Some overpowering Bass Headphones recommendation

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MMH, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. MMH

    Thread Starter Member

    Feb 8, 2013
    143
    4
    Hello there!

    In the previous thread I came to a conclusion that I would buy Sennheisers. But now I will change my mind because no Sennheisers give such overpowering Bass response. So can you suggest a good headphone brand and its model which provides overpowering bass and muddy highs below $45? Thanks
     
  2. rogs

    Active Member

    Aug 28, 2009
    279
    37
    That's just not true... the Sennheiser HD25-1 II model I mentioned in the other thread have a superb bass response - partly because their design as a closed back 'pro' phone holds them quite tight to your ears. Response down to 16Hz...how low do you want to go?....
    Hi - sensitivity too, with a max SPL of 120dB -- so you can get as much bass as you want! (Might make your ears bleed a bit at the max!)..

    Not cheap - certainly more than $45 - but still way less money than those dreadful 'Beats'!
     
    MMH likes this.
  3. bountyhunter

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,498
    507
    I assume that is a joke?

    The whole point of good headphones is that produce the sound accurately and don't add bass resonances or booming like cheap phones and speakers do.

    Many people don't realize that cheap speakers and phones are designed to intentionally boost bass because it sounds "better" to most people so they get used to distorted sound and don't like true sound.
     
  4. mcgyvr

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 15, 2009
    4,770
    970
    This kid has no idea what he wants.
    "Overpowering bass" and "muddy highs" does NOT equal "good audio quality".. its the exact opposite.
     
    MMH likes this.
  5. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    I don't know of anyone who is willing to recommend something that meets your specifications. You might as well ask them about headphones they will not recommend to their friends and clients. That will give you a list of poor sounding headphones, at which you can find the cheapest ones and spend up to 45 dollars finding a set that satisfies your specification.
     
  6. Metalmann

    Active Member

    Dec 8, 2012
    700
    223
    To make my Sennheiser HPhones, (HD-555), sound the best; I removed the internal baffles.
     
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I've always found it funny that the least accurate component in any sound system is the human ear.
     
    Metalmann likes this.
  8. bountyhunter

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,498
    507
    Actually the least accurate component in the reproducing hardware is the speakers. Typical woofers can introduce 3% THD or more.
     
  9. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    Or possibly the crossover networks, and how they match (or fail to match!) the freq response of the speakers.
     
  10. MMH

    Thread Starter Member

    Feb 8, 2013
    143
    4
    To some extent it is!!

    I just started this thread out of curiosity, not anything serious of course. I never thought that you would take it so seriously. Sorry:p:p
     
  11. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    and

    Looking at the frequency response of my ears ... I tend to go with Bill's statement. My higher frequency detector is completely broke, so all the sounds become "interesting" when someone speaks, let alone, music.
     
  12. bountyhunter

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,498
    507
    The point is, this statement is nonesense:

    By definition, accurate sound reproduction is a system which reproduces WHAT THE EAR HEARS. Ergo, the ear can not be the "least accurate component", it is the reference. And yes, some of us old guys have HF loss but that's not the point either: most of us still hear well enough to discern the typical muddy resonances, THD, phase distortion, high frequency beaming and all the other anomalies that typical loudspeakers introduce.

    The ear is not the problem. Reproducing the sound correctly for the ear is the problem.
     
  13. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Problem is, every ear hears differently, different roll offs, notches in frequency response, in the end it is very subjective. Spending money on high frequency response for me would be a waste, whereas a younger person would definitely miss it if it weren't there. What sounds good to one person would not sound reasonable to another.
     
  14. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    3,373
    1,159
    My point is the best possible audio system is wasted on my poor hearing. My hearing rolls off at a little past 1 kHz, so the enjoyment of music is limited in the audio range, let alone the voice range.

    The OP already went from "great sounding headphones."
     
  15. Metalmann

    Active Member

    Dec 8, 2012
    700
    223


    Agreed, I lost a set of high frequencies when I worked in the steel, at a high speed can plant.
    All within 6 months.

    Haven't had a hearing test since, so I may be lacking even more.:confused:

    I highly doubt that I'll ever get those frequencies back..??

    Hey, as long as I can still hear those Monster Bass Guitar frequencies, I'm happy.:D
     
  16. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    I'm going to argue that. :)

    Good sound reproduction involves recording the sound with a flat frequency response mic, and playing back on a system with flat frequency resonse (or has been eq'ed to flat) so the reproduced sound is exactly the same as the original sound.

    To the listener, the reproduced sound will sound EXACTLY like the original sound, if they did back to back listening tests.
     
  17. bountyhunter

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,498
    507
    Read what I said:

    The word reproduce means:

    That means exactly what I said: accurate sound reproduction from the system (by definition) means it must reproduce the original sound, ergo it recreates what the ears hear when they listened to the original source.

    Not complicated.

    The ears have nothing to do with the quality or accuracy of the reproducing system, the ears may affect the listeners ability to REALIZE whether or not the sound system is good but that's irrelevant to what I said. An "accurate" system reproduces the same sound as the original, which is what the ears heard at the live performance.
     
  18. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Which is ultimately judged by the ear, what is what the final product is designed to feed. We can use instruments to measure many things, but people are still arguing tubes vs. transistors and more. The ear is the final arbiter, and some folks ears are not up to doing very well at the task.

    If I think something sounds great, but someone else thinks it is lacking, who is wrong?
     
  19. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    Sorry Bountyhunter that was a definite misunderstanding on my part. :)

    I thought you had stated the job of sound reproduction was to get the correct sound AFTER the ear (ie; person's ear is included in the loop), when as we both know the ear is not relevant and the speaker should reproduce the original sound in the air.

    So the wording of the original point might be wrong, but it still remains valid in concept; that the biggest problem with a person listening to sound reproduction is imperfection of their ears (not smaller imperfections in the electronic sound reproduction).

    We've all seen those people buying "oxygen free monster speaker cables" and "pointy feet for their HiFi" and talking about the "big sound improvement" they can hear; ;)

    http://www.superspikes.com/
     
Loading...