I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

One nice feature is that they have various earpieces which you can use
to tailor the earsets to individual ears.

Unfortunately they do NOT cancel out ambient noise, as some Bose
headphones do.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Steve

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:33:36 -0800, "Steven de Mena"
wrote:


"tomdeacon" wrote in message
roups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Steve


Is there a spec on the output of the ipod amplifier. I wonder if you
could use 600 ohm headphones.

Abbedd

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:33:36 -0800, "Steven de Mena"
wrote:


"tomdeacon" wrote in message
groups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G)
video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they
sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Steve


Is there a spec on the output of the ipod amplifier. I wonder if you
could use 600 ohm headphones.

Abbedd

Stephen Worth would probably know, he seems to have done a lot of research
on headphones. It might also depend on which "generation" iPod and model
you are talking about.

Found some specs he
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ics/index.html

Steve

Steven de Mena wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

Since I shall be spending days crossing Canada by train in February, it
seemed convenient to load this up with several dozen CDs I have been
meaning to listen to.

I have already loaded the complete GPE together with covers and
corrected repertoire info(the online database is extremely faulty, in
my opinion)

After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Since I didn't fork out the $500. US for the Shure 5c earphones, I
can't say I am complaining. The sound seems fine. As does the sound of
the iPod through my main audiophile system. I have used Apple lossless
so far and don't detect too much loss. But I have to say I have not
done a side by side comparison with the originals in each case. I
wonder what I would discover, in fact, if I did that?

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

One nice feature is that they have various earpieces which you can use
to tailor the earsets to individual ears.

That's a common feature of IEMs. Ear canals differ greatly, and not one size
fits all. Fitting the right earpiece is critical to their success.

Unfortunately they do NOT cancel out ambient noise, as some Bose
headphones do.

No, but they do greatly attenuate ambient noise. Unlike active solutions,
they work well for both high and low frequency noise.

TD

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:33:36 -0800, "Steven de Mena"
wrote:


"tomdeacon" wrote in message
groups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G)
video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they
sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Steve


Is there a spec on the output of the ipod amplifier. I wonder if you
could use 600 ohm headphones.

It's not the impedance that matters per se, its their sensitivity to the
relatively low voltage that is available from most portable players that
matters. Of course high impedance tends to mean low sensitivity to voltage,
but there are still significant variations.

For example my Sennheiser HD 580s have a relatively high impedance, but they
are about as sensitive to voltage from a low impedance source as my Sony MDR
7506s, which have a far lower impedance.

Earphone manufacturers confuse the situation by giving sensitivity in terms
of power (milliwatts), which needs to be be adjusted in by the earphone's
impedance to give the sensitivity to voltage from a low impedance source.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Steven de Mena" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G)
video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the
Etymotic
headphones about £80.

I have both Etymotic 6, Shure E2 and E3. I prefer either Shure to the
Etymotics, but of course its not the same Etymotic 6-series that they
sell
now. The Shure E3 would IMO be your best bet.

The ones I received for Christmas - along with a new 60 gig video iPod
- are the very expensive Shure Headphones. E5, perhaps? Not sure. But
they seem every bit as good as their reputation. They are, however,
expensive. They actually cost more than the damned iPod itself.

Tom,

So you have joined the ranks of iPod users? Congrats! I got a 60 gig one
for Christmas also, however it was a Christmas present to myself.

The christmas present to myself was a 10 euro philips walkman, with
radio.It's more than enough for listening to music when walking to my work,
or when waiting in the post office or the banks:-)
After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Steve

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
After about one hour of listening to the included earbuds I ordered some
reasonably priced Sennheiser headphones, HD 100 (about $50). They are OK
for the areas I use them in, where I usually don't have the volume up very
loud and want to hear what is going on around me.

Since I didn't fork out the $500. US for the Shure 5c earphones, I
can't say I am complaining. The sound seems fine. As does the sound of
the iPod through my main audiophile system. I have used Apple lossless
so far and don't detect too much loss. But I have to say I have not
done a side by side comparison with the originals in each case. I
wonder what I would discover, in fact, if I did that?

TD

As you are using lossless, it should come down to the differences between
the quality of the digital-to-analog circuitry of the iPod and your main CD
player. Ideally you would have a friend administer the comparison test so
you wouldn't know which was which.

Steve

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:35:11 -0000, "Hans Castorp"
wrote:

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

You cmb get the Etymotic ER4-Ps from ebay at around 120 UKP. I'd go
for them simply because they are the best. You'll never regret
spending the extra money. The Shure are fiddly and sound to bright for
my taste.

** BEWARE -ER4-P headphones won't function with the 4G photo Ipods **

On 15 Jan 2006 16:12:06 -0800, "tomdeacon"
wrote:

Unfortunately they do NOT cancel out ambient noise, as some Bose
headphones do.

You get something like 40DB noise reductions with the Etymotic ER4-P.
I can listening to string quartets in the Tube (aka London Undergound)
with them. That's pretty impressive.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:41:59 -0500, ansermetniac
wrote:

Is there a spec on the output of the ipod amplifier. I wonder if you
could use 600 ohm headphones.

600 ??? No way. Over about 60 ohms the ipod is floundering. You need
to get a Meier Audio headphone amp.

