# Headphones VS Speakers



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

My last thread has inspired this discussion. How do you usually listen to your classical music?

Do you use headphones? or loudspeakers?

Do you prefer one over the other?

Are your headphones cheap earbuds to be used with an Ipod or mp3 player or do you have a decent set?

Are your speakers built for classical music and do they handle the range well?

Much of my musical listening is at night when my wife and neighbors are all in bed so unfortunately the majority of my listening is on headphones but I own Sennheiser HD590s

http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD590-Over-Ear-Full-Headphone/dp/B00004SD89/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1325180798&sr=1-1

A little pricey but well worth every penny I have spent. They are comfortable to wear and non-fatiguing of the ear over extended playing. I about cried when I accidentally stepped on them and broke the cross piece but I was able to send them off to Sennheiser and they came back like new for around $50.00 (Better than spending another $200!).

One day a week I am off during a weekday and since my wife and neighbors work weekdays I can blast my B&W DM 640 speakers! They were made and designed for classical music listening pleasure and I have loved owning them. I've had them at 18 years now and would probably not change unless something went bad with them.










Kevin


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Headphones are OK for casual listening and to aid in judging noise reduction, but music requires air to unfold around the listener. I've spent 25 years building myself a frankenstein monster of a speaker setup that now totally satisfies me. It wasn't easy. It took the right speakers, the right room and careful EQ. I have good cans but they sit in a drawer most of the time.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I know one highly knowledgeable classical enthusiast listens to high-end electrostatic headphones by preference. Personally, I use Ohm Walsh "Super Two' loudspeakers with a sub-woofer when possible. I have Sennheiser 595 headphones, which have excellent sound reproduction, but like all headphones they place the sound stage behind me.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I am not a soundfreak! So I really enjoy my Beyerdynamics headphones from my stereo, connected to computer and spotify. Spotify has very good sound in average. Only limited by the sound card in computer. But I have heard there is a way to "cheat" the soundcard...


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I have some mordount short speekers, and I am satisfied with them too.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I hate headphones (strong fear of hearing loss), but I have to use them so as not to disturb my family.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I hate headphones (strong fear of hearing loss), but I have to use them so as not to disturb my family.


_mama_, send you family, one at a time until they are gone or as a group, on errands. Tell them to take at least an hour. Then....


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

I only listen to chamber/solo music through headphones. Still prefer a good set of speakers even for that though (not that I own a good set of speakers).


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Some in ear plugs is eminent. I had a Monster set, but they was not good in the plug, but very good in sound
"the end plug....)


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

I have an old, inexpensive stereo+loudspeaker set but I strongly prefer it over head phones. I like the sound with some breathing room. There are often times that I have to use head phones, rather, ear phones because I'm outside walking or at work.

I think I need stereo upgrade.. arghh


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Headphones =]


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

oskaar said:


> I am not a soundfreak! So I really enjoy my Beyerdynamics headphones from my stereo, connected to computer and spotify. Spotify has very good sound in average. Only limited by the sound card in computer. But I have heard there is a way to "cheat" the soundcard...


By the way, for those who wish to use Spotify but don't live in a country that has approved it yet... you can simply log in to their website through a proxy (located in a country where it is available) and download the program. once Spotify is installed, they don't filter IPs by country.

If you want to download the actual audio files, i'm not sure how. meanwhile you can always record the digital streams with a program like Audacity using the WAV or Stereo mix. you can save the recorded audio in a lossless file, although the content won't be lossless itself, most likely decompressed AAC. if you transcode it to MP3 (or ACC), you'll lose further quality... will it be audible? maybe, but probably not, given that the bitrate is high enough.

edit:
_We use the Ogg Vorbis format for streaming. There are three quality ratings that we use:
q3 (~96 kbps)
q5 (~160 kbps)
q9 (~320 kbps)
Note: not all tracks are currently available in high bitrate.
Desktop: Streams are q5 quality. Premium subscribers can enable higher bit rate streaming at q9 from the preferences menu._
http://www.spotify.com/us/help/faq/tech/codec-quality/

So it's not even worth your time trying to save these files... there's an open source program called despotity which let's you save them from the offline cache (since Spotify is P2P based), but ultimately you get a 160kbps OGG file, which isn't great, especially if you have to transcode it.

I did a spectral analysis on random streams and the audio has a sharp cutoff at around 16Hz. very average in terms of quality.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I stream Spotify through my PC into my 500 watt receiver and play on my B&W speakers and I find the quality mostly acceptable. I only subscribe to the first level to avoid commercials but am seriously thinking of upgrading. I just wonder if the majority of the classical material is in 320?

