Soul by Ludacris SL150 & SL300 Headphones Review @ [H]

Sure keep shooting the messenger guys. That will make the reviews better.:rolleyes:

I'm done here.
 
BallerX said:
You guys can be upset with me all you like. The truth of the matter is, by mentioning how these phones sound without measuring them you are essentially misleading your readers.
Click to expand...

what? i have never put on a pair of heaphones, then plugged them into my testing system to see if they are good. i usually put them on my head, use them, and then decide if i like them or not. so how is telling us their subjective but educated opinion "misleading?" theyre not misleading about anything, they are very upfront about their methodologies...:confused:

BallerX said:
Sure keep shooting the messenger guys. That will make the reviews better.:rolleyes:

I'm done here.
Click to expand...

messenger delivers messages from others. you are criticising a review that offers very helpful information most others dont give, based on your own opinions. good riddance.
 
Yeah seriously. I have helped at least several hundred thousand people learn about decent headphones. Not the pricey, flashy ones but the actual good buys like the JVC HarX700 and the Samson Sr850s. They work great for their intended purpose. This is all based on my opinion and experience. No measurements at all beyond, can I tell where the fuck that guy is shooting at me from or not?

I am pretty sure most people agree with me that my subjective opinion, not silly ass measurements, is accurate.

Just like this review.
 
[RIP]Zeus;1039057688 said:
You guys should use the [H]ardOCP FAIL picture for products like this. :D
Click to expand...

This! It really should be used more.
 
wheres the fail pic, i was hoping to see it a huge red x or something similar.

products like this need to be more outed.
but unfortunately poor consumer research will lead the sheep into buying a trendy accessory for their new outfit and mj shoes they just spent $400 on.

ridiculous.

from the pictures, the actual product looks like a fake and doesnt have the glitz and sharpness as whats on the box.
cheap parts+cheap labor backed by a cheap shoddy company. i expect more iterations with diff color schemes to match shoes and apparel.
 
BallerX said:
The truth of the matter is, by mentioning how these phones sound without measuring them you are essentially misleading your readers.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's that many people on these forums or that read these reviews that even know the significance of those waveforms. Throwing raw technical data at someone and saying "This is why this is better" does not help in any way. It does not convey the experience a person can expect when using a product. This is exactly why [H]ardOCP got away from "apples to apples" comparisons in their video card reviews.

There's really no way to know if something is satisfactory without trying it out for yourself. Short of doing that, all you can do is say, "This is what we did, this is how we did it, and these are our impressions." That's not being misleading. Misleading is saying "Product X will sound better because of math". How do you know it will sound better? My hearing isn't the same as yours. What's "better"? More bass? Maybe I don't like lots of bass. A cleaner square wave at 30 Hz? How do changes in loading affect more complex waveforms? Ahh, but you can't measure that easily, can you? Sound - real sound - is not a clean waveform. It's very complex, and how that registers on the ear is also very complex. In fact, it's so complex that the only computer capable of deciphering it in real time is the organic brain. That's why sitting two different individuals down in controlled environments and providing feedback on specific elements being tested is a scientifically viable approach to testing. It could be improved on by involving more testers, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. These people have to be paid, after all.

I'll give another example. I can look at histogram and level data on an image, and it can tell me all sorts of technical information about the peak saturation, average red values, etc, etc. What it cannot tell me is what the picture looks like. I cannot tell if it is a picture of a skyscraper or an eagle. I could even look at the raw RGB levels for each pixel. That sure tells me a lot of data, but does not tell me if it's beautiful or ugly. The same goes for sound. You have to hear it, just as with a picture you have to see it. There's absolutely no substitute for real experience and an honest opinion. All reviews come down to this. Data is merely a helper and reference point in the process.
 
Entering Ludacris SL150 in google answers the WHY of such reviews, Hardcop.com is the sixth entry. Can't hurt the bottom line in a product that will be so widely googled.

Other than that such gaming peripheral reviews surely seem somewhat ridiculous for the discriminating tech oriented core audience of this site.
 
spigzone said:
Other than that such gaming peripheral reviews surely seem somewhat ridiculous for the discriminating tech oriented core audience of this site.
Click to expand...

When you look at the performance of Audio-Technica, Beyer-Dynamic, and Grado headhphones, those products often out perform gaming headsets with ease. They also bring great music playback to the mix, so again, their extra cost might be worth it to our readers.
 
