Any of you guys into headphones?

[warpdrive]

If the sound processing dsp that you refer to in a prior post is important to you, then you should consider the AKG Hearo 999 headphone amplifier/processor, if you want a stand alone and versatile solution.

I wonder if this is any bit more effective than what's in my Yamaha receiver.

 

[WmAx]

I wonder if this is any bit more effective than what's in my Yamaha receiver.

Good question. What features/adjustments are possible on the Yamaha headphone DSP?

-Chris

 

[Audiosouse]

I bought pops a Rega EAR for Fathers Day to go with his Sennheiser HD600s because the Sony boom box he connects them to is full of audible distortion.

It retails for $359 CDN and I had the audiophile shop order it for $275. Paying cash, it was $275 taxes in (not bad, eh?) It sounds awsome even though I know damn well that my Denon AVR-3805 headphone output sounds just as good and that measurable differneces between them are probably nill.

I bought the EAR because it was a cool and different gift. In fact, most people have never heard of a headphone amplifier. So now he's got a nice piece of audio equipment that sounds and looks good, and is a conversation piece he's proud of. He can now fully enjoy his vast filmscore collection and make use of his excellent Technics CD player. Pleasure.

I'm of the opinion that people who pay automobile prices for antiquated and fussy equipment that distorts the source are insane. We all know it's an illogical buying decision based on subjective factors such as affluence, rarity, prestige and personal preference. Wretched excess is the American way after all!

The other 90% of us is trying to find the best equipment to be had for our hard earned blue collared dough. And we're intimately familiar with the law of diminsihing returns. Is the $1200 amp better than the $400 amp. Probably. Does it sound $800 better? Probably not.

Every thread WmAx has written is completely correct and I think that's his point. People like us, who believe in scientific basis for marketing claims, are why this site exists.

Unfortunately for audiophiles, "good sound" can be quantitatively and scientifically measured through implementation of proper DBT. The NRC has proven this, there's no debate. R & D based on NRC studies are why Canadian audio companies are able to sell measureably (both quantitative and qualitative) superior equipment for significantly lower prices than anyone else.

So enjoy whatever equipment plays your music to your liking. But be prepared for woeful dissappointment in a properly conducted DBT between known companies with huge resources and Joe audiophile making esoterics in his garage. The middle class needs to have at least one up on you wealthy audiohpiles

 

[warpdrive]

which store did you get that Rega Ear at? (I'm looking to build my available database of stores to get accessories)

 

[Audiosouse]

Where you at in Southern Ontario?

 

[Sleestack]

I
I'm of the opinion that people who pay automobile prices for antiquated and fussy equipment that distorts the source are insane. We all know it's an illogical buying decision based on subjective factors such as affluence, rarity, prestige and personal preference. Wretched excess is the American way after all!

The other 90% of us is trying to find the best equipment to be had for our hard earned blue collared dough. And we're intimately familiar with the law of diminsihing returns. Is the $1200 amp better than the $400 amp. Probably. Does it sound $800 better? Probably not.

Every thread WmAx has written is completely correct and I think that's his point. People like us, who believe in scientific basis for marketing claims, are why this site exists.

Unfortunately for audiophiles, "good sound" can be quantitatively and scientifically measured through implementation of proper DBT. The NRC has proven this, there's no debate. R & D based on NRC studies are why Canadian audio companies are able to sell measureably (both quantitative and qualitative) superior equipment for significantly lower prices than anyone else.

That has to be one of the most closed-minded views I have heard on this board, and quite frankly, a large part of the reason I don't come here too often. While I appreciate the vast resources available through this site, I'm also sick of all of the frugal objectivists who feel the need to constantly justify their lack of financial resources or frugality by criticizing those who spend a bit more freely.

I would be one of those people who pay exorbiant prices for tube-based equipment. I've been a musician all of my life and think I have a pretty good ear for music. If a particular tube configurations sounds good to me (distorted or not), why is that an illogical choice? Would I be better off buying a cheap solid state amp with a flat req.resp. that sounds bad to me? Wouldn't that be the illogical choice? Listening involves perception. I don't care what the specs of a piece of equipment might be... if it doesn't sound good to me, what more matters?

