Need recs for entry-level headphone setup

[Nutty]

Hello everyone. I have to do most of my jazz listening via headphones, so I'm interested in investing in an entry-level audiophile setup consisting of an SACD player, headphones, and headphone amp.

I'm considering some Sennheiser HD 580's as my headphone choice. As for headphone amps, HeadRoom was a brand I keep coming across, but I wouldn't know which model would best suit my needs and budget. And for an SACD player, I already own a DVD player, so I'm looking for a single-disc SACD/CD-only player. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated!

[tonym]

have a look here, they have more headphone info that you would need in a lifetime.

http://www.head-fi.org/

Personally go with Grado, the top of the range will only cost you around £600, and they are supposed to be out of this world.

I have SR 125's which are great because i listen to portables a lot. However, when folkmention that they leak sound, believe me they do.

Good listening. Tony.

[Claude]

I have the Sennheiser HD580 and I am very satisfied with them (sound and comfort), except for a problem with the connection cable, which seems to have been fixed for the current production (mine is 5 years old). I also have a seperate headphone amplifier (Musical Fidelity X-Cans) and recommend getting a dedicated amp for the headphones.

I assume that you live in the US. The Sennheisers are very expensive outside of Europe (+50%) , so you should also take into account alternative brands such as Grado. But with Grados, you must absolutely try them for a longer period of time, because some people don't like their comfort (sorry, I can't find the suitable word), and this cannot be tested by having them on for just 10 minutes.

While a headphone amp is recommended, you should keep the right proportions. Don't spend more than $300 on an amp. If you have a higher budget, consider the Sennheiser HD600. A new high end model, based on the HD600, will also come out later this year.

As for a SACD/CD player, there are not that many models to choose from. If you want true high end, go for a Sony SCD-XA777ES, which is being discontinued now and can be bought for less than $2000. If your budget is much tighter (the Sony is not entry-level indeed), consider the Philips DVD-963SA ($400), which also has excellent DVD (and MP3) playback and CD upsampling. Unfortunately, there is not much to choose from apart from those two (but I may have missed some players available in the US)

Edited June 12, 2003 by Claude

[shrugs]

Buying a brand new SACD player would be foolish IMO. Find out what you want and post a wanted add on Audiogon or look through the classifieds. Lots of great deals.

[Parkertown]

Whilst on this subject, can some please explain the need for a headphone amp (and while at it, how about a phono stage as well). What's wrong with using the headphone jack that is available on most players; or on your receiver? I'll admit I'm not an audiophile as far as equipment is concerned; never been able to justify thousands and thousands of dollars on equipment (maybe someday-I should start to play the Lotto). I can discern the difference between older masterings and 20/24 bit cds and SACDs on my system (I ususally use the analog bypass), and I have no turntable. Is this only necessary on super high-end systems? Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.

Edited June 12, 2003 by Parkertown

[J Larsen]

Many newer amps don't have phono stages, hence the need for phono pre-amps. If your amp came with phono jacks in the back, you don't really need a phono pre-amp, although if you're dissatisfied with the way records sound through your amp you might still want one anyway.

[Claude]

Many stereo components have a phone jack that mainly fulfills an alibi function (it's parts are worth $5). If you have a good headphone and want optimal sound you should get a dedicated headphone amp. It's no use buying a $200 headphone (such as the Sennheiser) and then using it with a crappy phone output of a CD player.

The same was true with phono stages. Ten years ago most amplifiers still had a phono input, but the makers did not invest much into that part as they knew that 90% of the buyers would only use it occasionally or not at all. Now most amps don't have a phono stage, which is a better solution as those who care about LP sound will invest into a good separate phono amp ($100-$3000)

Anyway, a phono stage or a headphone amp is something that you buy once and keep for a long time, even if you upgrade other components such as the main amplifier.

Edited June 12, 2003 by Claude

[shrugs]

And there are many great preamps with a phonoboard as well.

[Parkertown]

Thanks, gents!

