| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Headphone bottleneck?
Hi everyone,
I'm thinking about taking the first step toward a true hi fi system. Since I can't afford to buy high end loudspeaker components right now, I thought I'd start with a headphone system--especially as my old Sennheisers need replacing anyway. We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ... would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise? TIA Andy Katz |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Katz" wrote in message
We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited. Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ... would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, 580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite accurate reproducers. or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise? Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV watching/listening. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV watching/listening. Is that a new brand of condoms? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00. They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line. I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited. Do you feel that a headphone amplifier is warranted for use with a mass market receiver? Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ... would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, 580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite accurate reproducers. or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise? Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV watching/listening. Thanks for the comments. I'll check them out;-) Andy Katz |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Katz" wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00. They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line. Interesting that I can't find any complete tech data about them on the web. I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited. Do you feel that a headphone amplifier is warranted for use with a mass market receiver? That's a loaded question. I say, buy the good phones and try them out. If your problem is that the headphones don't get loud enough, then an inexpensive but high-quality amp like the "Boostaroo" can help. If you need the features that the Headwize amps provide - go for it! I finessed the headphone amp problem using a number of approaches including a dedicated 12 wpc power amp at one point in my system. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
. com "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 Thanks for the tip. Now, that model does exist! ....in europe http://www.schlauer-preisvergleich.d...ot/147468.html and even the US: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/vid2001/sonymdrcd780.html |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Katz" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andy Katz" wrote in message m We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? Isn't that interesting? I bought them about seven or eight years ago at J & R Music world. They were, if memory serves, just under $200.00. They're oversize, *extremely* comfortable, and obscure. I've never seen any reference to them on e-bay or on-line. There you go: http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/po...nes/mdr-cd870/ Cheers, Margaret |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Carl Valle" wrote in message . com... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos has a wall full of them but I'd stick with the Sony studio STD phones. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message . com... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos .......................... Hmmmm |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message . com... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos .......................... Hmmmm Cut the ****, Atkinson. I'm not Stephen. I just happen to reside in South/Central TX. There's more than lot'S of audupidiophiles in heer:-( Margariette |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:54:06 GMT, "Carl Valle"
wrote: I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 No. It's 870. I do think they're European, however, because I recall doing a search on the model some years back and the only hits were in German. Andy Katz |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
wrote: There you go: http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/po...nes/mdr-cd870/ That's funny. The model number's there, but those don't look anything like mine. Rather they have the strap and dual arch, but my cans are completely round and are held by pivots in the side of each can. Also, it's hard to tell for sure, but the pictured ones look open, while mine are closed. I knew they were rare ... didn't realize how much so. Andy Katz |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:41:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Interesting that I can't find any complete tech data about them on the web. Nor have I over the years. I recall references in German a few years back, so perhaps they're a discontinued European release. The Russian link shows the mod # but the headphone itself is different. That's a loaded question. I say, buy the good phones and try them out. If your problem is that the headphones don't get loud enough, then an inexpensive but high-quality amp like the "Boostaroo" can help. If you need the features that the Headwize amps provide - go for it! Okay. I understand the potential for debate here;-). I wasn't sure what to look for in a headphone amplifier. Volume is not an issue. I have plenty of volume from both my Rio Nitrus and the Onkyo. I was interested in whether a Sennheiser (or the old Sonys) + a good headphone amp could provide reference-quality sound, partly for appreciation now, but also party to train my ears. Like many people, I'm sure, I think