Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Orthodynamic Roundup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Orthodynamic Roundup - Page 1407

post #21091 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick n View Post

GREQ: can you take a picture of the front side of those 2 headphones from the baffle/ear side views please when you feel like it.

 

I am curious . Also do they have a whitish cover over the driver on that side also?  - YES (it's some sort of metal mesh)

 

And thanks for taking the time to post pics and your experiments so far with them.

I forget if you ever found out what the impedances are for the drivers? - No, I just don't have the technology frown.gif 

And is the other one also strange with the offset holes when you look through them? - Yes and No (Universum is only half as 'incorrectly' aligned as the Watson)

 

 

Here is the front views of the grills.

Universum has 4 half circular grills (only the top half is vented) and the square silver grill is also a vent.

Watson has a single row of vents (they look white here as I was experimenting with cotton wool at the time of the photo).

 

This is one of those SFI drivers that was being sold on ebay as 'tweeters' or whatever it was they called it. (A few of you guys here got a hold of some of these too) I experimented with them by installing them into the universum just to see what they sound like.

As you can see, the holes are PERFECTLY aligned. (This side has a thin layer of 'felt', the other has a thin plastic fabric). 

The metal 'housing' is slightly smaller than the plastic housing around the ones found in both headphones.

 

These are the Universum drivers, which are about half as 'badly' aligned as the Watson's.

 

Here you can see the insides of both phones side by side, including stock damping, lying beside each.

The drivers have a fine wire mesh on either side of the driver, unlike the 'ebay' one which has a thin plastic fabric on one side and thin felt on the other. 

 

MODDING the Watson's damping solution:

Having two near identical headphones made it very easy to A-B test various damping solutions and simple mods.

I experimented with sealing the vents, adding various amounts of cotton wool and foam. 

 

Closing holes didn't add anything to the sound. At most, it improved the sub-bass volume and impact, but the mids always suffered, and the high mids were not smooth any more. The resulting 'closed sound' was also quite bad.

 

After a while (after trying various music genres) I discovered that the Universum (left) with yellow wooly stuff and thin foam actually had a more neutral, natural (timbre) and open sound. So my quest for today was to bring the Watson as close to it as possible. 

The stock Watson's stock foam damping I found to 'close' the sound somewhat. I initially put in a full piece of cotton wool which beefed the bass up quite a lot, but high trebles weren't as liquid as the other. 

I halved the cotton wool twice before I was happy with the high-mid/treble smoothness and tone, but the bass shrunk each time I did so. So I dug out some old cheap packaging foam I had lying around. It is easily less than 1/3rd the density of the origial stock foam but about the same thickness, so I added it behind the cotton wool, much like the Universum damping strategy. To my delight, they now sound almost the same, with the exception of the Watson having a little more bass, which to my ears sounds a little more balanced. This is probably because the packaging foam is 5X thicker than the Universums 'foam sheet'. 

 

Interestingly I did try various mods and materials on the Universum, but everything I did made the sound worse. So whoever at Universum came up with the venting and damping on this, probably knew what they were doing and had good ears too!

 

So, the 'ebay' drivers inside a headphone: 

I think these suffer a lot from the felt cover at the back of the driver. The treble is a bit woolier and the sound is more closed than the others.

I didn't really want to experiment with taking off the felt and exposing the driver. I'm not quite brave enough for that yet.

However the overall sound signature is practically the same.


Even the difference between the alignment of the driver holes doesn't seem to have any significant affect on the overall sound.

I didn't spend too long trying to figure this out, but that was my impression.

post #21092 of 23376

Increased the amount of cotton I put in the HOK cups. Previously, I had just enough to cover the back of the cup. Now, I put in enough to fill the entire cup even when compressed. Not much change in sound.

 

The biggest issue with the HOK, one I've had since day one, is that the driver puts out a massive treble spike at 9 kHz or so. It seemingly remains unmolested by felt, nylon, and wool discs placed in front of the driver, regardless of their quantity. The only efficient mod for it seems EQ.

post #21093 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

Increased the amount of cotton I put in the HOK cups. Previously, I had just enough to cover the back of the cup. Now, I put in enough to fill the entire cup even when compressed. Not much change in sound.

 

The biggest issue with the HOK, one I've had since day one, is that the driver puts out a massive treble spike at 9 kHz or so. It seemingly remains unmolested by felt, nylon, and wool discs placed in front of the driver, regardless of their quantity. The only efficient mod for it seems EQ.

Did you try felt behind the driver too?

post #21094 of 23376

Tried all sorts of discs at the back last year. Thick felt, thin felt, no felt, nylon, cloth, cotton, and foam. Plus versions with holes in them.

 

Though the paper slip mod did, curiously enough, reduce the peak quite drastically. http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/20070#post_8464569. Shame it sounds like pants in its 'down' configuration.

