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 5

post #61 of 442
I'd give the guy a credit for summing up collective reviews of the wireless headphones.
Not clear though why only few wireless headphones appeared on the reviews. Or did he just listed the few best ones?
post #62 of 442
Oh I still do appreciate his efforts...
But when you honestly don't know or understand something entirely, it's best not to act as though you're an "old hand".
Not that I haven't done that before
post #63 of 442
I'm lookin' at the RS 180
post #64 of 442
I picked up some RS160's and RS180's the other day for use on my two TV's. I have the RS160's connected straight to the line out from my panasonic plasma in the lounge and the RS180's connected to an Astro Mixamp hooke dup to my ps3.

Liking them both so far. The wireless signal is hiss free, they are both comfortable to wear (the RS180's more so as they seem a little larger). I'm no audiophile but IMO they both sound very good. The RS180's seem superior to the RS160's. They are much richer and fuller sounding, that may partly be due to the source though.

Anyway I don't think you can go wrong with either of them if you are after some quality wireless action.
post #65 of 442
Well, I just bought some HD 650 . So I'll put off getting wireless for awhile, but I'm still interested.

Thank you for all of your posts. This is a great thread!
post #66 of 442

Optical/Analog Mic/Line Input Jack

Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
I haven't read through it thoroughly yet but this seems to suggest that a 3.5mm stereo jack socket (as described in the manual & AKA blue 3.5mm TRS connector) is in-fact used for analogue stereo in. (as I suspected)

That being the case the transmitter only takes an analogue in....

Why on earth do this when they could've done digital-in via optical & not bothered with conversion to digital before transmission etc?
Is it so that a superior analogue source can be passed straight through the transmitter (without tampering) to the RCA analogue-outs?

Yikes 4am, good-night.
The M-AUDIO Transit Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) has an "Optical/Analog Mic/Line Input Jack", a single jack that can take either optical or analog inputs (see item 3 in the picture) - very cool. The image below give the description in the manual.
LL
post #67 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by watusi View Post
I picked up some RS160's and RS180's the other day for use on my two TV's. I have the RS160's connected straight to the line out from my panasonic plasma in the lounge and the RS180's connected to an Astro Mixamp hooke dup to my ps3.
astro mixamp is precisely what I've been planning to get to bring simulated surround to the 180's.

It and the JVC SU-DH1 (w/ ac adapter) were the main contenders for me.
What made you chose it over the JVC SU-DH1?

Thanks.
post #68 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by aabottom View Post
The M-AUDIO Transit Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) has an "Optical/Analog Mic/Line Input Jack", a single jack that can take either optical or analog inputs (see item 3 in the picture) - very cool. The image below give the description in the manual.
Thanks for trying to help but I'm not sure how this device is useful.
The 180's already have a ADC built into the transmitter, plus if you used this, where on the transmitter would you plug the now digital source?
post #69 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
Thanks for trying to help but I'm not sure how this device is useful.
The 180's already have a ADC built into the transmitter, plus if you used this, where on the transmitter would you plug the now digital source?

Yeah sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the Transit could be used for wireless headphones.

I was just pointing out that it has a single 1/8" jack that inputs analog or digital. I'm not sure how it works. As we understand it, the RS 160-170-180 DO NOT have this feature, but it is possible to incorporate it in audio devices.
post #70 of 442
Oh I see what you were getting at....
Yeah that's why I was asking the qns I was, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible, or why you'd want to avoid it as an option entirely.
Perhaps it mainly just comes down to cost constraints?
post #71 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
Oh I see what you were getting at....
Yeah that's why I was asking the qns I was, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible, or why you'd want to avoid it as an option entirely.
Perhaps it mainly just comes down to cost constraints?
You must be right, I couldn't disagree more....
post #72 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaylotc View Post
You must be right, I couldn't disagree more....
No offence but your rationale just didn't make sense to me.
I appreciate you trying to provide one, but it didn't strike me as the full explanation.
I'll be more specific about which points later, I just haven't had time lately.
post #73 of 442
To be clear, I did agree on your statement that the cost constraints could be the key reason why digital input is not a default option for a wireless transmitter.
Note sure what sort of full explanation you need here...
post #74 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaylotc View Post
To be clear, I did agree on your statement that the cost constraints could be the key reason why digital input is not a default option for a wireless transmitter.
If that's the case how come you said:
You must be right, I couldn't disagree more...
Was it just a typo?

Quote:
Note sure what sort of full explanation you need here...
I'm referring to one or two of your responses to my questions/concerns from earlier on, I will address them later.
post #75 of 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
Was it just a typo?
Typo mistake, I meant "agree", not "disagree".
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?