With respect to the law of diminshing returns... if one piece of equipment sounds better to me than another, it doesn't have to sound 8 times better to justify spending 8 times as much. Listening to music is a very big part of my life. If one piece of equipment presents my music exactly the way I want, saying that I could get 90% of the same performance at a much lower cost, is irrelevant to me. Give me what I want, not some bargain that gives me 90% of what I want. The piece that does not give me what I want is worthless to me, even if it costs 100 times less.

You say "good sound' can be measured and that the secret rests with the Canadians and the NRC? I studied cognitive sciences and human psychology for quite some time. If you have discovered answers to questions relating to human perceptions which nobody else has been able uncover, you should really write a paper and win yourself a nobel prize. Please enlighten us and give us a definition of "good sound" that isn't circular. I'm sorry, but any definition of "good sound" that doesn't address the role of the brain, is only a relative measurement of equipment as they relate to each other. If I say something sounds good and you disagree, how are you going to prove who is right?

 

[MacManNM]

That has to be one of the most closed-minded views I have heard on this board, and quite frankly, a large part of the reason I don't come here too often. While I appreciate the vast resources available through this site, I'm also sick of all of the frugal objectivists who feel the need to constantly justify their lack of financial resources by criticizing those who spend a bit more freely.

First, I would be one of those people who pay exorbiant prices for tube-based equipment. I've been a musician all of my life and think I have a pretty good ear for music. If a particular tube configurations sounds good to me (distorted or not), why is that an illogical choice? Would I be better off buying a cheap solid state amp with a flat req.resp. that sounds bad to me? Wouldn't that be the illogical choice? Listening involves perception. I don't care what the specs of a piece of equipment might be... if it doesn't sound good to you, what more matters?

With respect to the law of diminshing returns... if one piece of equipment sounds better to me than another, it doesn't have to sound 8 times better to justify spending 8 times as much. Listening to music is a very big part of my life. If one piece of equipment presents my music exactly the way I want, saying that I could get 90% of the same performance at a much lower cost, is irrelevant to me. Give me what I want, not some bargain that gives me 90% of what I want. The piece that does not give me what I want is worthless to me, even if it costs 100 times less.

You say "good sound' can be measured and that the secret rests with the Canadians and the NRC? Do I need to comment on this? Hmmm.. I studied cognitive sciences and human psychology for quite some time. If you have discovered answers to human perceptions which nobody else has been able uncover, you should really write a paper and win yourself a nobel prize. Please enlighten us and give us a definition of good sound that isn't circular. I'm sorry, but any definition of "good sound" that doesn't address the role of the brain, is only a relative measurement of equipment as they relate to each other. If I say something sounds good and you disagree, how are you going to prove who is right?

Here, Here!

I love these guys who tell us what is audible based on studies. How do you know I'm not part bat?

I agree, If it sounds good to you then get it, and that means it's a better piece of gear than anything else.

I love my old equipment, I think it sounds better than all of this new crap. I don't care what the specs say. Half the time the MFGR specs are wrong or greatly exagerated anyhow.

Just like 2ch vs surround. There isn't a good surround system for music. Period. Thats my opinion.

OK, I'm done venting.

 

[Sleestack]

Just like 2ch vs surround. There isn't a good surround system for music. Period. Thats my opinion.

I have to agree there. While it is entertaining to watch concerts in surround b/c you get ambient noises that make you feel like you are in the crowd, for the most part I find it completely strange to have instruments or vocals coming from behind my head. I understand why it "sounds good" to some people, but it just isn't the way I like to hear music.

 

[warpdrive]

Where you at in Southern Ontario?

Ottawa area

 

[mulester7]

I have to agree there. While it is entertaining to watch concerts in surround b/c you get ambient noises that make you feel like you are in the crowd, for the most part I find it completely strange to have instruments or vocals coming from behind my head. I understand why it "sounds good" to some people, but it just isn't the way I like to hear music.