These instantly made me think of someone just trying to cash in on the "Beats" fad. I am sick of seeing piles of those beats headphones at the BX on base. When I go to the gym on base, nearly half the people are wearing these gaudy overpriced headphones. I can see AAFES stocking these as well and young airmen gobbling them up.
 
daglesj said:
I should think Ludacris did all the testing and product discussions...by telephone.

"Yeah yeah...I like that...how much do I get for my name?...Oh thats sweet!"
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why i dont understand this line from the article

"Ludacris had a chance to make headphones that reflected his own unique vision. Yet the angled plastic headband, its logo, the glossy plastic finish of the headphones' main frame and the small drivers all reminded us of Dr. Dre's vision."

You know as well as we all do, these are pre-packaged deals ready to go and then they go and shop it around to 'faces'. Im sure Ludacris' actual input on the product was less then the focus groups' hired to evaluate it.
 
EarlKeim said:
From the graphs you think those headphones look decent. When you hear them it is a very different story.

I took them through every aspect of what they would be used for, your measurements can not do that. No other site reviews gaming headphones and headsets to the extent that we do. Some may say, "Sounded great in Dirt 3, okay in Deus, and amazing in BF3." I make sure I tell you where to go and what activity to perform and it will sound very close to what I have explained. Your charts will NEVER show that. The chart may show they are "okay," but they can not show readers what a small sound stage these headphones have. Period. If you know of a measurement that can show that, I would be happy to know what it is.
These headphones reproduce bass, but they do so poorly in every other bass heavy genre besides certain rap songs. Your graphs can not show that either.

Sorry you do not enjoy our reviews. There are plenty of other sites that might be more to your liking.
Click to expand...

But Tyll doesn't just supply a graph, he gives his own reasoned opinion as well.

Any really good review is a combination of the objective -- hard measurements produced by proper testing and sound methodology, and the subjective -- the thoughts and opinions of an expert reviewer who knows his field inside and is able to communicate intangible elements that defy measurement to his readers.

Would you write a review for a new GPU that only had graphs and no writing? Of course not. Writing that same review with no graphs would be just as bad, maybe worse. Audio is obviously a bit more subjective than processors or graphics cards, but the point remains that you really need the two parts to create a truly excellent review.

I still enjoy [H]'s audio reviews more than, say, CNET, and I'll continue to read them. But they could be so much better if you went the extra mile like Tyll does.
 
Dude, at least pick a real headphone for your argument. This is like a food critic complaining about techniques used in a review of McDonalds.

You are a nice guy and I understand your point. Please appreciate the the what and where of this debate though. It simply does not follow in this case b/c who cares what fart cannons measure at right?
 
I really appreciate your thoughts. One of the reasons that we do not build the model head and place the headphones on it, and then use two microphones to measure sound playback is this: 99% of our readers do not have access to those things.

If you do have access to those things, and your results differ from mine, then do we compare how our test rooms were built? It's tough.

I spent eight years of my life running a movie theater. I installed one of the first (the third one in Texas) THX sound systems in one of my auditoriums. We tore down walls, hung extra insulation, repositioned speakers. It was a chore to achieve certification. Been there and done that. It was two months of hell.

Two engineers sat and fought about the resulting sound for three days. A third came in and used the same instruments on the equipment and made his own adjustments. It was terrible. The fifth person that came in gave us a final sound that everybody agreed was amazing! All five were certified techs from the same company with decades of experience between them. Tough to believe, but very very true.

I visited a theater in Los Angeles in 2010. It was rated as L.A.'s best venue to see a movie. It sounded hollow at times, sibilant at others, and absolutely too much bass!!! Different strokes......



hurleybird said:
But Tyll doesn't just supply a graph, he gives his own reasoned opinion as well.

Any really good review is a combination of the objective -- hard measurements produced by proper testing and sound methodology, and the subjective -- the thoughts and opinions of an expert reviewer who knows his field inside and is able to communicate intangible elements that defy measurement to his readers.

Would you write a review for a new GPU that only had graphs and no writing? Of course not. Writing that same review with no graphs would be just as bad, maybe worse. Audio is obviously a bit more subjective than processors or graphics cards, but the point remains that you really need the two parts to create a truly excellent review.

I still enjoy [H]'s audio reviews more than, say, CNET, and I'll continue to read them. But they could be so much better if you went the extra mile like Tyll does.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EarlKeim said:
I really appreciate your thoughts. One of the reasons that we do not build the model head and place the headphones on it, and then use two microphones to measure sound playback is this: 99% of our readers do not have access to those things.