[Nutty]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! Now I have another dilemma. After looking around the web at various kinds of headpones and amps, I have really taken a liking to the Grado RS1's and the RA1 amp. But even with all the glowing reviews I've read about these phones performance-wise, I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I think I'm want this phone/amp setup just because they look so cool!

Buying this Grado setup (even if I opt instead for the RS2's) will be quite expensive. Does anyone else think I'm better off picking some Sennheisers or lower-end Grados and a much cheaper amp like a Creek model? I welcome more suggestions, but no "Mahogany is Murder" arguments, please.

[Guest Mnytime]

Myself I don't understand why anyone would want to spend $1000 to quicken their hearing loss? These days when I think of headphones I think of Pete Townsend and major hearing loss.

[chris]

The beauty of quality headphones and amp is to AVOID damaging your hearing. better clarity means you don't have to turn it up to hear details, and the sound is much better on your ears.

[Guest Mnytime]

The beauty of quality headphones and amp is to AVOID damaging your hearing. better clarity means you don't have to turn it up to hear details, and the sound is much better on your ears.

Actually that is not true. All it means is that it will take a bit longer depending on the decible level listened to but in the end the same result. The majority of people can't tell the difference between 80db and 100db. Also, ears adjust to the level of sound. Those that use headphones tend to perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume setting hasn't changed. This is why people will turn up the volume after listening for awhile.

It's not like Townsend was using cheap equipment either or it happened quickly.

A side note for those that workout while wearing headphones. It's dangerous for your hearing. Aerobic exercise diverts blood from the ears to the limbs, and leaves the inner ear more vulnerable to damage from loud sound. You have double the chance of damaging your hearing from listening while working out than when not working out and using a headphone. If you can't avoid doing this limit it to no more than 30 minutes in day.

Edited June 14, 2003 by Mnytime

[David Williams]

Circumstances mean it's headphones or nothing for me at the moment, but you should keep the volume down. Don't buy the Grados unheard unless you can return them, or, at least, exchange them - I liked them for their openness and 'live' sound, but found them a little too harsh on saxes and brass so returned them - they are NOT 'neutral' to my ears, whatever the magazines say.

[Claude]

The beauty of quality headphones and amp is to AVOID damaging your hearing. better clarity means you don't have to turn it up to hear details, and the sound is much better on your ears.

That's correct. One the other hand, the clarity of high end headphones and the complete absence of distortion and room effects (booming) makes it often tempting to turn up the volume higher than with speakers. You need to resist that.

[Guest Mnytime]

The beauty of quality headphones and amp is to AVOID damaging your hearing. better clarity means you don't have to turn it up to hear details, and the sound is much better on your ears.

That's correct. One the other hand, the clarity of high end headphones and the complete absence of distortion and room effects (booming) makes it often tempting to turn up the volume higher than with speakers. You need to resist that.

As I said earlier no it not's even close to being true.

[chris]

"All it means is that it will take a bit longer depending on the decible level listened to but in the end the same result. The majority of people can't tell the difference between 80db and 100db. Also, ears adjust to the level of sound. Those that use headphones tend to perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume setting hasn't changed. This is why people will turn up the volume after listening for awhile."

Untrue. The same can be said of any consistent listening environment. As compared to listening to cheap headphones, one does not need to turn the music up as loud, therefore it can't be as damaging to the ears. Further, with headphones one can listen at a lower level than external speakers. Headphone listening is not dangerous to hearing provided one takes the same precautions as necessary for any listening experience. Who says this? My otolaryngologist, that's who.

"It's not like Townsend was using cheap equipment either or it happened quickly."

False logic. Decibels damage the hearing. Poor equipment makes it more likely that one will listen at a decibel level that causes damage. Pete Townshend (and the Who in general) were well known for ear-splitting audio levels. It has nothing to do with quality of their equipment.

