Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Beyerdynamic DT880 Discussion thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Beyerdynamic DT880 Discussion thread - Page 455

post #6811 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen16 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyang View Post
 

Well, just think of this way…  If the sx-880 doesn't work for your headphones, it sure does sound good with vintage home speakers.  Just a thought…  <img data-cke-saved-src=

 



Yep, and I have what I consider a good pair of vintage speakers, JBL L110's. I'm the orginal owner. Bought them from the Base Exchange at Ramstein AB while serving in the Air Force. I also had a pair of JBL L220's but sold them prior to returning stateside. I see those selling on fleabay for between $2000-4000 these days.

 

 

SCORE!!!

 

Anything vintage JBL is awesome imho…  Congrats

 

I have Pioneers, 4 CS-63dx, 2 CS-88, 2 CS-77, and 2 CS-66 all MINT.  I really like 'em, and wouldn't trade anything for it.

post #6812 of 7847

On the subject of using speaker amps/receivers with headphones, I would strongly urge owners of high impedance phones to not only experiment with vintage units but even those from the 90s up to today. I use a still current Marantz SR4023 receiver and get great results with my DT880 Pro. In fact I've had good results from dozens of amps/receivers over the years, certainly to the quality of a Matrix M-Stage, which I used to own. (Of course, I've struck my share of duds too, but that's to be expected). Frankly, unless you're into upper echelon stuff or tubes, there's no real reason to buy a dedicated HP amp and a few reasons, like the convenience of remote control, not to. Even power consumption isn't really an issue. My SR4023 only uses around 20W in use (measured).

 

Of course, this applies to higher impedances. Lower impedances introduce other considerations. And then of course there's the added factor of portability if that's important.

post #6813 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

On the subject of using speaker amps/receivers with headphones, I would strongly urge owners of high impedance phones to not only experiment with vintage units but even those from the 90s up to today. I use a still current Marantz SR4023 receiver and get great results with my DT880 Pro. In fact I've had good results from dozens of amps/receivers over the years, certainly to the quality of a Matrix M-Stage, which I used to own. (Of course, I've struck my share of duds too, but that's to be expected). Frankly, unless you're into upper echelon stuff or tubes, there's no real reason to buy a dedicated HP amp and a few reasons, like the convenience of remote control, not to. Even power consumption isn't really an issue. My SR4023 only uses around 20W in use (measured).

 

Of course, this applies to higher impedances. Lower impedances introduce other considerations. And then of course there's the added factor of portability if that's important.

 

The Matrix M Stage is superior to all the receiver's headphone jacks?

post #6814 of 7847

Sorry, must be my poor writing. I meant most (but not all) of the receiver's HP jacks have been at least up to the quality of a Matrix M-Stage, which incidentally I found to be extremely neutral. But I tend to stick with Marantz. There aren't huge differences, and NAD and Rotel are good too, but for a safe bet Marantz is hard to beat. Even their AV receivers (I also have an SR4200) sound good. But here I'm talking about stuff from the last 20 years, not vintage. I know nothing about vintage gear.

post #6815 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

Sorry, must be my poor writing. I meant most (but not all) of the receiver's HP jacks have been at least up to the quality of a Matrix M-Stage, which incidentally I found to be extremely neutral. But I tend to stick with Marantz. There aren't huge differences, and NAD and Rotel are good too, but for a safe bet Marantz is hard to beat. Even their AV receivers (I also have an SR4200) sound good. But here I'm talking about stuff from the last 20 years, not vintage. I know nothing about vintage gear.

 

No problem, I'm not surprised that the Matrix is often superior to the average receiver headphone jack.

It certainly crushed the headphone jack on my vintage Yamaha CR-2020 receiver.  The Yamaha was really better for loudspeakers.

post #6816 of 7847

Could someone else chime in here? I think we've struck a communication impasse.  :confused:

post #6817 of 7847

My experience with headphone outputs on vintage receivers or integrated amps is somewhat limited, though I do have a couple nice little units from the late 70s. Near as I can tell, both have headphone outputs that are just padded down from the main audio path, though I've read about some vintage gear (IIRC some Marantz units) that had proper dedicated headphone amp circuitry. Both my receivers likely have high output impedance since I hear fairly obvious interaction artifacts (e.g. strong hiss, loose bass, a certain lack of overall definition) even with my 250 ohm DT880. I wouldn't use either as my first choice for amping headphones (especially since one is quite sick and is retired from duty indefinitely), but they're not terrible.

