Part of it is branding, to be sure. But in Pitchfork’s Resonant Frequency column, Mark Richardson rails not against the quality of the Beats line of headphones and its signature, overloaded bass, but rather argues that they’re a viable alternative for a new era of music.
Richardson’s main issue with audiophile logic — and something that I whole-heartedly agree with — is that they don’t take into consideration modern music production (synthesizers, edits, overdubs, etc.) when evaluating headphones, but mostly rely on classical audio as the reference audio source for speakers and headphones. Reading between the lines, it seems Richardson also argues that audiophiles aren’t as concerned with the music as they are in accurately reproducing sound for the sake of accurately reproducing sound.
We live in a time when everything can be tuned to individual preference. The entire concept of subjectivity is arguably embraced more now than in any other era. This platonic ideal of ideal forms, whether it be audio, visual or otherwise, is not a concern for many people today. (Hell, look at Instagram)
But to drive his point home about someone who disliked a pair of Sennheisers for their lack of bass, he drops this particularly well-put paragraph.
Beats by Dr. Dre are popular because they don’t reproduce music as much as they transform it. They are the right headphones for the current era, because their design “customizes” the sound for the listener who wants bass. Music is never finished; we can chop and screw, add bass, slow it down 100x, mash it up with something else. And people will buy headphones that finish the music in the way they like.
It may not be your sound, but it’s not necessarily a wrong sound. [Pitchfork]
Nicholas
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:07 PMIt’s an inaccurate sound.
Jason
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:30 PMIf you like the sound should you care if it is inaccurate? Is that not the whole point of the article?
MotorMouth
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 9:56 AMIt depends how much respect you have for the artist and their vision. If we wanted our music to have more bass, we would mix it with more bass. I have enough respect for the artists I like to do them the courtesy of assuming they are the same. Therefore, I like the sound to be reproduced as close to the way it was created as possible. Would the Mona Lisa be improved by lighting it with a mirror ball?
Jason
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 12:09 PMSo anyone who ever remixed a song is disrespecting the artist?
MotorMouth
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:12 PMAnyone who did it without permission certainly is. That said, I subscribe to Andy Partridge’s philosophy. He believes that there is only one “best” version of a song and that is the one an artist should present to the world. He likens remixes to Da Vinci doing multiple versions of the Mona Lisa, with her smiling and frowning to suit different moods. Remixes are all about promotion, not about art.
Jason
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 3:58 PMI think you are missing the point. You subscribe to Andy Partridge’s philosophy, That’s fine. Does that mean we all have to?
Would you care if someone told you that your point (or Andy’s for that matter) was wrong? Or would you stick to it.
I have a different philosophy and I believe many artist’s enjoy and even encourage remixes not made by themselves.
You seem set on telling people how to consume content and go as far as saying people who think differently are disrespecting the artist when really they are just enjoying the artist in their own way.
Suq Madiq
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 4:12 PMLook at this jackass, telling some guy he doesn’t know that his opinion is wrong because he doesn’t agree with it.
Drew
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:56 AMAre those that remix music not artists too?
The original artist is manipulating and using existing instruments and tools to create something new.
The person remixing is doing the same, rather than using instruments they are using music to create something new. They aren’t disrespecting anyone, they are just doing the same thing as the original artist just using different tools.
Matt L
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 10:46 AMDude, I remix songs for fun and relaxation. I love listening to music and being able to mix while I listen opens a new dimention for music. It lets me be creative with someone elses creation. I respect their music to the fullest, which is why I choose to play it.
Crispy
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 12:19 PMHaha, did you read the article?
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:29 PMAh good. I’ve always thought that Ferrari’s sound better when you take out the “vroom” and add an ice-cream truck sound instead.
typedmillepede
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM“people will buy headphones that finish the music in the way they like”
this is true, and i’m ok with that. they shouldn’t be spending 250 for the privilege when you can get a similar sound for 50-100.
