[terry parr]

anyone with any practical experience comparing headphones of different impedance ratings with the phonitor? 

my current setup consists of the phonitor connected to a  rotel rcd-1520cdp  using a  rapcohorizon xlr-rca i/c  and  grado rs1i  phones.

anyone have any ideas on how to give the phonitor a fuller,  more impactful  low-end while at the same time retaining the phonitor's over-
all clarity?   

i realize the phonitor was not designed as a "consumer" electronic piece,  but as "pro" gear to aid in mixing when listening to speaker mon-
itors is not possible.

i'm beginning to realize that in trying to use the phonitor as strictly a headphone amp, that i may be asking the phonitor to act in a way that
it was never designed for. as far as it's "sound signature" goes,  it was designed and engineered for neutrality.  not to add any coloration.

my criticism of the phonitor is the seemingly "recessed" sound character of it.  and i realize why it was designed this way.  to combat "ear
fatigue" during long, concentrated listening sessions.  if you're listening clinically, you don't want the sound to be too foreward or impactful.

however, i do want a more "engaging" listen.  right now, i'm back to listening to the h/p output of a yamaha receiver. (the rx-v870).

even though i like the "foreward" presentation of the grado h/p, would switching to a more difficult-to-drive phone (sennheiser, audez'e) help to "flesh-out" the phonitor?  or would either of those phones put the sound sig. even further back?       

according to the owners' manual:  "the phonitor output and the optimal volume level is based on the studio standard, 600 ohms headphone
impedance."  if i'm not mistaken, the phonitors' h/p output is rated as 360mW into 30 ohms.

i have a feeling this may be one of those posts that may very well  "die on the vine", but if anyone has anything to offer, please do.

thanks, guys. 

         

[eclein]

I know guys that use Phonitors are very accessible over at head-fi.org. They may be a good place to ask and source out the info on the very cool Phonitor amps. I think I remember a couple guys here using them, not sure what model and not sure if they still do or not so you may get some info here. If not check out head-fi but make sure you read a bunch of opinions over there because sometimes people gang up on products at head-fi. They will instantly blow off an item based on here say and not what there own ears say...LOL. Welcome to AC and Headphone mania Terry...enjoy yourself and ask anything you want. I already asked all the dumb questions so your golden...LOL....enjoy the cans man!!

[grsimmon]

From memory,  I think the output impedence of the Phonitor as listed on their website is 90 ohms.  On the one hand,  I can't see how that could possibly be correct,  I'm either reading that spec wrong,  mistaking it for outputs on the rear panel, etc.  On the other hand, maybe it is correct, in which case using it with 600 ohm headphones would make sense.   In fact if 90 ohms is the case,   I think that the Phonitor should be paired ONLY with cans that are 600 ohms and nothing less.   Otherwise your damping factor goes out the window and will definitely effect the lower octaves in particular as you described.   Also,  since the Phonitor is xlr only,  I'm wondering if you switched to a balanced source instead of using the adaptors, if that would improve things.   Lastly,  maybe try using it with all crossfeed selections to "off."   Best of luck!

[grsimmon]

OK,  Phonitor headphone output impedence is 9 (nine)  ohms, not 90!  That makes a lot more sense....So rule of thumb suggests to use with headphones of around 70 ohms and higher.   

[terry parr]

thanks grsimmon for the reply. what had me bothered was the fact that i was listening to the phonitor through a h/p with a nominal impedance
rating of 32 ohms!  easy to drive phones.   and i thought   "if i can't get this amp to 'bloom'  on these phones,  then how can i expect a weightier low-end on the phonitor while using a much harder-to-drive phone."
 
i can compare the phonitor to the h/p output of an anthem 225 integrated that i auditioned not too long ago.  the anthem was very refined
sounding.  it was a clean, articulate-sounding amp.  but a bit too "polite-sounding" to be "involving."  it was too distant-sounding to get my
feet tapping, in other words.  although i did appreciate the resolving nature of it, though.

my experimentation w/the phonitor continues. 

thanks for the help!   

