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

Orthodynamic Roundup - Page 449

post #6721 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent View Post
taking the Grundig apart and putting it together too many times, the narrow cup opening for the cables seems to have cut one of them off :-(
Time for a recable. If you want to send them this way I'll do it for you and give them a listen.
post #6722 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent View Post
I wonder if thick leather could be an alternative to wood? Could it work? Any ideas about that?
It could, you'd need a pretty thick chunk of leather and a way of sticking it all together. With enough hot water and time you could make molds to form the softened leather and glue it I suppose. You could also impregnate it with water soluble glue so it dries in shape firmly.
It's what the Romans did with their leather breastplates. Could be fun or frustrating, but interesting all the same.
post #6723 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duggeh View Post
Forget ye not the 16 square inches of the Jecklin electrostatic.
Well I thought it was a reused speaker driver and over all impressions were not that good about Jecklin electrostatic, but yeah the driver was big
post #6724 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faust2D View Post
From in production stats ESP950 has the largest diaphragm radiating surface area: 46.6 sq. cm.

I am not sure what SR-007's radiating surface area is, but I believe it has a slightly smaller driver.
The SR-Omega's diaphragm is 90mm across resulting in a truly huge driver but the SR-007 is only about 60-65mm across.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faust2D View Post
Well I thought it was a reused speaker driver and over all impressions were not that good about Jecklin electrostatic, but yeah the driver was big
The first Jecklins did indeed use speaker drivers. It's a shame to mount a driver with all that potential in such a terrible housing...
post #6725 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post
The SR-Omega's diaphragm is 90mm across resulting in a truly huge driver but the SR-007 is only about 60-65mm across.

The first Jecklins did indeed use speaker drivers. It's a shame to mount a driver with all that potential in such a terrible housing...
All that knowledge and it is still not documented Thanks for the info spritzer.
post #6726 of 23686
Second go at modding:

Wow, plugging up that small hole in the front I assume is the anti-fart port really makes everything sound crappy. I think cutting a hole in the front fabric will help.

Made holes in the top vents in the other cup, sounds more balanced now.

Cut a hole in middle of stock damping, replacing it with a reflex dot. Taped felt to the back of that. I don't think it helped much because I don't think I've reached that middle protrusion yet.

Still missing something in the upper frequencies, can't quite pinpoint where yet. Also it just doesn't sound very open, and the midrange is a little rough. First time I've experienced a planar with midrange that isn't at least a little bit euphonic. Again, it might just be placebo, but it sounds like I'm listening through some sort of screen, and well, there's a piece of fabric between me and the drivers. smeggy, do you think it made much a difference removing the front fabric?
post #6727 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypasswordis View Post
Second go at modding:

Wow, plugging up that small hole in the front I assume is the anti-fart port really makes everything sound crappy. I think cutting a hole in the front fabric will help.

Made holes in the top vents in the other cup, sounds more balanced now.

Cut a hole in middle of stock damping, replacing it with a reflex dot. Taped felt to the back of that. I don't think it helped much because I don't think I've reached that middle protrusion yet.

Still missing something in the upper frequencies, can't quite pinpoint where yet. Also it just doesn't sound very open, and the midrange is a little rough. First time I've experienced a planar with midrange that isn't at least a little bit euphonic. Again, it might just be placebo, but it sounds like I'm listening through some sort of screen, and well, there's a piece of fabric between me and the drivers. smeggy, do you think it made much a difference removing the front fabric?
This is what I did, try it if you want and let me know if you like how it sounds:

post #6728 of 23686
I wouldn't say a big difference, but anything in the way is in the way. The driver has a fine weave nylon mesh behind the front fabric so it doesn't end up unprotected.

I found with that small reflex dot in my pics was just enough to get the treble how I like it. It's close to the K1000 in tonality at the top.

The woodies have just one small port each. I mean small, less than 1/8". Mine are so drastically different from stock that it'd be hard to advise on a direction as the first round of mods made a good improvement but it still needed much more to get them just right for me.
post #6729 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faust2D View Post
Unipolar are universally know to be crap.
The reviewers at Hi-fi musik thought that the Unipolar also beat the Stax (sr-e I think) from the same review. They found the Unipolar to be the can of that year.
post #6730 of 23686
By the way, what do you people think of the japanese Hosiden ortho?
post #6731 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent View Post
The reviewers at Hi-fi musik thought that the Unipolar also beat the Stax (sr-e I think) from the same review. They found the Unipolar to be the can of that year.
Interesting I always thought they were a flop. A few Unipolar owners around here were not really thrilled about them at all and their reliability is notoriously bad as few survived to this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent View Post
By the way, what do you people think of the japanese Hosiden ortho?
What's that?
post #6732 of 23686
x2

Hosiden ortho? You might have just discovered a new one to us all.

Also, don't just say things like that, we want pics dammit!
post #6733 of 23686
Do you mean the DH-61-S which is most assuredly not orthodynamic?

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/hel...h-61-s-301001/

There are a boatload of headphones from that era which all have a very thin mylar cone driver. They're flat enough to be orthos, but they aint.

We've seen the DH-61-S frame with a lot of different badges on it. Since the earslabs are parallel, we assume that they were made for some weird beings with parallel ears rather than human beings who's noggins are a mess of compound curves.
post #6734 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericj View Post
Since the earslabs are parallel, we assume that they were made for some weird beings with parallel ears rather than human beings who's noggins are a mess of compound curves.
You maybe a curvy compound headed freak, my head is a perfect cube
post #6735 of 23686
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericj View Post
Do you mean the DH-61-S which is most assuredly not orthodynamic?

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/hel...h-61-s-301001/

There are a boatload of headphones from that era which all have a very thin mylar cone driver. They're flat enough to be orthos, but they aint.

We've seen the DH-61-S frame with a lot of different badges on it. Since the earslabs are parallel, we assume that they were made for some weird beings with parallel ears rather than human beings who's noggins are a mess of compound curves.
No, it's not the DH-61.
I have the review here with picture, frequency response curve, and impedance measurements here, now where did I put it... The review mentions that all other Hosidens they tried, except this one, sound like crap.
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