Beats: or how marketing triumphs science and engineering

[EJ3]

Beats got engineering capabilities as well.

So does Apple. The engineering that beats has/had: is not why Apple bought them.

 

[kyuu]

Looking at another video on that channel (about Nakamichi) there are all the signs of generative slop, in visual construction as well as narrative.

Thanks for the heads up to not watch the video or anything from that channel ever.

 

[Somafunk]

cruise control that gently slows down to the under the spped limit car in front of you so that you don't realize that you've slowed down until you've been behind him for 5 minutes while cars in the left lane are going by you (when, if it warned you that the car was slower, then you'd have gone on around, too). The

That’s why you have a speedometer

 

[EJ3]

Yes, it has multiple speedometers, at least they all read the same.
Unfortunately they are smaller and lower in the dash. Perhaps a heads up display would be better and more safe than 3/4 of the other stuff all together.
I usually drive my 2004 Chevy Silverado truck, I can see all the gauges and the road without looking down.
I guess I could lower the seat (the drivers seats electrics can do that). But that brings me back to the seat not having memory for another driver. Then, my under 5' 2" wife would have to raise the seat. I try not to be in that car long enough to NEED to muck around with the height setting of the seat. It's bad enough that I HAVE to move the seat further back and change the back angle to have my head lower, so it doesn't hit the sun visor. (I am only 5'6 & 1/2'). I can only think that the car was made for those 5' 5 and under.

 

[pablolie]

How did we arrive at adaptive cruise control or seat (and mirror) memory in this exchange? :-D

I am completely anti driving assist crap. (a) I beyond hate it when my GF's A6RS does evasive manouvers on its own when some suicidal imbecile motorcycle rider shoots by (note I am a motorcycle rider but I know riding is not a video game) and (b) when a car drives itself I'd rather get an Uber and be done with it.

But I guess it somehow comes back to Beats when people start thinking "if everybody likes this stuff, I guess I should pretend to love it too and I shall be super cool given the peer acceptance".

 

[EJ3]

How did we arrive at adaptive cruise control or seat (and mirror) memory in this exchange? :-D

I am completely anti driving assist crap. (a) I beyond hate it when my GF's A6RS does evasive manouvers on its own when some suicidal imbecile motorcycle rider shoots by (note I am a motorcycle rider but I know riding is not a video game) and (b) when a car drives itself I'd rather get an Uber and be done with it.

But I guess it somehow comes back to Beats when people start thinking "if everybody likes this stuff, I guess I should pretend to love it too and I shall be super cool given the peer acceptance".

It's Amar Bose's fault for his LEGACY TEAMS getting their stereo junk hooked into cars computer systems!
And is part of a vicious circular system (MAYBE???)

 

[Axo1989]

Thanks for the heads up to not watch the video or anything from that channel ever.

Happy(ish) to take one for the team.

 

[kemmler3D]

Regarding Bose, it's really interesting and maybe they did do some damage to the popular conception of good sound.

Whenever I would interview average consumers about sound quality, a few things tended to pop up:

"I'm not an audiophile"

Immediately contradicted by:

Q) What do you think is most important about audio equipment?

A) "Sound quality".

The truth is, just about everyone that spends what they consider to be "a lot of money" (back then $100 counted for most people, either in speakers or headphones) on sound equipment is an audiophile in the loosest sense.

But what kind of surprised me is that people would often describe the sound of something as "Good, but you know, not like Bose-quality". Or something similar to that.

The implication being Bose is sort of their idea of the pinnacle of sound. This was pretty common, and I can only attribute it to their marketing being very effective, and the vast majority of people not actually engaging with the speaker / headphone category beyond buying something cheap and calling it a day.

 

[Ropeburn]

While Apple turned the music industry on its head with iTunes, 99c tracks and 'rip, mix, burn' those strategies were losing efficacy as streaming took over global listening habits. This article is a better and more concise summary than the over-long video.

To this day I loathe the German industry for completely failing to capitalise on the whole MP3 thing. Everything was there and ripe for the taking: the invention, the patent, the consumer tech companies, the national major music labels like Bertelsmann/BMG and Motor Music with their huge catalogs, everything.

