Headphones?

[15thDimension]

I've been looking for some high-quality headphones for audio production but I'm a bit confused as for what to look for. So I had just a few questions:

Interface - Whether or not usb and 1/8th inch standard jack would be higher quality or more consistent.

Frequency response - Does having a huge range make that much of a difference?

Sensitivity and Impedance - What the heck these are and if they make any difference.

Also, if anyone has some good brands they recommended, I'd like to hear of those too.

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/10/10 11:16 AM, 15thDimension wrote: I've been looking for some high-quality headphones for audio production but I'm a bit confused as for what to look for. So I had just a few questions:

Interface - Whether or not usb and 1/8th inch standard jack would be higher quality or more consistent.

1/4" is general preferrable so you don't have to use an adapter with higher-quality phones. USB is fine for an interface, even if it's running off bus power - most important thing for sound quality is to get an interface with s/pdif output so you can use an external DAC.

Frequency response - Does having a huge range make that much of a difference?

Frequency response ratings for headphones are likely on of the most bullshitted metrics in the audio world. You're safe just completely ignoring it.

Sensitivity and Impedance - What the heck these are and if they make any difference.

Sensitivity and impedance are similar to the implications they have in typical speakers. Higher sensitivity means they will be louder when fed the same voltage in comparison to a set with lower sensitivity (which is usually measured in decibel level @ 1 meter with a single watt for loudspeakers). Impedance is the average electrical resistance across the audio band. Lower impedance phones (lower than 32 ohm) will draw significantly more current from whatever headphone amp is being used which can result in a rather "thin" sound unless the source you have your headphones plugged into can handle low-impedance phones (ex* AKG 701 and most higher end phones often have a low impedance as they use larger voice-coils).

Also, if anyone has some good brands they recommended, I'd like to hear of those too.

Pretty much anything by Audio Technica, higher-end Beyer-dynamics, or just pick up a pair of the venerable (and uber cheap) Creative HQ-1400's that spoiled me for a good period of time. It is extremely important with using headphones to get a kick-ass headphone amp if you want really good monitoring quality.

[Buoy]

At 11/10/10 11:46 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: It is extremely important with using headphones to get a kick-ass headphone amp if you want really good monitoring quality.

On that note, any advice on how to invest a moderate amount of money into a headphone amp that will drive AKG-701 headphones properly?

[ACINO]

If you want hq sounding headphones i suggest you to check sennheiser and pioneer headphones... Sorry cant afford you a link cause im not at my computer:/

[DeadWorld777]

audio technica, pioneerand sony are good brands, you should look at a music shop, they have good recoreding headphones, and get ful cups if you can not ear buds, your ears will thank you later.

[acmeDyne]

Grado
At $99 a pair, the SR80i's are pretty hard to beat in terms of bang-for-buck. They're accurate and comfortable- I often forget I have mine on!

Also, Sound on Sound did a recent headphone roundup

[Reaper93]

At 11/10/10 11:16 AM, 15thDimension wrote: I've been looking for some high-quality headphones for audio production but I'm a bit confused as for what to look for. So I had just a few questions:

Interface - Whether or not usb and 1/8th inch standard jack would be higher quality or more consistent.

The interface doesn't much matter. 1/8th inch is the standard, 1/4th inch is a less popular (though some would say higher quality) standard, USB is probably not going to offer the same level of options. 1/8th inch is compatible with anything and everything, be it the 1/8th inch out port on your cruddy PC sound card or an 1/8th inch out port on a dedicated amplifier. So best bet's gonna be 1/8th inch, I'd say.

Frequency response - Does having a huge range make that much of a difference?

As long as it goes from ~20Hz to ~20,000Hz it's good enough. If there are provided EQ curves, try to make it be as flat as possible for music production.

Sensitivity and Impedance - What the heck these are and if they make any difference.

Impedance describes how much resistance the circuit will have in your headphones. A higher resistance circuit will need a higher amperage to drive the cones to a certain volume. Therefore a low impedance, or a high sensitivity, set of headphones is going to be best if you do NOT have dedicated amplification of some kind. Most PC sound cards/audio interfaces can amplify even the least responsive headphones to ear-breaking volumes, though, so don't give it much thought if you're not going to be using them on your iPod or other portable device.

Also, if anyone has some good brands they recommended, I'd like to hear of those too.

AKG, Denon, Grado, and Sennheiser are the most often heard brands around here listed in no particular order.

Avoid Bose (new Bose products are not the old Bose products - too expensive for the quality provided), avoid skull candy or you will be the subject of much ridicule. Avoid any headphone endorsed in its name by any artist (such as beats by dr. dre).

Otherwise it's pretty tough to go wrong, overall.

[15thDimension]

SO MUCH AWESOME INFORMATION

And I thank everyone for it. I'll take a look at some of the brands suggested, and know I know better what I'm looking for.

