Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Sennheiser RS160, 170 ,180... Anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser RS160, 170 ,180... Anyone? - Page 4

post #46 of 448
Hi everyone!

This forum was where I expected since November to see some reviews of the new wireless Sennheisers.... it seems they are still a bit hard to get, so I thought I'd register and post about the Sennheiser RS 160 model I got a few days ago.

I'm completely new to "reviewing" headphones, so I'll just answer the questions posted earlier by Exact Sound, after giving a brief intro.

I listen to music all the time, either from a PC or from my iPod, and I have a certain set of songs that through the years I've been rediscovering every time I get new earphones that are significantly better that the previous ones. This stopped when I found out about Sennheiser earphones... until I got these RS 160, that is
Not only I've found subtle "new" sounds, but the "stereo" seems different... better in terms of separation of sounds and "density" of the sound.... if it makes any sense what I'm saying. As a non-audiophile, that's the best way I can describe these new experiences
It might just be the transition from long time earbud usage to full-sized headphones... but I'm absolutely thrilled!

For some time I've been contemplating the upgrade, but carrying meters of wires everywhere kept putting me off... the portable transmitter is the perfect soution for me. I don't know how much will the batteries last, I hope that with rechargable batteries I can get much more time than the headphones... how much power can it be required to feed a few microchips and send a signal over 20m, anyway?
The transmitter doesn't recharge batteries, unfortunately, but it can operate on plug power safely ignoring the batteries inside (but transmission stops whenever power source is changed).

I was afraid that the transmitter would be a bit too big, but it's approx. the size of an ear pad (the pads are more oval, the Tx is more round), which is fine for carrying together with the iPod in a jacket pocket or even trousers pocket (with a smaller audio cable! the one included is a bit more than 1m long!).

Phew, this turned out to be not so brief of an intro!
Now to the questions by Exact Sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
How exactly is the input configured?
The input is a standard 3.5mm audio jack, not sure what is meant by "configured".

Even the higher models only have analog input.... which might not be so bad if AD/DA conversion is 100% symmetrical or close, but then again there's potential for loss in a lot of places. It would be understandable if the RS 160 supported only analog input, given the smaller transmitter, but it's definitely something that should be in the 170 and 180... but maybe next time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
Is there a level input adjustment like there was on the old school Senn HDR 8-9 base transmitter?...flashing red led when being over driven?

Can the transmitter base be over driven causing clipping or distortion?
You can adjust volume on the transmitter, but no level indicator.
I don't have an amplifier... testing this with different devices in max volume, I didn't experiance any clipping. At the same time, when I set the max volume on the headphones as well, I got distortion on some MP3 songs, but no distortion in most (HQ) MP3, or with FLAC, OGG or APE. When playing audio CDs, I didn't manage to get any distortion as well.

However, the manual does specify that the led on the transmitter will turn red if the source signal is too strong, which I couldn't trigger. According to the manual, the volume control on the transmitter can be used to attenuate this (which means it's analog, not digital volume control).

<edit>
At the time I had just lost my iPod Classic... I got another one just like the previous (80gb model) and I noticed that setting the volume to the max in the iPod actually makes the transmitter led flash red!
</edit>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
What models can be used with what transmitters? 160 base with a 170 or 180 headphone? ....180 base with a 160 or 170 headset...etc....?
I assume that my RS 160 would work with the RS 180 transmitter, and vice-versa, but didn't get to try that. The manual does mention that it's possible to pair other Kleer-compatible headphones with the transmitter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
How much obstruction can these transmitters penetrate without degradation of signal?...and realistic broadcast range? Line of sight range?

My older Senn HDR 8-9's and 6-9's do ok through normal household construction up to about 60 feet or so for non-critical listening but require a fair amount of fiddling of tuning especially when a neighbor uses a 900 mHz phone causing the reception to get pushed over. I wonder if the 2+ gig Hz phones will affect them? I have 2 separate wireless lines in my house each on their own system in this frequency range.
With a couple of walls in between, I think I got to around 15m-16m in the office. The digital shows, here: one step back, they work; one step forward, they stop; but the quality remains constant.
At home, with three walls in between, I think the limit was around 10m.
In both cases, there was a way for the signal to indirectly get through, but the distances I indicate is a straight line between transmitter and receiver.