[terry parr]

thanks for the welcome, eclein.  as far as dumb questions go, i'm sure i'll end up adding to the total count.  according to some who have glanced
at this thread, and then kept moving, i've already started, probably!       

[Quiet Earth]

The Phonitor is a nice looking amp. I would love to hear one myself.

my criticism of the phonitor is the seemingly "recessed" sound character of it.  and i realize why it was designed this way.  to combat "ear
fatigue" during long, concentrated listening sessions.  if you're listening clinically, you don't want the sound to be too foreward or impactful.

I don't think the Phonitor was designed to be polite. Have you tried any other source components besides the Rotel? These guys did not seem to like your CD player for the same reason you don't like the Phonitor. http://www.whathifi.com/review/rotel-rcd-1520  They say the player's presentation lacks confidence. You say you are looking for a more engaging sound in the Phonitor. I say, maybe your Phonitor is trying to tell you something.

Maybe the Phonitor is doing its job by revealing the true nature of your CD player. I have never heard either piece, so I'm just throwing it out there for consideration. In other words, I'm guessing.

Also, how long have you had it? Is it fully run in? Some of these amps can take a month or so to open up and "engage".


On the other hand maybe there is nothing wrong with your CD player. Pro audio gear is sort of hit and miss for the home audiophile. A lot of guys swear by pro gear because they find it revealing, honest, and truthful. Other people get bored or fatigued by it. The benchmark DAC is a good example of this. I find it to be a valuable tool for monitoring a mix, but I can't stand listening to it for more than 20 minutes for pleasure. Other people swear by it and a whole system evolves around it. It's a personal choice.

[Quiet Earth]

Hey terry,

I had some time to read a little more about the Phonitor. I see what you were getting at now with your "lack of fatigue" comment, although you were describing a laid back quality while SPL refers to a lack of distortion fatigue in their description of the amp. Not that it matters, since you actually own the amp, and you are only describing what you are hearing. But all of that reading has me curious about something else now.

Do you think that the cross-feed circuit has anything to do with this uninvolving sound?
How much cross-feed and speaker angle do you typically use?
What if you defeat all the features, is it still similarly uninspiring?

Lot of questions, I'm sorry about that. Your post made me curious about this amp and its little brother, the Auditor.

[Quiet Earth]

  I think that the Phonitor should be paired ONLY with cans that are 600 ohms and nothing less.   Otherwise your damping factor goes out the window and will definitely effect the lower octaves in particular as you described.   

After a little more study, it does seem like the SPL amps are voiced with higher impedance phones. That makes sense, since their primary target is pro/studio use with phones that are 300 ohms and up.

Sorry to dominate your thread Terry. I'm just trying to get a handle on all of this myself. I hope you get it all sorted out.  Keep us posted. 

[grsimmon]

My comment there was only if the output impedence was 90 ohms,   but it's 9.   The Phonitor should be ok with most headphones out there except for the increasingly popular portables / low impedence.   I agree and think that 300 ohms and higher would be ideal, but I can't say from experience.   I REALLY want to get a Phonitor,  but my 'phones of choice are around 30 ohms and I just don't think it would be a good match.

After a little more study, it does seem like the SPL amps are voiced with higher impedance phones. That makes sense, since their primary target is pro/studio use with phones that are 300 ohms and up.

Sorry to dominate your thread Terry. I'm just trying to get a handle on all of this myself. I hope you get it all sorted out.  Keep us posted. 

[terry parr]

all comments are welcomed and appreciated.  helps me to think about this thing from angles that i might not have thought of before. 

grsimmon:  i'm listening to the phonitor today with the 701's and while the soundstage and separation is nice to listen to (along with the clarity,
and the way this combo resolves small details, not to mention the way the tonality just seems more natural-sounding and "true"), it still doesn't quite "scratch the itch."  still not enough "weight" or "body" to the music, that would make this combo my main "go-to".   unfortunately, even with everything to recommend it, the phonitor is, bottom line an un-satisfying listen.  at least for long-term enjoyment. it's just too "lean"-sounding. 

 the akg-701/phonitor combo is better, noticeably better than the grado rs1-i/phonitor combo, but that's mainly because of the perceived added spaciousness between instruments with the 701's.   which is nice, don't get me wrong.  close your eyes, and you can almost picture where the instruments are positioned in the room on most recordings that you listen to.  and that "out-of-your-head" effect is really expanded.

 the phonitor really excels in certain areas.  what it does good, it does really good.

 the yamaha receiver has it's strengths too, though.

wish i could combine the qualities of both.       

