las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan, I guess it depends upon what you consider "high-end sound". Personally I
> don't consider sound that does not produce the "physical effect" to be high
> end. I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I really don't enjoy the feeling
> of the sound being in my head.
>
> That's the way headphones seem to me, like the music is in my head instead of
> all around me. Even these systems that use small speakers and one "subwoofer"
> don't impress me. Bose is big on this type of arrangement. They have these
> relatively expensive systems that use these tiny little drivers for the highs
> and pretty small boxes for the mid and I don't know what.
Well, in a nutshell, Bose suck. I think we agree on that ;) Moving on...
A lot of people would disagree with you that audio without the physical
impact of deep bass is not high end. Buying audio is a compromise. Only the
very best systems in the world (which cost a lot of money) can give you
everything: flat response, accuracy, soundstage, precision, imaging,
realism. Contrary to popular belief, *good* bass is one of the most
difficult aspects to produce. Most speakers either don't have the extension,
or simply aren't accurate. You can get some less expensive speakers that
exaggerate the bass (and will give you "physical" effect) but I would rather
have weak bass than bad bass. Also, bass is the most expensive part of the
spectrum to produce -- it requires bigger drivers, bigger enclosures, and
the most power by far. So in terms of loudspeaker-based systems, it is often
the part of the spectrum that gets left behind. And many of the systems that
decide to forgo any attempt at producing deep bass are without a doubt
"high-end."
As for the "inside my head" sound, that's historically been a criticism of
headphone systems -- and often a very valid one. However, there are two
caveats: 1) a good headphone setup, that includes a *good* pair of
headphones and a quality headphone amp (the amps in portables and in any
receiver just don't cut it) has far less of that in-the-head sound than most
people are used to; and 2) if you get an amp that has a very good crossfeed
filter, you would be simply amazed at how much the sound can be "outside"
the head.
Here is a good article on the phenomenon you mentioned, and how a good
dedicated headphone amp can overcome much of it:
<http://www.headphone.com/EditorialHeadphone/WhitePaper.asp>
While such technology will never be perfect, it makes headphone listening a
true "audiophile" possibility.
>I think that for $550 (USD) I could find an amp or receiver and two
>speakers that to me personally, I would consider higher quality sound
>than the headphones. The price of receivers has dropped so much that
>I think I could find a pair of speakers for $300 and a receiver for
>$250 that would, for me, give me what I consider higher quality sound
>than a pair of headphones.
If the main requirement is "feeling the bass in my body," then I agree that
you could. However, if your main requirement was all-around good and
accurate sound, I think you're mistaken. It seems to me (and this is simply
an observation, larry, not any sort of criticism) that you haven't really
heard a good headphone setup before. Your initial response to a couple of us
was that $300 was ridiculous for a pair of headphones. And your responses
since then indicate that you don't feel headphones are a serious way of
listening to music. I think if you ever had a chance to listen to a good
source through a set of Sennheiser HD-600s and a Headroom amp, you might
change your mind...
>Receivers that would have cost $500 a few years ago are turning up at
>places like Sam's Club (only the newer receivers not only include
>Dolby Digital, but DTS) for about $250.00. Is my $900 Onkyo DTS
>receiver really going to offer me higher quality sound than the $250
>unit? Or is it just that it has a lot more surround options and
>inputs. OK, the THX certification is suppose to "insure" me of certain
>standards. But would I really be able to tell the difference between
>it and the cheaper receiver if I was only using it in the stereo mode
>with the same speakers on both systems?
I'm an audio-only person, so I don't buy equipment with all the A/V bells
and whistles. If I'm going to compare a $250 amp with a $995 amp, it's going
to be comparing two 2-channel amps and how much different they sound
listening to music.
BTW, the THX standard has nothing to do with 2-channel audio. It's based on
theater audio standards. So a THX-certified A/V amp may actually be a
horrible amp for listening to normal 2-channel audio.
>Now if you let me go just a little higher so that I have a little
>more to spend on speakers and can buy the Polks that I like, I know
>it would blow away your headphones :)
You can have the Polks ;) Those Polks can't hold a candle to the HD-600s
except that they give you the physical bass impact that headphones can't.
While you're "feeling" your Polks, I'll be listening to parts of music
you'll never even be able to hear ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
