[SilverEars]

That may be why I wasn't quite on the same page with you re the K371's upper midrange. I just go by what's on the graphs, which probably isn't correct. So...

Bass: 20 - 200 Hz
MIds: 200 Hz - 2 kHz
Treble: 2 kHz - 20 kHz

If you consider mids as going up to 5 kHz, then I can see why you might be bothered by the peak in that range on the K371 at 3 kHz. Makes more sense to me now.



Some divide the frequency spectrum into...

Sub-bass: 16 or 20 - 60 Hz
Bass: 60 - 250 Hz
Low Midrange: 250 - 500 Hz
Midrange: 500 Hz - 2 kHz
High Midrange: 2 - 4 kHz
Presence: 4 - 6 kHz
Brilliance: 6 - 20 kHz

Presence & Brilliance together = treble or high notes.

Wikipedia defines bass as C0 (16 Hz) to C4 (256 Hz) And sub-bass as below C2 (60Hz). The lowest note people can hear in ideal circumstances is G-1 (12 Hz). Treble according to their definition is C7 (2 kHz) to C10 (16 kHz). Which leaves C4 (256 Hz) to C7 (2 kHz) as the mid-range.

Ultrasound = above human hearing, usually defined as higher than 20 kHz. Though some humans with good ears can hear as high as 28 kHz. Infrasound = below human hearing, usually defined as lower than 20 Hz.

I always considered the central point or the heart of upper-mids being 3k. When we discuss iems, lots of people consider that peak on the target curves, upper-mids and that's probably why I think this way. it doesn't make sense to me for treble to start at 2k.

People do refer to upper-mids being too forward, and they are usually meaning around 3k or so. And my sense of the positions is based on statistics of what I've inferred from the way most people referred to the regions.

 

[Whazzzup]

 

[ADUHF]

I always considered the central point or the heart of upper-mids being 3k. When we discuss iems, lots of people consider that peak on the target curves, upper-mids and that's probably why I think this way. it doesn't make sense to me for treble to start at 2k.

People do refer to upper-mids being too forward, and they are usually meaning around 3k or so. And my sense of the positions is based on statistics of what I've inferred from the way most people referred to the regions.

I don't think there's any one right answer. But will keep the above in mind, so I'm more on the same page with the rest of y'all. I'm still new here, and learnin the ropes.

 

[IEMusic]

I don't think there's any one right answer. But will keep the above in mind, so I'm more on the same page with the rest of y'all. I'm still new here, and learnin the ropes.

Exactly, there isn‘t a single correct answer, but knowing the general consensus helps to understand what others are referring to.

 

[bagwell359]

Interesting. I was aware we cannot hear until 20Hz, so it wouldn't be necessary to consider that part of the spectrum I would think. Upper-mids is a tricky area, and there will be a lot of disagreements. I consider up to 5k upper-mids and 6k onwards treble. 5-6k is a gray area. The spectrum has transition areas to make the regions not so straightforward to classify IMO.

Tyll from Innerfidelity mentions 'presence region' quite a lot. I wondered what part of the spectrum that region constitutes. 2-3k?

I wrote that. Sub bass is just used to tuck that name away. Sub means "below". Below bass then must be 0-20 Hz. I think calling frequencies 20-60 Hz "sub bass" to my consternation become popular in the last decade or two - too bad - its friggin' hot nonsense to me.

I also cannot accept no range set that has no "mid bass" or "upper bass".

I've never heard of anyone calling 200 Hz - mids before, it's clearly a bass frequency, some say bass goes as as high as 400 Hz. I can agree ~300-400 is somewhat transitional however.

Upper mids & lower treble transition area is in the 2.0-3.5k range IMO. 2.5-5k is certainly low treble in my book.

Presence and brilliance? I guess I'm just old fashioned. BTW the definition: 4-6k & 6-20k; so 2/3 of an octave and then ~1.8 octave.

Whatever makes people happy, but when you have the obvious and clear notion of an octave at hand, I just think it creates more confusion than clarity to mess with ranges, and names. Maybe a chart that goes down like 6 layers of lingo can make everyone happy. What's the "gnarly" frequency BTW?

 

[payj]

I think our Sound Signature profiles are similar....

It's been a while since I've looked into over ear headphones, so this may be outdated, or maybe they are still one of the kings? You will be very VERY happy with the Fostex TH-900. Those are well over your budget of $200, but worth it.

In your budget would be whatever new iteration of the V-Moda M100 are. Those were my first go getting a nice set of cans and they served me very well until I sold them.

 

[StarTreker]

The newest V-Moda can is the M-200, most people still don't know about that can yet.
V-Moda M-200 Over Ear Headphones

I don't even need to listen to them first, to tell you that those cans for 350, are better then the Beats cans for 300. LOL

 

[IEMusic]

I wrote that. Sub bass is just used to tuck that name away. Sub means "below". Below bass then must be 0-20 Hz. I think calling frequencies 20-60 Hz "sub bass" to my consternation become popular in the last decade or two - too bad - its friggin' hot nonsense to me.

