[jalyst]

Also perhaps I'm missing something...
But isn't the quality of the analogue output that the transmitter plugs into irrelevant?

My understanding is that the transmitter will merely convert this output back to digital before transmitting, hence the final DAC occurs in the headphones themselves.

So why does the transmitter only offer a analogue (3.5mm stereo jack socket) input & not an optical in?
Or can 3.5mm stereo jack sockets input digital?

 

[jalyst]

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.

 

[jalyst]

Anyone see these last two posts?

If you see where my confusion stems from could you please clear things up for me? Thanks!

 

[Exact Sound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperx116 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is that where you bought it? I don't see the deal.

That's because I bought them already ... open box or I should say no retail box. They where the last ones. B-stock Outlet

I was told they were the ones the Headroom's photographer used for pictures posted online. Sony MDR-DS6000 - Digital Wireless Headphones | HeadRoom Audio

My Sony MDR-DS6000 wireless arrived today ..... they sound great compared to my old 900 mHz Sennhesiers. The background noise floor is stable enough to use for sppken word audio digital editing. Pandora listening is less fatiging than using the old Senns. They don't sound nearly as good and sweet as my old Sennheiser HD 540 refercne wired phones via a Headroom Total BitHead amp on a laptop but for wireless use - for causal music or TV veiwing they are very solid. Let just say they sound waaaaay better than Bose Triports.

Havent tried the 5.1 surround Dolby or DTS yet but the fit of the phones is an issue...for me at least?

They should be nutral in their angle when they are on ones noggin, my noggin to be exact, but there is lack of presure or gap in the front which causes me to loose bass and deatil since they don't make a proper seal. Most of the presure is applied behind my ears? They are not nuetral or float freely like most cans do. You can even see the angle in the pics @ Sony MDR-DS6000 - Digital Wireless Headphones | HeadRoom Audio My wife and son don't have this fit issue and they fit perfect on them - but they don't care at least not yet.

I wish there was some way to mod the ear peices to make them nuetral for me? Thus far this is my only regret.

The jury is out on their transmission range...I'll post this later.

If I can't get these to fit somehow I will sell them here or on eBay or possibly give them to my Dad who is 85 and leagally blind. The fiddle factor with these phones is very low and this is what make them a potential strong canidate for people who like simple devices. They drop into the charger base with no drama or fiddleing.

I'm looking at getting the Senn RS 160's next.

The HUGE pros I see for the RS 160 is the option of using batteries in the transmitter base and forgetting the wall-wart when you want to go mobile or use the base with another source in the house, office, garge, RV, maybe even a car etc. In comparison I have multiple base transmitters for my old school 900 mHz Senns that I have picked up off eBay stationed in various areas around the house depending on the source I want to listen to. Just moving the RS 160 base to where you need it seems like a great idea.

After reading through the Sennheiser wireless *.pdf files online I have come to the conclusion that all the Kleer wireless Sennheiser devices are interchangeable with all Kleer transmitters.

I'm not really sure why Sennheiser didn't make at least one of the Kleer units Dolby surround or DTS capable with digital optical and/or coaxial inputs? How long has Sony had the MDR-DS6000 in production? Sony now makes a Dolby 7.1 headphones phones outside the US market? Unless the audio quality of the RS 160, 170 and 180 is a solid generation better than the Sony MDR-DS6000 wireless....?

 

[jalyst]

To answer your question the 6000 has been around at least 2yrs & there's been two major revisions since it's release.
I'm not sure whether the stereo SQ & simulated surround has improved in that time, I would assume at the very least there hasn't been regressions.

Yeah it's a shame Sennheiser decided not to include any Dolby DSP in their transmitters or headphones.
But if simulated surround is really that important, and one is not happy with the 170's "non-DSP based" surround sound;

Well because they only take analogue-in, one can plug-in any DH decoder (AVR, stand-alone adapter etc) & they'll convert the decoded signal to digital, transmit it, decode to analogue in the headphones, & 'walla' DH surround!
If you have the 170 I'd imagine it's best not to have Bass-Boost and Senn. Surround on at the same time, up to you though.

