Haven't tried these in particular but purely on the tube amp side, as a quasi collector, if 150 isn't a big loss for you and you've done some basic research on speakers, then go for it. They're often fun and surprising to play with, especially with good EQ. Don't get lost in the math or cables marketing. Much more so with big speakers in big rooms, than headphones, however. These little guys may be good in a smaller setup. Not sure with headphones.

That's a myth - no more dangerous than light bulbs or other electric devices. Don't pour gasoline on it or stack your newspaper collection next to it, and you'll be fine.

Cheap tube amps are a lot of fun for both music to speakers and guitar. They're also something of a lottery - a 150 dollar model can seem like a total waste and another of the same type a piece of magic. I have amps at 20 times that cost that are far less fun to use. Sometimes you pay for build quality but not much dynamism.

Go forth and experiment. Understanding marrying speakers matters more, too, but happy accidents happen. Tube amps are good for everything. I even got my cats one, apparently.

You're not reading or communicating. You're simply rebroadcasting an agenda I've said nothing about, other than to also critique the pointlessness and counter-productivity of prohibition.

The historic prohibition of cannabis doesn't make research of the last 20 years somehow invalid. That's not how good science operates. Behind where it could have been if we'd started in 1940? Sure, but we can't revisit that now. Again, you're conflating political/cultural with scientific. They're just not the same arena.

My original point was singularly that there is a growing body of scientific research that's raising questions about the negative (as well as positive) impacts of cannabis. Most pro-cannabis people aren't aware of this.

The politicization of cannabis and related plants has very little to do with the scientific realities of what we do know about the pros and cons, and the far larger amount we don't know. The same can be said for most large cases of prohibition. That's usually a political decision.

My comment was focused on the latter, related to actual clinical and scientifically sound research on same, and growing evidence that the impacts might be far more mixed (at best) than the decidedly non-scientific pro weed lobby would like to be the case, or like to have acknowledged in open discussion. The cannabis debate, such as it is, is highly partizan. Scientific research doesn't hold much similarity to public debate.

See, you two are so stoned you can't click straight.

People don't like objectivity or truth. It gets in the way of what they want to believe or feel.

Happy to, but if you're sincerely interested this wouldn't be difficult to search for yourself, even on Google Scholarly. This subject so often just devolves into people being 'pro weed' in some fashionable pop-culture Facebook-as-source sense, versus serious academic consideration. Hence all these stoned downvotes.

A good starting point might be here [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FTW9DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=scholarly+articles+health+risks+cannabis&ots=-jg_5_7lpS&sig=LL6e3Nl0kVsdwjhtAziFzptfmGg#v=onepage&q=scholarly%20articles%20health%20risks%20cannabis&f=false] as it lists a large array of clinical areas with existing research and known risks and also benefits, per condition. Within each section you'll find references out to many supporting studies, source and commentary.

If you want more:

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: Implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction - https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(04)01310-1/fulltext

Adverse effects of cannabis on health: An update of the literature since 1996 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278584604000855

Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0741832905001126

Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871603000644

Cannabinoids and psychosis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0074774206780102

Associations between modes of cannabis use in daily life with concurrent and longitudinal hazardous use and consequences - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460321003932

Cloudy with a chance of munchies: Assessing the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on obesity - https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4598

Health outcomes associated with long-term regular cannabis and tobacco smoking - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460313000257

Is the relationship between early-onset cannabis use and educational attainment causal or due to common liability? - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871613002998

​

Again, 5-10 mins of a real search will find countless results exploring this area. Clinical and scientific research into the pros and cons of cannabis use either recreationally or clinically is a quickly growing area. The idea cannabis is simply good/safe/doesn't pose serious health risks is simply false. We don't know that, and really the opposite - we already see it has numerous risks that require more research, as with the benefits. Also, a regular user of cannabis, for clinical benefits, and opposed to its illegality. Neither of those mean it's known to be safe.

Plenty of studies also showing potential problems caused by cannabis use, outside cardiovascular concerns.

CNN aside, there's a growing body of academic research finding significant issues and concerns around heavier Marijuana usage, especially related to mental health. While it's also true there is research showing some possible benefits for some conditions, too, agenda doesn't really apply. We just don't know enough, yet.

Apologies if I misread - it seemed you were suggesting Sony headphones have a deservedly poor rep making any comparison to them unflattering.

Average Redditor moment.

That's a wildly broad statement, at least on Sony. Some of their higher end products are quite good. They may not be trendy in a sub like this, but to write anything off because it's branded Sony is revealing, and not of an honest appraisal of headphones, unless a user's experience level only hits mass market <$300 models.

You might want to check out the beyerdynamic mmx300. Very decent all round performer across gaming and even music. Solid build and very durable, as with most beyerdynamic models.

I am lucky to have Aryas, 1990s and hd800s and obviously that's a different class, but for 5x the price. For 2-300 bucks, they're a good choice. Not wireless, however, if that matters to you.