and they also make me very very very dizzy. Tired a pair, were them once, and regretted the nausea quite swiftly. Kind of a shame too, as the earpods, are really cute. Still, a fine example of why specifications are so important, were those around for the earpods, I would never have gotten them. Kare On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, Don Tai via talk wrote:

They are not a headset, but I use Apple earpods. They are wired, reliable, have a built-in mic, not expensive ($25CAD), and widely available.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 12:02, Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 02:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

Hi folks and happy thanksgiving if you are celebrating. Given others might spend far more time in on line meetings than myself, plus the ideas here tend to be workable, I thought I would toss this question out here. There are some firm details for me, rather a few strictly digital, or wireless headphones actually can make me dizzy. part of my auditory processing condition.

Karen,

I bought my headphones at Bay Bloor Radio. They allow you to put them on and test them. What sort of budge do you have?

-- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

budge = budget != budgie On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 12:30, Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

Not sure what a budge is exactly. However, this headset, not to be confused with headphones, will be used on a macbook pro in a few zoom meetings where I must use zoom software instead of my preferred dial in option. For me personally, there is a risk of physical harm testing items in a store without knowing specifications beforehand. Making getting headset, not headphones models the goal of my question. Karen

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:

...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 02:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

Hi folks and happy thanksgiving if you are celebrating. Given others might spend far more time in on line meetings than myself, plus the ideas here tend to be workable, I thought I would toss this question out here. There are some firm details for me, rather a few strictly digital, or wireless headphones actually can make me dizzy. part of my auditory processing condition.

Karen,

I bought my headphones at Bay Bloor Radio. They allow you to put them on and test them. What sort of budge do you have?

-- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

On 10/10/22 16:44, Scott Allen via talk wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 16:16, Giles Orr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B000UXZQ42/ - Logitech H390

I have the same and like them. The microphone quality for speech is the best of numerous headsets I have, even quite expensive ones. One problem I've found, after using them for a few years, is that the thin "imitation leather" plastic covering the foam on the headband has started to deteriorate and flake off.

...

- the volume control on the chord works well on Mac - not sure if it works on Linux although I think it does

Yes, the volume control works with Linux (Ubuntu, at least) although that's true for all USB and Bluetooth headsets I've tried. The mute button also works but that is a local function, it doesn't send a "mute" command over USB, so there's no indication on the computer that mute has been activated.

Karen, I'm not much help in this part of the market. However, unless mentioned most headphones these days are below 32 ohms if not mentioned on packaging. The reason being that most amps in laptops or smartphones can at most get reliably 60-70ohms and that's what most people are using. I've heard good things about Scott's headphone recommendation through. Honestly, I'm really care about specification at some as those aren't that useful. What I want depending on the requirements is the internal test frequency chart. That gives me a rather good idea of what were looking at. That's just my view through. Good luck with your search, Nick

| From: Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | For the record, I will be using this headset with a 2012 macbook pro running | Catalina. | I have, due to harm risk learned what numbers need to line up, headphones or | headsets, with my needs differing depending on what I am using and where. | to manage the various voice quality, which can be a problem zoom wise, I use | the mac's own terrific volume control. since it is system wide as it were. | Again searching the difference between headphone uses and headset ones might | make my situation more understandable..maybe laughs. I'm trying to understand what your requirements actually are. Sensitivity is just how loud it sounds for a given setting of the volume control. I don't think that this could have a physiological effect that would not be cancelled by adjusting the amplifier's volume control. Impedence is mostly the same, assuming that the impedence isn't so high or low as to be unsupported by the amplifier. So: my best guess is that there is something else that is important for you. Perhaps these numbers are somehow correlated with the structure of the headphones and that is the real problem. <https://blog.taotronics.com/headphones/headphone-sensitivity-and-impedance/> Anyway, you seem to know what causes you problems. I'm not trying to argue that you should get something that is bad for you! | will see what i can learn about scotts, that is a new brand name for me. "Scott's" is the deal Scott Allen posted

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 19:08, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

