[Head Injury]

I established that, jasonb. Power is multiplied by 10 for every 10 dB. That's 2x for every 3 dB.

 

[Loquah]

Quote:

10 dB is twice as loud, not 3 dB. 3 dB is twice as much power, which isn't twice the perceived volume.

 
Good point. Sorry.
 
How I learned this is that if you have a trumpet playing at full volume and then add a second trumpet playing at the exact same volume, you will see a 3dB increase. As per Head Injury's post, this is a doubling of the power (i.e. 2 sets of lungs instead of 1), but will not sound twice as loud. Thanks for the correction, Head Injury.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

 
Good point. Sorry.
 
How I learned this is that if you have a trumpet playing at full volume and then add a second trumpet playing at the exact same volume, you will see a 3dB increase. As per Head Injury's post, this is a doubling of the power (i.e. 2 sets of lungs instead of 1), but will not sound twice as loud. Thanks for the correction, Head Injury.

That's something I've never heard, but it makes sense. Good way to think about it.

 

[Loquah]

Quote:

Thanks for taking the trouble. 
 
I'll have to do a bit more reading to understand sensitivity ratings on headphones.. 
 
Also... will a 130db 500Hz tone be more painful/damaging than a 130db 30Hz tone?
 

Interesting question, Blue Boat. I did study this once upon a time, but I'm a bit rusty these days. My understanding is that the damage will be identical in it's scale because the damage is caused by the physical trauma of the sound waves belting your auditory systems. I don't think the physical power of the sound waves changes with frequency. That said, it could be possible that the different wavelengths somehow have different destructive power.
 
It could also be slightly influenced by the natural acoustics and resonance of your ear structures.
 
You may want to check this link for more

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

 
You may want to check this link for more

Interesting...
 
I'll finish up reading on it later. Gotta watch HIMYM right now. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Interesting question, Blue Boat. I did study this once upon a time, but I'm a bit rusty these days. My understanding is that the damage will be identical in it's scale because the damage is caused by the physical trauma of the sound waves belting your auditory systems. I don't think the physical power of the sound waves changes with frequency. That said, it could be possible that the different wavelengths somehow have different destructive power.
 
It could also be slightly influenced by the natural acoustics and resonance of your ear structures.
 
You may want to check this link for more

Higher frequencies mean more energy. Think about it; sound travels at the same speed regardless of frequency, but over a given distance waves with higher frequencies will oscillate more.
 
I'm just not sure if that translates to more damage at the ear, or if that's determined entirely by amplitude (which is dB).
 
This is totally guess work, but since over a given period of time the high frequency wave reaches its peak amplitude more often, then maybe an extended treble note would cause more damage than an extended bass note. In regular music bass notes are usually longer (and louder).
 
And thinking back to when I was setting my headphone volume, I recall a 10 kHz test file was louder than a 1 kHz test file even though they were both recorded to 0 dBFS. This might be because I last used that 10 kHz file with a Grado, and they have treble peaks everywhere.

 

[Zelcroft]

I'm sorry for bumping an old thread but I was lent these headphones and I searched them up and found their frequency response graph. I apologize for the cans not being high end but I just want to know what the graph says , as in in audiophile terms which I am unfamiliar with like recessed/rolled off.
 
 
 
http://en.goldenears.net/en/files/attach/images/254/062/012/375826b4d44e394a80b3d653baf3e474.png
 
I apologize once again for being a newb and appreciate it if the terms could be explained to me. Thank you.

 

[Zelcroft]

Anyone?

 

[Loquah]

It's always hard to be 100% certain from frequency response alone, but the graph suggests a warm sound with bass and mid-bass emphasis (the raised part to the left. The dip towards the right would suggest possibly recessed high end or it might just sound smooth. I definitely wouldn't expect analytical or harsh tendencies.

Is that what you're asking? Hope it helps.

 

[stacker45]

Quote:

I'm sorry for bumping an old thread but I was lent these headphones and I searched them up and found their frequency response graph. I apologize for the cans not being high end but I just want to know what the graph says , as in in audiophile terms which I am unfamiliar with like recessed/rolled off.
 
 
 
http://en.goldenears.net/en/files/attach/images/254/062/012/375826b4d44e394a80b3d653baf3e474.png
 
I apologize once again for being a newb and appreciate it if the terms could be explained to me. Thank you.

 
You don't have to apologize for being a newb, we all were at one time.
 
Personnaly i believe that headphones graphs by themselves are pretty much meaningless, you have to take into account the rest of the sound system, the source and amp have their own frequency responce graphs, wich will play a role in the final sound signature of the system.
 
For example, bright sounding headphones might sound very good on a sound system that has a rolled off treble,

 

[Loquah]

That's a really good point. The synergy between system components is very important.

I think the graph gives a clue about what to expect, but it's not definitive and other factors like it's impedance and sensitivity will also add significantly to the resulting sound quality.

Really, the graph just gives a clue about the most general nature of the can's sound - warm and perhaps laidback in this case although the final 10 kHz treble spike is curious and may indicate a more dynamic sound. I guess this is Stacker's point - without hearing it paired with your gear it's all just informed guesswork.

