Re: MD: Earphones

[Mike Lastucka]

>Thanks to all the people who replied to my post concerning earphones for 
>use
>with a portable MD player.  This week I received my Sennheiser MX500
>earphones that I had on order at a local shop.  These earphones sound 
>really
>good, and are a bargain for the $40 (that's Australia$, only $20 US).  
>There
>is an amazing difference between the sound of these new earphones and the
>ones that came with my MZR-900.  Deeper base, clearer trebble, and a more
>natural sound.  I definitely recommend these Sennheisers from portable MD
>use.

Myself, I use Sony MDR-EX70SPs, those funky ones that fit inside your ear 
canal.  REAL good sound out of those things.  Blows away pretty much anyone 
let listen to my MD player. :)


---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

MD: Earphones

[Tim Pitman]

Thanks to all the people who replied to my post concerning earphones for use
with a portable MD player.  This week I received my Sennheiser MX500
earphones that I had on order at a local shop.  These earphones sound really
good, and are a bargain for the $40 (that's Australia$, only $20 US).  There
is an amazing difference between the sound of these new earphones and the
ones that came with my MZR-900.  Deeper base, clearer trebble, and a more
natural sound.  I definitely recommend these Sennheisers from portable MD
use.

Tim

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones for MD

[Mike Lastucka]

>For closed earphones, the only "decent" ones for less than $50 are the Koss
>UR-20, which retail for around $25. For around $35 you can get the UR-30
>which are the same thing but fold up for portable use. Go up to $60 and you
>can get the Sony V6 (NOT the V600), which are significantly better (and 
>also
>fold up for travel). Spend around $90-$100 and you can get the Denon 750 
>(or
>the 950 for around $130). Or you can spend $250 or so for the Beyer 831.
>However, the Denon 950 and the Beyer require a dedicated headphone amp.
>
>Hopefully that gives you a l'il something for every budget ;)

Well for me I picked up a pair of those Sony "nude ex" ones, and they're 
fantastic.  I've been very satisfied with the sound, and how comfortable 
these things are (listening to music on them as I type, actually).

ml


---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones for MD

[Dan Frakes]

"Mike Lastucka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I prefer the closed type.  Especially at work. :)  They do an
> excellent job of blocking out ambient noise.  Definitely wouldn't wear them
> while driving, and you definitely have to be more aware of your environment
> when out and about walking and such. :)

For closed earphones, the only "decent" ones for less than $50 are the Koss
UR-20, which retail for around $25. For around $35 you can get the UR-30
which are the same thing but fold up for portable use. Go up to $60 and you
can get the Sony V6 (NOT the V600), which are significantly better (and also
fold up for travel). Spend around $90-$100 and you can get the Denon 750 (or
the 950 for around $130). Or you can spend $250 or so for the Beyer 831.
However, the Denon 950 and the Beyer require a dedicated headphone amp.

Hopefully that gives you a l'il something for every budget ;)

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones for MD

[Mike Lastucka]

>others? Or do you want to be able to hear the outside world? Keep in mind
>that in *general* open cans sound better.

Personally I prefer the closed type.  Especially at work. :)  They do an 
excellent job of blocking out ambient noise.  Definitely wouldn't wear them 
while driving, and you definitely have to be more aware of your environment 
when out and about walking and such. :)


---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones for MD

[Dan Frakes]

on 6/18/01 4:44 PM, Bard, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I saw a post concerning B & O earphones, and it just so happens that
>I tried a pair which a friend had today. I thought they sounded very
>good. I'm not sure what the model was, but may have been A6 or A8.

Those B&O headphones look really cool but their sound is very average. Which
means that for the price, they are a horrible deal ;)
 
>I am looking for very high quality sound and wonder what you would
>recommend.

As I mentioned in a post a few days ago, before we can recommend anything,
you need to answer a few questions:

1) Do you have a preference in terms of earbud vs. circumaural (on-the-ear)
vs. supra-aural (around-the-ear) headphones?

2) Do you want "open" or "closed" headphones? In other words, do you want
'phones that block out external sound and keep your music from disturbing
others? Or do you want to be able to hear the outside world? Keep in mind
that in *general* open cans sound better.

3) Do you have any preferences in terms of how you like your music to sound?
Accurate? More bass? More treble?

