[Noya]

I know that there is no such thing as safe headphones but are there ones out there that are not as harming to your ears ??(other than obviously listening at low volume)
right now I have ear buds that I luv! but are horrible for my ears!
I need headphones that are compact so I can take on the go but that will stay on my ears
Any suggestions???

Thanks!

 

[tpc41]

you want a headphone that provides isolation so that u can listen at lower levels and still hear your music clearly. Look at some IEM (in ear monitors) to do the trick. I use etymotic er6i and they provide great isolation and allow me to listen to my ipod at volume around 20%

 

[robojack]

IEMs are definitely recommended, due to their ability to block out great quantities of outside noise. Even better closed cans (ie: Ultrasone HFI-780) can't compare in their ability to block out outside noise.

 

[REB]

Ultrasones have been especially designed to be 40% less harmful than other phones, meaning that if you play them at the same volume, likely hearing loss will be 40% lower. From what I have read, independent research has tended to confirm this Ultrasone characteristic. I use the Ultrasone HFI 680's on a daily basis and I must admit they don't fatigue my ears.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ultrasones have been especially designed to be 40% less harmful than other phones, meaning that if you play them at the same volume, likely hearing loss will be 40% lower. From what I have read, independent research has tended to confirm this Ultrasone characteristic. I use the Ultrasone HFI 680's on a daily basis and I must admit they don't fatigue my ears.

I can't even begin to tell you how much there is wrong with this. Ultrasone being 'less harmful' is pure marketing. As in "Whooops! I just stepped in a big pile of bull-marketing"......

 

[wrecked_porsche]

^ LOL Soooo true!

I agree! Really made me LOL there though.

 

[The Pieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ultrasones have been especially designed to be 40% less harmful than other phones, meaning that if you play them at the same volume, likely hearing loss will be 40% lower. From what I have read, independent research has tended to confirm this Ultrasone characteristic. I use the Ultrasone HFI 680's on a daily basis and I must admit they don't fatigue my ears.

You cannot be serious.

Simon

 

[REB]

I am serious. I bought the Ultrasones for their sound sig which I like and I am not really interested in hearing damage since I don't play my music very loud, but the Ultrasones have been tested by an audiological laboratory of the Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. And no, this is not a 'prestigious non-accredited university'

, but a real, well-established, research-oriented university. The outcome of the research apparently supported Ultrasone's claim that their phones are safer. I can't vouch for the audiological laboratory's research methods, nor for the outcome, and I don't know whether Ultrasone sponsored the research. I am simply relaying what I have read/seen. The research has been featured on Dutch regional TV. Apparently, the research was undertaken because of hearing loss concerns for audio professionals and Ultrasone actively markets its professional phones as being safer than other professional phones. Whether that's true, you have to ask somebody who knows what he/she is talking about.
This is the link for those of you who understand Dutch. Scroll down in the 'nieuws' menu until you see the TV item and the info.

Crusade-Audio // Sound Quality

As far as I understood, Ultrasones seem to create a higher sound volume, without actually upping the volume. Don't ask me to explain it any better, because I can't. I am sure somebody around here can. And from my judicious use of 'apparently' in my posts in this thread, you may surmise that the only thing I am sure about is that these claims have been made and that they have been backed up by what looks like independent scientific inquiry. Which is altogether a different thing from those claims actually being true...

Back to the main point for me: I like the Ultrasone sound sig and whether they are less likely to damage my hearing or not, they don't easily fatigue my ears.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I understood, Ultrasones seem to create a higher sound volume, without actually upping the volume. Don't ask me to explain it any better, because I can't. I am sure somebody around here can.

I can explain it..... it is called confirmation bias. I just wish I could read Dutch to slam it more specifically. Seriously, Ultrasone lost me forever the second I read about their EMI bull-marketing, and this just takes it to a whole new level.

But if you like the sound signature, I certainly can't argue with that

 

[REB]

Good to know it's BS... The cans are great though and I guess the marketing people have to earn their pay as well

.

Beefy, can you explain to me whether it is 100% BS or whether there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere that has been blown way out of proportion?

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Beefy, can you explain to me whether it is 100% BS or whether there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere that has been blown way out of proportion?

Like I said, I can't read Dutch. But I'm a research scientist myself, and my BS detector completely overloads for everything that comes out of Ultrasone.

My advice is to listen to the music, and completely ignore all marketing.

 

[dreamwhisper]

Well, the Ultrasone's reportedly do have a non-neutral sound signature,
so I wouldn't be surprised if it sounds louder to some people at lower volumes if the like the sound signature.

however when they are putting out same amount of high spl levels as another fon, the hearing damage will be the same

 

[genclaymore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said, I can't read Dutch. But I'm a research scientist myself, and my BS detector completely overloads for everything that comes out of Ultrasone. My advice is to listen to the music, and completely ignore all marketing.

To me that isnt enough for me to belive you myself. Alot of people can say there a research scientist and dont really explain why they belive its BS. No offense but that alone doesnt make me wanna belive you.

So I like to know in detail why you feel the safer healing on the ultrasone is bs even when that link in dutch if we all could read it explains it.And what makes you so sure, that it really doesnt give help your hearing with the design of the headpohones.

Because I read alot of people just say neg stuff in general because they dislike ultrasone,I just wanna know thats all. Even tho I not getting them for that reason.

 

[NiceCans]

I do not buy into the marketing of Ultrasone's and thought it all total BS including S-Logic, magnetic-radiation shielding, and the 40% lower risk of hearing damage. As a matter of fact all that marketing made me very reluctant to buy anything they make. However I did buy a pair of ProLine 750 (for various reasons not related to the marketing hype).

Quite frankly, while I still do noy buy it, I have found that I do consistantly listen to my Ultrasone's at much lower volumes than any other headphones I use. I do not make a conscious effort to do so, it is just the nature of the headphones. Whatever that reveals, you decide, but this much is fact.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genclaymore /img/forum/go_quote.gif To me that isnt enough for me to belive you myself. Alot of people can say there a research scientist and dont really explain why they belive its BS. No offense but that alone doesnt make me wanna belive you.

And you can expect the exact same thing from Ultrasone's marketing team - except they stand to make a profit from hoodwinking you. I stand to gain nothing. But you want to believe them?

Your call. But it really pays to be skeptical of such outlandish marketing claims.