 

[stacker45]

That is exactly my point, that's why i'll never declare a pair of headphone, too bright , too bassy, uncomfortable etc..., and i always try to mention things like ''in my opinion'', ''i believe'', ''i think'', wich basically means on my sound system and according to my taste,  they're are simply too many factors that come into play to pull any definitive conclusions regarding headphones, or any other components for that matter.
 
I take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, and i encourage peoples to do the same with mine as well.
 
Happy listening.

 

[obobskivich]

Higher frequencies mean more energy.

NO.

Sorry, I know this is a necro-reply. But no.

HF requires less energy to produce (dramatically so), LF is what requires power and displacement, and what travels through "minor" obstacles like walls, doors, ceilings, etc and refuses to stop until something really big and heavy gets in the way and refuses to oscillate. As far as frequency and hearing damage, loud is loud, and will junk your ears all the same. Dosage/time is basically all you worry about with hearing protection.

Regarding HF coming across perceptually louder - it might just be that you're responding to an HF test tone as "pain" because generally HF blasts are pretty uncomfortable to listen to, as opposed to lower frequencies (I would gladly sit and listen to 40hz sweeps at >100 dB, but 4khz or 14khz - god no).

I'm sorry for bumping an old thread but I was lent these headphones and I searched them up and found their frequency response graph. I apologize for the cans not being high end but I just want to know what the graph says , as in in audiophile terms which I am unfamiliar with like recessed/rolled off.



http://en.goldenears.net/en/files/attach/images/254/062/012/375826b4d44e394a80b3d653baf3e474.png

I apologize once again for being a newb and appreciate it if the terms could be explained to me. Thank you.

Ah you have a GE datapoint, get the entire review (they measure so much more):
http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&search_target=title&search_keyword=blau&document_srl=12062

From the entire thing, with NC off, they look like they're gonna have a lot of bass and highs, and somewhat withdrawn mids - the NC circuit appears to be applying some EQ to the signal (this may or may not cause other problems - for example the Bose QC15 the ANC circuit also sucks the life out of everything even though they're not bad measuring headphones, but the Klipsch M40 ANC circuit seems to be a switch attached to a light ).

You might also be interested in the subjective review thing at the bottom of that page (GE says sorta boomy bass, rough but not veiled treble) - I'd guess these would sound pretty alright honestly, as Loquah said - I wouldn't expect harshness or clash out of these cans. They might be a bit too bassy for my tastes, and it's tough to say if the ANC is creating a "dead" sound, but they're probably pretty easy to listen to. What do you think? (You're the first person to mention having Blaupunkt headphones on Head-Fi, and I've been curious about them overall based on Goldenears starting to review them, haha!).

It's always hard to be 100% certain from frequency response alone, but the graph suggests a warm sound with bass and mid-bass emphasis (the raised part to the left. The dip towards the right would suggest possibly recessed high end or it might just sound smooth. I definitely wouldn't expect analytical or harsh tendencies.
Is that what you're asking? Hope it helps.

Remember that the grey areas might as well have T-rex drawn into them. But yes. I see the 10k spike as "jacked highs" but not all headphones make it offensive (e.g. Grados have a 10k spike and don't sound "wrong" to me, but Beyers do, and they are all sorts of "wrong" to me). And with that I'll segue into:

That is exactly my point, that's why i'll never declare a pair of headphone, too bright , too bassy, uncomfortable etc..., and i always try to mention things like ''in my opinion'', ''i believe'', ''i think'', wich basically means on my sound system and according to my taste,  they're are simply too many factors that come into play to pull any definitive conclusions regarding headphones, or any other components for that matter.

I take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, and i encourage peoples to do the same with mine as well.

Happy listening.

I agree with this!

 

[Zelcroft]

Oh dear , I didn't notice people replied to my post and it's about 2 weeks. My apologies and thank you for replying,
 
obobskivich & others - As I am a newb I'm not so sure how to describe these but imo it sounds warm and said above. I've tried Sony XBA-1 at the store and my normal phone's earphone so I used them as a comparision. My Blaupunkts sound like they're not as echo-y as the others and is what i assume to be warm. It is also as you guys said , boomy/bassy. I thought that the Sony was lacking in bass but perhaps it was my cans that have that excessive bass.
 
As to the ANC applaying EQ , it makes it clearly louder and that's basicly all my beginner ears can make out , I even tried turning off ANC and raising the volume but couldn't tell the diference so I'm sorry the "first person to post about Blaupunkt cans" was not able to tell you much.
 
My friend says he doesn't need the headphones urgently anytime soon as he seldom uses them so he lend them to me for awhile. So , I just wanna ask , are these cans okay for me? Is it okay for a "non-high-end" can? Anything you guys recommend in case I gotta give these back? I was recommended the Ultrasone HFI-580 and the Audio Technica A900x from my other thread and when Christmas comes I just might get one of them.

Thanks.

 

[obobskivich]

Sorry, didn't catch this thread was still active.

Given that we don't know much about the Blaupunkpts, I'd probably suggest going and trying out the Ultrasones or A900Xs in person if you can (I know Best Buy sells the A900X in-store) - see if it's a big dramatic difference, or if you're happy with what you already have. I can say that the A900X will be a departure from "boomy" and "bassy" but they aren't terrible (if you can get them to fit).