PDA

View Full Version : Best iPod (whatever) ever...headphones




hsotnicaM
Sep 7, 2007, 10:09 AM
If this is such a great improvement, why include the not-so-great-quality headphones? Can they not find a better performing headphone? What's the sense in paying $100s for an iPod and not get decent frequency range. So I spend $199+ on an iPod (whatever) and then have to pay another $XX for headphones that go below 20 Hz?
How about not worrying about 160GB drive that could hold 40,000 songs (2,666 hours/111 days/almost four months of music!!) and research headphones for a while or at least find a company to joint venture with.



lofight
Sep 7, 2007, 10:13 AM
the ipod earbuds are not that bad, they're just not that good, and as you can see apple is not really experienced in the headphone business, and have your ever seen a decent mp3 player with good headphones that come with it,, it's almost always earbuds that they give and not even good ones, maybe one day apple will bring a headphone but not now...

gloss
Sep 7, 2007, 10:14 AM
General rule of thumb is that included earbuds = bad. Apple's included earbuds are somewhat less bad than the competition, but if you're looking for something audiophile quality go shop around for Shure headphones.

JHacker
Sep 7, 2007, 10:17 AM
Do you really expect a pair of $150 headphones with a $250 iPod?

hsotnicaM
Sep 7, 2007, 10:33 AM
Do you really expect a pair of $150 headphones with a $250 iPod?

I expect more than a $5 pair of headphones. Look at any electronic outlet or even Walmart for that matter, you can find 6 Hz - 24,000 Hz earbuds for $20. It's like the earbuds were an afterthought.

gloss
Sep 7, 2007, 10:39 AM
I expect more than a $5 pair of headphones. Look at any electronic outlet or even Walmart for that matter, you can find 6 Hz - 24,000 Hz earbuds for $20. It's like the earbuds were an afterthought.

Compare the sound, not the specs.

Gigantic home theater systems can't even achieve 6hz. You can't even HEAR 6hz. The likelihood that a pair of headphones is going be able to reach 6hz with any level of intensity is nil.

Likewise, you can't hear 24khz. Most people are lucky if they can hear above 20khz. The iPod doesn't even OUTPUT above 20khz.

chaos86
Sep 7, 2007, 10:44 AM
have you ever noticed anyone wearing a pair of iPod earbuds in public? yes? you've noticed a lot of these people? oh. so clearl, to all those people, the included earbuds are adequate, correct? so why would apple spend $15 more per iPod to increase satisfation in (I'm guessing) about 10% of all iPod users?

CanadaRAM
Sep 7, 2007, 10:50 AM
you can find 6 Hz - 24,000 Hz earbuds for $20. It's like the earbuds were an afterthought.

And if you believe that.... I have a tower in Paris I'd like to sell you.

The spec is just like the ads saying you can make 'up to' $10,000 a month selling MLM things or you can put up to 15 college students in a Volkswagen Beetle -- you won't, and the vast majority won't, but as long as one in a million do, then the statement is true. If the spec isn't an outright lie, then there will be barely detectable energy at 6 Hz or 24 KHz, but neither audible to the human ear nor musically useful.

The only way you get deep bass from an earphone is with a sealed, in-ear system like the Shure, M-Audio and Etymotic systems. Most consumers aren't ready for that, and the different sizes and style of ear canal inserts are a logistical nightmare for a mass market consumer electronic.
There's a reason that actual good quality earphones are $100 - $600 a set.

nukiduz
Sep 7, 2007, 10:55 AM
have you ever noticed anyone wearing a pair of iPod earbuds in public? yes? you've noticed a lot of these people? oh. so clearl, to all those people, the included earbuds are adequate, correct? so why would apple spend $15 more per iPod to increase satisfation in (I'm guessing) about 10% of all iPod users?

To increase that 10%'s and even the rest's satisfaction?

I'm sure they can keep every iPod's price and offer a better quality earphones without losing too much.

PygmySurfer
Sep 7, 2007, 11:12 AM
To increase that 10%'s and even the rest's satisfaction?

I'm sure they can keep every iPod's price and offer a better quality earphones without losing too much.