I gotta say I was a bit aprehensive when I saw the "line-of-sight" specification, but this cleared my fears

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
What corded Sennheisers sound similar?
I've only used earbuds from Sennheiser, the latest were the CX 270... they sound good, but these RS 160 sound GREAT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
Would these be appropriate for legally blind folks?...Simple enough to operate for 85 year old senior? My dad is in this situation and cord would be tripped over or yanked and needs to use a 10X map magnifier to read most anything.
The RS 160 have their fair share of moving parts, especially wires on the transmitter side of course, and the charging cord is a bit hard to decouple from the headphones using only the fingers of one hand (but almost effortless if using both hands). For my parents or grandparents, I'd consider getting one of the other models, for the confort of having a charging dock and much greater transmit range.

In terms of simplicity... there's two pairs of on/off buttons and volume controls, one pair on the headphones and the other on the transmitter (and the transmitter volume can be set to max and ignored), so I in my opinion this is pretty simple to work with.

----

And that's it! I hope this helps some folks out there
post #47 of 448
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
Not really useful for my needs/qns, but sounds as though it will be for Exact Sound.
I hope we get more people like you!?
post #48 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post

So long as you're not much more than 10m away from the transmitter.
You should notice no interference on the 160 by virtue of it's transmission mechanism. Stated range is 20m, halve that to compensate for any interference.

Though if it's for editing purposes, I'd be more inclined to go for the 170 or 180 (provided there's not much ambient noise where you live)
Re: Sony 6000 wireless:

The transmitter has only been 2 feet from the phones for editing? The intermittent faint clicks and pops still persist. Microwave basically stop the signal if I walk into the kitchen just 12 feet through walls.

One of my laptops has suddenly had wifi connection issues since the Headphones have been used. Needs to be hard re-booted to reestablish the connection. Could just be a coincidence?

The Sony Wireless audio quality wise when compared to my old wired Sennheiser HD 540 with a modest Headroom Total Bithead amp... they really don't sound that great. Fact is if a wireless can could sound that good I'd be a happy camper. I'm sure that is not a fair comparison with a wired phone Senn HD 540 - but I almost prefer the sound of my old Sennheiser 6-9's on 900 MHz. Part of my bias is I'm use to the coloration of what I have. The old 900 Senn just seem more musical dispute the RF noise floor and hash. My brother in law thinks my old wireless Sennheiser sound great and he has some pro audio experience.

The transmission range on the Sony 6000 is pretty lame - works fine for TV in the same room but beyond that forget it.

What is truly great about the Sony 6000 is the very low fiddle factor. The base is charger and the can turn on automatically with a headband switch.

As far as the RS 160 vs. the 170 or 180 for editing? Not sure ...I was under the impression that the both the 160 & 170 are closed and probably sound the same. 180 is open which I frankly prefer for non work listening. For editing purposes the closed phone do help to isolate household noises which are a distraction to editing somewhat.

I'm basically under the impression that the sonic quality of the RS 160 and 170 are very close. So has anybody compared them?
post #49 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jqrd View Post
....snip....
I've only used earbuds from Sennheiser, the latest were the CX 270... they sound good, but these RS 160 sound GREAT!

The RS 160 have their fair share of moving parts, especially wires on the transmitter side of course, and the charging cord is a bit hard to decouple from the headphones using only the fingers of one hand (but almost effortless if using both hands). For my parents or grandparents, I'd consider getting one of the other models, for the confort of having a charging dock and much greater transmit range.

In terms of simplicity... there's two pairs of on/off buttons and volume controls, one pair on the headphones and the other on the transmitter (and the transmitter volume can be set to max and ignored), so I in my opinion this is pretty simple to work with.

----

And that's it! I hope this helps some folks out there
Welcome to forum! Thanks for posting your review.

I really like the option of a smallish coaster size transmitter powered by AA's. It might be possible to attach it to my tiny laptop like my Total Bithead is. Then again I don't think the RS 160 transmitter will peacefully coexist is such close proximity to the built in WiFi antennas. Even the Bithead amp picks up interference from the WiFi....? I'm looking into shielding options now for the BitHead.