As for the exercise and headphones myth, it is commonly bandied about. Someone's been spending too much time at Headwize and other forums which perpetrate this "knowledge" with a bunch of circular references. Actual medical research indicates that this problem is relatively minimal, chances of damage are not twice as much, but on the order of a few percentage points, subject to the same caveats as above-- that good listening habits are required.

Is it easier to damage one's ears with headphones than with speakers? Of course. But that isn' the question. The question is, does cheap equipment make it more likely (yes) and is damage from headphones unavoidable (no). I think I'll stick with the MDs on this one.

[Guest Mnytime]

By"All it means is that it will take a bit longer depending on the decible level listened to but in the end the same result. The majority of people can't tell the difference between 80db and 100db. Also, ears adjust to the level of sound. Those that use headphones tend to perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume setting hasn't changed. This is why people will turn up the volume after listening for awhile."

Untrue. The same can be said of any consistent listening environment. As compared to listening to cheap headphones, one does not need to turn the music up as loud, therefore it can't be as damaging to the ears. Further, with headphones one can listen at a lower level than external speakers. Headphone listening is not dangerous to hearing provided one takes the same precautions as necessary for any listening experience. Who says this? My otolaryngologist, that's who.

"It's not like Townsend was using cheap equipment either or it happened quickly."

False logic. Decibels damage the hearing. Poor equipment makes it more likely that one will listen at a decibel level that causes damage. Pete Townshend (and the Who in general) were well known for ear-splitting audio levels. It has nothing to do with quality of their equipment.

As for the exercise and headphones myth, it is commonly bandied about. Someone's been spending too much time at Headwize and other forums which perpetrate this "knowledge" with a bunch of circular references. Actual medical research indicates that this problem is relatively minimal, chances of damage are not twice as much, but on the order of a few percentage points, subject to the same caveats as above-- that good listening habits are required.

Is it easier to damage one's ears with headphones than with speakers? Of course. But that isn' the question. The question is, does cheap equipment make it more likely (yes) and is damage from headphones unavoidable (no). I think I'll stick with the MDs on this one.

No. 1 I will take the word of my otolaryngologist's over anyones. Anything having to do with the otolaryngology throughout the world the House Instistue led the way.

No. 3 I am a MD and I am actually one of the best in my field in the world and even though I am not an otolaryngologist I know what I am talking about.

No. 4 In the end anyone that wants to listen to Chris and gamble with their hearing it's their hearing but I would not recommend using them for any length of time.

No. 5 Pete Townsend only used headphones in the studio during recording of a record and not on stage.

[JohnJ]

Interesting debate. Given his credentials, I will definitely trust Mnytime on this one and be careful at the gym.

[Claude]

No. 5 Pete Townsend only used headphones in the studio during recording of a record and not on stage.

But then how can you assume that his hearing damage comes from the use of headphones? As a touring artist, he was much more often exposed to the noise of stage monitors and PA systems.

What counts is the loudness of the noise, and not the source of the noise (speakers or headphones). Of course, for music listeners it is much more likely to damage one's ears with headphones simply because these can be turned up much louder than average speakers. But this limitation does not exist with professional PA speakers which are designed and capable to be extremely loud.

My recommendation is to be very careful when using headphones. Don't listen too loud, don't listen too long, don't use very cheap equipment. But with moderate use, there is no risk involved.

[Guest Mnytime]

No. 5  Pete Townsend only used headphones in the studio during recording of a record and not on stage.

But then how can you assume that his hearing damage comes from the use of headphones? As a touring artist, he was much more often exposed to the noise of stage monitors and PA systems.

What counts is the loudness of the noise, and not the source of the noise (speakers or headphones). Of course, for music listeners it is much more likely to damage one's ears with headphones simply because these can be turned up much louder than average speakers. But this limitation does not exist with professional PA speakers which are designed and capable to be extremely loud.

My recommendation is to be very careful when using headphones. Don't listen too loud, don't listen too long, don't use very cheap equipment. But with moderate use, there is no risk involved.