If Apple includes $20 earphones, the price of the iPod goes up $20 as well. One set of earphones isn't going to please everyone, either. Jim may be a big fan of Grado headphones, Bob may like Shure, and Lisa, she's a huge fan of Sennheiser. The best bet is to include something cheap, and let everyone who needs more to purchase their own later.

Plus, the majority of music on iPods is in a lossy compressed format. The audiophiles who are putting lossless audio on their iPods are already purchasing (or in fact probably already have) $100+ earphones to use with them.

The included earphones are decent, and suitable for the majority of iPod owners. Those who want something of higher quality can purchase better earphones separately.

hsotnicaM
Sep 7, 2007, 01:55 PM
And if you believe that.... I have a tower in Paris I'd like to sell you.


That $29.95 is suggested retail:
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027722&pathId=110&page=1

Not saying they are for everyone, just making a point they are out there.

Maybe not frequency, but surely they can create earbud with the sense of bass. If BOSE can make a small box that creates significant bass response, then it has to be possible in earbuds. As you suggested sealed, but I've had headphones YEARS ago with better bass response than Apple's earbuds.

BTW - There's no reason to be condescending.


have you ever noticed anyone wearing a pair of iPod earbuds in public? yes? you've noticed a lot of these people? oh. so clearl, to all those people, the included earbuds are adequate, correct? so why would apple spend $15 more per iPod to increase satisfation in (I'm guessing) about 10% of all iPod users?

Maybe some don't realize what they're missing. Some may not even realize there's an option of using other headphones or earbuds. I'm not sure one must be an audiophile to enjoy good sounding music.

CanadaRAM
Sep 9, 2007, 08:37 PM
That $29.95 is suggested retail:
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027722&pathId=110&page=1

Not saying they are for everyone, just making a point they are out there.

Maybe not frequency, but surely they can create earbud with the sense of bass. If BOSE can make a small box that creates significant bass response, then it has to be possible in earbuds. As you suggested sealed, but I've had headphones YEARS ago with better bass response than Apple's earbuds.

BTW - There's no reason to be condescending.

Yer missing the point. An advertisement claiming 5 - 24,000 response unqualified with dB response ratings means absolutely nothing. Of course earbuds that claim completely unrealistic specs are available for $30. It doesn't mean that they deliver musically useful information at anywhere near those frequencies.

SactoGuy18
Sep 9, 2007, 09:51 PM
General rule of thumb is that included earbuds = bad. Apple's included earbuds are somewhat less bad than the competition, but if you're looking for something audiophile quality go shop around for Shure headphones.

That'll be great but Shure headphones--even the current low-cost SE110 model--starts at US$100 and can reach as high as US$400 for top-end SE530. :eek: You can get by with much less expensive models such as the Creative Labs EP-630 (US$30-US$35 retail) or the JVC HA-FX33 Marshmallow headphones (US$20 retail) that offer vastly superior sound to the original headphones that came with your iPod.

wakerider017
Sep 9, 2007, 09:58 PM
My biggest problem with the Apple headphones is comfort. They hurt my ears after a while.

I picked up a pair of Sony in-ear headphones at Target. Much better!

gloss
Sep 9, 2007, 09:59 PM
That'll be great but Shure headphones--even the current low-cost SE110 model--starts at US$100 and can reach as high as US$400 for top-end SE530. :eek: You can get by with much less expensive models such as the Creative Labs EP-630 (US$30-US$35 retail) or the JVC HA-FX33 Marshmallow headphones (US$20 retail) that offer vastly superior sound to the original headphones that came with your iPod.

Yes, but the Shure headphones are another order of magnitude still. =)

BiikeMike
Sep 9, 2007, 10:24 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be condescending here, just educating, so I hope it does not come off that way.

First off, as most have said, everything you buy that comes with any type of earbud or earphones = teh suck.

Secondly, there is no way that an earbud can produce 20hz. At least not audible to you. Your car stereo, and probably your home stereo probably don't even go that low. The general saying is that people can hear 20-20. Thats 20hz to 20,000hz or 20khz.

Realistically, this is a greatly varying number, as is anything that has to do with humans. As people get older, they lose hearing, and most people can probably hear between 30-40ish hz to 15k-16khz. Stuff lower than that, you can "feel." That is why subwoofers are so much bigger than high frequency drivers, they move more air.

