[Razoramus]

What do you guys think of stereo and/or a/v ht receivers as amps for headphones? I put my KSC75s in my Onkyo TX-SR302B and Donna Lewis sounded fantastic coming from my Philips DVP642 via optical cable. I for once felt like the KSC75s were driven correctly to reveal how they were meant to be heard. I've never used a headphone amp and was wondering where receivers stand next to dedicated heaphone amps like the PA2V2 and such.

 

[GreatDane]

I have a Denon 2802 receiver and I'd prefer it over my PA2v2 because it has no problem driving my full size cans, I never use the Denon though. My only other portable amp(Micro) sounds better than my receiver imo...and my tube amp is in another world.

For my IEMs I think the PA2v2 might sound better than a receiver.I've found that my receiver does fine with low impedance monitors where my stand alone CD players choke with them (IEMs).

In general, a modern receiver should drive most cans fairly well bit IME they sound thin and lifeless.

 

[Andrea]

My cheap Pioneer A-209R (mosfet all-discrete 35W, an integrated not a receiver) is more than decent, it actually is very very good with the HD650. Better than more than one well respected headphone amp.

 

[kryss]

My Yamaha rx-v2400 drives the hd580s very well.

 

[fwojciec]

Vintage Marantz receivers are quite OK and drive all my headphones without any problems even if the tonal balance of their preamp section is questionable. They have monstrous bass

which makes them kind of fun to listen to.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec Vintage Marantz receivers are quite OK and drive all my headphones without any problems even if the tonal balance of their preamp section is questionable. They have monstrous bass which makes them kind of fun to listen to.

yeppers, my Marantz 2226 is nice and clean, and actually pairs well when i play vinyl since the vinyl warmth/solid state speed sort of cancel each other out and I get a comfortable listen with my cans.

 

[Inter]

My Marantz PM-66SE is not that far behind the Gilmore Lite if you ask me. Was very surprised by the headphone out on this amp.

 

[Jam_Master_J]

Most recievers have a high-impedance output. In my experience, it sounds dark and lifeless compared to a good amp. Only used the headphone out from Cambridge Audio Azur 540A though, others may be better.

 

[augustwest]

My vintage Marantz is highly competitve with the dedicated headphone amp that I have. In fact it is better with the Grados. With the Grados the senergy is just plain magical. Deep thundering bass, detailed but controlled highs, and that famous liquid Grado mid range. It couldn't be better!

The headphone amp has the edge with the Sennheisers, but not by all that much. So all things considered, the right vintage amp could be just the ticket for many <headfi-ers>. Especially those on a budget, who need a lot of features.

- augustwest

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by augustwest My vintage Marantz is highly competitve with the dedicated headphone amp that I have. In fact it is better with the Grados. With the Grados the senergy is just plain magical. Deep thundering bass, detailed but controlled highs, and that famous liquid Grado mid range. It couldn't be better! The headphone amp has the edge with the Sennheisers, but not by all that much. So all things considered, the right vintage amp could be just the ticket for many <headfi-ers>. Especially those on a budget, who need a lot of features. - augustwest

plus, you can grab one for under 100 bucks shipped on ebay - keep a lookout for the 2230B, word on the street is that's the sweet spot.

 

[Predator88]

I used to use my receiver until I got my pimeta. (I have some old jvc receiver from like the 70s). The receiver did sound good, but I find that my pimeta provides a much cleaner sound.

 

[hook]

I'm using the headphone out on an old NAD 1130 preamp to drive my headphones at home. Sounds good to me, but as I haven't heard many different cans and amps, I'm wondering if I'm missing something?

good listening,
Andrew

 

[Jbucla2005]

my vintage Luxman integrated sounds great with my DT-880's.

 

[augustwest]

"keep a lookout for the 2230B, word on the street is that's the sweet spot."

The price on this model has been on the rise lately, most likely because what Jahn say's is true and peolpe are seeing it as the true bargain that it is.