If you answer these, we can help you pick some really great 'phones for your
budget.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* Dan Frakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  on Fri, 15 Jun 2001
| As for the Sharp jacks that are impedance-sensing, while they may not sound
| as good as a dedicated line out, they are much better than a simple
| headphone jack. You can still use those jacks to hook your portable up to a
| good headphone amp, and you will still hear a significant difference.

What I do.  Even if the headphones don't need an amp they sound better with
one.  Bass is more solid and highs are crisper.  #1 reason I don't
regularly carry either my R90 or R900 instead of my Sharp 722 is because
they don't remember that they're on line out and it cannot be set from the
remotes.
-- 
Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ 
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Dan Frakes]

las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Once the signal is passed through the crappy internal headphone amp
>of a portable unit, the damage has been done. Plugging that signal
>into the best separate headphone amp isn't going to remove the
>distortion that the crappy one has created.

Well, to some extent that's true. That's why people who are serious about
headphones buy units that have a dedicated line-out.

As for the Sharp jacks that are impedance-sensing, while they may not sound
as good as a dedicated line out, they are much better than a simple
headphone jack. You can still use those jacks to hook your portable up to a
good headphone amp, and you will still hear a significant difference.

>IF you want the best possible sound, first you have to get yourself a
>top notch pair of headphones. That goes without saying. But second,
>you should invest in a good separate headphone amp and not use the
>headphone out that is built into your amp or receiver. Use the line
>out as you would for any other component.

Exactly.

>I'll bet that even on a a decent grade receive in in the $900 range,
>if they have a headphone jack, the amp is an after thought. If a good
>headphone amp sells for several hundred dollars by itself, I doubt
>you are going to find one, in a $900 receiver. Probably not even in a
>$2000.00 unit.

In fact, there is not a single component amp/receiver I have heard of that
actually has a high-quality headphone amp built-in. Some are definitely
better than others, but you're 100% correct, Larry -- most headphone jacks
are simply an afterthought, use cheap components, and do not provide enough
power to drive a good set of cans.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Francisco J. Huerta]

That's the weirdest thing about Etymotics. The sound is so incredibly
accurate, yet your body has no feeling whatsoever of it.

Whenever I am concentrated in listening to them, I can actually feel my
inner ear move, something that I cannot do voluntarily, and that I had never
felt. I guess my brain is *very* confused when I listen to Etys. I can only
assume my full size Sennheisers can transmit quite a bit of vibration,
because I've never felt anything like that with them.

As to which I prefer... well, the HD-580s + X-Can V2 are quite a
combination. But the Etys are simply sublime. I am so happy I don't have to
prefer either one of them =)

Francisco.

- Original Message -
From: "las" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Earphones


>
> Len Moskowitz wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you've never heard a well-recorded binaural recording played
> > back over decent quality headphones -- if you had you wouldn't have said
> > that.  It's about as realistic a recording as you can make, and the
> > sound comes from all around you.
>
> Len, how are you doing?  I'm the dentist for PA that has e mailed you in
the
> past.  Depending upon the venue and the type of music, there may be a
> certain amount of the sound that is felt with your entire body as well as


-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Len Moskowitz wrote:

> Perhaps you've never heard a well-recorded binaural recording played
> back over decent quality headphones -- if you had you wouldn't have said
> that.  It's about as realistic a recording as you can make, and the
> sound comes from all around you.

Len, how are you doing?  I'm the dentist for PA that has e mailed you in the
past.  Depending upon the venue and the type of music, there may be a
certain amount of the sound that is felt with your entire body as well as
heard with your ears.

Deaf people can sometimes "feel" portions of music, even though they can not
"hear" them.  The best analogy that I could think of is the senses of taste,
smell and even sight.  People might assume that you taste things because you
have taste buds in your mouth.

But if you can not smell the food, it will not taste the same to you.  In
addition, even the color of the flavor effects taste to a certain extent.  I
learned this way back when I was a Pharmacy college student.

If you see something green, you do not expect it to taste like grape.
Something that is grape flavored should have a purple color to it.  You can
use the reverse example for lime.

It just throws your sense of taste off balance.  Heinz recently released
green Ketchup!!  It is a dark green that looks like the cheap enamel paint
that was used for the trim on the exterior of an old building.