Taking that into account, there is really no way an earbud can give you a good "thump" but there are some bigger over the ear cans out there that can. What these headphones usually do is not worry about balancing your music, and they have what they call a "bass boost." They will put a low end heavy Equalization in the headphone, and that is why when you turn it up, it sounds crunchy, because it starts clipping.


This is all just scratching the surface, there are volumes and volumes written on this subject, and it is actually quite interesting. There are quite a few wikipedia articles on human hearing, including Psychoacoustics, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model) and The Hypersonic Effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect)


So, back on the subject of headphones, yes, the crappy apple earbuds satisfy most people, and those that want more have the choice. If you are looking for a good, mid priced well balanced earbud and are willing to put the money in them, check out the Shure E-Series (http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earphones/ESeries/index.htm) sound isolating earphones. I have the E2c's, and they work great for the gym, airplanes, etc. If Apple were to include a set of E2c's with every iPod, they would be $100 more

BWhaler
Sep 10, 2007, 12:23 AM
Do you really expect a pair of $150 headphones with a $250 iPod?

Some people put $600 headphones on a $250 iPod.

Audiophiles can have very, very high standards as they can hear sounds and qualities which 99% of the population cannot hear.

Remember, like most things, there are different segments with different needs. Some people need $20 headphones, some need $600. Your mileage may vary.

PygmySurfer
Sep 10, 2007, 12:36 AM
Some people put $600 headphones on a $250 iPod.

Audiophiles can have very, very high standards as they can hear sounds and qualities which 99% of the population cannot hear.

Remember, like most things, there are different segments with different needs. Some people need $20 headphones, some need $600. Your mileage may vary.

I think JHacker was asking if the OP was expecting Apple to include $150 headphones with the iPod. Audiophiles do have very high standards, and what may suit one may not suit another, so it'd be silly to even TRY to cater them by including more expensive headphones with an iPod. I'm pretty sure that's similar to the point JHacker was trying to make :)

Merkuryy
Sep 10, 2007, 04:35 AM
Ya, Apple's headset is really not that bad, even iAudio has stupid headphone that not match their high quality product.The new headphones are very comfortable to me,and the sound is OK.I have nothing to praise but also nothing to complain about either

Mugetsu
Sep 10, 2007, 05:53 AM
My first time....

...when using the $500 Shure 530PTH earbuds, it brought tears to my eyes.

it was amazing.

jockmock
Sep 10, 2007, 07:52 AM
the etymotic ear phones are amazing as well. Recomended

K Wal
Sep 10, 2007, 09:30 AM
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be condescending here, just educating, so I hope it does not come off that way.

First off, as most have said, everything you buy that comes with any type of earbud or earphones = teh suck.

Secondly, there is no way that an earbud can produce 20hz. At least not audible to you. Your car stereo, and probably your home stereo probably don't even go that low. The general saying is that people can hear 20-20. Thats 20hz to 20,000hz or 20khz.

Realistically, this is a greatly varying number, as is anything that has to do with humans. As people get older, they lose hearing, and most people can probably hear between 30-40ish hz to 15k-16khz. Stuff lower than that, you can "feel." That is why subwoofers are so much bigger than high frequency drivers, they move more air.

Taking that into account, there is really no way an earbud can give you a good "thump" but there are some bigger over the ear cans out there that can. What these headphones usually do is not worry about balancing your music, and they have what they call a "bass boost." They will put a low end heavy Equalization in the headphone, and that is why when you turn it up, it sounds crunchy, because it starts clipping.


This is all just scratching the surface, there are volumes and volumes written on this subject, and it is actually quite interesting. There are quite a few wikipedia articles on human hearing, including Psychoacoustics, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model) and The Hypersonic Effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect)


So, back on the subject of headphones, yes, the crappy apple earbuds satisfy most people, and those that want more have the choice. If you are looking for a good, mid priced well balanced earbud and are willing to put the money in them, check out the Shure E-Series (http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earphones/ESeries/index.htm) sound isolating earphones. I have the E2c's, and they work great for the gym, airplanes, etc. If Apple were to include a set of E2c's with every iPod, they would be $100 more

Very well put Mike. Earbuds aren't good at low freq. most drivers under 6 in. aren't.
And here I thought you were just a light guy
Goofy at RM

simontarr
Sep 10, 2007, 09:46 AM
A good ole pair of Sennheiser HD 25 MKII's is what you need....

ndheah
Sep 10, 2007, 10:23 AM
They are not great headphones, but they are not bad at all. They are simple and effective. what more do you want for the price?