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:33 PMHe’s also not being entirely truthful (the one interviewed). The sound is in fact inaccurate, and thus wrong, because the people who mix the music intended it to sound just as it does in a studio with reference monitors in a dampened room. The artist would be asked for an opinion and would concur on this. This is in fact the ultimate in accurate sound reproduction, and saying that Beats improve the music by adding their own colour is both an insult to the artist and the technicians.
Gadgetwalrus
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:03 PMTo be honest I can’t tell much difference between the $20 and $1000 headphones. Maybe it’s just me :)
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:37 PMTry listening to Bach (something involving few instruments). Usually for starters you can, with a little practice, hear how the instruments fade quickly, like the attack and fade of a harpsichord. Usually the next step is then to pay attention to the treble, say of violins, and note that with cheaper headphones the detail (such as the actual timbre, imparted by the instrument and its strings) is lost. It’s not evident if you don’t listen to classical music much (I spent 8 years in an orchestra and 18 years playing instruments), but you’ll notice how much more a piano sounds like a piano with the better earphones.
I do agree that the difference isn’t as great with synthesised music though, such as Jason Derulo/other pop. Guitar/acoustic music should show the difference quite easily though.
This is a simple guide. Really, put some baroque music on, and try again.
MotorMouth
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 10:01 AMThe problem is that no matter what you listen to it on, baroque music will always sound awful. But Seriously, if you can’t hear the difference with synth music, that is down to your experience. I’m sure I’d not notice any of the stuff you’ve mentioned with orchestral music. I’d also suggest you are way off the mark. Any half-decent pair of headphones is capable of reproducing very fine detail, which is why a good pair is an integral part of the production process. They fall down in their frequency response and balance – too much top end, not enough bottom end – far more than anything else.
Telextial
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:41 AMI’m sorry, but the first line just discredited you completely.
Telextial
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:47 AMAdmittedly I should have included a note that in “starters” I meant 50 dollar earphones from JB and 150 dollar earphones from Etymotic, not 1000 dollar STAX.
Link
Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 11:26 AMmost likely its because you arent using an amp when using the $1000 pair of headphones. high end require amps to power them otherwise they wont get the required Omhs to drive them. If you have good source say an original wav file that hadnt been compressed then uncompressed and a good amp then listen to a $20 pair and $1000 pair you could tell instantly. problem is not everyone realises that their ipod cant properly power good headsets.
Mongo
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:05 PMAudiophiles: Popular at parties.
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:50 PMNo, concerts (symphonies mostly). I attend many when I’m overseas, and by myself. Hardly a fashion thing.
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 2:00 PMActually, I’ll rise to the bait. Although Mongo’s comment had nothing to do with my assertion (that saying that the earphones improve the music and so therefore he knows better than the artists themselves is a pretentious and arrogant statement), I’ll ask this: Have you ever played a double bass? Actually played a double bass, in orchestra or in a solo recital? It’s got many different harmonics that, in a good instrument, balance nicely in a rich sound. It’s not boomy nor particularly punchy (unless you play it as so), and replicating it to actually sound like real life is difficult. Having experience first hand really puts things in perspective, so perhaps you should pick up the instrument and learn it for a few years. You’ll see what I mean about cheap earphones ruining the sound.
Charles
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:11 PMYeah perhaps I am overly traditional or something but I think P4kkk is clutching at straws here positing that it is some sort of ‘sign o’ the times’ that the inaccuracy of the headphones is significant in the zeitgeist. Or something. Whatever, shitty headphones and overpriced WHATEVERRR. I have some Audio Technicas and they are great and I guess they’re perhaps not accurate either, but they cancel outside sound which is handy. And they weren’t a million dollars. And I don’t even know what I’m talking about.. MERRYCHRISTMAS.
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:51 PMAudio Technicas actually do a decent job most of the time. Good choice.
