or should i just pay less and still get the pc150s. my order is on hold anyway. so i have a choice still. im not big on classical music like these headphones are geared toward, but i want crisp sound fx, satisfying gunshots and explosions, and hearing peoples footsteps from 12 miles away. would a pc150 accomplish this as well as the hd570s for gaming?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
sennheiser hd570 good for gaming?
- Thread starter doh-nut
- Start date
Lethal
ViragoAdmin Emeritus
- Joined
- May 27, 2000
- Messages
- 28,704
doh-nut, please check your private messages.
I think you'd be better off with the Sony cd-580, Sony V6, Grado sr-60, Senn hd 497, or Senn hd 280. The hd 570's don't really have that good of a rep. Inefficient and shrill and boomy at the same time. Any of those phones would be better than the hd 570 or the pc 150, and cost less than the 570.
its not a real talked-about headphone, but i use the sennheiser eh-2200. personally i think they're great for games, if not so much for music and movies. the headphones are light, both in physical weight and bass production, which is why they're not so good for the music.
however they make great headphones for gaming because they're comfortable, very lightweight, and produce very clear highs and mids which are important for gaming.
however they make great headphones for gaming because they're comfortable, very lightweight, and produce very clear highs and mids which are important for gaming.
If you have a dedicated headphone amp, the Beyerdynamic DT 770 definitely fits the bill of one of the best, if not the best gaming headphone. They produce a lot of bass. Mids and highs are good too. They will definitely bring out your "explosions." 3d positioning is awesome as well.
I run mine of a PPA built by X86dude. Source is an Audigy 2 ZS with upgraded opamps to ADA8610s.
I run mine of a PPA built by X86dude. Source is an Audigy 2 ZS with upgraded opamps to ADA8610s.
Don't know what you are asking by that last question....
As for the op amps: Op amps are the actual amps that do the amplification. There are two op amps that people generally prefer, the Burr Brown 627/637 and the AD8610/8620s. The purist in audio will opt for the AD8610/20s. That is not to say that Burr Brown is bad. On the contrary, my HT receiver uses Burr Browns. Anyways, PM X86dude for more info. There's a bunch of stuff I'm leaving out. On the sound cards, the stock op amps suck...that is why mine were replaced. BTW, the same op amps could be used in the dedicated headphone amp. I have a combination of AD 8610s and 8620s in my amp and Audigy 2 ZS.
EDIT: If you don't want/have a dedicated headphone amp, I suggest the Ultrasone HFI 550 Beatmasters...their bass I understand rivals that of the Beyerdynamic DT 770. Ultrasone is a relatively new company based in Germany, just like Beyerdynamic.
Have a look see here: http://www.ultrasone.de/html_e/produkte/hfi550beat.html
thanks for the info.
hehe, by that last question i meant, is it a huge difference between the sound quality with the new opamps on your soundcard as opposed to the ones that came with your soundcard, and do you think its worth it? i have a sound blaster live value card.
i put in the names of the suggested opamps in google, and it gives me nothing back. hmm
hehe, by that last question i meant, is it a huge difference between the sound quality with the new opamps on your soundcard as opposed to the ones that came with your soundcard, and do you think its worth it? i have a sound blaster live value card.
i put in the names of the suggested opamps in google, and it gives me nothing back. hmm
It is a huge difference...but not for a regular Sound Blaster Live.
Basically you have to understand this main principle. Your sound quality will depend mainly on the source...which would be the sound card. Sure you can have a nice, expensive headphone amp, but the best amps are the ones that provide the least amount of distortion while maintaining the natural sound(what the original recording was meant to sound like). An amp does not improve the sound. The sound depends on the source. When you talk about SQ, you start to talk about the different media, such as mp3s, CDs, SACDs, DVD audio, etc. Also to note, if you get a nice pair of headphones, they will bring out a lot of the flaws that went into the media. That is why the really crazy nutballs will opt for DVD audio or SACD.
The biggest improvement will be a new sound card. After that you will get another major improvement by replacing the op amps. Gaming inclined = Audigy 2 ZS. Music/DVD inclined = 96/24 or M Audio 7.1.
I am a mixture of gaming and music, but since I got my headphone set up I've done a lot more listening than gaming. Having said that, the Audigy 2 ZS rocks for music IMO.
Basically you have to understand this main principle. Your sound quality will depend mainly on the source...which would be the sound card. Sure you can have a nice, expensive headphone amp, but the best amps are the ones that provide the least amount of distortion while maintaining the natural sound(what the original recording was meant to sound like). An amp does not improve the sound. The sound depends on the source. When you talk about SQ, you start to talk about the different media, such as mp3s, CDs, SACDs, DVD audio, etc. Also to note, if you get a nice pair of headphones, they will bring out a lot of the flaws that went into the media. That is why the really crazy nutballs will opt for DVD audio or SACD.
The biggest improvement will be a new sound card. After that you will get another major improvement by replacing the op amps. Gaming inclined = Audigy 2 ZS. Music/DVD inclined = 96/24 or M Audio 7.1.