<https://blog.taotronics.com/headphones/headphone-sensitivity-and-impedance/>

And I will reiterate that that article, and anything to do with impedance and sensitivity is only relevant to analogue headsets that (for this discussion) plug into a computer or phone's headphone jack(s). Any audio played by a computer will have been digitised. It will then have to be fed to a digital to analogue converter (DAC), which feeds an analogue amplifier. The amplifier will drive the speakers in the headset. For analogue (headphone jack) headsets, the DAC and amplifier are in the computer/phone and the headset only contains the speakers. For USB headsets the DAC, amplifier and speakers are all in the headset. Because a USB headset contains both the amplifier and speaker, you don't have to worry about matching the speakers' impedance and sensitivity to the amplifier. The manufacturer will have done this as part of the design. This is an advantage of USB headsets. Given the same digitised audio sample, the headset will sound the same no matter what device you've plugged it into and is feeding that audio because it's going through the same DAC, amplifier and speakers. With an analogue headset, the same audio sample will go through a different DAC and amplifier in each device before going to the speakers, so it could sound different on each device. Once you've found a USB headset that you like, you can be sure it will sound the same, given the same digital audio source, no matter what you've plugged it into that's providing that source. -- Scott

Hi there, Actually with this pair, the USB plug in is not the deal breaker. its the lack of any impedance information, and the sensitivity. Wish I could share a link to some fine articles, there is one on the headset direct site for example, that explain the sound quality between analog and digital processing quality. to be sure, the setup would likely be problematic too, but what makes these far from suitable for me is the reported sensitivity. Generally sensitivity should be higher than 100. Thanks for the suggestion though, if the headset were less technically risky, they might be a go. Kare On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, Giles Orr via talk wrote:

Hi Kare.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 02:27, Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

Hi folks and happy thanksgiving if you are celebrating. Given others might spend far more time in on line meetings than myself, plus the ideas here tend to be workable, I thought I would toss this question out here. There are some firm details for me, rather a few strictly digital, or wireless headphones actually can make me dizzy. part of my auditory processing condition. so, seeking wired headset ideas, with a boom mic, think for a laptop, just plug in no pairing required. I understand plantronics now Poly?, are a fine brand, but realize there may be others. Even if older, especially since my search is not producing options in a safe sensitivity range, either too low, as in less than 100, or too high, well above 110. I prefer impedance in the 32 range as well. Any model ideas?

These may not suit you for a number of possible reasons - not least of which is that they plug into a USB port rather than the headphone port, and I don't fully understand your requirements. But take a look if that's not a deal-breaker:

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B000UXZQ42/ - Logitech H390

I mention them because I bought them recently and I've been very happy with them. I've had to do a lot of audio chats at work and was tired of using the microphone in the computer, so I found these. I chose them because they're well reviewed and surprisingly cheap (currently $36, although it fluctuates). Some comments from personal experience:

- they "just worked" when plugged into a Mac, and also Linux (Fedora). - the volume control on the chord works well on Mac - not sure if it works on Linux although I think it does - the ear pads sit ON you ears, rather than AROUND them: I find they start to get a bit uncomfortable around the hour mark (which isn't too bad, considering) - given the price, the sound quality is quite good - everyone I've asked on the other end of my calls says I sound better - on pretty much every OS, plugging in a headset audio jack automatically over-rides the built-in speakers ... this wasn't initially true with the USB headset for either Mac or Linux, although after some futzing both now do so (just saying: setup may be problematic)

I hope this helps.

-- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Then I will not be using USB then. auditory processing is a form of brain injury..and for me the condition fluctuates. I am not buying anything without firm confirmation of those figures. If USB headsets do not provide them, then 3.5 it is then. Thanks for the warning. Karen On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, Scott Allen wrote:

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 17:51, Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

Actually with this pair, the USB plug in is not the deal breaker. its the lack of any impedance information, and the sensitivity.

With USB headsets, the impedance and sensitivity of the speakers is not something that you have to be concerned about. The headset will have its own internal amplifier circuitry powered by the 5 volts provided by the USB port. This amplifier will be designed for and matched to the impedance, sensitivity and frequency response of the speakers.

It's different for analogue headsets, which plug into a computer's phone connector type jack(s). In this case, the amplifier is in the computer and so the impedance, sensitivity and frequency response of the headset's speakers will affect how well the amplifier works with them and thus have a bearing on the sound quality and volume range.

