Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Once you ditch their amplifier and hook it to something real they sound VERY nice.

Certainly at least he60 nice.

Their amp though... Yikes is it ever bad. Sounds darker than dark.

By the way these headphones with the koss amp play significantly louder

than any other electrostic headphone ever made. Louder in fact than

virtually all dynamics too. 2400 volts peak to peak stator to stator is

almost twice everything else.

Posted

I agree that they do sound nice. They offer a slightly darker presentation than the low to mid range stax models.

I wouldn't ditch the amp though; I'd save it for portable use. Takes D batteries.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

You wouldn't happen to know the bias voltage, would you?

According to the manual on the Koss site, the amp has a bias voltage of 600 vdc. That's within spitting distance of the 580 vdc on Stax amps.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
You might want to consider Peter McAlisters new EA-4 amplifier for ~$1k.
Possibly, but not likely. After having heard Justin's KGSS and Blue Hawaii, I'm kind of spoiled. I have a Stax amp that will work for now (need to work out some sort of adapter) until I can save up the dosh. But it's not exactly on the top of my list of things to get, so this is quite a ways off.

I agree it shore does look purdy, though. Wonder how it sounds, you heard it? And whether or not it is truly balanced.

It's about the same as the difference between a Senn 580 and Senn 600. ;D
I don't think so. (folds arms and puts on faux-frowny face)
Posted
Possibly, but not likely. After having heard Justin's KGSS and Blue Hawaii, I'm kind of spoiled.
Higher price does not always mean higher performance, but to each their own.
Posted

whatever.gif;D

Expensive does not automatically mean better. The flip side is less expensive does not always mean more bang for the buck, sometimes it just means cheaper.

Posted

Dusty=+$=+SQ

Actually, the equation would likely be +$||+SQ (|| indicates correlation, IIRC). Since the relationship is not perfect, and actually rather difficult to calculate in the absence of a quantitative method of measuring SQ, r (correlation coefficient) < 1.

OTOH, for the relationship +$||+price, I'd expect r=1. Normally, expensive gear does cost more >:D

Posted
bang for the buck
AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's BANG FOR YOUR BUCK!!!!!!!!!!

Damnit, I fucking hate that. :D

Yeah, sorry if I snapped -- I just resented the implication. I am the last person to be accused of "more expensive == better".
Cool, sorry if I was insulting with my comment. :-[

You might want to contact Peter about his new electrostatic amp design though... he seems pretty confident that it is the 'best EVAR'. 8)

Posted

AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's BANG FOR YOUR BUCK!!!!!!!!!!

Damnit, I fucking hate that. :DCool

Hey Phil, If you?re going to attempt to be the Language Police you should at least get your shit straight. There is enough data indicating that what I said is appropriate. I?m not saying your version is inappropriate, but I?m not the person correcting other peoples use of English idioms on a fucking forum.

givemehead.gifsmileandfucku.gif

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bang+for+buck Scroll down

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19971219

Posted

Well... both phrases when placed in quotes return 10 pages on Google, so I think it is safe to say that they're both highly used. My primary problem with "bang for the buck" is it makes you sound like an ESL student while "bang for your buck" seems to be a more correct phrasing.

givemehead.gif

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.