I am a mixture of gaming and music, but since I got my headphone set up I've done a lot more listening than gaming. Having said that, the Audigy 2 ZS rocks for music IMO.
do you think it would be a waste of money to get cans like a sennheiser hd280 to plug into my sound card?
what i dont want is to get something thats really good but thats not performing near what its capable of with better amp, sound card etc..
what i dont want is to get something thats really good but thats not performing near what its capable of with better amp, sound card etc..
I don't know much about the HD 280s. Lemme look that up really quick and edit my post later.
You may consider Beyerdynamic 250 - 80s though.
EDIT: Right of the bat, most people either like the HD 280s or hate them.
EDIT 2: It seems that the HD280s are compared/pitted against the 250-80s quite a lot. Have a look at this comparison for example.
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8873&highlight=dt+250+80
EDIT 3: I suppose you can't go wrong with either of them, but they are 2 different cans.
hmm they both are looking mighty fine.
but again, would it be like getting a radeon9800xt to go with a p3 1ghz cpu? either of these headphones would kick my sound cards ass, and would be embarrased to be plugged into it.
but lets say between 1-100 percentile. how much of their quality potential per se would be utilized plugging into my crappy sblive value? i only plan on getting headphones and not an entire computer audio upgrade, so i want to get headphones that aren't capable of a mindblasting shitload of finer quality then if i had a headphone amp or better sound card. see where im coming from? hope that made sense eheh
but again, would it be like getting a radeon9800xt to go with a p3 1ghz cpu? either of these headphones would kick my sound cards ass, and would be embarrased to be plugged into it.
but lets say between 1-100 percentile. how much of their quality potential per se would be utilized plugging into my crappy sblive value? i only plan on getting headphones and not an entire computer audio upgrade, so i want to get headphones that aren't capable of a mindblasting shitload of finer quality then if i had a headphone amp or better sound card. see where im coming from? hope that made sense eheh
I'm going to have to disagree, and say to upgrade the headphones/speakers first. Good headphones and speakers sound bad if the soundcard is bad. You can listen to a horrible CD player or soundcard with headphones such as the hd497's and it will sound better than using a top of the line CD player using $10 headphones.
Also, the hd497's don't require an amp, but I havn't listened with them using a SBLive!. However, even the 497s expose a poor source. It would be best for you to try them out yourself first.
Um, what? You say speakers/cans sound bad if the soundcard is bad...I said that in my reply. And, for the record, who buys a top of the line cd player and uses 10 dollar cans? The bottleneck there would turn into the crap cans. Sure, the signal will be good, but the cans would output them very crappy. The source is his sound card....
that was a quick, bad example
simplification:
You think source is most important for the computer
I think cans/speakers are most important for the computer
I think the crazy nutballs are the ones that listen to headphones for 12 hours straight
and damn.......I really need to read this record some time
edited after reply but before the time limit
Originally posted by zachary80
simplification:
You think source is most important for the computer
I think cans/speakers are most important for the computer
I think the crazy nutballs are the ones that listen to headphones for 12 hours straight
I agree.
And I thought 3-4 hours a day was kind of a lot. HEH. I also think the nutballs are the ones that believe in 500 hours of burn in before listening to their cans. They are the ones that will try to discern every single flaw in the recording, instead of trying to enjoy the music.Originally posted by Harkamus
I agree.
Heh, yeah...the old "I played every CD in my collection twice with the headphones in a drawer to burn them in before I had a listen!" type
Sometimes it's good to listen critically and hear what you can hear, but really it's about enjoying music. The headphone sites get a little bizzarre sometimes when it seems like people are just having cansechs and forgot the real point is listening to music!And I think you guys are both right. The cans/speakers AND the source matter. Ideally you'd want to improve both for a better listening or gaming experience, but many people probably don't have the choice/funds and have to do one at a time. I think I would recommend going with better cans/speakers first. Even if it's just an SB Live, you're probably not hearing the card's full quality potential with a pair of $10 cheapie headphones. As long as you don't get something overly revealing, there will probably be a good increase in the quality of the sound you hear. Then later you can buy a better soundcard/source and enjoy the increased clarity or range or whatever from that.
This might be a good way to go since headphones tend to go obsolete a lot slower than sound cards. If you buy good cans now, they'll still be pretty damn good in 5 or 10 years. If you buy a new soundcard now, it'll probably be "junk" in <4 years. When I went from crappy Labtec headphones to Sennheiser HD545s (which were replaced by the 570, interestingly enough), the difference was HUGE (used with an SB Live). When I added a headphone amp, the difference was noticeable but small (the 545s are medium-easy to drive). When I went from the Live to an Audigy2, there was a pretty good increase in sound quality, but nowhere near what I got from going from crap phones to good ones.
Ah good, good points.
I must protest on something though. I believe if you get the best sound card now and a really good pair of cans, they'll last you for years to come. I know I will not upgrade my sound card unless they become obsolete. By obsolete I mean that the games have become so advanced that my sound card can't play them...kind of like a video card. As for buying cans, cans are like watches and sunglasses for me. The way I see it I can make that once in a while purchase and shell out really big bucks since I know I won't upgrade for a very long time. It's like a car too(too bad I lack the funds to buy my dream car).
