Oakley THUMP Review - Best Christmas Gift this Season

[Audioholics]

<P><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/OakleyTHUMPMP3sunglasses.php"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><IMG style="WIDTH: 82px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[oakleythumpphoto1] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/oakleythumpphoto1_th.jpg" align=left border=0></FONT></A><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>If you haven't yet seen the Oakley THUMP - <EM>run</EM> to Circuit City and try a pair on. This is by far the coolest product I have reviewed yet this year and it's certain to be the #1 electronics&nbsp;gift (if they don't run out of inventory.) Oakley has basically taken a 256MB solid state&nbsp;MP3 player and integrated it into a pair of their premium sunglasses, making what they refer to as "the world's first digital audio eyewear." The THUMP has a 6-hour li-ion battery which charges via an included USB 2.0 cable. The entire player only weighs 1.9 ounces, so it feels and looks like a comfortable pair of Oakley sunglasses. Add to that decent sound and fully adjustable telescoping swing-arms for the speakers, and you've got a winning combination that will literally <EM>leap</EM> off of retail shelves. The only negative&nbsp;thing we can say about the THUMP is that at $495 ($395 for the 128MB version) it may be cost prohibitive for many. We're hoping to see that price drop as future models are added with greater storage space and perhaps additional features.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Read the Review]</FONT></P>

 

[WmAx]

Don't get to upset at me, but while the innovative idea is nice, when I tried this product I could not get over the exceptinally low quality construction(especially considering the price). The first thoughts into my mind were that it seemed as if the product was built by Hasbro or Playskool. Low quality plastic molded product; that's all it is -- and I'm a guy that buys generic sunglasses at Wal-Mart(which btw are on orders of a magnitude better build quality then these Thumps). But I do understand that they are probably just using the same retail price structure that is used on normal brand-name sunglasses: disproportionate market value based only on the marketing, not the product itself.

:-(

-Chris

<P><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/OakleyTHUMPMP3sunglasses.php"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><IMG style="WIDTH: 82px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[oakleythumpphoto1] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/oakleythumpphoto1_th.jpg" align=left border=0></FONT></A><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>If you haven't yet seen the Oakley THUMP - <EM>run</EM> to Circuit City and try a pair on. This is by far the coolest product I have reviewed yet this year and it's certain to be the #1 electronics&nbsp;gift (if they don't run out of inventory.) Oakley has basically taken a 256MB solid state&nbsp;MP3 player and integrated it into a pair of their premium sunglasses, making what they refer to as "the world's first digital audio eyewear." The THUMP has a 6-hour li-ion battery which charges via an included USB 2.0 cable. The entire player only weighs 1.9 ounces, so it feels and looks like a comfortable pair of Oakley sunglasses. Add to that decent sound and fully adjustable telescoping swing-arms for the speakers, and you've got a winning combination that will literally <EM>leap</EM> off of retail shelves. The only negative&nbsp;thing we can say about the THUMP is that at $495 ($395 for the 128MB version) it may be cost prohibitive for many. We're hoping to see that price drop as future models are added with greater storage space and perhaps additional features.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Read the Review]</FONT></P>

 

[Audioholics]

I won't argue with your opinion, of course, but maybe take another closer look. These are the same O Matter frames used in their other sunglasses. Lightweight and fairly durable by my testing. Here's (albeit so much marketing) some info: http://www.oakley.com/catalog/eyewear/omatter/

Those Walmart glasses (I buy them too) are much heavier per volume (which I believe you're confusing with being better built) and stiffer.

I'd say rail against the pricing all you want (they sure are expensive), but up close the construction (lenses and body) is actually lightyears ahead of what I see in the $7.99-$19.99 camp at Wal-Mart.

That's my take on them after spending abut a month with the THUMP.

 

[WmAx]

I won't argue with your opinion, of course, but maybe take another closer look. These are the same O Matter frames used in their other sunglasses. Lightweight and fairly durable by my testing. Here's (albeit so much marketing) some info: http://www.oakley.com/catalog/eyewear/omatter/

One could make essentially anything out of a plastic and claim it's due to durability reasons. Certainly, plastics have certain advantages especially in energy absorption/dispersion without damage(I am excluding exotic memory metal alloys from this since their cost is still high) as compared to traditional alloy metals. However, I don't find the plastic and simply cheap looking construction to be impressive regardless of what durability claims/reasons the manufacturer states. This is not a utility or component built expressly for shock absorbtion. I did examine the thump closely. A black magnesirum shell for the main sections would have been much more impressive and at least made it seem that the pricetag matched the product.

Those Walmart glasses (I buy them too) are much heavier per volume (which I believe you're confusing with being better built) and stiffer.

One pair that I bought was made from a nice alloy and had double jointed springs to prevent damage from excess force applied to the joints. the joints on the nose suport and sides were impressive. The consctruction quality was impressive in appearance. If Wal-Mart can market such a product and sell it for $15-$20, why can't Oakley at least match this appearance of quality for the hundreds of dollars they charge? Maybe the cheap plastic look is the style today? It's certainly common.

-Chris