The Apple headphones don't want to stay in my ear. Currently with my iPod, I use a pair of $29 headphones I got at Wal-Mart, they have the changable ear canal things, so these actually stay in my ear when I go for a run etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Best iPod (whatever) ever...headphones
- Thread starter hsotnicaM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love the etymotics: http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/epcomp.aspx
I had a pair of 6isolators and boy did they sound good. Makes me happy I can hear that sort of stuff. I want a new ipod now!
Also. If you aren't ripping lossless, the headphones won't do much for you anyway. You may as well stick with the stock ones. I think that is why Apple uses the ones they do. They sell low bitrate music on iTunes which these headphones are fine for.
I had a pair of 6isolators and boy did they sound good. Makes me happy I can hear that sort of stuff. I want a new ipod now!
Also. If you aren't ripping lossless, the headphones won't do much for you anyway. You may as well stick with the stock ones. I think that is why Apple uses the ones they do. They sell low bitrate music on iTunes which these headphones are fine for.
Is it simply an advertisement? Do you have meters to test this? I have to go by what the manufacturer states.
Ultimately, I have a pair of both Apple earbuds and a pair of the earbuds from the link I provided above. The JVC response far exceeds not only volume but appearance of bass. Maybe your speculation is correct and they "fudge" the numbers, but my ears say something else.
-Anyone-
Why have a set of headphones/earbuds/speakers with a frequency of 5-24K if we can only hear 20-20K?
Yeah, the hearing range of young folks (up through early middle age) goes anywhere from 20khz to around 22khz. Starting in the late 20s-early 30s, hearing deteriorates, so the majority of folks teaching in schools would be unable to hear most of those tones, while the kids could.
I can still hear up to around 21khz, but my dad can't. He was running test tones through a speaker driver once and I had to scream at him from four rooms away to turn it down - he didn't hear a thing. I can still hear old CRT TV sets turned on a floor away.
Yes, I do
That was one of the points of my long post on the previous page. You can't "hear" anything below a certain level. Can you experience it? You sure can, but you are using a different sense, the sense of touch, not sound.
I like to put it as there are "head" tones, "chest" tones, and "butt" tones. If any of you have ever been to an ungodly loud club, you know what I am talking about. The head tones are the ones you can hear, but also feel resonating in your head. Chest tones get down to the lowest "audible" level, and you feel like you are being pounded in the chest. Butt tones you don't actually hear at all, you just feel them. Depending on the equipment and the mix, sometimes you can REALLY feel them
I've done some experiments, and using a bass tone tester, I have come to the conclusion that yes, the supplied iPod earbuds will in fact reproduce tones 20hz and below. It is COMPLETELY insignificant to the music, as it is almost inaudible. It mostly sounds like a very low buzzing, and very well could be the voice coil in the earbud screaming for help
There were audible (barely) differences between 25hz, 20hz, and 15hz, but if they were in music, you would NEVER be able to hear them. Which brings me back to the point that such a small driver as an ear bud is not capable of producing a low tone that has any type of significance. If any of you would like to see the difference between some different tones, I found an online resource that has sine waves, and single frequency test tones. All I ask is that you please PLEASE be careful with this website. You can DESTROY your speakers/earphones/earbuds if you feed them straight waveform that they cannot handle. If you want to hear the low tones, start at 100hz at a low volume, and go down from there. If it starts to get crunchy, distorted, or anything else out of the ordinary, STOP!
I take no responsibility for your actions, and as posted on this website, neither do they.
http://www.realmofexcursion.com/downloads.htm
HAHAHA!! That is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Don't kids these days know what "vibrate" is?
I get that from the included earbuds, so I switched to the Apple In-Ear Headphones. They're not nearly as nice as my Shure's, but I can sweat with them in and not worry about a sort.
Of course, what I really want are the Ultimate Ear's in ear monitors that are used on stage by performers. Maybe someday, if I'm really good...
Thank you for your explanation and sharing your knowledge.
Now that's funny.