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/10/10 11:49 AM, SBB wrote:

At 11/10/10 11:46 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: It is extremely important with using headphones to get a kick-ass headphone amp if you want really good monitoring quality.

On that note, any advice on how to invest a moderate amount of money into a headphone amp that will drive AKG-701 headphones properly?

For the price? The Little Dot 1+ is supposed to be absolutely unbeatable. I've heard a couple pieces of little dot gear and they are something wicked for what they cost. The little dot 1+ you can get on ebay for around $140 shipped it looks like. The higher iterations (MKII, MKIII) are a little more but still only getting up to the $200 range and allow more creative tube rolling (which is fun).

I owned a Antique Soundlabs MG HEAD MK III headphone amp which was a real treat, but that will set you back about $500 and you'll likely have to get one from a hi-fi store if you have one local as they can be hard to find online. The sound from that unit was unbelievably lush and rich. I mixed a ton of songs that turned out quite well on it at the time. I think my mixing skills have improved enough that I would benefit much more now than I did from having such a detailed sounding monitoring environment. Before that I used a Zero 24/192 DAC/headphone amp which died 8 months after I bought it (sucked) and before that a (surprisingly) expensive Oz Audio distribution amp (very good sound) and before that a basic Rolls 4-channel headphone amp. Built-in op-amps on the bus-powered interfaces I've had for headphone use never EVER cut the mustard with the only exception being the decent sound from a MOTU 2408 MKIII I had on my G5.

[Reaper93]

Eh, I never noticed much of a difference from headphone amps. Maybe my ears just suck (or I'm listening to too many .mp3s) but I imagine most of the usefulness is actually in the driving of high impedance 'phones, not in adding any kind of sonic quality or precision.

...contrary to what hi-fi junkies will tell you. Go ahead and spend the money if you want but really you're going to get a much more noticeable difference in sound quality from a better set of headphones than you will from the equivalent dollars of amp, DAC, or anything else.

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/11/10 12:12 AM, Reaper93 wrote: Eh, I never noticed much of a difference from headphone amps. Maybe my ears just suck (or I'm listening to too many .mp3s) but I imagine most of the usefulness is actually in the driving of high impedance 'phones, not in adding any kind of sonic quality or precision.

...contrary to what hi-fi junkies will tell you. Go ahead and spend the money if you want but really you're going to get a much more noticeable difference in sound quality from a better set of headphones than you will from the equivalent dollars of amp, DAC, or anything else.

Of course, what I can say about this is going to be anecdotal evidence, but I've found close to just as much difference from amps of varying caliber (or DAC's) as I have of some speakers. My JBL 6260 has balls to a degree that the best of the other amps I've owned can only begin to approach. The Yamaha P2075 amp I am also currently running with a set of JBL 4410s cannot match the dynamicism of the JBL 6260 by a long-shot, though the yammie sounds damn smooth and detailed. I had a Yamaha P2075 which could kick some serious ass compared to most any sub $1k integrated receivers I've owned. I had a Hafler Pro1200 that sounded wimpy as dick. I had a BGW 250D which was produced sound that was anything but tepid.

I would counter what you are saying especially with headphones due to the massive crapshoot buying headphones vs. their respective prices can be. I've owned AKG K-701, K-300, K-240, K141, Sennheiser HD 280 PRO, Beyer-dynamic DT-770 pro, Sony 7506, Fostex T-RP50, Behringer HPM-1000, Creative HQ-1400, Audio Technica ATH-M30. Koss 4AAT, Koss 4AA, and others I can't remember.

I've listened to (then) TOTL Grado GS-1000, Grado SR-80, Koss Porta-pros and other cult favs including custom phones my friend built with multiple drivers. I can tell you with the utmost confidence that the $150 difference between buying a Little Dot 1+ headphone amp fed a decent line-level source or not will be way more apparent than the $150 between a set of Audio Technica ATH-M50 and a set of AKG 701's fed by a crappy built-in interface op-amp, regardless of impedance. It's like telling someone to purchase $2K speakers and power them with a cheap Pioneer VSX receiver. It's going to sound terrible. The amplification stage makes a tremendous difference in my experience.

[dietsnapple135]

At 11/10/10 03:17 PM, ACINO wrote: If you want hq sounding headphones i suggest you to check sennheiser and pioneer headphones... Sorry cant afford you a link cause im not at my computer:/

Sennheisers have always treated me well <3

[Reaper93]

Well, as confident as you are that amplification makes a big difference, I've spent a few hundred bucks on DACs, Amps, and all manner of stuff like that... I've never noticed much. The latest I'm using has a nice crossfeed switch, though, which helps to break up the channel isolation headphones have. Not worth the 350 bucks I spent on it (in my buyer's-remorse opinion), but still pretty nice. And having a knob to turn to adjust gain is way more fun than pushing a button on your PC. But that aside, if I had bought some Sennheiser HD800s I'd probably notice a much bigger difference than this DAC-Amp stack provides.

Doing a quick check back and forth between the (obviously garbage in comparison) line out port on the back of my computer to that my DAC-Amp stack provides, I can notice some subtle differences in dynamics, but really if I wasn't looking for them they'd be pretty tough to notice. Maybe this exaggerates itself in higher-impedance headphones, I wouldn't know (mine are pretty low resistance), but from where I'm standing if I had 150 dollars more headphone to buy, or 150 dollars of amplifier to buy, it'd be the investment in the monitors themselves first every time.

Once you reach relatively top of the line (HD800s from Sennheiser, for instance) then I can definitely heartily recommend looking into amplification or dedicated DACs as the next step to take. But from the beginning? You're going to need a pair of headphones that can actually detect the difference being made before you invest in that difference.

For instance, the difference between a $50 pair of headphones and $200 pair of headphones? Enormous, absolutely enormous. Once you get up to around maybe 300 vs 450, or 450 vs 600 dollars the difference isn't so apparent in the monitoring hardware anymore and you can definitely go look for solutions in the line chain, but before that I'd never recommend it personally. Maybe you feel differently, but from what I've found over the course of the last few thousand dollars is you invest in your monitoring solution first because they're going to have the biggest difference, then you invest in the source, and finally in the line gear.

So unless our prospective headphone-buyer here has a few hundred dollars to blow on not only enough headphone to hear the difference but also enough for an amplifier (and while you're at it, a DAC so you don't have to deal with the EMI garbage from inside your case) then I'd say just get some darn headphones.

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/11/10 10:08 PM, Reaper93 wrote: Well, as confident as you are that amplification makes a big difference, I've spent a few hundred bucks on DACs, Amps, and all manner of stuff like that... I've never noticed much. The latest I'm using has a nice crossfeed switch, though, which helps to break up the channel isolation headphones have. Not worth the 350 bucks I spent on it (in my buyer's-remorse opinion), but still pretty nice. And having a knob to turn to adjust gain is way more fun than pushing a button on your PC. But that aside, if I had bought some Sennheiser HD800s I'd probably notice a much bigger difference than this DAC-Amp stack provides.

I don't want to sound like a gear whore or some audio bigot but I've owned an amount of gear that is worth more than most peoples houses. I don't say that to try to be pretentious or snotty, I really have had an absolutely inordinate amount of audio stuff. I've listened to audiophile setups a number of times where there was literally a half-million dollars worth of equipment for a single setup sitting in front of me. I'm only confident in what I say because I've owned hundreds of speakers, dozens of amps, dozens of headphones, dozens of interfaces, dozens of computers, dozens of cd players, and a number of stand-alone DACs and headphone amps and spent a lot of time listening to each one. If I hadn't bought the stuff I did, I probably would have already moved into my own house. It kind of sucks in a way when I think how much I've spent on equipment...but really it's been a very enlightening experience and helped me meet some rather notable collectors, speaker designers and producers.

Doing a quick check back and forth between the (obviously garbage in comparison) line out port on the back of my computer to that my DAC-Amp stack provides, I can notice some subtle differences in dynamics, but really if I wasn't looking for them they'd be pretty tough to notice. Maybe this exaggerates itself in higher-impedance headphones, I wouldn't know (mine are pretty low resistance), but from where I'm standing if I had 150 dollars more headphone to buy, or 150 dollars of amplifier to buy, it'd be the investment in the monitors themselves first every time.

To each his own of course. This is simplifying heavily on a scenario which is going to be much more involved in the real world.

Once you reach relatively top of the line (HD800s from Sennheiser, for instance) then I can definitely heartily recommend looking into amplification or dedicated DACs as the next step to take. But from the beginning? You're going to need a pair of headphones that can actually detect the difference being made before you invest in that difference.

Headphones are by nature typically more naunced than speakers 10x the price per pair. My experience again. You put drivers that close to your ear and as long as they are not outright sh*tty they will produce a level of detail that is difficult to attain with amplification levels multiple times as high.

For instance, the difference between a $50 pair of headphones and $200 pair of headphones? Enormous, absolutely enormous. Once you get up to around maybe 300 vs 450, or 450 vs 600 dollars the difference isn't so apparent in the monitoring hardware anymore and you can definitely go look for solutions in the line chain, but before that I'd never recommend it personally. Maybe you feel differently, but from what I've found over the course of the last few thousand dollars is you invest in your monitoring solution first because they're going to have the biggest difference, then you invest in the source, and finally in the line gear.

I tend to keep my DAC, amp, preamp and speakers all in the same performance range. Right now I'm running a Samsung DVD-HD841 as a transport to a Lucid ADA1000 DAC to a Rane SM26B line mixer (balanced pre) to a Yamaha P2075 amp to a pair of JBL 4410 monitors. Each of those items (minus the cheap-ish transport) are really on par with each other perfomance-wise. Switching out the Lucid DAC to the analog output from a Sony RCD-W1 (which is one of the best cd players for analog playback I've used under $1k) makes a very noticable difference in the amount of detail and coherency of the instruments in a mix (it's not as detailed or defined as the stand-along Lucid by a long shot). Going to a Yamaha DA-202 DAC that I have betters the treble and low-end extension and punch of even the Lucid (though it makes loud "pops" between songs with the Samsung as transport so I don't typically use it). The JBL 4410 are indeed very good monitors but the Yamaha P2075 is also a killer amp and the Rane SM26B is an amazing pre-amp - so changes in a component are normally pretty easy to detect.

Now, the difference between a $50 of headphones and a $200 may be enormous, but might not actually be better at all in many cases (the pair of Fostex T-RP50 phones I had were $150 retail and sucked in comparison to the Creative HQ-1400, which were $25). As I said - it's a crapshoot when comparing headphones of differing prices (same thing with speakers unless you actually audition them). I personally think AKG K-240s (even the higher-end sextett "silver" version which I've owned) suck beyond description (even with a modded cable). Yet, those also were $150 new. I'd rather take AKG's own K-44 (which actually don't suck) which are 1/3rd the price. I have examples like that I could go on nearly forever about. I would actually recommend that if someone has a decent $50 set of headphones that they like that they get a decent headphone amp before just up and getting another pair of phones at even 3-4 times the price as it is nearly gauranteed that with the headphone amp it will sound a significant bit better. You have virtually no gaurantee with will-nilly purchasing new phones however unless you've actually had a chance to audition them extensively.

Have you listened to any dedicated headphone amps before?

So unless our prospective headphone-buyer here has a few hundred dollars to blow on not only enough headphone to hear the difference but also enough for an amplifier (and while you're at it, a DAC so you don't have to deal with the EMI garbage from inside your case) then I'd say just get some darn headphones.

My response about the headphone amp was primarily toward SBB who I quoted and who owns a pair of AKG 701s - same as I owned. I will say those phones definitely need a competent headphone amp.

[Reaper93]

Hopefully I won't butcher the quote tags too badly. If I have do your best to follow along...

At 11/11/10 11:54 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 11/11/10 10:08 PM, Reaper93 wrote: Well, as confident as you are that amplification makes a big difference, I've spent a few hundred bucks on DACs, Amps, and all manner of stuff like that... I've never noticed much. The latest I'm using has a nice crossfeed switch, though, which helps to break up the channel isolation headphones have. Not worth the 350 bucks I spent on it (in my buyer's-remorse opinion), but still pretty nice. And having a knob to turn to adjust gain is way more fun than pushing a button on your PC. But that aside, if I had bought some Sennheiser HD800s I'd probably notice a much bigger difference than this DAC-Amp stack provides.

I don't want to sound like a gear whore or some audio bigot but I've owned an amount of gear that is worth more than most peoples houses. I don't say that to try to be pretentious or snotty, I really have had an absolutely inordinate amount of audio stuff. I've listened to audiophile setups a number of times where there was literally a half-million dollars worth of equipment for a single setup sitting in front of me. I'm only confident in what I say because I've owned hundreds of speakers, dozens of amps, dozens of headphones, dozens of interfaces, dozens of computers, dozens of cd players, and a number of stand-alone DACs and headphone amps and spent a lot of time listening to each one. If I hadn't bought the stuff I did, I probably would have already moved into my own house. It kind of sucks in a way when I think how much I've spent on equipment...but really it's been a very enlightening experience and helped me meet some rather notable collectors, speaker designers and producers.

Well, sounds to me like you've got me beat on overall experience when it comes to being some kind of audio geardo (:p), but still I think in a field like this opinion counts for a lot. I mean I try to use the science wherever I can (frequency response charts and the like), but for a lot of audio it still comes down to "does it sound better?" and if so, what IS better? Generally that's pretty subjective.

I tend to keep my DAC, amp, preamp and speakers all in the same performance range. Right now I'm running a Samsung DVD-HD841 as a transport to a Lucid ADA1000 DAC to a Rane SM26B line mixer (balanced pre) to a Yamaha P2075 amp to a pair of JBL 4410 monitors. Each of those items (minus the cheap-ish transport) are really on par with each other perfomance-wise. Switching out the Lucid DAC to the analog output from a Sony RCD-W1 (which is one of the best cd players for analog playback I've used under $1k) makes a very noticable difference in the amount of detail and coherency of the instruments in a mix (it's not as detailed or defined as the stand-along Lucid by a long shot). Going to a Yamaha DA-202 DAC that I have betters the treble and low-end extension and punch of even the Lucid (though it makes loud "pops" between songs with the Samsung as transport so I don't typically use it). The JBL 4410 are indeed very good monitors but the Yamaha P2075 is also a killer amp and the Rane SM26B is an amazing pre-amp - so changes in a component are normally pretty easy to detect.

Well, once you're used to it, I'd imagine so. But even still if you had to invest in them in a particular order (you get X component first, then Y component, then Z), it only makes the most sense (to me at least) to invest in the monitors first. If you have a brilliant DAC and a pre-amp and an amp and you only play totally uncompressed audio files... but you're listening on a pair of iPod earbuds... you're going to only be hearing exactly how garbage the iPod earbuds sound. On the contrary if you're listening through a pair of HD800s plugged right into the back of your PC you'll be hearing some minor waveform clipping and a bit of elecromagnetic noise. I mean maybe it's a bit of preference, but I'd rather have the good 'phones before I had a good line system because I'd prefer to have the problems be generated by subpar line goods than by the actual monitors.

Now, the difference between a $50 of headphones and a $200 may be enormous, but might not actually be better at all in many cases (the pair of Fostex T-RP50 phones I had were $150 retail and sucked in comparison to the Creative HQ-1400, which were $25). As I said - it's a crapshoot when comparing headphones of differing prices (same thing with speakers unless you actually audition them). I personally think AKG K-240s (even the higher-end sextett "silver" version which I've owned) suck beyond description (even with a modded cable). Yet, those also were $150 new. I'd rather take AKG's own K-44 (which actually don't suck) which are 1/3rd the price. I have examples like that I could go on nearly forever about. I would actually recommend that if someone has a decent $50 set of headphones that they like that they get a decent headphone amp before just up and getting another pair of phones at even 3-4 times the price as it is nearly gauranteed that with the headphone amp it will sound a significant bit better. You have virtually no gaurantee with will-nilly purchasing new phones however unless you've actually had a chance to audition them extensively.

Well of course I'm making the claim that the headphones in this example are actually scaled appropriately to their price range. Beats by Dr. Dre are pretty garbage headphones, from an audio production standpoint anyway, but they cost what? 200 dollars? OBVIOUSLY what's "good" is going to be subjective. We have to assume for sake of comparison, though, that the gear is worth what the cost is compared to other "benchmark" gear of the same type. When I say a 150 dollar pair of headphones what I really mean is 150 dollars OF HEADPHONE, if that makes any sense. For instance the Denon AH-D2000s I'm listening to right now cost around 300 dollars and are worth about that much, too. I've had a pair of headphones that cost 150 dollars less, and though they only sounded about a hundred dollars cheaper, the other 50 was for their shoddy, cheap, plastic construction.

Have you listened to any dedicated headphone amps before?

Well, given I just got done telling you I was JUST comparing how things sounded through my DAC-Amp stack to without it, I'd assume that, yes, I have listened through a dedicated headphone amp before. Obviously when I'm going over the merits of dedicated amplifiers in a thread about headphones I'm not going to be talking about amplifiers designed for speakers since those are well outside of the appropriate level for driving something attached to your head.

My response about the headphone amp was primarily toward SBB who I quoted and who owns a pair of AKG 701s - same as I owned. I will say those phones definitely need a competent headphone amp.

Well, initially, yes, but then I decided to express my opinion on the matter of headphones and headphone amplification, so I'm afraid this whole conversation is my own fault :p

[Reaper93]

I just re-read that and noticed I started every response with "well".

Go me!

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Reaper93 wrote: Well, sounds to me like you've got me beat on overall experience when it comes to being some kind of audio geardo (:p), but still I think in a field like this opinion counts for a lot. I mean I try to use the science wherever I can (frequency response charts and the like), but for a lot of audio it still comes down to "does it sound better?" and if so, what IS better? Generally that's pretty subjective.

Better is definitely subjective. No argument there at all. Most people will really never care if they run a stand-along DAC or if they should purchase a Classe` cd player. It's all relative. I will say that listening to a DCS scarlotti DAC/transport system powered by Antique Soundlabs 500w class A monoblocks running a pair of Usher BE20 floorstanders was an absolutely revalatory experience and changed my life. Ever since then I've been more critical than I might ever have been about what I heard and the timbre and detail and whatever else... so a lot of it is really relative to extremes you've gotten used to. It's difficult to say "this is more detailed" or "this is better" beyond a certain point until you hear a system that makes you feel like you can taste the piano in the room (this is a very uncanny experience). Now I wonder "why did that sound so incredibly real while this or that doesn't?" As far as I can trace back, yes - the speakers are hugely important but somehow I think that if the DCS and Antique Soundlabs monoblocks from that described equation were missing and replaced with a dinky $200 integrated - everything would likely fall apart at the seams.

I've been pretty critical since then. I heard a TOTL all Krell system with custom dynaudio speakers that didn't even come close (the guy was positively enamoured with it though and I didn't want to say I actually perferred his JBL LX500 + Little Dot + Harmon Kardon secondary system better in terms of musicality and feel). For most people it won't make an ounce of difference whether they run a RME interface or a Lexicon Alpha interface, but the thing I can never forget about what music 'can' potentially sound like has changed how I react to the minute differences in equipment.

Well, once you're used to it, I'd imagine so. But even still if you had to invest in them in a particular order (you get X component first, then Y component, then Z), it only makes the most sense (to me at least) to invest in the monitors first. If you have a brilliant DAC and a pre-amp and an amp and you only play totally uncompressed audio files... but you're listening on a pair of iPod earbuds... you're going to only be hearing exactly how garbage the iPod earbuds sound. On the contrary if you're listening through a pair of HD800s plugged right into the back of your PC you'll be hearing some minor waveform clipping and a bit of elecromagnetic noise. I mean maybe it's a bit of preference, but I'd rather have the good 'phones before I had a good line system because I'd prefer to have the problems be generated by subpar line goods than by the actual monitors.

Actually, I'm not sure if I'd rather take the HD800's plugged straight into the junky built-in audio-output of a computer over a pair of ipod buds hooked to a pristine source + preamp. I've heard some normally "junky" gear absolutely come to life with the right stuff backing it...the thing is it's just so uncommon to find anyone actually trying it that way. I guess I'd rather take a pair of original advents powered by a Pass Labs amp than a set of Usher BE's powered by a entry-level Denon. It's true that's my preference personally but I am pretty keen to believe that speakers/transducers are not the end-all in what determines the area where you get the most quality - they are definitely tranditionally seen that way but after so many years I'm not so sure...

Well of course I'm making the claim that the headphones in this example are actually scaled appropriately to their price range. Beats by Dr. Dre are pretty garbage headphones, from an audio production standpoint anyway, but they cost what? 200 dollars? OBVIOUSLY what's "good" is going to be subjective. We have to assume for sake of comparison, though, that the gear is worth what the cost is compared to other "benchmark" gear of the same type. When I say a 150 dollar pair of headphones what I really mean is 150 dollars OF HEADPHONE, if that makes any sense. For instance the Denon AH-D2000s I'm listening to right now cost around 300 dollars and are worth about that much, too. I've had a pair of headphones that cost 150 dollars less, and though they only sounded about a hundred dollars cheaper, the other 50 was for their shoddy, cheap, plastic construction.

I kinda follow you but again this is why I say it's a crapshoot in many instances.

Well, given I just got done telling you I was JUST comparing how things sounded through my DAC-Amp stack to without it, I'd assume that, yes, I have listened through a dedicated headphone amp before. Obviously when I'm going over the merits of dedicated amplifiers in a thread about headphones I'm not going to be talking about amplifiers designed for speakers since those are well outside of the appropriate level for driving something attached to your head.

I looked up "DAC-Amp" but I don't see any specific product, so I'm still not sure what specifically you're referring too in the dedicated headphone amp range.

Well, initially, yes, but then I decided to express my opinion on the matter of headphones and headphone amplification, so I'm afraid this whole conversation is my own fault :p

No worries.

[ACINO]

At 11/12/10 12:38 AM, Reaper93 wrote: I just re-read that and noticed I started every response with "well".

Go me!

Well everyone have their own style:D

[acmeDyne]

This is the best headphone thread ever.... nice work gentleman!
Usually it's just a bunch of people naming their fave brand (like my lame post). With the inevitable Skull Candy jokes of course.

[Quarl]

fucking a, i love you guys. this thread makes me want to vomit love.

[Reaper93]

At 11/12/10 01:07 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 11/12/10 12:37 AM, Reaper93 wrote: Well, sounds to me like you've got me beat on overall experience when it comes to being some kind of audio geardo (:p), but still I think in a field like this opinion counts for a lot. I mean I try to use the science wherever I can (frequency response charts and the like), but for a lot of audio it still comes down to "does it sound better?" and if so, what IS better? Generally that's pretty subjective.

Better is definitely subjective. No argument there at all. Most people will really never care if they run a stand-along DAC or if they should purchase a Classe` cd player. It's all relative. I will say that listening to a DCS scarlotti DAC/transport system powered by Antique Soundlabs 500w class A monoblocks running a pair of Usher BE20 floorstanders was an absolutely revalatory experience and changed my life. Ever since then I've been more critical than I might ever have been about what I heard and the timbre and detail and whatever else... so a lot of it is really relative to extremes you've gotten used to. It's difficult to say "this is more detailed" or "this is better" beyond a certain point until you hear a system that makes you feel like you can taste the piano in the room (this is a very uncanny experience). Now I wonder "why did that sound so incredibly real while this or that doesn't?" As far as I can trace back, yes - the speakers are hugely important but somehow I think that if the DCS and Antique Soundlabs monoblocks from that described equation were missing and replaced with a dinky $200 integrated - everything would likely fall apart at the seams.

I've been pretty critical since then. I heard a TOTL all Krell system with custom dynaudio speakers that didn't even come close (the guy was positively enamoured with it though and I didn't want to say I actually perferred his JBL LX500 + Little Dot + Harmon Kardon secondary system better in terms of musicality and feel). For most people it won't make an ounce of difference whether they run a RME interface or a Lexicon Alpha interface, but the thing I can never forget about what music 'can' potentially sound like has changed how I react to the minute differences in equipment.