Quiet Earth:  between you and grsimmon, you guys have made some points and given me a few thoughts to chew on and mull over.  as far as dis-engaging the crossfeed completely:  it has virtually no effect on adding any dynamic punch or impact to the music.  as far as the "lack of distortion fatigue" distinction that you made:  i made note of that,  and i was interpreting that a bit differently than the idea that spl was trying to get across.

even though my original thoughts about this were along the lines of:  "this detail that i'm hearing is nice, but i'm having to almost squint my eyes
and concentrate to hear this added level of low-frequency detail.  it's nice to hear details that are being revealed in a recording that you've never heard before and never knew were there,  but i don't want to "work" this hard and feel like i have to strain to hear it."

being a serious listener and listening for detail and subtlety is one thing (which i enjoy doing).  but listening for pleasure shouldn't be work.  you
can be a serious listener and appreciate added detail and subtlety that you're hearing, and still be tapping your feet at the same time. that's what's missing now with the phonitor.   the "tapping your feet"  or the "engaging" part.

as far as the overall un-complimentary review in whathifi on my rotel cdp, it's not an issue of the phonitor exposing a weakness in the cd player,
since i'm getting impact and weight in the music when i hook up the player to a yamaha receiver, which i've been doing.  but, i can understand
Quiet Earth saying that after reading the review in whathifi.  i clicked on the review and read it.     but no, that's not it.

in the next couple of weeks or so, i'll be looking at getting my hands on some high-impedance phones.  just to plug 'em into the phonitor and
see what i got.  i'll be able to let everyone know then if i think i'm onto something. 

i don't want to buy, say a pair of sennheiser hd-650's (which you can pick up for about 400.00 now), because if they don't work with the phonitor, then i'm stuck with a pair of 300ohm headphones that i won't be able to use.  hopefully, i'll be able to audition a pair somewhere, get used to the sound signature a bit through different sources and amps, then get them home and see what they sound like thru the phonitor. 

why i haven't already bought a pair of hd-650's (or another high-impedance phone) is:   i've never heard a pair.   and i didn't want to throw even more money at what's looking like an expensive, mis-guided experiment. and i have no other way to drive a high-impedance phone. 

stay tuned.

to everybody that chimed in with something to add:  thank-you.  everything is always read and noted.

the last tune i listened to tonight thru the phonitor was a piece by TARDO HAMMER from the "LOOK, STOP AND LISTEN: THE MUSIC OF
TADD DAMERON"  cd.  the tune was "dial B for beauty".  listened to it all the way through.  then dis-connected the phonitor, hooked up
the yamaha amp.  then listened again.  immediately, i noticed at the beginning of the tune, i could almost feel the felt dampers on the
piano.  nice.  didn't get that sensation with the phonitor.  and the yamaha still gives a pleasing sense of tonality with the piano and bass but, i noticed a bit more noise in the background too,  with the yamaha, where the phonitor has a  dead silent background.

still,  all things considered, and for the time being, the yamaha is still the "go-to" amp for now.             

 

[grsimmon]

One last thing.   There's an audio company called The Cable Company.  They have a headphone lending library for a modest fee.   Maybe you could try out Sennheiser HD800 or the like (600 ohms) with your Phonitor and see what you think?

[terry parr]

thanks, grsimmon.  that's what i'm working on right now.  i've already exchanged an e-mail with them describing my system and the kind of
results that i'm after.  they replied back today.  next up is a phone conversation with one of the reps tomorrow to get some h/p's in here of different types so that i can compare and contrast side-by-side. 

i also want to hear one of the planars to see how they sound out of the phonitor and the yamaha amp that i'm using.  (along with a higher-
impedance phone which is geared more toward the phonitor specifically). 

it'll be interesting.  they say i'll have about two weeks before i have to return anything.  that's long enough to be able to take your time and put a lot of different types of music through the different combinations of h/p and amp set-ups.  i'm looking foreward to it!

appreciate your help grsimmon, all during this thread.       