I was at a recent family cookout where my niece had bought some.  Many of
the adults refused to use it.  They simply could not look at this green
paint and accept that it was going to taste like Ketchup.

As I have stated many times before, I have the highest regard for you and
your knowledge.  I frequently suggest that people on this list contact you
at Core Sound because of your knowledge of microphones, making recordings
and cables.

But this is one time where I feel that no matter how good the recording,
electronics and headphones, it is still not going to give me the sensation
that I get with a good stereo system and high quality speakers.

You know that the venue where you are recording is going to require
different types of microphones and their placement.  A giant arena isn't
going to have the same "feel' to the music as a 4 piece chamber ensemble.

So to make matters even more complex, depending upon the type of music and
the place where it was recorded, it may at times be essential to have at
least one rear speaker that has the ambient sound on it.  Ideally the
recording of a large concert hall should be played back with even more
speakers along the sides and back, each which has a discrete signal
recorded  using a separate mike at different lengths of the room.

Obviously, in the home environment this is usually not practical and it
certainly becomes a very complex situation for the recording engineer.
Depending upon the length of the concert hall, you might need a dozen
separate tracks to achieve this.

Also, somewhere along the line someone decided that deep bass is non
directional.  I think this to is an over simplification.  Compare a stereo
system with one sub woofer to one with a right and left placed sufficiently
far enough apart and where each speaker is only getting a discrete signal
from from the channel (rt or it) it is placed on.

I think that people with good ears and a decent sense of feel will notice a
difference between the two systems.

One last thing.  Again at some point someone decided that the range of human
hearing was from 20 to 20,000 cps.  Was this done after extensive testing?
Were they not able to find people who could hear beyond this range (I'm sure
that they found people who could not hear the full range)?

Or did they find that the percentage of people that can hear beyond this
range was so small as to make them statistically insignificant?  We
constantly accept things at face value without ever knowing how these
"facts' were arrived at.  Like "normal body temperature of a human is 98.6
degrees F".

What that really means is that for the vast majority of people, this is
their temperature when they are well.  But some very healthy people run a
little hot or cold.  That doesn't make them abnormal, just statistically
different.

Regards,
Larry Sherry

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Dan Frakes wrote:

> 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.

Dan,
If you are listening to your headphones using a good stereo system or the line out
of a portable, that may very well be so.  The problem is that when it comes to
portables, many of them "force" you to use the headphone amp in them.  They do not
have a separate line out (I think Sharp was one of the pioneers of this approach).

While they may be "intelligent" enough to sense whether it is being plugged into a
pair of headphones or a line in of some other device and match the impedance, you
are still going through their headphone amp.  If you adjust the bass, you will hear
the change even if you have the portable plugged into a $10,000 audio system.

Once the signal is passed through the crappy internal headphone amp of a portable
unit, the damage has been done.  Plugging that signal into the best separate
headphone amp isn't going to remove the distortion that the crappy one has created.

I guess it should also be a warning to anyone who likes to listen to their music
through headphones.  IF you want the best possible sound, first you have to get
yourself a  top notch pair of headphones.  That goes without saying.  But second,
you should invest in a good separate headphone amp and not use the headphone out
that is built into your amp or receiver.  Use the line out as you would for any
other component.

I'll bet that even on a a decent grade receive in in the $900 range, if they have a
headphone jack, the amp is an after thought.  If a good headphone amp sells for
several hundred dollars by itself, I doubt you are going to find one, in a $900
receiver.  Probably not even in a $2000.00 unit.

I'm sure that professional recording studios use separate headphone amps.

Larry

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Dan Frakes]

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:



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 Pol

Re: MD: Earphones

[Len Moskowitz]

las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's the way headphones seem to me, like the music is in my head
  instead of
> all around me. ...

Perhaps you've never heard a well-recorded binaural recording played
back over decent quality headphones -- if you had you wouldn't have said
that.  It's about as realistic a recording as you can make, and the
sound comes from all around you.

Send us a blank MD and we'll be happy to send you a copy of our Sampler
MD so you can hear for yourself.


