[Scott Dorsey]

I actually don't "get" the whole headphone amp thing. Remember those quai=
nt components with displays and dozens of knobs/later buttons - called "rec=
eivers"? I suppose most people are just too lazy to schlep all the way to =
the room where their receiver is, plug their iPod/mp3 player into a tape mo=
nitor or unused CD jacks and plug their headphones into the receiver and li=
sten. LOL

Most people today don't actually have stereo receivers. Very few of them
actually have full-range floor-mounted speakers.

I've never had a problem with the way anything sounded through headphones d=
riven by my receiver. I guess because so many folks nowadays work at their=
PC it's more space efficient to feed a headphone amp at their desk than a =
rack-sized component?

Go to your local stereo store and just try to buy a stereo receiver. There
are fewer and fewer of them every day, although there are lots of home theatre
surround units out there.

I am not sure if this is a consequence or part of the cause for people not
sitting down and listening to music by itself anymore. When I was a kid,
people used to have record parties where everyone would come to someone's
house and all sit and listen to a record and then talk about it afterward.
This would not be possible today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:12:41 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I actually don't "get" the whole headphone amp thing. Remember those quai=

nt components with displays and dozens of knobs/later buttons - called "rec=

eivers"? I suppose most people are just too lazy to schlep all the way to =

the room where their receiver is, plug their iPod/mp3 player into a tape mo=

nitor or unused CD jacks and plug their headphones into the receiver and li=

sten. LOL



Most people today don't actually have stereo receivers. Very few of them

actually have full-range floor-mounted speakers.



I've never had a problem with the way anything sounded through headphones d=

riven by my receiver. I guess because so many folks nowadays work at their=

PC it's more space efficient to feed a headphone amp at their desk than a =

rack-sized component?



Go to your local stereo store and just try to buy a stereo receiver. There

are fewer and fewer of them every day, although there are lots of home theatre

surround units out there.



I am not sure if this is a consequence or part of the cause for people not

sitting down and listening to music by itself anymore. When I was a kid,

people used to have record parties where everyone would come to someone's

house and all sit and listen to a record and then talk about it afterward..

This would not be possible today.

--scott

--

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
____________________

Excellent points. Try finding a receiver from the last 10 years that still has PHONO inputs! LOL. Still, most receivers I'm aware of can play material in 2ch stereo by default. And the quality of the headphone output is likely second to none - including headphone amps.

This http://www.hifiengine.com/gallery/im...receiver.shtml still centers my main living room system and has since I bought it in 1995!

I wish I had held out for the 517v either uplined or replaced the 515V. A little more power and bells & whistles.

[Steve King]

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:12:41 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I actually don't "get" the whole headphone amp thing. Remember those
quai=

nt components with displays and dozens of knobs/later buttons - called
"rec=

eivers"? I suppose most people are just too lazy to schlep all the way
to =

the room where their receiver is, plug their iPod/mp3 player into a tape
mo=

nitor or unused CD jacks and plug their headphones into the receiver and
li=

sten. LOL



Most people today don't actually have stereo receivers. Very few of them

actually have full-range floor-mounted speakers.



I've never had a problem with the way anything sounded through headphones
d=

riven by my receiver. I guess because so many folks nowadays work at
their=

PC it's more space efficient to feed a headphone amp at their desk than
a =

rack-sized component?



Go to your local stereo store and just try to buy a stereo receiver.
There

are fewer and fewer of them every day, although there are lots of home
theatre

surround units out there.



I am not sure if this is a consequence or part of the cause for people not

sitting down and listening to music by itself anymore. When I was a kid,

people used to have record parties where everyone would come to someone's

house and all sit and listen to a record and then talk about it afterward.

This would not be possible today.

--scott

--

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
____________________

Excellent points. Try finding a receiver from the last 10 years that
still has PHONO inputs! LOL. Still, most receivers I'm aware of can play
material in 2ch stereo by default. And the quality of the headphone output
is likely second to none - including headphone amps.

This
http://www.hifiengine.com/gallery/im...receiver.shtml
still centers my main living room system and has since I bought it in 1995!

I wish I had held out for the 517v either uplined or replaced the 515V. A
little more power and bells & whistles.

I'm amused (in a respectful way) by your use of an exclamation point after
"...1995" above. That was probably 10 years after I sold my last McIntosh
MC240, which I had purchased 15 or 20 years before that. I remember being
excited to find a buyer that paid me about twice what I had paid for it
originally. Now, I see a couple on eBay with buy it now prices from $2,000
to $3,000, about ten times what I sold mine for.

Steve King

[None]

wrote in message
...
This whole thread has gotten very technical and away from my original
question, but I guess the basic principle is:

If you don't want technical answers to your (ill informed) technical
questions, then **** off out of RAP.
If you don't like thread drift, **** out of Usenet entirely.