The ER-4ps are about 20 ohms impedance. This is the reason they won't
work with the 4th Generation 'Photo' Ipods - there's awful distortion
unless your headphones are over 60 ohms. (see some very lengthy
threads on apple.com).

On 16 Jan 2006 04:07:43 -0800, "tomdeacon"
wrote:

. I have used Apple lossless
so far and don't detect too much loss.



Err....is this statement an oxymoron ?

Its lossless .... so there is no difference between AIFF and 44.4 WAV.
You can can convert one format to the other and back exactly. That's
the whole point of lossless codecs like APE, FLAC and AIFF.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:35:11 -0000, "Hans Castorp"
wrote:

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

You cmb get the Etymotic ER4-Ps from ebay at around 120 UKP. I'd go
for them simply because they are the best. You'll never regret
spending the extra money. The Shure are fiddly and sound to bright for
my taste.

** BEWARE -ER4-P headphones won't function with the 4G photo Ipods **

Sounds tempting. They work fine with a 5G video iPod then?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:15:57 -0000, "Hans Castorp"
wrote:

** BEWARE -ER4-P headphones won't function with the 4G photo Ipods **

Sounds tempting. They work fine with a 5G video iPod then?

I think so, but do a test or check the mac support forums first.

"Hans Castorp" wrote in message
...
I've received recommendations to buy both Etymotics 6i and Shure E2c
headphones.

Any suggestions on which ones might be best to use with a new (5G) video
iPod on which I listen mainly to classical music and opera?

From what I can tell the Shure headphones cost about £55 and the Etymotic
headphones about £80.

Have you considered Ultimate Ears? I've just got some of their Superfi 5
Pros and they're pretty good - I haven't heard Etymotics or Shures but they
compare well to my Sennheiser HD600s. Possibly the upper midrange is a bit
bright at the moment, but they're still very new so that may well calm down
as they break in; other than that, I've had a few "am I wearing earphones or
is my hifi connected directly to my brain" moments :-)

www.ultimateears.com

Available from www.handheldaudio.co.uk

Have you considered Ultimate Ears? I've just got some of their Superfi 5
Pros and they're pretty good - I haven't heard Etymotics or Shures but they
compare well to my Sennheiser HD600s. Possibly the upper midrange is a bit
bright at the moment, but they're still very new so that may well calm down
as they break in; other than that, I've had a few "am I wearing earphones or
is my hifi connected directly to my brain" moments :-)

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound, I have ordered
the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone amplifier. It is
apparently the size of a package of cigarettes but contains some
excellent electronics which render headphones truly wonderful when used
with the iPod, or, I imagine, other MP3 players. ANY headphones, it
would seem. My source was www.headphone.com in Montana, of all places.

Perhaps when they arrive I will post on the results. $269. Not exactly
cheap, but if they render the sound truly "high fidelity", then it will
be worth the money.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people feel
that they need.

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Perhaps when they arrive I will post on the results. $269. Not exactly
cheap, but if they render the sound truly "high fidelity", then it will
be worth the money.

Arguably, high fidelity means being accurate to the original source. The
extra loudness can be good if you need it. The crossfeed circuit is,
strictly speaking a step back from signal accuracy, but it can help some
people adapt to headphones if they are not well-experienced with them.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I checked.

They don't seem to sell any?

Which brand are you referring to?


I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people feel
that they need.

In fact it makes the music "appear" to be in front of you, instead of
inside your head. This can be more comfortable on lengthy listening
sessions.

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

Perhaps when they arrive I will post on the results. $269. Not exactly
cheap, but if they render the sound truly "high fidelity", then it will
be worth the money.

Arguably, high fidelity means being accurate to the original source.

From what I understand there are distinct improvements in fidelity with
the use of this product.

Please read the following:

As far as I am concerned this device is
a must-have for those that enjoy portable
audio through headphones. Most source
devices (i.e., portable CD, MP3, or iPod-
type players) are underpowered to maxi-
mize battery life. Accordingly, they have
insufficient power to control or adequately
drive the headphone speakers. The
Airhead and Bithead amplifiers solve this
problem, providing sufficient clean power
to enable in-ear speakers to sound their
best. Their sonic impact makes for consid-
erable improvement in the ease with which
the music plays. Massed strings sound
more like music and less like a cacophony.
And of course, the amplifiers enable high-
er listening levels (though you should
always set headphone volume levels with
caution lest you damage your hearing).

Equally important is the impact the
HeadRoom processor circuitry makes. The
theory is simple. When you listen to a
recording using regular freestanding loud-
speakers, information from each channel
arrives at one ear first and then, after a tiny
delay, at the second ear. With headphones,
the left ear gets information only from the
left channel and vice versa. The processor
cross-feeds signal from one channel to the
other with a time delay approximating the
delay experienced by the listener in real
acoustic space. In theory this should
improve the spatial characteristics of the
music. The actual impact is not subtle.
While it is a bit weird talking about
"soundstages" when you are listening to
music being piped directly into your ear
canals, the processor absolutely helps give
the illusion of a real soundstage spread out
before you.