the best sounding stereo is the one that's turned on. I want this to help me develop an appreciation for good hi fi in order to prevent severe money wastage down the road;-) Incidentally, while everything I've read about the 580 suggests it's solid, I hear the 595 has a brighter, front row quality. That's something I think I would appreciate. Can you comment? TIA Andy Katz |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Katz" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:34:12 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: There you go: http://www.digitalhall.ru/catalog/po...nes/mdr-cd870/ That's funny. The model number's there, but those don't look anything like mine. Rather they have the strap and dual arch, but my cans are completely round and are held by pivots in the side of each can. Also, it's hard to tell for sure, but the pictured ones look open, while mine are closed. I knew they were rare ... didn't realize how much so. Andy Katz http://www.epinions.com/elec_Audio-H...ay_~full_specs |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:55:49 GMT, Andy Katz
wrote: Hi everyone, I'm thinking about taking the first step toward a true hi fi system. Since I can't afford to buy high end loudspeaker components right now, I thought I'd start with a headphone system--especially as my old Sennheisers need replacing anyway. We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ... would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise? TIA Andy Katz Take my advice and get the 595. I've owned both 580 and 600 and the 595 is not only better balaced for the majority of material, but more efficient, which means you shouldn't require a headphone amp. At least, don't buy anything without listening to the 595. I'll be surprised if you're disappointed, unless the phones you listen to aren't burnt in . |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andy Katz" wrote in message
Okay. I understand the potential for debate here;-). I wasn't sure what to look for in a headphone amplifier. Volume is not an issue. I have plenty of volume from both my Rio Nitrus and the Onkyo. I was interested in whether a Sennheiser (or the old Sonys) + a good headphone amp could provide reference-quality sound, partly for appreciation now, but also party to train my ears. Like many people, I'm sure, I think the best sounding stereo is the one that's turned on. I want this to help me develop an appreciation for good hi fi in order to prevent severe money wastage down the road;-) Incidentally, while everything I've read about the 580 suggests it's solid, I hear the 595 has a brighter, front row quality. That's something I think I would appreciate. Can you comment? No. I've long used various Sony headphones, MDR-6s, and then 7506s. I picked up the 580s about three years ago, and still use both them and the 7506s for various tasks. I also own a number of earphones - you know theones that stick in the ear, including Sony MDR EX 71, Etymotics ER6, and Futuresonics. Of the bunch, I still prefer the 580s the most, followed by the Futuresonics, which are incidentally OEMed by Sennheiser in their professional-grade wireless gear. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... "Carl Valle" wrote in message . com... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I think they just might be MDR CD 780 available only in the UK about $140 Not true. The Sony outlet in San Marcos .......................... Hmmmm Cut the ****, Atkinson. I'm not Stephen. I just happen to reside in South/Central TX. There's more than lot'S of audupidiophiles in heer:-( Margariette No problemo JA |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:16:58 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
wrote: http://www.epinions.com/elec_Audio-H...ay_~full_specs You found them! I never thought to try epinions.com. Thanks...;-) Andy Katz ************************************************** ************* Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker. Paghat, the Rat Girl |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Andy Katz" wrote in message We have a set of Sony MDR CD 870s. I have no knowlege of or experience with these. Is this the correct model number? I thought I'd add Sennheiser 580s (or 600) I have a pair of Senn 580s and would recommend them highly and an amp such as the HeadRoom Little (which is, I understand, expandable). You could upgrade it or get a pricier model, but I don't believe the sound would be any better. I own one and it sounds fine as it is. Since I don't suffer from the "blobs-in-your-head" problem that Headroom amps claim to *fix*, my appreciation of them is limited. I have a Little Headroom myself, and agree that this feature is worthless. Actually, that feature sounds worse to me, so I don't use it. One good thing about the Headroom is that it has absolutely no background hiss or hum, which is important to me, because I listen late at night when my home is very quiet and any electronic noise annoys me. One bad thing is that with my Grado SR80 headphones, the volume control on the Little Headphone doesn't quite give me the low volume I'd like to be able to choose. Instead, at very volume, the sound comes on in one channel, then as I adjust the volume control slightly upwards, the other channel comes on. This might not bother you. I bought the Headroom amp 'cause I kinda sorta always wanted one and unless I bought via the web, there was no other way to try one. I also wanted to experiment with trying some different signal processors between the output of my old Sony Discman (which sounds great with the Grados) and the input on the Headroom amp, as well as to get a little more power for some old Sennheiser headphones that need more power. But I haven't used my Headroom in a long time. IME, headphone outputs on integrated amps, receivers, and even Discman-type players sound from acceptable to excellent, so I wouldn't rush to buy a