Q: Frequency Response

O

only1brian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
221
Im in need of a pair of headphones.

Im looking at a few pairs so far, but i question, what should i look for frequency response for PC gaming?

One pair Im looking at shows:
Frequency range: 100 – 18,000 Hz
The other pair shows: 16Hz-28KHz
 
Advertised freq. ranges are like advertised dB ratings for case fans.

But in general, the wider the range the better. I would NOT get the 100Hz-18,000Hz. What are those, iPod earplugs?
 
^Hahaha, yeah really.

Check out the big thread on the JVC HA-RX700/900.

Great headphones for a low price.
 
Frequency response is meaningless unless the attenuation at the extremes is indicated. In other words, 16 Hz-28 kHz, -3dB to -4dB.

Unless it's indicated, you don't know if 16 Hz is reproduced at -3dB or -112dB. That's a big deal.
 
You dont want a 100Hz minimum F. response.
You can get crap headphones with that, but why go looking for them?!

only1brian said:
Then, would there be a noticable difference in:

20Hz-20KHz vs 16Hz-28KHz
Click to expand...

Depends how good the headphones are.
 
What's the budget?

I just got some Audio Technica ATH-M50s cans for studio work. They sound so good that I'll be using them for pleasure as well. Granted, I'm coming from Sennheiser HD212 Pros, which are great cans, but they're quite paltry in comparison. They're $110 shipped on eBay. I used 25% Cashback with 'em as well.

So far I'm very pleased with the frequency response. The low-end is noticeably lower than the HD212s.
 
Budget.. would be best if it was $80, but definitely nothing higher than $150. Kind of flexible with the budget since sound is ... ummmm... uber important. :)
 
^ Should go with some good home headphones, and a zalman clip on mic if you need one.
 
Like phide said above, it matters at what db that range occurs. Most companies will report the absolute maximum range they can get by cranking up the volume. Good companies will list what you get at listening volumes.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the 16Hz-28KHz headphones are the former. Most people will have trouble hearing anything about ~18-20KHz anyways. You might be able to hear that 16Hz tone if you boost the volume, but everything that is in the driver's real range with be beyond deafening.
 
How low of a Hz should i be looking for? And then anything high as 16KHz, right?

(Learning .. sry)

Lower the ohms the better, but how about db, drivers?
 
Frequency response claims are generally crap. Ideally they should give you the 3dB point, mitigated by any uneven response issues.

You're not going to hear much over 16kHz. Your dog might.

Lower impedance != better, just different. It tends to be better for portables, sound cards, weak amps. Low impedance / low efficiency is a different story (e.g. K701) and requires a high current amplifier. High impedance tends to mean that an amp helps more, possibly is needed strongly, and often that the noise floor is lower (any statistical variation in voltage will be a correspondingly much smaller percentage of the total signal thanks to the high load).
 
So, im looking at 2 headphones of my liking:
both will cost me under $50 - input please

1. $10less, mic, comes with dobly usb dongle
Speaker driver size (diameter) 40mm
Speaker frequency response (Hz-kHz) 20-20
Speaker impedance 32 Ohms

2. $10 more, -no mic, +looks more comfortable (I already have 5.1 sound card)
Driver Diameter 50mm
Magnet type NdFeB
Frequency Range 20Hz-20KHz
Impedance 64 ohms
 
You'd probably be better off not paying attention to specs and rather look at headphones that are popular or people recommend.

For the price range you gave there are many 'good' headphones and you're not going to be able to pick out the best pair for you based on manufacturer's specs.

And really there are many good sounding headphones and sometimes the better pair is decided on something else. Back when I played FPS for hours on end all I remember about my headphones were they were super hot and my ears would be in pain after a number of hours. I think my first upgrade was HD580s and I thought they were awesome because they didn't touch my ears at all and I could wear them for hours without being in pain.
 
I hear you on that...ive been through 2 pairs of razer barracuda headphones because of their comfort.
But before then i had some Skullcandy's and now some cheap HP.. and the sound coming from all 3 sets, are way different. The skullcandy's i felt i heard much more unique range of sounds, but not much low tones, then these cheap HPs.. they hurt like crazy after 10mins, and everything sounds bassy.. with no direction.

So this time around i figured i would go by the specs and see what I could find.
 
The sad part is that Razers and Skullcandys are both fairly crap.

What are we talking, $50ish phones for gaming? Do you need a mic? (If so --> Zalman clip on, ~$10)
 
only1brian said:
How low of a Hz should i be looking for? And then anything high as 16KHz, right?
Click to expand...
I don't think I stressed how meaningless frequency response figures are without certain qualifiers. Let me just stress this again: as a metric, frequency response is meaningless unless the attenuation at the extremes is indicated. Meaningless.

So, if you view the following specifications:
A) 20 Hz-20 kHz
B) 20 Hz-20 kHz +-1dB
C) 20 Hz-20 kHz, -1 dB to -1 dB

A is meaningless. Only the B and C are meaningful. If you're looking at a set of cans that advertises frequency response using the A format, erase it from your mind completely. It's meaningless!
 
You guys are all wicked smrt, LOLZ.. So anyone have a 20Hz-20KHz headphone that is better than a 16Hz-28KHz headphone yet?

You certainly have a point if your comparing 35KHz to a 40KHz rated phone.. but on 20KHz spec. can?
 
43st said:
You guys are all wicked smrt, LOLZ.. So anyone have a 20Hz-20KHz headphone that is better than a 16Hz-28KHz headphone yet?