To illustrate, I can describe my expe-
rience with Mahler's Symphony No. 3 and
Tori Amos's "Crucify" from her fabulous
compilation, Tales of a Librarian
[Atlantic]. With both pieces of music the
combined effect of additional power and
of the processor circuit meant that the
music flowed smoothly with a far greater
sense of ease. The soundstage was dramat-
ically improved, with the instruments
going from a feeling of one big mass of
music to more clearly delineated instru-
ments. There was no trace of the unnatural
etching of instruments that occurs some-
times with excessive levels of detail. The
harmonic structure of notes seemed richer
and much more musical. All in all, I would
never listen to my iPod without the Total
Airhead or to my computer without the
Total Bithead. Life is too short.
(Abul Kanagat, AVGuide monthly)

The extra loudness can be good if you need it. The crossfeed circuit is,
strictly speaking a step back from signal accuracy, but it can help some
people adapt to headphones if they are not well-experienced with them.

Or, perhaps, if you decide that "life is too short" not to.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I checked.

They don't seem to sell any?

Which brand are you referring to?

Snake oil doesn't have to be branded. ;-)

I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people
feel
that they need.

In fact it makes the music "appear" to be in front of you, instead of
inside your head. This can be more comfortable on lengthy listening
sessions.

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45 years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what the
hullabaloo is all about.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs ( Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely satisfying and
revealing stereo image.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on NHT
2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great, but
where's the beef"?

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that they
use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing. I've done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and well-respected
people. It's just hype.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I checked.

They don't seem to sell any?

Which brand are you referring to?

Snake oil doesn't have to be branded.

It also doesn't have to be snake oil.


I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people
feel that they need.

In fact it makes the music "appear" to be in front of you, instead of
inside your head. This can be more comfortable on lengthy listening
sessions.

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45 years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what the
hullabaloo is all about.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you don't know and why other do?
Surely that is as logical as the conclusion you have arrived at?

David Gable swears by Elliot Carter's music and also Pierre Boulez. I
don't get it. But he does. The fault is very probably mine. "The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" That's Shakespeare
and he is rarely wrong.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs ( Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely satisfying and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Fine. And so what?

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on NHT
2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

Fine. And so what?

I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great, but
where's the beef"?

Stax headphones aren't hamburger. Were you expecting a Big Mac?

I wonder if, perhaps, you are starting to lose your hearing? Have you
had THAT tested recently. Grey-haired men tend to hear very little
above a certain frequency. Others find the Stax headphones marvelous (I
do believe that Dan Koren will give them a thumbs up).

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing. I've done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and well-respected
people. It's just hype.

In other words, no.

Which is sort of what I suspected.

Incidentally, anyone who posts the following New Year's Resolutions
should seek immediate psychiatric help.

Continue to destroy the High End .

I will be meaner than in 2005

I will be more hypocritical in 2006

Work on my personality .

New project: make all composition of music conform to objectivist
principle

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I checked.

They don't seem to sell any?

Which brand are you referring to?

Snake oil doesn't have to be branded.

It also doesn't have to be snake oil.

Agreed that every once in a while TAS tells a true tale.

I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can
make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people
feel that they need.

In fact it makes the music "appear" to be in front of you, instead of
inside your head. This can be more comfortable on lengthy listening
sessions.

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45 years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what
the
hullabaloo is all about.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you don't know and why other do?

I think I know the answer - headphone listening is a learned behavior, and
some people can't or won't learn.

Surely that is as logical as the conclusion you have arrived at?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps, and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

David Gable swears by Elliot Carter's music and also Pierre Boulez. I
don't get it. But he does. The fault is very probably mine. "The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" That's Shakespeare
and he is rarely wrong.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Fine. And so what?

Its a classic live versus recorded comparison where the listener is
intimately familiar with the live performance that was recorded, repeated
100's of times.

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on
NHT
2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

Fine. And so what?

See above.

I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great, but
where's the beef"?

Stax headphones aren't hamburger. Were you expecting a Big Mac?

Thanks for admitting that the only form of beef you're familiar with is
hanburger. I'm kinda partial to Chateubriand myself...

I wonder if, perhaps, you are starting to lose your hearing?

You don't read well do you? I've been listening to headphones like this for
over 40 years.

Have you
had THAT tested recently. Grey-haired men tend to hear very little
above a certain frequency. Others find the Stax headphones marvelous (I
do believe that Dan Koren will give them a thumbs up).

What's unclear about "Sounds great"?

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that
they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing. I've
done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and
well-respected
people. It's just hype.

In other words, no.

Which is sort of what I suspected.

Incidentally, anyone who posts the following New Year's Resolutions
should seek immediate psychiatric help.

Continue to destroy the High End .

I will be meaner than in 2005

I will be more hypocritical in 2006

Work on my personality .

New project: make all composition of music conform to objectivist
principle

Since you're the one who is posting this list, all readers must presume that
they are yours, tomdeacon. When is your appointment with the shrink?

Arny Krueger wrote:

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45 years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what
the
hullabaloo is all about.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you don't know and why other do?

I think I know the answer - headphone listening is a learned behavior, and
some people can't or won't learn.

Surely that is as logical as the conclusion you have arrived at?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps, and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other. I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones. They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to. The
best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.
You hear absolutely everything.

That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, hot hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording. No, it is not like
listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

David Gable swears by Elliot Carter's music and also Pierre Boulez. I
don't get it. But he does. The fault is very probably mine. "The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" That's Shakespeare
and he is rarely wrong.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Fine. And so what?