Well that is what Townsend's otolaryngologist believes and what Townsend believes caused his hearing damage/loss.

Yes you can damage your ears by listening to speakers but because speakers are generally at a distance and out in the open the high frequency is somewhat damped. With headphones there is nothing to dampen or interfere since they are so close to your ears. You also don't get the same gradual drop in loudness that you do with headphones, which cause people to raise the volume even more.

The danger of headphone is their proximity to your ear, which is why it seems to be louder than your speakers.

Honestly I find it strange that Claude and Chris who are not even Dr's are even attempting to give advice. Why do I have a feeling that neither of them will be around to pay the medical bills of anyone whose hearing is damaged from listening to their very limited advise.

I keep saying it is not true and these two "DR’s" keep saying it is and are giving advise that can effect your health and lively hoods.

I just point out that Dr. of Otolaryngology Claude is now saying that you can listen to professional PA's extremely loud and be safe. Anyone that believes this is in for damage to their hearing for certain.

I have spent more than enough time on this. You are all adults. You can follow my advise and continue to have normal hearing a bit longer. The other option is you can follow the "Medical Experts" Chris and Claude who are not going to be the ones paying your medical bills.

They want to blow out their ears thats their right but it's your ears they are gambling with the inaccurate advice they are attempting to give.

Edited June 16, 2003 by Mnytime

[Claude]

I just point out that Dr. of Otolaryngology Claude is now saying that you can listen to professional PA's extremely loud and be safe.  Anyone that believes this is in for damage to their hearing for certain.

Where did I say this? Please read my post again. My english is not great, but what I tried to express is that noise is dangerous at a certain decibel level, whatever the source (headphones or speakers), and that with headphones the temptation of turning up the volume too much is higher than with home speakers.

But thanks for the honoris causa title, Mnytime

Edited June 16, 2003 by Claude

[Guest Mnytime]

Claude

This part of your post is what I reffering to from the last sentence of your second paragraph.

"But this limitation does not exist with professional PA speakers which are designed and capable to be extremely loud."

This clearly means that PA speakers can be used at extremely loud levels without damaging someones hearing.

Maybe that is not what you meant but that is what it means.

By the way, your welcome. The Diploma is in the mail.

I am sorry for getting grumpy at you but it just bothers me when people who are not even DR's start giving medical advise. And not even accurate medical advise at that.

Edited June 16, 2003 by Mnytime

[Claude]

Well Ok, it was not well stated. I meant:

- Home users can damage their hearing with headphones, including very good headphones, as these can play very loud.

- Home users can hardly damage their hearing with speakers as normal hifi sets cannot play that loud

- But Musicians can damage their hearing with speakers on stage or in the rehearsal room, as PA speakers go far above 100 dB.

There are enough rock musicians who suffered hearing loss without using headphones.

I was at a sports event last weekend, where an amateur rock band gave a concert. I had to walk past the speakers to go to the toilet, and it was so loud it was unbearable for me even for only 5 seconds. But others were listening to the concert at the same distance. My headphones cannot play as loud as this.

[Paul Christie]

Nutty, unless you really want to spend a bucketload of cash, I would recommend checking out a pair of AKG 501s - they are slightly boofy looking, but exremely comfortable. I compared them with a number of Sennheisers, and found them to be very neutral. They aren't as "in your face" as Senn 580s, or even 600s - the bass is a bit more restrained. But they have oodles of tight bass, whereas I found the 580s to be a bit overblown in that department. I think the 501s are perfect for jazz listening. Good for everything else too. I also listened to some Sony's, but they weren't in the running.

I'm not using a headphone amp, but I'm sure one would tighten up the bass even more, which is important to me. Nothing worse than flabby bass where it should be taught and crisp. I like the look of the Creek amps, and the Rega model looks interesting too - they would be on my short list for affordable units. The Musical Fidelity X-Cans I think are more expensive, and there are mixed views about them - a lot of people seem to like to tweak them with new tubes.