BiikeMike
Sep 10, 2007, 10:38 PM
Very well put Mike. Earbuds aren't good at low freq. most drivers under 6 in. aren't.
And here I thought you were just a light guy
Goofy at RM


SHHH!!!

You might blow my cover! Don't let anyone over at RM know that I can actually put together well thought out, lucid posts ;)


And back on topic, maybe we should get a mac poll going to see who uses the earphones that come with the iPod, and who does not. Actually, I'm gonna go start one right now :)

I know it won't be an official mac poll, and we are not an "average" target group, but it will be interesting anyway :)

dontwalkhand
Sep 10, 2007, 10:48 PM
The Apple headphones don't want to stay in my ear. Currently with my iPod, I use a pair of $29 headphones I got at Wal-Mart, they have the changable ear canal things, so these actually stay in my ear when I go for a run etc.

suneohair
Sep 10, 2007, 10:57 PM
I love the etymotics: http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/epcomp.aspx

I had a pair of 6isolators and boy did they sound good. Makes me happy I can hear that sort of stuff. I want a new ipod now!

Also. If you aren't ripping lossless, the headphones won't do much for you anyway. You may as well stick with the stock ones. I think that is why Apple uses the ones they do. They sell low bitrate music on iTunes which these headphones are fine for.

hsotnicaM
Sep 11, 2007, 10:46 AM
Yer missing the point. An advertisement claiming 5 - 24,000 response unqualified with dB response ratings means absolutely nothing. Of course earbuds that claim completely unrealistic specs are available for $30. It doesn't mean that they deliver musically useful information at anywhere near those frequencies.

Is it simply an advertisement? Do you have meters to test this? I have to go by what the manufacturer states.

Ultimately, I have a pair of both Apple earbuds and a pair of the earbuds from the link I provided above. The JVC response far exceeds not only volume but appearance of bass. Maybe your speculation is correct and they "fudge" the numbers, but my ears say something else.

-Anyone-
Why have a set of headphones/earbuds/speakers with a frequency of 5-24K if we can only hear 20-20K?

gloss
Sep 11, 2007, 10:56 AM
-Anyone-
Why have a set of headphones/earbuds/speakers with a frequency of 5-24K if we can only hear 20-20K?

Because people who don't know any better will believe it.

hsotnicaM
Sep 11, 2007, 11:12 AM
Found in my searching something interesting...
http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/

gloss
Sep 11, 2007, 11:18 AM
Found in my searching something interesting...
http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/

Yeah, the hearing range of young folks (up through early middle age) goes anywhere from 20khz to around 22khz. Starting in the late 20s-early 30s, hearing deteriorates, so the majority of folks teaching in schools would be unable to hear most of those tones, while the kids could.

I can still hear up to around 21khz, but my dad can't. He was running test tones through a speaker driver once and I had to scream at him from four rooms away to turn it down - he didn't hear a thing. I can still hear old CRT TV sets turned on a floor away.

BiikeMike
Sep 11, 2007, 11:53 AM
Is it simply an advertisement? Do you have meters to test this? I have to go by what the manufacturer states.



Yes, I do


-Anyone-
Why have a set of headphones/earbuds/speakers with a frequency of 5-24K if we can only hear 20-20K?

That was one of the points of my long post on the previous page. You can't "hear" anything below a certain level. Can you experience it? You sure can, but you are using a different sense, the sense of touch, not sound.

I like to put it as there are "head" tones, "chest" tones, and "butt" tones. If any of you have ever been to an ungodly loud club, you know what I am talking about. The head tones are the ones you can hear, but also feel resonating in your head. Chest tones get down to the lowest "audible" level, and you feel like you are being pounded in the chest. Butt tones you don't actually hear at all, you just feel them. Depending on the equipment and the mix, sometimes you can REALLY feel them :p

I've done some experiments, and using a bass tone tester, I have come to the conclusion that yes, the supplied iPod earbuds will in fact reproduce tones 20hz and below. It is COMPLETELY insignificant to the music, as it is almost inaudible. It mostly sounds like a very low buzzing, and very well could be the voice coil in the earbud screaming for help :) There were audible (barely) differences between 25hz, 20hz, and 15hz, but if they were in music, you would NEVER be able to hear them. Which brings me back to the point that such a small driver as an ear bud is not capable of producing a low tone that has any type of significance.


