99 one from B&Q. Comet obviously do as well out of this as they do out of selling say extended warranty insurance.

It's a business model. It's even legal. But I don't have to like it, and I will not have a Monster product in my studio.

[ken long]

Johnny T

I've PM'd you.

ken

[groovacious]

I look on the whole Monster cable thing as a kind of anoraks surreal comedy and I appreciate Monster for it. Had they not played the game and been abjectly surreal right off the bat([ ****** ] crazy) none of the rest of this weirdness would have occurred.

Monster - I salute you, sir.

But I still won't buy your cables.