[terry parr]

spent about 30min. on the phone with a rep from the cable company.  good conversation.  after a short while we began to narrow-down
a few possible choices based on the results that i'm after from the phonitor and a possible improvement on the akg k-701's that i can use with
my yamaha amp and possibly with the phonitor, too.  even though it'll probably be a matter of "either/or" and not "both."    what we discussed as far as headphones:

senn hd-700 (150ohms)  "...neutral-sounding, and even brighter and sharper-sounding than the hd-800. and since the phonitor's hallmark is it's
                                     neutrality..."   this would probably be an un-satisfactory pairing for me.   

beyerdynamic t-1 (600ohms)  the frequency response was described as "slightly accentuated bass and treble with slightly de-accentuated mid-
                                            range."  since my musical tastes run more toward acoustic jazz and modern folk and singer-songwriter type stuff,
                                            this phone probably wouldn't satisfy.

senn hd-650 (300ohms)  not available for audition through the cable company. 

the two headphones that i've decided to audition are:

audeze lcd-2 (50ohms)  good reviews with this headphone.  according to the article on head-fi, "battle of the flagships..." by david mahler
                                    the lcd-2 appears to pair well with the phonitor.   it was one of his "preferred" amps he used to evaluate this phone for
                                    the review.  it'll be interesting to hear how the lcd-2 sounds with both the phonitor and the yamaha amp.  the
                                    efficiency-rating of the lcd-2 is listed as 93db, 1mW.   

hifiman he-500 (38ohms)  a low-impedance phone, i know.  this wasn't chosen as a good mate for the phonitor, but as a possible replacement
                                       for my 701's.  maybe.   

i've been sent a ups tracking number for these two phones so they should be shipping soon.   

[terry parr]

well, this is the third night with the hifiman he-500 and the audeze lcd-2.  the first 2 nights i tried both out on the yamaha amp.  tonight, i tried
both connected to the phonitor. 

bottom line:  if the lcd-2 had a decent-sounding mid-range, and a bit of high-frequency, then this phone would definitely be a keeper. 

pros:  this is the best low-end extension i've ever heard in a headphone. period.  (and this is good quality bass, too.  not boomy or over-
          emphasized that might sound un-natural).  very impressive.


cons:  let's say you're listening to a 3-way loudspeaker.  listening to these phones sounds like the woofer is exposed, but that there's a fairly
          thick bath towel covering up the middle speaker, and it sounds as though someone may have cut the wires to the tweeter. 

and what mid-range there is sounds un-natural.  as far as the highs, they're almost non-existent.  these phones, while easily getting an
award from me for great bass also does some pretty un-natural sounding things to a steinway grand piano in a jazz trio setting.  it also adds
some pretty odd-sounding harmonics to an acoustic guitar in most cases.  just weird sounding in the mids.  doesn't sound right at all.

and both the he-500 and the lcd-2 have this same characteristic as far as the mids and upper freq.'s go.

two quick examples:  the tune "home at last" by STEELY DAN from the AJA album.  chuck rainey's bass has never sounded better.  and i've
heard this tune quite a few times, and both these phones allowed me to hear some extra "sliding" up and down the fingerboard that he was doing on the bass that i've never heard before.  and the quality (not to mention the quantity) of the bass reproduction was outstanding.  but, there's
something else going on in this tune that makes it interesting, too.  it's that "half-time/shuffle rhythm" that the drummer bernard purdie has
going on.  this groove just propels this song along and is a large part of what makes this tune unique and interesting to listen to.   but, you won't hear this effect through either of the above phones because the interaction between hi-hat, snare drum and bass drum is so much buried with these phones that you can only barely make out the hi-hat in the left channel. and instead of hearing a snap or crack of the snare drum, with the ortho phones it's as if there's a folded-up t-shirt laying on the drum.  if you heard this tune for the first time on either of  these phones, you'd miss the effect of this.  and on other jazz tunes, the sound of what makes one type of ride cymbal sound different from another is completely lost.  (is
it a nylon-tipped stick, or a wood-tipped stick? )  the orthos don't care.  how about the woody character of an acoustic bass?  they don't seem to
be too concerned about that, either.   

