Sennheiser Game One or Astro A40 TR

[Pega]

I was looking for a mid tier headset around the 150 $ mark and I was presented with 2 very appealing options.

So I'm torn between the Sennheiser Game One and the Astro A40 TR (without that overpriced mixamp).

I have no doubt that the Sennheiser headset is better sounding and has one of the best headset mics. However I personally really do not like how they look and they aren't really something you can wear while out.

On the other hand the astro a40 has a design that I quite like, and the customizeable ear tags are also a draw. The removeable mic and detatchable cable is very nice, especially with my bad history of tugging cords. I have also heard that the build quality is on par with the price.

However the astros (from what I've heard) aren't the best in terms of performance. I have read all kinds of complaints with the mic; breaking, very bad at detecting lows and highs because of noise cancellation, makes you sound squeaky, etc. Some people say its alright and the complaints sometimes contradict each other, I just don't know who to trust. I have read that the mid range sounds on the headset are mediocre and I have little doubt that sennheisser would sound better.

I would really appreciate some insight on what to choose.

[Sticky Honeybuns]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Etnopluralism / Aliquis:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sticky Honeybuns:

Companies that make good studio headphones are Sennheiser (my personal favorite), Sony, Phillips, audio-technica, shure.

Stay away from beats, Bose, and any brand that makes only gaming accessories.

Beyer-Dynamic, AKG, Grado, Denon(?), B&W(?) and likely a bunch of others.

I don't see why gaming accessory manufacturers would necessarily make worse audio-equipment. Sure that could be the case and sure only looking at their products limit your amount of possibly choices but the same is also true if you exclude them. Logitech likely sell quite a few headsets and likely have some money to use for design and development and there's no reason why their equipment couldn't be good too. I don't know how good they are in comparision but of course they or as you mention Sony could come up with a gaming head-set which actually is very good.

Yea my list wasn't all inclusive. I should have put Beyer on there at least though. Good additions.

As far as gaming peripheral companies go it's a general guideline but some good headsets can still come out of them.

The point is you are paying for the word "gaming" from those companies. Those companies mostly have very little experience in audio reproduction.

Sennheiser for example has been around since 1945 and released the first pair of headphones.

Let's take beats for example. Several sites recently found that they only have about 20 dollars in the materials. They use off the shelf drivers and even put weights in them to feel like more expensive headphones. They also broke down a counterfeit pair of beats and found there was only about 2 dollars difference in materials. Meaning in this case, the counterfeit pair was actually a better deal.

You can actual go to a local Best Buy or a guitar center and try some studio headphones. Once you try a pair you will never look at gaming headsets again.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Horus:

I don't see why you would want to drill a hole in your expensive beyer-dynamic headPHONES in order to add a modmic which is fragile.

It's a magnet with double sided tape which you just glue against your headphones and then a microphone boom which fastens towards that magnet so it's detachable and you don't need to drill any holes anywhere and the tape can be removed (.. as for how much residue it leaves I don't know but that too can likely be removed) and it can be glued/taped to another headphone again if you want too.

But yeah. Sennheiser almost make professional (microphones) headsets for stuff like airliners and such I guess.

One reason to go with G933 instead of the 373D is that they are wireless. I know that's likely the reason my friend got them, he also got a wireless mouse (G900) and keyboard (G910.)

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Pega:

I don't understand why anyone cares about 7.1 surround. It has been proven to be a gimmick. Should I get the game one or game zero? The build quality of the zero looks better and the closed back design is nice because it can be loud in the house a lot. I heard that they don't sound as good as the ones though. I have also heard that even after the updated ohms, it still is weak if you don't have an amp deserving of it. I have also heard that the updated models have a detachable cord which I hope is true because that would be really nice.

I haven't listened to either but I assume I would think an open headphone sounded better then again I'm in an environment there not much else make a noise so that's totally different for different use cases. I have no idea how easy they are to drive and I have no idea how well a "up to 600 ohm headphone amplifier" motherboard can drive them. The Beyer-Dynamic DT-phones exist in like 32 ohm, 250 ohm and 600 ohm versions or whatever.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sticky Honeybuns:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Etnopluralism / Aliquis:

Beyer-Dynamic, AKG, Grado, Denon(?), B&W(?) and likely a bunch of others.

I don't see why gaming accessory manufacturers would necessarily make worse audio-equipment. Sure that could be the case and sure only looking at their products limit your amount of possibly choices but the same is also true if you exclude them. Logitech likely sell quite a few headsets and likely have some money to use for design and development and there's no reason why their equipment couldn't be good too. I don't know how good they are in comparision but of course they or as you mention Sony could come up with a gaming head-set which actually is very good.