-- Scott

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, Scott Allen wrote:

Then you'd better have confirmation of the speaker impedance and sensitivity requirements of the amplifier feeding the 3.5mm phone jack in your Macbook. Do you have that information? Absolute Impedance and sensitivity values mean nothing unless you know what values the amplifier in the Macbook will accept and works best with. Generalised value recommendations are only guidelines.

Yes. granted, its one reason why I am seeking a headset. Without warning I had to use the system microphone, not hearing myself, on top of adjusting the incoming audio for each speaker. it was profoundly disconcerting, something I do not wish to repeat. My standard zoom calls do not involve zoom, or a computer at all..best case my landline Which i do not have access at the moment. or my old lg flip phone, which those running this meeting do not allow.

With a USB headset, you can be assured that the impedance and sensitivity of the speakers are correct for its built in amplifier, which is why there's no need to publish them.

However, this is not about the machine. This is bout how the fluctuating neural pattern of my brain can safely manage frequencies, with that function constantly in flux. I have zero experience exploring that with a USB headset, and absolutely do not want to trigger a episode. Mercy I was using zoom for a hearing once and the various combination of sound input caused this.. I was dizzy for days. Not worth experimenting speaking personally, when I can stick with what works. Towards that end, let me ask the entire question differently. Older model wired Jvc headphones, or even sony, with a mic? No bluetooth, just the sort before wireless became the rave. will even make an ebay buy just to get something workable for the few times this will be needed. ..And people wonder why I sometimes feel this body is a great deal of trouble laughs. Kare

-- Scott

As I shared in one post, normally I do not do zoom meetings using zoom software and a computer at all. this setting though requires both. so, its either a headset, or a stand alone microphone, which given that indeed would need a converter would be more costly. On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2022-10-10 21:07, Karen Lewellen via talk wrote:

...

However, this is not about the machine.  This is bout how the fluctuating neural pattern of my brain can safely manage frequencies, with that function  constantly in flux.

I think you should be talking to someone who specializes in this sort of thing.  What were you using before?

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

certainly on an extra mic. Having been a radio producer for more than 30 years, I have no idea where this person's claim that the computer mic was better came from, but I ended up broadsided by the change. Something I seek to avoid by finding a replacement for the airbox mic I got to use previously. I am thankful learning that USB will be a firm no however. Karen On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2022-10-10 22:04, Karen Lewellen wrote:

...

As I shared in one post, normally I do  not do zoom meetings using zoom software and a computer at all. this setting though requires both. so, its either a headset, or a stand alone microphone, which given that indeed would need a converter would be more costly.

I use video chat frequently and rely on the microphone in the video camera, which sits on top of my monitor and don't use headphones at all.  However, I do have a Logitech headset with mike, which also works well.  I use that on the rare occasion when I'm doing a video chat with my ThinkPad.  I have used Zoom, Jitsi, Skype, Meets and Teams.  No problem with any of them.  Many people use separate microphones too.

As mentioned by me and others, USB connections are digital and you simply don't worry about things like impedance with them.

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

I am making these requirements to avoid hospitalization, which is what I risk when I do not match these numbers. Your background is not neuroplasticity, so you have no reason to judge my requirements. On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, James Knott via talk wrote:

I didn't say it was better.  I said the microphone in the video camera works fine.  What I did say was that I use a headset mike with my ThinkPad, because that is definitely better, as the built in mike picks up noise from the computer.  As I mentioned, I frequently use video chat, most recently this morning and for my purposes, the camera mike works fine.  If I were in a noisy location, then I'd use a headset.  On the other hand some people seem to go overboard and seem to be pretending to be a broadcaster, with a mike hanging down from a boom, etc..

BTW, my background is in telecom, going back 50 years and am well aware of the requirements for intelligible voice.  That has generally been about 300 Hz to 3 KHz and toll quality calls were handled over 64 Kb/s digital channels.  These days, however, one of two things happen to voice.  Either it gets compressed, when not needed or the quality is improved almost to being "Hi-Fi" with newer CODECs.  Take a look at cell phones.  The first phones were analog with audio comparable to toll quality.  Then 2G came along and compression was used to fit multiple channels in the spectrum occupied by an analog call.  More recently, with 4G and 5G, there is so much bandwidth available that CODECs are going the other way, providing much better than toll quality calls.  Also, consumer quality gear is more than adequate to carry voice from just about anything.  Bottom line, I don't know why you're making such requirements, when they shouldn't make much different.  For example, you don't hear impedance.  Impedance is selected to ensure maximum power transfer by matching source and load.  That's it.  Sensitivity might be something, but since everything has a volume control these days, not so much.  A more likely issue would be distortion, which can make it hard to hear, even with a loud signal.  Here you want to avoid cheap.  Same with frequency response.  If you meet the toll quality needs, then it should be OK.

BTW, going way back in my career, I used to do the network tests on the CBC radio feed into Northern Ontario transmitter sites. I'd measure things like frequency response, levels, harmonic distortion, background noise and more.  It'd record the data on a chart and plot the curves, etc., to be sent into the CBC.  Back then, if you were a CBC listener in Northern Ontario, you could hear the tests going out over the network at 1PM Thursdays and I'd be there taking the measurements.

On 2022-10-11 12:04, Karen Lewellen wrote:

...

certainly on an extra mic.  Having been a radio producer for more than 30 years, I have no idea where this person's claim that the computer mic was better came from, but I ended up broadsided by the change. Something I seek to avoid by finding a replacement for the airbox mic I got to use previously. I am thankful learning that USB will be a firm no however. Karen

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, James Knott via talk wrote:

...

On 2022-10-10 22:04, Karen Lewellen wrote:

...

 As I shared in one post, normally I do not do zoom meetings using zoom  software and a computer at all.  this setting though requires both.  so, its either a headset, or a stand alone microphone, which given that  indeed would need a converter would be more costly.

I use video chat frequently and rely on the microphone in the video camera, which sits on top of my monitor and don't use headphones at all.  However, I do have a Logitech headset with mike, which also works well.  I use that on the rare occasion when I'm doing a video chat with my ThinkPad.  I have used Zoom, Jitsi, Skype, Meets and Teams.  No problem with any of them. Many people use separate microphones too.

As mentioned by me and others, USB connections are digital and you simply don't worry about things like impedance with them.

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Scott, The comment you quoted was written for James. And as expressed, I do not wish to gamble my physical health, especially when not needful, since analog options still exist. Karen On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, Scott Allen wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 15:05, Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

...

Your background is not neuroplasticity, so you have no reason to judge my requirements.

And respectfully, your background is not electronics or electroacoustics. You do not seem to comprehend how speaker impedance and sensitivity relates to distortion, frequency response and other audio characteristics, since you somehow have ruled out USB headsets based on what I and others have said.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation and wish you well in your endeavour.

-- Scott

auditory processing is not a hearing disorder. it is not what I hear, but how sound, verbal sound is neurologically managed from the brain down. Consumer gear works just fine. By way of example. I have a pair of Sony mdr-xb50ap headphones which would be just wonderful.. if the impedance were higher. I had a pair of JvC ha-s44x headphones, honestly almost anything in their extreme explotive line would be terrific..if it also had a microphone. Which is why I asked here. On Mon, 10 Oct 2022, James Knott via talk wrote:

On 2022-10-10 20:34, Karen Lewellen via talk wrote:

...

Then I will not be using USB then. auditory processing is a form of brain injury..and for me the condition fluctuates. I am not buying anything  without firm confirmation of those figures. If USB headsets do not provide them, then 3.5 it is then. Thanks for the warning. Karen

Perhaps you need to talk to someone who specializes in hearing issues.  All we're likely to recommend are standard consumer gear, where you apparently need something special.  I believe hearing aids are customized according to the users needs.  Is there similar available in computer headsets?

--- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Provide a link. The jvc ha-44x over ear extreme explotive headphones, have a sensitivity of 106 db. and a mono impedance of 32m...so says the link from JVC I have had bookmarked since 2014..at least. I need no calculator to make safe determinations for my body. so, please share the link from the jvc website, documenting your claim regarding the model ha-s44x. On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 10:01:15PM -0400, Karen Lewellen via talk wrote:

...

auditory processing is not a hearing disorder. it is not what I hear, but how sound, verbal sound is neurologically managed from the brain down. Consumer gear works just fine. By way of example. I have a pair of Sony mdr-xb50ap headphones which would be just wonderful.. if the impedance were higher. I had a pair of JvC ha-s44x headphones, honestly almost anything in their extreme explotive line would be terrific..if it also had a microphone. Which is why I asked here.

Well looking up the specs of those JVC headphones I see impedance of 33.4 ohm and sensitivity of 113.1 dB/V (decibel per volt I guess). I think that must be the 32 and 100 to 110 you were mentioning. Of course most headphones if they give specs are in dB/mW which is apparently meaningless since you have to account for the impedence to compare them.

I found a calculator page that says the JVC at 113.1 dB/V at 33.4 ohm would be 98.34 dB/mW.

I found the JBL Quantum 100, which is listed as 32 ohm, 96 dB/mW, which the calculator says is 111 dB/V so just about identical to the JVC headphones. They are listed on JBL's website at $60 canadian. 3.5mm jack, no USB or bluetooth or any of that other modern stuff. Bestbuy currently lists it on sale for $40. https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/jbl-quantum-100-gaming-headset-black/14...

-- Len Sorensen

If that person does not work for Jvc, that test has no barring on my choices. There are countless unique factors to such testing that do not translate to the world outside of their lab. Since I am not using their brain, what importance whatsoever does their testing have to my life experience? none. at. all. On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 07:57:13PM -0400, Karen Lewellen wrote:

...

Provide a link. The jvc ha-44x over ear extreme explotive headphones, have a sensitivity of 106 db. and a mono impedance of 32m...so says the link from JVC I have had bookmarked since 2014..at least. I need no calculator to make safe determinations for my body. so, please share the link from the jvc website, documenting your claim regarding the model ha-s44x.

Those are the numbers from someone actually testing them in a lab: https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/jvc-ha-sr44x.php#gsc.tab=0

JVC lists them at 32 ohm and 106 dB/mW so in db/V the measured 113 would be about right for 32 or 33 ohm impedance. It's a bit lower than what JVC claimed but not much.

-- Len Sorensen

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 08:03:38PM -0400, Karen Lewellen via talk wrote:

the db/nw number is perfectly understandable for me. Further any sensitivity less than 105 is personally out of the question for me. Honestly, while I appreciate your ideas, clearly my hope for general information is turning into my need to defend a medically documented processing injury..I get enough burden to society talk for the blindness to have no interest defending what history teaches me is safe. For the record, there is, or was, a fine cbc nature of things about neuroplasticity drawing from the book, "the brain's way of healing." Some of the featured doctors have been my own at some point over the years.

Well you didn't provide units for the sensitivity before. dB/mW works for comparing but only if the impedance is exatly the same. Fortunately 32 ohm does seem fairly common. And db/mW and db/V are very similar values for 32 ohm headphones, so it could have been either. -- Len Sorensen

As someone who also has auditory processing issues, Zoom is the absolute worst. It compresses speech by a massive amount and adds back very little comfort noise, and for me anything above whisper-quiet is like a jackhammer to the head. If I've been on a Zoom call with anyone here and I've seemed more than usually spacey, that's the reason. I haven't found MacBooks to be very good at driving higher impedance headsets. They make a terrible job of driving my old Sennheisers. They are expecting to drive tiny earbuds, not a proper headset. There are 3.5 mm TRRS to separate headphone/mic channel adapters. Canada Computers have this one for $5: https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=5_3933_4382&item_id=180313 Stewart

By the way, Apple has not dropped 3.5mm jack from any of their computers so far.

On Oct 11, 2022, at 14:23, Karen Lewellen via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:

I chose the 2012 macbook pro units, although the one I have is just beyond the one I desired, because the 3.5 jack is still present.

On 2022-10-10 16:16, Giles Orr via talk wrote:

These may not suit you for a number of possible reasons - not least of which is that they plug into a USB port rather than the headphone port, and I don't fully understand your requirements. But take a look if that's not a deal-breaker:

I also don't understand her requirements, but USB connectors are digital connections and the things she mentions, such as impedance and sensitivity are analog terms.  So, she needs something that can connect to analog headphone jacks, not USB.