By some accounts bass is already decent (particularly 170/180) without Bass-Boost, so no big loss there on the 180.
More bizarrely, this user claims they can pair a 180 with their 170 transmitter and the 180 becomes capable of Bass-Boost and Senn. surround.
I personally wouldn't bother buying the RS-170 system just to get Bass-Boost & SS, but others might.

I wouldn't buy the RS series for their simulated surround abilities period.....
I'd buy them if they provide the best stereo SQ (compared to other wireless headphones) & signal reliability currently available.
I'll be coming to a conclusion on that very soon here....
Their comfort is definitely good, & their build quality compared to others feels decent.

 

[jalyst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also perhaps I'm missing something... But isn't the quality of the analogue output that the transmitter plugs into irrelevant? My understanding is that the transmitter will merely convert this output back to digital before transmitting, hence the final DAC occurs in the headphones themselves. So why does the transmitter only offer a analogue (3.5mm stereo jack socket) input & not an optical in? Or can 3.5mm stereo jack sockets input digital?

I'll answer this myself...
I guess it's not entirely irrelevant because how good the source is (D or A) will impact the final DAC in the headphones.

But still I don't really get why they bother with:
SOURCE ---analogue---> Transmitter(ADC) ---digital---> HEADPHONES(DAC)
When they could do:
SOURCE ---digital---> Transmitter ---digital---> HEADPHONES(DAC)

Is it so that a superior analogue source can be passed straight through the transmitter (without tampering) to the RCA analogue-outs?

 

[jalyst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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....

Are we in agreement with this or can such connectors be used for digital in?

 

[jalyst]

anyone out there in headphone land?

 

[Exact Sound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are we in agreement with this or can such connectors be used for digital in?

The RS 160, 170 & 180 does in fact only use analog inputs. The way I understand it [I could be wrong] .... is the BIG advantage of a wireless headphone base accepting a digital signal is for DTS and Dolby digital decoding. The weak link is the audio reproduction down stream. This is the very reason wireless cans MAY in fact never match wired audiophile performance. Is it possible to get close I'm sure but the law of diminishing returns will soon come into effect. Then you will end up with a very costly system with modest gains in performance.

Last Sunday at church we had to endure a painful solo on a wireless mic. The sound system in general has gobs of wattage, probably more than most movie theaters, but the wireless mike didn't sound so hot. My wife commented on it a few days ago. Full throttle professional wireless mics are spendy I'm sure.

Frankly I'm skeptical of the imaging ability of my new Sony 6000's to even come close to my modest home theater 5.1 system. I'm looking forward to testing this next week. Great option to watch movies in a apartment....? Possibly. Not a huge issue for me...this type of use would be less than 1% of my total use.

I was editing last night on the Sony 6000's wireless and I'm hearing clicks and pop frankly similar to listening to vinyl records? Not entirely sure if they will work well for editing purposes. I have traded RF hash [old 900 mHz Senns] for faintish 2+ gHz pops and clicks on these Sonys. An improvement but I guess I will see how the Senn RS 160 will do. I found my self going back over content to check for clicks and pop on the digital recording. Probably added 5 min to 2.5 hours of editing. Really liked not have a cord to contend with but those faint clicks and pops?

At the rate I'm going by this time next year I'm sure I will of tested and eBay flipped more wireless headphones.


So ....In conclusion ... wireless headphones are a compromise...I hope the Senn RS Kleer units are few notches better than the SONY 6000 with MPEG-2 AAC.

 

[Exact Sound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst /img/forum/go_quote.gif anyone out there in headphone land?

I read that you have been researching this for 6 months. Just buy the RS 180's and be done with it already. Then you can tell us how you like them and how they sound compared to the wired cans you have used with XYZ headphone amps etc.