But as always, nothing happened in Germany but instead others made all the big money from it. A repeating historical pattern just like with the fax machine. German invention, domestically disregarded, then big Japanese profit.

 

[pablolie]

To this day I loathe the German industry for completely failing to capitalise on the whole MP3 thing. Everything was there and ripe for the taking: the invention, the patent, the consumer tech companies, the national major music labels like Bertelsmann/BMG and Motor Music with their huge catalogs, everything.

But as always, nothing happened in Germany but instead others made all the big money from it. A repeating historical pattern just like with the fax machine. German invention, domestically disregarded, then big Japanese profit.

Untrue. Frauenhofer of Max Planck Institute fame just wasn't interested in industry battles, and basically gave everything away to open source initiatives after a while. Max Planck insitute is not struggling for funding in any way. They just lost interest in audio. I went to university in Munich.

 

[EJ3]

To this day I loathe the German industry for completely failing to capitalize on the whole MP3 thing. Everything was there and ripe for the taking: the invention, the patent, the consumer tech companies, the national major music labels like Bertelsmann/BMG and Motor Music with their huge catalogs, everything.

But as always, nothing happened in Germany but instead others made all the big money from it. A repeating historical pattern just like with the fax machine. German invention, domestically disregarded, then big Japanese profit.

True or not, sounds a lot like what seems to have happened with the USA, Japan and VCR's:

Ginsberg, at Ampex Corporation, invented the videotape recorder in 1951. The contraption worked by taking live images from cameras and converting them into electrical impulses stored on magnetic tape. Ampex sold the first videotape recorder for $50,000 in 1956.

It was called the Ampex 2” quadruplex videotape and was presented at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in 1956. And here is the “portable” version of Ampex`s contraption

However, the electronics division of entertainer Bing Crosby's production company, Bing Crosby Enterprises (BCE), gave the world's first demonstration of a videotape recording in Los Angeles on November 11, 1951.

Developed by John T. Mullin and Wayne R. Johnson since 1950, the device gave what was described as "blurred and indistinct" images using a modified Ampex 200 tape recorder and standard quarter-inch (0.6 cm) audio tape moving at 360 inches (9.1 m) per second.

First-Hand: Bing Crosby and the Recording Revolution

Recording Revolution: How the VCR Transformed Television Viewing​

In the mid-20th century, Charles Ginsburg and his team at Ampex Corporation embarked on a mission to revolutionize home entertainment. Their groundbreaking work in developing early video recording technology laid the foundation for what would become one of the most transformative inventions of its time: the Video Cassette Recorder (VCR). While the Ampex VRX-1000, introduced in 1956, was an early milestone in video recording, it was primarily utilized for professional and industrial purposes due to its complexity and cost. It wasn’t until the 1970s that consumer-grade VCRs became widely available, with formats like Sony’s Betamax and JVC’s VHS dominating the market.

Birth of the VCR – Charles Ginsburg’s Vision​

Charles Ginsburg’s visionary efforts, alongside his team at Ampex Corporation, culminated in the development of the first commercially successful consumer VCRs. These devices marked a pivotal moment in telecommunications history, empowering individuals to control their television viewing experience like never before. The introduction of consumer VCRs in the 1970s ushered in an era of unprecedented convenience and flexibility in home entertainment.

RCA pooled patents with Ampex and licensed in the Ampex technology. The new goal was to develop a video machine for home use. It had to be solid, low-cost and easy to operate.

Sony released a first home model in 1964, followed by Ampex and RCA in 1965. While these machines, and those that followed over the next 10 to 15 years, were much less expensive than the VRX-1000, they remained beyond the means of the average consumer, and were bought primarily by wealthy customers, businesses and schools. But the consumer electronics industry could feel the first tremors of VCR revolution and everyone wanted a piece of the pie. Fortunes were sunk into further research and development.

And somehow the USA corporations just decided to not pursue it and SONY paid for patent rights.