In good weather I like to audio edit outdoors. Much of my music listening last few weeks has been off of Pandora One. So using the tiny laptop as a base station and roaming with it on mobile power with NO WIRES to get snagged, tripped on or yanked is very appealing. I spend a fair amount of time in my garage maintaining equipment for my other business so wireless cans will see much use. With my current 900 MHz Sennhisers I usually have to fiddle with manual tuning nearly constantly as the smallish BA151 batteries deplete or a neighbor use a 900 MHz phone and knock over my signal which seems to always happen with greasy or grubby hands.

From what you have said and what I have figured out by reading the manual online looks like the RS 160 will be my next purchase. Just need to find a seller that can ship them to me for under $184. eBay with a 8% Bing.com discount is the best price I have found thus far.
LL
post #50 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
Re: Sony 6000 wireless:

The transmitter has only been 2 feet from the phones for editing? The intermittent faint clicks and pops still persist. Microwave basically stop the signal if I walk into the kitchen just 12 feet through walls.

One of my laptops has suddenly had wifi connection issues since the Headphones have been used. Needs to be hard re-booted to reestablish the connection. Could just be a coincidence?

The Sony Wireless audio quality wise when compared to my old wired Sennheiser HD 540 with a modest Headroom Total Bithead amp... they really don't sound that great. Fact is if a wireless can could sound that good I'd be a happy camper. I'm sure that is not a fair comparison with a wired phone Senn HD 540 - but I almost prefer the sound of my old Sennheiser 6-9's on 900 MHz. Part of my bias is I'm use to the coloration of what I have. The old 900 Senn just seem more musical dispute the RF noise floor and hash. My brother in law thinks my old wireless Sennheiser sound great and he has some pro audio experience.

The transmission range on the Sony 6000 is pretty lame - works fine for TV in the same room but beyond that forget it.

What is truly great about the Sony 6000 is the very low fiddle factor. The base is charger and the can turn on automatically with a headband switch.

As far as the RS 160 vs. the 170 or 180 for editing? Not sure ...I was under the impression that the both the 160 & 170 are closed and probably sound the same. 180 is open which I frankly prefer for non work listening. For editing purposes the closed phone do help to isolate household noises which are a distraction to editing somewhat.

I'm basically under the impression that the sonic quality of the RS 160 and 170 are very close. So has anybody compared them?
Check what channel your AP is broadcasting on, try manually setting it to 1 or 6.
From memory they are usually more stable, but are also more likely to be used by neighbours.

Having your config. just right in your AP and clients can do a lot for mitigating signal issues.
But bottom line there's sometimes other sources of interference for which you can do little to avoid short of;
shielding your microwave, installing a mains filter, stealing your neighbours AP etc!

Actually as I recall (could be wrong) the 170/180's headphone specs are more alike than the 160/170.
Except for the fact that the 180 is open & the 170 is closed.
But open v closed is an attribute which prolly has the single biggest impact on how 'these' headphones sound.
So the 170 may indeed sound more like the 160? Only one way to find out!

Open cans are generally better regarded for superior SQ (all else being equal).
So long as the environment they're used in isn't exposed to too much ambient noise.
post #51 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
Not sure what you mean by: The weak link is the audio reproduction down stream
If you're referring to the analogue stage, amplification, & DSP (sometimes) built into wireless headphones, then yes that's part of the weak link.
Two other significant factors are link state, & power management.

In-fact I'm starting to realise that not having dolby decoding is kind of a good thing.
It saves on costs so more can go towards....

1) transmission system
2) analogue output stage of the headphones
3) headphone's overall sonics & build quality (perhaps the most important & neglected when it come to wireless headphones)

I'm still not sure why it's input is analogue though (or even 100% sure if it is analogue)...

Perhaps it's so that the transmitter's analogue-out can pass-through a superior analogue source?
But in doing this one adds the risk of degrading the final signal that reaches the headphone's DAC.
Because the received analogue will first have to be run through a ADC stage before transmission!

Or perhaps it's not possible to pass a Dolby decoded signal in digital format?
In which case why not have two inputs...

1)
One digital for users that have no interest in passing Dolby decoded content, & hence can bypass the potentially degrading ADC step,
& jump straight to transmission.

