Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The most underappreciated can ever? DT 48
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The most underappreciated can ever? DT 48 - Page 3

post #31 of 110
Is there any difference between the different ohm versions that an attenuator wouldn't be equivalent to?

Also, how exactly do different loads theoretically change what to expect from the amp?
post #32 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
compared to the 48's they sound congested & veiled. I'm just going off what I heard. If thats not the answer you wanted to hear I'm sorry.
I'm just saying that I've heard congested and veiled and my K340s in my setup are anything but. Not trying to say you didn't hear what you heard.

Anyways, moving on.

Who has actually heard the 25ohm and 200ohm versions? What are the differences and on what amp?

Was looking at Front End Audio, which has all three versions for $400 or less and it looks like the 25ohms are the only ones that come with the circumaural pads. Is that correct or are the pics wrong for the 200ohm version?
post #33 of 110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
Is there any difference between the different ohm versions that an attenuator wouldn't be equivalent to?

Also, how exactly do different loads theoretically change what to expect from the amp?

That's a great first question and I don't know the answer to it. I can say that when i added attenuation to a low impedance model it behaved similarly to a higher impedance model but I wasn't able to impedance match.

I don't know enough to answer the second question. Only to say that it's not just a matter of gain.
post #34 of 110
My understanding is that higher impedance demands more voltage swing and low sensitivity demands more current.
post #35 of 110
How are the ones being produced today? I see them listed in the fullcompass catalog?
post #36 of 110
Thread Starter 
Thanks philodox - (that sounds right and makes sense in my understanding). I have to admit all this talk of tube amps has me dying to hear it with one.

I think the new DT 48s are pretty similar to the vintage ones - honestly I don't think there are any substantive changes between a new and a vintage version sharing a model numbers and impedance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
I compared my modded 340 to my 48a's.. The 340's sound congested & veild in comparison.
Yeah, that may sound crazy - but I honestly think the same thing with the DT 48, even with a stock / beat-to-heck cable, compared to a recabled AKG 501 and a recabled beyer 880 I had (not to say that the 501 or 880 is the same as the 340, but just that the DT 48 was able to resolve more and sounded more coherent than two cans which I thought did well there, especially the 501).

That's not just with a good amp and source but even in a more low-fi /DAP-ish realm, I got the same impression, although to a lesser degree.

On the new versus vintage question - I honestly think they are the same when comparing a new vs. vintage pair that shares the same model number and impedance.
post #37 of 110
Thread Starter 
Frick - double post
post #38 of 110
You'll probably want to look at something transformer coupled if you try out a tube amp since they have such low impedance... then again, my amp does fine with RS-1's [32ohms] so who knows.
post #39 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrosenth View Post
Thanks philodox - (that sounds right and makes sense in my understanding). I have to admit all this talk of tube amps has me dying to hear it with one.

I think the new DT 48s are pretty similar to the vintage ones - honestly I don't think there are any substantive changes between a new and a vintage version sharing a model numbers and impedance.



Yeah, that may sound crazy - but I honestly think the same thing with the DT 48, even with a stock / beat-to-heck cable, compared to a recabled AKG 501 and a recabled beyer 880 I had (not to say that the 501 or 880 is the same as the 340, but just that the DT 48 was able to resolve more and sounded more coherent than two cans which I thought did well there, especially the 501).

That's not just with a good amp and source but even in a more low-fi /DAP-ish realm, I got the same impression, although to a lesser degree.

On the new versus vintage question - I honestly think they are the same when comparing a new vs. vintage pair that shares the same model number and impedance.
Well, here I go again. I listened to my sextetts last night, and sounded like a awful mess. Everything was blurry and disorted. The bass was bloated and muddy. Midrange was a mile away and sounded lifeless. Thanks 48, you ruined another headphone for me.
post #40 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu View Post
Is there any difference between the different ohm versions that an attenuator wouldn't be equivalent to?

Also, how exactly do different loads theoretically change what to expect from the amp?
read the link in my sig.

attenuators will work fine as long as they are high quality stepped attenuators and not potentiometers with the wheely. those are very noisy and dissipate a lot of heat particularly from high frequencies.

in addition, some models actually change the impedance of the voice coil which can affect the impedance curve in other ways
post #41 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomzDayz View Post
read the link in my sig.
Thanks for that writeup, it's the clearest explanation I've ever seen of it.
post #42 of 110
For us Europeans, I found them (both 25 and 200 ohm version) on Thomann

It feels like I have to try this headphone before I splunge out a lot of money on the Denon AH-D5000.
post #43 of 110
Well, I have the same problem. But my choice is between the DX-1000 and the DT-48/25 ohm. Totally different phones I´m sure, but I would like to try the Beyers before buying the JVC, and possibly save some money.
However, the DX-1000 can easily be sold again. I´m not to sure about the Beyers though. It is a studio phone, and judging by the rewiews in this thread ruthlessly revealing.
Probably a real love/hate thing. But I guess that can be said about most phones, since we hear differently.
post #44 of 110
Has anyone heard both a DT48 and Orthodynamic headphone before? Comparisons? Sounds about as detailed with less bass, but I'd like to hear something more concrete.
post #45 of 110
Thread Starter 
I used to own a slew of them - a couple of yamahas and some vintage stuff i can't even remember.

Comparing from memory but it's pretty clear in my recollection that the DT 48 has far more detail than any of the orthodynamics that I tried. I'd say the bass is about the same between them and the DT 48, with maybe one of the vintage pairs (sorry can't remember what it was - but it was silver if that helps ) having just a touch more than the DT 48.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The most underappreciated can ever? DT 48