Tell me about it. Did you know that Beats Solo 2 have this strange problem where at some point one of the ear-cups would stop functioning on Bluetooth and the way to fix it is to stick some aluminium foil into the audio cable jack? It's so ridiculous and I am amazed that someone the internet discovered this solution and the solution is working for the others, including me.

Apple's products don't break down by themselves but Beats do. My pair had the faux lather completely peeled off, the retracting mechanism on the one side lost its tik and I have aluminium foil stiffed inside the cable jack so I can listen in stereo.

They came as a promotion when I bought my Macbook few years back, which still functions flawlessly.

> Apple's products don't break down by themselves but Beats do.

Except the cables, which are terrible. I have two broken charger cables for a MacBook and a MacBook Pro, a thunderbolt cable from an Apple Thunderbolt Display, a Mac Pro power cord, an iPad charger cable and a couple of old wired earphones. All broken where the cables bend.

> I'll never understand what led Apple to align itself w this overpriced junk.

I don't think Apple bought Beats for the headphones, really. They bought them for the recently-launched Beats Music streaming service, which is what became Apple Music, and the added music industry connections that came along with Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre.

(It's also my impression that Beats products released after the Apple acquisition have been getting somewhat better reviews in terms of sound quality, but it's not a brand I really keep track of, so that could be wrong!)

> Beats Music streaming service, which is what became Apple Music

wow really?

Yep. I'm pretty sure the weird onboarding process for Apple Music -- tap bubbles that represent genres you like, or something like that -- was very close to Beats's original process. I'm not sure it still does that, since it was kind of weird and confusing. Beats Music had a real focus on human-curated playlists rather than solely algorithmic ones, something that Apple Music kept.

Yes, it did, and MOG (what Beats bought and turned into Beats Music) had something like that too. Almost none of the MOG aesthetic is left today, though.

Thank you! I don't own any, and they wouldn't go well with most of the music I listen to, but I'm glad to see someone actually defending Beats on HN.

One of the weirdest myths around audio is that it's possible to objectively rate specific speakers/headphones/etc - while there's no such objective rating for music, which is _the thing that you are playing_ on said headphones! I've listened to a number of very high end setups, and frankly for a lot of music (most pop, for example) you're better off with a pair of AirPods. Yes, with the $2000 setup you hear all the details, but did anyone ever ask if you wanted all those details? And while bass with more "oomph" might not be the most accurate, it often makes the music more fun to listen to.

In my opinion, the entire debate around audio has been focusing on completely the wrong thing: some sort of objective measure of "quality", as if it's some measure you can put a number on and simply compare A to B. Many of my favorite songs, in my experience, lose their power and emotion when listened to on an "audiophile" setup. Sometimes you don't need the details: maybe a bit of distortion and bass is a good thing. And that's just talking about the sound! Getting into the actual experience, there are a ton of non-audiophile products that provide a far superior experience. The actual sound quality of some beat-up 70s rock records and an old turntable isn't great, but the experience is lovely. And the user experience of AirPods + an Apple device is wonderful. Meanwhile the user experience of audiophile products is often (not always, but often) terrible. I've tried a couple of those portable hi-fi players and they are incredibly frustrating. And I love my Etymotics earbuds, but they have to be inserted so deep into the ear that they freak out your average Joe that tries them.

That is to say: I feel the whole audio world should stop with the obsession of some weird measure of accurate, "high quality" sound over everything else. Imagine if other things had the same obsession - people looking at art based solely on some weird measure of "picture quality" and "crispness", or buying extremely expensive, ugly, uncomfortable cars because some Internet reviewer made some graphs showing they had better "drive quality".

This debate has been around since the 60s. It used to be called "musicality."

A bit of distortion somehow helps?

Well - sometimes it does. And sometimes it doesn't. But if I'm paying >$500 for headphones I want something that is going to have low distortion, high accuracy, and musicality.

These products exist, and some of them are legendary. (Example: Nakamichi cassette decks which combined state of the art mechanical and electronic engineering with a world-leading sound.)

These headphones are very unlikely to be in that league. They're really for brand junkies who want to be seen on Instagram wearing Those Really Expensive Apple Headphones™.

I doubt most buyers are going to care about how they sound, or whether music sounds "more musical" on them.

Hmm. And what's the debate called today, then, if not musicality?

Regardless of whatever you'd like to call it, I would argue that most audiophile products do not have it. I've personally tried a ton of "audiophile" products, from your standard Massdrop DAC+IEM combo to the incredibly fancy setup of a Swiss acquaintance and was left disappointed. Sure, there's plenty of music that did sound good to me on those setups, but there was more music that sounded better on a pair of AirPods. This is also borne out by my own personal experiments. Let a random Joe listen to your expensive setup with a carefully chosen song, and they'll likely be impressed at first. Wow, the details! The range! Incredible! But let them put on their favorite song, and they'll often actually prefer it on their shitty setup. Try it - the results will surprise you.

And my critique of audiophile equipment is not coming from an untrained ear, or someone who cares about branding. I've been playing violin for almost my entire life, and even plenty of classical music sounds better on AirPods vs many audiophile setups! And as much as I like my Etymotics+DAC combo, it exposes flaws in the music. You hear the sneezes in the orchestra, you notice the small mistakes, and God help you if you play a recording of lower quality - it'll sound terrible. There is an enormous amount of music that is _only_ available in low quality, and it will sound a million times worse on your audiophile setup than your AirPods.

In my opinion, the audiophile world has completely lost its mind. Nobody cares about if the music is actually fun to listen to - they're far more concerned with frequency response curves, which, as anyone in the audiophile world knows, absolutely makes or breaks a manufacturer. Case in point: all the audiophiles downvoting the comment by 'gambiting' to oblivion, simply because they expressed their personal preference! It's preposterous to actually _like_ Beats: clearly that user is just an uninformed sheeple, downvote them and move on. I am so tired of the idea that Beats is objectively bad and Massdrop DAC+IEMs is objectively good. Has anyone ever considered that, just like the music you play with them, it's possible to have personal preferences in headphones?

You make some valid points, but FTR some of the anti-Beats sentiment relates to build quality (ie, cheap plastic and tendency to physically break at the poorly-designed, fragile hinge), and to the cost compared to alternatives with similar electronics / sound.