Quote:
Originally Posted by
peli_kan 
Does a larger reflex dot affect treble extension or emphasis? My ears can't tell.
Making a reflex dot (not disc but dot) larger moves the lowest frequency being reflected back to the listener downward. In other words, if you only wanted to tweak the top octave, you'd use a very small dot, maybe several of them. That would be a way to compensate for some mild overdamping, for example. If your phone seems to have Severe Ortho Droop, you'd want to grab one of the 19mm office-supply dots. My thinking these days is that most 'phones that've been carefully damped won't need a dot that large and would benefit from that multiplicity of smaller dots idea.
Does that help? Basically the dot is trying to reflect all frequencies (it doesn't know any better-- it got a bad grade in junior-year physics), but the longer wavelengths (ie, bass and mids) just bend right around it. Thus it only ends up reflecting treble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DefectiveAudioComponent .... cheating....
Here, I for instance increase that really deep bass on the LCD-1 a bit. I don't want to mess with it permanently, because it sounds spectacular as it is too.
Using the "discotheque" DSP, eh? No, I don't blame you a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gurubhai I have a question from NAD/T50 owners. Has anyone tried removing the thin sheet pasted on the grille ? Does it have any acoustic effect?
It would have the same effect on FR that the Yamaha vent damping felt has-- it helps keep down bass cancellation. Does a flat grille held parallel to the diaphragm also reflect some program back at the listener? Certainly. With good absorptive materials in between, the tradeoff is a good one, imo, but others might well disagree, because the T50v1's soundstage is disappointing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777
i find it amusing when people are willing to almost completely gut a pair of headphones or mod them in every way imaginable to perfect the sound, but they somehow dont consider using eq a part of that process.
We've talked about this in the past, of course, and my take on it is that a surprising number haven't heard a competent EQ circuit and have developed a kind of Anti-EQist (which is to say purist) approach that traces its origins to some high-end manufacturers of the late '70s. Live and let live, I say-- meanwhile, you're enjoying phones that would wear you down psychically without that little kick of electronic help. If the 'phones take EQ gracefully and the EQ itself is competent, how can anyone say you're deluding yourself? Especially now, when EQ can be done in the digital domain. But it's not worth getting into a religious argument about.