 

Back then headphones were higher impedance on average, so even with higher output impedance a better damping factor was easier to achieve. Also, headphone users were less of a priority back then because, well, headphones were quite a bit worse than they are today and fewer headphone enthusiasts existed. Plus, if you used fancy electrostats or electrets that were actually decent, you had a separate energizer unit that connected to the speaker output, making the quality of the built in headphone output moot. All these points conspire to suggest that vintage audio equipment might have been capable of running headphones well (particularly something like a 600 ohm DT880, either the one from the 80s or the modern one), but I doubt the headphone output was ever much of a priority.

post #6818 of 7847

Many years ago I took my HD650s to the Hi-Fi shops to see if an integrated would prove equal to my Musical Fidelity headamp...whilst the XcanV3 was a hybrid unit I clearly heard the advantages of solid state in all of the amplifier headamps - except in one area.  Bass tightness.

 

Whilst this might not be so obvious with classical - it is obvious with modern music where bass lines and rhythms are an important foundation to the drive of the tune.  The hybrid head-amp had a better grip on the bass over any integrated output - also over all the CD player output of various units as well.

 

The solid state advantage of the integrated was nullified when I bought the Lehmann Black Cube Linear headphone amp.  This had the solid state precision - and even better control of the bass than the Xcan hybrid - which was already controlling bass lines better than integrateds.

 

However, nothing made the HD650s sound bad per se...I could easily live with any one of those options if that was all I had access to.

 

My 2c.


Edited by SP Wild - 3/17/14 at 1:37am
post #6819 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

Could someone else chime in here? I think we've struck a communication impasse.  confused.gif

Waddya wanna talk about? redface.gif
post #6820 of 7847

I think it's more or less a given that few integrateds can match the bass tightness of a good dedicated amp. And you're right, that factor is more important with contemporary music than classical. It's a question of balance and priorities really. An integrated offers convenience, not only the convenience of remote control volume and tone, but of having a single unit for speakers and headphones. Also you're simply getting more for your money, and if you go the Ebay way you can much more for hardly any money. And to put the bass thing in perspective, some headphones will actually benefit from having their bass a little less tightly controlled (though not the HD650).

 

I listen to a sprinkling of 60s pop occasionally for a change--Supremes etc--and I've never been aware of loose bass from my Marantz SR4023 by comparison with the Aune dedicated amp I keep on hand. That's with both my current DT880 and previous HD650. So while I acknowledge the point, I'm not convinced it's so important in practise.

post #6821 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

Could someone else chime in here? I think we've struck a communication impasse.  confused.gif

Waddya wanna talk about? redface.gif

 

Sorry, Chris. It just seemed like we were at cross purposes in that my point--that many integrated headphone jacks I'd tried were superior to the M-Stage--wasn't quite getting through. I thought someone else might explain it better than I was managing.

post #6822 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

Sorry, Chris. It just seemed like we were at cross purposes in that my point--that many integrated headphone jacks I'd tried were superior to the M-Stage--wasn't quite getting through. I thought someone else might explain it better than I was managing.

No problem, I understood what you meant, some were worse, some were better than the M Stage.
I admit to some bias, my M Stage was obviously better than my old vintage receiver's headphone jack........so I have a bias.
post #6823 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
 

 

Sorry, Chris. It just seemed like we were at cross purposes in that my point--that many integrated headphone jacks I'd tried were superior to the M-Stage--wasn't quite getting through. I thought someone else might explain it better than I was managing.

 

I buy that.  I have experimented a lot with resistors and speaker outs into headphones.  The M-stage is the same as the Lehman Black Cube amp and pumps the same power.  I have found on some headphones - more power equals more drive and a larger soundstage with a bigger sound - not necessarily volume related...I think its the raw available drive.  The Lehmann amp and the XcanV3 does not have that sort of big soundstage, big sound that an even more higher powered amplifier can provide on some of my cans like the HD650, K701 and LCD2.

post #6824 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

I buy that.  I have experimented a lot with resistors and speaker outs into headphones.  The M-stage is the same as the Lehman Black Cube amp and pumps the same power.  I have found on some headphones - more power equals more drive and a larger soundstage with a bigger sound - not necessarily volume related...I think its the raw available drive.  The Lehmann amp and the XcanV3 does not have that sort of big soundstage, big sound that an even more higher powered amplifier can provide on some of my cans like the HD650, K701 and LCD2.

Are you talking about power for transients in the music, otherwise known as slew rate?

The amount of power output capable by an amp is readily available, as you know. But the speed this power can be delivered in is not. I personally think slew rate is relevant. An engineering friend purchased a gigantic amp for this reason.

Just a thought,

BG
Edited by r010159 - 3/17/14 at 7:17am
post #6825 of 7847
Quote:
Originally Posted by r010159 View Post


Are you talking about power for transients in the music, otherwise known as slew rate?

The amount of power output capable by an amp is readily available, as you know. But the speed this power can be delivered in is not. I personally think slew rate is relevant. An engineering friend purchased a gigantic amp for this reason.

Just a thought,

BG

 

The slew rate on most modern audio amps is generally in excess of the amount needed to output a full-scale 20 kHz tone. Any kind of transient in musical material isn't going to change level as fast as that. Slew rate is rarely a limiting factor for audio these days.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Beyerdynamic DT880 Discussion thread