Category: Headphones

Great Looking Headphone Stand with USB 3.0 inputs

7/31/2016

I decided to buy a Satechi Aluminum USB Headphone Stand Holder with Three USB 3.0 Ports and 3.5mm AUX port to put on my desk. As many people that read my blog know, my desk is a bit cluttered, especially when compared to the "ideal setups" on the many Youtube videos that are setup to show off and criticize setups.

Note: I get paid commissions for purchases made through any links to Amazon products in this post.

You know, those guys that say you should mount a hanger to the bottom of your desk so you can get your headphones out of site. The fact is that I like my headphones easily available without reaching under the desk, however,I do like to have multi-use products that at least limit some of the "clutter".

Below is a prior pick of my desk to give you an idea of the amount of stuff I like to keep at arms length.

USB Features

The feature list on this thing is pretty awesome considering the price (currently on Amazon for less than $35). It is made of aluminum, so it looks great next to Apple products and the many different manufactures that are also using aluminum these days. It has three USB 3.0 inputs.

In the picture above, the black cable is plugged into the output that feeds a computer. It is located in a great spot because it is easy to place the stand so that the input is at the back of the desk. It allows the other ports to face toward you so that you can plug in your iPhone, iPad, Card Reader, etc.

I have mine plugged into another powered USB device, rather than the computer. With this setup, I tested plugging in my iPhone 6s plus and it provided it with a charge. I am not sure how fast it charges compared to plugging the iPhone into the wall, but at least I was getting some battery power while moving data from my iPhone to a computer and from the computer to the iPhone.

Headphone Features

Of course, the product would be pretty useless if it didn't function as a great headphone stand. I currently have my AKG K701s on the stand. These headphones have very large ear pads and they fit perfectly on the stand without tipping it over or without the earpieces dragging the floor of the stand.

The one thing that really sold me was the cable management built into the back of the stand. As anyone with a regular stand knows, if you are using headphones without an detachable cable, you can end up with several feet of cable to wrap up and try to hide. However, this stand has loops built into the back that you can wrap the headphone cable around.

As you can see from the picture below, I keep it fairly loose so I don't have to unwind the cable, but you can wind it a lot tighter if you want a cleaner look. For me, the stand is in a position so that you can't see the back of the stand and you can't see how loose I keep it.

Another thing you can see in the picture above is that the stand has an aux input. You can plug your headphones into this port for audio (you can select it from the sound menu on your computer). For the iMac, it is Plug N' Play and the stand shows up in the menu as "USB Audio Device."

I have a Cambridge DACMagic and a Head Canamp for my headphones, so I don't have much use for this port, but if you have bought into the "low clutter" movement, this might be ideal if you haven't decided to store your headphones under the desk.

As a side note, I am sure a lot of people with ugly, cheap or embarrassing headphones may want to store them out of site, but if you paid a couple hundred bucks for your headphones, I would expect that you might not mind having them on top of your desk.

Note: I get paid commissions for purchases made through any links to Amazon products in this post.

The Wrap Up

If you are in the market for a decent looking, inexpensive, aluminum headphone stand (as a side note, you can also get the stand in "gold" and "space gray") with wire management that can also provide three USB 3.0 ports, look no further, this stand is for you!

0 Comments

The Death of the Home Stereo System?

9/28/2013

0 Comments

This article is a response to the "Death of the Home Stereo System" article at CNN.com. My plan is to take sections of the article and reply to them as a modern day music fanatic.

"All I had to bring was my laptop. That's pretty much what everyone had," says Rubio, who attended Emory University in Atlanta and now works for a local marketing and communications firm. "It was actually pretty good sound. It would get the job done."
"Get the job done"? That sounds like the white flag for an era that used to be measured in woofers and tweeters, watts per channel and the size of your record collection."

I doubt people took their record collections and watts per channel everywhere they went back in the so-called "golden age" of audio. Now you can plug in a Dragonfly DAC and connect a pair of quality headphones and get fantastic sound quality anywhere you can carry a laptop (which is everywhere). Your mobile choices in the past were much more limited. If you were lucky, you had a mobile cassette player that did not compare to the sound quality from this type of setup.

"What's happened in the marketplace, the midmarket for audio has completely been obliterated," he says. "You have this high-end market that's getting smaller all the time, and then you've got the convenience market, which has taken over -- the MP3s, the Bluetooth devices, playing on laptops."

I don't believe that these devices are a compromise as much as they are answering an issue related to portability. Also, most "mp3 players" now handle lossless formats. For the audiophile, this is a better option for portability than wheeling around your components, speakers, and record collection in a wheelbarrow.

Also, I don't believe the midmarket for audio has been destroyed. There are tons of DACs, amps, headphones, speakers, and receivers that aim at the midmarket. In fact, I believe audio quality is improving at lower prices with each passing year.

As an example, I have a $30 T-amp that produces decent sound with a pair of efficient speakers. You could not come close to the price (especially when you use present value formulas) for this sound quality in the past.

The plus side to receivers is that the tech in the high end market of yesterday is now available in the lower priced ( less than $1000 - not sure what is meant by midmarket) market today. I have an extremely cheap Sony receiver (I think it was around $200 when I bought it) in my office that has audio pass through (this is needed if you are using a separate DAC) and can play anything you throw at it. The same features a couple years ago would have been over $1000, easily. Actually, it has features not available in $5000 receivers from 5 years ago....like the ability to play HD audio formats via HDMI instead of having 6 component audio connectors.

"Greg Milner, the author of the audio recording history "Perfecting Sound Forever," remembers the process. There were components. There were boxes of tapes and CDs. There might even be some vinyl.

It could be a pain, no question. The equipment was heavy. There were all those wires, plugs and jacks -- Line In, Line Out, Aux, Phono, CD, keeping track of the positive and negative strands of speaker wire. It was an effort just to break down and set up the stuff, never mind moving it."

Exactly, these things weren't made for portability. CDs and vinyl are both still around and more people are buying vinyl than they have in years. However, CDs are often bought and then ripped to a computer in a lossless format for the convenience of playing anywhere.

"However, we also started focusing more on visuals. Penchansky traces the decline of the stereo system to the early '80s rise of the music video, which brought visuals to the fore. Suddenly, the concert hall in your living room -- or the audio imaging in your head -- was gone, replaced by surrealist pictures overwhelming the television's tiny speaker.

That branch of consumption has helped lead to the home theater.

Penchansky has nothing against HDTVs and 7.1 systems, but believes that, for the most part, it's a "sonic compromise." With a pure audio system, "There was no way that television, even today, simulates the realism of visual experience the way (good) audio can simulate an audio experience."

I agree that the video had a lot to do with the popularity of the home theater. However, I think it had less to do with MTV than Dolby's Pro Logic combined with the VHS tape. This allowed a more immersive experience for movie fans. When DVDs hit the scene, the typical 3 channel setup expanded into 5.1 for Dolby Digital and DTS. The flexibility of listening to a stereo soundtrack and a more movie theater like experience made people move the two channel setup out of their main living spaces. The addition of a subwoofer also added much more oomph to the low end of the audio spectrum, especially when compare to the typical bookshelf speakers many people were using.

Personally, I don't believe this has to be a trade off. I have a vintage two channel Marantz receiver and my Denon surround system blows it away for two channel music and obviously for movies. The Audyssey calibration software built into many receivers addresses acoustical issues with less than optimal rooms. To me, this was a significant step up in sound quality for all audio sources.

The author seems to think this is a sonic compromise, but I don't agree with that assessment. Listen to Dave Mathews and Tim Reynolds on Blu-ray in TrueHD audio and tell me that a video and audio experience combined don't measure up. The flexibility of a multichannel setup also allows the user to take advantage of DVD-Audio and multichannel SACDs. To me, a two channel only setup is more of a compromise. You can't even listen to the great RCA Living Stereo or Mercury LIving Presence SACDs with the third audio track (which is how they were originally recorded) with a two channel only setup.

"Now, why even bother?" he asks. "If you can take your entire music collection and more in something that fits in your pocket, why would you not do that?"

The upside to using audio files isn't just pocket portability (although that is a major factor). It is also about having your entire collection available from anywhere, including every room in your house or streaming it to your computer at work. In the past, if you wanted to listen to a CD in your bedroom, you may have had to go out to your car to get the CD before being able to play it. You may have it on a rack in the living room or in a CD player in another system. Now you can pull the music from a server (computer, NAS, hard drive) and play it without needing the physical CD. I have Airplay devices all over the house and it is great to be able to play a lossless version of any album I own from anywhere in the house or even stream the audio to every one of those units at the same time.

Finally, this may or may not be the so-called "golden age of audio", but I do believe it is the golden age for the music fan. Convenience leads to people listening to more music. Services like MOG and Spotify allow subscribers to listen to millions of songs or thousands of albums. Last night, I was watching Leno on the Tonight Show and he had Gregory Porter as the performer. I had never heard of Mr. Porter, but I enjoyed his soulful performance. This morning, I pulled up his new album on MOG (in a very acceptable 320kbps) and listened to it on my Denon 4311Ci setup. It was great! In the so-called golden age of audio, I probably would have never heard from him again. It was too expensive to spend money on a full album that I might not enjoy and I would have forgot all about by the time I made it to the record store.