Len Moskowitz Binaural and StealthMics (tm), Cables,
Interfaces
Core Soundhttp://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey   http://www.core-sound.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Dan Frakes wrote:

> You're correct that headphones can't produce the physical effect that
> full-range speakers can.  But if you can do without that effect, for the
> money, headphones offer far better "bang for the buck." For $550, you can't
> really get a good amp and speakers to hook up to your CD player that will
> provide you with high-end sound. But you can buy a Sennheiser HD600 and a
> Musical Fidelity X-CANSv2 headphone amp that will give you simply amazing
> sound.

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.

If the so called subwoofers are true subwoofers their little boxes have to carry
not only the mid range but a lot of the bass also.  They are just not good
enough to do that.  And if the subwoofer is really more of a woofer, a) it's a
pretty poor excuse for one and b) there should be two of them.

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.

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?  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 :).



-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Dan Frakes]

las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For me headphones are only for "desperate listening". In other words
>places were it is totally impossible to have a full speaker system.
>
>Sound is not just heard with your ears, it is felt by your whole
>body. I feel that you and your entire body should be enveloped in
>sound. You just can't do do that with headphones.

Very true... a full-range speaker system has a physical effect -- the "feel"
of deep bass. On a very good system ($$$), full-range speakers also offer
imaging that headphones can't. However, unless you spend a LOT of money on
speakers and source components, they will be far less accurate than $300
headphones with a $200 headphone amp, and the headphones will offer clarity
that the speakers can't. Plus you have to deal with room interactions and
reflections, placement, etc.

You're correct that headphones can't produce the physical effect that
full-range speakers can.  But if you can do without that effect, for the
money, headphones offer far better "bang for the buck." For $550, you can't
really get a good amp and speakers to hook up to your CD player that will
provide you with high-end sound. But you can buy a Sennheiser HD600 and a
Musical Fidelity X-CANSv2 headphone amp that will give you simply amazing
sound.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Dan Frakes wrote:

> As for isolation, the Etymotics block more external noise than *any*
> over-the-ear headphone in the world, hands down. Etymotic Research is famous
> for three things: 1) high-end hearing aids; 2) noise isolation devices; and
> 3) high-end headphones. Their headphones are produced using the R&D from
> their other products.
>

For me headphones are only for "desperate listening".   In other words places
were it is totally impossible to have a full speaker system.

Sound is not just heard with your ears, it is felt by your whole body.  I feel
that you and your entire body should be enveloped in sound.  You just can't do
do that with headphones.

Larry


-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Dan Frakes]

las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As far as $300 goes, For that kind of money I'm sure that you could
>buy full size over the ear headphones that would just about totally
>block out any external noise and offer pounding bass that would put
>any earplugs to shame.

Larry, you'd be wrong there, on both counts ;) The Etymotics ER-4S have bass
that's as good as the most expensive "over the ear" headphones -- they are
simply some of the most accurate earphones made. In fact, "accurate" is the
key term. You could buy $20 over-the-ear headphones that produce boomy,
inaccurate bass, but they would be awful headphones that don't produce good
sound.

As for isolation, the Etymotics block more external noise than *any*
over-the-ear headphone in the world, hands down. Etymotic Research is famous
for three things: 1) high-end hearing aids; 2) noise isolation devices; and
3) high-end headphones. Their headphones are produced using the R&D from
their other products.

Personally, I prefer my Sennheiser HD600s (also $300 headphones) because I'm
not a big fan of in-ear 'phones. However, I've owned Etys in the past, and
their sound was every bit as good. There is a reason they are widely
considered one of the best headphones in the world. Obviously, you would
rather spend $300 on your Sony video goggle, and more power to you. However,
that doesn't mean that the Ety's aren't worth $300 to those that value
top-notch sound ;)

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Steve Corey wrote:

>   And I have to laugh at the '52" virtual
> screen'  I tried some of those, and to me it just seemed like you were
> looking at a really small screen really close up.
>

If you saw Sony Glasstron current model you wouldn't find that unless it was not
properly aligned.  Everyone I have shown it to without first telling then what to
expect is amazed at how big the screen looks.

I have seen models from other manufactures that frankly, sucked.  But the Sony offers
the sharpest picture of any that I have seen and really does look like a giant screen.

As far as $300 goes, For that kind of money I'm sure that you could buy full size over
the ear headphones that would just about totally block out any external noise and
offer pounding bass that would put any earplugs to shame.

