Criteria for choosing headphones

[WmAx]

It most definitely is audible.

I recommend you perform some blind tests on different roll-offs, simulating the degree presented. Minor roll-off differences in low frequencies are not readily noticeable to detect under normal circumstances.

This rolloff was long suspected in audible tests in early iPod models before anybody took any measurements to objectify the degree of rolloff. Not to mention that quite a few popular headphone models have 16 or 24 ohm impedance, which makes the problem more apparent.

Go back to my first reply to you, where I stated: "....remain transparent to human ears when used with loads[headphones]for which they were intended."

A 16 or 24 ohm impedance is not the intended[if it is 'intended', then it is very poor engineering so far as this parameter is concerned] load for an IPOD; the output coupling capacitor are too small, creating a small audible difference on music with low bass. A 32 ohm load is marginal, and will have little difference, which may have a subtle audible difference[if any], in quick switching comparisons. Other MP3 units typically will not have the same degree of roll-off as the IPOD; the IPOD[at least the one that I reviewed measurements of] would appear to use a smaller output coupling capacitor than many other MP3 players.

Certainly, it's your opinion that they are peddling fantasy. Not everybody shares your opinion on that. Let's leave it at that.

Yes. I suppose that perhaps 90% of head-fi.org members believe the things about amplifiers and cables that headphone.com claims. But these are things based on speculation, not verified with proper testing, nor correlated with credible perceptual studies.

In fact, this is the most rich set of objective measurements I've yet seen in any shape or form in any publication or site.

I agree. But it's not difficult for them to accomplish being 'the best', since they are the only ones of which I'm aware that are providing measurements publicly and for free. I do believe that there is a European magazine that provides measurements of headphones, but that would not be easily accessible, nor free.

But armed with a bit of knowledge, they become extremely useful. Even if the user starts with the iPod buds as a baseline reference graph, he can start to understand how the headphones sold there compare to what he has now.

The measurements provided are useful for rough relative comparisons, as was previously stated, and as you would seem to agree.

-Chris

 

[warpdrive]

I recommend you perform some blind tests on different roll-offs, simulating the degree presented. Minor roll-off differences in low frequencies are not readily noticeable to detect under normal circumstances.

I have, and I've even simulated the rolloff using EQ on my computer. It's most definitely audible.

A 16 or 24 ohm impedance is not the intended[if it is 'intended', then it is very poor engineering so far as this parameter is concerned] load for an IPOD; the output coupling capacitor are too small, creating a small audible difference on music with low bass.

Intended impedance? The MP3 player makers full know well that there are boatloads of 16 ohm earbuds sold out there. The extremely popular Sony EX71 sold as a earbud upgrade is 16 ohms.

I'd say for a 4G iPod, that you need a headphone with about 75 ohms impedance before the rolloff becomes neglible to my ears.

A 32 ohm load is marginal, and will have little difference, which may have a subtle audible difference[if any], in quick switching comparisons.

The difference is not subtle to my ears. Please refrain from speaking for everybody as you seem to like to do. This is not useful information for the poster if he is as discrimination a listener as he seems to be.

Other MP3 units typically will not have the same degree of roll-off as the IPOD; the IPOD[at least the one that I reviewed measurements of] would appear to use a smaller output coupling capacitor than many other MP3 players.

Check your facts, bass rolloff is present and audible in many players with standard buds

Yes. I suppose that perhaps 90% of head-fi.org members believe the things about amplifiers and cables that headphone.com claims. But these are things based on speculation, not verified with proper testing, nor correlated with credible perceptual studies.

Spoken like the true objectivist we all know

 

[WmAx]

I have, and I've even simulated the rolloff using EQ on my computer. It's most definitely audible.

Which specific roll-offs? Please specify the curves. Did you use proper blind testing for the evaluations(sighted testing is not accurate, of course, and will make differences, even when actually audible, typically perceived as more severe than actuality)? When such is audible, it is not known to be a large difference, as you infer. For example, -3dB at 30Hz, is marginally audible at best, with music playback. To claim such would be a large difference would be to contradict known level thresholds vs. frequency for human subjects.