Kevin


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Speakers are way too room dependent and also listener-placement dependent. It becomes a hassle using them.

I almost exclusively listen with headphones. You can retrieve a lot more detail with headphones. Speakers have the advantage of realism and 3-dimensionalism. Headphones are more often better sounding in tone due to the factors already mentioned.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Headphones. Always headphones.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Speakers, because anything touching my head/ear for a long time gets uncomfortable. 

Also, if someone interrupts me when I'm listening on speakers I can just be like "yeah?" But if someone interrupts me when I'm listening on headphones I'm like "SL:KJASL:SL:KA:SASAKSKA WHAT"


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Never tried headphones for classical music. I don't own a good pair anyway. I do have a nice pair of B&W loudspeakers.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I just wonder if the majority of the classical material is in 320?
> 
> Kevin


If you are a premium member, you have what they call "double speed" wich you can set in the preferenses.
But frankly, I dont notice the difference. The difference beetween a good and lesser good recording is much more noticeable.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> I hate headphones (strong fear of hearing loss), but I have to use them so as not to disturb my family.


A lot of portable music devices and software (if your listening on a computer) caps the level at which you can listen to music. Some hearing loss is inevitable but I'm sure you find something to ease your fears when using headphones.



oskaar said:


> If you are a premium member, you have what they call "double speed" wich you can set in the preferenses.
> But frankly, I dont notice the difference. The difference beetween a good and lesser good recording is much more noticeable.


I do notice a difference between 160-192kbps - 320kbps and lossless. I use lossless files *FLAC* or *Apple Lossless* but dare I say it I may have younger ears than some on *TC*. 

I do 99% of my music listening on a PC I had made for me. I would like to buy a new pair of headphones but I want to upgrade my soundcard first. I know nothing about computers if someone here does I'd be greatful for suggestions.

What kind of headphones does everyone use? I see *B&W* speakers are popular I fancy getting a *Zeppelin*...


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I use Etymotic or Klipsch in-ear buds for walking but I recently got a pair of Bose full size cans for journeys & listening from my PC.

Can't play anything too loud at home because of neighbours.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> [...]
> I do 99% of my music listening on a PC I had made for me. I would like to buy a new pair of headphones but I want to upgrade my soundcard first. I know nothing about computers if someone here does I'd be greatful for suggestions.
> [...]


Sound card: M-Audio Delta Series Audiophile 2496
4-In/4-Out Audio Card with MIDI and Digital I/O
USD 99.95

Excellent specs and utility, reasonable price. I've used them for several years, in several Windows computers.

[edit: this card uses the PCI interface slot. Check with your builder to learn if that is what you have.]


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2011)

For hearing absolutely _everything_ in startling clarity (including bad edits, musicians breathing, and page turns!), electrostatic headphones, such as my Stax 407s are hard to beat, but they can't provide the thunderous bass of my B&W system. It's also multi-channel, so it also provides a greater sense of depth. I mainly use my headphones when listening to two-channel CDs or to spare my wife the horror of anything written after Sibelius!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I find that headphones artificially emphasize detail at the expense of the overall sound. Speakers on the other hand sound totally balanced... It's like the difference between looking at a painting with a magnifying glass and standing back a couple of feet and admiring the whole composition.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> Speakers are way too room dependent and also listener-placement dependent.


If you place the speakers properly in the room, listening position isn't critical. A lot of audiophiles labor under the misconception that there can only be one good listening position in a room. If that was true, there would only be one good seat in a concert hall.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

bigshot said:


> I find that headphones artificially emphasize detail at the expense of the overall sound. Speakers on the other hand sound totally balanced... It's like the difference between looking at a painting with a magnifying glass and standing back a couple of feet and admiring the whole composition.


I appreciate the intent of this analogy, but it doesn't really make sense to me. With a magnifying glass you can only see blips of the painting at once and have to process the whole thing in your head. Very few people could do that.

With headphones, you're hearing the same information as you would with speakers, but closer up to the ear without room interference.