Before the technology battle could begin, however, the consumer electronics industry had to find an answer to a more pressing problem: content. Where would it come from? What would people watch on their VCRs? At this stage, the industry regarded the VCR’s television recording feature as a bonus option of little utility to the average home user. – Why, they asked, would anyone want to record a TV show and watch it later? They thought movie videos would provide an answer to the content problem. But the studios had something to say about that.

Home video sent the movie industry into a spin. Television had already stolen a big part of their market, and they saw the VCR as a massive new threat. Copyright, they argued, was at stake. Did not the mere recording of a television show constitute an infringement of the copyright owner’s rights over reproduction? The studios took the issue to court. In 1976, the year after Sony’s release of the Betamax VCR, Universal City Studios and the Walt Disney Company sued Sony, seeking to have the VCR impounded as a tool of piracy.

Just as the printing press, by making possible the mass reproduction of books, led to the first copyright laws, and cinematography raised the question of authors’ rights to derivative works, now it was the turn of the VCR. The first court decision in 1979 went against the studios, ruling that use of the VCR for non-commercial recording was legal. The studios appealed and the decision was overturned in 1981. Sony then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a landmark judgement in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that the home recording of television programs for later viewing constituted "fair use."

Contrary to their fears, the film studios found themselves to be major beneficiaries of the technology as the sale and rental of movie videos began generating huge new revenue streams. In 1986 alone, home video revenues added more than US$100 million of pure profit to Disney’s bottom line.

The television stations, on the other hand, having found that the "useless" recording option was a big hit with viewers, faced a different problem. They had to find new ways to keep their advertisers happy now that viewers could fast-forward through the commercial breaks.

Betamax versus VHS: the battle to set the standard​

Meanwhile, the format war between VHS and Betamax was underway. When Sony released Betamax, they were confident in the superiority of their technology and assumed that the other companies would abandon their formats and accept Betamax as the industry-wide technical standard. They were wrong. On their home turf in Japan, JVC refused to comply and went to market with their VHS format. In the European market, Philips did not play along either, but technical problems were to take Philips out of the fight almost before it began.

From where Sony stood, the only clear advantage of the VHS format was its longer recording time. So, Sony doubled the Betamax recording time. JVC followed suit. This continued until recording times were no longer an issue for potential customers, and marketing overtook superior technology as the key to the battle.

The two companies were on a par for several years until JVC’s VHS format pulled ahead. This was due in part to JVC’s broader licensing policy. Counting on increased royalties to make money on their VHS machines, JVC licensed the technology to big consumer electronics companies like Zenith and RCA. As a result, VHS machines became more abundant on the market and prices fell, increasing their consumer appeal.

At about the same time in the early 1980s, video rental shops started springing up on every street corner. Early on, the video shop owners recognized that they would have to make VCRs available for cheap rental to attract a larger client base. The high-quality Betamax machines were more expensive, harder to repair, and the first models were only compatible with certain television sets. So VHS became the obvious choice for the rental shops. The domino effect – greater availability of VHS machines leading to more VHS video releases – eventually squeezed out Betamax.

Shifting Perspectives – The VCR’s Impact on Television Viewing Habits​

The widespread adoption of VCR technology revolutionized television viewing habits, liberating audiences from the constraints of rigid broadcast schedules. With the ability to record and playback programs at their convenience, viewers gained newfound autonomy over their entertainment choices. Furthermore, features like fast-forwarding through commercials and pausing live TV added layers of convenience previously unimaginable. The VCR transformed television from a passive experience into an interactive one, where viewers could curate their own programming lineup according to their preferences.

The Rise of the Home Movie Collection – VCRs as Personal Archives​

Beyond revolutionizing television viewing, VCRs became invaluable tools for preserving cherished memories. Families worldwide used VCRs to capture and relive special occasions, from birthdays to graduations, creating personal archives that captured the essence of their lives. These recordings not only served as nostalgic reminders but also fostered a sense of connection and shared history within households. The VCR transformed from a mere entertainment device into a vessel for preserving cultural heritage and personal narratives.