the album PROOF by LAURA TSAGGARIS is an example where, even though the bass is nice through the above phones, i decided i liked the
sound of my akg-701's better for this (and a lot of other acoustic-based) recordings. 

for now, my verdict is:  if i could combine the bass presentation of the orthos with the mid-range and highs of the 701's, i'd buy it in a minute.
i would be willing to give up a bit of the 701's soundstage (which is a bit wider and deeper than either of the orthos) in order to be able to
combine the other best qualities of both.  bottome line:  with the he-500 and the lcd-2:  you get great bass.  but at the expense of a lot of
other elements and characteristics in the music that's  going on that you should be able to hear.
 
i had read that these phones may work for acoustic jazz.   they don't. 

all of the above is one mans' opinion.  (had to get that disclaimer in).         

[grsimmon]

Even though it's your opinion,  Tyll's measurements over at InnerFidelity.com for both Audeze LCD2 and LCD3 display just what you are describing.  The frequency response for both really drops off after 1K hz and doesn't come back.  I guess my thinking is, what's the point?  I've never heard these models,  but after reading your description and re-checking their fr. response,  I doubt I would like them also.  Good for you for listening critically to those phones instead of just mindlessly joining the Audeze fanclub....

[terry parr]

i do have to say though, that the lcd-2's can be a very enjoyable listen if you want to put on some stuff where you are listening less
critically and just want to enjoy music for musics' sake.   i was just listening to PETE YORN.  "long way down"  from the  DAY I FORGOT
album. the lcd-2's had my head bopping. you can't help but get into it.   a bit less impact than the he-500's, but a bit smoother-
sounding overall.   and either of the orthos  are better for this type of enjoyable, harder-driving guitar-based stuff than the 701's are.  the
orthos will deliver the low-end impact and "slam" that the 701's can only hint at.  and the he-500's have more of this than the lcd-2's have.
but the lcd-2's seem to have a smoother sounding sound overall and dare i say a bit more soundstage.  the drums seem to be a bit further
back, and the (synthesized, ersatz "string" parts) sound better on the lcd-2's, sounding more atmospheric, and a bit more expansive, whereas with the he-500's, all the different elements sound more "closed-in." 

another thing i've noticed with the lcd-2's are that they can make a harsher-sounding recording sound better.  to my ears, anyway.  i checked
out a cd by CHICK COREA.  it's the CHICK COREA AKOUSTIC BAND cd, and his recording of "sophisticated lady."  usually, the piano sounds a
bit harsh, dare i say "thin" sounding.  but listening with the lcd-2's, it really improves the overall sound to me on that piece.  these phones will
"smooth over" some harsher sounding recordings.  some of this has to do with the fact that you can usually tell the difference between a
yamaha grand piano (brighter-sounding, generally), compared to a steinway grand (richer-sounding, and a more pleasing sound to my ears,
anyway).  but the lcd-2's seemed to add a bit of "weight" to the piano in this tune.  nice.  i've never been impressed with the sound quality of
this particular cd, anyway, so this was a good chance to use it as a "test" cd.  the lcd-2's made it sound a bit better.

after listening to the PETE YORN cd through the lcd-2's the thought occured to me that sometimes all this criticism of music and equipment
can make you enjoy music less.  i'm really digging this cd through the lcd-2's.  and enjoying it and keeping it fun is what's it's supposed to be about.  but, i'm also realizing that a lot of headphones are probably "genre-specific."  i was hoping that the he-500 would turn out to be a
good "all-rounder."  well, i really don't know if any such headphone exists. 

grsimmon:  i wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the lcd-2's.  or the he-500's, either.  because, depending on what you're listening to, these
phones can be enjoyable. 

now, for me, most of my listening is alt-country (modern folk-type stuff), acoustic trio jazz, vocal jazz.  mostly.  which means, on the
whole, the lcd-2 wouldn't work for me.  i need an open, airy mid-range for most of my listening. 

but in my (still-ongoing) evaluation of these phones:  don't misunderstand.  these phones can be very enjoyable to listen to.