2)
And one analogue for users that want to pass a analogue signal (dolby decoded or not) from a quality DSP/DAC, straight to the transmitter's analogue-out.
OR straight to the ADC and then on to transmission for decoding by the headphones, so as to avoid the built-in implementation of SS.
I'm about to proceed with the 180 regardless....
But man I'd really love to know the answers to these questions.
Any gurus out there? Please help this audio ignorati!
post #52 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
I'm about to proceed with the 180 regardless....
But man I'd really love to know the answers to these questions.
Any gurus out there? Please help this audio ignorati!
I've been pondering this whole wireless issue and I think the only way wireless headphones can achieve true Class "C or even B" audiophile grade performance is to use your regular wired cans let even say HD 800's and just be able to plug into a belt clip type receiver and just be able to roam your entire house or even property with flawless transmission.

Transmitter requirements:
Direct hard wire inputs of all types plus optical, coaxial, XLR etc..... yet also be 100% WiFi capable [don't forget the Ethernet connection] device to be able to stream it's own routed content such as Pandora or other online streaming source with higher bit rates such as a "Pandora Ultra premium service" that can stream 320k content for just $15 a month. Fully upgradable firmware. This doesn't exist yet but maybe it can happen. Also can stream content form other PC or Mac on the same network.

Transmitter requirements:

Belt receiver and amp combo that can keep most headphone audiophiles happy. I'd personally be a happy camper with the net equivalent of going mobile with my Headroom Total bit head amp and my old HD 540's rigged up to this type of receiver. Offer various upgrades "sorry about your wallet" ..."but you wanted a killer mobile amp receiver now you need to pay for it.

It is possible that there are already very capable wirelesses receivers and transmitters on the market that can achieve this level of performance. I know there are many on this forum that have pretty decent mobile portable amp piggy-backed to iPod harddrive players etc. but..... wouldn't it be great to also be able put an old record on and not be chained like a dog on leash while you listen to it.

I'd be happy to be a beta tester - I'm a technical person and I'm aggravated by poorly engineered products. I'm a perfect candidate.

I have gone mobile using my tiny Acer laptop with the Headroom Total BitHead amp and my HD 540's. This works to a point but the Wifi is causing jitter in the Amp. One of the mobile companies has a 3G network Acer....? Along with a 320k Pandora premium service I see potential here.

I'd be willing to drop a sizable chunk of change of this device. I would use it all the time when at home. I'd probably drop $500 - $800+ on a well engineered device that meets these basic specs.

As much as I like wired performance....wired headphone fans don't take this the wrong way .... but really who has time to sit down for hours on end and just listen to music uninterrupted? I really don't. I'm hitting pause constantly. That's great if you do have time but many of us don't. I've been listing to my HD 540 wired phones more than ever these last few weeks using Pnadora One but I have been hitting pause constantly and I've just about knocked the Acer laptop to the floor on several occasions thanks to all the wires. It reminds me of the days before cordless phones....very frustating.
post #53 of 448
RS 160 alert! A plug for the fourm supporter

(1) RS160 Wireless System - [LIKE-NEW Wireless System; Open Box Item] - $169
B-stock Outlet
post #54 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
I've been pondering this whole wireless issue and I think the only way wireless headphones can achieve true Class "C or even B" audiophile grade performance is to use your regular wired cans let even say HD 800's and just be able to plug into a belt clip type receiver and just be able to roam your entire house or even property with flawless transmission.

Transmitter requirements:
Direct hard wire inputs of all types plus optical, coaxial, XLR etc..... yet also be 100% WiFi capable [don't forget the Ethernet connection] device to be able to stream it's own routed content such as Pandora or other online streaming source with higher bit rates such as a "Pandora Ultra premium service" that can stream 320k content for just $15 a month. Fully upgradable firmware. This doesn't exist yet but maybe it can happen. Also can stream content form other PC or Mac on the same network.

Transmitter requirements:

Belt receiver and amp combo that can keep most headphone audiophiles happy. I'd personally be a happy camper with the net equivalent of going mobile with my Headroom Total bit head amp and my old HD 540's rigged up to this type of receiver. Offer various upgrades "sorry about your wallet" ..."but you wanted a killer mobile amp receiver now you need to pay for it.

It is possible that there are already very capable wirelesses receivers and transmitters on the market that can achieve this level of performance. I know there are many on this forum that have pretty decent mobile portable amp piggy-backed to iPod harddrive players etc. but..... wouldn't it be great to also be able put an old record on and not be chained like a dog on leash while you listen to it.

I'd be happy to be a beta tester - I'm a technical person and I'm aggravated by poorly engineered products. I'm a perfect candidate.

