[elnero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phraxos /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm, fair enough. Mind you this ranking is tailored to someone building a first-time rig, indicating what they should prioritize acquiring (and at a fairly low budget at that). While I do rank them, I believe all components are all essentially equally crucial because they each rely and improve on one another. I suppose my misstep was the word "important" - really it should be "what to get first/next/last." I am suggesting an ordering that gives the biggest jumps in SQ first. High impedance 'phones will sound terrible no matter what the source if under-amped, while low impedance phones will get a bigger improvement from a good source then not-entirely-necessary amping (and I do mention low-impedance can owners get source first). For those reasons I stand by my ranking of sorts, but again, they really are all crucial. Does that clear things up for you? There was bound to be controversy =)

Fair enough and I agree with your points about under powering high impedance phones but I also look at the other side, without a decent source as a base to start from it's harder to build a decent rig. I'm not trying to start an argument just point out there's no hard and fast rule which is more important or how to go about building a system as well as point out that source is more responsible for the overall sound than many give it credit for.

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by facelvega /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll support Phraxos on this one. Once you have a good system in place, source becomes much more important than before, but until you do, it's silly to invest on that end because the improvements you buy would not be audible and are in fact not cost-effective. I think the mantra "crap in, crap out" has led as many people astray as it has helped.

To each his own but I stand by my statement that source is more important than people on HF seem to give it credit for. Look around at the systems some people have, I've seen people with multi-hundred, heck multi-thousand dollar amps using an iPod or low to mid-level cd or DVD player as a source. Again, I'm not saying that source first is necessarily a hard and fast rule but from experience I can tell you that a good source can make the world of difference.

For example, awhile back I owned a MiniMax CD player and used it's onboard headamp. It is an opamp based amplifier probably in line with a decent portable and I was reasonably happy with this system but became enamored with the HeadAmp GS-1 when I had a chance to audition it in this system, it was a scary good combo with the RS-1's I owned the time. Problem was I couldn't afford to own both the MiniMax and the GS-1. Although I should have known better I thought I might be able to sell the MiniMax and go with a cheaper DAC out of my DVD player paired with the GS-1. The new combo was ok but bass was bloated and slower, details were masked, the overall balance was off, it was nothing near the magic the MiniMax had with the GS-1. The point of this story? If I had bought the GS-1 while I only had the DAC/DVD player setup I would probably have been fairly disappointed overall with it but having heard it with the MiniMax previously I knew what it could sound like thus saw the error of my ways.

 

[ph0rk]

back to the op:

if it was me and I only had $300, I'd go dt-770 pro-80 and a mini^3.

a great combo.

 

[soundsound]

I had Koss phones about ten years ago - can't recall the model number, but from the picture on the Koss website, I am fairly certain it was the a/250 model. Although I was/am a novice, I decided right then that there was no better way to listen to music than through headphones.

Unfortunately, those headphones have since been fully digested by my dog...But ten years down the road as it came time to pair my entertainment arena - DVD, iTunes(laptop, ipod) and xbox360 - with a new set of surround sound I decided to opt for a nice headphone setup instead. A little research on this site both convinced me and confused me. I am trying to get my bearings, get a decent starter system that can handle everything listed above(if possible), and also have room to upgrade.

I don't wish to fuel the "what is most important component" discussion, but from a startup standpoint, which piece will give me the best base to build on while performing well given given the other components that will suffer from a budget standpoint?

Lastly, thanks to Phraxos for putting together the intro guide. Regardless of order, I appreciate you taking the time to put it together and it is a good reference for all of the info I was looking for.

 

[Phraxos]

Headphones + 0404 USB. It's a D.A.C. with an internal amp - a source and amp in one. When you upgrade, get a dedicated amp and then just use it as a source. Cheap (search on froogle.com, the cheapest are almost at 150) and very good for the money.

 

[soundsound]

The holidays brought me 595's and an 0404 usb, so far I am am second guessing this...

Keep in mind I literally just plugged these in, but the sound is not exactly 'full'. It is not that there is a hollow or distant sound to the music, but just not complete.

Here is where I am at - EAC - Foobar .0.8.3 - USB 0404 - 595's. Am i just going through the burn in process, or may I have made an amature mistake(s).

 

[cerbie]

Could be burn-in, or it could be the sound of the headphones. I'm not a fan of Senns, and like the AKGs I've heard (but, I'm cheap, and they didn't offer great performance/$ to me

).

But, give it some time--at least 20 hours, some of which you can do without listening. The drivers need to burn in, and you also will get more acclimated to the sound (a psychological burn-in effect).

If you don't like after awhile, sell (or return, depending on policy of where you bought them, and how long it's been) the cans and try something else. Aside from the KSC75 being the best value, by far, there's no capital-T Truth in terms of what is better than something else. If there were, this forum would be far less busy, and replies would point you to stickies about this stuff.