Charles
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 11:53 AMYeah totally, I trust a company that also makes decent microphones and stuff too.
Ted
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 10:17 AMHow can you say a sound is “wrong?” If someone prefers it in a particular way then that is how it should be listened to! The whole point of reference monitors is to get as flat a response as possible so the mix TRANSLATES well onto home hi-fi systems, laptop speakers, headphones, car stereos etc. You are NEVER going to hear it in exactly the same way it sounded in the studio, because they have different speakers to you, different ADAT converters, a different ROOM. Does that mean that it’s wrong in your house, too? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Great music is great music no matter what system you listen to it on, and if someone prefers a little flavour or colour added then good on them, more power to you. I like to put chilli on near everything I eat, doesn’t mean I’m eating wrong.
That elitist audiophile attitude has always baffled me (heh heh), as both someone who plays in recording/touring bands and as someone who runs a hobby studio. Makes no sense at all.
Telextial
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:44 AMYou can say music sounds wrong when the tympani lose their notes. I’ve heard it before with some pretty terrible earphones. You see, it’s not subjective. If a person played like that in an orchestra, he’d be fired instantly.
Chris
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 2:18 PMThe writer from Pitchfork is doing what everyone does at Pitchfork, attempting to justify their existence.
To me, saying you want more bass when listening to music is like saying I want more red look at artworks: like this –
(I hope that image embed works… otherwise go here http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PcKSya5DxW0/TDDEltw8ggI/AAAAAAAAANs/ecghi-si1Ts/s1600/redMona_Lisa.jpg
You are distorting the artist original “vision” (be it audio, visual, texural whatever).
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:45 PMActually, a more appropriate analogy would be a museum that showcases Masters under theatre lighting (red, green, yellow blue I think). Sure, it might look more vibrant, and even more exciting. It’s also completely ignoring the fact that the Master painted it under natural light, or at the most, candlelight.
Zeruel
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 2:43 PMI’ll chip in here. I don’t consider myself an Audiophile. You may disagree as I do have a small fortune in gear. a Digital Analogue Converter and two Headphone amps, one solid state, the other valve / Vacuum tube.
Any issue I might have with Beats headphones, and I admit. I haven’t heard them first hand. Is their value for money. I walked in JB Hi Fi, saw Beats Pro for 599.
For that money, You can get some of the best headphones in the world. And in my opinion. Spend a little bit on decent headphones, you’re 90% there. The rest is diminishing returns. Spend more than $100. You don’t need a fortune.
For me. I like good quality bass. I like to hear it when it’s there. Not where it isn’t like something has been EQ’d for bass. Some find absolute accuracy to be boring…but having trademarked super bass…the other extreme.
Buy some reasonably priced decent headphones, plan to keep them a long time and budget accordingly as you desire. You’ll be better off.
Telextial
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:26 PMI’ve heard those in-store (at JB no less). Definitely not worth the price, not when 400 dollar earphones (UE triple-fi) or even 150 dollar earphones (Etymotic HF5) do better, the latter admittedly being something of an acquired taste for some.
Biderjum
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 10:28 AMBest value for sound headphones on the market would be the Alessandro MS-1′s for $139.
But they dont look anywhere near as cool as the beats and have no where near the marketing as beats.
http://headphones.com.au/psingle?productID=19
Charles
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM‘sif! Those headphones you linked to look super cool! Perhaps that is just my taste, but I think Beats look kinda lame. They look kinda cheap to me.
Link
Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 11:28 AMYuck have those at work dont like them at all. Found them really uncomfortable.
kharma
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 2:48 PMi think its bullshit how they market the fact that beats by dr dre are what technicians use in music studios. (or something along those lines/ i read on the side of the box)
no they dont.
Commander Shepard
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:32 PMBeats are good for their target audience, hip hop and dance music fans.
I recieved a free pair of Solo’s and nothing has compared to them when listening to bands like Gorrillaz ect, but no good for classical, rock, metal ect..
Pres
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 4:22 PMThese headphones are popular for the same reason people like Katy Perry and Kanye West keep getting referred to as ‘musicians’, PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS and they like big, shinny, loud things.
Patrick
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM+1
Zeruel
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 4:26 PMI can’t even seem to find decent information on beat’s own website.
Beats pro take batteries? What the hell for?
The more I look, the more I feel that Beats Headphones are buzzword compliant, but little else. “High definition powered isolation headphone.”
fuckapple
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 4:11 PMbeats are a ripoff and a joke, I’ll take my sennheisers over them any day
Biderjum
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 2:25 PMi hope that was a display or sarcasm…
or do you also have bose in your living room?
ajbebop
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 5:26 PMI thought everyone knew that Beats were for looks alone. I don’t think people buy them for audio accuracy…they just look solid even when they’re around your neck.
chugs
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 10:43 AMwhat does it matter when your playing back some shit house MP3.
Lee
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 1:20 PMTextiel,
If the mark of a good headphone is its ability to faithfully recreate music precisely as the recording artist and engineer intended, without introducing its own distortion, why are there so many brands of headphone all with their own distinct sound?
Isn’t it true that every headphone from every manufacturer is inaccurate, and therefore “wrong” according to your own assertion that “The sound is in fact inaccurate, and thus wrong”?
Do you ensure that you buy the same monitoring configuration, in an acoustically equivalent space for every record you play? Or are you happy listenting to “wrong” music that isn’t precisely as the artists involved intended?
Would you agree that it’s a matter of degrees and not absolutes, and by your own definition, everyone – including yourself – is listening to music “wrong” but to varying degrees? At what degree does the it become acceptable to you?
Telextial
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:03 PMGee, when you ask a question, please ask one. It’s hard to reply to all parts of the question, so I’ll just group them into a “no equipment is 100% correct, and thus all are wrong.” Correct me if this isn’t what you mean.
This is true. However, I should make a disclaimer first: I listen to primarily classical music. I have spent my whole life listening to almost all classical music, and a large chunk of it playing said music and trying to achieve an appreciation of it. On this basis, I now know what each instrument in a typical orchestra sounds like, and I know what high-range pianos and double basses sound like.
I consider a “correct” sound by this qualification: the instruments sound genuine and the music is appropriately balanced. Now, I know balance is subjective. However, in written scores, composers put many terms in to dictate which sound should be prominent at any point in time. This should not be overwritten, no matter what the manufacturers of audio equipment think. At the same time, all detail should be present (soft doesn’t mean murky unless you’re referring to the rumbling of Beethoven’s Tempest or the beginning of Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody no.9 or 10, dont’ remember which). Equally, a soft instrument should still be well detailed in the background of louder theme (say, Romeo and Juliet overture by Tchaikovsky).
There are further nuances in “classical” music. Music written for the harpsichord was written for an instrument that never had a great range in volume. It was also polyphonic; the melody is emphasised when playing the piece. If the melody is just lower than the highest notes (many Fugues land here), then the bass shouldn’t overpower this. Neither should the top notes be overly sharp.
I have heard Beats absolutely mangle an adagio, an organ concerto (Saint Saens) and a Brandenburg Concerto. That is why I can say with certainty that the sound is incorrect and unacceptably so. Does this answer the question?
Jambon
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:00 PMThis article simply chronicles the decline of music generally. The compression at mastering stage makes all recorded music uniformly LOUD in the last 20 years. No more Kate Bush whispering or Bohemian Rhapsody-esque crescendo, just noise at a constant volume. Kids don’t know what dynamics are, or how they can add to the emotion the artist is trying to convey. BBD headphones’ lack of dynamic complexity simply reflects the state of music which is now an almost exclusively visual medium.
Hazbot
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM+1, love the noise baby – but I get the dynamics thing, portable music is just about blocking out people on the train IMO.