Are you using them with a music player or a computer? I don't know much about headphones in general, but I've been through a few pair of conventional and USB headsets, and after using some relatively inexpensive on-the-ear Plantronics and Sennheiser models I've been surprisingly satisfied with my even-less-expensive over-the-ear Microsoft USB LifeChat LX-3000.A computer. They're far too heavy to be used with a portable player, which can't even take advantage of 6.1 sound. Not to mention they need a special amplifier/converter unit to be plugged into a computer (the "default" plug is not a jack, but rather a special plug in an older standard). And I don't have a record player (unfortunately).
Brand isn't really always the best indicator of sound quality. Though in general, SkullCandy are awful, and that by the company's design direction and target audience simply being contrary to quality sound - and Beats would be alright headphones, if they sold the Solos for about $35, and the standard model for $80. At their current price though, they are outclassed by heaps of heaphones in their respective price classes.
I loved my pair of Panasonic RP-HTX7's, until they wore out (Edit: after 3 years of heavy abuse), and they run about $50 if you can find them. Not an analytical/flat sounding set by any stretch, very dynamic and playful. Though if you're a fan of a flat-response set of headphones, these won't be for you. Also a great example of why brand isn't the best indicator of quality - most of Panasonic's sets that I've used, except these, were bass-heavy and muddy sounding.
Other than that, I've not spent enough or really any time with Grado or AKG sets to make any comment beyond having heard good things. Sennheisers please some people (and I would imagine their higher end product is better), but not me personally - most of the set's I've used lacked almost any sense of dynamic sound.
Audio compression (data) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data)), a type of lossy compression in which the amount of data in a recorded waveform is reduced for transmission with some loss of quality, used in CD and MP3 encoding, Internet radio, and the like
Dynamic range compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression), also called audio level compression, in which the dynamic range, the difference between loud and quiet, of an audio waveform is reduced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compressionQuoteAudio compression (data) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data)), a type of lossy compression in which the amount of data in a recorded waveform is reduced for transmission with some loss of quality, used in CD and MP3 encoding, Internet radio, and the like
Dynamic range compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression), also called audio level compression, in which the dynamic range, the difference between loud and quiet, of an audio waveform is reduced
...Although I'm disappointed that apparently Monkey's audio and FLAc don't count as Audio data compression... :rolleyes:
A number of lossless audio compression formats exist. Shorten was an early lossless format. Newer ones include Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC), Apple's Apple Lossless, MPEG-4 ALS, Microsoft's Windows Media Audio 9 Lossless (WMA Lossless), Monkey's Audio, and TTA. See list of lossless codecs for a complete list.