If any of you would like to see the difference between some different tones, I found an online resource that has sine waves, and single frequency test tones. All I ask is that you please PLEASE be careful with this website. You can DESTROY your speakers/earphones/earbuds if you feed them straight waveform that they cannot handle. If you want to hear the low tones, start at 100hz at a low volume, and go down from there. If it starts to get crunchy, distorted, or anything else out of the ordinary, STOP!

I take no responsibility for your actions, and as posted on this website, neither do they.

http://www.realmofexcursion.com/downloads.htm

BiikeMike
Sep 11, 2007, 11:57 AM
Found in my searching something interesting...
http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/

HAHAHA!! That is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Don't kids these days know what "vibrate" is?

zwida
Sep 11, 2007, 11:59 AM
My biggest problem with the Apple headphones is comfort. They hurt my ears after a while.

I picked up a pair of Sony in-ear headphones at Target. Much better!

I get that from the included earbuds, so I switched to the Apple In-Ear Headphones. They're not nearly as nice as my Shure's, but I can sweat with them in and not worry about a sort.

Of course, what I really want are the Ultimate Ear's in ear monitors that are used on stage by performers. Maybe someday, if I'm really good...:)

odinsride
Sep 11, 2007, 11:59 AM
i simply can't stand earbuds or anything that goes in the ear .. they hurt.

I had to buy some sennheiser behind the neck headphones for about $50 and they sound wonderful and are very comfortable

hsotnicaM
Sep 11, 2007, 12:32 PM
That was one of the points of my long post on the previous page. You can't "hear" anything below a certain level. Can you experience it? You sure can, but you are using a different sense, the sense of touch, not sound....


Thank you for your explanation and sharing your knowledge.

Don't kids these days know what "vibrate" is?


Now that's funny.
The funny thing is I can hear mosquitoes, but not the 24K tone. :)

BiikeMike
Sep 11, 2007, 12:39 PM
Thank you for your explanation and sharing your knowledge.


NP, I'm here to help, and to learn. If anyone has anything to add, please do!

Mugetsu
Sep 12, 2007, 05:52 PM
arguing about sounds you can and can't hear, reminds me about the Frames Per Second argument. Isn't it something like your eyes can only see around 23 fps? but when you play a video game that is 60fps, VS. a video game that is 30fps. You CAN tell the difference, even though you dont actually see all those frames.

QCassidy352
Sep 12, 2007, 07:21 PM
To satisfy every last customer, apple would have to include $500 (or better) headphones. At the opposite end, apple could include headphones so cheap that they are grating to even the average ear (I have a pair like this).

Obviously, neither of these makes sense. So apple has to pick some midpoint - a price/performance ratio that will work for the greatest number of customers. I think they've done a brilliant job doing so. The ipod headphones are perfectly good for the vast majority of buyers (especially considering that itunes sells 128k ACC) while keeping the cost at barely more than bargain-basement headphones.

You can't please everyone no matter what you do, but I think apple has struck just about the perfect balance.

SactoGuy18
Sep 13, 2007, 08:09 AM
My first time....

...when using the $500 Shure 530PTH earbuds, it brought tears to my eyes.

it was amazing.

The Shure SE530PTH are superb headphones but unless you plug in your iPod to a small external headphone amplifier and "rip" your CD collection at 320 kbps data rate (or using Apple Lossless) it's ridiculous overkill. The vastly less expensive Shure SE310 sounds very good if you plug it directly into your iPod. :)

Mugetsu
Sep 14, 2007, 03:58 AM
what are some good headphone amplifiers for an iPod mini?

xxstatic
Sep 14, 2007, 10:41 AM
I vote for the iGrado's

http://www.gradolabs.com/product_pages/igrado.htm

For me these were the best bang for buck under 100$.:cool:

ctakim
Sep 14, 2007, 08:02 PM
I don't really understand the thrashing that the Apple earbuds get. They are not gawd awful, you can just do a lot better for not a lot more money. But I have heard a lot worse with the stock buds that come with some walkmans or MP3 players. I saw someone say that they were horrible but then went on to praise their Bose replacements!:eek:

I would classify the Apple stock buds as low midrange or high low range sound options. I still carry them around when I want to listen to my iPod without sound isolation.

