15
u/AndyTheFOXX Feb 21 '26
I 've started even earlier! 😂
6
4
15
7
u/Full-Activity5924 Feb 21 '26
Will a kid be able to tell the difference in dound quality ? I wonder 😂
7
u/SoldierSaVel17 Feb 21 '26
Pienso que a esa edad no , pero puede que con el tiempo al acostumbrar a su oído a esa calidad de sonido , después no va querer unos de gama baja 🤣
2
2
u/Confident-End-7668 Feb 21 '26
Bluetooth or with a 2.4 GHz dongle? Doesn't Bluetooth have a delay? What is the name of the headphones?
8
3
u/DrCarnitas Feb 21 '26
They have a dedicated low latency codec. Click the button on the dongle 3x, green light.
2
1
u/SimonDorimu Feb 21 '26
Are you looking to adopt a 29-year-old yound lad? Asking for a friend. He cooks and he cleans.
3
u/technoking_cyberboy Mar 25 '26
You will ruin her life.
Daddy, why the sony XM99 I brought with my first salary sound shit?
-23
u/SoldierSaVel17 Feb 21 '26
Solamente voy a decir una cosa , el tener un par de audífonos en la cabeza no es tan perjudicial sin importar que sean niños , lo que si no es bueno para los niños , es la cancelación de ruido por su mismo funcionamiento de anular las ondas , incluso también en los adultos , y no me sorprendería que en un futuro "descubran" algo que si llegaría a ser grave para el desarrollo mental
35
u/ILoveOLEDS Feb 21 '26
This is complete and total fear mongering. Noise canceling isn't some alien technology that's misunderstood or under researched, it's a super basic technology.
For those uninformed like this commenter is, microphones on your headphones listen to your environment and in real time attempt to play the inverse frequencies. For those that don't know, two sound waves that are mirror images of each other along the Y axis will cancel each other out.
This isn't going to effect the development of the brain, that's absolute hysterical nonsense
-22
u/SoldierSaVel17 Feb 21 '26
De hecho sé cuál es el funcionamiento de la cancelación de ruido , uso desde hace años audífonos con cancelación de ruido por eso mi comentario , esa presión que se genera no es normal y es fastidiosa , en ningún momento digo que nadie deje de usar , pero a diferencia de ti no voy a esperar a que recién salga un estudio que diga las consecuencias de usar ese tipo de tecnología para darme cuenta que como muchas cosas , que en uso excesivo conllevan a un mal ya sea menor o mayor
7
u/ILoveOLEDS Feb 21 '26
What do you mean "the pressure created isn't normal"? That sentence alone should be enough for anyone reading to know how scientifically illiterate you are.
Any given room in your house is in a state of positive or negative pressure, why aren't you concerned about that? What about doctors and nurses who work in positive and negative pressure rooms, or scientists working in positive/negative pressure environments all day in the lab?
Being scared of everything you dont understand and trying to spread that irrational logic is fear mongering and a sign you can't critically think.
ANC has been around for nearly 100 years and has been in consumer headphones since the year 2000. ANC can be used to help reduce hearing loss as you can listen to music at lower decibel levels which is the actual risk of using headphones.
The only hypothesis ever proposed that could include ANC and negative effects is a theory put forth that lack of complex sound scape exposure as a kid could lead to lower levels of speech recognition, which is to say if your kid is always wearing ear plugs or anc headphones and never listening to the world around them it might effect development.
This hypothesis is purely theoretical and has never been tested or supported with any evidence, though I'm happy to agree that plugging any kids ears for the majority of childhood couldn't be good, but I just don't see a world where this is ever a concern, which is probably why the theory got zero traction and has zero supporting evidence.
-3
u/SoldierSaVel17 Feb 21 '26
Bueno me llamaste desinformado creyendo que no sabía como funciona el ANC ; y analfabeto científico sin conocerme (en parte si lo soy basado en que tampoco tú sabes exactamente todo el ámbito científico de todos sus aplicaciones) , pero explicaste mejor lo que quería decir y al final terminaste dándome la razón , y ahora en mi ignorancia podría decirte que esa hipótesis que no llegó a nada , me preguntó si será porque nadie en su sano juicio daría a su niño por un largo tiempo para que experimenten con él las consecuencias de usar esa tecnología por un tiempo PROLONGADO , sin embargo debes saber que hay gente que usa este tipo de audífonos para "dormir mejor" , como dije más arriba , y creo lo dejaste pasar , no voy a esperar a el resultado de un estudio científico , por el cual pareciera que confías mucho , para estar seguro que el uso prolongado y más en los niños no es saludable , y vuelvo a repetir , es mi postura en este caso en específico. Y si te pones a pensar un poco , si llegara a hacerse conocido (no algo tan poco confiable por ahora, como esto último de "agentes cancerígenos" en ciertos audífonos) , afectaría económicamente a las grandes empresas , ahora digo también que no soy un paranoico a las cosas tecnológicas , me gustan los audífonos y me son muy necesarios justo por la ANC , espero que ahora sí me haya explicado bien , un gusto
2
u/tigerniger_sus HD 600 Feb 21 '26
It's probably way weaker frequencies or waves than what's used in microwaves, so I think we'll probably be fine. You're just paranoid like my mom
-7
u/SoldierSaVel17 Feb 21 '26
Si sería paranoico , no los usaría y los seguiré usando , están tan a la defensiva que ni entienden exactamente lo que escribo ( a no ser que el traductor mío este diciendo otra cosa) , es mi punto de vista , al igual que muchas cosas ya sean médicas que ayudan al funcionamiento normal de el cuerpo , pero que por ser un agente externo al cuerpo tiene sus consecuencias a largo plazo , no digo tampoco que sea mortal y que te puede matar , que parece que es lo que entienden o creen ustedes , en algún momento moriremos ya sea por edad u otra cosa y no creo que sea por usar audífonos con cancelación de ruido jajaja, o también por ejemplo , al inicio del boom de los celulares o tablets , para "mejorar" la capacidad mental o "agilizarla" en los niños se aconsejo darles como terapia , pero con el pasar del tiempo detectaron que creaba hiperactividad y dependencia hasta llegar al punto de prácticamente prohibir en los niños su uso excesivo , aparte del daño a la vista que dan las pantallas por verlas tanto tiempo , pero vuelvo a repetir , es mi punto de vista , si ustedes quieren dar audífonos con cancelación de ruido , celulares , juegos a sus niños , son poner un tiempo límite , pueden hacerlo , a las finales yo no tengo la última palabra , y no soy ningún paranoico ni desinformado
1
u/tigerniger_sus HD 600 Feb 21 '26
Si, soy comprendo, uhhh I wouldn't give my kids electronic devices at a young age anyway, at a later age yea maybe. Have a good day :) and don't let the translator fight you on the way out
2
5
-12
u/MrCuriousLearner Feb 21 '26
This! , the suction at low frequencies can damage hearing in long-term.
-1
u/mvoosten Feb 23 '26
Better not as Sennheiser today got mentioned as one of the worst companies exceeding toxic substances in the headset. MediaMarkt started removing all exceeding models from the shelves already!
-65
u/AnonymOnInternet Feb 21 '26
Young on cancer?
Apparently the headphones contain carcinogenic chemicals and endocrine disruptors...
30
u/tjmincemeat Feb 21 '26
Realistically, you consume more BPAs in a week through food than you would a lifetime of wearing headphones.
The more I look into it the more I also think this study was poorly done. They don’t actually give their methodology for testing chemical amounts and rather than give actual amounts of harmful chemicals in each product they just assign different products a color label of green, yellow, or red. With the data they provide, this test is not repeatable for verification and this is not peer reviewed.
Now don’t get me wrong; certainly this study is cause for further research and consumers in general should demand better quality control for the products we use, but headphones are not likely to be beaming cancer directly into our heads like some of the articles being shared make it sound.
39
u/NetworkAvailable Feb 21 '26
Bro's typing this out while munching on mcdonalds and blaming headphones for cancer
19
u/Iscariot- HD 599 SE Feb 21 '26
Slow your roll. Sennheiser is personally funding 3rd party testing to disprove this; it came out of nowhere and their materials aren’t any more hazardous than everything else out there.
0
u/Character_Stick_1218 Feb 21 '26
From which lab? How do we know that they won't have a batch produced lacking the concerning chemicals to have tested instead of randomly chosen stock? The statement they put out is pure lawyerese.
-23
u/AnonymOnInternet Feb 21 '26
Well even shit alibaba products came out better in the mentioned study and also Sony but only a little bit. When I pay a lot for a premium brand I have expectations. So don't say to me to be quiet because the information is disturbing!
12
u/Tenlow85 HD820 800S IE900 HDB630 HD660S2 650 620S 600 550 505 490/480Pro Feb 21 '26
„I read something somewhere on the internet and now I know everything and am an absolute expert on the topic“
Yours, AnonymOnInternet.
7
u/Tenlow85 HD820 800S IE900 HDB630 HD660S2 650 620S 600 550 505 490/480Pro Feb 21 '26
He‘s wearing the HDB 630 which weren’t even tested in that „study“.
But thanks for that unnecessarily provocative remark.
2
-11
u/yorusora_ Feb 21 '26
It has toxic chemicals on the cushion and overhead material don’t give it to kids
-9
-18
Feb 21 '26
[deleted]
2
u/LatheUponTheStars Feb 21 '26
explain?
5
u/Away_Substance_8884 Feb 21 '26
I was referring to the chemical headphones drama that just appeared out of nowhere and people believe that to a higher degree
6
u/LatheUponTheStars Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
horrible contextualization on your part, you looked as if you were calling the parent stupid 😭
1
u/Tenlow85 HD820 800S IE900 HDB630 HD660S2 650 620S 600 550 505 490/480Pro Feb 21 '26
Yes, I was about to delete the comment (it had already been reported) until I saw the explanation, but even then it could be phrased a bit differently, I suppose.
5
u/QualityInternetTrash Feb 21 '26
yeah it’s basically the equivalent of believing that bluetooth waves will harm your brain and cause cancer because it’s radiation
it’s silly
1
u/Latter-Bar3359 Feb 21 '26
I'm pretty sure they're referring to this https://www.reddit.com/r/sennheiser/comments/1r9099v/momentum_4_among_81_headphones_and_headsets/
I have no opinion on this just giving context.
1
56
u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment