I'm just looking at getting a Yamaha P155 (and will probably use it to play sound libraries that I have on my desktop) and want to know what headphones would be worth getting around the $500.

So, for those of you who have headphones, can I ask which brand/model you use? or what you might recommend?

Thanks!

I use Sennheiser HD595. They are transcendent.

Also recommended (and cheaper): AKG K240.

I say get Beats by Dr.Dre if you're really willing to spend up to $500... A lot of people complain that you're paying extra for the name behind them, but I have personally tried these and they have rivaled similar headphones for the same price.

Check out http://beatsbydre.com/

They even look cool to boot.

I forgot to mention, the samples I have seen used some special connectors. I however have no idea what those connectors were to make them compatible.

Also, keep in mind I haven't tried on many nice headphones, so my opinion may be biased.

I use a pair of AudioTechnica ATH-M30s. Extremely crisp sound, especially for the price.

I have a pair of Grado SR325s which I love, but I'm no expert. If i can do better under 500 bucks I'm open to suggestion!


JG

Do you really need to spend $500 on headphones?

Given the quality level of most digital pianos, you can get decent sound from $50 phones. I can't see spending much over $100 or $150. Any more than that is a waste, I think.

Perhaps you intend to also use the phones for other purposes?

Nice headphones...very cheap compared to nice speakers. I think they are a good investment.

I wouldn't spend more than $200, though, personally. Mainly because for that price you can get really nice cans and improvements over that are marginal. I'd have to terribly rich before I would buy more expensive ones.

Heaven help us all if I'm ever that rich. I'd own every digital piano there is.

Yeah, I'd be listening to lossless music too from my desktop. So I think a good pair of headphones that can last for years and years would be a good investment.

The Grado SR325s look nice. Cheers!

I use AKG K240 (600 ohms). I don't like using headphones as a rule, but lately have been using them exclusively in the studio, since I'm between monitors. Hopefully, this situation will end soon!

AKG-701. Open, refined, detailed, non-fatiguing, comfortable. Not cheap, but worth every penny.

They need driving though - they are relatively high impedance so some DPs will need to be at maximum volume to get them loud enough. To be honest a headphone amp would be a better option with AKG-701s and many other "hi-fi" 'phones.

Sennheiser HD598

AKG 240 MKII

As with anything, try before you buy.

AKG k701s would be my recommendation, I have owned, Grado's, Senn HD595, Beyers and some higher end Audio Technica and the AKGs blow them out of the water IMO. Need breaking in (I know, I know, it's a myth, I thought so too but it worked for men :)).

Sorry to disagree with Lynsey but I would definitely stay away from the Beats By Dre, the have a very hyped sound and IMO you are paying for the style/branding, they don't hold up against most of the competition

I have dr dre beats and found them very disappointing. I have some cheap £30 urbanz which by far out perform them.

A lot of people recommend the AKG 240 series, and they are good phones, but they are largely living on the reputation of older models, the newer ones are less neutral. The most neutral ones they ever made were probably the 240DF, though the 88 dB SPL/mW sensitivity (and 600 ohm impedance) meant that could be on the quiet side. I still use mine sometimes, but generally, my favorite phones today are my Denon AH-D2000.

This is a good point, actually, for the original poster to bear in mind. When you get headphones, if they are higher impedance than, say, 55 ohms, you will probably need to have a headphone amp. The very best headphones do tend to be high impedance, so it's something to be aware of.

Some audiophiles will say practically all headphones need a headphone amp, but most of us make do with the headphone jack on our DP or audio interface just fine with lowish impedance cans.

Seems as the amp's have been mentioned, are there any recommended ones (for the noobs amongst us).

If you don't own any headphones, choosing a pair that sounds good with your DP is going to be a lot more convenient than having to keep a separate box wired in between the DP and headphone every time you play. Pick something with <50 ohms impedance (16-40 ohms is a good range) and good sensitivity (ideally 100dB/mW or more, even 96-98dB/mW is fine) and you won't need a headphone amp for good sound.

I'll be interested in hearing any replies to this query about headphone amps. However, I kind of don't expect many. It's kind of like when you ask in this forum which are the best HiFi speakers to get for your digital piano, you don't get much input. Unfortunately the participants in the forum are digital piano people, not usually HiFi people.

Though I almost wonder about believing the people on a HiFi forum. Is there really an audible difference between a $100 headphone amp and a $1,500 one if you use the same headphones and sound source with both? I tend to doubt it.

I'm a HiFi person but I couldn't tell you, buddy. My years of buying $1,500 pieces of listening gear are far behind me!

With my HD650's high-ish impedance and moderate-ish sensitivity, I do get a benefit from a sturdy headamp but mine was way closer to $100 than $1,500 for sure. It's also A/C powered and bulky enough I wouldn't think of rigging it up to a digital piano, what a mess of cables and clutter.



It's a model called Asgard which retails for $249 but I paid about 2/3 of that for a like-new condition used one a couple years ago.

Me too.

I expect the hucksters to justify their mega-prices using false claims of quantum-tunneled magneto-coupled phase inducers.

But consumers do even worse. They seem to convince themselves that items with the high prices and the phase inducers really sound better.

Well for those that are technically minded there are plans out there to build the Altoid amplifiers, though I have no idea how good they would be.

There's guys on eBay who will sell you a little battery powered op-amp deal, same general type as the Altoid DIY headamp, for not much more than you'd spend on parts. Real inexpensive if you grab one of the cheapest ones.

Unfortunately, some of those circuits run on a 1.25V or 2.50V battery supply that limits their output voltage swing to just around 1VRMS and they don't do a good job at all with a higher-impedance headphone. So be careful...or just buy a 32-ohm headphone in the first place...

On the other hand, please consider that lower impedance headphones might suck more power out from your DP, so if you intend to use two headphones simultaneously, you might run into problems, like me. Kawai support has just recommended me to use higher impedance (at least 55 ohm) headphones instead.

Interesting. Honestly, I'm not totally surprised as most consumer electronics in my experience are barely up to handling one headphone. Having the same little output circuit driving two at once has to be a tough ask.

High impedance headphones require a larger voltage swing at the output of the device driving them. Portable electronics as well as bare-bones, afterthought headphone jacks on larger equipment will be limited to a couple volts (or less) maximum supply rail voltage. Hence, very little ability to drive high impedance 'phones.

Low impedance headphones need not so much voltage swing but do demand considerable current to be sourced at the headphone jack when playing loudly or encountering large musical peaks. Two sets of headphones at once require the same voltage but twice the current (well, the current is additive anyway) so the current-demand thing is going to be the limiting factor.

That tells me that Kawai's headphone jack has at least several volts available but they may use the unbuffered output from a op-amp, thereby having limited current capability.

I bought a pair of SR 325is to use with my DP last year, and they're certainly the best (and most expensive) headphones I've ever used. When I listen to CDs or live classical concerts on digital radio through them, the realism is uncanny.

A good headphone amp is a great investment. I actually currently just use the headphone amp on my Mackie Onyx 400f which is a cheap and cheerful interface I had lying around when I close my studio last year. Prior to that most of my listening was off of our high end desk which of course made any headphones shine.

As for dedicated amps I would say going too expensive isn't necessary at all, go and try some out locally and see what you like, I think that is always the best solution. The only dedicated amp I have used (which is not simply a utilitarian splitter for tracking in the studio) is the Grado one and it is very nice but too pricy IMO.

Senheiser HD-598 here. I've bought them solely for my DP testing which is still to be performed, but I'm very satisfied with them now even for youtube music listening. Previously I had Senheiser's PX-100, cheap, also very good, especially considering their price but after long listening I've been tired by them. HD-598 is completely different class. But it's not obvious on first test, in fact I've thought what the h*ll I bought, my PX-100 was the same quality when I first tested them. They are also very light and comfortable.

I have the Asgaard Head Amp and I use it with a pair of Audio Technica ATHM 50s phones--sounds absolutely phenomenal-

I run the fixed output XLR outputs into the Asgaard using 2 XLR Female to RCA cables on my MP10--

By the way for whatever reason running from the MP10's headphone out jack to the Asgaard doesn't sound anyway close to running it out the XLR outputs--Sounds very thin and Metallic coming out of the MP10's headphone jack-though just running the phones out of the phone out jack with no amp sounds fine--but coming out the XLR's to the Amp to the phones is truly sweet!!!

Great Day!!!

Jack

Highly recommend the Asgaard especially for the price and also that it is hand assembled and tested in the USA the company is called Shiit no pun intended!!!

I just don't get this at all. Would you look at a £10,000 car and think there is no difference between it and a £100,000 car? Would you be saying "I don't buy all this smoke and mirrors about hand-stitched leather and burr walnut. And that voodoo about twin turbos and supercharging - it's all just marketing"?

In a general sense you get what you pay for. Hi-Fi people understand this in relation to Hi-Fi. Car people understand this in relation to cars. Camera people understand this in relation to cameras. And DP people understand this in relation to DPs. If you don't understand just because Hi-Fi (or whatever) is not your area of interest why not try keeping an open mind until you've heard lots of equipment at different price levels? Yes, cables can make a HUGE difference. Mains conditioners can make a HUGE difference. Don't just look on from the sidelines with little or no experience of any of this stuff and call it all bunkum.

Anyway, now I've finished ranting I use a Musical Fidelity X-Can valve headphone amp. It's been plugged into the mains (there is no on/off switch) for 15 years. I've probably only unplugged it half a dozen times. It sounds tremendously open and dynamic. But I've never used it with a DP - I might give that a go.

Certainly there are differences in quality between low end and high end gear, in all types of gear.

However, your analogy doesn't speak to the discussion perfectly. We aren't talking about equipment that produces the sound, converts it from digital to audio, or plays it into your ear. It just amplifies it enough to drive a headphone. And we aren't talking about using it with a transcendently high end sound source and headphones, or necessarily into golden ears.

Here's another analogy: does a super-expensive car get me from my house to the next state over any faster? No. The speed limit and traffic are the limiting factors. A tiny bit of improved acceleration at the beginning won't be noticeable.

No one doubts that having improved original sounds or better headphones is noticeable. But how good do the original sounds, DAC, and headphones need to be before the extra thousand dollars or two worth of headphone amp quality can be detectable? About that I am very skeptical.

You typically get noticeably improvements in quality if what you are dumping money into is a weak link in the chain.

Your argument is totally illogical. Your analogy about the car is a quantitative one. People buy expensive cars knowing they will sometimes be sitting in a traffic jam or knowing that they may never drive it very fast. The difference is qualitative, not quantitative. Comfort, ride quality, noise, steering feel, handling balance. These are the things that more money will buy you. You won't get to your destination any faster. This kind of comparison works across a vast number of consumer products including Hi-Fi and musical instruments (digital or acoustic).

In any audio chain the sound is only as good as the weakest link. In the old days people used to think speakers were the be all and end all. Now we know that approach was completely wrong. The source is what matters most, then amplification, then speakers or headphones. The quality of cabling and the mains is also important, and the equipment stand to maximise isolation.

Again the Asgaard is $249 and at least for me makes a very noticeable difference with my MP 10 & Audio Technica ATHM 50's-

Jack

EssBrace, you are actually making the same point as me: the weak link is what matters.

Replacing normal high-ish end tires with super-duper-expensive-racing tires won't quantitatively or qualitatively improve your ride if you are using the same VW bug. There are differences between a $100 tire and a $2,000 tire (is there such a thing? I'm just guessing), but not any that will be noticed on a mediocre car. A $100 tire is already not the weak link.

The question is whether a $100-$150 headphone amp is anywhere near the weak link in a digital piano audio chain.

When you are going to connect your headphones to your DP, then buy a low-impedance version (32-100 Ohm). Higher impedance headphones, generally need a headphone amplifier, because of the weak headphones amp in the DP.

I strongly recommend to listen to some headphones in your price range before buying. There is a lot of difference in sound quality and personal preference.

My list (FWIW):

Sony MDR-SA5000
Sennheiser HD-650 (300 Ohm)
Grado SR 325i

Tom, how would you compare your Grado and Sennheiser for DP use? Which do you prefer for this purpose?

Or your Sony, for that matter. I'm just less familiar with that one.

I take your point completely. But your previous comment was about opinions expressed on Hi-Fi forums. I took what you said to mean that you imagine there is little benefit in buying high-end gear and I don't think my interpretation of what you were saying was unreasonable. Wrong perhaps but not unreasonable based on the way you made the comment (and the way MacMacMac rammed it home). But I think you are right in talking about the signal chain from a DP - a headphone amp of modest price would be a good investment but to spend lots would probably give little or no improvement.

There have been many instances on this forum where individuals with no experience of Hi-Fi at all have basically tried to say that people who perceive a difference with top end cables for instance are mad or deluded or brain-washed or all three. And the same people have tried to suggest that the sellers of such gear are little more than criminals because all their claims about their products are lies. Hi-Fi just happens to be a topic close to my heart, although I don't own any now.

Sounds fair.

I think, though, that we can make allowance for what MacMacMac said and my own comments by noting that sometimes it can be just marketing, and that consumers can certainly delude themselves into thinking two pieces of equipment with nearly identical internal parts are of different quality because of price or marketing considerations. I know I have.

It's particularly easy to have that happen in music equipment because it is hard to measure and describe performance, while it's easy to describe innovations, whether they make a difference or not ("This cable has gold infused silver strands with microdiamonds embedded at optimal intervals to sharpen your sounds. It was smelted by monks in the mountains of Japan, each of whom has achieved nirvana").

:))

Indeed, on some Hi-Fi forums, I have read statements that sounded very much like this.

And the hilarious bit is that some try to make similar statements even about stuff that are purely digital! (With digital output, that is.)

(The fact that the output can be measured and compared bit-by-bit does not seem to bother them, at all.)

I wonder how long can this go on, without serious consequences..

Kristof

Of course, it happens here too. And in acoustic pianos.

I remember shopping for a new Kawai grand a few years ago and the dealer was explaining that the Shigeru model is better because the copper is hand wound around the bass strings instead of being wound by a machine. SK pianos may be better, but I have a very hard time believing that it is because of this.

Similarly Steinway proudly notes that their new pianos are tuned by hand in the factory, not by machine. This supposedly helps because it keeps the sound organic. Sounds crazy to me. Pianos need several tunings in a row when they are new, so the factory tuning is all but irrelevant as long as it gets it to the ballpark. The first thing people do when they get a new piano is have it tuned by their local tech or the dealer's. By hand.

And your experience of Hi-Fi is what precisely?

None whatsoever - but I have a brain, and as a software engineer, I am pretty sure that when the a job of a given component is to

• take digital data (for example, read data from a cd/dvd),
• parse it (digitally), according to clearly specified algorithms (like decode FLAC or AAC audio), and
• output it in a digital format (like S/PDIF),

... then putting a f***ing piece of tape on the box (to "harmonize the vibrations") will. not. do. anything.

The output is either correct (bit-by-bit), or it's wrong. There is no other option, there is no way to "improve" it.

Kristof

ps. Sorry, I am always deeply pissed off when I see cheaters making money out of the ignorance of others. (Of course I don't mean EssBrace here; I am talking about the ones selling stuff like that.) Mentioning the topic stirred up my memories ... my anger is not directed at my fellow pianists.

That reminds me of this strip:


(If above link is broken, see here.)

Kristof

So the component you have described could be a CD transport. You can get a S/PDIF output from a very cheap CD player, or you can spend thousands. I mean, these things are just spinning a disc and extracting digital data aren't they? So would you say that the quality of sound you eventually get would be the same between a cheap transport and a high-end one? If you think they are the same, you would be very wrong...you couldn't be more wrong in fact. But this is what you have described (a component that takes digital data and outputs it in a recognised format).

Like I said before, in a general sense with almost everything - you get what you pay for. Simple as that.

I don't know what a "CD transport" does exactly. But whatever it does, obviously, there can be many ways to mess it up, and a "real cheap" device might do so, because it's trying to save cost. Also, it might not work reliably, or it might be inconvenient to handle, etc.

So no, I am not saying that all cheap devices are equal to all expensive devices.

What I am saying is this:

IF

• A) A given class of (digital) component has a clear, unambiguous specification (for input, transformation and output), and
• B) Two devices both implement the same specification correctly,

THEN

• talking about the "quality of sound" makes no sense. (Because the sound (at this stage of processing) is simply a stream of bits, which is either correct, or wrong. No third option.) Therefore, there in no point in "improving it" in any way.

I am not sure "CD transport" fulfills the A) condition. If it does not, then there is some room for competition. If it does, then I don't see how the sound quality of two correct implementations could differ - since the output must be match, bit-by-bit. (Of course there can be flaky devices, which don't fulfill condition B), I am not talking about those.)



I would be really thankful if you could explain me why.



Unfortunately, when lies and deception enter the picture, that is no longer true.
(And (again, unfortunately), whenever there is money to be made, lies and deception usually enter the picture.)

Best wishes:

Kristof

Some people really DO like their gold infused silver and their magneto-coupled phase inducers.
Show some respect!

Beyerdynamic DT880's are a real nice set of cans if you are looking for a neutral sound.

I use the Sennheiser HD 280 Pro ($100 USD) for isolation in a setting that has both plugged and unplugged players as well as more than a little conversation as a constant background. If you are squemish about being almost totally isolated then these are not for you. I would certainly check out active noise cancellation i.e. Bose Quiet Comfort 15($300 USD)if you plan on long term wearing comfort.

A CD transport spins a CD and contains the components (laser etc) that reads the disc. It then outputs a S/PDIF or optical digital output that is then fed into a DAC.

Only you will know if this meets the criteria you have set but to me it does. But any Hi-Fi enthusiast will know that the best transports cost loads and loads of money (thousands) - but it is just spitting out 1s and 0s. If you had experience of Hi-Fi you'd know how much better a good CD player or transport/DAC sounds.

I don't know what your area of expertise is but your dismissal (and the way others talk about this subject) really p*sses me off because by your own admission your opinion is based on absolute ignorance.

You might have some choice words of advice to someone who just landed on this forum and said "I've just seen a really nice looking Crapio digital piano in Costco. It's only $299. It's got 88 keys, it looks like a piano and it sounds like one to me. I don't see the point in spending more". You, like everyone else on this forum, would advise the person to play other pianos before making that choice and you might point out all sorts of ways that a more expensive piano would be better. That person's initial opinion is based purely on ignorance, because they know nothing about digital pianos.

You should take the trouble to listen to some decent Hi-Fi and make some comparisons before writing about this subject. You talk about lies and deception. You probably wouldn't say that the makers of the best cars, pianos, cameras, computers etc are just in the business of telling lies or deceiving people. Higher price=better product in the vast majority of cases. Why would you think for a moment that Hi-Fi is any different? That would be an illogical conclusion.

The great thing about fantastic claims for audio equipment, it's not that difficult to devise a double blind test.

The claims for Monster Cable never seem to be backed up by any real testing.

I'm sure there are measurable differences between CD players but I'm guessing, ... no, I'm betting, there will be no winners in a double blind test.

So says another completely ignorant individual who's just much too willing to share his opinion - which is based on absolutely no experience whatsoever of course. The conceit and arrogance of you people just beggars belief.

Why don't you just troll around on loads of forums spouting uninformed rubbish about topics of which you actually have no knowledge. I mean, don't stop here. Spread some joy onto a bike forum, or sign up to a mountaineering forum, Hi-Fi, cars, cameras and just feel free to slag products or ideas off - there's no need to actually know anything about the topic, go for it. Gosh, there's almost no limit to the number of people you can p*ss off with your TOTAL BLEEDING IGNORANCE.

So says another completely ignorant individual who's just much too willing to share his opinion - which is based on absolutely no experience whatsoever of course. The conceit and arrogance of you people just beggars belief.

Why don't you just troll around on loads of forums spouting uninformed rubbish about topics of which you actually have no knowledge. I mean, don't stop here. Spread some joy onto a bike forum, or sign up to a mountaineering forum, Hi-Fi, cars, cameras and just feel free to slag products or ideas off - there's no need to actually know anything about the topic, go for it. Gosh, there's almost no limit to the number of people you can p*ss off with your TOTAL BLEEDING IGNORANCE.

EssBrace, can you point us to double blind tests of CD players?

This would seem to be a relatively simple test to create (as long as all units are kept within a third of one dB of each other. Listeners very often choose the louder source as being the better so it's important to keep the playing field extremely level.)

What do you think would generate more heat? A high power, tubed amp, or this thread?

It seems to me that it does. There are two points that I am not sure about:

• Do we have to care about read errors (and errors correction) on the CD? I hope not. (If the data on the CD is correct, than there is only one possible way to read it.)
• Does the DAC use it's own timer when playing the audio, or does the timing come from the CD transport side? If the DAC has it's own timer, than the small inequalities in the timing of the data stream coming from the CD transport does not count. If it's using the timing of the data stream, then it does.)

These two points might mean but the "CD transport" device class does not meat the requirements I specified above, but I hope it does.

An interesting claim. How do you suppose that is possible? I can imagine three possible things you might be thinking:

• A) the output of the device is not just 0s and 1s, there is something else, too.
• B) the output is just a stream of 0s and 1s, but different devices produce different streams.
• C) The output is just a stream of 0s and 1s, and they are indeed identical, but somehow, when played by the DAC, the same bitstream coming from one device sounds better than the same bitstream coming from the other device.

Which one is it? (I might have left out some options, please feel free to correct me.)

Now,

• if you think A), then the device is not a purely digital device (as per my definition), so my claim does not say anything about it. (Thus, I was not wrong.)
• if you think B), then again, the device is not clearly specified enough (because if it would be, then could not be more than one possible correct output), so, again, my claim does not say anything about is. (Thus, I was not wrong.)
• if you think C), then I would be really interested in your thoughts about how would that be possible. The whole point of digital technology is that it's deterministic: the same algorithm, working from the same data, will always yield the same result. The exact same result. No difference. Voltage levels are irrelevant. Timing is irrelevant. Only 0 and 1, end of story. If this was not true, that would have deeply troubling implications, and really, none of our technology would work. For example, a current Intel core i7 CPU contains around 2,270,000,000 transistors. Something that complex can only work, because the small inequalities in voltage and timing are irrelevant, only 0s and 1s are transmitted. If that was not true, the errors would add up, the the system would collapse.
  
  So, my point is: it's theoretically impossible that the same stream of 0s and 1s will sound better, coming from one device than other.

(MSc, Computer Science)I am not dismissing anything; I have not denied that there are flaky devices; I have not denied that it's hard to get analog devices right, and there are different levels of quality there. I have only stated that that same is not true for (a subset of) digital devices, and that there are fake products on the market, marketed with dubious statements.
The feeling is mutual. (But of course it's not directed against you.)
No, that's not what I have said. What I said that my opinion is based on pure (but strong) theoretical knowledge. Quite simply, if the theory (which happens to be the base of all current IT technology) is true, than some of the claims made by Hi-Fi marketing (along the lines of point C) above) simply can not be true in any possible way. As long as the validity of the theory is not questioned by anyone, there is no way out of this; it's as sure as 2+2=4.

Now of course it's possible that

• The devices you are talking about are not purely digital (that's why I have tried to give a full definition to exclude these cases), or
• The theory might be wrong. That would be very interesting (and troubling at the same time), but it's always a possibility. However, in this case, those vendors who stumble on results that indicate the theory might be wrong (ie. the same digital data can behave differently, in different circumstances), ought to do research to uncover this fact, and then come forward with the claim that they have disrupted the whole current scientific paradigm. However, they do not seem to be doing this. (They just sell expansive stuff instead.) To me, this suggest even they don't really believe that they have achieved a scientific break-through; they just like to rip people off.

The difference is that in digital pianos, there are many, many things that can be done in different ways.
However, with clearly specified (again, input, transformation, output) digital devices, this variety does not exist. The output is either correct, or it's wrong.


I leave that task up to others. Please note that I have not written anything specific about any specific devices; I have just made some general, theoretical claims - the validity of which is based on theoretical consideration. (Which, in turn, are based on, and validated by the experience of many, many other people.)

And you doubt that these thins are a prominent in today's society?
No, I would not; not just telling lies. But, in addition to making great stuff, they do tend to tell smaller or bigger lies to their customers, again and again. (That's what they call marketing, among other things.)



I tell you why: because in Hi-Fi, it's very, very hard to objectively measure the quality. Thus, there is a big room for making false claims that are impossible to sufficiently refute, because they just can't be measured properly. And, if there is a room to make false claims (and make money), there are always some people who are willing to do so. (And that's what pissing me off.)

Anyway, this is not limited to Hi-Fi in any way, there are many other areas where it's hard to verify whether you are indeed getting what you are paying for. Think about anti-allergy products, water purifying technology, a whole lot of "alternative medicine", etc.

In these cases, it's not "you get what you pay for", it's mostly "you pay for what you think you get (which might or might not be similar to what you get)".

It's sad, but that's the current state of affairs. (Not that I am content with accepting this...)

* * *

If you are pissed of at me, please take that anger, turn it into energy, and try to explain me why am I wrong. I am listening.

Best wishes:

Kristof

One small clarification here: this only holds if the input (where the data is going to) is really purely digital.

If the DAC is designed really poorly, than the small voltage inequalities (in the digital stream) could theoretically influence it's analog output. However, with a properly designed DAC, that should be impossible (just apply some proper decoupling to the input, problem solved), and even if this problem exists, the size of the distortion should always b at least one magnitude lower than the the value of the least significant bit - thus, with 24-bit audio data, it would be less than 1 / 2^25 = 0,0000000298 on the [0-1] scale. (I don't think anybody could hear that, but if someone can show me a test to prove otherwise, I am willing to reconsider.)

Kristof

Jitter can be a problem in the digital domain.

Greg.

Great article. My conclusions, relations to the current discussions:

Jitter can cause two kinds of problems:

• When the receiving end reconstructs the digital data (arriving on the cable), it might get some bits wrong, because the timing of the data-stream is not perfect. I consider this an error, and devices that to this (either devices sending bogus data, or devices receiving the data wrong) simply flaky. This is not really an issue of quality; either the transmission is correct, or it's faulty. To avoid these problems, it would be best to use a protocol designed with built-in error detection and correction (like TCP/IP), but for now, we have to run with what we have.
• When a DAC is playing the bit-stream directly (ie. using the timing of the digital stream), the timing inequalities in the data-stream might sneak into the analog signal. The easy way to solve this is to introduce a really small buffer before the DAC, and feed the data (from the buffer to the DAC) using the DAC's built-in, precise clock. That way, the problem can be avoided completely. (I don't know if current DAC's do this.) So, again, if the DAC is designed properly, the small timing inequalities in the input should not count.

BTW, my favorite part in the linked article:

That's what I am saying. Since these things are hard to measure and verify, some people like to make up things. (For fun and profits.)

Said, but true.

Kristof

UPDATE: After a bit of research, it seems that the problems coming from the unstable timing on the sender side (ie. jitter) can be problem with S/PDIF. (Which, btw, means that according to my original definition, the S/PDIF signal is not purely digital, since the clock signal (which is an integral part of the transmitted data), is an analog quantity.) However, good DAC desing can solve this. (See references at the and of the above link.)

Well, even digital stuff has to live on the analog world at some point. You transfer digital information over the internet yet you need mechanisms to cope with the numerous errors induced by the physical, analog transmission medium you use.

I don't know what exactly is a CD "transport", but in the end, the laser is an analog device reading a digital information encoded on an analog medium in an imperfect manner. So the existence of more robust, durable, failproof electronics is not something that "cannot" exist just because in the end the information is digital. Digital information is a construct of the mind and the technology, not a reality.

That said, I'm not defending the HiFi world because some do tend to be overzealous. Not unlike a piano, digital or acoustic, regardless of what someone has to say, if you find that 200€ headphones do the trick for you, I'd say that you don't need to spend more

Yes, and those mechanisms are there (called TCP), so the data I transmit over the Internet is exactly the same as the original.



It's a weird feeling to hear this, as I am someone someone who works with digital information. Believe me, it's very real.

Sure, even digital information is stored in the analog world; and that's why the safety margins (and, in some cases, redundancy) are there. In the case of the CD, the analog medium and the analog laser should not be able to introduce any error; if they do, it's detected and corrected. If this does not happen, then device in question is flaky, the implementation is not correct.

The thing is, if you read in the data from a CD (an undamaged CD, that is), with a digital CD drive (for example one like used in computers), the data will be identical, bit my bit, every single time, every single CD drive. There is no variation there. That's the magic of the digital technology. This is not an unobtainable ideal; this is how digital stuff actually works.

Of course there can be flaky devices, which make errors, but that's not a question of "sound quality", it's simply a bug that should be fixed - like your car not starting, your computer crashing, etc.

* * *

Now of course it's getting way more complicated when one needs to actually move the digital information back to the analog world; that's why I am not saying anything about what happens after the DAC.

Kristof

I have Sennheiser HD560 Ovation II and I like them. Open, transparent sound with the correct amount of bass and no annoying problem spots. Fits nice on the head too.

I heard some more mixed comments on the newer HD's of Sennheiser. I can't comment on those as I never tried them.

Reconstruction of an analog signal by any real-world DAC is subject to real-world errors. These may be in the time, phase and/or frequency domains. They may be correlated or uncorrelated.

Key points: 1) These errors are not identical each time the real-world DAC is presented the same bit stream. 2) These errors are not identical between any two real-world DAC examples. 3) The existence of random and systematic errors in the reconstructed analog signal in no way implies that such errors are audible.

Here's a hint. If you want to debate someone claiming to hear what you do not believe he can actually hear, do not frame the debate in terms of the imaginary error-free perfection of some Platonic ideal of the digital to analog conversion process. Stick to discussing what the person can or can not hear. Specious claims as to the perfection of real-world analog signals reconstructed by a real-world DAC are just as silly as claims about having Golden Ears that can hear unimaginably subtle differences among various real-world bits of gear.

I am aware of that. That's why I have not said anything about what happens at or after the DAC, only what happens in the purely digital domain.



I have not problem with that. However, assuming a proper DAC design, I have a hard time imagining how these (undeniable) errors could be influenced by the analog properties of a purely digital data stream.



Again, I don't have the knowledge or experience to say anything about anything at, or after the DAC. I was always talking only about the digital part, where no DAC was (yet) involved.



I make no claims about any signals reconstructed my a DAC. I only make claims about what happens way before the DAC. That domain is predictable (by definition), so I see no problem with making strong claims about what is possible and what is not. (Again, please bear in mind that if what a poorly designed DAC does is influenced by the analog clock signal arriving with the S/PDIF data, that I don't consider this a truly pure digital communication, and so those claims do not apply. I believe that I have tried to make this clear in every single post I have written.)

Best wishes:

Kristof

I'm a trained engineer in EE. I teach networking classes, and I'm a researcher in information theory and signal processing. As such, I find those quotes funny and/or insulting, but I'll refrain from deconstructing your post in the same manner you did mine. I also won't bother trying to explain to you why information is a mathematical construct whose management is a continuous battle against nature from an physical POV. You'll figure that one out.

Fact is, better electronics for better signal management is necessary. Whether the price difference is justified is partly subjective and can be debated, but certainly not to be dismissed on the ground that "this is digital signal processing and thus error free". This is a dangerous shortcut.

Brent, just to keep on the topic of CD transport (I guess that is "on topic", LOL), are you saying that a better CD transport will send a digital signal to the DAC that is less subject to these errors?

CD's have a large amount of error correction built in to them, so getting the correct data off the disk, down to the last bit, is not a problem for a non-damaged disk. After reading this thread I read a bunch of internet articles about this topic with lots of tests and they all agreed on this point.

I don't know if jitter is an issue, nor do I really understand it well enough to comment on it. But the step of getting the bits off the disk should be perfect in essentially all cases.

Actually, I think music CDs do not have error correction in them.

But anyway ... if this is a headphones thread, hold the CDs (and the DACs and the shmacs), and show me the headphones.

Here's a writeup about CD error correction (there are probably other, better ones, but this is the first I found).

Cd error correction

Though you are right that data CD's have an additional layer of error correction over this.

It has been literally a couple of decades since I made a study of the original Redbook spec and the first-generation designs. Since then I've ignored the whole thing once determining I coudln't hear a lick of difference even if stuff I knew was operating differently. So I can't really say much about the details.

The discussion here has circled around at least one of the key issues and that is exactly where in the chain does buffering and reclocking occur (or not). It is certainly possible to build and sell a playback system in which the original clock used to take samples from the physical CD propogates all the way through to the end...whether any current real-world implementations do that is beyond my knowledge. Sorry.

But there are also other ways for errors to arise much earlier than one might think and still affect the final, analog output. It's seldom a simple engineering question but rather a set of contingencies regarding the specific bit of gear under consideration.

(Than our backgrounds seems to be somewhat similar)(...although you probably have more in-depth knowledge...)
How so?
Please feel free to point out my errors, I am quite comfortable with that.



OK, now I see that I have misunderstood your original post. (Sorry for that.) When you have said that digital information is a theoretical concept, I thought that you meant that in practice, we can not reach real digital behavior, and even digital information is constantly distorted because of the effects of the analog domain. That is why I countered that, claiming that in most cases, it does behave "digitally" - that is, bit-by-bit correctly.

But now I see that you were referring to the distinction between mathematical constructs and the physical reality. I am aware of that, too, and I have no problem with it.



Yes, it's a constant battle, and my point was that in many cases, we are winning that battle.



Yes, right up to the point where there are no transmission errors, and thus no loss of signal.
My only point was that after this point is reached, there is nothing to improve (in the digital domain) to gain better quality audio.



I will try to look for some of the examples of the fake advertising that inspired my original post. I hope you will see that those are nothing to do with better signal management.

Wow....

The OP's question was which headphones you recommend.

I think you guys need to start a new thread on distortion in HiFi or so.

I stand by my recommendation to get a headphone under 50 ohms impedance and over 100dB sensitivity so you don't have to worry about interconnects and amplifiers and whatnot. Just plug 'em in and play the piano.

Or get an acoustic piano and don't plug anything in! Just kidding, I know that's crazy talk...

I remember reading an article many years ago about error correction in CDs. An engineer hooked up a light to indicate when the error correction circuity kicked in and the light was on much more than you would ever think.

The OP has already has far more recommendations than the typical headphone question thread gets. There is a long history of threads asking the same question if he or she wants yet more.

Interesting. The guy in this article argues that bit errors do not get past error correction. Whether they happen and are always corrected or happen only infrequently, he does not say.

Side note: he's a Hi Fi guy that takes for granted that CD transport quality does, in fact, matter.

Great article! Indeed, it does not say anything about the frequency of perfectly corrected errors, but he does say this:


Later on he also says this:



So, if that's true, the only thing left is to design/build/buy a DAC that has proper protection against the incoming jitter, probably using one (or more) of these techniques, and we have won, right?

(Btw, the comments of the linked article are also interesting.)

I'll make one further off-topic comment then leave the discussion to return to DP headphones (or not) without me...

A buddy of mine ran a high-end audio shop back in the early 80's and I spent way too much time that I should have been doing homework sitting around listening to some awesome gear. At some point I realized I would never conceivably have a wallet to match the listening preferences I was developing and around about 1988 I got rid of my turntable, quit hanging out in stereo showrooms and went cold turkey for several years listening to nothing more "high fidelity" than the CD player in my car.

It took 2-3 years to quit cringing at how "bad" everything I listened to sounded and start enjoying a good recorded performance again, regardless of the awesomeness of the reproduction. Now I happily plug my way-too-expensive headphones into my not-too-expensive amplifier and listen for as long as I like to the several thousand tracks I have stored on my...wait for it...iPod Classic. Admittedly an awful lot of them are Lossless encodes from my CD collection but still, once I got rid of my Golden Ears I have no interest in encouraging their return!

Can it be that the sentences you have quoted from me conveyed the impression that I doubt your experience in the matter?

If that would be the case, then please excuse me, I had no intention to do so. I have just given my answer to your statements, I had no intention to say anything about you.

(And just for the record: I work as an independent software engineer, and one of my usual clients is one of the biggest health-care IT provider of the world. One of the areas I have worked on was transmitting medical images (both still pictures and video) from one place to an other, using both lossy and lossless compression. I know video is not entirely identical to audio, but there are some similarities. Also, this was all happening in a purely digital way, no analog steps were introduced in the process - that's why I am only talking about the digital stages here, too. Because of the obvious reasons, errors are not acceptable in this field; doctors make medical decisions based on that they see on their screen. So naturally we had do look quite deeply into the questions about the transmission of the signal... therefore, I am not completely unexperienced in the field either.)

Kristof

Brent, I think good ears is a very good starting point for playing piano and if you can afford it by all means get a good hifi set and good recordings. If you are willing to spend some more without spending a fortune, you can get something that is very good. In fact I recommend developing golden ears

Funny story.

This same thing happens if you use a software piano for a while and then want to go back to listening to onboard sounds. It's a painful process. You have to make your ears forget how good digital piano emulation can be. At least software pianos are within a reasonable budget, though (if you only get a few!). There is almost no upper price limit on the Hi Fi front from what I've seen.

Yes, interesting article. C1 & C2 errors do indeed happen, you can use a tool like Nero Discspeed to examine them if your drive supports that kind of reporting (not all do). It can be rather hair-raising to see hundreds or thousands of C1 errors on an otherwise fine CD, but that's par for the course I guess. Doing a scan once in a while is a good way to keep track of the quality of your drive and burned media. Burning CDs & DVDs with few errors is something of a black art, and I've had a couple of DVD drives crap out slowly, producing twenty to fifty or so painfully iffy burns near the end.

But a lot of this discussion is moot. Most people don't directly listen to CDs anymore, if a CD is involved in the process at all it is usually ripped to a PC. This is what I do, then I either listen to them on my PC or transfer them to my Sansa Clip and listen to them there.

For ripping I use EAC, which can detect CD read errors, and can also do a database look-up of the file signature (CRC) to further assure me that the rip was good. I think most here would agree with the phrase "so far so good" at this point - if not, please ignore this post altogether.

Once the audio data is securely and verifiably in the digital domain it may be fed to the PC motherboard DAC. The motherboard in my PC is a Gigabyte GA-MA785GMT-UD2H which has a AMDSB710 southbridge connected to a Realtek ALC889A ADC/DAC via a serial clock and data connection. For timing the AMDSB710 receives 48MHz from an ICS9LPRS477CKL clock generator, which utilizes a PLL to synthesize the 48MHz from a standard 14.32MHz crystal. This is presumably divided by two in the southbridge, and the resulting 24MHz clock, sync, and data bitstream are sent to the ALC889A. The ICS9LPRS477CKL generates a maximum of 130ps jitter, and the ALC889A can tolerate a maximum of 2ns jitter.

Honestly, I don't see any issues with the digital domain here (CD rip => PC file => 24MHz serial data link). In the analog domain, assuming Gigabyte's engineers followed good PWB layout procedures, the ALC889A should have typically 70dB power supply rejection (PSRR). The engineers and scientists who design modern ADC/DACs are really smart guys (I've read many papers). Conversion, filtering, and oversampling theory in this area has come a long way in the last couple of decades.

I'll say it again: audio memory is notoriously unreliable. If you don't trust it at all you are likely still overly credulous. Unless A/B testing is performed in a double blind manner we can't know anything and we can't move ahead.

I really enjoy the HD280'S by senheiser for my piano

They felt condescending, but that may well be me and my not-so-perfect understanding of the english language.

Essentially we do agree on the main matter though

I use the Beyer Dynamic DT770 Pro/80 - 80 ohm headphones. These are fully enclosed and from what I understand, were really targeted at drummers because these do a good job of suppressing outside sound. They are not the kind of headphone that feeds an out of phase signal against outside noise to cancel it - those bother my ears for some reason. These are extremely easy on the ears as in - comfortable with their velvet ear linings. They work well with my Yamaha Motif XS8 because it requires a low impedance headphone and because my keyboard is in our living room, the enclosed headset is like being in my own practice room.

I would say that try any of these recommendations before you buy, but here is another that works well for the purpose.

Regarding the discussion about CD transports, there is a lot of difference in the design quality and quality of components used. Overall circuit stability, reaction to rising ambient temperature and effect on jitter, etc. There are a number of factors beyond the bits going in and out that are expensive to address.

Tony

One note about headphones is that there are two basic designs: open style and closed. There are recommendations in this thread for both types. Closed style headphones have the advantage of blocking out outside sound. I also understand that they are given to emphasizing (possibly in a boomy way) bass at lower price points. Open style headphones allow outside noise in, but are often said to have higher fidelity and realism at reasonable price points. They almost never seem to overemphasize bass. My Senn 595's seem to under-emphasize it, if anything.

For piano, the advice is often to avoid headphones that try to emphasize treble and bass, as pop music listeners tend to prefer. For that reason, the common digital piano recommendation is to get open-style headphones, especially those not targeted at a pop music audience. My experience indicates that this is a good idea.

This is probably true. In my case, the closed DT770s help to keep out distractions elsewhere in the same room. For some of us, this will override other considerations. The good thing in a thread like this is that it all gets said. I have a decent pair of Grado RS-1 with their matching headphone preamp that I bought years ago at a very good price that I couldn't pass up at the time. These are the "open" design that sound great, but it would be too distracting to use in an environment where other people are making their own noises while I am practicing.

Tony

Often the best solution is to own both open and sealed phones. I use our Audio-Technica ATH-AD700 open phones when quietly alone, and fall back to our AKG K271 Studio closed phones when my wife is in the room or teaching piano upstairs. The ATH-AD700 are more comfortable long-term and sound much better to me.

You can certainly get sealed phones that sound accurate and that don't over-emphasize bass and treble. I would be wary about picking phones based on generalizations.

I agree that lower impedance headphones are probably usually a better/safer bet, at least in terms of producing a loud enough signal. However, depending on the impedance of the amplifier, quite large discrepancies in the frequency response may occur.
My own hi-fi amp has a large output impedance (220 ohms), which will definitely colour the signal from my 32 ohm Sennheiser PX-100 II headphones, which have an impedance hump at 60Hz. I have checked the specs on a more recent home theatre amp, and it's output impedance is a whopping 400 ohms. (received info via private email - no permission to share the product details yet) So, a better recommendation would be to try to get headphones that have an impedance that is no less than about 4 times the impedance of the amp. (the more common recommendation is 8 times, but I have seen 4 times as a reasonable compromise. 8 times is probably just too restrictive).

I have measured my laptop's output impedance using three different load impedances, and it is a very consistent 69 ohms. (haven't worked out the error margin). Even this is enough to cause an audible (but subtle) change in tone colour with the PX 100 II's, compared to a headphone amp with a very low impedance. The trouble is, if I use high impedance headphones, the laptop then doesn't have enough drive to produce sufficient volume. So, the best compromise, without going to a dedicated amp, would then be to choose low impedance headphones that have a flat impedance vs frequency curve. The impedance vs frequency plots for many headphones are available at http://www.headphone.com (I do use a headphone amp, though)

Greg.

@anotherscott. Of course generalizations almost never work in every case.

Nevertheless there is value in consensus-based conventional wisdom, and this is a pretty broadly accepted consensus.

I am not a native English speaker either, so the error might as well be on my side, too.

Best wishes:

Kristof

English has many subtleties. It is often difficult for native English speaking people to understand what is being said and/or implied. The communication medium provided by forums makes this even more difficult because the facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language are all missing.

Tony

Evidently double-blind testing of many audiophile conjectures has been done:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/11/believe-in-better.cfm
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
http://www.head-fi.org/t/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html

I'm not a native English speaker (English is my third language) but I like to think that at long last (in my very old age ), I've grasped the niceties of this amazing language in all its myriad permutations on both sides of the pond....

But back to the topic(s) under discussion: I'm well aware that my musical tastes aren't the same as that of most posters here, but I must disagree with someone's assertion earlier that most people don't listen to CDs anymore: new classical CD releases continue to proliferate (several hundred every month, as listed in 'Gramophone' magazine), and none of my musical friends prefer to listen to downloads rather than CDs when at home because (so they tell me - I don't own a computer and therefore don't do downloads) only lossless downloads can approach CD sound quality, but they take forever and glitches often occur on long works, and they're no cheaper.

As for closed v open headphones, my closed AKG K271 MkII has good sound but in direct comparison to my Grado SR325is, the AKG's treble and bass both sound slightly attenuated at the extremities of the frequency range (even at my ancient age, I retain good high frequency hearing ) - but that's not because the Grados have exaggerated treble and/or bass; in fact, when listening to good live recordings on CDs and digital (DAB) radio, the sound is perfectly natural, much as I would hear in a concert hall. That's not just my opinion - I've read a few reviews of the SR325 (in hi-fi as well as classical magazines) which praised its neutral sound.

I wasn't talking about lossy vs. non-lossy compression. Rather that those who do still purchase CDs very often (usually?) don't listen to them as they are being decoded in real-time, which takes CD read errors and transport jitter completely out of the picture.

I'm a bit (OK, a lot ) deficient in computer-speak, but do you mean that most people who buy CDs don't actually listen to them directly (i.e. listen while the CD is playing), but transfer the music to another electronic medium like MP3, then listening via that medium?

I know I'm old, but.....(what's the point of doing that? - well, apart from listening on the move)

I don't think I'd call MP3 a medium, it's a file type that contains lossy compression data. There are other lossy compression methods (OGG) that do similar, audio files can be reduced 5:1 or more without obvious audible artifacts. For those who object to lossy compression there is FLAC which generally compresses around 2:1 with zero loss of information.


Mainly convenience. It's like having a giant juke box at your fingertips. And those who are fearful of CD transport decode errors / jitter can get eliminate them by performing the CD read (rip) up-front.

Yeah, I do what dewster describes: rip all my CD's to lossless flac and listen to it from there.

Probably common practice among people who care about music a lot. The rest of the world listens on MP3 from ipods, I think.

BTW those were some interesting threads you linked to, dewster. From a cursory look through it appears that double blind tests refute the notion that CD transport quality matters. Fair conclusion?

I get it - I'm an ancient dinosaur, the last of my kind (homo extinctis) .

To think that I once believed that people who still hanker after LPs and their scratchy, wow & flutterly sound (anyone remember wow & flutter?) were homo erectus in disguise......

Not sure, still investigating that one. Several statements in this one kill me:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html

Head-Fi apparently has very strict rules against discussing double-blind testing in their fora! The very definition of not being able to handle the truth...

Head-Fi apparently has very strict rules against discussing double-blind testing in their fora! The very definition of not being able to handle the truth...

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

I heard good things about Grados...I am thinking about picking up some SR60/80i, but since I am in college and don't really have income I probably won't do it.

Currently I have Klipsch Image S2s that I got off Ebay for 28 bucks shipped. Out of all low cost headphones I've tried, in ear, earbud type, over ear, circumaural, I'd say these by far the best value. Typically what headphones lack for me is accurate sounding bass, which is pretty important when it comes to piano music, and in ears are very good at producing bass. They also have the nice side effect of blocking outside noise very effectively.

The Klipsch Image S4i sounds a bit better but is also a lot more money. I like the oval ear inserts a lot, they are REALLY comfortable. Too bad I lost one and got a round replacement.

I'll pass on a story that I believe I wrote about a few months ago.

For almost 20 years I used the Sony MDR V600 headphones. I was always very happy with them and used them for my GranTouch and for the first year or so of my AvantGrand.

I had a slight problem with the cable\plug of the Sony and could not repair it myself. I then bought the AKG 240MKII's and the piano all of a sudden had a more natural bass response. I initially thought the piano sounded a bit too bassy but after time thought the piano sounded pretty much as it should have.

After about a week or so the piano sounded, for lack of a better word, normal - as it should have sounded. I found this interesting.

For a short time the Sony's could be used but there was still a problem with the cable\plug. The Sony by comparison now sounded thin and tinny though I had really liked them for almost 20 years. How could this be?

I also bought the Sennheiser HD598 (as the AKG had a mishap and had to be set back for repairs).

Without any proof to back this up, I feel that it takes a few days, perhaps a week or so, to become acclimated to a new sound source - to new headphones. Some here with golden ears and wonderful imagination speak about the burn in process but I'm guessing the real burn in process happens between our ears.

I would bet if the headphones were tested, the results from day one to day 10 would be the same, what has changed was our perception and acclimation to a new sound source.

How I listened to my pianos for almost 20 years with headphones that now sounded thin and tinny, I'll never be able to resolve.

I am now very happy with both of my new headphones though favor the Sennheiser HD 598.

There's a lot of money to be made in magic.

I think this question was very clearly resolved by a recent message in this very thread. A VERY recent one :-)

And doubtless convince themselves that this makes an audible difference!

This box is being heavily marketed in the UK
http://www.brennan.co.uk/

You have to dig quite deeply to get to the information that the standard setting is to degrade the music to MP3. And a lot of users will probably accept the 128k setting (to be fair, 192k 320k and uncompressed wav are also available). Slightly odd that it doesn't offer one of the lossless compression systems.

Yeah, great. You've both hit the nail on the head. Don't really know why anyone is making recommendations here. All we need to do is follow Dave's advice - get yourself a really sh*tty pair of headphones - no need to spend more than a tenner - and just live with them for a few days. You'll get used to them, no matter how bad they are. Same with Hi-Fi. There's no good, better or best. It's all in our imagination.

EssBrace, thanks for quoting one sentence of what I wrote and leaving out the entire story.

I noticed you also left out the part where I stated my views that the so called burning in process of headphones exists between our ears.

The headphones in question from 20 years ago are the Sony MDR V600. I used them for many years before using them exclusively for the GranTouch. You get used to a 'sound' even if you're unaware that the sound is deficient.

I wouldn't characterize those Sony MDRV600 as you did though the AKG and Sennheiser I now use make the lower range of the piano more to my liking.

Anyone up for a double blind test?

This reminds me of the instructions that seem to come with every electric razor that says to give it a few weeks for your skin to adapt to the new shaving method to see the best results. I don't see skin "adapting." I'm quite sure they mean, give it a few weeks so that you gradually manage to acquire the technique for how to use the razor correctly.

But back to speakers, there is some reason to believe that the speaker material does "work in" a bit after some period of initial stress... and to counter the psychological adjustment argument, I'll mention that I've been told that the burn-in can simply be to play them for x hours without even listening to them, just let it run while you're out at work or whatever, and that they will sound better after given that workout. I've never done it, so I can't offer any personal experience here, however.