I have gone mobile using my tiny Acer laptop with the Headroom Total BitHead amp and my HD 540's. This works to a point but the Wifi is causing jitter in the Amp. One of the mobile companies has a 3G network Acer....? Along with a 320k Pandora premium service I see potential here.

I'd be willing to drop a sizable chunk of change of this device. I would use it all the time when at home. I'd probably drop $500 - $800+ on a well engineered device that meets these basic specs.

As much as I like wired performance....wired headphone fans don't take this the wrong way .... but really who has time to sit down for hours on end and just listen to music uninterrupted? I really don't. I'm hitting pause constantly. That's great if you do have time but many of us don't. I've been listing to my HD 540 wired phones more than ever these last few weeks using Pnadora One but I have been hitting pause constantly and I've just about knocked the Acer laptop to the floor on several occasions thanks to all the wires. It reminds me of the days before cordless phones....very frustating.
Before I started looking at AIO wireless headphones ...

I looked for a portable dac/amp/dsp that is capable of receiving it's signal via RF from a transmitter.
I wanted this so I could chose which wired cans to plug into the receiver.

I looked for months and there is literally nothing except stuff that is used in professional concerts,
& even it has significant limitations.

The closest things I could find to a solution (and mentioned in my thread) were the following:

Stereo only, no simulated surround abilities.
My Portable Wireless Headphone Amplifier & DAC - diyAudio
eBay.com.sg: 無線耳機放大器Wireless Headphone Amplifie (item 290393161833 end time Jan 29, 2010 09:16:03 SGT)
These aren't appealing to me but here ya go...
i2i Stream - Aerielle Technologies, Inc.
Some have had good success modding for the W-1, again stereo only.
Sleek Wireless | Sleek Audio

But we digress, does anyone know how to actually answer post #51? Thanks! :|
post #55 of 448
Perhaps I can help to explain your queries here.

1) transmission system - It is important to note the technology used in a wireless headphones. Some employs lossy compression (like Bluetooth) while other wireless technology use a lossless/uncompressed transmission which can achieve CD audio quality. Most wireless headphone devices have very good technical specifications (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio, distortion, etc.) but still important to know how the product performs under different user and environmental conditions. This is the reason we are all searching-like-crazy for expert and user reviews to get an upfront information on the product before purchase.

2) analogue output stage of the headphones - Wireless transmission includes A/D (at transmitter) and D/A converter (at the headphones). As long as the transmission is lossless (meaning CD quality), signal to noise ratio is at least 80~85dB, and THD (total harmonic distortion) is below o.5%, I would say that the analog output of the headphones is not compromised.

To test my wireless headphones, I would normally adjust the volume of headphones to maximum volume level and keep the transmitter at no audio input or with 1 step to minimum volume level to check for potential hissing sound or other "digital" noise caused by the transmission itself. This way I can also verify the dynamic range of the the audio from the headphone output.

3) headphone's overall sonics & build quality (perhaps the most important & neglected when it come to wireless headphones) - You are right, high percentage of the build cost of the product comes from electronics (i.e transmitter, receiver, power supply, etc.). Therefore, it is only logical for manufacturers to keep the build cost at minimum to minimize the gap between wired and wireless headphones. Otherwise, who would buy a wireless headphone product at a cost of U$1000 for a mediocre headphone SQ???

I'm still not 100% sure why it's input is analogue...
Perhaps it's so that the transmitter's analogue-out can pass-through a superior analogue source?
But in doing this one adds the risk of degrading the final signal that reaches the headphone's DAC.
Because the received analogue will first have to be run through a ADC stage before transmission!


Wireless headphones are all designed with one key consideration in mind, that is; "to use the same audio source as a wired headphones". Therefore, it is only logical that analog signal "NOT DIGITAL" be the primary input source. The key function and feature of DAC and ADC is clearly misunderstood by many as a potential cause of audio degradation. In fact, the only solution possible to transmit high quality audio signal "wirelessly" is by converting analog signal to digital prior to transmission so that all forms of noise interferences are avoided and that the original signal is preserved until it is converted again to analog at the headphone stage. Analog "FM" wireless headphones are noisy for obvious reasons, they don't have A/D-D/A conversion.