.....Sleestach, I'll go with surround any day over two speakers up front only....if you are hearing any instruments or vocals apart from the fronts through the rears, you're hearing something different from what I've ever heard, or you've got the rears too loud....surround-sound with the rears/surrounds only loud enough to enhance the fronts and widen and deepen the sound-stage from the fronts, is what I'm after, and will be after, from here on....your long post was VERY good....the ears should decide on what sounds good to you.....

 

[Sleestack]

.....Sleestach, I'll go with surround any day over two speakers up front only....if you are hearing any instruments or vocals apart from the fronts through the rears, you're hearing something different from what I've ever heard, or you've got the rears too loud....surround-sound with the rears/surrounds only loud enough to enhance the fronts and widen and deepen the sound-stage from the fronts, is what I'm after, and will be after, from here on....your long post was VERY good....the ears should decide on what sounds good to you.....

There are some CDs where that is the case (Norah Jones), but others where I distinctly here instruments being routed primarily through the rear channel (Dark Side of The Moon). In either case, I really do prefer the sound of a 2 channel setup, however, I can't say I have spent an enormous amount of time with my SACDs (I only have 20) b/c I've been constantly changing things around in my HT setup. The acoustics in my 2 channel room are also far better than the acoustics of the room where my HT currently resides.

 

[nm2285]

Sleestack:

I respect your opinions and actually agree with them. I also agree with most of those here who believe that measurements are very important and say a lot about equipment. The thing is, I find it rare that someone actually posts negatively about someone buying equipment that they like the sound of because it doesn't measure well. It's usually a warning to the person saying: "yes it may cause distortion or the power ratings lie or it doesnt produce anything over/under these frequencies."

Although it's may not be said outright, I believe this part is usually implied: "bc of these characteristics, make sure you audition them first bc it may not be what you're expecting." If the person does audition, enjoys it, and buys it - good for them. It's money as well spent for them as is money spent on analytical equipment for the measurement lovers -- they all get the same amount of satisfaction.

 

[Audiosouse]

Audiousouse's College of Audio Knowledge

Rrrrrriiiiight, I'm closed minded.

...I'm also sick of all of the frugal objectivists who feel the need to constantly justify their lack of financial resources or frugality by criticizing those who spend a bit more freely...

Whoa...someone's feeling guilty for having too much money. I wasn't criticizing. I wear an Explorer II, but don't fool myself into thinking it was a logical decision to spend more than my whole HT system on a watch when $19.99 will get me the same performance. I wanted it and it makes me feel good.

I've been a musician all of my life and think I have a pretty good ear for music.

Ever heard the term "Golden Ear"? We've all got the same ears, the fact you play music is irrelevant. I listen to music every day but don't claim to have supernatural powers.

I studied cognitive sciences and human psychology for quite some time.

Then you're well aware of bias and it's impact on the outcome of an A to B comparison when strict DBT measures aren't taken.

If you have discovered answers to questions relating to human perceptions which nobody else has been able uncover, you should really write a paper and win yourself a nobel prize.

Dr. Floyd Tool has done this for me already. You might care to enlighten yourself and check them out, our (Canadian) audio industry is largely based on his work (that's also why we rule audio )

Some of the more famous scientific papers that were published in Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals were, "Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact" and "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences." I can't believe your into audio and never heard of this man's work! Anechoic chamber ring a bell? Where did you think all those pretty graphs that manufacturers and reveiwers use to (quantitatively) describe a speakers performance came from? And where do you think that testing is done?

Here's some easily digestible links about NRC esearch:
http://www.axiomaudio.com/en-ca/NRC.html
http://www.paradigm.com/Website/RandD/RandD/NRC_Research.html
http://www.energy-speakers.com/v2/about/design_goals.php

Notice any similarities?

Welcome to Audiosouse's college of audio knowledge. Extensive listener preference tests conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) gave researchers a firm understanding of how we hear speakers and clearly established what design parameters are most critical to "good" sound. Simply put they concluded that, in order of priority, all listeners clearly favor:
1. Flat midrange (on-axis frequency response)
2. Smooth total energy response (wide and constant dispersion)
3. Low distortion

These are not coincidently entirely measureable. However in the end you're essentially right, it's what sounds good to YOU that matters, even if it isn't actually "good". I've never disputed that. So please, don't criticize us for how poor we are in pocket and evidently ear...Audiogon is waiting for you and Batman (a.k.a. MacManNM). And if he's Batman, that makes you Robin.

