I had QC25, $300, needs fucking piece of paper to be put into ear cup to work. Bose is a rip off. Just look into this vid - 40000 views of how and where to put piece of paper into your $300 headphones - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OYva0hOW0Q
I own the QC25's and I can say they work just fine without me having to install a piece of paper in the cup.
The video you linked to is a repair video, but your comment implies that a new set taken off the shelf don't work unless you install paper, two different things entirely.
I haven't yet had an issue with the QC25s except that they do seem to cause noise fatigue a lot quicker than non-noise cancelling headphones. I cannot explain that; just my experience. But the noise cancelling is very good.
Never had the headphones, but somebody gave me a pair of desktop speakers and I've been very disappointed. They sounds "as if" they are awesome, that is pack a lot of bass into a little box, but the sound comes out over-bassed and muffled. I play a lot of roots-reggae and I can hear the bass real well, but everything else is very hard to make out. So what Bose seems to be good at is marketing and tricking the customer into saying "wooow".
The description says that he slept while wearing the headphones so I suppose damage should not be that surprising. Since when 40k YouTube videos became the gold standard for anything?
I was one of the group which said Bose are overpriced but my work has open office layout and it gets really loud. Manager agreed to expense the noise canceling headphone and I must say QC25 are great noise canceling/dampening and VERY comfortable and light. Earlier I could not keep headphones on for longer hours but I have no issues with QC. Also they work great on the planes.
The noise canceling is amazing, but Bose's quality control could use some improvement: I've had my QC25's replaced twice over the last year, both times due to the same issue: folding them up for storage strains the cable going between the speakers, and at some point it breaks. Two out of three people I know with the same headphones have had exactly the same issue.
Are there any _noise cancelling_ headphones that also sound well? I have no idea, but it seems that it is fundamentally incompatible.
I have Superlux hd668b - I think they were like $40 USD, and they sound definitely better than QC25. But... they are not noise cancelling, they look derp and press on my ears. Actually majority of quality headphones appear to have awful designs with curled cables and thick bands that makes people look at you.
Is this anything more than a puff piece for Bose? I really like the vignette of a dying old man being overjoyed by the state of their noise cancelling technology
Yes it is. It is also an example of journalism where the writer gets paid by the word, hence the tedium of the 'vignette'.
In the UK we don't have 'paid by the word' in quite the same way, so you rarely have to wade through rubbish to get to the gist of the article on a UK website. It is a U.S. phenomenon having the fluff-bloat at the start of the article, and, to be honest, it puts me off reading anything linked here from the likes of the New York Times. I just cannot stand this writing style with the extra 'vignette' or whatever padding out the article into some narrative that I cannot be bothered with.
However, what is the cultural difference between US and UK journalism where UK stuff is to the point (i.e. with a summary of the story, then the story told properly) and US articles always have to have some meandering nonsense that is as tangential as possible to the story? The format makes sense for a book but is a bit silly in New York Times style articles.
The dead giveaway that it is a puff piece written by a PR firm, and then only lightly edited to preserve the pretense of journalism being involved, is when the piece describes the executives in glowing, hagiographic terms.
The marketing team has the piece written glorifying the CEO, which in turn leads to more budget and promotions for the marketing team. The PR firm places the piece everywhere, which leads to more PR briefs. And the "reporters" are starving in a dying industry, so they'll do anything for a crust of bread and the odd review item they can keep.
---
p.s. Don't tell me that hackers can't play the same game:
It isn't binary. Something can both be a puff piece and be interesting. An aware reader adjusts for bias, and finds what's useful, in any kind of propaganda.
You're a knowledgeable lot, so I think I'll put this question out to you all.
I'm looking for a budget pair of cans, I usually spend about 20 bucks because I'm both cheap and poor. I was considering the HD202's, I usually get by with HD201's but the cords short out and fray after a year or so of everyday use.
I only have two requirements: over-ear headphones with a comically oversized cord
Also Koss KSC75's. They are $15 on amazon right now and I swear they sound better than most $100+ cans. The self-proclaimed audiophiles over at head-fi.org love them.
I wonder if they use the same speaker/driver as the porta pros?
That's a popular Head-fi recommendation, as well as their sibling the KSC-75 (same drivers).
The great thing about headphone audio nowadays (as opposed to just 10 years ago) is there are quite a few low cost options that sound great. Unfortunately they're not well known unless you do some research.
That said, if you want top-tier audio out of something extremely portable that isolates to a degree, I cannot recommend Sennheiser's IE800 highly enough. I've spent many a kilobuck over the past 15 years and these are some of my favs. Not cheap at $800 retail (used in the $500-600 area), but totally worth it if you listen often while working. I have other IEMs that cost 2-3x as much and prefer these.
Most of time I use these in conjunction w/ Roon audio player and a Tidal sub straight out of the headphone port of my 13 rMBP - total audiophile bliss.
I've owned 3 pairs of these. They're great for walking around in traffic or when you otherwise need to hear everything around you, and really do sound excellent for the price.
All of mine died really fast though! The cable is so thin and the connector tail bit so short and inflexible, that plugging them into a phone and putting the phone in a trouser pocket daily is a 6-month death sentence tops.
Ask in https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/ Those guys are usually eager to help and your question would actually be welcome there. They usually have a sticky thread for recommendations.
Sony's studio headphones are seriously underrated. I suspect because they aren't marketed to the hip and trendy crowd. They actually look pretty ugly (like a 1970s reject) but they work so freaking well.
I've had mine for twenty years, no issues, no frays, and I'd replace them with other Sony studio headphones if something were to happen.
The cord is a beast. I'm not worried about it failing.
Yep. The MDR-7506 and the similar Sony MDR-V6 are stellar choices. Might as well listen to the music on the same headphones that were likely used when they recorded it.
I love my MDR-V6s (one for home and work). You really hear everything and (tight) Bass. Comfortable too. Durable, though I've only had mine for 10 years (GP 18 years... wow)
My only gripe is the material they use for the padding degrades after 5 or 6 years. Its super easy to replace however. I like the coiled cord too.
I think the "Pro"MDR-7507 which have the same form factor cost the same as the V-6s now.
I've also done the removable cable mod[1] on one of my pairs and it works great. I use them for both listening and gaming now because I can attach a cable with a boom mic on it, or I can switch it out for the stock cable for listening normally, or even a short cable for the rest of the time.
Find yourself a pre-loved pair of Audio Technica M50x. You'll wear them all day, and they are currently considered the best available for mid-range cost. Oh and they come with 3 cord sizes, one of them mega-long.
Sometimes being cheap and poor is expensive: more expensive sound equipment is more durable.
I also used to also buy new headphones (with about the same budget) every 6 to 12 months, usually with the cable breaking somewhere near the connector. I had similar buying criteria as you, but just to test a hypothesis, I spent a weekend researching what to buy and arrived at the MDR7506 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000AJIF4E for many times my usual budget. However, they've lasted for 2 years of being shoved in a bag or pocket many times a day and running to lectures, and still show no signs of wear, so they've almost paid for themselves in dollars per day even if they didn't sound better than a $20 pair which, of course, they also do. Highly recommended.
Edit: I see other comments also praising these. Yep, we're clearly a knowledgeable lot. :)
Wow, I don't think I've seen that price-hiding thing before. What the fuck? I'm tempted to avoid buying them just to stick it to the manufacturer for having such a stupid policy. I don't log into Amazon at work, so I can't see the price; how much is Amazon charging for a pair?
Sound quality on all of them is pretty indistinguishable however on-head comfort ironically is an easy win for the 201's, the 202's are very tight, the 205's not quite as bad but still not great.
I ended up giving the 202's away to a female friend who really likes them (she has a smaller head than me).
If the cords are fraying there isn't much to replacing them, the other option is to cut the cord about a meter from the headphone and put a female connector on, then you can use arbitrary length patch's to extend the range.
One of my next projects is to drill through my desk and surface mount another female connection so I can sit down and plugin (otherwise the damn cable manages to get wrapped around the chair, the desk or usually a cup of coffee on the desk).
I love my HD202's. I wear them for several hours a day almost every work day. Best ~$25 I've spent... I did have to resolder the connection on both ears after a few years, but haven't had any other problems with them. I tend to play with the cord a lot when I'm thinking...
I've quite enjoyed my JVC HA-RX700s. They're about $35 on amazon and they sound pretty decent to my ears. People on Head-Fi seem to like them at least. I can say that they are over-ear and have a comically oversized cord. They're built pretty well, too.
If I have any complaints it's that they're too big, and the cord is too long but those might be a plus for you.