When I was a kid, I remember going to library and checking out a couple of albums (I seem to remember a strict limit of a couple of albums at a time). If I wanted to dig deeper into the John Coltrane album collection, I was out of luck because they only had a copy of "Blue Train". With MOG, I can listen to every album (or at least most of them) in his collection. I can also just push a button to take me to similar artists if I want to continue to explore.

I do believe there is a disconnect between the music fan and the audiophile. Many music fans can listen to music on AM radio and enjoy it. It is about the music. The audiophile often listens to their equipment and concentrates on the inadequacies. I admittedly have more music fan in me than audiophile, but I have spent money on DACs, headphone amps, and other things to improve the sound over a standard set earbuds. Unfortunately, I think being an audiophile often leads to discontent and the inability to just relax and enjoy the music. This doesn't mean I don't strive for the best bang for the buck sound, but I don't continually chase sound quality when I am fully aware of the law of diminishing returns.

In short, I believe this is the golden age for music!

0 Comments

Shure SRH-940 Headphone Review

1/1/2012

0 Comments

I am sort of a a headphone freak. I have been asked why I have so many headphones and my standard answer is that I use them in different rooms. However, now that I have more headphones than rooms, I guess that excuse is not going to work in anymore. Instead I just say that I am willing to admit, at this point, I have a problem. A quick list of my headphones may give you some more insight into this review, so here they are:

1. AKG K701
2. Sennheiser HD580s
3. ATH Ad700s
4. ATH M50s
5. Etymotic ER-4P in ear monitors
6. Grado SR-60s
7. Realistic HP-100 Electrostatic vintage headphones
8. A few other cheap headphones laying around.

In reality, the main reason I have a few pairs, is that they have different sound signatures and can be used in different situations. My favorite pair of headphones has been the AKG K701s with a Cambridge DACMagic and a Heed Canamp headphone amp. The whole system is important because AKGs and Heed go together like peanut butter and chocolate. However, if you put peanut butter and mustard together, it might not be as pleasing. The same with the AKGs. You plug them directly into an iPhone and you will be left wondering why anyone likes them.

I have read reviews of the SRH-940s that compare them favorably to the AKGs. However, the added benefit of the SRH-940s is that they do not need an amp to sound good and they are closed headphones. This means they let in and out less sound than the open backed AKGs. Also, they will have a more narrow soundstage than the AKGs. Some people like the large soundstage and some hate it. However, with the Shures, the soundstage is smaller, but it is really good for a closed headphone. I doubt anyone will complain about it, even if it is a bit more narrow than the K701s.

The SRH-940 headphones are extremely revealing, so if you have music that sounds screechy or metallic, chances are, your ears will not forgive you if you listen with these headphones. I have a pair of Senn HD580s that have a warm sonic signature where the highs seem to roll off and because of the fullness and accentuation of bass, you often lose detail. As a result, they sound better with poor source material.

The Shures, on the other hand, are accurate with no roll off and no accentuation on bass. Therefore, if you listen right out of an iPhone, you may want to be sure you listen to albums you know are not 64kbps rips of horribly recorded music. The Shures, like the AKGs, often get criticized for being bass light. Not sure if it is true, but they are definitely not bass enhanced like you have on many cheap headphones or more expensive headphones that are named after rap stars.

So the main consideration is what type of music you have in your collection. If you have highly compressed music and/or horribly recorded music that you listen to right out of an mp3 player, you might be better off with something else.

I should mention that I tried these with most of my desk amps. I find them to have too much noise with the Heed for some reason and I much preferred the AKGs in this setup. However, I also tried them with a Little Dot MKIII amp and they sounded much more liquid and the bass was more emphasized. You still get tons of detail, but the source audio files becomes less important. Finally, I tried them with an X-Can V3 headphone amp and it provides added oomph to the bass and takes some of the harshness off the more compressed sources. If this were a three bears rating system, I would rank them accordingly:

1. Without an amp with iPhone - cold
2. LD MHIII - warm
3. X-can V3 - just right

Of course, depending on the source and your tastes, you might prefer warm or cold. Which is why I am in love with these headphones, the extreme detail plus certain amps give you the ability to tailor the sound to your tastes. Not sure they will ever be your favorite if you like bass boosted sound, but for everyone else, I highly recommend these headphones.

PS I wanted to mention that these headphones come with two cables that you can use. I read a MacLife review yesterday that complained about the long coiled cord, but for situations that you do not need a coiled, expandable cord, you can just use the 8.2 foot straight cable. Just wrap up the excess cable you don't need.

0 Comments

Great Looking Headphone Stand with USB 3.0 inputs

USB Features

Headphone Features

The Wrap Up

The Death of the Home Stereo System?

Shure SRH-940 Headphone Review

About me:

Archives

Categories