I also carry Utimate Ears Super.fi 5pro and I've owned the Etymotic ER6i. The top end Shures are supposed to be excellent, too, although I will probably buy the Etymotic ER4s next becasue I like a realistic mid range and I don't need/like the extra bass oomph!

If I really want to make my iPod sound good I use my Head Room Total Bithead headphone amp and my Sennheiser 650s.

saltyzoo
Feb 18, 2008, 11:53 AM
The stock earbuds are perfect. Well over half the purchasers won't know the difference anyway. Any real audiophile is going to want to purchase earphones to their preference anyway, so providing higher quality phones than they do would be a waste.

Twilight Elk
Feb 18, 2008, 07:05 PM
I agree that iPod's earphones aren't the best in the bunch, but at least they are better than typical stock earphones that are included with MP3 players.

I know this for a fact because I've owned 3 Rio Players with bad earphones (one even cut the inside of my left ear!)

Sesshi
Feb 18, 2008, 07:13 PM
They're on the mediocre side for earphones that are shipped on price comparable models. Sony do the best of the bunch these days on their iPod price comparable models. If you care about the sound and you don't want to drop a whole wad, the high-end Sonys are a good bet - if you're willing to wait for them to load that is (Their flash players are about 5 times slower than an iPod. Sheesh)

heatmiser
Feb 19, 2008, 10:52 PM
The stock phones are perhaps the most uncomfortable I've ever used. My ears were sore for the three days I had to wear them while my main pair broke and I waited for the replacements to arrive. It was so weird. At any rate, I've got these now:

Creative EP-630 (http://www.amazon.com/Creative-EP-630-Headphones-ear-ear-bud/dp/B000LVIC58/ref=pd_bxgy_e_text_b/103-5924261-5072658). They've lasted longer than any pair of IEMs I've ever had (bought them in September, still working five months later). When they break down, I'm definitely getting another pair.

...and The Clientele sound lovely.

bdgdoom
Feb 19, 2008, 11:26 PM
i'm actually thinking of trying out the jbl 220 earbuds. anyone have any experience w/ them?

skyrider007
Feb 21, 2008, 08:12 AM
Bose QuietComfort 3 is pretty good. I have Shure e4c.

winkymacuser
Feb 21, 2008, 09:36 AM
A good ole pair of Sennheiser HD 25 MKII's is what you need....Agreed. HD25 II plus ALC equals hifi on the run...

BrianFD3S
Feb 21, 2008, 10:04 AM
I have Etymotic ER6s, and they are very impressive. The noise cancelling alone is worth the price tag.

dabirdwell
Feb 21, 2008, 10:38 AM
The V-Moda Vibe Duo is what I use with my iPhone, and they are a significant improvement over the Apple earbuds. I'm not sure that they have the most balanced frequency response, but after a little break-in they do certainly sound good. Plus they were one of VERY few models made for the iPhone jack and including a microphone and controller button.

For regular iPod I have both the Senheiser PX100 and PX200 collapsible headphones. They are some of the most comfortable phones I've ever used and damn near indestructible for something so portable. The sound is fantastic, price point is great (sub $40), and you can get open-air or closed design. Super phones for iPod-style unamplified listening.

As an aside, it seems to me that the Apple earbuds suffer more from ergonomic flaws than cheap components. I think their drivers are plenty responsive, it's just that they are so damn uncomfortable.

aafuss1
Feb 23, 2008, 12:31 PM
I use Sony MDR-EX32 headphones with my iPod-very comfortable to wear and it produces amazing sound (not loud as to damage your hearing but just right), even though I have my iPod volume on max at all times.

Sometimes, I use the MDR-E808 headphones with my iPod that came with my Walkman.

I have found that Apple's standard earphones to be not as comfortable compared to Sony headphones.

SactoGuy18
Feb 23, 2008, 09:06 PM
I'm currently using the JVC HA-FX66-W headphones and they are quite good headphones for iPod users.