Technological Evolution – VCRs and Telecommunications History​

The technological advancements pioneered by VCRs paved the way for subsequent innovations in recording and playback technology. The principles established by VCRs laid the groundwork for the development of digital video recorders (DVRs), DVD players, and eventually, streaming services. Features like programmable recording schedules and improved video quality set new standards for home entertainment, shaping the trajectory of telecommunications history for decades to come.

Legacy and Obsolescence – The VCR’s Enduring Impact​

While the era of VCRs eventually gave way to more advanced technologies like DVDs, Blu-rays, and streaming services, their legacy endures in the collective memory of those who experienced the recording revolution firsthand. The cultural impact of VCRs transcends their technological obsolescence, with their influence evident in popular culture, media consumption habits, and the ongoing efforts to preserve historical recordings. Initiatives to digitize and archive VHS tapes ensure that the legacy of the VCR continues to be celebrated and studied by future generations.

Conclusion​

In conclusion, the introduction of consumer VCRs in the 1970s marked a watershed moment in telecommunications history, forever altering the landscape of home entertainment. Charles Ginsburg and his team’s visionary work at Ampex Corporation laid the groundwork for a recording revolution that empowered individuals to take control of their television viewing experience. As we navigate the digital age, it’s crucial to recognize the enduring legacy of the VCR and its role in shaping the way we consume and interact with media. From altering viewing habits to influencing technological advancements, the VCR remains an iconic symbol of innovation and ingenuity in the history of telecommunications.

Sources:

1. The dawn of video tape recording and development of the helical scanning system – IEEE Xplore : https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5735283
2. 1956: Ampex VRX-1000 First Commercial Video Recorder – Mixonline : https://www.mixonline.com/technology/1956-ampex-vrx-1000-first-commercial-video-recorder-383723
3. VCR HISTORY: WHEN WAS THE VCR INVENTED AND WHAT WAS ITS IMPACT? – Everpresent : https://everpresent.com/vcr-history/
4. History of Telecommunication – Mitel : https://www.mitel.com/articles/history-telecommunication
5. How TVs have changed through the decades – Business Insider : https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/the-evolution-of-tvs-through-the-decades

• Sony (Japan): Introduced the U-matic industrial/consumer videocassette format in 1971 (first practical cassette-based VCR). U-matic used a cassette shell and made tape handling far more convenient than reel-to-reel; it became popular in education, business, and broadcast ENG (electronic news gathering).
• Philips (Netherlands): Developed the Video Compact Cassette (VCC) concepts and worked on cassette mechanisms and format ideas that influenced later consumer formats.
• JVC (Victor Company of Japan) and Matsushita (Panasonic): In the mid-1970s, JVC introduced the VHS (Video Home System) format (1976) and Matsushita promoted Betamax (Sony had released Betamax in 1975). These two competing formats defined the consumer VCR era. Betamax preceded VHS by about a year, but VHS ultimately dominated.

 

[Newman]

So all you guys who care about compliance to the Harman target: you're all wrong. Sean Olive was wasting his time.

Actually, Dr Olive was very impressed by the measurements of the Beats Solo Pro. He thought they must be working to the Harman target. If so, he definitely wasn't wasting his time. (link to Facebook)

cheers

 

[Sean Olive]

This video talks about the history of Beats headphones. How they came from nothing, did no research, optimized their product to deliver a bass heavy response (because that made music sound more exciting) and then invested a lot of money into marketing. Sales exploded and the company became so valuable that Apple paid $3 billion for them. Unlike Apple's other acquisitions (e.g. Siri and Q.ai), Beats had no proprietary technology, all they had was their brand name. Yet Apple still saw fit to pay billions of dollars for the company. For context, Samsung paid $8 billion for the Harman Group - a company that has a dozen smaller brands under its umbrella, wrote the textbook on speaker and headphone engineering, and it actually has patents!

As the video points out, most serious audiophiles regard Beats with the same disdain we reserve for Bose. We KNOW that it's cheaply made and inaccurate. We cling to our Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics, AKG's, and Dan Clarks. But look where those companies are: AKG belongs to Samsung as part of the Harman group, Sennheiser is up for sale, Beyerdynamic has been acquired by the Chinese (for USD$140 million!!), and DCA is an absolute minnow.