This is exactly how it is done - you leave them on moderate volume and put a CD on repeat and leave them playing, preferably for a few days. This is normal practice with speakers and headphones. All Hi-Fi people understand, and have experienced, the benefits - but then we're all deluded, mad or plain wrong. Well, we are according to all the experts around here WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF HI-FI WHATSOEVER (but they still feel qualified to comment).

EssBrace, since you're returned and graced us with your presence, I'll quote what you wrote earlier in this thread.

So says another completely ignorant individual who's just much too willing to share his opinion - which is based on absolutely no experience whatsoever of course. The conceit and arrogance of you people just beggars belief.

Why don't you just troll around on loads of forums spouting uninformed rubbish about topics of which you actually have no knowledge. I mean, don't stop here. Spread some joy onto a bike forum, or sign up to a mountaineering forum, Hi-Fi, cars, cameras and just feel free to slag products or ideas off - there's no need to actually know anything about the topic, go for it. Gosh, there's almost no limit to the number of people you can p*ss off with your TOTAL BLEEDING IGNORANCE.

I thought that rather harsh ... and your comment came after I wrote about MonsterCable. (A very good friend of mine who holds a degree in Electrical Engineering confirmed my belief that it's a waste of money ... and went on in detail about long cable runs and speaker gauge.)

When it comes to golden ears, those gods who walk among us, how can we tell which ones are the true golden ears and which ones are the well meaning imposters?

Wouldn't double blind testing be a procedure that golden ears would welcome? Do we take your claim (and I'm assuming from reading between the lines) that you believe there is a difference between MonsterCable and ordinary lamp cord on faith or do we test those claims using a double blind test?

Of course there *is* good and bad. Suppose you have got completely used to the unbalanced sound of your crappy headphone.

Then sound that you listen to WITHOUT your crappy headphone will sound crappy. So , I mean every life performance (real instrument or not), but also TV set, laptop speaker, hifi set, you name it.

And also, your crappy headphone may damage your ears in the process.

Ha ha. Monster cable!! That's a funny one. Monster cable is a joke - they don't make Hi-Fi interconnects, it's just tarted-up rubbish.

This is entry level Hi-Fi cabling (and I mean rock-bottom entry level):

http://www.chord.co.uk/

I don't know what the debate about double blind tests is achieving. I know what I've heard and whether it's blind, double blind or whatever it makes no difference to me. No test will ever be set up with you and me as participants - it's a non-issue here and now for the purposes of this thread. You come on here WITH NO EXPERIENCE and quite clearly NO KNOWLEDGE and you make your glib smart-arse comments about this and many many other topics - you've always done it. You helpfully refer new enquirers to Google when YOU perceive they have asked a basic question so don't try lecturing me about being harsh on this forum.

I do think I have a very good ear but you don't have to buy that line at all. Just wait until you've auditioned Hi-Fi gear and you have experience of good stuff and not so good stuff before expressing your opinion as fact, which is what you're doing. I might forgive it if there was even the slightest trace of charm or humour about your comments, but both those qualities are conspicuously lacking unfortunately.

I'm very suspicious of anyone who classes himself as a "Hi-fi person" :-) It seems to be a different world from "music" or "professional audio", built largely on high-priced snake-oil and delusion.

It's just a world where people are trying to get closer to the music or a performance. Is that so bad? And does it warrant your comment? So anyway, enlighten us with YOUR experience of Hi-Fi. Sorry, silly question. No need to reply - you clearly have no experience.

http://www.chord.co.uk/products.php?pg=229

"Responding to demand from computer audiophiles, we have produced our first USB cable."

I suppose you can't blame them, if people are really clamouring to throw money their way :-) But aren't there laws against this sort of thing?

Have there been any tests before and after to document this ... or is this anecdotal? Wouldn't a frequency response test of headphones prove this one way or the other?

You see, I don't trust my aural memory ... and I don't trust yours either.

I grew up reading reviews from Hirsch-Houck Laboratories in Stereo Review back when I was a teenager. They taught me how to read test reports. (Julian Hirsch also was an Electrical Engineer.)

That would assume that every audible characteristic of headphones can be reduced to a plot of frequency response. How about distortion? Transient response?

I'm suggesting a before and after test ... of as many properties that can be measured.

If you're claiming that certain audible properties of sound cannot be measured, I can't respond to that.

No, mine's bigger.

Too much experience! And I was a victim, for a time.

It happens in pro audio too. Magic cables have never really caught on. But we worship various brands of vintage microphone, and seem prepared to spend enormous amounts of money on esoteric mic. pre-amplifiers and compressers. Some can't accept that a digital link basically either works or it doesn't, and try to complicate that area too.

Only because you pull it so much :-)

I remember the following .... from Bob Carver - WIki

Amplifier modeling

Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines took him up on the challenge.

First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).

In 1985, Stereophile magazine challenged Bob to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named in the challenge but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000.

Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a “black box” and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Carver, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room. He marketed “t” versions of his amplifiers incorporating the sound of the Mark Levinson and Conrad Johnson designs which caused him some criticism by those who failed to understand the true nature of the challenge — that it was possible to duplicate an audio amplifier's sound in two completely dissimilar designs. In light of this criticism, Bob Carver went on to design the Silver Seven, the most expensive and esoteric conventional amplifier up to that time and duplicated its sound in his M 4.0t and later models which sold for some 1/40th the price (around $600–$1500).

This also started Carver's departure from the M-series amplifier to the more robust and current-pushing TFM series amplifiers. The TFM amplifiers were designed specifically to drive the demanding load of the Amazing ribbon loudspeakers. The apex of Carver's amplifier line was the Lightstar, which is now a collectors' item. Only approximately 100 of the amplifiers were made. The original Lightstar amplifier, called the Lightstar Reference, featured a dual-monoblock design, with separate power cords for each channel. A later version, called the Lightstar 2.0, featured one power cord & other cost-saving measures to shave approximately $1800 off the retail price. The two are reported to be sonically identical.

Carver also later sued Stereophile magazine for its alleged bias against Carver products. (Stereophile had first filed suit against Carver for reprinting the magazine's copyrighted material without authorization.) The case was arbitrated with neither side awarded damages.

I think one problem is that they could do a test showing that the paper cone, for example, does produce a measurably different reading from a given audio input on some test after it's been played for 100 hours, and people would still argue about whether that indicated any difference a person could actually hear, so then you're back to square one. People who hear a difference will never be convinced that there's no difference; people who don't hear a difference will never be convinced that any technical deviation that might occur in a test actually proves that the difference would be audible.

Yes I agree but certain contributors in this thread have never heard anything - they simply have no experience in Hi-Fi and yet they consider their opinions as valid as those who have. That's what's so offensive to me.

I'm sure there are some of us here who have made a living solely from music, either performing, teaching, composing, arranging or conducting. I'm sure others have made their living installing professional sound systems or running sound for concerts. I'm sure others have their degree in Electrical Engineering.

Where do you fit in?

None of the above. My hearing works and I love music and listen to it very critically. And I have listened to lots of Hi-Fi at all price levels for many years although I no longer own any. Remind me what experience you have of Hi-Fi....

EssBrace, there's a difference between listening to sound critically and listening to music critically. You're more involved with sound than music I suspect.

(I've seen extremely expensive sound systems in private homes where the music being auditioned was deplorable. There's a big difference between sound and music.)

You made your rather strong post after I made a comment about MonsterCable.

_You have yet to address that._ Do your Hi-fi ears hear a difference between MonsterCable and standard lamp cord?

Hi-Fi isn't a belief system like religion in that equipment can be tested. That's why manufacturers of hi-end equipment don't welcome double blind tests.

I've never compared Monster Cable with what you call "lamp cord". Monster cable is not serious Hi-Fi cable (as I said before).

I don't have "Hi-Fi ears" in much the same way you don't have "intelligence". Dave, your attitude is so puerile. Don't think you can label me as someone that hears sound more than music. You don't know me and thankfully (for us both I suspect) you will never meet me.

You think because you didn't like some music you heard on an expensive sound system that you've made some sort of relevant point?

It's not that I don't welcome your devastatingly insightful revelation that SOUND and MUSIC are two different things though. I really do appreciate you pointing that out, not just for my benefit because I admit I was sitting here mistakenly thinking they were one and the same thing, but for our entire community. We are all the richer for your wisdom on this matter.

This is Hi-Fi cabling:

http://www.transparentcable.com/index.html

I used to use their speakers cables and one or two interconnects. Very good.

Give us the length of the speaker cable from Transparent you use and about what you paid.