Or perhaps it's not possible to pass a Dolby decoded signal in digital format?
In which case why not have two inputs...
1) One digital for users that have no interest in passing Dolby decoded content, & hence can bypass the potentially degrading ADC step,
& jump straight to transmission.
2) And one analogue for users that want to pass a analogue signal (dolby decoded or not) from a quality DSP/DAC, straight to the transmitter's analogue-out.
OR straight to the ADC and then on to transmission for decoding by the headphones, so as to avoid the built-in implementation of SS.


Digital input is relevant only for audio source coded in digital format like DTS or Dolby digital. With digital input, it is still necessary for the base transmitter to have DTS or Dolby decoding hardware (and software) before conversion to another format understood by the transmission module. Therefore it is not as simple as adding a digital input and transmit the signal as it is.
I would personally prefer having a dedicated DTS/Dolby decoder device and feed the processed analog output to my wireless base transmitter instead of having a built-in DSP. This way I can always upgrade my wireless headphone system and choose the ones with the best SQ.

Hope this helps....
post #56 of 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exact Sound View Post
I've been pondering this whole wireless issue and I think the only way wireless headphones can achieve true Class "C or even B" audiophile grade performance is to use your regular wired cans let even say HD 800's and just be able to plug into a belt clip type receiver and just be able to roam your entire house or even property with flawless transmission.
Yes - A good IEM system and use your normal headphones would give you the best results - maybe with something like a Graham Slee Voyager for improved amplification.

But the IEM system will be at least for or five times the price of the more expensive wireless headphones.

I normally don't like wireless, but I have got a set of the RS140 for the bedroom TV (closed analogue transmission with no latency).
post #57 of 448
Thanks for offering your thoughts, tis greatly appreciated!
However a few things still aren't clear to me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaylotc View Post
2) analogue output stage of the headphones - Wireless transmission includes A/D (at transmitter) and D/A converter (at the headphones). As long as the transmission is lossless (meaning CD quality), signal to noise ratio is at least 80~85dB, and THD (total harmonic distortion) is below o.5%, I would say that the analog output of the headphones is not compromised.
But assuming transmission's fine there's more than just SNR & THD to ensure quality analogue-out in the headphones themselves.
I mean those figures alone don't tell the whole picture right?

Quote:
To test my wireless headphones, I would normally adjust the volume of headphones to maximum volume level and keep the transmitter at no audio input or with 1 step to minimum volume level to check for potential hissing sound or other "digital" noise caused by the transmission itself. This way I can also verify the dynamic range of the the audio from the headphone output.
I'm sorry I don't really get you here?

Quote:
I'm still not 100% sure why it's input is analogue...
Perhaps it's so that the transmitter's analogue-out can pass-through a superior analogue source?
But in doing this one adds the risk of degrading the final signal that reaches the headphone's DAC.
Because the received analogue will first have to be run through a ADC stage before transmission!


Wireless headphones are all designed with one key consideration in mind, that is; "to use the same audio source as a wired headphones". Therefore, it is only logical that analog signal "NOT DIGITAL" be the primary input source. The key function and feature of DAC and ADC is clearly misunderstood by many as a potential cause of audio degradation. In fact, the only solution possible to transmit high quality audio signal "wirelessly" is by converting analog signal to digital prior to transmission so that all forms of noise interferences are avoided and that the original signal is preserved until it is converted again to analog at the headphone stage. Analog "FM" wireless headphones are noisy for obvious reasons, they don't have A/D-D/A conversion.
Again not really getting what you're saying here sorry.
I can see how analogue input would be useful for a pass-through to analogue-out on the transmitter...

But why not also digital-in for digital content (decoded or not) that can be passed straight to transmission,
and on to headphone DAC with no need for ADC in between?

Quote:
Or perhaps it's not possible to pass a Dolby decoded signal in digital format?
In which case why not have two inputs...
1) One digital for users that have no interest in passing Dolby decoded content, & hence can bypass the degrading ADC step, & jump straight to transmission.
2) And one analogue for users that want to pass a analogue signal (dolby decoded or not) from a quality DSP/DAC, straight to the transmitter's analogue-out.
OR straight to the ADC and then on to transmission for decoding by the headphones, so as to avoid the built-in implementation of SS.