headphone amp. I haven't heard your Onkyo's headphone output, but it could be excellent. Question is, my receiver is an Onkyo TX 900. Nothing special, in short, and I have a Zenith DVD player ... would I enjoy an improvement in audio quality even though both the radio signal and cd are coming in via mass market equipment, 580s tend to make very many things sound very pleasant, but still are quite accurate reproducers. I think the Sennheisers would make the biggest improvement, although I prefer my Grados, which are cheaper also. I think replacing your Onkyo and/or Zenith hardware may make no improvement at all, but you'd have to get the Headroom amp and/or another CD or DVD player to find out. It's quite possible the Headroom amp, which is a decent amp, won't improve things, if your Onkyo's headphone output sounds good to you. or am I amplyfing an inferior signal ... ie, making noise? Not having heard your gear, I don't know if there's anything that could be improved. It could easily sound great, for all I know. I'm not familiar with your Sony's, but I think a headphone upgrade will make the biggest improvement in your system, I'm guessing. If you're going to shop for headphones, limit yourself to what you can try at local dealers, if at all possible. Even more so than speakers, headphones are a subjective choice, because of the comfort issue. Trust me, if they're not comfy, you won't use 'em. Been there, done that! If you want to try a headphone amp, make sure to get return privileges to allow for the fact you may find you don't really need an amp for this purpose. BTW, I think a lot of people buy headphone amps via mail or the web because stores don't usually have them, at least not where I live. As a result, there are a good number of these amps sitting in closets of home users who bought the amps to try, then lost interest, or so I imagine. Anyway, there are always headphone amps on eBay.com, if you want to try looking there. I've also seen Headroom and other audiophile amps on eBay occasionally. Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV watching/listening. Headphones can be a great way to do that. Fine sound, assuming the TV sound is good, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to listen via headphones than via, for example, a 5.1 home theater setup. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:14:16 GMT, Andy Katz
wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:41:35 GMT, (paul packer) wrote: Take my advice and get the 595. I've owned both 580 and 600 and the 595 is not only better balaced for the majority of material, but more efficient, which means you shouldn't require a headphone amp. At least, don't buy anything without listening to the 595. I'll be surprised if you're disappointed, unless the phones you listen to aren't burnt in . Thanks. I'm definitely going to try them first. Do I understand correctly that there was some problem with the factory and they're currently difficult to get here? Andy Katz The factory burnt down, which was definitely a problem for Sennheiser. However, stock is just starting to be distributed now in all countries. ************************************************* ************** Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker. Paghat, the Rat Girl Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy Katz wrote in message . ..
On 22 Sep 2004 14:25:32 -0700, (N) wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... (snip) IME, headphone outputs on integrated amps, receivers, and even Discman-type players sound from acceptable to excellent, so I wouldn't rush to buy a headphone amp. I haven't heard your Onkyo's headphone output, but it could be excellent. I see. I probably ought to have asked what to expect from a headphone amp. I really have no complaints-aside from occasional hiss, which I don't find too troubling-about using my Sonys with the Onkyo. If you're only hearing hiss occasionally, you might just be hearing the hiss that might be in the recordings you're listening to. I really don't need any additional volume. I was hoping train my ears, much as a nascent restaurant critic has to learn to train his or her palate, to discern better quality audio. Well, this could get very expensive! Seriously, I just want good sound, namely sound that I like, and I don't worry about whether or not that makes me an audiophile. Except for my headphone stuff, I own very little gear that would impress an audiophile. And even my ear gear is of the "budget audiophile" type. But of anything in audio, headphones are something where you get the a lot of bang for your buck. With headphones, you can buy much better sound than even much more expensive speakers can provide. If an amp won't improve the sound quality output, if it only turns up the volume then I don't need it. You'd have to compare the headphone amp directly to your Onkyo receiver to find out if one or the other sounds better. I think the Sennheisers would make the biggest improvement, although I prefer my Grados, which are cheaper also. I think replacing your Onkyo and/or Zenith hardware may make no improvement at all, but you'd have to get the Headroom amp and/or another CD or DVD player to find out. It's quite possible the Headroom amp, which is a decent amp, won't improve things, if your Onkyo's headphone output sounds good to you. Good point. I'm definitely planning to check out the Sennheisers (and possibly Grados, though I'm not sure where one can listen to Grados in NYC) I've never shopped for Grados in NYC, but they should be easily available, given that Grado is in Brooklyn: http://www.gradolabs.com/frameset_main.htm Give them a call and I bet they can tell you their dealers. I don't see a dealer list on their web site. (snip) If you're going to shop for headphones, limit yourself to what you can try at local dealers, if at all possible. Even more so than speakers, headphones are a subjective choice, because of the comfort issue. Trust me, if they're not comfy, you won't use 'em. Been there, done that! If you want to try a headphone amp, make sure to get return privileges to allow for the fact you may find you don't really need an amp for this purpose. Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing comfort. I have some older Sennheisers (can't remember model name) that I tend to use the most because they're the most comfortable for me. In the past and now, I've had fancier, pricier headphones (from Grado, Sennheiser, Stax, and some other brands I've forgotten), but the comfort issue always wins out for me. I also find the Grados pretty comfy. The Sennheiser also looks better and has better ergonomics. (snip) Let's put it this way, I've been known to use 580s for private TV watching/listening. Headphones can be a great way to do that. Fine sound, assuming the TV sound is good, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to listen via headphones than via, for example, a 5.1 home theater setup. Indeed. I've hooked up the headphones to a small receiver that gets a digital signal directly from the cable source, so TV sound is outstanding. I find myself watching something with familiar stars (familiar on TV, at least) marvelling at hearing them speak for the first time. You may also notice little sound effects, as well as sounds that weren't really meant to be heard, and little goofs like that. Can be interesting to hear. I used to have big amps, big speakers, I spent a lot of money (by my standards) on audio gear, etc. Now I use much cheaper, simpler gear that is easier for me and my family to use and enjoy; it gets used much more because it's simpler than the big setup I used to have, where I was really the only one at home with enough interest in the gear and knowledge to get it all up and running when I wanted to listen to a CD. And I found that I liked using the easier-to-operate gear myself. But if I really want more of an audiophile experience, I get out the headphone gear. Keeping that around is a good compromise that allows me to have high-quality sound when I want it, without having to live with the big speakers, amps, etc. which took up a lot of room and tended to gather dust anyway. But I haven't used my Little Headroom amp this year, I bet, and I have other gear that I can use with headphones, so I'll probably sell the Headroom eventually. Andy Katz |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last
thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage. Why? Because she might be right? :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." I'm sure I've been right many times too, but no one quotes me. When we were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to change my mind. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:14:16 GMT, Andy Katz wrote: ************************************************* ************** Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker. Paghat, the Rat Girl Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage. Howdy, Fudgie! I haven't thought of you for over four years! I'm surprised your pile is still steaming after a four-year-old flame in response to your homophobic denials about Mary Renault & Julie Mullard's life together. It was nice you'd even heard of them; beyond that, you were such a dork. You went all dubious that their fifty-year life-commitment was gay, charged me with having an "agenda" for even alluding to it, & you went so far as to misquote one of their biographers who you claimed said they weren't gay. (What he actually said was, in their youth together, "did not think of themselves as lesbians because they thought what they were doing was unique, that they had invented it. If asked, they would have said they were bisexual. They often found men attractive, even if they did prefer each other." Your denials were so moronic that I had a few jests at your whiny expense, though only after you'd started acusing me of a sinister queer agenda that you believed had nothing to do with books you liked. I would never have thought of you or that encounter ever again if Andy's sigfile hadn't given you the horrors. But a google archive search reminded me of the amusing long-ago encounter. They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too: http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time, as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic' freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace, career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality." I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational, as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love. This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay -- the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage" (when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking to you. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote: Please don't quote this woman. I've had arguments with her. The last thing I wish is to see her being quoted at large like a sage. Why? Because she might be right? :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." I'm sure I've been right many times too, but no one quotes me. Sheesh. If you want THAT badly to be quoted, I'll quote you then, you can print it up yourself as a Certificate of Recognition: "My name really is Paul, even if it isn't Pecker." When we were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to change my mind. Quite likely you can't recognize sanity because you lack the personal reflective context to do so. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
paghat said:
-paghat the ratgirl Can't you stay on RAO for a while? I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Sander deWaal
