The Theory of Inverse Headphone Durability

[Pinkamena]

Brand makes a difference.

Skullcandy break almost instantly with crappy sound quality, while Sennheiser products have brilliant sound and build quality.

My Sennheisers lost the sound in one of the ears after 3 months, and I forgot the keep the receipt

 

[AnarchistFish]

I would never pay £80-£100+ that some people here seem to have done. That just sounds insane to me.

I can't fathom paying more than $15 or $20 on a pair of earbuds, and really anything over $10 is pushing it, because of how easily they break. It's not even a design flaw, it comes part and parcel with product class. They have to be flimsy, or they won't fit in your pocket. Now a big pair of over the ear cans, sure. If I had that kind of money, I probably would drop $100 or so on a pair of monitoring headphones. But those things aren't really designed to be portable, taking up more backpack space than your average text book. That's why they're so much more durable, they have room to use heavier duty materials.

Everyone says this but if you're gonna spend £150 on an iPod, why wouldn't you spend a similar amount on actually making the music sound good. The way I see it is buying cheap earphones is like buying a nice, £500 guitar and then buying a crappy £15 amp for it.
Besides, if you keep having to rebuy crappy earphones, it adds up. So we probably haven't actually spent that much more overall and we get better sound quality.

Over the space of around two years before my current ones I probably had about 20 different sets of earphones and they all sucked ass.

 

[Something Amyss]

Being cordless would almost certainly triple the lifetime of any headphones I owned. But other than that they all seem to die rather quickly on me.

I use Bluetooth headphones, in part because I'm so tall. I turn my head, and I can yank my MP3 player out of my pocket. Or bust the headphone jack on my laptop. Or PONIES.

My first pair of Motorolla headphones last until the fire at my place (electronics+half a million gallons of water=bad). My replacement pair has lasted me over a year.

Though I always buy cheap sunglasses.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I would never pay £80-£100+ that some people here seem to have done. That just sounds insane to me.

I can't fathom paying more than $15 or $20 on a pair of earbuds, and really anything over $10 is pushing it, because of how easily they break. It's not even a design flaw, it comes part and parcel with product class. They have to be flimsy, or they won't fit in your pocket. Now a big pair of over the ear cans, sure. If I had that kind of money, I probably would drop $100 or so on a pair of monitoring headphones. But those things aren't really designed to be portable, taking up more backpack space than your average text book. That's why they're so much more durable, they have room to use heavier duty materials.

Everyone says this but if you're gonna spend £150 on an iPod, why wouldn't you spend a similar amount on actually making the music sound good. The way I see it is buying cheap earphones is like buying a nice, £500 guitar and then buying a crappy £15 amp for it.
Besides, if you keep having to rebuy crappy earphones, it adds up. So we probably haven't actually spent that much more overall and we get better sound quality.

Over the space of around two years before my current ones I probably had about 20 different sets of earphones and they all sucked ass.

That's the thing. First of all, my current mp3 player cost me $50. I never buy Apple products because they overcharge for marketing -- same thing as Bose, actually. The other thing is you can get really good sound quality for $15 or so these days, so you don't /need/ to pay $80+ for it, especially when you consider most of the music that goes on those things is in a lossily compressed format like mp3. Besides, if I really want to do some serious listening, I have this thing called a stereo. Anybody remember those?

Edit: I also said that I buy Sony earbuds, and that those last a while. I had a single pair last for 3 years once, and it only broke because I stupidly left it in the floor and one of the ear pieces got crushed. The thing about having to keep rebuying them more frequently than the expensive ones is a bit of a non sequitur, especially in a thread about how expensive earbuds break as or more quickly than the cheap ones.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

I would never pay £80-£100+ that some people here seem to have done. That just sounds insane to me.

I can't fathom paying more than $15 or $20 on a pair of earbuds, and really anything over $10 is pushing it, because of how easily they break. It's not even a design flaw, it comes part and parcel with product class. They have to be flimsy, or they won't fit in your pocket. Now a big pair of over the ear cans, sure. If I had that kind of money, I probably would drop $100 or so on a pair of monitoring headphones. But those things aren't really designed to be portable, taking up more backpack space than your average text book. That's why they're so much more durable, they have room to use heavier duty materials.

Everyone says this but if you're gonna spend £150 on an iPod, why wouldn't you spend a similar amount on actually making the music sound good. The way I see it is buying cheap earphones is like buying a nice, £500 guitar and then buying a crappy £15 amp for it.
Besides, if you keep having to rebuy crappy earphones, it adds up. So we probably haven't actually spent that much more overall and we get better sound quality.

Over the space of around two years before my current ones I probably had about 20 different sets of earphones and they all sucked ass.

Because the music coming out of my £8 earphones sounds perfectly ok? I mean I'm not sure how you quantify sound quality exactly but I'm pretty sure the sound I get from them is good enough. Besides which I tend to use my ipod more when I'm driving now anyway so I use the car speakers then.