The funny thing is I can hear mosquitoes, but not the 24K tone.
arguing about sounds you can and can't hear, reminds me about the Frames Per Second argument. Isn't it something like your eyes can only see around 23 fps? but when you play a video game that is 60fps, VS. a video game that is 30fps. You CAN tell the difference, even though you dont actually see all those frames.
To satisfy every last customer, apple would have to include $500 (or better) headphones. At the opposite end, apple could include headphones so cheap that they are grating to even the average ear (I have a pair like this).
Obviously, neither of these makes sense. So apple has to pick some midpoint - a price/performance ratio that will work for the greatest number of customers. I think they've done a brilliant job doing so. The ipod headphones are perfectly good for the vast majority of buyers (especially considering that itunes sells 128k ACC) while keeping the cost at barely more than bargain-basement headphones.
You can't please everyone no matter what you do, but I think apple has struck just about the perfect balance.
Obviously, neither of these makes sense. So apple has to pick some midpoint - a price/performance ratio that will work for the greatest number of customers. I think they've done a brilliant job doing so. The ipod headphones are perfectly good for the vast majority of buyers (especially considering that itunes sells 128k ACC) while keeping the cost at barely more than bargain-basement headphones.
You can't please everyone no matter what you do, but I think apple has struck just about the perfect balance.
The Shure SE530PTH are superb headphones but unless you plug in your iPod to a small external headphone amplifier and "rip" your CD collection at 320 kbps data rate (or using Apple Lossless) it's ridiculous overkill. The vastly less expensive Shure SE310 sounds very good if you plug it directly into your iPod.
I vote for the iGrado's
http://www.gradolabs.com/product_pages/igrado.htm
For me these were the best bang for buck under 100$.
http://www.gradolabs.com/product_pages/igrado.htm
For me these were the best bang for buck under 100$.
I don't really understand the thrashing that the Apple earbuds get. They are not gawd awful, you can just do a lot better for not a lot more money. But I have heard a lot worse with the stock buds that come with some walkmans or MP3 players. I saw someone say that they were horrible but then went on to praise their Bose replacements!
I would classify the Apple stock buds as low midrange or high low range sound options. I still carry them around when I want to listen to my iPod without sound isolation.
I also carry Utimate Ears Super.fi 5pro and I've owned the Etymotic ER6i. The top end Shures are supposed to be excellent, too, although I will probably buy the Etymotic ER4s next becasue I like a realistic mid range and I don't need/like the extra bass oomph!
If I really want to make my iPod sound good I use my Head Room Total Bithead headphone amp and my Sennheiser 650s.
I would classify the Apple stock buds as low midrange or high low range sound options. I still carry them around when I want to listen to my iPod without sound isolation.
I also carry Utimate Ears Super.fi 5pro and I've owned the Etymotic ER6i. The top end Shures are supposed to be excellent, too, although I will probably buy the Etymotic ER4s next becasue I like a realistic mid range and I don't need/like the extra bass oomph!
If I really want to make my iPod sound good I use my Head Room Total Bithead headphone amp and my Sennheiser 650s.
I agree that iPod's earphones aren't the best in the bunch, but at least they are better than typical stock earphones that are included with MP3 players.
I know this for a fact because I've owned 3 Rio Players with bad earphones (one even cut the inside of my left ear!)
I know this for a fact because I've owned 3 Rio Players with bad earphones (one even cut the inside of my left ear!)
They're on the mediocre side for earphones that are shipped on price comparable models. Sony do the best of the bunch these days on their iPod price comparable models. If you care about the sound and you don't want to drop a whole wad, the high-end Sonys are a good bet - if you're willing to wait for them to load that is (Their flash players are about 5 times slower than an iPod. Sheesh)
The stock phones are perhaps the most uncomfortable I've ever used. My ears were sore for the three days I had to wear them while my main pair broke and I waited for the replacements to arrive. It was so weird. At any rate, I've got these now:
...and The Clientele sound lovely.
...and The Clientele sound lovely.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