Intended impedance? The MP3 player makers full know well that there are boatloads of 16 ohm earbuds sold out there. The extremely popular Sony EX71 sold as a earbud upgrade is 16 ohms.

Yet, the IPOD, for example, is not engineered/intended for 16 ohm loads.

The difference is not subtle to my ears. Please refrain from speaking for everybody as you seem to like to do. This is not useful information for the poster if he is as discrimination a listener as he seems to be.

Who even knows what you are specifically talking about, since you have not been specific. Nor do we know if you used proper testing methodology.

Check your facts, bass roll-off is present and audible in many players

Read the replies properly.

-Chris

 

[warpdrive]

Which specific roll-offs? Please specify the curves. Did you use proper blind testing for the evaluations(sighted testing is not accurate, of course, and will make differences, even when actually audible, typically perceived as more severe than actuality)? When such is audible, it is not known to be a large difference, as you infer. For example, -3dB at 30Hz, is marginally audible at best, with music playback. To claim such would be a large difference would be to contradict known level thresholds vs. frequency for human subjects.

Again, you are trying to tell me what *I* hear

I didn't even have to subject myself to a battery of tests to realize large audible differences, but if you really are that interested, you can pay me for my time to do so including a third party to conduct the tests.

The curves are widely available, just look.

 

[Buckle-meister]

The graphs are provided as a resource...Even if the user starts with the iPod buds as a baseline reference graph, he can start to understand how the headphones sold there compare to what he has now.

Yes, I can easily see that being quite useful. Thanks for pointing it out.

A 16 or 24 ohm impedance is not...intended...

Soooo, differences of opinion aside, I gather that I should be looking at a set of phones/buds with an impedance of around 30ohms or more. Is this correct? In addition, am I right to pursue separate phones/buds instead of just using the buds that come with the iPod? Are the latter any good (to help put things in perspective, I'd probably be willing to spend up to around $100 for separate phones/buds)?

Also, does it necessarily follow that headphones, due to being larger than ear buds, with a coresspondingly larger driver, will provide better sound? I'm not talking about 'cans' that completely enclose the ear here, just regular headphones that sit against the side of the ear. Will the fact that they're bigger necessarily mean that they'll draw more from the battery, or is that simply to do with the impedance?

Thanks again for everyones input thus far.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Well, I've just taken a look at headphone.com. Seems like a well laid out and informative site to me, though I will of course try to watch out for flowery wording etc.

I should note that I already have a pair of Sennheiser HD-25s, but wouldn't consider using these as headphones for a portable stereo, simply from the bulkyness-look factor. The Sennheiser PX-100s look like they'd be spot on in terms of looks, price and lastly but certainly not least, performance were I to go for phones rather than buds. Any thoughts on these?

I'll look at buds later today (at work at present).

By the way, what's the difference between open and closed back headphones?

 

[warpdrive]

Ah back to specific questions.

It's somewhat unlikely 300 ohm headphones would be a good match as most of these headphones with high impedance tend to be insensitive. I'd stick with lower impedance headphones in the 32-75 ohm range if possible, ones that are marketed as portable headphones.

Certainly you can use 16 or even 24 ohm headphones but just be aware there will be more severe dropoff on the player. As much as -6dB at 30Hz according to some measurements which can be especially noticeable if you are playing bass intensive music.

The PX100 is a pretty good headphone, I liked it when I had one. It's supremely comfy, and has a nice punch through the midbass, it's got a somewhat warm/thick sound signature, the highs are polite and a bit recessed. I highly recommend it.

An open back phone is exactly that, the headphone driver is in an open enclosure so, the headphone leaks sound in both directions, out to your ears and very much to the outside. You will also hear everything from the outside, there is little to no isolation from the noise.

As far as earbuds, there are MANY good upgrade models. I'd recommend looking at the Sennheiser CX300, the Panasonic HJE070, and the Audio Technica CK7 earbuds in order from worse to better. For IEM's, the Etymotic ER6i, Shure E4C and Superfi Pro 5 are good contenders in their respective price range (even though some of those are low impedance).

 

[jonnythan]

Oh, BTW, 2GB of storage will hold about 189 minutes of music in uncompressed .wav format. That's about 35-40 songs.

 

[Buckle-meister]

An open back phone is exactly that, the headphone driver is in an open enclosure so, the headphone leaks sound in both directions, out to your ears and very much to the outside. You will also hear everything from the outside, there is little to no isolation from the noise.

But apart from that there's no other difference? One doesn't offer any better sound quality that the other? If so, why aren't all headphones made closed-back?

Oh, BTW, 2GB of storage will hold about 189 minutes of music in uncompressed .wav format. That's about 35-40 songs.

Ok already!

 

[warpdrive]

But apart from that there's no other difference? One doesn't offer any better sound quality that the other? If so, why aren't all headphones made closed-back?

In general, many of the top of the line models from companies like AKG, Beyer, Sennheiser are open back or semi-open. But there are also high end closed back headphones from companies like Audio Technica, Sony.

There is no generalization one can make about which is better.

The end effect to the user is that one blocks outside sound and one doesn't. If sound leakage is an issue, choose a closed back.

I find open back phones less picky about fit than some closed ones, so YMMV.

 

[Buckle-meister]

There is no generalization one can make about which is better.

Ok. Thank you.

I find open back phones less picky about fit than some closed ones, so YMMV.

YMMV?

 

[warpdrive]

YMMV?

Your mileage may vary. Because I have a big head, a couple of closed back ones I've had sounded badly because I couldn't position them right and the bass was too boomy as it hugged my ears too tightly. If you have a small head, or small ears, some may not seal against your ears properly to achieve full closed-ness.

 

[balearophon]

Keeping it real

Here's a common sense criteria of my own:
1. Comfort.
2. Sensitivity (How well does it pick up sounds)
3. Range (most all of the better headphones are efficient and have the range)
4. Clarity.
5. Expense
6. Practicality.
It does no good to buy a better headphone than you need. There are some really nice ones off the rack a retail discount stores. But check them out first with reviews, then, if the store has a demonstrator, best to try it. I don't think you will have to go over $100.
Questions one might ask are:
Is my listening audience the type that has the ears of a dog, or ears of a mush head? (Korn isn't exactly recording for the audience of the New York Philharmonic and probably do go to overly loud, overly modulated, "feel the crease" rock concerts. They have no accuity at all and will most likely end up with the hearing of Peter Townsend.)
Will they listen to your words or your sonic output? (If its words they want, they need accuity to define the words from the music. Visa versa.)
Are you overestimating the hearing sensitivity and the subtle emotion of your audience?
I say, don't cast your pearls of talent, presentation, performance, message and pure musicianship before the swine who are only there for the "buzz" and the "shock".
Be sensible. Don't waste money on exotics. And don't be charmed by the "snake oil" salesmen. You are there for you, not them.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Your mileage may vary.

Ah. Thanks.

If you have a small head, or small ears...

Don't take this the wrong way, but I simply refuse to discuss the size of my head and ears.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Be sensible. Don't waste money on exotics. And don't be charmed by the "snake oil" salesmen. You are there for you, not them.

That's, um, pretty deep Balearophon.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[balearophon]

Keeping it real

Here's a common sense criteria of my own:
1. Comfort.
2. Sensitivity (How well does it pick up sounds)
3. Range (most all of the better headphones are efficient and have the range)
4. Clarity.
5. Expense
6. Practicality.
It does no good to buy a better headphone than you need. There are some really nice ones off the rack a retail discount stores. But check them out first with reviews, then, if the store has a demonstrator, best to try it. I don't think you will have to go over $100.
Questions one might ask are:
Is my listening audience the type that has the ears of a dog, or ears of a mush head? (Korn isn't exactly recording for the audience of the New York Philharmonic and probably do go to overly loud, overly modulated, "feel the crease" rock concerts. They have no accuity at all and will most likely end up with the hearing of Peter Townsend.)
Will they listen to your words or your sonic output? (If its words they want, they need accuity to define the words from the music. Visa versa.)
Are you overestimating the hearing sensitivity and the subtle emotion of your audience?
I say, don't cast your pearls of talent, presentation, performance, message and pure musicianship before the swine who are only there for the "buzz" and the "shock".
Be sensible. Don't waste money on exotics. And don't be charmed by the "snake oil" salesmen. You are there for you, not them.