Its a classic live versus recorded comparison where the listener is
intimately familiar with the live performance that was recorded, repeated
100's of times.

Again, I don't see the relevance.

You don't USE the headphone amp, so, you don't know what you may be
missing. Your "live" vs. recorded is fine, of course, insofar as you
can hear properly (and at your age one should begin to question that
honestly), but you may not know what you are missing IF you put the
headphone amp in the circuit.

Of course I read that you can't tell one amplifier from another. So
that may be your problem in a nutshell. Your hearing is faulty.

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on
NHT 2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

Fine. And so what?

See above.

I would, but it didn't get me anywhere.


I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great, but
where's the beef"?

Stax headphones aren't hamburger. Were you expecting a Big Mac?

Thanks for admitting that the only form of beef you're familiar with is
hanburger. I'm kinda partial to Chateubriand myself...

I wonder if, perhaps, you are starting to lose your hearing?

You don't read well do you? I've been listening to headphones like this for
over 40 years.

All the more reason to think that you have blasted your eardrums to
smithereens!!!

The teenagers do it all the time and end up deaf by the age of 20.

Have you
had THAT tested recently. Grey-haired men tend to hear very little
above a certain frequency. Others find the Stax headphones marvelous (I
do believe that Dan Koren will give them a thumbs up).

What's unclear about "Sounds great"?

Only that it sounds great "TO YOU"!!!

I'm not you, and therefore I can't trust your conclusion.

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that
they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing. I've
done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and
well-respected
people. It's just hype.

In other words, no.

Which is sort of what I suspected.

Incidentally, anyone who posts the following New Year's Resolutions
should seek immediate psychiatric help.

Continue to destroy the High End .

I will be meaner than in 2005

I will be more hypocritical in 2006

Work on my personality .

New project: make all composition of music conform to objectivist
principle

Since you're the one who is posting this list, all readers must presume that
they are yours, tomdeacon. When is your appointment with the shrink?

No, they are in quotes. And they are yours.

See:
http://www.briefreporter.com/arny-kr...s-vt31104.html

It gets worse.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45
years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what
the
hullabaloo is all about.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you don't know and why other do?

I think I know the answer - headphone listening is a learned behavior,
and
some people can't or won't learn.

Surely that is as logical as the conclusion you have arrived at?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps,
and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other.

Sue me for being well-informed. There's a lot of stuff that others already
figured out. Why should I ignore their good work, or not credit it?

I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones. They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to.

*Everything* in some sense creates a false sense of what you are listening
to because no transducers are accurate enough.

So now we're arguing over which false sense is preferred. Arguments over
personal preferences are futile. So why argue about them?

The
best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.

Been there, done that and found no special joy.

You hear absolutely everything.

With true production-grade monitor speakers? You hear a lot, but not quite
*everything*.

That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

note that the previouis discussion really led nowere

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, not hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording.

Where did you get the idea that I'm against using IEMs?

No, it is not like
listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

Doesn't really matter. The key knowlege that one obtains about *any*
production-related listening environment is how that environment translates
into the target environment(s) for the recording. Some translations are more
direct than others. For a translation to work, the monitoring environment
has to cover about the same frequency and loudness range as the target
environment, but within reason, everything else should be negotiable.

David Gable swears by Elliot Carter's music and also Pierre Boulez. I
don't get it. But he does. The fault is very probably mine. "The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" That's Shakespeare
and he is rarely wrong.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely
satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

You can't read and remember very long can you? Please let me refresh your
lagging memory: Been there, done that and no particular joy.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

That and a ****-poor memory.

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Fine. And so what?

Its a classic live versus recorded comparison where the listener is
intimately familiar with the live performance that was recorded, repeated
100's of times.

Again, I don't see the relevance.

That and that same sorry memory problem.

You don't USE the headphone amp, so, you don't know what you may be
missing.


I've used various signal-processing headphone amps, and no joy.


Your "live" vs. recorded is fine, of course, insofar as you
can hear properly (and at your age one should begin to question that
honestly), but you may not know what you are missing IF you put the
headphone amp in the circuit.

I've used various signal-processing headphone amps over a period of at least
30 years, and no joy.

Of course I read that you can't tell one amplifier from another.

If they are good amps, no. Something about not being fooled by listening
tests that aren't bias-controlled, level-matched and time-synched.

So that may be your problem in a nutshell. Your hearing is faulty.

I did my first blind amplifier test about 30 years ago. I was lots younger
then, to say the least. Try again with your age-related bias problem. No
soap.

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on
NHT 2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

Fine. And so what?

See above.

I would, but it didn't get me anywhere.

A closed mind can be a hard thing to to communicate with.

I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax
headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great,
but
where's the beef"?

Stax headphones aren't hamburger. Were you expecting a Big Mac?

Thanks for admitting that the only form of beef you're familiar with is
hanburger. I'm kinda partial to Chateubriand myself...

I wonder if, perhaps, you are starting to lose your hearing?

You don't read well do you? I've been listening to headphones like this
for
over 40 years.

All the more reason to think that you have blasted your eardrums to
smithereens!!!

What's unclear about the fact that I've been listening to headphone blend
circuits for at least 30 years?

The teenagers do it all the time and end up deaf by the age of 20.

I'm careful. I've been an audiophile for 46 years.