I don't use it anymore. I don't really own Hi-Fi anymore. I used approx 2 x 6 foot lengths to run some Sonus Faber speakers, before that I was using Martin Logan speakers. The Transparent worked well with both. I bought it second hand. This was 12 years ago or more. Can't remember what I paid. £400 maybe, something like that. It was probably the best speaker cable I ever had. My Dad's got some of my stuff now as well as his own. He maybe has £60,000 worth of Hi-Fi, maybe more than that. I'm very out of touch with the stuff these days. Everything is so much more expensive now than I remember it. Did I mention that vinyl of course is better than anything else? There's another little pearl of wisdom that you can shout me down for.

Well, I certainly feel vindicated in your remark about my intelligence.

You paid something like £400 (€475\$625) for 2 six foot lengths of used speaker cable. (This is why audiophiles shun double blind tests.)

I'd really love to hear from someone who has a degree in Electrical Engineering ... or metallurgy.

The difference being that I have heard it, and many other cables too. You think someone with a degree in electrical engineering would hear things better (or worse) than I do? I have a degree in Economics. You think I can spend money or make purchase decisions better than you? Of course not.

Your comments just show that you don't understand. And you don't understand because you have no experience. If you read all my posts all I am saying is that you should have experience and listen before making the kind of judgements you are making. The anti Hi-Fi venom is really difficult for me to understand.

http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

Lies, Damn Lies, and Cables
Fun, Feathers, & Games in The High End

An Overdue Response, By Francis Vale

Tom Nousaine, a rigorous audiophile 'objectivist', gave a talk at a BAS/AES joint meeting in Boston, MA, in January 1995. Nousaine presented a paper that reported the experimental results of double blind tests with regards differences in audio cable sound. His paper essentially stated that all audio cables were sonically alike, and that not one of the experiment's participants could hear any differences when put in carefully controlled test settings. Furthermore, Nousaine went on to publicly state that all vendors'/dealers'/reviewers' claims of superior cable sound were bogus.

Now, as it so happened, the president of Transparent Audio, Jack Summer, was also in attendance. Summer was giving a talk immediately following Nousaine. Transparent is one of the better known audiophile cable makers. Summer was, not too surprisingly, miffed at Nousaine's contention that all cable makers' claims for audio performance are so much marketing nonsense.

In front of all present that night, including myself, Summer jumped up, and immediately challenged Nousaine to come to Chez Transparent in Hollis, Maine. Tom would then have an opportunity to do one of his cable comparison tests, using Transparent cables. Summer publicly stated that Nousaine would definitely hear a big difference in cable 'sound' . Nousaine grew testy, and rather red in the face, as he sparred back and forth with Summer. Things proceeded to get rather tense.

Like everyone else there that night, I watched all this with grim fascination. Quite frankly, given the players involved, it should not have been a totally unexpected development. Finally, everyone calmed down, and the evening's agenda proceeded.

Immediately following the meeting in Boston, Summer wrote the following letter to the Boston AES. Please note that Summer once again restates he is prepared to participate in a comparison test.

"To the Editor: January 18, 1995 Last night's Section meeting with Tom Nousaine was an interesting experience for me. I needed the experience to prepare for a talk that I am going to give to the New York AES section later this spring.

My undergraduate degree is in physics and my doctoral work was done in statistical analysis and research design. It is important to examine the validity of double blind testing at revealing subtle differences which audiophiles consider important. I intend to conduct an experiment in an area outside of audio to see what level of difference must exist for a double blind to statistically validate it. Perhaps someday I can share the results of this experiment with the Boston Section.

We invited Tom Nousaine to come to Maine to hear the difference in cables in our reference systems. I would like to extend the invitation to your membership, not for the purpose of comparing cables, although we would certainly do that if anyone wanted. The reason for anyone coming would be to hear a very good audiophile sound system in (a) very good room. The room was designed by Ed Bannon of TAJ Soundworks. It is about 29' x 19' with no parallel walls and solid construction. We have a variety of equipment to cover the upper range of audiophile tastes, and best of all, cable by Transparent.

Anyone can contact me at 207-929-4553 to set up a listening session. I look forward to attending more of your sessions this season and I intend to become a member.

Jack Summer
Transparent Audio
Hollis, Maine"


Fast forward several months, to the week of September 25, 1995. Tom Nousaine flies all the way from Chicago to Boston. His avowed mission: Take up Summer on his cable comparison offer. After all, President Summer had publicly made Tom a promise -- in writing no less. While in Boston, Nousaine also attended another Boston Audio Society meeting, on September 27th.

The day following the meeting, Nousaine, in the company of several other BAS members, including BAS founder Alvin Foster, drove all the way up to Maine, to Transparent Audio. Upon arrival at their destination, the President of Transparent said, quite incredibly, "What cable comparison? No way." Tom and Jack then got into another spirited discussion, which more or less followed along the puerile lines of "But you promised!" "Did Not!" Did Too!" Did Not." etc.

Nousaine and his BAS companions then said they were willing do a double blind; no one will know which cable is which. But the now Transparent Summer remained adamant in his position: No comparisons of any kind. No Pepsi cable taste test.

After more such highly transparent repartee, ruffled feathers were finally soothed all the way around. They all then sat down and listened to some nice Wilson X-1 music in Summer's very impressive home. Transparent cables were used throughout, of course. Tom, et al, finally drove back to Boston.

If I wasn't there in the BAS/AES audience back in January, 1995, I would have had difficulty in believing any of this wired-up fiasco. But I saw and heard Summer make his cable comparison offer to Nousaine at the January meeting. Summer even repeated his offer in writing.

The Inevitable Conclusion: The Transparent Audio President is the one who seems to be bogus in his proclaimed promises (but we still don't know about his cables).

And so it goes in the high end, in the never ending search for truth, beauty, good music, and profit

Copyright 1996, Francis Vale, All Rights Reserved

21st, The VXM Network, http://www.vxm.com


__________________________

I especially enjoyed the use of the word puerile.

What exactly are you trying to do here? We could all dredge up stuff on the web that would appear to support a particular view. I have heard Hi-Fi and I have owned it. You haven't. I know what I've heard and I've certainly heard improvements brought about by the use of better cables. Why is this a problem for you? You have capitulated into a position where you are just trying to score points. I will keep on saying that your condemnation of certain Hi-Fi related stuff is wrong because you cannot speak with any experience.

Frankly it amazes me that anyone that claims to enjoy music would not seek to hear it as good as it can sound. That is the point of Hi-Fi - to get closer to the music. When you listen to music, what are you listening to it on?

I think the point is, some of us are listening to the music. Not listening to wires or price tags.

Okay, I give in. I don't think there's anything more I can say.

What exactly are you trying to do here?

EssBrace, the point is not for you to give in but to consider this. If the President of Transparent himself at a AES (Audio Engineering Society) meeting agrees to a blind cable test, even submits that in writing and then backs down when confronted in person, doesn't that give you pause?

If people do in fact hear a difference, the easiest test to set up is to simply switch out speaker cables ... in a blind test. What could be easier to conduct?

If I believed that there were differences, I'd have my wife or a friend test me, but I wouldn't want to know in advance what cable was which - a blind test.

... another day.

I don't want to get drawn into the hi-fi argument (I'm no hi-fi expert - I just like what I like when I hear the music I'm familiar with, regardless of price. My no-name cables cost me about £1 per metre), but I know something about medicine and scientific research, because I read them regularly, and have been involved in research myself.

The bottom line is that the only valid conclusions are those drawn from double-blind trials, and no reputable medical journal will publish research papers that don't fulfil this requirement, except in rare circumstances (e.g. too few patients with the condition if very rare etc), when it will be made clear to readers.

I had experience of this some years ago when I had to replace my old speakers. I bought new ones based on recommendations in a music (not hi-fi) magazine, and then on auditioning the three recommended pairs at a hi-fi shop (playing my own CDs, and asking the salesperson to tape over the brand logos so I wouldn't know what I was listening to). But when I set the speakers I eventually chose up at home, I was bitterly disappointed: the sound was harsh and brash at all volumes, quite unlike the sweet and realistic sound I heard in the listening room at the store. Though I thought it was just that my own fairly cheap hi-fi system didn't match (obviously the store had very expensive state-of-the-art system connected when I was there) I was almost tempted to change the speakers, but then read the manual which recommended a week of 'working in'. So, I ran the speakers continually at low volume via digital radio for 1 week, not listening to them at all. When I went back to listening, the sound was transformed - it was what I'd heard back in the store.

The jury is out on whether it was just my imagination.....