LAS

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Steve Corey]

Dan Frakes wrote:
> 
> Steve: the issues with the ER-4S needing an amp isn't whether or not they'll
> play *loud* enough; rather, it's whether or not they'll play *well* enough
> ;)  The ER4S are simply designed to be used with a powerful headphone amp.
> If you were to buy a good amp and then use your 4S, you would immediately
> see what I'm talking about -- as good as you think they sound now, it's
> nothing compared to what a good amp will do for them.

I certainly SEE what you're talking about with respect to a good
headphone amp ;)

Of course, you're right, and I DO have a headphone amp for them.  I was
replying in the context of better earphones for minidisc, which I think
the ER-4Ss are, even without a headphone amp.  What with the external
sound isolation among other things.  --And I could've sworn some people
said they didn't go loud enough.  Anyway, IMO, 'tis better to get the
highest quality (ER-4S) that can be used with or without an extra amp,
so that when you are able to use an amp, it's all that much better.

Regardless, I should have mentioned the amp, thanks for pointing that
out.

-steve
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Steve Corey]

las wrote:
> 
> At $300.00 you really, really, really have to be into listening with earbuds big
> time!  You can buy a pair of Sony Glasstron TV glasses on eBay for that kind of
> money.  The ear buds included with the glasstron are on the big side, but have
> decent sound and you get to view video on a virtual 52" screen.
> 
> I guess it comes down to what's important to you and what value you place on it.

It's not that I'm into listening with earbuds, I'm into listening to
high quality, and getting rid of ambient noise. It also doesn't hurt
that their appearance is subtle.

Besides, I worship Audiocles, the ancient God of Audio.  I've never been
a visual person anyway.  And I have to laugh at the '52" virtual
screen'  I tried some of those, and to me it just seemed like you were
looking at a really small screen really close up.

-steve
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[las]

Steve Corey wrote:

> I just got a set of Etymotic ER-4S earphones, and I am astounded at the
> sound.  They are incredible.
>
> They aren't cheap, they'll set you back about $300.00 (USD) but I think
> they're well worth it.  They also come in a nice case with various
> accessories.
>

At $300.00 you really, really, really have to be into listening with earbuds big
time!  You can buy a pair of Sony Glasstron TV glasses on eBay for that kind of
money.  The ear buds included with the glasstron are on the big side, but have
decent sound and you get to view video on a virtual 52" screen.

I guess it comes down to what's important to you and what value you place on it.

Larry

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Dan Frakes]

Steve Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just got a set of Etymotic ER-4S earphones, and I am astounded at
>the sound. They are incredible. Some people have said that the 4S's
>lack bass and require a headphone amp, but I'm using them with my
>Sony MZR-90 and they are loud enough for me with excellent bass, and
>that's not even with the bass boost turned on.

Steve: the issues with the ER-4S needing an amp isn't whether or not they'll
play *loud* enough; rather, it's whether or not they'll play *well* enough
;)  The ER4S are simply designed to be used with a powerful headphone amp.
If you were to buy a good amp and then use your 4S, you would immediately
see what I'm talking about -- as good as you think they sound now, it's
nothing compared to what a good amp will do for them.

You may want to reconsider and exchange them for the ER-4P, which are
specifically designed for use with portables. The don't require a separate
amp to achieve their full potential, and will actually sound better than the
4S when run directly from a portable.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Mike Lastucka]

>great effect of the seal is that it blocks out a lot of exterior noise,
>so high volume is not required.  I love them for my train ride to work,
>I can just loose myself in the music.

I found the same thing with Sony's "nude ex" buds.  When songs are quiet, 
they're QUIET, no matter what's going on in the outside world. :)  Obviously 
you wouldn't drive a car while wearing these things, but it goes a long way 
towards cutting the wind noise out when rollerblading and such.

---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Steve Corey]

I just got a set of Etymotic ER-4S earphones, and I am astounded at the
sound.  They are incredible.  Some people have said that the 4S's lack
bass and require a headphone amp, but I'm using them with my Sony MZR-90
and they are loud enough for me with excellent bass, and that's not even
with the bass boost turned on.