Have you
had THAT tested recently. Grey-haired men tend to hear very little
above a certain frequency. Others find the Stax headphones marvelous (I
do believe that Dan Koren will give them a thumbs up).

What's unclear about "Sounds great"?

Only that it sounds great "TO YOU"!!!

What's the problem?

I'm not you, and therefore I can't trust your conclusion.

Don't bother, you've pretty well discredited yourself terminally, anyhow.

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that
they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound
quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing.
I've
done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and
above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor
have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and
well-respected
people. It's just hype.

In other words, no.

Which is sort of what I suspected.

Incidentally, anyone who posts the following New Year's Resolutions
should seek immediate psychiatric help.

Continue to destroy the High End .

I will be meaner than in 2005

I will be more hypocritical in 2006

Work on my personality .

New project: make all composition of music conform to objectivist
principle

Since you're the one who is posting this list, all readers must presume
that
they are yours, tomdeacon. When is your appointment with the shrink?

No, they are in quotes. And they are yours.

See:
http://www.briefreporter.com/arny-kr...s-vt31104.html

It gets worse.

Look at that post through a higher-resolution medium and if you're
well-informed enough, you may even see how it's a forgery.

Compare the headers for that post which you can view at:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...88d0a301dcda91

(forgery)

with the headers for a genuine post of mine:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a0c03a127024f6

(not a forgery, and I should know, eh? ;-) )

See the difference?

Don't you wish that your name was valuable enough that people would try to
forge it? ;-)

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps,
and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other. I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones.

Well I had noticed that Philips make terrible headphones...


They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to.

My Sennheisers create a totally natural, detailed sound that reveals far
more than any loudspeakers I've ever owned. They're comfortable and I can
wear them for hours without getting sweaty.


The
best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.
You hear absolutely everything.

Remind me what you were saying about damaging your hearing with loud
music...?


That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, hot hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording. No, it is not like
listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

I reckon you'll notice a slight improvement in sound quality. However I have
seen reviews that have slated this type of device, and I can understand
why... it's trying to improve on one small, battery-powered amplifier with
another small, battery-powered amplifier. I don't see how chaining another
amp on the end of a poor-quality one is going to significantly improve
matters - OK, the first one may work slightly better without the load of
driving the headphones, but if the DAC and so on in your player aren't very
good no number of expensive devices is going to be able to make up for that.


I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely
satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

A while ago I did some experiments with some computer software I'm writing.
I added an adjustable cross-feed type effect that could either increase or
decrease the separation between the channels. This had the effect of moving
the sound from directly inside my head (mono) to unnaturally far outside my
ears. There was never the tiniest suggestion of it being "in front", and I
didn't manage to improve on the original sound. I've also tried Dolby's much
more advanced attempts to move the sound out of your head, and been
thoroughly unimpressed.


I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

That means he knows good headphones when he hears them, because he can
directly compare the reproduction to the real sound.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

That's the hype. I've been listening to headphones for about 45
years,
listened to all kinds of crossfeed circuits, and still don't know what
the
hullabaloo is all about.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you don't know and why other do?

I think I know the answer - headphone listening is a learned behavior,
and
some people can't or won't learn.

Surely that is as logical as the conclusion you have arrived at?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps,
and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other.

Sue me for being well-informed. There's a lot of stuff that others already
figured out. Why should I ignore their good work, or not credit it?

No reason, of course. But I rarely "trust" anyone else when it comes to
listening. One person's "information" is another person's mumbo-jumbo.
And there is a LOT of the latter passing itself off as "professional"
or "semi-professional".

Frankly, when even the professionals don't agree on lots of stuff in
the world of audio, there is even more reason to ignore most opinions
and what you might call the results of other people's figuring.

Ignorance of their figuring would be simple ignorance. But crediting it
goes much too far.


I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones. They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to.

*Everything* in some sense creates a false sense of what you are listening
to because no transducers are accurate enough.

You don't address the awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty issues, which are the
principal problem with any headphones made for use in the studio. Their
audio qualities are false because people don't listen to music in the
way the headphones present it.

HENCE the virtue of an amplifier which solves this little problem quite
nicely.

The
best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.

Been there, done that and found no special joy.

Precisely.

It IS no joy. No pleasure at all. Sometimes even painful. Which is why
I think most audio engineers end up deaf.

You hear absolutely everything.

With true production-grade monitor speakers? You hear a lot, but not quite
*everything*.

Now you're dealing in "absolutes". No speaker is perfect. That's not
the point. Most true monitor speakers allow you to hear as much as any
speaker will allow you to hear.

That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

note that the previouis discussion really led nowere

It wasn't a discussion which I propelled. It simply flowed from your
rather casual comments.

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, not hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording.

Where did you get the idea that I'm against using IEMs?

I didn't. But they do differ from headphones in those aspects.

And, a headphone amplifier the size of a cigarette box allows you to
improve on their performance.

No, it is not like listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

Doesn't really matter. The key knowlege that one obtains about *any*
production-related listening environment is how that environment translates
into the target environment(s) for the recording. Some translations are more
direct than others. For a translation to work, the monitoring environment
has to cover about the same frequency and loudness range as the target
environment, but within reason, everything else should be negotiable.

I mentioned mumbo-jumbo a little while ago. There is a perfect example.