Haha, some of that equipment is all Greek to me, mate, but I know the experience. I think we all begin our audio life, generally, with junky quality (mp3s through 20 dollar laptop speakers in many cases), so when you finally hear "that really expensive audio system my friend has" or whatever the particular experience may be, it opens the eyes. I'm pretty satisfied where I'm at now, in terms of actual money spent and quality I can hear, at least on the headphone end. I might try some speakers next - after using almost exclusively headphones for the last half dozen years hearing speakers of good quality is its own unique experience :p

Actually, I'm not sure if I'd rather take the HD800's plugged straight into the junky built-in audio-output of a computer over a pair of ipod buds hooked to a pristine source + preamp. I've heard some normally "junky" gear absolutely come to life with the right stuff backing it...the thing is it's just so uncommon to find anyone actually trying it that way. I guess I'd rather take a pair of original advents powered by a Pass Labs amp than a set of Usher BE's powered by a entry-level Denon. It's true that's my preference personally but I am pretty keen to believe that speakers/transducers are not the end-all in what determines the area where you get the most quality - they are definitely tranditionally seen that way but after so many years I'm not so sure...

Well, to use an extreme example, consider the arguments commonly proposed against investing in expensive audio cables as a prime piece of equipment. Your speakers are going to have runs of hundreds of feet of cable inside of them between the spooling of the electromagnets and whatnot, so what does a 20 foot run of cable outside of the speaker really matter in comparison? Similarly, if your monitor is clipping off the top of your waveform, what does it matter if your waveforms are missing the true peaks every now and again? Extra precise wave rendering (in the case of DACs) or extra precise and powerful drive (in the case of Amplifiers) is great, but I don't think it'll REALLY make up for the acoustic characteristics of lacking monitors. In short I'd rather listen to .mp3 perfectly than .wav through iPod earbuds (such that .mp3 is somewhat akin to what a poor line equipment will do to your sound, as opposed to a set of monitors, though I'm not sure how well that analogy works). I guess it might be six and half a dozen, but that's how I feel anyway.

I kinda follow you but again this is why I say it's a crapshoot in many instances.

Well, if you pick a set of 'phones at random, yeah I agree, price isn't always a good indicator. But that's why there's threads like these. So potential buyers know to avoid the Skull Candies and the Beats by Dr. Dre, and even the best companies' less than appealing options. If you were to cull the garbage from the herd of available headphones price would then tend to be relatively indicative of performance (since only the best price:performance ratio headphones would remain).

I looked up "DAC-Amp" but I don't see any specific product, so I'm still not sure what specifically you're referring too in the dedicated headphone amp range.

I'm using the "-" like a "/", as in, I have a stack of audio gear, one component of which is a dedicated DAC, and the other component of which is a dedicated Amplifier; aka I have a DAC/Amp Stack. You asked if I'd any experience with one, I said yes. You should've asked what they were/are if you wanted a specific answer :p

At the moment the two are these pieces here:
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/
headroom-micro-amp.php
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/
headroom-micro-dac.php

I gotta say, the crossfeed was a genius idea. That website is also brilliant for objective comparison graphs for a lot of headphone models for anyone that cares. Although "sounds better" is subjective, "has a flatter frequency response graph" is very objective.

[joshhunsaker]

At 11/12/10 03:55 AM, Reaper93 wrote: Haha, some of that equipment is all Greek to me, mate, but I know the experience. I think we all begin our audio life, generally, with junky quality (mp3s through 20 dollar laptop speakers in many cases), so when you finally hear "that really expensive audio system my friend has" or whatever the particular experience may be, it opens the eyes. I'm pretty satisfied where I'm at now, in terms of actual money spent and quality I can hear, at least on the headphone end. I might try some speakers next - after using almost exclusively headphones for the last half dozen years hearing speakers of good quality is its own unique experience :p

I wish I were satisfied, I really want to just move into a house so I can actually setup a system that has room to breath and really crank it. I live in an apartment right now so it's a no go for really loud stuff.

Well, to use an extreme example, consider the arguments commonly proposed against investing in expensive audio cables as a prime piece of equipment. Your speakers are going to have runs of hundreds of feet of cable inside of them between the spooling of the electromagnets and whatnot, so what does a 20 foot run of cable outside of the speaker really matter in comparison? Similarly, if your monitor is clipping off the top of your waveform, what does it matter if your waveforms are missing the true peaks every now and again? Extra precise wave rendering (in the case of DACs) or extra precise and powerful drive (in the case of Amplifiers) is great, but I don't think it'll REALLY make up for the acoustic characteristics of lacking monitors. In short I'd rather listen to .mp3 perfectly than .wav through iPod earbuds (such that .mp3 is somewhat akin to what a poor line equipment will do to your sound, as opposed to a set of monitors, though I'm not sure how well that analogy works). I guess it might be six and half a dozen, but that's how I feel anyway.