I have worked in recording studios where their monitors were a 1/3 million for the pair and the room was built specifically to accommodate the monitors. I feel based on my ears, that I own several pairs of headphones which far exceed the sonic quality of any speaker I have ever heard. The drawback is the squashed soundstage.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I appreciate the intent of this analogy, but it doesn't really make sense to me. With a magnifying glass you can only see blips of the painting at once and have to process the whole thing in your head. Very few people could do that.
> 
> With headphones, you're hearing the same information as you would with speakers, but closer up to the ear without room interference.
> 
> I have worked in recording studios where their monitors were a 1/3 million for the pair and the room was built specifically to accommodate the monitors. I feel based on my ears, that I own several pairs of headphones which far exceed the sonic quality of any speaker I have ever heard. The drawback is the squashed soundstage.


hmm... are we trying to pick a winner or something? there's pros and cons to both, and more importantly different purposes.

headphones give privacy, portability, and a great level of detail at a good price point. while loudspeakers, overall, reproduce sound and dynamics the way they were meant to be; i've yet to hear live music with headphones... or in an environment where some kind of room interference wasn't an issue. plus the sub bass part of the spectrum is felt throughout the whole body, which headphones can't reproduce.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I am not thinking or judging... I only put my earphones on for bether pleasure.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Philip said:


> hmm... are we trying to pick a winner or something? there's pros and cons to both, and more importantly different purposes.
> 
> headphones give privacy, portability, and a great level of detail at a good price point. while loudspeakers, overall, reproduce sound and dynamics the way they were meant to be; i've yet to hear live music with headphones... or in an environment where some kind of room interference wasn't an issue. plus the sub bass part of the spectrum is felt throughout the whole body, which headphones can't reproduce.


With either sort of sound reproducer the hearer's imagination is part of the package. My imagination fails to recreate the sound stage satisfactorily when I listen via headphones. On the other hand, the loudspeakers don't have to be high tech (my 2nd system uses AR5 speakers) to allow useful imagination/simulation. The debate is essentially _pointless_ given this factor, unless expense and/or restricted environment is included - and valued - in the harangue.

:devil:

[Edit: the 'factor' I refer to above is 'hearer's imagination'. Sorry about the ambiguity.]


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The room is part of the sound with speakers. It gives the overall sound a naturalness that headphones can never match. In a great room, mono recordings can sound alive and present. With headphones, mono sounds like it's canned up inside your skull. Most people who say they prefer headphones don't have a good listening room. I have decent Sennheiser headphones AND a decent speaker setup in a room that complements it. There is absolutely no comparison. With headphones you're listening to music through the keyhole in a door. With speakers you're in the room with it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Never tried headphones for classical music. I don't own a good pair anyway. I do have a nice pair of B&W loudspeakers.


 Which ones? I have the 804--couldn't convince my wife to "let" me get the 801D or 802D!


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Philip said:


> hmm... are we trying to pick a winner or something? there's pros and cons to both, and more importantly different purposes.
> 
> headphones give privacy, portability, and a great level of detail at a good price point. while loudspeakers, overall, reproduce sound and dynamics the way they were meant to be; i've yet to hear live music with headphones... or in an environment where some kind of room interference wasn't an issue. plus the sub bass part of the spectrum is felt throughout the whole body, which headphones can't reproduce.


headphones vs speakers sounds as tho there is a bit of winner / loser contest.

speakers replicating sound as it were meant to be is simply wrong. It depends how the source was recorded.

There are too many variables within a room to ever truly hear what your speakers really sound like. Headphones will sound the same every time, anywhere.

And also, there are definite advantages to certain seats within a concert hall. I've sat in two different sections within the same concert with the same orchestra at carnegie hall and the differences were like night and day. If you consider that 2 feet off from the center within a speaker set up can drastically change sound waves, including some phases, you simply can't suggest that many places within the room accommodate the speakers.

I believe I have heard amongst the best speaker setups in all the world, working at both Clinton and Avatar Studios for a time.

The Stax 407 are a very good headphone, but they do lack the ultimate transparency and refinement of other headphones. Electrostatic headphones bring forth the most detail typically, but there are some dynamic transducers which I believe are on par with the best electrostatic headphones.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"ultimate transparency and refinement"

Jeez, do you have to get so technical?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I honestly don't know what "refined sound" sounds like, but it sure sounds fancy.

The engineers who mix records never use headphones... always speakers. Headphones don't give an accurate balance. They have a tendency to emphasize some things and swallow up others. Good speakers can be calibrated and depended on for accuracy.