wrote: paghat said: -paghat the ratgirl Can't you stay on RAO for a while? I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-) I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main topic, but the electronic stuff that has found it into our home is all just magic to me. And I'm still waiting most expectantly for that futuristic world I saw on old pulp magazines, when we'll all have our personal art deco jets with which to zip 'round & about Electro City 'twixt & between vaccuum tubes big as skyscrapers. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
paghat said:
-paghat the ratgirl Can't you stay on RAO for a while? I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-) I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main topic, but the electronic stuff that has found it into our home is all just magic to me. And I'm still waiting most expectantly for that futuristic world I saw on old pulp magazines, when we'll all have our personal art deco jets with which to zip 'round & about Electro City 'twixt & between vaccuum tubes big as skyscrapers. LOL!!!! RAO is about just anything and a little audio. I love your style already! -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howdy, Fudgie! I haven't thought of you for over four years! I'm surprised
your pile is still steaming after a four-year-old flame in response to your homophobic denials about Mary Renault & Julie Mullard's life together. It was nice you'd even heard of them; beyond that, you were such a dork. You went all dubious that their fifty-year life-commitment was gay, charged me with having an "agenda" for even alluding to it, & you went so far as to misquote one of their biographers who you claimed said they weren't gay. Wrong, my dear. Totally wrong, which is why I ceased conversing with you. In your haste to defend lesbianism you imagined I was attacking same. As I suggested at the time, I don't think you read my posts at all, and given the length of your own it's not surprising--you didn't have time. I was neither attacking homosexuality nor suggesting that Renault wasn't homosexual. What I was saying was that her books were not "homosexual"--that is, that is not what they were primarily about. Rather she simply included a homosexual element where it was dictated by the subject matter or, in her later works, by history. If you take a book like "Last of the Wine" or "Mask of Apollo", yes, there is a gay element, but never more than is dictated by the situation and characters---these are simply not "gay" books in the sense that homosexuality is the prime focus or is being "preached". My objection to your interpretation, and indeed Sweetman's, was that far too much emphasis is placed on that element at the expense of appreciating Renault's wonderful scholarship and literary artistry. This is indeed my objection to the gay community generally---that they're so busy being gay they often forget that they're also just people, citizens of a community. (I think this point is made by Renault in "The Charioteer" if I remember correctly). I wonder why gays are so defensive that they see attacks where there are none. (What he actually said was, in their youth together, "did not think of themselves as lesbians because they thought what they were doing was unique, that they had invented it. If asked, they would have said they were bisexual. They often found men attractive, even if they did prefer each other." Your denials were so moronic that I had a few jests at your whiny expense, though only after you'd started acusing me of a sinister queer agenda that you believed had nothing to do with books you liked. All sheer fantasy. As for the "queer agenda", yes, I think gay many people tend to wish that everyone was gay, tend to try to prove that even innocent statements contain a gay subtext. I've been in gay company and heard such assertions--that the whole world is really gay but they're all denying it. Piffle. I would never have thought of you or that encounter ever again if Andy's sigfile hadn't given you the horrors. But a google archive search reminded me of the amusing long-ago encounter. Same here. That's why I objected to it--because I thought I'd forgotten you and it was so pleasant to have done so. They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too: http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time, as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic' freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace, career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality." I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational, Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh sorry. Did you really say the above? My disbelief in Renault's homosexuality? Oh my dear, you couldn't be further from the truth. I started reading Renault when I was 14, and at that age, as often happens, I not at all certain of my sexual identity. (Look it up; it's common). In fact I was drawn to the homosexual element; it was a surprise and comfort to me. I thought the relationships between Laurie and Andrew in "Charioteer" and Alexias and Lysis in "Last of the wine" were beautifully drawn and in many ways the ideal of love; there was not a homophobic bone in my body. Neither is there now. I just object to gays interpreting eveything through a kind of "gay" filter" that sees only the "gayness" of everything, often at the expense of the humanity. The wonder of those books was their literary artistry and sheer intelligence, not their gayness. as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love. This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay -- the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage" (when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking to you. -paghat the ratgirl Paghat, you're as far off the path now as you were then. If you've interpreted Renault as well as you've interpreted me....well, that explains everything. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote: paul packer said: When we were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to change my mind. I just read Paghat's four-year-old post about Mary Renault and Julie Mullard. It looks to me like she cleaned your clock. How did you arrive at that conclusion, George--by counting the words? What you mean is she types faster than me. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:09:05 -0700,
