Logitech G933 any alternatives I can buy?

evertonhero

evertonhero

evertonhero

Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2009
Posts
344
Location
Liverpool
Hey guys,

I can get these G933 for £130 which are lookig the favorites.

Im looking for some nice wireless headphones for gaming mainly,

I liked the look of the steelseries H wireless but the docking base it comes with is just to impractical for me as im mainly on a laptop and the less wires the better

Any advice on possible alternatives? Max price of £200

Thanks a lot,
 
If you have to have wireless, and don't mind the resulting inferior sound quality, audio lag and interference then you would be better off grabbing a 'proper' pair of wireless headphones (as opposed to some gimmicky 'gaming' ones) and then pairing it with a standalone mic like the Modmic/Snowball etc. Something like the Senn RS120 or up to the RS160 for the low end and high end of your budget respectively.
 
Haha ok im getting the impression you're not a fan of gaming and wireless?!

Thanks for your input tho, i have looked into the 2 you suggested but with the docking base they come with and mains power etc just to much hassle for what im after aswell asan additional microphone wiring would be a nightmare for me.


The g933 has a simple usb plug and play no dc power or hubs etc needed which is what im after for laptop/ xbox & ps4 support

If you could suggest something that ticks these boxes aswell i would be grateful!
 
G933 headsets are very good, I've got a pair and they're much better than the previous G930s.

The G933 ticks all your boxes as it's compatible with everything you've got. Also wireless audio doesn't suddenly mean that it's going to be inferior audio quality, I don't know why he's said that but I'm getting a feeling it's along the same lines as magic speaker cables make the sound better (which is of course utter BS).

I don't think you're going to find anything that beats a G933, especially not at £130.
 
Thanks spoffle,

Had agood look around and cant find anything more suitable than the 933's

Yeah there's probably twice as good wired ones out the for a similar price but i need easy access wireless multi platform so these should the job!
 
I can't think of anything else half-decent for the price that doesn't have a docking base, so the G933 does indeed seem like your solution.

Truthfully, no, not at all a fan of wireless for gaming (because of the lag, interference etc) and I'm not a fan of headphones that market themselves as gaming headsets because typically they're gimmicky and put aesthetics (which IMO look naff anyway with heap plastics and animation rgb LEDs) way above sound quality.

Spoffle, if you look at a £100 pair of wired and wireless cans, the wired will have better sound quality because the manufacturer would be able to spend more money on the actual audio side rather than the expensive wireless parts... Hardly rocket science or bs.

Incidentally, if you have a long copper cable that has say .98 purity and a long silver cable with 0.99 quality of course there will be superior sound, so that's not bs either. I suggest you actually read mote into the engineering and acoustics behind audio quality and cables. The difference in quality between two almost identical cables that have similar purity but one is more much expensive due to the name is of course an occurrence and will of course not offer any gain - but that is marketing, not acoustics behind that and that is seen in literally every market known to man.
 
Last edited:
Cookeh said:
Incidentally, if you have a long copper cable that has say .98 purity and a long silver cable with 0.99 quality of course there will be superior sound, so that's not bs either. I suggest you actually read mote into the engineering and acoustics behind audio quality and cables. The difference in quality between two almost identical cables that have similar purity but one is more much expensive due to the name is of course an occurrence and will of course not offer any gain - but that is marketing, not acoustics behind that and that is seen in literally every market known to man.
Click to expand...

I have done a significant amount of reading into this topic. It is BS, there's no actual proof of any of the claims related to speak cable that stands up to the smallest amount of scrutiny.

When pushed it boils down to people wanting to believe it regardless of evidence, because they feel that they have experienced it.

As for the whole being able to dedicate the budget more to quality components, I also think that's BS. Recuperation of development costs are what make up the majority of the price of a product's selling price, not the materials used.
 
When it comes to cables, there will be improvements in sound quality as cable quality (and thus electrical efficiency) improves but it only makes a discernible difference up to a point, beyond which any differences will be inaudible.
I think a lot of the argument is where this point lies on the price scale and personally I think it is quite close to the cheap end. I'm quite happy with a £10 extension cable for my headphones as long as it is well made and uses decent materials.
This is where the marketing BS comes in and persuades people to part with insane amounts of money and rely on their expectation bias to fool themselves into thinking their £250 cable improves the sound.

