or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Wow, finally got them (HD480 mkII)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow, finally got them (HD480 mkII) - Page 3

post #31 of 55
Funny enough Mike, that was the reason I wanted to try them because they are Supraaural (correct?). I enjoy the PMX100's on the old CD walkman & I wanted to see how a bigger pair of supraaural headphones would sound. I've got them on the end of The Can Opener now burning in. They are so loud at the moment you can hear them throughout the house!

Best,

Nigel
post #32 of 55
Better quality photos of the cable & connector here,


http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/nmp...a8fre2&.src=ph

Cheers PinkFloyd!
post #33 of 55
Thread Starter 
Right, I got the 'phones today.



Very nicely/solidly made cable/jack btw.
First off I measured the impedance and they are 1700 Ohm designs.
So I guess I have the HD 480-13 IIUK ones then.

Then I noticed that the jack plug is slightly different to a standard 1/4" jack. It's very very slightly fatter and slightly more "bulbous" on the tip.



This means that plugging it into the X-cans directly is OK, but you have to seat it firmly, otherwise you only get sound from the left ear. I also made my own extension cable using OFC wire and a spare 1/4" female plug module. This normally works fine with any other headphone I've ever used (and no loss of quality either ) but here, I can't seem to seat it well enough to get stereo sound (only comes out of left ear again). So it's no more extension cable for me then.

Here it is next to my slightly modded X-cans and also with them warmed up, ready to go





Sound is Fan-F***ing-Tastic. The x-cans have no trouble driving these 'phones at all. Loud levels are at the 12'oclock position, with comfortable listening at 11:30ish.

Also, bringing the x-cans home may have solved the background hum I heard previously in my flat and using the HD575's. No hum or hiss at all. Lovely transparent clear sound .

Overall VERY happy with both the SQ and the loudness :thumbsup:

Thanx everyone for your thoughts, I'm now a very happy bunny.

PS. Still considering some DIY re:Amp...PinkFloyd, will the op-amp/cap/valve upgrades do anything specific or generally improve all areas?
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel
Hi Graz,

I got my pair from Ebay. Item ended last Wednesday.
No, sorry for the confusion... my question wasn't "where" did you buy these...it was "why" did you buy these? What's the allure? I'm just curious... Are you collecting old Senns? Sorry, I just <totally> don't get it...

Peace,

Graz
post #35 of 55
Apologies to you, Graz. I failed to read your question correctly.

The reason I decided to buy these was twofold really. One, I'd always wanted to hear them after reading the aforementioned magazine review but had forgotten about them in recent years & secondly, a few months back I purchased a pair of Sennheiser PMX-100's & was very impressed. This reminded me of the HD-480's pads, a kinda smaller version of the supraaural headphone so from then on in, I had to hear a pair. Actually, a third reason is I've always been kinda fascinated by 'phones with impedance at 600ohms! Although now I cannot think what for. I fail to see any benefits.

I will have to investigate the reasons behind low & high impedance & see whether there are any ideals. For instance, why would Sennheiser make these 'phones in three different impedances? Why did Sennheiser change from 600ohms to 300ohms? Beyer also to whatever they use now for the DT990's etc.

Best,

Nigel
post #36 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel
I will have to investigate the reasons behind low & high impedance & see whether there are any ideals. For instance, why would Sennheiser make these 'phones in three different impedances? Why did Sennheiser change from 600ohms to 300ohms? Beyer also to whatever they use now for the DT990's etc.

Best,

Nigel
Yep. Why do Sennheiser made 1700 ohm ones? Do the BBC require this? Would it change the SQ from the, say, 300 ohm ones?

I have heard mentioned that you get a reduction in hiss the higher the ohmage....mine do seem to give a lovely inky black silence that my CX300's/PX100's/HD575's couldn't quite manage.
Any truth to this?
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaffer74
Yep. Why do Sennheiser made 1700 ohm ones? Do the BBC require this? Would it change the SQ from the, say, 300 ohm ones?

I have heard mentioned that you get a reduction in hiss the higher the ohmage....mine do seem to give a lovely inky black silence that my CX300's/PX100's/HD575's couldn't quite manage.
Any truth to this?
It was probably designed with crystal radios in mind, and the BBC might have had some older equipment which required this.
It can be different in sound quality than the 300 Ohms, but also highly depends on the frequence linearity of the X-Can 3 versus voltage output.....

High impedances cause more hiss, but not at this impedance levels. There would be a large difference between 50k and 1M, so theoretically there should be more. :-)

Congrats on the new phones!
post #38 of 55
Low impedance headphones need a lot of current and high-impedance headphones need a lot of voltage.... there may be a clue there somewhere
post #39 of 55

What about the HD520 II, HD530 II, and HD560 II ?