I also cannot accept no range that is "mid bass" or "upper bass".

I've never heard of anyone calling 200 Hz - mids before, it's clearly a bass frequency, some say bass goes as as high as 400 Hz. I can agree ~300-400 is somewhat transitional however.

Upper mids & lower treble transition area is in the 2.0-3.5k range IMO. 2.5-5k is certainly low treble in my book.

Presence and brilliance? I guess I'm just old fashioned. BTW the definition: 4-6k 6-20k; so 2/3 of an octave and then ~1.8 octave.

Whatever makes people happy, but when you have the obvious and clear notion of an octave at hand, I just think it creates more confusion than clarity to mess with ranges. Maybe a chart that goes down like 6 layers can make everyone happy. What's "gnarly" frequency BTW?

Excellent! Spoken like a true audiophile.

 

[payj]

That's a very true statement. This is THE entry into "fun" "bassy" along with getting the nod so to speak from audiophiles at this price point in the other areas as well.

OP: The M-200 is your best bet. I would push your budget to get these. Down the road, if you are willing to spend $1000.00+ your options open and right in that range, you cannot beat the TH-900 for base and SQ across the board. They will put a smile on your

 

[Derek411]

I think Beats served a purpose as a brand. They took the junk headphones and made the idea of reasonable sounding over ear headphones at a high price mainstream. Before them it was true closet audiophiles and studios that used them. Off the back of that REAL decent sets arrived and it became normal for joggers and people walking with not earbuds.

Disclaimer, I didn’t pay a third of retail for a set that never leaves the car. I appreciate the recommendations for bass head audiophile sets for the home. Budget is not really an issue. Buying and having to sell at loss is. That’s why I play careful.

 

[Malevolent]

The newest V-Moda can is the M-200, most people still don't know about that can yet.
V-Moda M-200 Over Ear Headphones

I don't even need to listen to them first, to tell you that those cans for 350, are better then the Beats cans for 300. LOL

I have several V-MODA headphones, and in a straight-up comparison with a handful of Beats-branded cans, they sound a lot better; bass is better defined, and whilst excessive on the LP and the LP2, are also less muddy than the Beats Studio or Solo headphones. The only Beats product that is somewhere near good is probably the Beats Pro.

 

[HipHopScribe]

I don’t really use mine any other place than the car. Every set gets a test. I can’t fault them there. I don’t know if it’s the mids and highs or what but they work. I tried Bose but sold them all. Real noise cancelling leaves you in 3rd gear at 60 if you don’t pay attention. The Beats only get the odd use elsewhere when my Sonys are charging. Soooo comfy tho.

Been Googling V Moda...

I hope you're not the one driving when you're using your headphones in the car lol

 

[ADUHF]

I wrote that. Sub bass is just used to tuck that name away. Sub means "below". Below bass then must be 0-20 Hz. I think calling frequencies 20-60 Hz "sub bass" to my consternation become popular in the last decade or two - too bad - its friggin' hot nonsense to me.

What you're sayin above makes alot of sense, bagwell359. Like you, I also erroneously thought that the "sub-bass" meant bass that's lower than 20 Hz, more in the infrasound range. (And will now have to correct a few of my earlier misstatements about that elsewhere.) We live and we learn though. And it looks like the current frequency ranges for bass and sub-bass probably have their roots more in the music world. Especially choral music.

The lowest note in a Bass singer's range is generally C2 (64 Hz). So anything below that would be considered "sub-bass". The soubasse or sub-bass pedals on a pipe organ, for example, are at C1 (32 Hz) and C0 (16 Hz), both of which are below the lowest C note in a Bass singer's range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourdon_(organ_pipe)

This seems to be where the term "sub-bass" originated.

By the above logic, the upper frequency of the bass range should probably be G4 (384 Hz), or possibly E4 (324 Hz), since those are generally the highest notes in a Bass singer's range. Most of the definitions seem to prefer Middle C though (aka C4), at around 256 Hz. And maybe that has something to do with the fact that there's alot of overlap between the different vocal ranges in the mid-range. Middle C is at the bottom of the Soprano range, for example. And in the center of the Tenor range.

I am using the old school 2^x or "scientific pitch" method for the above frequencies btw, as opposed to the newer A440 standard. So these frequencies are only approximations.

 

[betula]

This discussion about sub-bass is really interesting, but I don't think in general sub-bass means inaudible sound below 20Hz. IMO in a common discussion by sub-bass most people mean the lowest third of audible bass which is pretty much between 20-60/80Hz. Of course, 'scientifically' speaking this could be a wrong definition of sub-bass, but IMO in everyday language sub-bass is the lowest third of audible bass.

 

[Whazzzup]

Folks got something against inaudible frequencies?