David Gable swears by Elliot Carter's music and also Pierre Boulez. I
don't get it. But he does. The fault is very probably mine. "The fault,
dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves" That's Shakespeare
and he is rarely wrong.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely
satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

You can't read and remember very long can you? Please let me refresh your
lagging memory: Been there, done that and no particular joy.

And you have acquired and lived with the amplifier in question? Or are
you simply going on your experience, perhaps at some show or other for
a few brief minutes.

Frankly I don't get the impression that you take anything very
seriously at all. You seem to derive all your opinions from one very
faulty opinion, which is, in turn, derived from a limited experience.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

That and a ****-poor memory.

I have a flawless memory, for the most part. Your ability to establish
relevance, however, is clearly flawed.

I rourtinely use headphones to monitor and mix multitrack and stereo
recordings that I make.

Fine. And so what?

Its a classic live versus recorded comparison where the listener is
intimately familiar with the live performance that was recorded, repeated
100's of times.

Again, I don't see the relevance.

That and that same sorry memory problem.

See above.


You don't USE the headphone amp, so, you don't know what you may be
missing.


I've used various signal-processing headphone amps, and no joy.

My question remains: have you used the amplifier in question and for
how long and under what conditions? If not, your opinion is simply
irrelevant to this discussion and I have no reason to equate the
opinion of the person who reviewed the product as "snake oil", as you
put it.

Your "live" vs. recorded is fine, of course, insofar as you
can hear properly (and at your age one should begin to question that
honestly), but you may not know what you are missing IF you put the
headphone amp in the circuit.

I've used various signal-processing headphone amps over a period of at least
30 years, and no joy.

Thirty years ago, products were not at the level of sophistication that
they are today.

Of course I read that you can't tell one amplifier from another.

If they are good amps, no. Something about not being fooled by listening
tests that aren't bias-controlled, level-matched and time-synched.

So that may be your problem in a nutshell. Your hearing is faulty.

I did my first blind amplifier test about 30 years ago. I was lots younger
then, to say the least. Try again with your age-related bias problem. No
soap.

Since I speak as a man in his sixties, I am against ageism. However, it
has to be said that a man's hearing tends to decline rather rapidly
with age. When was the last time you had yours tested by a
professional?

Oh yes I also listen through speakers. My best home system is based on
NHT 2.5i speakers - getting a bit old but still good.

Fine. And so what?

See above.

I would, but it didn't get me anywhere.

A closed mind can be a hard thing to to communicate with.

The mind isn't closed. Except to blank statements of no value.


I go to stereo shows like HE2005 last spring, put on some Stax
headphones
driven by gosh-whatever is hot this week, and wonder "Sounds great,
but
where's the beef"?

Stax headphones aren't hamburger. Were you expecting a Big Mac?

Thanks for admitting that the only form of beef you're familiar with is
hanburger. I'm kinda partial to Chateubriand myself...

I wonder if, perhaps, you are starting to lose your hearing?

You don't read well do you? I've been listening to headphones like this
for
over 40 years.

All the more reason to question your hearing, I think. Do you really
think that blasting your ears with sound through headphones for forty
years is going to leave your hearing unimpaired? Check with a doctor.

All the more reason to think that you have blasted your eardrums to
smithereens!!!


The teenagers do it all the time and end up deaf by the age of 20.

I'm careful. I've been an audiophile for 46 years.

LOL!!!

So has Harry Pearson.

Have you had THAT tested recently. Grey-haired men tend to hear very little
above a certain frequency. Others find the Stax headphones marvelous (I
do believe that Dan Koren will give them a thumbs up).

What's unclear about "Sounds great"?

Only that it sounds great "TO YOU"!!!

What's the problem?

I'm not you, and therefore I can't trust your conclusion.

Don't bother, you've pretty well discredited yourself terminally, anyhow.

Now you're just flinging mud. It doesn't stick. Ask others around here,
Arny.

All the hand-wavey stuff about magic resistors and capacitors that
they use
to up the price by another $70 or so is total garbage.

Do you have real evidence for this claim, or is it just your feeling
about it?

I've studied the esoteric ins and outs of passive component sound
quality
for about 20 years, ever since Marsh and Jung started their thing.
I've
done
technical tests, listening tests, and studied the technical parameters
extensively.

The bottom line is that there have always been standards for passive
component quality, but what Marsh and Jung started was way over and
above
that. Well-known experts like Robert Pease of National Semiconductor
have
debunked this issue, as have a number of other well-known and
well-respected
people. It's just hype.

In other words, no.

Which is sort of what I suspected.

Incidentally, anyone who posts the following New Year's Resolutions
should seek immediate psychiatric help.

Continue to destroy the High End .

I will be meaner than in 2005

I will be more hypocritical in 2006

Work on my personality .

New project: make all composition of music conform to objectivist
principle

Since you're the one who is posting this list, all readers must presume
that
they are yours, tomdeacon. When is your appointment with the shrink?

No, they are in quotes. And they are yours.

See:
http://www.briefreporter.com/arny-kr...s-vt31104.html

It gets worse.

Look at that post through a higher-resolution medium and if you're
well-informed enough, you may even see how it's a forgery.

Compare the headers for that post which you can view at:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...88d0a301dcda91

Don't you wish that your name was valuable enough that people would try to
forge it?

