
We Took Apart Some Beats Headphones - franzb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-einstein/we-took-apart-some-beats-headphones_b_7639618.html
======
thoughtsimple
The original article on Medium that this article on huffington post reprints
was based on a pair of counterfeit Beats headphones. The followup on Medium
does the teardown on a real pair of Beats. Not much difference but some
improved quality:

[https://medium.com/bolt-blog/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our-
be...](https://medium.com/bolt-blog/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our-beats-were-
counterfeit-but-they-cost-about-the-same-to-make-as-the-364cc6808d18)

~~~
gyc
>Overall the genuine & counterfeit Beats are nearly identical.

But the article did not include any comparison of the audio quality of the
counterfeit and genuine Beats headphones, so how could the article come to
such a conclusion?

~~~
comrade1
I wouldn't be surprised if the counterfeit headphones sounded better. That's
how bad beats is.

~~~
Jerry2
>That's how bad beats is.

No they're not. About the only bad Beats headset was Solo (1st edition). It
just sounded too harsh and V-shaped. Solo2 is one of the best headsets out
there and it's also one of the most popular ones.

But don't take my word for it, read what Tyll over at Inner Fidelity says [1].
He trashed Solo but loves Solo2.

I have around 15 different cans of various manufacture and I do enjoy Beats
especially for energetic music. When I listen to classical, I still prefer my
AKGs or Sennheiser HD 800.

[1] [http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/time-rethink-beats-
solo...](http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/time-rethink-beats-
solo2-excellent)

~~~
andybak
Subjective reviews of audio products don't have the highest reputation.

~~~
Jerry2
Since when is any review completely objective?

~~~
chinpokomon
There are things that can be measured, like frequency response and accuracy of
the audio reproduction. Of course, how something feels when worn is
subjective. I think an article that focuses solely on how a product looks,
feels, and sounds fails to meet that criteria.

------
javajosh
Cool. I'd be curious to see the same treatment of other high-end headphones.
And all Bose products, which have always seemed egregiously overpriced to me.

Tangentially, it's actually really hard to find good headphone reviews
anymore, let alone headphone demo places. Pro music stores (like Guitar
Center, Sam Ash, etc) are probably the best bet these days - but they tend not
to carry headphones like the high-end Sennheisers that used to be my favorites
(HD570 I think?).

~~~
jseliger
_And all Bose products, which have always seemed egregiously overpriced to
me._

AFAICT, their noise cancelling headphones still have by far the best noise
cancelling. If you work in a noisy environment or fly frequently, they're
amazing. If your primary concern is audio quality in a normal or quietish
environment, buy cheaper headphones (or I suppose more stylish ones, if that's
your jones).

I actually just got a pair of very expensive Jabra Evolve 80 headphones
([http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_EVOLVE__Seri...](http://www.jabra.com/Products/PC_Headsets/Jabra_EVOLVE__Series/Evolve_80))
primarily for their mic. The noise cancelling is dramatically worse than Bose
and the headphones make me look dramatically stupider because of the mic. But
clients can hear me better so that's a net win.

~~~
SyneRyder
Love my QC25s, they're one of my favorite tech purchases ever. I prefer the
sound to my Etymotics and AKG K270S. Can't believe I put off buying them for
so long, I wear them everywhere, even working at home at midnight.

I wonder if Bose is doing something beyond noise-cancellation in the QC25s
when you turn them on. It sounds similar to a BBE Sonic Maximizer, as if
they've licensed the algorithm and tweaked it to the characteristics of the
drivers in the QC25s (which sound lousy when the headphones are turned off).

------
Kenji
Why would anyone make headphones, of all things, heavier to make them feel
high-quality? Comfort (wearing them for hours) is one of my highest priorities
and every gram shaved off the headphones adds to comfort. The fact that they
estimate the material cost of a 199$ product to 17$ is the icing on the cake,
haha. Now I will look down on people who wear these even more.

~~~
Udo_Schmitz
They don’t. To quote Marco Arment: "Those metal parts are the hinges, subject
to the most wear, that need to be most durable." See also:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-CkZ71iz68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-CkZ71iz68)

~~~
whoopdedo
That would be reasonable if the entire hinge were metal, but only the visible
portion is metal where internally it is mounted in plastic. It's only as
strong as the weakest link and that bit of plastic holding the metal half of
the hinge looks very weak to me.

