What is the frequency range(Hz) of the earphones that come with the sansa fuze when bought?

What is the frequency range(Hz) of the earphones that come with the sansa fuze when bought?

To get good sound quality on the fuze what is the suggested frequency range?

Thanks,

SR

@sr_rox wrote:

What is the frequency range(Hz) of the earphones that come with the sansa fuze when bought?

 

 

To get good sound quality on the fuze what is the suggested frequency range?

 

Thanks,

SR

Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss, spans the range of 20hz-20khz. :wink:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html

Plus, as you get older, your ability to hear high pitches decreases. You can actually test yourself here:

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

I can’t hear anything over 12 kHz. Some young people who haven’t yet toasted their eardrums using cheap earbuds (like the ones that come with players like the Fuze) can hear the higher pitches, with the volume cranked a bit.

To the original poster: you should consider the earbuds that come with players a throw-away item. You’ll get much better sound by investing some money in decent headphones/earbuds.  There have been plenty of threads about this, a search will turn up a lot.

@jk98 wrote:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz  is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html

I didn’t say that "typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz"which could be considered misleading, as you suggest. I said “Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss , spans the range of 20hz-20khz.” 

@marvin_martian wrote:


@jk98 wrote:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz  is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html


I didn’t say that "typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz"which could be considered misleading, as you suggest. I said “Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss , spans the range of 20hz-20khz.” 

Speak up Marvin… I can’t hear you…:smileyvery-happy:

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@jk98 wrote:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz  is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html


I didn’t say that "typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz"which could be considered misleading, as you suggest. I said “Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss , spans the range of 20hz-20khz.” 


Speak up Marvin… I can’t hear you…:smileyvery-happy:

To quote the great intellect known as Charles Barkley: " You a funny dude!" :smileyvery-happy:

@ fuze_owner-GB wrote:

@marvin_martian wrote:


@jk98 wrote:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz  is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html


I didn’t say that "typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz"which could be considered misleading, as you suggest. I said “Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss, spans the range of 20hz-20khz.” 

Speak up Marvin… I can’t hear you… :smileyvery-happy:


To quote the great intellect known as Charles Barkley: " You a funny dude!" :smileyvery-happy:

funny ha-ha or funny strange??

@alsmith wrote:
@fuze_owner_gb wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@jk98 wrote:

To say that typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz  is somewhat misleading though. The quitest sound that is typically heard at 20 hz is around 70 db, while at 1,000 hz it is around 10 db. That is a difference of a factor of 100,000! Many would say that human hearing centers around the 100 hz(or perhaps 200 hz?) and 10,000 hz range. The maximum sensitivity of human hearing is around 3,000 hz, which seems to be around that of a typical female voice.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html


I didn’t say that "typical human hearing is 20 hz to 20K hz"which could be considered misleading, as you suggest. I said “Well, human hearing, assuming that there’s no hearing loss, spans the range of 20hz-20khz.” 


Speak up Marvin… I can’t hear you… :smileyvery-happy:

To quote the great intellect known as Charles Barkley: " You a funny dude!" :smileyvery-happy:

 

 

 

funny ha-ha or funny strange??

Funny ha-ha…GB is cool

This test is better, since it has the frequencies at many different volumes. I can hear 16khz, however the lowest volume I can hear at 16 khz is around 50 db higher than the lowest volume I can hear at 4khz. At 45 hz, it is around 60 db higher than at 4 khz. Start with the bottom of the chart and work your way up slowly to the higher volumes, so you don’t hurt your ears. I started at the -60 sound level 4khz, then lowered the volume on my pc until I could barely hear it. Then I tried other frequencies working up the chart until I could barely hear it.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/dB/loudness.html

“You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it’s me, I’m a little ****ed up maybe, but I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I’m here to ****in’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?” Goodfellas, 1990.

Even though human hearing can technology span 20hz - 20khz, High Resolution audio like DVDA (and now a bunch of BluRay Videos) utilize frequencies above what we can technically hear. It deals with upper harmonics and the faithful rolloff of sounds in their original capture. This is what you will see the specs on professional headfones exceeding 20khz.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Sennheiser-HD-600-Headphones?sku=241476

Frequency response (headphones): 12-39000 Hz

Brian

** And I dont know the specs on the Sansa headphones.  I have an old pair of Sennheiser headphones that I also use for recording.  It is just amazing how good they sound with the Sansa.  I would recommend finding a place that lets you listen to the headphones.  Reading specs can be misleading.  Its what your ear hears that counts.   

Message Edited by canezila on 03-11-2009 04:57 AM

I have done some mixing in the past and consider my ears/perception to be a bit above average.  I think that the stock Sansa buds are really OK.  I can listen to classical, jazz, rock, blues, etc and hear the entire mix, with goo bottom end and top end, good separation, etc.  I had a pair of “upgrader” Altec Lansings ($60 in-ears) and thought they were worse.

I know that there are better buds out there, but it’s hard to justify spending more than 20 bucks or so on phones for an 80 dollar device.  Plus, all our ears are different and what is good to someone else maybe poor to you.  It seems you could spend hundreds of dollars trying out various models and still maybe not find an ideal fit.

Plus, I lost my AltecLansings on a plane last month and was bummed.

If I lose the stock Sansa buds or some replacement Panasonics, who cares…

@canezila wrote:

Reading specs can be misleading.  Its what your ear hears that counts.   

Message Edited by canezila on 03-11-2009 04:57 AM

Hear Hear! :wink:

Good advice for any tech.

@blackdog_sansa wrote:

I think that the stock Sansa buds are really OK.

I agree. No need to throw them out straight away. They are far better than the earphones I had with my old Sony Walkmans.

But I am much happier with my JVC Marshmallows. And they are right on your perceived “budget” for an upgrade headphone too.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Sennheiser-HD-600-Headphones?sku=241476 Frequency response (headphones): 12-39000 Hz” "

Listing a frequency  range of 12-39000 hz has no meaning unless it is qualified with a measurement of how flat it is. While the very high and very low frequencies are reproduced, they might be reproduced at a much lower decibel level than in the original signal. Stating the frequency response as for example 60-12,000 hz +/- 3 db would give much more information. It says that the response is relatively flat over the most crucial frequencies for human hearing.

Dear JK98,

I think you missed my point.  I am not recommending those, just pointing out that the frequency response is certain models extend over the human range.  Studio headphones, as well as studio monitors, are made flat so that you can get a better idea of what you are doing during mix down.  

Brian

When you say flat response is that really flat, or matched to the varying sensitivity of human hearing? If to flat then they are going to sound differently to different people, and if to human sensitivity then not everyone’s is the same. Either way - whatever the basis- they are going to sound differently to different people begging the question how much does the detail being asked for really matter? It seems to boil down to listen yourself and buy based on your own perception, not specifications or other peoples hearing.

Flat response means trying to reproduce the live music experience. Of course when listening through headphones, using a binaural recording would be best. Human ears vary in size and shape, and this does have an influence of the sound.

@jk98 wrote:
Flat response means trying to reproduce the live music experience.

I’m not sure I agree with your wording here - we are not talking about “live” music here, we are talking about recorded music.

Flat response (as used in studio monitoring equipment) is a totally accurate reproduction of the recording. However, many people’s “favourite” sounding equipment is actually coloured in some way. Authentic reproduction and individual listener pleasure are not necessarily the same thing.

sosidge:  Authentic reproduction and individual listener pleasure are not necessarily the same thing.


 Right on.