If you have my mind frame then you will go ahead and make the jump. You can get an amp too while you're at it. I will not upgrade until my card really becomes worthless. Perhaps by then, we'll also have 20+ Ghz cpus and video cards that have gigs and gigs of memory bandwidth. Games would then rival movies in terms of how they look. It would be a movie that would be playable and interactive.
OK, I've sidetracked.
I must protest on something though. I believe if you get the best sound card now and a really good pair of cans, they'll last you for years to come. I know I will not upgrade my sound card unless they become obsolete. By obsolete I mean that the games have become so advanced that my sound card can't play them...kind of like a video card. As for buying cans, cans are like watches and sunglasses for me. The way I see it I can make that once in a while purchase and shell out really big bucks since I know I won't upgrade for a very long time. It's like a car too(too bad I lack the funds to buy my dream car).
If you have my mind frame then you will go ahead and make the jump. You can get an amp too while you're at it. I will not upgrade until my card really becomes worthless. Perhaps by then, we'll also have 20+ Ghz cpus and video cards that have gigs and gigs of memory bandwidth. Games would then rival movies in terms of how they look. It would be a movie that would be playable and interactive.
OK, I've sidetracked.
I hope you mean protest and not detest
The only problem with getting the best sound card now is that it's not really clear what that is. The A2 and Revo are both kinda consumer level cards meant for gamers who like good audio. IF you only want sound quality, you could spend hundreds or thousands on some crazy pro-audio cards that do everything you want and probably some things you would never use. There used to be a saying about how soundcards were like diamonds - something about never really losing value. I think that was pretty much true until the SB Live, which really sparked a lot of competition and generations of new cards. You could probably get by fine even now with a Soundblaster 16 or something foolish like that, though it wouldn't feature all the nifty DirectSound hardware accelerated EAX whatever that we've come to expect/dislike You're right about the watches and sunglasses thing. If you don't lose 'em or break 'em, they'll last you a damn long time (I always thought it was funny surf shops sell $100 sunglasses and $200 watches for you to lose into the ocean while surfing). There are generally two camps in cars - drive it into the ground, and trade it once it's paid for. The former would agree with you but the latter probably wouldn't (about the not upgrading for a long time thing). Course if I could afford my dream car, I'd probably keep it a good long while too
If you have my mind frame then you will go ahead and make the jump. You can get an amp too while you're at it. I will not upgrade until my card really becomes worthless. Perhaps by then, we'll also have 20+ Ghz cpus and video cards that have gigs and gigs of memory bandwidth. Games would then rival movies in terms of how they look. It would be a movie that would be playable and interactive.
OK, I've sidetracked.
I tend to follow your way of thinking for video cards. I had a crappy Rage Pro for quite a while. Then I bought a TNT2 Ultra right after the GeForce 1 cards came out and used that till about 6 or 7 months ago when I bought a 128 meg Ti4200 card off a friend for cheap. Works great for everything I do, and I probably won't replace it for a few more generations. Same for CPUs I guess. I like to wait till chips are at least twice as fast as what I have before replacing (had a P2 400, then bought a Celeron2 566 and oc'ed it to 850, then bought a Barton 2500+ 1.83GHz). It seems many people buy Sennheiser HD600s as their first hi-fi headphone because they want to go straight to the top and skip all the upgrading BS (well...before the 650 was available anyway). Buy the best, don't look back, keep 'em forever. Not a bad way to go really.
[digression] We need a lot more juice to play Toy Story or Finding Nemo still. I believe they've gotten to the point where they can render that stuff near realtime now, but it still takes a farm and not a single machine. The more important part is that commodity level graphics cards are finally powerful enough and full featured enough that people are starting to look at them for real rendering work (why buy an expensive SGI rig if you can do the same stuff with a P4 and an ATI 9800?). The more this catches on, the more likely we'll someday have playable movies, if that's your goal. I think the closest thing to that I've ever played is Final Fantasy X on PS2. Watching an epic story unfold where you get to play the parts in between the plot bits is cool.
The combination of in-engine storytelling with gorgeous prerendered CGI is a nice way to keep a game smooth (because it's rendered in-engine, you can be walking your guys through the woods and have them pause for a brief conversation in a very natural way) but also say "Hey, this part is important! Have some extra detail!" (the prerendered CGI stuff). Also, having the voice acting is VERY nice. Reading text in a game is ok, but having the characters SPEAK to you, or themselves, or each other is a great addition that adds a huge dose of reality. It's easier to like or understand or identify with the characters you're guiding when they have faces and voices. Every game should have voice to some degree from here on out.
Movies are like show & tell versions of printed stories (it's the telling of a story using a combination of spoken interaction between characters and visuals which add detail or atmosphere or what have you). A cinematic game should largely be the same way, except you have to add DO. There needs to be something for you to do, some way for you to play a part in the unfolding of the story. If there's not, it will be a novelty and nobody will care. Like the original games on CD-ROM for PC and SegaCD.
[/digression]