[Czilla9000]

I don't want to get into a debate about "passive vs. active" but for those looking to power the HD600s or other phones on the cheap, go into your local RatShack and get a 'Gold Series Headphone Extension Cord with Volume Control" for 5 dollars. I perfer it to my SuperMini V2. (PS - If you don't have a mini output you will need a male RCA to female mini cable but it is still cheap.)


Hope I could help.

 

[imported_maverick_12]

weeee. 300dollar headphones, 5dollar amp. sounds like the best plan I've ever heard in my life

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by maverick_12 weeee. 300dollar headphones, 5dollar amp. sounds like the best plan I've ever heard in my life

actually there is no amplification involved, so the term "amp" isn't implied correctly. such an INGENIUS idea too..

 

[AIM9x]

been discussed, been done, not another amp vs basic attenuation debate.

 

[taoster]

ive recently finished building my DIY attenuator.
The parts alone costed me $30+ all up. In that regards, I am quite amazed how value for money an altoid cmoy, meta, supermini etc etc are.

 

[terrymx]

its hard enough for me to find a decent battery powered headphone amp under $100, now you want a $5 amp that drive a hd-600?

 

[Knocturnal]

Like every one else said, that 5 dollar thing is not an amp, its a worthless piece of plastic. Get yourself a real amp and you will be happy.

 

[Czilla9000]

The "worthless piece of plastic" is much more simpler (has less in the path) than a "real" amp. Also, do not dis something untill you have heard it.


You are right in that it is not a real amp, but you can control the volume without having the signal go through hundreds of caps, opamps, and such.


I realize that a Max would be perferable, but for $5 you can't go wrong.

 

[doobooloo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Czilla9000 The "worthless piece of plastic" is much more simpler (has less in the path) than a "real" amp. Also, do not dis something untill you have heard it. You are right in that it is not a real amp, but you can control the volume without having the signal go through hundreds of caps, opamps, and such. I realize that a Max would be perferable

Yes, the Max would be preferable, and it also "makes the signal go through hundreds of caps, opamps, and such."

Quote:

but for $5 you can't go wrong.

Actually, for just $5 it's a lot lot easier to go wrong.

 

[JaZZ]

Hey people...

...you make nothing but biased and unqualified statements about the «worthless piece of plastic». At least there's one person who appreciates this simple method to regulate the volume of a source and not to degrade the source signal by adding useless amplification stages to the signal path. Please let us all know what exactly is wrong by doing this and what an amp does better!

 

[AIM9x]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ Please let us all know what exactly is wrong by doing this and what an amp does better!

Quote:

Originally posted by AIM9x been discussed, been done, not another amp vs basic attenuation debate.

Let's not!

 

[markl]

Is this for real? Surely you jest. Can I get a stepped attenuator on the extension cable? Hmmm... maybe it has too many "useless" parts in it!

I take it if the Super-mini is your "reference" headamp, I would guess you haven't heard what a real amp can do.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by AIM9x Let's not!

I don't really expect any reasonable arguments from people who reject an idea just because it's simple, cheap and extravagant. On the other hand I don't expect the Radioshack attenuator to do wonders, but it possibly degrades the original signal less than most amps that cost a hundredfold and more. Of course there must be said that not all sources are suited to drive headphones directly.

What's your motivation to ignore or even block a topic to which you haven't contributed so far? Please explain what's wrong with the direct-path idea, save that it's boring and useless in your opinion!


Quote:

Originally posted by markl I take it if the Super-mini is your "reference" headamp, I would guess you haven't heard what a real amp can do.

Well, I have. But the question is what's «real» with what a «real» amp does with the sound. I know you don't really care - what sounds «better» is better to you. But have you in turn ever really heard the direct path?

 

[radrd]

This should be close to the top of the top ten "Head-Fi's stupid arguments that two or three forum members will not let go" list.

 

[AIM9x]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ What's your motivation to ignore or even block a topic to which you haven't contributed so far? Please explain what's wrong with the direct-path idea, save that it's boring and useless in your opinion!

Reason 1
Reason 2

This isn't the first time Czilla9000 has bitched about how he believes direct attenuation is better than amplification. Frankly, i don't give a damn.

Jazz, please pull your head out of your ass. I quoted you saying "Please let us all know what exactly is wrong by doing this and what an amp does better!" This discussion has been had often and Czilla keeps posting about it. He didn't want this to be a debate, and neither do I. I never said that I believe direct attenuation is "boring and useless." In fact, I haven't said a single ****ing thing about it. I am just tired of Czilla's rants. No matter what anybody says here to defend amps, Czilla is going to start another one of these threads a month from now. Don't criticize me, and don't put words in my mouth again, you worthless pathetic excuse for intelligent life.