 

[Audiosouse]

Ottawa area

Waaaaay too far for you.

 

[Audiosouse]

Sleestack:

The thing is, I find it rare that someone actually posts negatively about someone buying equipment that they like the sound of because it doesn't measure well. It's usually a warning to the person saying: "yes it may cause distortion or the power ratings lie or it doesnt produce anything over/under these frequencies."

Although it's may not be said outright, I believe this part is usually implied: "bc of these characteristics, make sure you audition them first bc it may not be what you're expecting." If the person does audition, enjoys it, and buys it - good for them. It's money as well spent for them as is money spent on analytical equipment for the measurement lovers -- they all get the same amount of satisfaction.

Well said, I hope that's not how it came off, I didn't mean that at all. I'm not insulted when people say (all the time I might add) brand name solid state and digital is crap.

 

[Sleestack]

Go back and read your original post. If you don't think the following statement is closed minded, you have only proven my point.

"I'm of the opinion that people who pay automobile prices for antiquated and fussy equipment that distorts the source are insane. We all know it's an illogical buying decision based on subjective factors such as affluence, rarity, prestige and personal preference. Wretched excess is the American way after all!"


I have no guilt about working hard and buying things I enjoy. I do get sick of the paternalistic audiophiles that turn every thread into lecture on linear frequency. That's great that you wear an Explorer II. I wear a Daytona and I can tell you that a $19.99 watch will keep better time than either one of our watches.

I only pointed out that I have been a musician to underly the point that what I hear is what matters. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't need to endure some mundane DBT to figure out what sounds good.

You seem very well read on audio mattters. I never claimed to be educated in that way. I'm definitely not going to sit around enduring DBT, much less spend time reading about them. I'm not sure how that would help me enjoy music more. Nevertheless, you did say "Unfortunately for audiophiles, "good sound" can be quantitatively and scientifically measured through implementation of proper DBT." I simply pointed out that there is no way "good sound" can be defined. If you can't even define it, how are you going to tell me that a test can give a measure of what is better in any meaningful sense? You can show me all the test in the world, but I am positive that none of them has discovered what constitues "good sound' in absolute terms, simply because "good sound" is relative to the listener. I don't need to read about tests to figure that out.

Rrrrrriiiiight, I'm closed minded.

Whoa...someone's feeling guilty for having too much money. I wasn't criticizing. I wear an Explorer II, but don't fool myself into thinking it was a logical decision to spend more than my whole HT system on a watch when $19.99 will get me the same performance. I wanted it and it makes me feel good.


Ever heard the term "Golden Ear"? We've all got the same ears, the fact you play music is irrelevant. I listen to music every day but don't claim to have supernatural powers.

Then you're well aware of bias and it's impact on the outcome of an A to B comparison when strict DBT measures aren't taken.

Dr. Floyd Tool has done this for me already. You might care to enlighten yourself and check them out, our (Canadian) audio industry is largely based on his work (that's also why we rule audio )

Some of the more famous scientific papers that were published in Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals were, "Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact" and "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences." I can't believe your into audio and never heard of this man's work! Anechoic chamber ring a bell? Where did you think all those pretty graphs that manufacturers and reveiwers use to (quantitatively) describe a speakers performance came from? And where do you think that testing is done?

Here's some easily digestible links about NRC esearch:
http://www.axiomaudio.com/en-ca/NRC.html
http://www.paradigm.com/Website/RandD/RandD/NRC_Research.html
http://www.energy-speakers.com/v2/about/design_goals.php

Notice any similarities?