(paghat) wrote: In article , Sander deWaal wrote: paghat said: -paghat the ratgirl Can't you stay on RAO for a while? I bet you'll scare the hell outta the 'borgs :-) I would hang out with y'all a long time if I could contribute to the main topic, No, it's okay.... |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:31:00 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote: paul packer said: When we were locking horns some time back, I couldn't see that she said anything suggestive of sanity, and the appended quote does nothing to change my mind. I just read Paghat's four-year-old post about Mary Renault and Julie Mullard. It looks to me like she cleaned your clock. How did you arrive at that conclusion, George--by counting the words? What you mean is she types faster than me. Well, now I've read your rebuttal, and I think you're tanked again. Gee, George, and I really thought you'd support me in this debate--not. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote: Wrong, my dear. Totally wrong, which is why I ceased conversing with you. In your haste to defend lesbianism you imagined I was attacking same. As I suggested at the time, I don't think you read my posts at all, and given the length of your own it's not surprising--you didn't have time. I was neither attacking homosexuality nor suggesting that Renault wasn't homosexual. YOU said "Renault and Mullard lived together but never considered themselves Lesbians." Reality: In letters & with friends they ackowledged overtly & specifically that they were lesbians. YOU said: "Mullard herself said that if anyone mentioned lesbians they would take themselves elsewhere" when in fact they had many gay friends, & Mary's reluctance to talk to Sweetman about it had nothing whatsoever to do with avoidance of anything but Gay Pride marches. Sweetman himself is quite clear that he believes her fiction cannot be understood separately from her life long love affair with Julie, so you relied on a single biographer's opinion that you had to completely misrepresent to force it to match your own phobic responses. What I was saying was that her books were not "homosexual"--that is, that is not what they were primarily about. Rather she simply included a homosexual element where it was dictated by the subject matter or, in her later works, by history. If you take a book like "Last of the Wine" or "Mask of Apollo", yes, there is a gay element, but never more than is dictated by the situation and characters---these are simply not "gay" books in the sense that homosexuality is the prime focus or is being "preached". My objection to your interpretation, and indeed Sweetman's, was that far too much emphasis is placed on that element at the expense of appreciating Renault's wonderful scholarship and literary artistry. This is indeed my objection to the gay community generally---that they're so busy being gay they often forget that they're also just people, citizens of a community. (I think this point is made by Renault in "The Charioteer" if I remember correctly). I wonder why gays are so defensive that they see attacks where there are none. That you believe the only aspect of a gay person's life is having sex shows what a sad view of you have of gays. That you think admitting a gay author writing of gay characters couldn't be a gay novel & still embody "wonderful scholarship & literary artistry" shows what a bigot you are -- OF COURSE gay novels about gay characters by gay authors can be scholarly & literary. That you persist in thinking otherwise shows the amazing limitation of your worldview. So your arguments are loony to the very heart. And that heart is best revealed when you admit to a bigotted homophobic "objection to the gay community generally." Which I believed four years ago, & believe now, makes you one of the worst self-hating fags of all time. As for the "queer agenda", yes, I think gay people tend to wish that everyone was gay, tend to try to prove that even innocent statements contain a gay subtext. Your paranoia again speaking to yourself. There is no need to have an agenda or ferret out a gay subtext in books by gay authors about gay characters. That you think this takes an obsessive quest for subtexts shows you're a nutter. It was YOU, not me, who decided that the focus of discussion, argument, or flame should be exclusively about the gay content of these books, so that you could make your weird irrational denials of consequence. In my innocuous post that set you off: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BADSPAMBADpaghat-2404010922300001%40soggy72.drizzle.com&output=gpla in I made THREE points regarding Renault: 1) That her first editions were still available cheaply ($25 vs hundreds of dollars for first of lesser contemporaries) because she is still not taken as seriously as she deserves to be & is not on the A-list of collectible authors; 2) that she was ahead of her time treating homosexuality positively & well as it actually existed in the ancient world; & 3) her greatest strength was her ability to establish & maintain viewpoints of characters who are of their time instead of ours. I gave equal weight to these three points -- you only imagined it was exclusively about homosexual content when YOU irrationally demanded to know, "Would you appreciate Renault at all if there were no gay element in her books? That seems to be your only area of interest," even though my assessment was far broader than your own. It was frankly a question you needed to ask nobody but yourself. Perhaps in another four years you'll be able to answer it honestly rather than with all these weird denials & paranoid delusions about agendas & impositions of the