Here is some information, courtesy of Legendary Audio Classics on why the vintage Marantz units, even after all these years are so good.


Q: Why does a 35 watt Marantz sound better and louder than many 100 watt receivers?
A: Because 35 watts/channel as specified by Marantz in the 1970's meant...

" The unit can deliver 35 watts into 8 ohms for one hour, from all channels at the same time, with no significant change in distortion, or other specifications, at any time during, or after, the test hour."

...while 100 watts/channel today (for instance, in my JVC surround system) means...


" The unit can deliver 100 watts for a fraction of a second, in one channel only, if the other channels aren't running and nothing else high energy has happened to drain the power supply of stored energy in the last few seconds."

In fact, my JVC 5-channel Dolby surround receiver claims 500 watts RMS, but the power consumption label on the back panel tells the story:


320 Watts
If my JVC receiver was 100% efficient, meaning that every bit of power it took from the wall was delivered to the speakers as audio power (which it isn't), that'd give you only 64 watts a channel, about 2/3rds of the claimed power rating (which is 100 watts per channel, remember, 500 delivered as 100 per each of the five channels.)

But since the receiver can only (at best) convert about 50% of the available energy to the speakers, and the available energy is what is left over after the heat is generated (did I mention that this model JVC runs almost too hot to touch on top, even when making no sound at all?) and the watts that go to lighting the panel and powering all of the other circuitry are accounted for, the system can perhaps, when brand new, on a good day, generate 32 watts a channel continuously with all the channels going, which is pretty sorry compared to the claimed 100 watt per channel rating. That is less power per channel than an old 2235 receiver. Shocking, eh?

Turning it around, because of the way that the units were rated in the 1970's, that classic 2235 Marantz receiver, rated at 35 watts a channel, can dependably produce much more than 35 watts in both channels at the same time for a minute or two (far longer than the peaks in a modern receiver.) An honest rating for use with music for the power amplifiers of an older Marantz is generally in the range of 120% of rated power or even higher.

These ratings were instituted because of many false claims for power output that were being made using many different types of power measurement and general baloney at that time. IHF, RMS, Peak, Peak Music Power, Average, etc. RMS is what was settled on, and it's still widely used today, but the one hour rating was dropped some time back.

Interestingly, the situation that caused the RMS for one hour ratings to be made standard is now recurring - as I mentioned above, my JVC's ratings are pretty obviously designed to deceive the consumer to an extreme degree. Certainly there is no way that they can claim that those ratings paint an accurate picture of the amount of power the receiver can actually deliver in real world conditions - loud music and cinema surround takes a lot of power, in a lot of channels. Try listening to Jurassic Park... wait till the Tyrannosaur walks up behind you, or there is something exciting going on. Those 32 watts are pretty puny...

JVC isn't alone in this, however, many manufacturers you might think would be more honest in their claims are just as deceitful. For instance, my Sony car stereo suffers from the same kind of exaggeration: Right on the front it claims a very high wattage, but reading the manual, it turns out that the actual RMS power is far, far less than the front panel claims. I guess it's time for someone to step in again and slap these people around.

To the relatively straightforward power issue, you can add the fact that the design of the audio and RF circuitry in a Marantz is absolutely top-notch, and you can hear that in the character of what little distortion there is, in the way the bass, midrange and treble controls (and loudness contour and filters) affect the signals, in the way the FM signals come out sweet and clean, and so on. As an engineer, I really don't like to drop into using descriptive terms meant for food or lovemaking and so on for sound, but you know, when you A:B a Marantz against other units that are supposedly equivalent, the bottom line is it sounds better, and obviously so.

more more info go here:

< http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mfaq.html >

Happy listening!

- augustwest

 

[Mertseger]

Not all do. I've got an Arcam AVR250 which is just beautiful driving my speakers, but the headphone section is markedly poorer driving my DT880's than my GoVibe 4.0 at one twentieth the price.