They come with either flanged or foam tips, and you need to get a tight
seal in your ear canal to get decent sound.  I could only get that seal
with the foam tips, which also are much more comfortable in my ears; the
flanged tips kinda hurt, but I hardly notice the foam tips.  The other
great effect of the seal is that it blocks out a lot of exterior noise,
so high volume is not required.  I love them for my train ride to work,
I can just loose myself in the music.

They aren't cheap, they'll set you back about $300.00 (USD) but I think
they're well worth it.  They also come in a nice case with various
accessories.

Here's a link for info: http://www.etymotic.com/hifi/index.asp

-steve

Tim Pitman wrote:
> 
> I've just purchased a Sony MZR-900 and would like to buy some better
> earphones for it.  I'd really like some that are comfortable, and with good
> sound.  I currently have some old Sony ones that are really comfortable, but
> don't sound too good, some groove ones that came with a discman 3 years ago
> that sound good, but aren't very comfortable, and the ones that came with
> the 900 which are somewhere inbetween.  Any sudgestions?
> 
> Tim
> 
> -
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Mike Lastucka]

>One nasty problem with the ear canal buds is that there are some people for
>whom they just won't fit no matter what you do.  Like me, for example :).

Indeed.  They DO come with different size of buds, but I personally take the 
small ones.  Otherwise the rubber buds don't go in far enough and the simple 
swinging of the cord while walking is enough to work them out of my ears 
after a few steps.  But the small ones go in far enough that it's not a 
problem for me.

>That said, the Koss KSC-35 clips sound better than pretty much every
>headphone Sony makes, and cost less than half as much as Sony's high-end
>earbuds.

I'm not a fan of those clip style earphones.  Dunno why.  I like the 
discreteness of earbuds.

---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Stainless Steel Rat]

* "Mike Lastucka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
| I picked up a pair of Sony MDR-EX70SLs, those "nude ex" ones.  They're
| amazing.  The things fit right into the ear canal (obviously you want to
| watch your volume here!), so they're very comfortable and you barely notice
| them after about 30 seconds of wearing.  The sound these things put out is
| incredible, with brainshaking bass, and excellent high ends.

One nasty problem with the ear canal buds is that there are some people for
whom they just won't fit no matter what you do.  Like me, for example :).

That said, the Koss KSC-35 clips sound better than pretty much every
headphone Sony makes, and cost less than half as much as Sony's high-end
earbuds.
-- 
Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Earphones

[Mike Lastucka]

>I've just purchased a Sony MZR-900 and would like to buy some better
>earphones for it.  I'd really like some that are comfortable, and with good
>sound.  I currently have some old Sony ones that are really comfortable, 
>but
>don't sound too good, some groove ones that came with a discman 3 years ago
>that sound good, but aren't very comfortable, and the ones that came with
>the 900 which are somewhere inbetween.  Any sudgestions?

I picked up a pair of Sony MDR-EX70SLs, those "nude ex" ones.  They're 
amazing.  The things fit right into the ear canal (obviously you want to 
watch your volume here!), so they're very comfortable and you barely notice 
them after about 30 seconds of wearing.  The sound these things put out is 
incredible, with brainshaking bass, and excellent high ends.

They're pricier than most, but well worth the purchase.  I bought another 
pair for my brother, and he loves them.

---
Mike Lastucka, B. Tech
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sites.netscape.net/element5/
2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

MD: Earphones

[Tim Pitman]

I've just purchased a Sony MZR-900 and would like to buy some better
earphones for it.  I'd really like some that are comfortable, and with good
sound.  I currently have some old Sony ones that are really comfortable, but
don't sound too good, some groove ones that came with a discman 3 years ago
that sound good, but aren't very comfortable, and the ones that came with
the 900 which are somewhere inbetween.  Any sudgestions?

Tim

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: earphones sound quality during recording

[Ian Scott]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Mikolaj Wilczynski wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> what is sound quality during digital recording on MZ-R90/55? Is it ATRACed sound or 
>raw CD?

AFAIK the monitoring sound is not ATRACed, as the ATRAC chips can not play
and record simultaneously.

Ian

-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

MD: earphones sound quality during recording

[Mikolaj Wilczynski]

Hi Folks,
what is sound quality during digital recording on MZ-R90/55? Is it ATRACed sound or 
raw CD?
Cheers
Miko
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]