[[email protected]]

(None)


http://en.uuuwell.com/article-99688-1.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I actually don't "get" the whole headphone amp thing. Remember those
quai=
nt components with displays and dozens of knobs/later buttons - called
"rec=
eivers"? I suppose most people are just too lazy to schlep all the way to
=
the room where their receiver is, plug their iPod/mp3 player into a tape
mo=
nitor or unused CD jacks and plug their headphones into the receiver and
li=
sten. LOL

Why use a receiver to listen to a portable digital music player through
headphones?

Wht's wrong with just plugging the headphones into the portable player?


Most people today don't actually have stereo receivers. Very few of them
actually have full-range floor-mounted speakers.

Agreed.

However there is not that much need for stereo recievers given the low
prices of AVRs and the way you can gracefully set them up for stereo if that
is what you want to do.

I've never had a problem with the way anything sounded through headphones
d=
riven by my receiver.

Since this problem depends on which headphones and which receiver, there is
a pretty good possibility that you avoided it by chance.

I guess because so many folks nowadays work at their=
PC it's more space efficient to feed a headphone amp at their desk than a
=
rack-sized component?

Go to your local stereo store and just try to buy a stereo receiver.
There
are fewer and fewer of them every day, although there are lots of home
theatre
surround units out there.

IME most if not all modern HT receivers do the right thing when you
configure them for just 2 speakers.

I am not sure if this is a consequence or part of the cause for people not
sitting down and listening to music by itself anymore.

As a rule HT receivers cost less or far less than dedicated 2 channel
receivers or integrated amplifiers.

When I was a kid,
people used to have record parties where everyone would come to someone's
house and all sit and listen to a record and then talk about it afterward.

It conceptually still happens, although there is a good chance that the
recordings are A/V, might be downloads or web sites viewed online in real
time.

This would not be possible today.

Media covers a lot more different types and styles. Lots!

[William Sommerwerck]

However there is not that much need for stereo recievers
given the low prices of AVRs and the way you can gracefully
set them up for stereo if that is what you want to do.

When you look at the price of AVR receivers -- even "midrange" products --
the watts/dollar is sometimes startling. Considering what you get for the
money -- including the wide array of features -- your average AVR is
dirt-cheap. The reason is probably that almost everything in it is on a
chip, including the output stages.


IME most if not all modern HT receivers do the right thing
when you configure them for just 2 speakers.

This is probably because the reciever's software wasn't written to correctly
recognize what the use of only two /speakers/ "means". You'd need to set the
/mode/ for two-channel. On my Parasound, this mixes all inputs down to two
channels (I believe).

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:16:21 PM UTC-4, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott anix.com wrote in message

news:k10j2p$.panix.com...

I actually don't "get" the whole headphone amp thing. Remember those

quai=

nt components with displays and dozens of knobs/later buttons - called

"rec=

eivers"? I suppose most people are just too lazy to schlep all the way to

=

the room where their receiver is, plug their iPod/mp3 player into a tape

mo=

nitor or unused CD jacks and plug their headphones into the receiver and

li=

sten. LOL



Why use a receiver to listen to a portable digital music player through

headphones?

____________________________________
The receiver can more readily drive the headphone.
_____________________________________

Wht's wrong with just plugging the headphones into the portable player?
_________________________
Depending upon the impedance of the headphone the player might not be able to drive the headphone efficiently.
_______________________




Most people today don't actually have stereo receivers. Very few of them

actually have full-range floor-mounted speakers.



Agreed.



However there is not that much need for stereo recievers given the low

prices of AVRs and the way you can gracefully set them up for stereo if that

is what you want to do.



I've never had a problem with the way anything sounded through headphones

d=

riven by my receiver.



Since this problem depends on which headphones and which receiver, there is

a pretty good possibility that you avoided it by chance.



I guess because so many folks nowadays work at their=

PC it's more space efficient to feed a headphone amp at their desk than a

=

rack-sized component?



Go to your local stereo store and just try to buy a stereo receiver.

There

are fewer and fewer of them every day, although there are lots of home

theatre

surround units out there.



IME most if not all modern HT receivers do the right thing when you

configure them for just 2 speakers.



I am not sure if this is a consequence or part of the cause for people not

sitting down and listening to music by itself anymore.



As a rule HT receivers cost less or far less than dedicated 2 channel

receivers or integrated amplifiers.



When I was a kid,

people used to have record parties where everyone would come to someone's

house and all sit and listen to a record and then talk about it afterward.



It conceptually still happens, although there is a good chance that the

recordings are A/V, might be downloads or web sites viewed online in real

time.



This would not be possible today.



Media covers a lot more different types and styles. Lots!
___________________________

See my replies in between the underscores above.