As for me.... I'm 98% certain I will get the RS 160's here in the next month or so. I'll post if I think they are worth it and what types of uses they are good for or NOT good for.

I think we are risking

in this thread.

 

[jalyst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exact Sound /img/forum/go_quote.gif The RS 160, 170 & 180 does in fact only use analog inputs. The way I understand it [I could be wrong] .... is the BIG advantage of a wireless headphone base accepting a digital signal is for DTS and Dolby digital decoding. The weak link is the audio reproduction down stream.

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 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!

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.

Quote:

This is the very reason wireless cans MAY in fact never match wired audiophile performance. Is it possible to get close I'm sure but the law of diminishing returns will soon come into effect. Then you will end up with a very costly system with modest gains in performance.

All else being equal (aside from wireless transmission V cords) ...
I think we're almost there in-terms of the human ear not being able to discern the difference.

The problem is economic, headphone companies still don't make "all else equal" because of cost constraints...
So we'll continue to pay more for wireless cans that have less quality (not because of their transmission medium) than their corded counterparts.
LT it may reach a certain critical mass whereby wireless is used so often that it's a similar SQ AND cost as equally specced corded cans.

Quote:

Frankly I'm skeptical of the imaging ability of my new Sony 6000's to even come close to my modest home theater 5.1 system. I'm looking forward to testing this next week. Great option to watch movies in a apartment....? Possibly. Not a huge issue for me...this type of use would be less than 1% of my total use.

The general consensus on the Sony surround implementation is that it's inferior to the few brands that do offer Dolby decoding (panasonic, pioneer etc).
Just read the dozens of reviews & commentaries about the place, I forget it's name, VPT I think from memory.
But as I said earlier you don't buy them for their surround abilities, you look at their stereo qualities.

Quote:

I was editing last night on the Sony 6000's wireless and I'm hearing clicks and pop frankly similar to listening to vinyl records? Not entirely sure if they will work well for editing purposes. I have traded RF hash [old 900 mHz Senns] for faintish 2+ gHz pops and clicks on these Sonys. An improvement but I guess I will see how the Senn RS 160 will do. I found my self going back over content to check for clicks and pop on the digital recording. Probably added 5 min to 2.5 hours of editing. Really liked not have a cord to contend with but those faint clicks and pops?

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.

Quote:

So ....In conclusion ... wireless headphones are a compromise...

Of course they are, & always will be to some extent...
Quote:

I hope the Senn RS Kleer units are few notches better than the SONY 6000 with MPEG-2 AAC.

Oh they will be....
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)

 

[jalyst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exact Sound /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think we are risking in this thread.

I don't think I am.

 

[Viperx116]

So I found this site through google checkout: Sennheiser RS170 Kleer wireless headphones with surround simulation and bass boost Your Price: $177.11 - AValive.com - 1-866-93PRO-AV (937-7628)

Has anyone used or heard of them? The 170 is $177 + $15 shipping. Don't know if I should risk it.

 

[Exact Sound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperx116 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I found this site through google checkout: Sennheiser RS170 Kleer wireless headphones with surround simulation and bass boost Your Price: $177.11 - AValive.com - 1-866-93PRO-AV (937-7628) Has anyone used or heard of them? The 170 is $177 + $15 shipping. Don't know if I should risk it.

That's fairly low risk as long as you are willing to eBay them if you need to exit.

 

[jalyst]

Never have, but I'm from Australia,
And being much smaller we don't have anywhere near the retail diversity Yankees do (assuming you are!)

Isn't there a site where you can check unknown retailers records?
resellerratings I believe it's called?

If it turns out they don't allow you to return (faulty or otherwise), then as ES said, Ebay's your friend!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperx116 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I found this site through google checkout: Sennheiser RS170 Kleer wireless headphones with surround simulation and bass boost Your Price: $177.11 - AValive.com - 1-866-93PRO-AV (937-7628) Has anyone used or heard of them? The 170 is $177 + $15 shipping. Don't know if I should risk it.