       

[terry parr]

the thought occured to me today after having some extended time with the lcd-2's, that these phones can be seductive.  they can draw you in.
and what i mean by that is, the first time i slipped these on and started listening i thought:  "man.  these headphones are dark sounding. real
dark sounding. "   and they were.  especially if your "reference" is a pair of akg-701's.

but,... it doesn't take very long for your ears to adjust to the different sound signature, and you find yourself really appreciating what the lcd-2
does well.  it is a very "smooth" sounding headphone.  but, i'm thinking at the same time that in order to create this overall "smooth" sound,
that this phone might be "glossing over" a bit of mid and high freq. detail that could otherwise be heard. i would prefer a little less "smoothness"
and a bit more detail in the mids and highs. the lcd-2 "rounds off the edges" in the low end, too.  (compared to the he-500, which is a bit more
"punchy").  but just a bit more.  the he-500 is a shade punchier, (as far as bass drum hits, or the initial pluck of the bass guitar string), where the lcd-2 is better in the mids, by a shade.   

the he-500 seems to articulate the lower frequencies a shade better than the lcd-2, by this i mean the he-500 manages to give you a tuneful
and toneful low note, and in this area beats the lcd-2 by a nose. in other words, it articulates the "lowest of the low" a bit better.

the lcd-2 seems to "round off the edges" in this regard.       

[terry parr]

just to give myself a more complete frame of reference, in the next couple of weeks or so i plan on having two headphones here for audition
whose impedance rating i feel is better suited to the phonitor.

the beyer t1  and the  senn hd-800.

neither of the planars that i auditioned for over a week really "scratched the itch."  not completely, anyway.  i just didn't feel like i could live
with the midrange presentation of either.  this is a definite shortcoming of these types of phones in my opinion.  i do have to say, though in
all fairness that i was very impressed with the bass presentation of both phones.  as far as reproducing low frequencies, i could have taken
either one. 

really can't understand how these phones could sound so good down low, but sound so lacking in reproducing tone and timbre of acoustic
instruments.  it seemed like the more artificial/synthesized the music, (think '80's british pop:  SWING OUT SISTER, for instance), the better
both of them sounded.  put on a well-recorded jazz trio album (think ALAN BROADBENT, for instance), and these phones' weak spot is
revealed.  it almost sounded like both were almost "distorting" harder-hit, higher-pitched piano passages. 

i can probably see a compromise coming.  is there a headphone that'll give me the bass response i want, plus have good mids and highs, and
also be able to sound acceptable through the phonitor and the headphone output of a yamaha receiver? 

the phonitor i appreciate for clarity and detail, the yamaha for its' visceral, dynamic impact. 

i would like to have a headphone that would give me an acceptable level of both, while not sacrificing too much of either.

[terry parr]

dale, i think that the retail price of the beyer t1 tesla's pretty much represents the most that i would be willing to spend on a pair of headphones.
yes, this hobby is important.  i'll usually be listening to music in the evening over watching television.  i can go weeks without turning the tv on.

can't live without my nightly music fix, though.  and i do want the best sonics that i can get.  and can reasonably afford.  i'm afraid the stax 009
is a phone that's way too rich for me, so no need to audition.  but for those that can comfortably afford the stax, i don't begrudge them for it. 

life's short.  and we're not taking any of this with us.  so, if you can enjoy...then, enjoy. 

one of the interesting things about audiocircle to me so far is to read different posts of how people have found certain pieces of equipment that can perform very well, while not costing a mint.  people have found very good pieces that have good "cost to performance ratios".

if the beyer t1 performs like i expect it to, then considering the amount of headphone listening that i do, then the price would certainly be worth it.

but the stax 009?  that's so far out of my price range that i couldn't even consider it.  and i prefer right now not to even hear a pair. 

i might like them.