Yea my list wasn't all inclusive. I should have put Beyer on there at least though. Good additions.

As far as gaming peripheral companies go it's a general guideline but some good headsets can still come out of them.

The point is you are paying for the word "gaming" from those companies. Those companies mostly have very little experience in audio reproduction.

Sennheiser for example has been around since 1945 and released the first pair of headphones.

Let's take beats for example. Several sites recently found that they only have about 20 dollars in the materials. They use off the shelf drivers and even put weights in them to feel like more expensive headphones. They also broke down a counterfeit pair of beats and found there was only about 2 dollars difference in materials. Meaning in this case, the counterfeit pair was actually a better deal.

You can actual go to a local Best Buy or a guitar center and try some studio headphones. Once you try a pair you will never look at gaming headsets again.

I assume AKG is on par with Beyer-Dynamic in size? At-least? Though I don't know for sure. KOSS too of course. Lots of brands and some of the less known by me is likely less known because they make even higher priced stuff. Like I assume there may exist electro-static headphones too? I just don't know their model names and brands.

I understand you MAY be paying for their brand image, then again does the Sennheiser or Bose brand come for free? ;) Grado sell phones for under $100 and over $1000, do you get 20 times more of a head-phone with the one which cost 20 times more? Or do you pay a lot to get the more premium headphone regardless of what it actually cost to produce?

It's not like audiophile equipment doesn't come with a markup, what about a $2000 CD-player? Justified? $400 speaker cables? Maybe the mass-market gaming equipment actually give a better value than the audiosnob one?

The Grado PS1000e can't come with $1695 worth of materials but that's what it cost anyway. So why the price? Because it cost to get "the best."
If you were to judge headphones at their material cost vs price in the story then the most cheap headphones likely take the lead but they unlikely are the best.

Edit: Abyss AB-1266 Deluxe:
http://www.abyss-headphones.com/abyss_ab_1266.html
Looks crazy. Not really a mass-market product. $4495 for regular package $5495 for deluxe package ;D. We could add swiss watches into this, luxury products aren't necessarily worth their money in performance / value, that goes for audio equipment too :)
Hifiman HE1000 v2 a steal at $2999! ;D http://hifiman.com/products/detail/267
KOSS ESP950 for $999.99 is electrostatic :) https://www.koss.com/headphones/over-ear-headphones/esp950
Stax SR007mk2 are too, price? $2100 http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/SR007mk2.html

[Horus]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Pega:

I don't understand why anyone cares about 7.1 surround. It has been proven to be a gimmick. Should I get the game one or game zero? The build quality of the zero looks better and the closed back design is nice because it can be loud in the house a lot. I heard that they don't sound as good as the ones though. I have also heard that even after the updated ohms, it still is weak if you don't have an amp deserving of it. I have also heard that the updated models have a detachable cord which I hope is true because that would be really nice.

You are completely wrong about 7.1 and also, ATMOS which is full 3D sound, delivered through stereo headphones. You'll say, wait, how can you make sound appear to come from various directions with just 2 speakers? The answer is a question: how can you perceive the direction of sounds with just 2 ears, other than right and left?

But you can, can't you? Tell that a sound is coming from above, below, in front, in back, on top of left/right and any combination of all 3 dimensions. Why? How?

The answer is in the shape of your ears. Your ears DISTORT sounds differently depending on where they come from. Your brain DECODES this distortion and figures out where the sound is coming from.

Basically a Surround or Atmos sound source applies the same distortion that a human ear would when the sound bounces from that direction on your ears. But all ears are like fingerprints: everyone has a slightly different set.

There is only one problem with this: the headphones don't know the shape of your ears. Maybe someday you will be able to get your ears scanned and get the libraries for your exact ear shape. But right now, the distortions applied are those belonging to an "average" set of human ears. That means the sound won't be EXACTLY like you expect something in front, behind, on top, below you to be.

However, just as your brain has learned to decode the distortions on your ears, it can also learn to adjust to a surround headset. So yes, out of the box, a surround headset will surely sound "meh" unless you happen to have exactly average ears in every aspect.

However, if you keep on using your surround headset, over time, your enjoyment of them should grow, as your brain learns to decode the slightly different distortions in the headset.

So no, it is not a gimmick. It takes time to learn to use, so most reviewers spending 2 hours wtih any given headset on their head is going to be "meh" about surround sound.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Horus:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Pega:

I don't understand why anyone cares about 7.1 surround. It has been proven to be a gimmick. Should I get the game one or game zero? The build quality of the zero looks better and the closed back design is nice because it can be loud in the house a lot. I heard that they don't sound as good as the ones though. I have also heard that even after the updated ohms, it still is weak if you don't have an amp deserving of it. I have also heard that the updated models have a detachable cord which I hope is true because that would be really nice.