objectionable gay community you so roundly misrepresent. They were dykes, Fudgie. So neener. And cute dykes too: http://niftynats.tripod.com/lesbians/renault.jpg It was harder to be "out" in the 1940s & 1950s than it is now, & harder in South Africa than in Paris or London. When time caught up with them in the post-Stonewall era, it was still hard for a couple in their 70s to suddenly be expected by their enormous gay following to come out to the public, which was still risky, & neither Mary nor Julie ever wanted to do that. Yet Mary was brave for her time. As Caroline Zilboorg notes in THE MASKS OF MARY RENAULT, Renault's boldness was to write about homosexuality in fictional contexts which made her less closeted than many of the time, as "The classical settings allowed Renault to mask material too explosive to deal with directly while simultaneously giving her an 'academic' freedom to write about subjects vital to her--among them war, peace, career, women's roles, female and male homosexuality, and bisexuality." I'd think that after four years, if our exchange had even been worthy of a second thought let alone your continuous hostile reflection, you'd've ceased to be ballistic by now & just realized it was weird of you to find those cute dykes' love for one another so unbelievable. Your sense of disbelief in a favorite author's homosexuality was massively irrational, Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh sorry. Did you really say the above? My disbelief in Renault's homosexuality? Oh my dear, you couldn't be further from the truth. I started reading Renault when I was 14, and at that age, as often happens, I not at all certain of my sexual identity. (Look it up; it's common). In fact I was drawn to the homosexual element; it was a surprise and comfort to me. I'm glad after four years you've evolved enough to admit it was the faggotiness of the stories that comforted you. You were incapable of admitting that four years ago, when you most certainly did gripe that those cute dykes weren't lesbians & you even claimed they deplored gays & avoided them (a complete lie; they avoided opportunities to march at the front of the parade), & you're still insisting books by gay authors with gay characters can't be gay books if they also have literary value -- bigotted ignorant assertions all. Yes OF COURSE you were drawn to the gay subject, being a self-loathing closet fag, but four years ago you explicitly denied that could be their draw for you. I thought the relationships between Laurie and Andrew in "Charioteer" and Alexias and Lysis in "Last of the wine" were beautifully drawn and in many ways the ideal of love; there was not a homophobic bone in my body. Neither is there now. I just object to gays interpreting eveything through a kind of "gay" filter" that sees only the "gayness" of everything, often at the expense of the humanity. The wonder of those books was their literary artistry and sheer intelligence, not their gayness. Still at it like a classic self-hating homophobe. Books by gay authors about gay characters seen as gay books only with special filters, agendas, & other things that your paranoid fears imagine. That you persist in believing gay books can't have "literary artistry & sheer intelligence" shows your problem runs EXTREMELY deep. And that fact, rather than my existence, is why you had to revisit the issue after four years rather than just getting over it. This is in essence the same dumbass homophobic argument you made before, claiming it was me who saw exclusively gayness in the books. YOU lost your cookies over that one issue after I laid out a quarter-dozen areas of consequence in Renault's themes & storytelling prowess. YOU, not I, focused exclusively on the gay issue -- so the blinders or filters or agendas your paranoic self-hate imposes on others in the end applies only to you. Your whole thought processes sounds like the kind of closet-case who has no problem using the Glory Hole anonymously in some park toilet, but afterward imagines all sorts of paranoid things about queers because of the distorted view you have in your own mirror. as Mary herself addressed it in her contemporary lesbian novel FRIENDLY YOUNG LADIES (recently reprinted by Vintage Books), & she was even quite out & open to her & Julie's personal friends, with correspondence since published in which she is very open, as when she outlined to a friend how she'd once encouraged Julie to date a man so that Julie would be absolutely certain she had made the right choice with Mary, & admitted she had worried that without Julie she might have ended up only a "Sister George" type. Instead, she found true lifelong love. This stuff gave you fits four years ago, so I ended up thinking of you as Fudge Packer merely because it is so often the worst self-hating closety faggots who become the most irrationally convinced even gay icons like Renault, Gertrude Stein, or Tennessee Williams couldn't possibly be gay -- the denials part of their their own inability to admit their personal interest is gay novels with gay subjects does in fact have something to do with being gay. That my opinion still rankles you four years later is simply you being loony. That you're worried I'm treated like a "sage" (when the most recent three folks to quote me in their sigfiles seem more to have regarded me as a commedienne) is still just your paranoia speaking to you. -paghat the ratgirl Paghat, you're as far off the path now as you were then. If you've interpreted Renault as well as you've interpreted me....well, that explains everything. If you knew yourself half as well as you think, you might've been able to overcome your dread of sweet paghat by now. That you can at least finally admit the queerness of Renault's books were their chief draw for you shows there's hope, but you have a long, long, long way to grow. -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy Katz wrote in message . ..