Welcome to Audiosouse's college of audio knowledge. Extensive listener preference tests conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) gave researchers a firm understanding of how we hear speakers and clearly established what design parameters are most critical to "good" sound. Simply put they concluded that, in order of priority, all listeners clearly favor:
1. Flat midrange (on-axis frequency response)
2. Smooth total energy response (wide and constant dispersion)
3. Low distortion

These are not coincidently entirely measureable. However in the end you're essentially right, it's what sounds good to YOU that matters, even if it isn't actually "good". I've never disputed that. So please, don't criticize us for how poor we are in pocket and evidently ear...Audiogon is waiting for you and Batman (a.k.a. MacManNM). And if he's Batman, that makes you Robin.

 

[Sleestack]

I don' think we are in disagreement at all. I will reserve final judgment on SACD until I get my Parasound pieces in and dial them in properly. I don't use the same equipment for my 2 channel setup nd HT setup, but perhaps I'll try to do a 5.1 setup in my 2 channel room for comparative purposes.

.....Sleestack, you and I are more in agreement than might appear....but, since ONLY two discrete signals, left and right, can be sent from ANY current sources/DVD/CD available to the public within guidelines of cost, it stands that anything else would have to be a smoke-and-mirrors effect with the full-range signal being, let's say, messed with, concerning different sections of the full-range frequency response signal....how else could seperate discrete vocals/instrumentation be accomplished with only two amplifier sections feeding two sides of surround stereo in a home theater to the rear speakers?....and, that would have to be accomplished AFTER amplification since ONLY two amplifier sections are feeding the two sides of stereo, and that opens a whole new can of worms I'm not even going to try to figure out or get into....I'm not saying it's a bad thing, either, but when I heard something coming from the rears that didn't come from the fronts, I'd have to think such techniques had been employed, because you DON'T have more than two discrete signals left and right being inputted for the preamp section to work with, and only one lone pre-amped signal can be sent to an amplifier section to my knowledge, of which a surround receiver has two amplifier sections....

.....I can't take this any further without buying the correct type of surround receiver and listening to what is produced on such DVD/CD's, and I've chosen a different route and will continue to traverse on down that road of pure unenhanced stereo with a gain on every speaker....

.....two amplifier sections in a surround receiver, that's it, bet your lungs on it, technology applied to stereo input, that's all, we're done, what's for supper?.......

.....if someone would explain this phenomena to the readership, I for one would be grateful....I will readily admit I'm probably out in left field here, and ignorance profound is probably being displayed on most points....oh well, what else could you expect from a mule on a headphone thread?......

 

[Audiosouse]

Go back and read your original post. If you don't think the following statement is closed minded, you have only proven my point.

Not closed minded, just my preference after extensive listening (although I was open minded enough to hear for myself). I just personally don't get it. I would neither enjoy nor pay a premium for ENIAC when a state of the art Dell goes for $599.

I'm an "early adopter" whereas audiophiles tend to be "laggards" (Everett Rogers) who are last to adopt innovation (see how science explains everything?). It's not criticism, just fact.

Mind you, in fify years, I guess audiophiles will be using solid state and digital while the others move on to sound projection. Hence, this argument will never end yada, yada, yada.

Anyone have the new Grace Designs m902? That would make a sweet pre amp/headphone amp/dac for a system wouldn't it? Add a 2 channels of amplification, source and full range speakers and you've covered all the bases.

 

[warpdrive]

Hey I wear an Explorer II also....it seems that both objectivists and subjectivists can agree that Rolex makes worthy watches

I'm somewhere in the middle in both camps of this ongoing argument. I do believe that it's not possible to completely catergorize (with 100% accuracy) good sound with measurements alone. After all, even people that are considered industry professionals (studio engineers, highly trained musicians) still use their EAR as the critical evaluation tool. You *do* want stuff that meets a minimum measurement standard but beyond that, the ear has to be the final overriding instrument.

 

[Audiosouse]

....it seems that both objectivists and subjectivists can agree that Rolex makes worthy watches

You don't see them climbing Everest with a Timex now do ya! I know people who've been wearing them 30 years with minimal maintenance and can still sell them for what they paid.

You *do* want stuff that meets a minimum measurement standard but beyond that, the ear has to be the final overriding instrument.

Couldn't agree more. I narrow down my choices by doing that very thing.