- May 28, 2018
I don't want to go off topic, but could you elaborate on this? A few sentences would be sufficient....
If only the unstable seal was fixed it would be such a killer set.Horribly unstable FR when on my head : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...k-headphones-200-300.16005/page-3#post-828653
Most of that is down to the headband to cup attachment design lacking range of motion (up / down, forward / backwards), resulting in seal being suboptimal when I move around, and the cup / pad design relying too much on the pad to form its front volume and therefore being inconsistent as the pad doesn't deform in a constant fashion.
It was even worse when they shipped with the pads irremediably crumbled by the improperly designed packaging (now fixed).
Mines also broke (right channel stopped working) and were exchanged.
This is all a shame as for the price it's a very, very neat pair of HPs... in theory. I like the intent (at least Harman is actively trying to pull us out of the headphones dark ages), I just don't like the execution.
If only the unstable seal was fixed it would be such a killer set.
Let me be the advocate for the alternate viewpoint then. In a free market demand isn't set in stone. Each individual buyer could be concerned with any combination of: brand recognition, celebrities tie-ins, spec sheet figures, connectivity features, target adherence just to name some. That in it it self is conducive to big bang for buck sets emerging. Because it's a consequence of manufacturers offering a variety of products in hopes of one of them becoming a big seller. The objectively minded consumer in this case is then free to choose a set that fits his or her criteria, and the market has provided a number of viable products.Perhaps it's the evil leftist in me that's speaking but I love the idea of providing as good an SQ as you can provide for a cheap, affordable price everyone can afford.