Digital input is relevant only for audio source coded in digital format like DTS or Dolby digital. With digital input, it is still necessary for the base transmitter to have DTS or Dolby decoding hardware (and software) before conversion to another format understood by the transmission module. Therefore it is not as simple as adding a digital input and transmit the signal as it is.
I would personally prefer having a dedicated DTS/Dolby decoder device and feed the processed analog output to my wireless base transmitter instead of having a built-in DSP. This way I can always upgrade my wireless headphone system and choose the ones with the best SQ.
Digital inputs only being relevant for audio sources encoded in Dolby formats or similar doesn't sound right to me.
Digital inputs are often used to pass a signal that has no encoding to a superior analogue output stage w/no DSP.

Also assuming a decoded signal can be passed digitally, then there's no need to integrate a DSP.
Needing no ADC the decoded signal can jump straight to transmission, & from there be ready for (hopefully decent) analogue-out/amp.

I'm not meaning to argue with you, I just don't see all your points.

Thank-you.
post #58 of 448
Quote:
But assuming transmission's fine there's more than just SNR & THD to ensure quality analogue-out in the headphones themselves.
I mean those figures alone don't tell the whole picture right?
You are right, SNR & THD alone do not define the SQ of wireless headphones. It is very important that the acoustics of headphones comes up with an excellent SQ first even before the wireless system is integrated into the headphones.

Wireless system on the other hand must be able to reproduce the same audio quality from the source (player) down to the headphones. High SNR (signal to noise ratio), low distortion, flat reproduction of frequency response, excellent audio gain/level control, excellent power management and lossless transmission, are usually the key elements of a great wireless audio solution. Personally, I find Kleer technology as an excellent solution for headphones product application. Ofcourse this is only half the story until get to enjoy listening to RS 180 like I do .

Quote:
I'm sorry I don't really get you here?
It's my own way of checking if the wireless headphones I purchased is as good as a wired headphones without necessarily "hacking the system" . With wired headphones, you can adjust the volume of the player to near minimum level and you'll still be able to hear the music without noise artifacts. Doing the same thing on a wireless headphones will tell you another story. Most wireless devices I've used before have either hissing noise (using analog transmission system), popping noise or the annoying mid frequency tone which doesn't seen to disappear even if the volume is reduced to minimum.

Why I did this? The test simply tells me if I can enjoy watching TV (particularly dialogs without background music) without any form of noise riding on the wireless system especially when I want to boost the volume of my headphones.


Quote:
Again not really getting what you're saying here sorry.
I can see how analogue input would be useful for a pass-through to analogue-out on the transmitter...

But why not also digital-in for digital content (decoded or not) that can be passed straight to transmission,
and on to headphone DAC with no need for ADC in between?
If you are questioning whether ADC is still necessary for wireless audio transmission, my opinion is YES. It is a fact, all digital wireless headphones require ADC for analog pass-through.

It should be possible though to integrate the transmitter with a digital input feature with additional integrated circuit for digital interface between the input and the wireless module. Other wireless headphones may have this feature by default if the wireless module caters for digital input.

I hope I'm not getting very technical here...

Quote:
Digital inputs only being relevant for audio sources encoded in Dolby formats or similar doesn't sound right to me.
Digital inputs are often used to pass a signal that has no encoding to a superior analogue output stage w/no DSP.

Also assuming a decoded signal can be passed digitally, then there's no need to integrate a DSP.
Needing no ADC the decoded signal can jump straight to transmission, & from there be ready for (hopefully decent) analogue-out/amp.
It's a question of personal opinion rather than a statement of facts. I don't mind not having a digital input feature on my wireless transmitter if I can get an excellent audio reproduction using analog input. Besides, I do have DPL/DTS decoder separately (from my home theater box) where I can connect my RS 180 transmitter and still enjoy watching movie. So I'm not really interested buying an expensive Sony wireless headphones with great digital decoding capability but with unsatisfactory stereo SQ.

I hope I didn't confuse you enough .
post #59 of 448

Is this any help?

Just throwing my 2cents in.... I stumbled upon a site yesterday that has found reviews on all three of the new Sennheisers Looking for Concise headphone reviews? Then check out Best-Headphone-Review.com. I don't know how reputable they are, but based on what their hompage says it seems like at least a worthwhile read.
post #60 of 448
Not bad, but when it comes to the technical stuff that he supposedly knows, it sounds like he's "talking out of his arse" a bit...
Not backed-up with clear explanations, just vague wording/statements to make it seem like he knows what he's talking about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Sennheiser RS160, 170 ,180... Anyone?