As for lifespan I'm actually trying to take better care of mine now after pretty much not giving a shit about the first 2 pairs I went trough, so they might last longer now. And I've only had an ipod for 3 years anyway so I'm averaging about £8 a year on them so saying I'm still paying the same amount as people who spend £50+ on them isn't accurate unless theirs last 5 years, which I doubt.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I've owned a $40 set of Phillips for the last eight months now, and they are still going strong.

cheap-o $10 pair here, more then a year old no issues.

actually, pretty sure the pair i had before would still be going to if i hadn't stepped on them going up some stairs

 

[AnarchistFish]

That's the thing. First of all, my current mp3 player cost me $50. I never buy Apple products because they overcharge for marketing -- same thing as Bose, actually. The other thing is you can get really good sound quality for $15 or so these days, so you don't /need/ to pay $80+ for it, especially when you consider most of the music that goes on those things is in a lossily compressed format like mp3. Besides, if I really want to do some serious listening, I have this thing called a stereo. Anybody remember those?

Fair enough but I don't see as many people questioning those who buy apple products (still do meet a lot of people with expensive iPods who don't understand it).
And our opinions on sound quality must really differ cos my current earphones are much better than any earphone I had before. They isolate the music more, they have a thicker and closer sound, the details come out well and it submerges you more. Bose, like Beats, are just over marketed. I've never used them but as far as I'm told, they definitely aren't worth the money. I try to listen to everything at 320kbps as much as I can anyway.
Stereos are ok but you can't listen to them on the move, and I much prefer earphones. Stereos are too impersonal and they fuzz the music. Also I don't think others would appreciate me blasting Converge out every day...
It might be down to the music (although I don't know what you listen to...). Some of the music I listen to really needs the depth to get the details and thicken each layer out. Other music I listen to really needs the force, which most cheap earphones will never give you. You definitely can't get an all rounder for a cheap price like that.

If it is down to musical taste though, I don't get why some people find so much of a problem in others who spend a lot of money on them.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

It's usually the brand.

If you go with stuff like Skull Candy you're asking to get screwed over, same goes for Turtle Beaches and assorted "gaming" audio equipment.

If you want quality go with Sennheiser, Shure and the likes.

My Turtle Beaches's microphone joint just broke off today. Which sucks because Microsoft released a driver that recognized 360 controller headphones and legit recording devices. It seems fixable though.

But like I said in my earlier post, they lasted over four years. Probably past five now that I think about it. I got them around the time Ace Combat 6 came out in 2007.

 

[thylasos]

I refuse to spend more than £10 on headphones.

They're not going to last more than a few months; a couple of pairs I had lasted almost a year, but they were very much the exception to the rule.

I can't be arsed with people buying hi-def headphones, really. If you're on the train, any old set of headphones will do, really. High-quality stereo equipment at home? Fair enough. Expensive speakers, yes.

Expensive headphones... what's the point? I mean, it's not as though the compressed sound files on your portable music thingummy are likely to be of sufficiently high fidelity to merit high-quality headphones.

 

[RatRace123]

I got a pair of Bose Headphones as a gift and so far they've lasted for over 2 years now.

But I've had cheaper ear bud headphones that break after a month or so.

 

[ElPatron]

Sennheisers are friggin' tanks, man.

I would never pay £80-£100+ that some people here seem to have done.

>pay 100? for headphones
>listen to 128 kbps

LOGIC!

I have a special hatred for those Dr Dre headphones.

 

[WanderingFool]

Shit... I have some Magnavox brand Ear Buds that cost like $5 US, and they lasted me two years. In fact, im still using them now! Yet a brand new pair of Buds I baught before hand for like $15US didnt last a month before the sound stopped coming through the left bud.

I think you're on to something, OP.

 

[The Funslinger]

Brand makes a difference.

Skullcandy break almost instantly with crappy sound quality, while Sennheiser products have brilliant sound and build quality.

Oh, the sheer amount of hipsters I see walking around campus with Skullcandy stuff is irritating.

My sister found Ipod earbuds for be for like £2.50. Those are long gone, though. After that I bought a pair of what I refer to as ear invaders.

These fuckers that get right in there. Feels unnatural. I got used to it, though. Doesn't seem to hold them in any better, though.

On the subtopic of ears, I've been listening to people whine about having put in those stretching ear studs, and half the people who've done it's ears won't go back. It's times like this I pull my condescending face and say "this is why we stop, and we gauge our life decisions."

 

[Freechoice]

These little buds I got with my MP3 have lasted like 4 years.

These fuckers that get right in there. Feels unnatural. I got used to it, though. Doesn't seem to hold them in any better, though.

Not if you don't use Q-tips.

gauge our life decisions."

And preferably not our ears.