Apple stock earphones vs Apple in-ear headphones
- Thread starter mach1man
- Start date
mesii23
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2012
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 4
I have but ended up returning them, they got much better than the stock option but there is no real change in sound quality.
For your $80 there are a lot better options out there
The Apple In-Ear headphones equates to Apple slapping on their brand to a pair of Sony In-Ear headphones, minus the sound quality. For the $80 before taxes if applicable that you have to pay, it's a much better investment to buy something with a better quality in both sound and design.
My comparison benchmark for In-Ear headphones is a pair of Full Metal Jackets by SkullCandy. Although SkullCandy does receive a lot of beating because of their lower tier products shorting very easily, the FMJs have a nylon coating for the wire, which prevents it from tearing unless you forcefully do it over a long period of time to wear it out, which, as opposed to the Apple headphones, is one less of a worry from having it short with an accidental tug if it gets caught for any reason.
Next, the sound quality of the SkullCandys are more uniform, with a balance in highs, mids and basses, with a slightly larger emphasis on the bass. Though it doesn't rock a dual-driver, it can still emulate a dual-driver with or without EQ settings depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Or even a pair of $40 Sony over-ears headphones would do a similar if not better job minus the portability.
The hold of the silicone tips are much better on the SkullCandys compared to the Apple In-Ears. Because SkullCandy produces a more "athletic" brand of headphones, and often times they're subjected to slight torture, the silicone cap indents are deeper and the silicone resting portions are thicker and more firm, so they don't slip off with the slightest of pulls/tugs compared to the Apple In-Ears.
With respect to the stock and Apple In-Ears, the stock takes the cake right off the bat for me. Although I do like earphones with the silicone tips as a comfort choice, the additional investment on the In-Ears just doesn't cut it for me. For an $80 pair of headphones, I'd expect a trade-off that I can benefit from with my investment, rather than just a product that's similar to what's already available on the market by other companies with an even lower consumer quality for what it's worth.
TL;DR: Not worth the 80 bucks. You're better off buying a pair of cheap Sony ones that have the same sound and production quality that yields the same level of satisfaction. Or, chip in a little more on top of the Sony ones for ones that actually provide a meaningful quality to price ratio
My comparison benchmark for In-Ear headphones is a pair of Full Metal Jackets by SkullCandy. Although SkullCandy does receive a lot of beating because of their lower tier products shorting very easily, the FMJs have a nylon coating for the wire, which prevents it from tearing unless you forcefully do it over a long period of time to wear it out, which, as opposed to the Apple headphones, is one less of a worry from having it short with an accidental tug if it gets caught for any reason.
Next, the sound quality of the SkullCandys are more uniform, with a balance in highs, mids and basses, with a slightly larger emphasis on the bass. Though it doesn't rock a dual-driver, it can still emulate a dual-driver with or without EQ settings depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Or even a pair of $40 Sony over-ears headphones would do a similar if not better job minus the portability.
The hold of the silicone tips are much better on the SkullCandys compared to the Apple In-Ears. Because SkullCandy produces a more "athletic" brand of headphones, and often times they're subjected to slight torture, the silicone cap indents are deeper and the silicone resting portions are thicker and more firm, so they don't slip off with the slightest of pulls/tugs compared to the Apple In-Ears.
With respect to the stock and Apple In-Ears, the stock takes the cake right off the bat for me. Although I do like earphones with the silicone tips as a comfort choice, the additional investment on the In-Ears just doesn't cut it for me. For an $80 pair of headphones, I'd expect a trade-off that I can benefit from with my investment, rather than just a product that's similar to what's already available on the market by other companies with an even lower consumer quality for what it's worth.
TL;DR: Not worth the 80 bucks. You're better off buying a pair of cheap Sony ones that have the same sound and production quality that yields the same level of satisfaction. Or, chip in a little more on top of the Sony ones for ones that actually provide a meaningful quality to price ratio
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 14,695
- Reaction score
- 6,734
Bose make some amazing head phones, expensive but so worth it.
Similar threads