 

I'm inclined to think the peak is a driver defect to some extent - an unintentional effect.


Edited by vid - 2/13/13 at 11:43am
post #21095 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post

Not every phone is about bass, though. Could try to find a niche for a bass-light HOK.


No you are right, and also the wiki... I think Wualta states that what IS there is fantastic and I agree.

 

 GREQ:

Sent you a PM hope you get it in time :0

Thanks very much for the in depth pictures and posts on the two new ones.

post #21096 of 23376

possible diffusor direction, any opinions?

 

 

post #21097 of 23376

Carrot sticks? rolleyes.gif

post #21098 of 23376

Haha, those sure look like carrots!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post

possible diffusor direction, any opinions?

 

 

It's worth a try. I split my earplugs in quarters axially. But that's in a stock T50RP shell; did not consider doing it this way as diffusers. Good call!

post #21099 of 23376

this will be interesting, but try to get both sides similar. If that is possible I don't know. Funny thing I was actualy looking at a bag of earplugs earlier tonight. They are in the parts boxes now.popcorn.gif

post #21100 of 23376

What size is the rectangular slot in baffle ? also do you have dimensions of holes to fit the drivers on baffles?


post #21101 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick n View Post


No you are right, and also the wiki... I think Wualta states that what IS there is fantastic and I agree.

 

Better mids than the Yamaha HP-50 to my ear, anyway. Though I shouldn't say that, since I'm looking to pick up a cheap v. 2...

 

(But I'll say the HP-50 is better overall.)


Edited by vid - 2/14/13 at 3:53am
post #21102 of 23376

As a slight tangent - has it ever been proved that angling the drivers does actually increase soundstage?

 

It's a popular view, but I'm not really convinced. 

 

Soundstage size seems more linked to the size of the ear pad chamber (the space created by the earpad, baffle and size of the head); the openness of the earpad or baffle (I guess reducing resonances in that chamber) and to an extent the frequency response (EQ down treble on a headphone and the soundstage seems to reduce in turn).

 

I've heard headphones with drivers zeroed on the ears (example - Alessandro MS1000 mod) that had quite impressive soundstage and headphones that angled driver that had really quite poor soundstage (example - LCD-2).

 

Headphones with the best soundstage (HD800, K70*) do angle drivers a bit, but also have huge expansive earpad chambers and are porous pads, the very best soundstaging headsets I've heard (Jecklin Float, K1000) had  pretty much infinitely large earpad chambers... by not havigng earpads.

 

This isn't to say angling drivers severely like this won't increase soundstage, because the earpad chamber is being made substantially larger by that angling, but I remain unconvinced the angle does much in itself.

post #21103 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post

As a slight tangent - has it ever been proved that angling the drivers does actually increase soundstage?

 

It's a popular view, but I'm not really convinced. 

 

Soundstage size seems more linked to the size of the ear pad chamber (the space created by the earpad, baffle and size of the head); the openness of the earpad or baffle (I guess reducing resonances in that chamber) and to an extent the frequency response (EQ down treble on a headphone and the soundstage seems to reduce in turn).

 

I've heard headphones with drivers zeroed on the ears (example - Alessandro MS1000 mod) that had quite impressive soundstage and headphones that angled driver that had really quite poor soundstage (example - LCD-2).

 

Headphones with the best soundstage (HD800, K70*) do angle drivers a bit, but also have huge expansive earpad chambers and are porous pads, the very best soundstaging headsets I've heard (Jecklin Float, K1000) had  pretty much infinitely large earpad chambers... by not havigng earpads.

 

This isn't to say angling drivers severely like this won't increase soundstage, because the earpad chamber is being made substantially larger by that angling, but I remain unconvinced the angle does much in itself.

 

Angle of the driver is one thing, the size of the chamber seems to be another (I agree as I have also experienced this) but the DISTANCE of the driver to the ear is the all-important third factor. 

The further away the driver, the bigger the soundstage - the trick is to get is further away without losing any sound or detail.


Edited by GREQ - 2/14/13 at 4:24am
post #21104 of 23376

Wualta was on about the K 501 using some sort of constructional tricks in the cup to delay the sound waves bouncing back into the ear in order to increase the size of the perceived soundstage. Look that up, too.

post #21105 of 23376
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREQ View Post

 

Angle of the driver is one thing, the size of the chamber seems to be another (I agree as I have also experienced this) but the DISTANCE of the driver to the ear is the all-important third factor. 

The further away the driver, the bigger the soundstage - the trick is to get is further away without losing any sound or detail.


You all seem to be forgetting the infamous Stax Sigma. So far the only headphone that I ever heard with a real soundstage. Stax did it by essentially re creating a small room over each ear with the driver at 90 degrees up front. Arguably the ugliest headphone ever but truly amazing in the perception of space.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Orthodynamic Roundup