If you do have access to those things, and your results differ from mine, then do we compare how our test rooms were built? It's tough
Click to expand...

I've actually been considering picking up a Neumann KU-100 dummy head, though not as much for measurements as for recording.

That being said, room acoustics aren't going to make any kind of measurable difference when it comes to headphones -- one of the great strengths of headphones over speakers is being more or less room agnostic. Things that could account for measurable differences would include the shape of the dummy head, the position of the headphones, the rest of the audio stack, background noise (especially on open cans), and variability (either naturally from unit to unit, or temporally across different revisions) between the headphones themselves.

That being said I don't quite get where this complaint is coming from. You want more reproducibility? accountability? 99% of [H] users aren't set up (or aren't interested in) running tightly controlled benchmarks across multiple video cards or processors either. What matters is that other review sites are. In this case you have Tyll at inner-fidelity, and maybe half a dozen head-fiers to compare results with. Sure, it's a small sample, but deciding not to collect data because there isn't a wealth of other data to compare yours to kind of exasperates the problem, no?

EarlKeim said:
I spent eight years of my life running a movie theater. I installed one of the first (the third one in Texas) THX sound systems in one of my auditoriums. We tore down walls, hung extra insulation, repositioned speakers. It was a chore to achieve certification. Been there and done that. It was two months of hell.

Two engineers sat and fought about the resulting sound for three days. A third came in and used the same instruments on the equipment and made his own adjustments. It was terrible. The fifth person that came in gave us a final sound that everybody agreed was amazing! All five were certified techs from the same company with decades of experience between them. Tough to believe, but very very true.

I visited a theater in Los Angeles in 2010. It was rated as L.A.'s best venue to see a movie. It sounded hollow at times, sibilant at others, and absolutely too much bass!!! Different strokes......
Click to expand...

Might just be because I'm finishing up on my last night shift and am very tired, but I'm kind of left guessing what you're trying to argue with this story. For the record, I find the sound quality in most movie theaters pretty lacking.
 
hurleybird said:
That being said I don't quite get where this complaint is coming from. You want more reproducibility? accountability? 99% of [H] users aren't set up (or aren't interested in) running tightly controlled benchmarks across multiple video cards or processors either. What matters is that other review sites are. In this case you have Tyll at inner-fidelity, and maybe half a dozen head-fiers to compare results with. Sure, it's a small sample, but deciding not to collect data because there isn't a wealth of other data to compare yours to kind of exasperates the problem, no?



Might just be because I'm finishing up on my last night shift and am very tired, but I'm kind of left guessing what you're trying to argue with this story. For the record, I find the sound quality in most movie theaters pretty lacking.
Click to expand...

Well there is a difference between processors and graphics cards. With a CPU or GPU more is better more frames equal higher performance. Sound is subjective. No one says "i like my games to play at 12 fps because i like it." But you will here people say "I love my beats by dre headphones they are the best headphones evar!!!" Because sound sounds different to everyone graphs wont show you if headphones sound tinny or hallow.
 
I for one like this review as it shows that the sheeple will buy anything with a brand name on it dispite it being crap. [H] did us all a favor here......
 
I am curious as to how many people could actually glean useful information from taking measurements? Even if you understand them, how useful is the information? How much is necessary? Why provide data when it isn't necessary?

Use paint as an example, someone describing the color is much more useful than giving me graphs of what wavelengths bounce of the paint.
 
Ya know. Those graphs mean jack and shit to me. They really do. Someone post a graph and explain what the average user like myself is looking at. Compare that to what a great headphone looks like graph wise.
 
Graphs mean a LOT in audio tests, simply put. A flat frequency response in testing sine waves shows how accurately headphones can reproduce source materials - when contrasted with compression, THD etc. That said... it is hard to get perfectly accurate readings for headphones. It also doesn't tell you how much they will suit your personal tastes. Earl gives a very good run down of how they sound to him, and that's very valuable feedback. Graphs without subjective review are fairly pointless.

What means more than the graphs is the testing method. The way those graphs are plotted per octave is deceiving. It shows a flatter response than would actually be heard because it is smoothing.

Basically, these headphones suck and Earl is correct in saying so.
 
I tested both yesterday at staples, with my phone granted, and the 300 sounded a LOT better than the 150 but neither was worth even close to the asking price. I rather get a AKG or similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top