How does the HD480 II (various ohm versions) compare to the other
Sennheiser look-alikes HD520 II, HD530 II, and HD560 II?

Pictures posted under Sennheiser category:

http://headphones.warzone.org/
post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel
Apologies to you, Graz. I failed to read your question correctly.

The reason I decided to buy these was twofold really. One, I'd always wanted to hear them after reading the aforementioned magazine review but had forgotten about them in recent years & secondly, a few months back I purchased a pair of Sennheiser PMX-100's & was very impressed. This reminded me of the HD-480's pads, a kinda smaller version of the supraaural headphone so from then on in, I had to hear a pair. Actually, a third reason is I've always been kinda fascinated by 'phones with impedance at 600ohms! Although now I cannot think what for. I fail to see any benefits.

I will have to investigate the reasons behind low & high impedance & see whether there are any ideals. For instance, why would Sennheiser make these 'phones in three different impedances? Why did Sennheiser change from 600ohms to 300ohms? Beyer also to whatever they use now for the DT990's etc.

Best,

Nigel
Thanks for the explanation Nigel. This thread is an interesting read...it's fun! People get so focused on what's the newest, hottest thing...I applaud your efforts in uncovering a forgotten gem & sharing your experiences with us.

Peace,

Graz
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sade
How does the HD480 II (various ohm versions) compare to the other
Sennheiser look-alikes HD520 II, HD530 II, and HD560 II?
HD520/530 (II) should be pretty dark sounding. One should try putting velour pads on those to reduce boominess (they're known to be rather dark sounding, along with the '540 II, and quite similar to the following HD5x5s sonically from what one reads, from which the HD535 didn't really knock me off my socks), though I have no clue which ones might fit... HD540 ones? (The '520 II should use plain copper voice coils, the 530 II CCAW. Both 300 ohms.) The '560 (II) basically was an updated, somewhat warmer sounding version of the original HD540 with 300 ohm / CCAW drivers (instead of 600 ohm and copper voice coils), which in turn is brighter and has somewhat less bass than a HD580, along with less deep, circular earpads. (Rather lightweight and a bit clampy, no much top support required.)
post #42 of 55
Thread Starter 
Well I managed to figure out one thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound on Sound
In the UK most professional systems employ the PO316 connector (also known as B-gauge) which is an extremely rugged format originally designed for telephone switchboards (before they used switches!). It uses a three-pole plug (see photograph below), making it ideal for balanced audio circuits, and is constructed from brass. Although it has roughly the same dimensions as the more familiar A-gauge TRS jack plug there is a significant difference between the two: the tip of the PO316 is rounded and slightly smaller than the angular, enlarged tip of the A-gauge.

This might not sound particularly important, but it means that the contact springs in the PO316 socket don't bend very far when the plug is inserted, reducing the stress on the contacts and lowering the effort needing to insert the plug. The contacts are also arranged to wipe along the plug as it is inserted, helping to keep them clean and ensuring good contact. Inserting an A-gauge plug in a PO316 socket will cause irreparable damage, permanently bending or breaking the spring contacts. Plugging a PO316 (B-gauge) plug into a TRS socket will result in a very dodgy connection, as the contacts will barely reach the thinner-bodied plug.
So standard 1/4" used in home audio are always A-Gauge TRS jacks, whereas telephony 1/4" used in studio's are sometimes B-Guage P0316.
My senny's come with these more unusual brass B-Gauge jacks...which explains the iffy connection in the X-cans and incorrect sound via the extension lead.

I might change it for a standard Nutrik all metal A-Gauge at some point (maplins/rs components).
post #43 of 55

HD480 (Original - Classics - Mk.1)

Hi guys, just stumbled upon this forum and thread.
I've just picked up a pair of 2nd hand HD-480s for approx $18US - and that includes a spare lead, two sets of spare pads, O rings, and one aluminium dress ring. They haven't arrived yet. I think they're the standard original model, and have had a long studio life. Maybe they'll be burnt out. Maybe they'll be the buy of the century. Anyway, I was browsing the net trying to find out the ohmage of the classic, and happened upon this thread. I've seen the ohms of the markII, and BBC versions listed (600, 1.7k, etc)... Does anyone know the ohmage of the standard originals? Guess I'll have a good idea when I plug them in my AV710 soundcard and compare the volume to my Philips HP890s (barely drive 'em I suspect)
Thanks for all the HD480 history anyway.
post #44 of 55
Hi,

UK Hi-Fi mag, "What Hi-Fi" from 1989 lists them as 70ohms. That's the HD-480 Classics.

Best,

Nigel
post #45 of 55
Thanks for the swift response Nigel - 70 ohms eh? - that's good for my needs - sounds like they may still be the great all-rounders that article said they were, or at least perfect for all these wee hour soccer games... here's hoping...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Wow, finally got them (HD480 mkII)