In general, cheap headphones sound better than cheap speakers. But when you get into serious listening, it's speakers all the way.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

i think the sub bass element alone is a deal breaker. OK, DavidMahler, so you've has heard the best loudspeakers and headphones in the world... me i prefer to hear music and sounds.

there are dynamics across the frequency range that headphones simply can't reproduce: if you've ever heard a bass drum pounding in your chest, you know what i'm talking about; same goes for exotic sounds such as a space shuttle launch, a tank firing a round, or all the special effects used in movies. let's just say i won't be watching Jurassic park with headphones on.

all in all, i guess it's a matter of preference. but don't try to sell me that headphones are the best thing in the world. like i said, i've yet to attend a live performance in which the audio is recorded in real-time and fed directly into my ears. the bottom line is that loudspeakers do a better job at replicating the physical conditions in which sound naturally occurs, room interference included!


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I have good earphones, and good speekers. (Relativeley) If there are someone trying to sell something in here, then it is the speaker-lovers with their room sound. Naturally I agree in that, but I find myself using headphonds as a priority. The roomsound is one parameter that headphones can not reproduce. Another parameter is detailes, clearness, and so on. There headphones may be the best.

The sound in a consert hall is not a goal for me to achieve! The best way to enjoy music is a goal for me to achieve. Limited by my spare economy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The roomsound is one parameter that headphones can not reproduce. Another parameter is detailes, clearness, and so on. There headphones may be the best.


In the big wide world of loudspeakers and rooms, you are absolutely right. In the considerably smaller world of semi-serious listeners who have gone without a few luxuries so as to enable purchase of good loudspeakers, and fiddled with their placement, and maybe even hung a tapestry in a strategic location, details/clarity, presence and soundstage are possible with loudspeakers.

All of that attention will not duplicate being there, but it makes for a _sweet simulation_.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Detail and clarity are not nearly as important as natural balances. In audio, everything, from frequency response to dynamics, depends on natural balances. In this, speakers are the king.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> In this, speakers are the king.


That may be right, but for personal enjoyment, I prefer headphones. But that may of course be quite a week argument....


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

bigshot said:


> If you place the speakers properly in the room, listening position isn't critical. A lot of audiophiles labor under the misconception that there can only be one good listening position in a room. If that was true, there would only be one good seat in a concert hall.


I've read about this so called "sweet spot" myself and wondered the same thing. However I doubt there are many here who have the space to recreate concert hall proportions at home (without moving the furniture at least). This and the interference off other electrical things in the house. Makes me think speakers are not as simple as they may seem when it comes to creating the perfect listening experience at home especially not when going by "_audiophile_" standards. A friend of mine is sick with this disease, it leads him to do crazy things like spend ten thousand pounds on a set of speakers. 

I have a pair of *Sony* headphones that have lasted me 6 years, the pair before that lasted 5 not bad for £20 I say. I may opt for a *Bose* pair in the near future but I had a horrible experience trying to order the CD/Radio thing they sell so it puts me off ordering from then again. I've heard good things about *Sennheiser* when it comes to Classical music.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Although I have invested in a very nice set of headphones, I must concur that an excellent set of stereo speakers most accurately reproduces the sound of a live performance. Since I am not an extremely inconsiderate person, however, I will save my investment in those speakers for when I have moved out of an apartment.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I guess I miss-titled this thread. I should have titled it Speakers OR Headphones. I was not trying make a contest or argument as to which is better. Personally I prefer my loudspeakers as I think they reproduce the sound in a more "natural" way but for practical reasons I have to use headphones. I don't think either my wife or my neighbors would tolerate me cranking up a symphony at 10:00 to midnight when most people are trying to get to bed. I enjoy the sound quality of my Sennheiser headphones but the speakers are a far far better listening experience for me.

Kevin


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> I have a pair of *Sony* headphones that have lasted me 6 years, the pair before that lasted 5 not bad for £20 I say. I may opt for a *Bose* pair in the near future but I had a horrible experience trying to order the CD/Radio thing they sell so it puts me off ordering from then again. I've heard good things about *Sennheiser* when it comes to Classical music.


I don't know about availability in the UK, but... Audio Technica makes 'studiophones' that are accurate and comfortable, though their appearance is 'utilitarian'. I have their model ATH-M40_fs_, and can find nothing to complain about. They can usually be found online at a significant discount from msrp.

