C'mon Nick, you know you wanna.
Plastic from a roasting bag (packaging has the PET symbol on it, that's all I know) seems to work as a substitute of sorts for the moisture guard on the Unipolar. I tried wrinkling up the film before attaching it (like some pros seem to do it), but that didn't come out so hot even though I tried three different versions. In the end, I put on a smooth film of it. Although when I say smooth, I mean not really smooth - it has a few folds in it that were there to begin with. And I attached it with duct tape, since I've no proper glue. No pictures; later.
Colorful graph (raw data). Spikes in the lower mids and below are interference. The cover was applied only to the front of the driver.
The graph shows a bass hump in all measurements, but they were measured with no baffle, i.e. the driver was loosely in the cup and the mic setup was pressed against it. Doesn't give the most accurate response graphs, but does show the relative differences; so I'm not sure whether they actually have a hump or not at this point.
Also, the Unipolar aren't exactly orthos I know, but I don't want to advertise them so much as to create a proper thread for their modding, and since wualta was asking for info on them, into the ortho thread it goes. And in any case they're planar headphones, can't argue with that.
When a modern headphone has adjustable venting, how is that implemented? The only headphone I've ever owned with that feature was the rare Sennheiser HD-44, and the adjustment was primitive at best.
Exactly, and more. It may seem off-topic, but I can't help but think we can learn things by looking around at similar, analogous contraptions. As long as we know what the differences are and how they affect the sound. After all, approaching the mass of an electret/electrostat membrane is one of the expressed goals of the design team at JPS Labs. What happens when you get there? Electret 'phones can give us a preview.
oh the torture, guess I will go read that Beyer -fidelity article again.
Wualta if you are at all curious as you seem to be, hit up the Amazon page for them some good shots. And headfonia. Apparently these are the definition of cool. no kiddin'. Theres even a hipster modelling them and having to hold onto them in a dynamic manner, a manner that's so hipster and obscure we have probably never heard of it.
Q: how many hipsters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: I dunno it's a pretty obscure number you have probably never heard of it
At least let me pretend i don't want to hit the mouse button and have something magically show up at my post office.
One planer old idear I have been toying with is damping the Stax SR-5 to see what comes of it, if I can grab a tidbit of bassery without affecting the open sound too much I won't need to blow $ on the SR-5 Golds later on. PWB managed it I should revisit them and see.
Ah, thanks. Yep, it's exactly the same as on the old Sennheisers! I'll put up a closeup photo of the HD 44.
"Q: I have heard of it.
A: Oh, then it's different now."
Common? no. When I first mentioned them in a 2005 post, I couldn't find a single image online. Things are a little better now. Here's an overall view.
The little driver modules pop off, just like the HD 414. As I recall, it wasn't expensive either-- must have got it around 1976. I got it to see what it could do for binaural playback. The lack of bass ruled that out, but they became very useful as a kind of "distortion sniffer", sort of a poor-man's SR-X, something to hunt for tape saturation, bad splices, vinyl grunge, clipping and buzz. Oh analog, why did we ever abandon you?
Unipolar 2000 baffle without the acoustic filters.
The filter material.
The baffle filter as a whole seems quite an intricate system, but I'm not sure that I see a large difference in measurements between having the filters and not having them.
Also, and I'm sure MDR30 has noticed this as well, the way you need to bend the cable under the baffle is absolutely moronic. I can never get the bottom bit of the baffle to attach properly to the cup.