Funny, that.

My name has been forged here any number of times. Usually by sickos who
choose not to speak with their own voices because nobody would listen.

TD

"Rich Wilson" wrote in message
...

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think you'll find that the vast majority of musicians and engineers
who
work with headphones, use them without cross-feed circuits. Can you read
schematics? Then go look at schematics of *professional* headphone amps,
and
see how many are straight 2-chanel devices.

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other. I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones.

Well I had noticed that Philips make terrible headphones...


They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to.

My Sennheisers create a totally natural, detailed sound that reveals far
more than any loudspeakers I've ever owned. They're comfortable and I can
wear them for hours without getting sweaty.


The
best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.
You hear absolutely everything.

Remind me what you were saying about damaging your hearing with loud
music...?


That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, hot hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording. No, it is not like
listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

I reckon you'll notice a slight improvement in sound quality. However I
have seen reviews that have slated this type of device, and I can
understand why... it's trying to improve on one small, battery-powered
amplifier with another small, battery-powered amplifier. I don't see how
chaining another amp on the end of a poor-quality one is going to
significantly improve matters - OK, the first one may work slightly better
without the load of driving the headphones, but if the DAC and so on in
your player aren't very good no number of expensive devices is going to be
able to make up for that.


I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely
satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

A while ago I did some experiments with some computer software I'm
writing. I added an adjustable cross-feed type effect that could either
increase or decrease the separation between the channels. This had the
effect of moving the sound from directly inside my head (mono) to
unnaturally far outside my ears. There was never the tiniest suggestion of
it being "in front", and I didn't manage to improve on the original sound.
I've also tried Dolby's much more advanced attempts to move the sound out
of your head, and been thoroughly unimpressed.


I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

That means he knows good headphones when he hears them, because he can
directly compare the reproduction to the real sound.



I have been using Sennheisers for years - very comfortable and great sound
Richard

Rich Wilson wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message

You always seem to rely on some "authority" or other. I, too, have been
a producer: fifteen years at the CBC, 8 years at Philips, and I really
learned to LOATHE all headphones.

Well I had noticed that Philips make terrible headphones.

I wouldn't know, Rich. Never seen a pair.


They are awkward, bulky, hot, sweaty
and create an entirely false sense of what you are listening to.

My Sennheisers create a totally natural, detailed sound that reveals far
more than any loudspeakers I've ever owned. They're comfortable and I can
wear them for hours without getting sweaty.

The only think I can say is that you are more tolerant than I.

The best way to listen to music, if you are a professional, is through true
monitor speakers played at almost, but not quite, ear-splitting volume.
You hear absolutely everything.

Remind me what you were saying about damaging your hearing with loud
music...?

Please note, Rich, that I NEVER said that I followed this practise.
It's a complete killer for the ears.

That, however, is not how people enjoy music, which is quite another
thing.

The ear-speakers are not awkward, not bulky, hot hot, not sweaty, AND,
with the aid of that tiny little device I have mentioned, will create a
more or realistic perspective of the recording. No, it is not like
listening in a room on loadspeakers. But it may just be the next best
thing to being in the room with the musicians.

I reckon you'll notice a slight improvement in sound quality. However I have
seen reviews that have slated this type of device, and I can understand
why... it's trying to improve on one small, battery-powered amplifier with
another small, battery-powered amplifier. I don't see how chaining another
amp on the end of a poor-quality one is going to significantly improve
matters - OK, the first one may work slightly better without the load of
driving the headphones, but if the DAC and so on in your player aren't very
good no number of expensive devices is going to be able to make up for that.

I suppose that I will see for myself.

Certainly the original reviewer I quoted claimed that life was too
short NOT to listen to earspeakers with the headphone amplifier in
question.

I put on some good headphones (HD-580s for example) or IEMs (
Futuresonics
and Shure E-3s for example) and immediately hear a completely
satisfying
and
revealing stereo image.

That's fine. And so what?

Note absense of $280 headphone amp with cross-feed circuits.

You won't notice the absence until you being using the headphone amp.

A while ago I did some experiments with some computer software I'm writing.
I added an adjustable cross-feed type effect that could either increase or
decrease the separation between the channels. This had the effect of moving
the sound from directly inside my head (mono) to unnaturally far outside my
ears. There was never the tiniest suggestion of it being "in front", and I
didn't manage to improve on the original sound. I've also tried Dolby's much
more advanced attempts to move the sound out of your head, and been
thoroughly unimpressed.

I have no idea how computer softward you have written would "replicate"
the effect of the headphone amplifier in question.

I do live sound ever week using headphones when appropriate.

Fine. And so what?

It's a classic live versus reproduced comparison in real time.

Sorry. I still don't see the relevance.

That means he knows good headphones when he hears them, because he can
directly compare the reproduction to the real sound.

HA HA HA

But he is still listening to both with the same set of ears. That is
the point. He will hear both with the same possibly flawed set of ears.

I can't speak for his ears. Which is why I tend to disregard such vague
and unsupported commentary.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

And you have acquired and lived with the amplifier in question? Or are
you simply going on your experience, perhaps at some show or other for
a few brief minutes.

Frankly I don't get the impression that you take anything very
seriously at all. You seem to derive all your opinions from one very
faulty opinion, which is, in turn, derived from a limited experience.