There is a difference between enthusiasts and audio companies. We are in it for the sound. Audio companies are in it for the money. As an enthusiast, it boggles my mind that Apple paid $3 billion for basically an empty shell created out of nothing through the power of marketing. But then, those Apple guys are much smarter than I am. Or maybe more cynical. I guess the consumer gets what they deserve.

So all you guys who care about compliance to the Harman target: you're all wrong. Sean Olive was wasting his time. If you want to make money, forget the Harman curve and forget science. Go find yourself a rapper, get a product designer to give you a cool logo and cool looking headphones, invest all your money in marketing, and make bank. History tells us that perception trumps reality, and it trumps it big. To the tune of $3 billion for Beats.

As the video points out eventually Apple engineering tuned Beats headphones to something that approximates the Harman Targe curve and users never complained or missed a beat. Around 2013 we did a blind test that included the Beat Studio target with over 200 listeners (including both young untrained listeners and trained ones ) and it received the lowest preference rating compared to Harman target, sennheiser Hd800 and Audeze LCD2. Our marketing department thought Beats success was in part due to the sound (and we should duplicate it) and we proved it was in spite of the sound. We were just ahead of Apple in terms of engineering and years behind in terms of marketing).

 

[egellings]

Many years ago, I had the early beats owners sitting 2 rows in front of me on an airplane flying between Tokyo and Detroit. And they had a couple of their early headphones with them, discussing the design. I had already heard the abysmal sounding 'Beats' somewhere & mentioned to them that their sound wasn't close to as linier as my Sennheiser's. They just looked at me with distain and did not verbally acknowledge that I had said anything, continuing with whatever their focus was on in their headphones.
I guess that I was right, but they where coming up with their plan and made it way bigger than the more correct sound that I listen to. I'm not much of a head phone user but their crud damn near killed the 'correct' sounding head phone market.

...Crud cred.

 

[DenonMate]

Some people prioritize physical impact and elevated bass over faithful reproduction. I tend to think of them as bass heads rather than audiophiles.

I googled it… um, I mean, I geAIed it to look up what “bassheads” means. Never heard this expression before. By definition, bassheads are people who like low-frequency bass. You can recognize them, among other things, by their very powerful subwoofers, for example let’s say >1000 Wrms and >3000 WPeak. Not to be confused with the so-called “bassophiles,” who use less powerful subwoofers and prefer transparent, precise bass. Then there’s the group known as “Basspoors,” who claim that a 2.0 system is the only true audiophile experience—until they finally bring themselves to invest in a good subwoofer and then decide whether to follow the path of a basshead (>1000 Wrms) or a bassophile.


Don’t shoot the messenger. Just report what AI says ….ummm…. hallucinates,

 

[Paul7777x]

When I hear the term bass head it immediately brings forth an image of those dickless, look at me’s in their tiny cars with their subs at 1900% higher volume than the door speakers.

Which then makes me think of this…

A fellow may dream…

 

[Redacted]

I’m invested in a positive agenda elevating hi-fi excellence, audio science, accurate frequency response, low noise and distortion, and vivid, balanced, transparent presence in music playback.

I’m mostly completely disinterested in the paranoid strain of audio gear commentary whose themes are myth-busting, calling out ripoffs, denouncing “shills,” and saturnine everything’s-a-scam look-at-all-those-suckers resentment. Especially when packaged as YouTube linkbait. I don’t want to be put inside that vs. frame. Letting Beats people have their fun is not my problem.

Sure, but youtube aside, ASR itself is surely about truth through measurement, and if that reveals myths, overcharging, marketing nonsense then so much the better.

 

[Redacted]

When I hear the term bass head it immediately brings forth an image of those dickless, look at me’s in their tiny cars with their subs at 1900% higher volume than the door speakers.

Which then makes me think of this…

View attachment 540475

A fellow may dream…

We all know you already have the skater kneepads....

 

[Paul7777x]

We all know you already have the skater kneepads....

… and the 80’s reminiscent midriff baring tank top

 

[Redacted]

… and the 80’s reminiscent midriff baring tank top

That's button-up long-johns, not 'midriff', below the tank-top...