Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NY Times article on audio

Expand Messages
  • Edward
    Michael Fremer s probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
    • James David Walley
      That article jumped the shark as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        That article "jumped the shark" as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their reaction. 

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Edward" <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:

         

        Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

      • Roscoe Nicholson
        Where did they say Beats was emblematic of high end sound? It was used as an example of increased interest in higher performance audio gear. The Head-fi people
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Where did they say Beats was emblematic of high end sound? It was used as an example of increased interest in higher performance audio gear. 

          The Head-fi people may not prefer the sound, but the explosion of sales of Beats is undeniable. In my book, you can't jump a shark when presenting facts.

          If I was asked about why I had hope for the future of audiophilia, I would point to the same 2 things: vinyl resurgence and headphones (and likely Beats in particular due to their spectacular sales).

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:

           

          That article "jumped the shark" as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their reaction. 

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Edward" <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:

           

          Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

        • James David Walley
          Beats are a success because of a) Dr. Dre s name on them and b) cranking up the bass to ungodly levels. You can find $40 headphones with vastly better sound
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Beats are a success because of a) Dr. Dre's name on them and b) cranking up the bass to ungodly levels.  You can find $40 headphones with vastly better sound quality. 

            Calling Beats "high-performance" is like singling out Bose as the ultimate audiophile loudspeakers. After all, they've got the sales and name-recognition, too. 

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Roscoe Nicholson <roscoeiii@...> wrote:

             

            Where did they say Beats was emblematic of high end sound? It was used as an example of increased interest in higher performance audio gear. 

            The Head-fi people may not prefer the sound, but the explosion of sales of Beats is undeniable. In my book, you can't jump a shark when presenting facts.

            If I was asked about why I had hope for the future of audiophilia, I would point to the same 2 things: vinyl resurgence and headphones (and likely Beats in particular due to their spectacular sales).

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:

             

            That article "jumped the shark" as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their reaction. 

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Edward" <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:

             

            Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

          • Roscoe "Trey" Nicholson
            But what is being singled out is the *explosion of sales *of Beats! While I agree that there are many better sounding headphones for the money and for a good
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              But what is being singled out is the explosion of sales of Beats! While I agree that there are many better sounding headphones for the money and for a good deal less money as well. And they are described as "high-end" not "high performance." Get your quotes right. While "high-end" may refer to performance (and one would hope the two were related), it can also just be referring to price. As far as performance goes, Beats are certainly giving better performance than stock earbuds coming with portable audio devices and phones, which is the article's point of comparison. 

              Please note the point being made in the article with the examples of vinyl and Beats: "many younger music fans are seeking a listening experience that goes beyond an MP3 and a cheap pair of earbuds."

              While if I was writing about the best sounding, high performance headphones, I would likely refer to HiFiMan, Sennheiser etc.,  Beats seem a perfect example to choose as evidence that there is growing interest in having a better listening experience than what stock earbuds provide. Beats is a far better example of this than any other headphone being sold today, due to the sales volumes. 

              I also see two major benefits of Beats to the audio industry as a whole:
              1) It is proof of concept that major sales of headphones at higher price points is possible. 
              2) Beats may be a gateway into audiophilia for those who buy them. Even if it is only a subpopulation of Beats buyers who then look for ways to upgrade their speakers, or to upgrade to a better sounding pair of headphones, this then grows the potential market for audio gear from many manufacturers. I am confident that Bose played a similar role for many folks who would now consider themselves audiophiles. The heavily marketed, trendy products plant the seed that "hey, maybe spending money on high quality gear for audio is a good idea."

              On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:31 PM, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:
               

              Beats are a success because of a) Dr. Dre's name on them and b) cranking up the bass to ungodly levels.  You can find $40 headphones with vastly better sound quality. 

              Calling Beats "high-performance" is like singling out Bose as the ultimate audiophile loudspeakers. After all, they've got the sales and name-recognition, too. 

              Sent from my iPhone

              On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Roscoe Nicholson <roscoeiii@...> wrote:

               

              Where did they say Beats was emblematic of high end sound? It was used as an example of increased interest in higher performance audio gear. 

              The Head-fi people may not prefer the sound, but the explosion of sales of Beats is undeniable. In my book, you can't jump a shark when presenting facts.

              If I was asked about why I had hope for the future of audiophilia, I would point to the same 2 things: vinyl resurgence and headphones (and likely Beats in particular due to their spectacular sales).

              Sent from my iPhone

              On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:

               

              That article "jumped the shark" as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their reaction. 

              Sent from my iPhone

              On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Edward" <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:

               

              Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:

              http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0


            • Robert
              Interest in sound is , as already pointed out, a positive thing in itself and has the potential to be directed towards worthy objects. But I think one has to
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Interest in sound is , as already pointed out,
                a positive thing in itself and has the potential
                to be directed towards worthy objects.
                But I think one has to awfully optimistic to suppose
                that Beats are any aspect of a renewed interest
                in serious audio. And even more so that the vinyl/young people
                thing amounts to anything.

                REG


                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:
                >
                > Beats are a success because of a) Dr. Dre's name on them and b) cranking up the bass to ungodly levels. You can find $40 headphones with vastly better sound quality.
                >
                > Calling Beats "high-performance" is like singling out Bose as the ultimate audiophile loudspeakers. After all, they've got the sales and name-recognition, too.
                >
                > Sent from my iPhone
                >
                > On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Roscoe Nicholson <roscoeiii@...> wrote:
                >
                > > Where did they say Beats was emblematic of high end sound? It was used as an example of increased interest in higher performance audio gear.
                > >
                > > The Head-fi people may not prefer the sound, but the explosion of sales of Beats is undeniable. In my book, you can't jump a shark when presenting facts.
                > >
                > > If I was asked about why I had hope for the future of audiophilia, I would point to the same 2 things: vinyl resurgence and headphones (and likely Beats in particular due to their spectacular sales).
                > >
                > > Sent from my iPhone
                > >
                > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM, James David Walley <jwalley@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >>
                > >> That article "jumped the shark" as soon as they singled out Beats headphones as emblematic of high-end sound. Take that line over to Head-Fi, and watch their reaction.
                > >>
                > >> Sent from my iPhone
                > >>
                > >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:41 AM, "Edward" <Edward_Wu@...> wrote:
                > >>
                > >>>
                > >>> Michael Fremer's probably furious that he was not consulted even after his many letters to the editor:
                > >>>
                > >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/garden/the-new-audio-geeks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
                > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.