On 23 Sep 2004 07:21:28 -0700, (N) wrote: If you're only hearing hiss occasionally, you might just be hearing the hiss that might be in the recordings you're listening to. I actually hear it in broadcast occasionally. It was horrible when I hooked our TV up to run through the stereo. Ground loop I'd venture. Anyway, I hooked the TV up through an old stereo, and there's no hiss from that. The othe hiss is mild, at times nonexistent. I'd think you'd have hum from ground loops, not hiss. (snip) But of anything in audio, headphones are something where you get the a lot of bang for your buck. With headphones, you can buy much better sound than even much more expensive speakers can provide. Oh, I agree. My first really good pair were the MDR V6 (matter of fact my son needs a new pair, and I see that some are still available, I'm going to get some for him). I can't imagine when I'll be able to afford a reference loudspeaker system. But phones aren't a bad compromise. Exactly. And with really good speakers, you need a lot of room also, so the headphones save a lot of space too. By the way, I think the Sony MDR-7506 is the same as the V6, if you want to compare prices: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...phones&m eta= (snip) ROFL ... they're just down the street from me, I had no idea (we're on Fifth, they're on Seventh Ave). Curious that no one I know of carries them here ... maybe the audiophile outlets? Probably so. I've only seen them at those sort of dealers, both online and retail. They also turn up on eBay. I've also had the experience of discovering audiophile products are made almost in my backyard. It can be a bit surprising, as you discovered. Absolutely, yes. One thing about the Sonys is their astonishing comfort. I have some older Sennheisers (can't remember model name) that I tend to use the most because they're the most comfortable for me. In the past and now, I've had fancier, pricier headphones (from Grado, Sennheiser, Stax, and some other brands I've forgotten), but the comfort issue always wins out for me. I also find the Grados pretty comfy. The Sennheiser also looks better and has better ergonomics. Right. I was reading some reviews: a larger # of people find the Senns generally comfortable, but those who like the Grados really like them. I think Sennheiser is the leader in ergonomics. I've owned Grado SR40, SR80, and SR200 headphones, and while the sound is great, they just don't look as sleek as Sennheisers either. Some people find the Grados uncomfortable, but either I got used to them or they got used to me. Based on what I read, comparing the Grado RS 1 to the Senn 600, I would *probably* prefer the Grado because of its detail, its immediacy. That particular model, however, costs about twice what the 600 costs. I've never been that far up the Grado line. Comparing the SR80 to the SR200 (since replaced in Grado's line by the SR225), the SR80 had more of that immediacy than the SR200. Both sounded fine, I just decided I wasn't going to keep both, and I slightly preferred the SR80, so I sold the SR200's. That sense of immediacy, of being live, and sounding like really good speakers in a room, is where the Grados really excel. With the exception of the SR40, which has the SR60 drivers in a cheap plastic frame and is aimed at the portable audio crowd, all the Grados have the same basic design. While I haven't heard the Grado RS headphones, I'm slightly suspicious that they might not sound a lot different than the cheaper Grados like mine. One more thought: The Grados have open backs, so people sitting near you will also be hearing what you hear. That's true in a typical office cubicle setting too--been there, done that! Grados also won't seal out outside sounds, which can be either an advantage or a disadvantage. If you want to really be alone with the music, get headphones with closed backs, or else something that really goes inside your ears, like the Etymotic or Shure earbuds. (Haven't heard these myself.) (snip) Sure ... our apartment is well located, but it's tiny. Sounds like NYC, all right! (snip) But if I really want more of an audiophile experience, I get out the headphone gear. Keeping that around is a good compromise that allows me to have high-quality sound when I want it, without having to live with the big speakers, amps, etc. which took up a lot of room and tended to gather dust anyway. But I haven't used my Little Headroom amp this year, I bet, and I have other gear that I can use with headphones, so I'll probably sell the Headroom eventually. How much ya want for it;-)? Hmmm...how about $125, including shipping within the US? I see the current price is $259, plus shipping, at: http://www.headphone.com/layout.php?...D=00100 10010 If interested, post again in this thread and I'll contact you via e-mail. Andy Katz |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| headphone response curve question | High End Audio | |||
| Noisy headphone jacks | High End Audio | |||
| Headphone Solution for High End Gaming RIG | Audio Opinions | |||
| How do I connect wireless headphone to a TV? | Tech | |||
| need basic headphone amp | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
