Originally Posted by jgray91
Obviously the answer is 'both', and 'right now'.
Originally Posted by bowei006
I used to have a Denon Receiver ($600) and now another $600 Yamaha Receiver downstairs. Price on these units don't corelate to SQ of course and I have also never tried either way.Too builky to lug upstairs and connect and get working.
Well I have used many receivers, Old analogue only Onkyos (not vintage), modern Yamaha, modern Onkyo, about a 6 year old Sony, vintage Marantz 2270.
The Yamaha was actually a good pairing and decent source for AKGs (k242hd and k550) because its dark, I would be happy with it for starters. The Onkyo's are great for movies with speakers, both old and new, but they are bass heavy and lacklustre sound quality. And the Audessy EQ on the new unit is phenomenal when your speakers are placed wonkily, like seriously. But both suck for headphones.
The Marantz has a reputation, being a vintage refurb, and except for the very slight hum on the right channel with my D7000 it really was good, but I still think I can get better. With the k242hd and the HD650 it was heaven. It really suits the more inefficient and higher voltage cans well. FYI AFAIK this is an amp that uses the speaker out and a resistive network to drive the headphone out.
the Sony sucked like ****.
Originally Posted by Argyris
I've always read that receivers don't tend to have great headphone outputs since a lot of them just tap into and pad down the output from the power amp section. My experience pretty much agrees with this, though of course my stable of receivers is a tiny sample and probably isn't representative of the whole picture.
I've got two vintage models (a Kenwood KR-6030 and a Cambridge Audio Model 2500) and a circa-2000 Philips HT receiver. The Kenny matches very poorly with my DT880 (hissy output and bloated, loose bass--probably an impedance mismatch) but does okay with my SRH440 (44 ohms vs 250 ohms for the DT880). Both reveal the slightly warm tint and relaxed treble of the Kenny's sound.
It's difficult to say how well either does with the Cambridge on account of its filter caps being completely shot, resulting in a constant buzz in the background. Interestingly, despite the buzz, the Cambridge had excellent synergy with a modified Grado SR225i, and much headbanging resulted. The Cambridge has a "fun" sound (slightly boosted midbass and treble).
The Philips does okay with both my headphones, but it's kind of nondescript sounding, with slight roll off at both ends and a seeming lack of dynamics. I'd say it's the most neutral sounding pairing, but also the most boring and least engaging. It's also not very powerful, requiring a lot more volume to get the DT880 up to a reasonable level.
Was any of this relevant? Probably not, but I said it, and we're supposed to be off topic now that Doh!cember has been suggested, so there you go.
tl;dr: Receivers probably aren't quite as bad for headphones as their reputation suggests, but overall you're still better off getting something designed specifically for headphones. Some receivers have dedicated headphone amp sections, but I haven't come across one of those personally.
off topic is topic :P
Originally Posted by Doc-holliday
I am seriously contemplating getting the Onkyo A-5VL.
Their "audiophile grade" level of stuff. Looks really nice and beefy inside. Dual flagship burr browns.
I dunno, personally Onkyo is not an audio brand for me. I will haveto hear it. but it does not look bad. Then again I won't be able to buy an amp with a notable flaw - with these its midrange from what I read, one guy that started a thread just liked it with the DT880 because of its power on tap, not necessarily quality, he gave that to the Teac.
Originally Posted by bowei006
Is this correct placement?
funny as ****. If I wasn't after teh Currawong pic for next month I would jump all over this.
Edited by WiR3D - 11/20/12 at 9:27am