As for people who spend hundreds on power cords and USB cables, well they need therapy and a lot of it. :D
 
spoffle said:
I have done a significant amount of reading into this topic. It is BS, there's no actual proof of any of the claims related to speak cable that stands up to the smallest amount of scrutiny.

When pushed it boils down to people wanting to believe it regardless of evidence, because they feel that they have experienced it.

As for the whole being able to dedicate the budget more to quality components, I also think that's BS. Recuperation of development costs are what make up the majority of the price of a product's selling price, not the materials used.
Click to expand...

I feel this is absolutely true for the "high end" of cables, e.g. anything over £20-30, and especially so for the £££ cables, but to try and suggest that there is no improvement in moving from a low purity copper cable to a high purity silver or even gold cable is simply incorrect and ignorant of the underlying processes and chemistry. Is this subject to a law of diminishing returns? Yes. Are there some out there just wanting to justify an increase in quality because they spent half the months wages? Yes. But does that mean that all cable upgrade are indeed a fallacy and that purity and conductivity and electrical efficiency of a cable mean nothing? Absolutely not.

Your point regarding developmental costs does nothing but strengthen my argument. If Logitech feels they have to charge £130 rrp for a wireless headphone to recover the cost of production, surely you must see that its unlikely they are able to put the same amount of money into the development and parts for the audio side, when one of the main selling points of the headset is the wireless aspect!
 
It's all about electrical efficiency and getting as much of the signal from the amp to the headphone as cleanly as possible, without introducing noise or degrading the signal. You can get most of the way there with well made, high grade OFC cables and that last little bit with silver if you really feel you need it (most don't). Thing is, with silver cables, while silver is a better conductor than copper, it is also a lot more expensive and so silver cables tend to be much thinner than copper ones which kind of defeats the object, making the biggest benefit lightness rather than better conductivity.

This doesn't mean that those cables have to be ludicrously expensive though, I'm quite happy with my £8.50 KabelDirect OFC extension cable. I've been lucky with the headphones I've bought, in that none of them have needed a replacement cable as they all have high grade OFC or better as stock. The Sennheiser HD 650s and AKG K702s bioth use high grade OFC cables while for my Sonys, I use both cables that came with the MDR-1A, which use a balanced configuration and are an OFC/Silver hybrid design. Some don't though, the original Philips Fidelio X1 being a fine example, with it's nicely made and attractive stock cable having an impedance that was far too high, which did adversely affect the sound.

While I haven't had the need to buy replacement cables, if I did, say for convenience sake, wanted a 1.5m cable for my HD 650s rather than the 3m it comes with, then I would consider around £15~£25 for a well built OFC cable and £25~£40 for a decent gauge silver/hybrid variant. I wouldn't spend more than this though as I know that I would not hear any benefit because the cheaper cable would already be operating at above audible performance levels.

Don't forget, most of the people who buy these insanely expensive cables are already using extreme high end equipment and will see a relatively cheap cable as a weak link in their audio chain, whether it actually is or not. So in many cases they are just buying expensive cables solely because of expectation bias. It doesn't help when cable manufacturers tell absolute lies though and many audiophiles seem to be more than willing to fall for them. I know at least one of the big manufacturers was caught out for fabricating blind test results, which did wonders for it's sales.
 
Cookeh said:
I feel this is absolutely true for the "high end" of cables, e.g. anything over £20-30, and especially so for the £££ cables, but to try and suggest that there is no improvement in moving from a low purity copper cable to a high purity silver or even gold cable is simply incorrect and ignorant of the underlying processes and chemistry. Is this subject to a law of diminishing returns? Yes. Are there some out there just wanting to justify an increase in quality because they spent half the months wages? Yes. But does that mean that all cable upgrade are indeed a fallacy and that purity and conductivity and electrical efficiency of a cable mean nothing? Absolutely not.