You certainly have a point if your comparing 35KHz to a 40KHz rated phone.. but on 20KHz spec. can?
Click to expand...

I love it when people don't pay attention to the thread at all...:D
 
ashmedai said:
I love it when people don't pay attention to the thread at all...:D
Click to expand...

Um.. Do you have anything relevant to post? Someone said it was meaningless (in this very thread, shocking!). You'll probably respond with something about Bose, since they don't publish freq. numbers. Well you got me there, we all know they're the best. ;)
 
43st said:
Um.. Do you have anything relevant to post?
Click to expand...

No, probably not...oh wait.

Also, I'm getting the idea that you're just trolling.


GJSNeptune said:
Advertised freq. ranges are like advertised dB ratings for case fans.
Click to expand...
Adreneline said:
^Hahaha, yeah really.
Click to expand...
phide said:
Frequency response is meaningless unless the attenuation at the extremes is indicated. In other words, 16 Hz-28 kHz, -3dB to -4dB.

Unless it's indicated, you don't know if 16 Hz is reproduced at -3dB or -112dB. That's a big deal.
Click to expand...
Daishiknyte said:
Like phide said above, it matters at what db that range occurs. Most companies will report the absolute maximum range they can get by cranking up the volume. Good companies will list what you get at listening volumes.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the 16Hz-28KHz headphones are the former. Most people will have trouble hearing anything about ~18-20KHz anyways. You might be able to hear that 16Hz tone if you boost the volume, but everything that is in the driver's real range with be beyond deafening.
Click to expand...
ashmedai said:
graphs by a trusted third party or shens
Click to expand...
ashmedai said:
Frequency response claims are generally crap. Ideally they should give you the 3dB point, mitigated by any uneven response issues.

You're not going to hear much over 16kHz. Your dog might.
Click to expand...
bexamous said:
You'd probably be better off not paying attention to specs and rather look at headphones that are popular or people recommend.
Click to expand...
phide said:
I don't think I stressed how meaningless frequency response figures are without certain qualifiers. Let me just stress this again: as a metric, frequency response is meaningless unless the attenuation at the extremes is indicated. Meaningless.

So, if you view the following specifications:
A) 20 Hz-20 kHz
B) 20 Hz-20 kHz +-1dB
C) 20 Hz-20 kHz, -1 dB to -1 dB

A is meaningless. Only the B and C are meaningful. If you're looking at a set of cans that advertises frequency response using the A format, erase it from your mind completely. It's meaningless!
Click to expand...
ashmedai said:
Bingo. Give me 3dB corner points or GTFO. :D
Click to expand...
ashmedai said:
I love it when people don't pay attention to the thread at all...:D
Click to expand...
 
phide said:
What would be the point? I really don't understand why you're asking this, frankly.
Click to expand...

Ok phide, thanks for the non-snide reply. I ask the question based on wanting to know more about this, and the thread seemed to turn into an in-joke or something.

So let us say we have two advertised headphones, one that advertises 20Hz - 20KHz and a second one that advertises 16Hz - 28KHz. It can probably be assumed that these were tested at there optimum levels, which may be completely unrealistic volume levels for normal listening, who knows. Is there a known case of this in the wild, that basically shows a higher rated headphone totally being outclassed by a lessor, more honest, headphone? I know there are some highly rated IEM's with lessor specs in frequency response, but I didn't know if this applied to regular headphones and to what extent.

The theory, as I understand it, is that the greater the freq. range the flatter the curve is the range of hearing, assuming a comfortable listening level. Does this make sense or am I talking out my butt. and if so just correct me.
 
Last time: those advertised ratings are almost universally meaningless.

You're asking questions predicated on the idea that something without meaning, has meaning - after it has been pointed out many times.
 
43st said:
Is there a known case of this in the wild, that basically shows a higher rated headphone totally being outclassed by a lessor, more honest, headphone?
Click to expand...
None that I know of, but I'm not that knowledgeable about such things. I own a $350 pair of headphones, but I have absolutely no idea what the advertised frequency response of them is. That sort of metric really doesn't matter to me, and generally shouldn't matter to anyone else in the market for headphones. Odds are the manufacturer (Sennheiser) didn't even pay much attention to accurately testing them because they know the market doesn't (and shouldn't) really care.

43st said:
The theory, as I understand it, is that the greater the freq. range the flatter the curve is the range of hearing, assuming a comfortable listening level.
Click to expand...
That's somewhat correct. If you see something like this:
20 Hz-20 kHz +-3 dB
Click to expand...
All you can discern is that the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz is between -3 dB and +3 dB. You couldn't discern whether 440 Hz, for example, is +3 dB or -3 dB, and that's a pretty major issue in terms of the knowing. That being said though, you might prefer pair of cans that's up 3 dB at 440 Hz as opposed to cans that are right on the money at 440 Hz. That boils down to personal taste.

Flat frequency response isn't necessarily an ideal. It may be for certain things, and for certain people, but not for others. You can use a frequency response graph to get a general mental image of the general sound, but can one pair that's less flat "sound better" than a pair that's dead-on-balls flat? Sure. Maybe you like those 3 dB up at 440 Hz cans more than a pair that's three times as expensive and flat at 440 Hz...who knows.

ashmedai said:
You're asking questions predicated on the idea that something without meaning, has meaning - after it has been pointed out many times.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top