BTW _lenfer_, it seems to me that your persona is slipping.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Ok, so I own a couple of top-of-the-line headphones; still, none of them even come close to measuring up to the sound of a beautifully laid out room with a true speaker system driven by the best amplification and sources...if you don't have access to such pleasures,...by all means, use the phones.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I saw the title of this thread through sleepy eyes and thought it said "Haydn vs. Shakespeare" and worried that our comparisons had degraded into pure insanity.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I saw the title of this thread through sleepy eyes and thought it said "Haydn vs. Shakespeare" and worried that our comparisons had degraded into pure insanity.


Gollee yes, that would be fairly pure.

ut:


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2012)

Speakers every time through a decent Hi Fi system


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Im not gonna budge. Headphones is what I do for a living. And my headphone is worth more than my house.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2012)

DavidMahler said:


> Im not gonna budge. Headphones is what I do for a living. And my headphone is worth more than my house.


Do you work for a manufacturer? I have a set of Sennheiser HD 580 precision which are very good and I do use them occasionally but they get very warm and tiresome for periods over an hour also I rarely listen to music alone except in the late evening when I am the only one awake in the house.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't have any speakers and as a Sophmore in college I am much too poor to buy any speakers. Any real speakers that is...I have one of these though.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Andante said:


> Do you work for a manufacturer? I have a set of Sennheiser HD 580 precision which are very good and I do use them occasionally but they get very warm and tiresome for periods over an hour also I rarely listen to music alone except in the late evening when I am the only one awake in the house.


I used to have Sennheiser 580s, and recall the fragility, sweat, excellent sound, too much 'squeeze', and the fragility. I repeated 'fragility' because those cord connectors pull out way too easily.

[Aside: the most comfortable headphones (not 'earbuds') are the 'surround' type, where the pad is intended to surround the external ear rather than rest on it. If you have large ears (I do), you need to determine whether or not your prospective purchase does what it's supposed to.]


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Andante said:


> Do you work for a manufacturer? I have a set of Sennheiser HD 580 precision which are very good and I do use them occasionally but they get very warm and tiresome for periods over an hour also I rarely listen to music alone except in the late evening when I am the only one awake in the house.


i work for a retailer. The 580s were a good model. Your pair must be at least 10 years old?


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

The HD 580s are very nice sounding headphones but I found the HD 590s to be more comfortable. I have never had a sweating issue with them and they sound fantastic.

Kevin


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2012)

DavidMahler said:


> i work for a retailer. The 580s were a good model. Your pair must be at least 10 years old?


I can't remember when I purchased them but it would be well over 10 years ago maybe 15 ?? the only problem I had was the foam that protects the diaphragm disintegrated and new foam was well over priced, the connections never gave me any trouble, the one thing that drew me to them was the absence of excess base I just found the sound very transparent and you could hear all the detail.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Andante said:


> I can't remember when I purchased them but it would be well over 10 years ago maybe 15 ?? the only problem I had was the foam that protects the diaphragm disintegrated and new foam was well over priced, the connections never gave me any trouble, the one thing that drew me to them was the absence of excess base I just found the sound very transparent and you could hear all the detail.


The HD600 are very similar. I would definitely try those!


----------



## GrosseFugue (Nov 30, 2011)

Headphones. Grado 325's. Had them for 10 years. Use them with a low-end Headphone amp by Fiio.
Would love to upgrade to a real high-quality amp someday. Maybe DavidMahler can recommend one?

Of course, my ideal would be to use 20K speakers and rattle the windows.  But I live in a
apartment building in the city. Just not practical. Not to mention the cost!

I think for the audiophile on a tight budget headphones are the only way to go. Though recently
I've been thinking to get this speaker to compensate a little:

http://soundmatters.com/


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

GrosseFugue said:


> [...]
> I think for the audiophile on a tight budget headphones are the only way to go. Though recently
> I've been thinking to get this speaker to compensate a little:
> 
> http://soundmatters.com/


Audiophiles, by definition, do not have a tight budget. 

Being a septuagenarian, I have affection for 60s-70s loudspeakers that did well in the midrange, pretty well in the treble, and pretty much simulated significant bass below ~40 Hz. Those compromises are no longer necessary. For a moderate investment you can have main speakers that are excellent reproducers from frequencies beyond human hearing to ~60 Hz, and an active sub-woofer that can be pot-tuned to take the sound from there down to 'chest-level'. Near as I can tell, the only significant compromise from 'audiophool' sound is width/depth of soundstage; your imagination can supply that. You younkers only need a job, privacy, and a smidgin of room.

Only those things - and a modicum of judgement. As has been the case throughout history, we elders have a tendency to ask: "What the **** were you thinking of?"