Your point regarding developmental costs does nothing but strengthen my argument. If Logitech feels they have to charge £130 rrp for a wireless headphone to recover the cost of production, surely you must see that its unlikely they are able to put the same amount of money into the development and parts for the audio side, when one of the main selling points of the headset is the wireless aspect!
Click to expand...

No one has ever been able to support your claims in a controlled environment. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof, and as of yet there's not been any.

The RRP also isn't 130, it's 180 but that's irrelevant. Companies often price products based on market conditions not actual costs. My point was that the actual bill of materials in nearly all manufacturing is by far the lowest cost, and that companies will be thinking mostly about marketing conditions and the R&D costs.
 
I'm sorry, but you must be insane if you think that there is no difference in performance between an low purity, low conductivity cable vs a high purity high conductivity cable. I hardly see how such a statement is "extra-ordinary", especially when its present in numerous different industries and not simply in hifi.

I'm starting to think you're entirely misreading my posts, as that's the only way I can understand your argument.
 
So, spoffle turns up and a thread that had nothing to do with 'magic cables' some how turns into a disagreement about 'magic cables'.... Some things never change. :p
 
Cookeh said:
I'm sorry, but you must be insane if you think that there is no difference in performance between an low purity, low conductivity cable vs a high purity high conductivity cable. I hardly see how such a statement is "extra-ordinary", especially when its present in numerous different industries and not simply in hifi.

I'm starting to think you're entirely misreading my posts, as that's the only way I can understand your argument.
Click to expand...
With cables it's about adequate gauge. Performance degrades with inadequate cables, it doesn't improve with "performance" cables. There is literally no evidence in controlled environments that performance cables improve audio over basic copper that's of an adequate gauge.
 
spoffle said:
With cables it's about adequate gauge. Performance degrades with inadequate cables, it doesn't improve with "performance" cables. There is literally no evidence in controlled environments that performance cables improve audio over basic copper that's of an adequate gauge.
Click to expand...

You're right about this actually. Better cables aren't about improving sound quality, more about making sound quality 'less worse'. A cable wont ever improve the audio quality. But better purity and more 'defect-free' cables with better conductivity and lower resistance will worsen the sound quality less than a cable with poor resistance, purity and riddled with defects.

So as I said, it seems that this whole argument of yours has stemmed from you misreading my posts. I have argued this from the get go, and even stated that above a certain price point its a negligible difference probably down to people trying to justify huge outlays on it.
 
Actually it's becoming more of a grey area...

http://www.innerfidelity.com/conten...dio-perceptual-evaluation#zuYvi8UD0dSBEyrV.97

While the above article covers high resolution audio (above 16/44.1) it does clarify a major point about perception. It seems that the tiny differences that are brought by high-res audio can be heard but usually only after training.

Cables can be thought of as an extremely sensitive low range attenuator and while the degradation caused by a low quality copper cable may be audible, the degradation caused by a high quality OFC cable probably isn't. However, with training or for those lucky few with highly sensitive hearing, it may actually be possible to hear the differences, making a case for using silver/hybrid cables.

That still doesn't make a case for the very expensive cables, which are simply the result of marketing hype and gullible audiophiles.
 
The problem is that when you say people need to be trained to hear it, or only people with special hearing can hear it you're well beyond the muddy territory or subjectivity.

People will often hear something different if they think there's going to be a difference.
 
No, I mean people with already good hearing being trained what to listen for. The cues are there, it's just that most people don't know what they are.

The average listener won't be able to hear any difference but someone who is trained in what to listen for "may". For the most part, the only people who buy these more expensive cables will already have high quality equipment and will be critical listeners and even then, without being trained in what to listen for, the majority of people will in reality hear no difference BUT that doesn't mean there is no difference there.

The people who spend hundreds on cables though, well ok it is possible that they allow that extra bit of signal purity to reach the transducers but the difference over good quality, medium price (<£25 OFC or <£40 silver/hybrid) cables would be so infinitesimally tiny that there is no possible way for anything less than a bat to hear it.

At my age (59), my hearing is so compromised (can't hear anything above 14kHz) that there isn't much point in getting better cables but as my headphones came standard with good quality OFC (HD650 & K702) and silver hybrid (Sony MDR-1) I haven't really been tempted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom