3 ms·

What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want. The beats are so successful because they gave peopl

What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want. The beats are so successful because they gave people what they wanted--strong bass and good looks, and audiophiles and technophiles lose their shit over it. There is a lesson to be learned from the beats phenomenon, and it isn't that "beats are crap".

egeozcan 12y ago
> What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want. No. Most people who love beats usually ditch them when they hear a proper headphone. This is my anecdotal evidence, yes, but I hear about it from others all the time too. People love it because usually they are the first pair of cans they hear which are more expensive than 20 Dollars. Yes, they are way better than the crappy IEMs people used buy just because of their color. This doesn't mean that people love "muddy, exaggerated bass". People love going to concerts too and muddy, exaggerated treble and bass is all you get there in terms of sound. People still go to concerts because of the experience. I love it too. If the same group was having a concert in a much more acoustic concert hall with also the same great experience for even less money, I would definitely prefer that instead. This situation is like, they go to a concert the first time in their life and love it. Does it mean the extremely distorted sound in a crappy concert hall is their preference? I don't think so. The crappy concert hall just invested more on marketing so everybody knows about it. So, again, what's wrong with some people talking about the disadvantages and pointing that there are better alternatives? Even, in the end, if someone still happens to love the "muddy, exaggerated bass", at least now they now it's not the only option. Coming back to my argument, I'm 100% confident the phrase "beats revolutionizing the headphones" has less to do with revolution and more to do with marketing (and nothing to do with the technicalities).

egeozcan 12y ago

> What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want. No. Most people who love beats usually ditch them when they hear a proper headphone. This is my anecdotal evidence, yes, but I hear about it from others all the time too. People love it because usually they are the first pair of cans they hear which are more expensive than 20 Dollars. Yes, they are way better than the crappy IEMs people used buy just because of their color. This doesn't mean that people love "muddy, exaggerated bass". People love going to concerts too and muddy, exaggerated treble and bass is all you get there in terms of sound. People still go to concerts because of the experience. I love it too. If the same group was having a concert in a much more acoustic concert hall with also the same great experience for even less money, I would definitely prefer that instead. This situation is like, they go to a concert the first time in their life and love it. Does it mean the extremely distorted sound in a crappy concert hall is their preference? I don't think so. The crappy concert hall just invested more on marketing so everybody knows about it. So, again, what's wrong with some people talking about the disadvantages and pointing that there are better alternatives? Even, in the end, if someone still happens to love the "muddy, exaggerated bass", at least now they now it's not the only option. Coming back to my argument, I'm 100% confident the phrase "beats revolutionizing the headphones" has less to do with revolution and more to do with marketing (and nothing to do with the technicalities).