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I actually think that The obsession with room, with and soundstage, makes you loose something in the music.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

GrosseFugue said:


> Headphones. Grado 325's. Had them for 10 years. Use them with a low-end Headphone amp by Fiio.
> Would love to upgrade to a real high-quality amp someday. Maybe DavidMahler can recommend one?
> 
> Of course, my ideal would be to use 20K speakers and rattle the windows.  But I live in a
> ...


Grados are very detailed, but also the recent grados (325 being one of them) have an extremely colored sound to them, which Grado handles with care, but it's still colored

If you name your max budget, I can recommend a headphone or headphone/amp combo.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I don't know about availability in the UK, but... Audio Technica makes 'studiophones' that are accurate and comfortable, though their appearance is 'utilitarian'. I have their model ATH-M40_fs_, and can find nothing to complain about. They can usually be found online at a significant discount from msrp.
> 
> BTW _lenfer_, it seems to me that your persona is slipping.


What do you mean *Hilltroll*? I was unaware I had a persona...

I should add I'm not offended *Hilltroll* just curious.


----------



## edge (Nov 19, 2011)

Good discussion. 

Does anyone have an opinion on decent bookshelf, powered speakers for computer setups. I'm looking at the Audioengine A2 or A5. They have really good review for their size and are priced at $200 US and $300 US respectively.

I have my receiver plugged into my home theater surround sound with Polk Audio speakers and am well pleased with this option when I can listen there.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> What do you mean *Hilltroll*? I was unaware I had a persona...
> 
> I should add I'm not offended *Hilltroll* just curious.


For one reason or another, your early posts seemed to be those of a young female of upper middle class sensibilities. Lately, your posts have suggested a maturity much accelerated, and more worldly. Congratulations (or sympathy) may be more appropriate than the cynicism I exhibit, in which case I apologize.

On the other hand, if my wildest surmise is correct, hello Alfred; I have missed you.


----------



## Valerian (Jul 15, 2011)

I prefer speakers. Headphones are a bit tiring to wear after a few hours. Now, I have a crappy pair of stereo speakers I have been using for the past seven years, but I don't mind. A lot of stuff is lossy anyways.


----------



## GrosseFugue (Nov 30, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Audiophiles, by definition, do not have a tight budget.


LOL. :lol: I wish! It's crazy how many people out there have high-end systems, but have the junkiest taste in music. I mean they're blasting Britney Spears out of 50K systems! _HUH???_ Meanwhile, I can't play my Bruno Walter Walkure Act I on anything better than an iPod. Arrhhhhg! Life's not fair -- for sure.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

GrosseFugue said:


> LOL. :lol: I wish! It's crazy how many people out there have high-end systems, but have the junkiest taste in music. I mean they're blasting Britney Spears out of 50K systems! _HUH???_ Meanwhile, I can't play my Bruno Walter Walkure Act I on anything better than an iPod. Arrhhhhg! Life's not fair -- for sure.


At least you get to play your Bruno Walter on an Ipod. When I was a teenager any portability of music was limited to big and awkward devices. The portable Sony Walkman was a breakthrough in music portability but cassettes back then sound terrible. Would rather have stayed home and listened to my cheap stereo with records than the crappy lossy and noisy cassettes. In any case if we had had Ipods when I was a kid I would have been in musical heaven! 

Kevin


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin Pearson said:


> At least you get to play your Bruno Walter on an Ipod. When I was a teenager any portability of music was limited to big and awkward devices. The portable Sony Walkman was a breakthrough in music portability but cassettes back then sound terrible. Would rather have stayed home and listened to my cheap stereo with records than the crappy lossy and noisy cassettes. In any case if we had had Ipods when I was a kid I would have been in musical heaven!
> 
> Kevin


Oh I still have a fond memory of my first Walkman. It seemed like a miracle to me, to be able to listen to music on my long commutes from London to Slough (yes Slough, "The Office" isn't even funny because it's like a nightmare flashback).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The ipod actually has fantastic sound if you use a line out adapter to a full sized stereo.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Oh I still have a fond memory of my first Walkman. It seemed like a miracle to me, to be able to listen to music on my long commutes from London to Slough (yes Slough, "The Office" isn't even funny because it's like a nightmare flashback).


I still have mine must fire it up tomorrow


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I need to feel the music with my whole body, not just the ears. I love live performances and loudspeakers, but I'm not really keen on headphones. Hmm, does this mean that I'm a Rock fan after all? :S


----------