Yeah, I'm not a big "cable" person (for the exact reason you stated - though I feel there is nothing wrong with keeping internal signal paths short in say an amplifier where you have interference and cross-talk problems). What I've found with amplifiers is more than simply "greater or lesser dynamicism". Crappy amplifiers can smear literally everything from the apparent space the instruments play in to the actual tonal quality of the music you hear. It's definitely much more than just dynamics or drive. If the only difference between the $1k+ amps I've had vs. the sub $200 amps was peak power ability then I'd have a much more difficult time making a case for the more expensive ones. A bad amp will destroy music just as quick as a crappy set of speakers. Think of hooking a pair of JBLs up to the outputs of a clock radio's amplifier and you'll hear much worse than simply clipped peaks. The entire range of the full waveform will be distorted. Same thing with DACs though much of that is due to the analog output stage quality and not just the actual decoding chipset.

Well, if you pick a set of 'phones at random, yeah I agree, price isn't always a good indicator. But that's why there's threads like these. So potential buyers know to avoid the Skull Candies and the Beats by Dr. Dre, and even the best companies' less than appealing options. If you were to cull the garbage from the herd of available headphones price would then tend to be relatively indicative of performance (since only the best price:performance ratio headphones would remain).

This is a good point, though there are so many models available that it can still be tough to resolutely choose a set of phones based on reviewed merits alone. I think headroom's site is pretty 'decent' for that stuff (checking product performance) but headphones are an area where I've found a lot of descrepancy between price/performance even with mixing specific brands and models. It's not like speakers where there are a million different designs and very well known ways of improving driver/cross-over/cabinet factors. Headphones are a tricky bag because typically every design (with few to no exceptions) has -
- No cross-over
- 2 drivers
- Choice of sealed or open-aire
- Little to no room to do anything fancy with damping or housing

The lack of extra features means there are fewer areas that can be improved. This means the typical failing point falls on the driver design and housing material rigidity. Whereas speaker manufactures can mitigate the inclusion of a half-assed driver (or set of them) by tweaking with damping, increasing the structural integrity of the cabinet, lowering cabinet resonance frequency modes by using thicker MDF or layering hardwood, rounding baffle edges, utilizing creative port construction and tuning, or throwing in a more complex crossover to correct equalization deficiencies, you can't really do that with headphones - if your driver happens to kinda suck, you're basically completely at a loss. I've also found that most people have a terrible time judging how good headphones are as it's not like with speakers where you walk around and all day you'll hear examples of them around you.

At the moment the two are these pieces here:
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/
headroom-micro-amp.php
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/
headroom-micro-dac.php

I gotta say, the crossfeed was a genius idea. That website is also brilliant for objective comparison graphs for a lot of headphone models for anyone that cares. Although "sounds better" is subjective, "has a flatter frequency response graph" is very objective.

Those are very nice pieces. A bit minimalistic for my tastes but they are definitely well received and I have contemplated picking them up from time to time (though I'm betting the DACs I currently have are a bit more 'stout'). Headroom does do great justice to their selections by being one of the few sites that includes measureable data.

[Reaper93]

Mm, well, at the end of the day I think really most of what this comes down to is opinion. Maybe you find the line stage more important than I do, but I'll still stand by my advice that unless you have ~500+ dollars to spend, investing in dedicated amplification or Digital-Analog-Converters is probably just going to be cutting into the capability of the headphones you're going to buy.

Amplification does improve more than just the maximum gain you can feed to your output, but with garbage output to begin with you're going to be getting garbage out. The improvement good drive can give may be night and day on headphones that have the construction to let you hear the difference (it helps to separate out the sound field a bit more clearly and improve dynamicism, as you say), but if you're sacrificing a lot in the monitors you're not going to hear that much difference. Running my iPod earbuds through the stack of hardware sitting here I can hear exactly how 20 dollars they cost (if that), but running my Denon D2000's through the line out port on the back of my PC the sound is still really good, just a bit of dynamicism and clarity are lost (no worse than bumping down the bitrate on an MP3 to ~128kbps, which is a lot more tolerable IMO). But, again, this is an opinion, and without experiencing it yourself you're just gonna have to take either my or the other guy's word on it (for anyone reading our banter and trying to figure out "who's right").

If you must buy headphones without prior audition, Headroom is a great site to use for reference. It'll give you all sorts of graphs (which for production headphones is great, since flatter EQ curve = better for production, pretty much objectively), all sorts of sorting options for listings, and pretty darn good prices to boot. Just don't get fooled by all the "balanced cable" malarky that any audio site throws at you - cables are some of the most overhyped stuff in the audio world. And finally, if you want in-ear, get canalphones; if you don't need portability then get around-ear headphones, open tends to sound a bit better I'm told, but open or closed is really up to you.

That's about the end of the road summary for my advice, at any rate. I believe where we differ is the other nice lad in this thread would probably say invest in a moderate priced amplifier with your budget, though I'm sure specifics would be required for any solid prediction ;)