I have been using the Bose QC noise-cancelling headphones for many years. Bose has been great. They even replaced my pair for a 70% off upgrade price after being a loyal customer for only 3 or 4 years, so I could get some new features and nice cushy new soft ear muffs. They take a beating. I constantly drop them on hard floors, the travel with me all over the world constantly, and their quality has never diminished.
Audiophiles rag on Bose pretty hard. It's easy to see why if you look at their product line. They have home theater systems, but all of them use tiny plastic cube speakers that trade sound quality for unobtrusiveness. They have soundbars and waveboxes. Bose 901's are arguably their "flagship" audiophile product, but these are designed to bounce additional sound off your walls to make your room sound like a concert hall. The problem is that nobody masters recordings for speakers that intentionally add reverb. These gimmick speakers are designed to wow in the showroom with the right tracks, but do you really want everything you hear to sound like it's in a concert hall?
Bose simply doesn't target audiophiles. They don't make audiophile products. However, they've carved out a niche for themselves that makes them billions every year. That niche is basically one step removed from snake-oil. Bose has somehow managed their image so that people think Bose really can cram audiophile-grade performance into precisely the kind of tiny, plastic boxes no other audio company can get halfway decent sound out of. Bose fails as hard as anyone else at that, but somehow people believe they've succeeded and line up to buy their products. Whatever Bose is doing for advertising, it's elite. This article is probably an example of what they're doing.
I do think some of their headphones are best in class - Not the greatest value for money though. Their QC line have the best noise cancelling, and if that's the most important criteria they are the ones I recommend to people. (Personally I use Sennheiser for my ANC cans as the sound is better and noise cancelling is not too far off).
Their sports in-ears are great also - I've never found any in-ear headphone that beats the MIE2 in comfort and not falling out, and the sound isn't bad either.
I have the inner ear version, and the noise canceling is ridiculously good. $300 was hard to swallow for the sound quality, but you're paying for the NC.
There is a difference between isolation and noise cancelling. I need to be able to hear normal noise, but block out droning of airplanes and white noise.
I know what is appropriate for me, the inner ear version of the noise cancelling BOSE plugs. Because they don't heat up my ears, are far more comfortable, a small inconspicuous foot print when traveling with a single 30L backpack, and they work.
A good pair of canal-phones that fit properly should provide enough noise isolation (on the order of 25-40 dB, depending on design) that active cancellation is unnecessary in most environments. People performing in front of heavy-duty speaker stacks often use canal-phones to be able to hear what they're doing without going deaf. The caveat is you really do need to mess around with different tips to find ones that fit and shove those suckers in deep enough to get a good seal, which a lot of people hate doing. Noise cancellation is great to have in over-ear cans but would be of very limited utility in canal-phones, assuming their isolation doesn't suck. $300 will get you a very good pair of Etymotics or Shures, which you should be able to get very good isolation with. If you can afford more, custom molded canal-phones are the gold standard.
I've heard, in many places, that Bose's noise-cancelling over-ear cans are decent though.
My car came pre-loaded with Bose speakers and, quite honestly, they're the best speakers I've heard in any car I've driven. The sound is pretty good considering that my car's stereo system is actually better than what I have at home. I've never tried their headphones though, I'm not in the market though I'll probably end up going Alclair for custom, in-ear stuff (I play drums so it's nice to have in-ear monitors).
I'm not really into car audio, but I'd imagine this is one place where Bose probably does pretty well because everyone is forced to use the same tiny boxes.
+1 for the MIE2, the best sound quality / confort compromise I found (given my particuliar criterions, I don't like plugs for example).
Little disapointment: the new in hear truesound ones do not sound as good as the MIE2 (personally bought them in hope to replace my aging MIE2 pair). I recommend buying the old ones on ebay if you're looking for that kind of product.
>Bose simply doesn't target audiophiles. They don't make audiophile products.
That would paint the the audiophiles as ignorant.
> Bose has somehow managed their image so that people think Bose really can cram audiophile-grade performance into precisely the kind of tiny, plastic boxes no other audio company can get halfway decent sound out of.
I don't think anyone who buys Bose products even knows what audiophile-grade means, let alone expect it. People try them on, stuff sounds good, and they buy them. The average person does not have any interest in learning the intricacies of what makes stuff sound good.
>Bose fails as hard as anyone else at that, but somehow people believe they've succeeded and line up to buy their products.