You are completely wrong about 7.1 and also, ATMOS which is full 3D sound, delivered through stereo headphones. You'll say, wait, how can you make sound appear to come from various directions with just 2 speakers? The answer is a question: how can you perceive the direction of sounds with just 2 ears, other than right and left?

I don't know why you argue against him when you likely have the same understanding of things, in that if the headphones actually had diaphragms for 7.1 in whatever way that would happen (4 / side?) that wouldn't necessarily be better than just 1 and software. Now I don't know if most branded as 7.1 speakers actually use multiple diaphragms or just software though.

If the x.1 headsets actually are just virtual surround headsets then I appologize for my lack of knowledge and understand your reply better :)

Do they usually have multiple diaphragms or not?

[Horus]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Etnopluralism / Aliquis:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Horus:

You are completely wrong about 7.1 and also, ATMOS which is full 3D sound, delivered through stereo headphones. You'll say, wait, how can you make sound appear to come from various directions with just 2 speakers? The answer is a question: how can you perceive the direction of sounds with just 2 ears, other than right and left?

I don't know why you argue against him when you likely have the same understanding of things, in that if the headphones actually had diaphragms for 7.1 in whatever way that would happen (4 / side?) that wouldn't necessarily be better than just 1 and software. Now I don't know if most branded as 7.1 speakers actually use multiple diaphragms or just software though.

If the x.1 headsets actually are just virtual surround headsets then I appologize for my lack of knowledge and understand your reply better :)

Do they usually have multiple diaphragms or not?

Almost all of them do not.

One exception is the Psyko brand of headsets. I have owned one, and it is true, the 5.1 from these is directionally exceptional. But the sound quality is not good, especially for the $200+ price tag.

Maybe some pro players can put them to good use, but the model I tried, which was I think their very first, was not satisfactory. I still have the headset, but one of the drivers stopped working, too.

I also owned the Zalman 5.1 headset that had 3 drivers per cup. Its sound quality was downright terrible.

It basically boils down to this: either multiple tiny drivers that produce mediocre sound at best, or VIRTUAL surround with one driver per cup, which can be of very high quality.

[Sticky Honeybuns]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Horus:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Pega:

I don't understand why anyone cares about 7.1 surround. It has been proven to be a gimmick. Should I get the game one or game zero? The build quality of the zero looks better and the closed back design is nice because it can be loud in the house a lot. I heard that they don't sound as good as the ones though. I have also heard that even after the updated ohms, it still is weak if you don't have an amp deserving of it. I have also heard that the updated models have a detachable cord which I hope is true because that would be really nice.

You are completely wrong about 7.1 and also, ATMOS which is full 3D sound, delivered through stereo headphones. You'll say, wait, how can you make sound appear to come from various directions with just 2 speakers? The answer is a question: how can you perceive the direction of sounds with just 2 ears, other than right and left?

But you can, can't you? Tell that a sound is coming from above, below, in front, in back, on top of left/right and any combination of all 3 dimensions. Why? How?

The answer is in the shape of your ears. Your ears DISTORT sounds differently depending on where they come from. Your brain DECODES this distortion and figures out where the sound is coming from.

Basically a Surround or Atmos sound source applies the same distortion that a human ear would when the sound bounces from that direction on your ears. But all ears are like fingerprints: everyone has a slightly different set.

There is only one problem with this: the headphones don't know the shape of your ears. Maybe someday you will be able to get your ears scanned and get the libraries for your exact ear shape. But right now, the distortions applied are those belonging to an "average" set of human ears. That means the sound won't be EXACTLY like you expect something in front, behind, on top, below you to be.

However, just as your brain has learned to decode the distortions on your ears, it can also learn to adjust to a surround headset. So yes, out of the box, a surround headset will surely sound "meh" unless you happen to have exactly average ears in every aspect.

However, if you keep on using your surround headset, over time, your enjoyment of them should grow, as your brain learns to decode the slightly different distortions in the headset.

So no, it is not a gimmick. It takes time to learn to use, so most reviewers spending 2 hours wtih any given headset on their head is going to be "meh" about surround sound.

Well, you are wrong about 7.1. First to compare 7.1 to Dolby atmos is ridiculous. Atmos uses positional data instead of using discrete channels.

Second Atmos headphones can never truly work without playing tricks. Atmos works by sending the audio to that position. With headphones you will only have two speaker locations, even with Now I guess you could build a motorcycle helmet headset thingy with speakers lining the entire inside and then Atmos would work.

Stop assuming things and go try a real pair of studio headphones. Surround headphones are crap.