 

[WmAx]

I gather that I should be looking at a set of phones/buds with an impedance of around 30ohms or more. Is this correct? In addition, am I right to pursue separate phones/buds instead of just using the buds that come with the iPod? Are the latter any good (to help put things in perspective, I'd probably be willing to spend up to around $100 for separate phones/buds)?

Included earphones are not usually of good sound quality. I recommend an aftermarket solution. And yes, >30 ohms is a generally good idea; the circuitry in such devices does not usually accommodate lower impedance without some audible consequence.

Also, does it necessarily follow that headphones, due to being larger than ear buds, with a correspondingly larger driver, will provide better sound? I'm not talking about 'cans' that completely enclose the ear here, just regular headphones that sit against the side of the ear. Will the fact that they're bigger necessarily mean that they'll draw more from the battery, or is that simply to do with the impedance?

Size is not relevant to sound quality. However, certain physical rules will apply to certain typical sound characteristics. For example, an in-ear earphone will have a more focused, 'in head' effect than a headphone that has the transducer located off of the ears. This is due to the effect of the ear shape, which naturally produces certain frequency filtering, that the brain associates with spatial perception. The in-ear phone will not have any chance to have this filtering effect applied, unless it is done electronically[which would require custom measurements of your particular ears, in order to determine the appropriate filters]. Size is not always correlated with energy consumption. An example is the Sony MDR-CD3000. A very large headphone with 50MM drivers. Yet, it is more sensitive than most much smaller headphones. You should use the actual sensitivity specification in combination with the impedance measurement to determine relative loudness. For an example: 100 ohms @ 100dB/mW would have the same loudness as 200 ohms @ 106dB/mW and this would have the same loudness as 50 ohms @ 94dB/mW. Here, we have to pay attention to impedance, because as you half impedance, voltage is doubled(+6dB), or when you double impedance, voltage is halved(-6dB), to the load. You have consider both impedance and sensitivity.

-Chris

 

[STRONGBADF1]

Hi Robbie,

You create some of the more interesting audio related theads, thank you. Where will you be using the ipod?

-Doug

Your mileage may vary. Because I have a big head, a couple of closed back ones I've had sounded badly because I couldn't position them right and the bass was too boomy as it hugged my ears too tightly. If you have a small head, or small ears, some may not seal against your ears properly to achieve full closed-ness.

Hi warpdrive,

On the big head thing...I haven't had a problem with leakage with my senn. hd280 pro's and my head is of the larger variaty. I can't measure it at the moment I'm at work and I don't want to hear any comments from my workers! That being said the they are ok SQ wise but thats alright because I use them for isolation from my drums when I practice...um get my agrivation out. Point is that they fit my head very well.

SBF1

 

[WmAx]

Well, I've just taken a look at headphone.com. Seems like a well laid out and informative site to me, though I will of course try to watch out for flowery wording etc.

The problem is the insertion of speculative opinion in place of fact, in select articles. This is most apparent in reference to things concerning headphone amplifiers and cables.

By the way, what's the difference between open and closed back headphones?

There is no inherent technical reason[that can not be easily overcome] for one to be better than the other, so far as sound quality. However, as a matter of choice, most 'hi-end' headphones are using an open design, therefor the popular opinion may be that open headphones are better.

-Chris

 

[Buckle-meister]

Where will you be using the ipod?

Hmm. A proper answer would be pretty long winded therefore suffice it to say that I'd be using the iPod on bus journeys of approximately 3.5hr duration (either direction).