What's that about "limited experience"...?

"Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound, I have ordered
the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone amplifier."

LOL

tomdeacon wrote:

Have you considered Ultimate Ears? I've just got some of their Superfi 5
Pros and they're pretty good - I haven't heard Etymotics or Shures but they
compare well to my Sennheiser HD600s. Possibly the upper midrange is a bit
bright at the moment, but they're still very new so that may well calm down
as they break in; other than that, I've had a few "am I wearing earphones or
is my hifi connected directly to my brain" moments :-)


Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound, I have ordered
the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone amplifier. It is
apparently the size of a package of cigarettes but contains some
excellent electronics which render headphones truly wonderful when used
with the iPod, or, I imagine, other MP3 players. ANY headphones, it
would seem. My source was www.headphone.com in Montana, of all places.

Perhaps when they arrive I will post on the results. $269. Not exactly
cheap, but if they render the sound truly "high fidelity", then it will
be worth the money.

TD

Wise investment, at least it was for me.

Charley

--
Charles Milton Ling
Vienna, Austria

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound,

TAS is a well-known promoter of snake oil.

I checked.

They don't seem to sell any?

Which brand are you referring to?


I have ordered the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone
amplifier.

This product does at least two things that have some value - it can make
the signal louder and it provides a crossfeed effect that some people
feel
that they need.

Tom,

I sure hope you will write up your opinion of this headphone amplifier when
you have had a chance to use it for awhile.

Steve

Rich Wilson wrote:
"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

And you have acquired and lived with the amplifier in question? Or are
you simply going on your experience, perhaps at some show or other for
a few brief minutes.

Frankly I don't get the impression that you take anything very
seriously at all. You seem to derive all your opinions from one very
faulty opinion, which is, in turn, derived from a limited experience.

What's that about "limited experience"...?

"Having just read a few reviews from The Absolute Sound, I have ordered
the small HeadRoom Total Bithead Clear headphone amplifier."

LOL

You laugh.

Even reading that review is perhaps more experience than that of Mr.
Krueger. It is unclear from his posts whether he has ANY experience of
this device.

In any event, I have no real idea what this device will do beyond what
I read about it in TAS. I remain open-minded about its qualities and
look forward to testing it, as I said in my original post on the
subject. If it does what the review says it will do, then it will have
been well worth the price, which to me is sort of irrelevant.

After that my experience will still be "limited", as it will be limited
to the use of the Shure E5c earplugs with and without that specific
amplifier when used with the iPod.

TD

Steven de Mena wrote:

Tom,

I sure hope you will write up your opinion of this headphone amplifier when
you have had a chance to use it for awhile.

And I will do precisely that, Steven, from Vancouver, after using it
for many days in a row while crossing Canada by train, an adventure I
look forward to with keen anticipation. If I am still listening to
either the iPod or the Shure earplugs or to the headphone amplifier by
the end of three days on the train, it should be just fine.

TD

"tomdeacon" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rich Wilson wrote:
A while ago I did some experiments with some computer software I'm
writing.
I added an adjustable cross-feed type effect that could either increase
or
decrease the separation between the channels. This had the effect of
moving
the sound from directly inside my head (mono) to unnaturally far outside
my
ears. There was never the tiniest suggestion of it being "in front", and
I
didn't manage to improve on the original sound. I've also tried Dolby's
much
more advanced attempts to move the sound out of your head, and been
thoroughly unimpressed.

I have no idea how computer softward you have written would "replicate"
the effect of the headphone amplifier in question.

Most analogue processes can be easily replicated in a digital form.
Actually, excuse me while I eat my words... I've found a way of getting the
"out of head" effect that *does* involve an element of cross-feed.
Cross-feed on its own doesn't seem to have the desired effect, though.

Steven de Mena wrote:

I sure hope you will write up your opinion of this headphone amplifier when
you have had a chance to use it for awhile.

The amplifier arrived a few days ago and I have had some limited time
to use it, as I am preparing for the long trek to Vancouver next week.

My first impressions are positive. The sonic image IS improved in
realism as it no longer seems to come from inside your head, but rather
in front of you. The amplifier leaks a little of each side of the
signal into the opposite side in order to produce this effect. I
imagine that it could have been accomplished "passively" as well, but
the amp does it quite nicely, thank you.

The "sound" of the music is also altered somewhat. The iPod used with
the Shure E5c earphones is clear and strong in sound. No problem. Then
used with the amplifier the sound all of a sudden gains in what I would
call "body". The piano sound has a richness and a texture that it
lacked using the iPod alone. This is not a subtle distinction at all.
The sound really does gain substance and no longer sounds, well,
"thin". The difference would only be noticed, I suspect, when compared.
The sound ressembles to a greater degree what I hear with my own
reference system, which includes high power tube amplification.

So, for $250.00 the amplifier, although not "necessary", is certainly
beneficial to the overall sound obtained with the iPod/Shure E5c
earphones alone. Some will find this expense needless - Arnie Krueger,
the famous professional debunker, will be among these, I imagine - but
for me all I can say is that I have spent more money on things which
were of much less use to me in my daily enjoyment of classical music.

To each his own.

TD

Rich Wilson wr
Most analogue processes can be easily replicated in a digital form.
Actually, excuse me while I eat my words...

How did they taste?

TD