The zinc alloy in the knock-offs is weaker than stainless steel. But still
much more durable than the plastic its hooked to. In either one the upper part
of the hinge will break before the lower.

I don't think the metal is there to add weight, however. Seems to me to be so
it looks shiny and has the appearance of being more substantial than it is.
(Thus stainless steel which doesn't tarnish readily.) I think it does make a
difference having metal on the shell of the ear cups because that's where your
fingers touch. Over time painted plastic will fade and show smudges. The metal
covering can be wiped clean and maintain its appearance longer. But everything
else is plastic and will fade so a pyrrhic victory.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
I have some Sony PS4 headphones where there's a metal rod going through
plastic hinges. I would gladly pay an extra 100 bucks for a headset where any
part of the device which is prone to wear would be made of metal, aluminum or
otherwise. My larger than average head means that most headsets shatter after
about a year of use.

~~~
dsr_
Try Sennheiser HD280 or Sony MDR7206. Both easily accomodate a large head. The
Sony for accuracy, the Senns for bass.

~~~
heythrowaway
Or if you _really_ care about sound quality (but not looks): Audio-Technica
ATH-M50X

~~~
emp_zealoth
I've got Audio-Technica ATH-A500, I don't think they make them anymore (now
its A500X or something, so i can't vouch for that). They look a little weird,
but are sturdy as hell and sound plainly amazing (although after years of
daily heavy use - connected to PC as exclusive sound source - they might seem
to have a little lower sound quality - I'm not really sure)

I've literally stomped on them, run them over with a chair, had the cable go
into the chair wheels (repeatedly) and then pull them off my head forcibly
when I got up without noticing it. They are still fine.

I did break the audio jack when my headphone DAC fell of the desk and hit
jackfirst into the ground (it sometimes doesn't connect properly and has to be
wrangled about) :(

Bottomline, to me they are an amazing purchase.

------
tibbon
What's interesting to me is that Apple products generally don't have margins
anywhere near this large. Apple's products aren't generally built the
'easiest' way possible for fast assembly and such. The optimization/cheapness
on these is amazing.

~~~
hellbanTHIS
Tim Cook's Apple loves big margins, he's a bean counter not an idea man. And
we know companies run by bean counters always do fantastically well over the
long haul.

------
ripitrust
people are buying what they want and obviously those guys buying Beats are not
looking for very high quality sound. They are buying for style and
recognition. The same stuff that Apple has played on us all these years.

Although this article is indeed a high quality analysis, and the author really
done a great job. There is no point arguing that a Beats is not a genuine
headphone. Whatever product it is, there are always people who are looking for
quality and people who are looking for style (In some market they are one).

~~~
slantyyz
>> They are buying for style and recognition. The same stuff that Apple has
played on us all these years.

I'm not a big fan of Apple these days, but Apple products generally do have
better than average build quality -as well as- good design and looks.

They are indeed premium priced, but that's a marketing choice. You might be
able to nitpick Apple products' value by specs, but I don't think you can
really put them in the same bin as Beats (even though Apple now owns Beats)
with respect to quality.

~~~
discreteevent
I remember comparing the iPod to a minidisc with the same headphones and the
same audio compression rate. The iPod was really poor in comparison.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
As a fan of both Minidisc and iPod this sounds dubious to me. Mp3 allowed you
to use both better encoders and higher and a wider range of bitrates than
ATRAC. I would have rated the headphones as the weakest part of the chain on
the early iPods and you didn't use those.

~~~
chinpokomon
I really liked my Sharp with ATRAC 2.5. I guess I still like it, but I
honestly haven't used my MiniDisc player in probably a decade. MP3 at 320 kbps
could encode higher fidelity, but when MiniDisc was popular (sic.) most MP3s
were recorded at 128 kbps or even 64 kbps with Joint Stereo. Even Apple's AAC
was encoded at lower quality bitrates for years. It wasn't until OGG and
lossless WMA seemed like they might put a little pressure on Apple's business
model that they increased their bitrates and made it possible to remove the
DRM. Of course the upshot of all this movement was that MiniDisc was no longer
viable for prerecorded content. It still was an adequate poor man's DAT for my
live recording purposes.

------
pkaye
The gift box costs more than the speakers?

------
ExpiredLink
written by Einstein

~~~
jeffreyrogers
That must have been a lot of pressure growing up :)