Maybe people believe it because Bose headphones actually sound better to THEM? Yes, sure maybe SOME people get swayed by the marketing (like any other product in the world), but I don't think a large segment of the population will spend hundreds of dollars unless they can get some tangible benefit. Sure, maybe its sad that they spent all their hard earned money on something that they could have gotten for a fraction of the price from some other vendor - but this applies to TONS of products out there.
And interestingly enough, even the so called audiophile-grade manufacturers are not really going to tell you, for e.g. that you're better off upgrading your source (the most important link in that chain), than your gear. All of the several thousand dollar headphones and amps and dacs, IMHO, are also one step removed from snake-oil. It reminds me of all the wine drinkers who buy all these expensive wines, and going off of memory, they have them do a double-blind trial and they pick out the cheap wines as tasting just as good.
(FWIW I don't own any Bose products, but I have invested/wasted about $5000 in audio gear over the years :))
It's funny, but I'd offer just the opposite advice these days. Most people don't spend enough on their speakers, both in terms of cost and in terms of devoting the space and time to set them up properly.
The amount of money you should spend on your source as compared to the rest of your gear has just kept going steadily downwards. Back in the vinyl days you really had to spend a mint to get a good record player, and it didn't hurt to keep buying copies of records that got a lot of play. Spending even more would net you concrete reductions in noise, less wear on your records, etc.. These days S/PDIF out from an the on-board audio chipset of a motherboard and a decent receiver/pre-amp or DAC are overkill for 99.9% of the sound systems out there. High end CD transports are pure snake-oil.
Ah, I meant upgrading source as in making sure you have a high quality mp3/flac/etc to begin with. I was assuming that most people are not listening directly from CD and a significant amount of audio files out there are still of crappy quality.
Do a blind ABX test of files made using popular compression settings vs FLAC or other lossless files. You may be surprised at how good low bitrates can be these days. Obviously, if you care you're going to insist on lossless, but mastering problems (e.g. the loudness wars) are a much bigger culprit of poor audio quality these days.
I've owned and worn out dozens of different pairs of headphones and my Bose QC25 noise cancelling phones are hands-down one of my favorite consumer products ever.
But I agree with you about the audiophiles. I would never buy Bose speakers for anything other than a desktop PC.
For decades Dr. Bose held an aggressive "not invented here" bias, which they are now finally moving on from. It's great to see Bose becoming active in the startup scene in Boston, including a sponsorship of the MassChallenge accelerator. Say what you will about the marketing hype or sound quality, it is an extremely well run diversified business that goes way beyond headphones.
I am really not a fan of these kind of companies - Beats, Bose who claim to provide the best sound experience with their mumbo jumbo patented technology, sell earphones at an astonishingly high price which do not even sound good. I search for good earphones/speaker in head-fi - it's a good source of earphone reviews.
I bought MEElectronics A151[0] (1st gen) in 2012, they were at half the price of Bose earphones, and to me, sounds so much better than them. I treat them so badly - throwing them anywhere after coming back home, still going strong.
I think one should not make any compromises with earphone and eyeglasses. It was a significant purchase as I was a student then and I feel it was worth it.
I met an engineer that worked at Bose. They had some quirky rules like "no eating in the office" not because of mess, but to get you out of your office at least once every few hours.
77 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 62.7 ms ] threadThe video you linked to is a repair video, but your comment implies that a new set taken off the shelf don't work unless you install paper, two different things entirely.
I haven't yet had an issue with the QC25s except that they do seem to cause noise fatigue a lot quicker than non-noise cancelling headphones. I cannot explain that; just my experience. But the noise cancelling is very good.
I was one of the group which said Bose are overpriced but my work has open office layout and it gets really loud. Manager agreed to expense the noise canceling headphone and I must say QC25 are great noise canceling/dampening and VERY comfortable and light. Earlier I could not keep headphones on for longer hours but I have no issues with QC. Also they work great on the planes.
I have Superlux hd668b - I think they were like $40 USD, and they sound definitely better than QC25. But... they are not noise cancelling, they look derp and press on my ears. Actually majority of quality headphones appear to have awful designs with curled cables and thick bands that makes people look at you.
Yes it is. It is also an example of journalism where the writer gets paid by the word, hence the tedium of the 'vignette'.
In the UK we don't have 'paid by the word' in quite the same way, so you rarely have to wade through rubbish to get to the gist of the article on a UK website. It is a U.S. phenomenon having the fluff-bloat at the start of the article, and, to be honest, it puts me off reading anything linked here from the likes of the New York Times. I just cannot stand this writing style with the extra 'vignette' or whatever padding out the article into some narrative that I cannot be bothered with.
That's a factual claim, which you should not make unless you know it to be true.
However, what is the cultural difference between US and UK journalism where UK stuff is to the point (i.e. with a summary of the story, then the story told properly) and US articles always have to have some meandering nonsense that is as tangential as possible to the story? The format makes sense for a book but is a bit silly in New York Times style articles.
The marketing team has the piece written glorifying the CEO, which in turn leads to more budget and promotions for the marketing team. The PR firm places the piece everywhere, which leads to more PR briefs. And the "reporters" are starving in a dying industry, so they'll do anything for a crust of bread and the odd review item they can keep.
---
p.s. Don't tell me that hackers can't play the same game:
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I'm looking for a budget pair of cans, I usually spend about 20 bucks because I'm both cheap and poor. I was considering the HD202's, I usually get by with HD201's but the cords short out and fray after a year or so of everyday use.
I only have two requirements: over-ear headphones with a comically oversized cord
appreciate any recommendations in advance.
They leak sound like crazy and look like they came out of a time machine from the 1980's. But they're cheap and they sound great.
I wonder if they use the same speaker/driver as the porta pros?
The great thing about headphone audio nowadays (as opposed to just 10 years ago) is there are quite a few low cost options that sound great. Unfortunately they're not well known unless you do some research.
That said, if you want top-tier audio out of something extremely portable that isolates to a degree, I cannot recommend Sennheiser's IE800 highly enough. I've spent many a kilobuck over the past 15 years and these are some of my favs. Not cheap at $800 retail (used in the $500-600 area), but totally worth it if you listen often while working. I have other IEMs that cost 2-3x as much and prefer these.
Most of time I use these in conjunction w/ Roon audio player and a Tidal sub straight out of the headphone port of my 13 rMBP - total audiophile bliss.
All of mine died really fast though! The cable is so thin and the connector tail bit so short and inflexible, that plugging them into a phone and putting the phone in a trouser pocket daily is a 6-month death sentence tops.
And it has you totally covered in your wish for an oversized cord.
I've had mine for twenty years, no issues, no frays, and I'd replace them with other Sony studio headphones if something were to happen.
The cord is a beast. I'm not worried about it failing.
My only gripe is the material they use for the padding degrades after 5 or 6 years. Its super easy to replace however. I like the coiled cord too. I think the "Pro"MDR-7507 which have the same form factor cost the same as the V-6s now.
[1] http://www.head-fi.org/t/606937/sony-mdr-v6-detachable-cable...
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-150-over-ear-headp...
It's a classic model, used a lot in the TV/studio industry too.
And here's (offbeat but interesting and knowledgable photo gear reviewer) Ken Rockwell's review:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/sony/mdr-7506.htm
AT M50x, M40x is another solid choice for around $150.
http://amzn.com/B003JOETX8
Only $35 refurbished. $42 new, Amazon Prime. I think you might have to find your own cord, depending on what you mean by comically oversized.
http://www.cnet.com/products/audio-technica-ath-m50x/
http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50x-Professional-M...
I also used to also buy new headphones (with about the same budget) every 6 to 12 months, usually with the cable breaking somewhere near the connector. I had similar buying criteria as you, but just to test a hypothesis, I spent a weekend researching what to buy and arrived at the MDR7506 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000AJIF4E for many times my usual budget. However, they've lasted for 2 years of being shoved in a bag or pocket many times a day and running to lectures, and still show no signs of wear, so they've almost paid for themselves in dollars per day even if they didn't sound better than a $20 pair which, of course, they also do. Highly recommended.
Edit: I see other comments also praising these. Yep, we're clearly a knowledgeable lot. :)
Haven't seen that before either.
Sound quality on all of them is pretty indistinguishable however on-head comfort ironically is an easy win for the 201's, the 202's are very tight, the 205's not quite as bad but still not great.
I ended up giving the 202's away to a female friend who really likes them (she has a smaller head than me).
If the cords are fraying there isn't much to replacing them, the other option is to cut the cord about a meter from the headphone and put a female connector on, then you can use arbitrary length patch's to extend the range.
One of my next projects is to drill through my desk and surface mount another female connection so I can sit down and plugin (otherwise the damn cable manages to get wrapped around the chair, the desk or usually a cup of coffee on the desk).
If I have any complaints it's that they're too big, and the cord is too long but those might be a plus for you.
Thanks for sharing it!
Bose simply doesn't target audiophiles. They don't make audiophile products. However, they've carved out a niche for themselves that makes them billions every year. That niche is basically one step removed from snake-oil. Bose has somehow managed their image so that people think Bose really can cram audiophile-grade performance into precisely the kind of tiny, plastic boxes no other audio company can get halfway decent sound out of. Bose fails as hard as anyone else at that, but somehow people believe they've succeeded and line up to buy their products. Whatever Bose is doing for advertising, it's elite. This article is probably an example of what they're doing.
Their sports in-ears are great also - I've never found any in-ear headphone that beats the MIE2 in comfort and not falling out, and the sound isn't bad either.
http://pro.ultimateears.com/ue-4-pro
I've heard, in many places, that Bose's noise-cancelling over-ear cans are decent though.
Little disapointment: the new in hear truesound ones do not sound as good as the MIE2 (personally bought them in hope to replace my aging MIE2 pair). I recommend buying the old ones on ebay if you're looking for that kind of product.
>Audiophiles rag on Bose pretty hard.
>Bose simply doesn't target audiophiles. They don't make audiophile products.
That would paint the the audiophiles as ignorant.
> Bose has somehow managed their image so that people think Bose really can cram audiophile-grade performance into precisely the kind of tiny, plastic boxes no other audio company can get halfway decent sound out of.
I don't think anyone who buys Bose products even knows what audiophile-grade means, let alone expect it. People try them on, stuff sounds good, and they buy them. The average person does not have any interest in learning the intricacies of what makes stuff sound good.
>Bose fails as hard as anyone else at that, but somehow people believe they've succeeded and line up to buy their products.
Maybe people believe it because Bose headphones actually sound better to THEM? Yes, sure maybe SOME people get swayed by the marketing (like any other product in the world), but I don't think a large segment of the population will spend hundreds of dollars unless they can get some tangible benefit. Sure, maybe its sad that they spent all their hard earned money on something that they could have gotten for a fraction of the price from some other vendor - but this applies to TONS of products out there.
And interestingly enough, even the so called audiophile-grade manufacturers are not really going to tell you, for e.g. that you're better off upgrading your source (the most important link in that chain), than your gear. All of the several thousand dollar headphones and amps and dacs, IMHO, are also one step removed from snake-oil. It reminds me of all the wine drinkers who buy all these expensive wines, and going off of memory, they have them do a double-blind trial and they pick out the cheap wines as tasting just as good.
(FWIW I don't own any Bose products, but I have invested/wasted about $5000 in audio gear over the years :))
The amount of money you should spend on your source as compared to the rest of your gear has just kept going steadily downwards. Back in the vinyl days you really had to spend a mint to get a good record player, and it didn't hurt to keep buying copies of records that got a lot of play. Spending even more would net you concrete reductions in noise, less wear on your records, etc.. These days S/PDIF out from an the on-board audio chipset of a motherboard and a decent receiver/pre-amp or DAC are overkill for 99.9% of the sound systems out there. High end CD transports are pure snake-oil.
But I agree with you about the audiophiles. I would never buy Bose speakers for anything other than a desktop PC.
Headphone guide: https://www.reddit.com/r/Zeos/comments/3ttvhy/guide_headphon...
Gaming headphone guide: https://www.reddit.com/r/Zeos/comments/3tu9gl/guide_headphon...
I wonder why they don't integrate it into ambulances. In that application cost or weight shouldn't matter as much.
I bought MEElectronics A151[0] (1st gen) in 2012, they were at half the price of Bose earphones, and to me, sounds so much better than them. I treat them so badly - throwing them anywhere after coming back home, still going strong.
http://www.meeaudio.com/a151p-balanced-armature-in-ear-headp...
I think one should not make any compromises with earphone and eyeglasses. It was a significant purchase as I was a student then and I feel it was worth it.
This became the Bose Ride seat for commercial trucks.
http://www.boseride.com/
It has a linear actuator that is run by a computer monitoring a set of accelerometers.