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)