or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sony CD3000 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony CD3000 Thread - Page 12

post #166 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-P View Post

Sorry, I can't write a detailed guide this time... because there is too much to be done. But essentially...

Felt on the plastic rim/lip surrounding the driver. Then shelf-liner material in the slot left by the angle. This shelf-liner will absorb some excess resonance in order to reduce the midrange harshness that I mentioned (2-4KHz), I have used this technique with a similar headphone with good results.




Next: circular foam piece covering the edges of the metallic part in the back of the driver. This absorbs reflections that mess with the mids, too. Then another piece of shelf-liner in the lip here, too.




And here's the cup: treated to shelf-liner with bigger openings and dots. The bigger dots absorb reflection better than the smaller ones, so this one will allow for higher frequencies to come out better as they don't get reflected and cause destructive interference with the wave coming to the front. Edit: not visible from photos: dynamat under each piece of shelf-liner on the cups to dampen every possible resonance of the cup from lower frequencies. So essentially, I wanted to make the cup disappear...








And here are frequency response measurements before and after... I used my iPhone's microphone to record a sine wave sweep, so please ignore bass below 125Hz. iPhone mic sucks at recording bass. But midrange and especially treble showed some improvements.

Before:




After:




16KHz peak gives more air IMO. The Sony R10 also had that peak from one measurement I have seen.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/728006/sonys-new-flagship-2014-mdr-z7/3855
Edited by cdsa35000 - 1/9/15 at 3:14pm
post #167 of 385

So how would a mod like this affect the CD3000? If one were to remove the foam cylinder within the cup and instead treat it with shelf-liner as this person has, and essentially applied all of the same mods, how would this hurt or benefit the CD3k? I can imagine that it would tame the mids, the highs, satisfactorily, but I'd be worried about the bass at that point. It does seem like all peaks were lowered thanks to the dampening effect, which seems like it'd translate into less harshness though slightly lowered volume as a result.

However, I'm now noticing with the smoothened peaks and valleys as a result, it seems like the overall sound quality would be a lot more pleasant. The original reading shows a lot of contrast between the peaks and valleys which I'd imagine would translate into harshness thanks to reflections and resonance.

Oh, and at this point I am starting to believe hangers have little bearing on affecting the sound aside from microphonics, which my headphones do not have a noticeable issue with.

If you want to chime in at any time, CDSA, feel free.

--

After reading up another mod, it almost seems conflicting. The same modder says that too much dynamat and, by extension, sound absorption, can actually make the cans seem harsher, but with the Z7, he as an almost opposite ideology and explicitly does heavy dampening saying that they will eliminate reflections and tame the mids and highs.

Okay.

Also, can we stop the kind of "I know better than you--" "No, I know better than you" back and forth stuff? I joined this forum ages ago, but I had no idea people had such contentious ego problems here. I feel an air of condescension kicking up in this thread. Open discussion > Lecture

Enjoy your damn headphones!


Edited by E3E - 1/9/15 at 11:38pm
post #168 of 385
Don't sweat about modding, if you're satisfied with the SQ and can't hear microphonics now, why bother?
Download the HP FR measurements from here: http://www.innerfidelity.com/headphone-data-sheet-downloads
---
That Z7 guy is using too thick and wrong heavy rubber material for dampening, actually reducing significant the "acoustic chamber (Q factor) size" affecting the calculated tonal SQ/FR as designed for.
Like the former guy was rambling about the design as intended, the Z7 was designed for without any dampening inside, the cross frame structure is the dampening.
900x900px-LL-1d9245a0_IMG_0085.jpeg

Z7 was designed to have the "subwoofer" boomy feel, see the b4 FR of the boosted bump from 80Hz to 250Hz, after the thick dampening those are reduce too much like -6dB but the improved the lower bass-ends.

He should use thin layer dampening and littlebit light BAF wadding is way better.
---
You shouldn't remove the foam cilinder, thats designed for the standing wave dampening and virtually increase the chamber size and reduce "hollow sound", thus better bass control and wider soundstage.
Only applying thin layer tape on the "smooth" surfaced plastic walls/cup/parts is enough to reduce/absorb the reflections and resonances.
I just happened to have these "wall crack repair self-adhesive tape" from a decade ago laying around, so I can't give recent brands. And the SQ mod is "improved" to my taste only, so could differs for somebody else.
You gotta find out the "best" tape for yourself, but the tape I use was some light thin porous/abit fluffy/stretchable to stick any bumps paperfiber like fabrics.

Do your own research about acoustic resonance etc.
http://www.google.com/search?q=speaker+box+design
http://www.qtasystems.co.uk/articles/how-to-damping.htm
Edited by cdsa35000 - 1/13/15 at 2:09am
post #169 of 385

Actually, since you brought this up here, I guess it might be easier to discuss it here.

 

The Z7 has some design "problems" from my standpoint that goes beyond just "intended" engineering design philosophy. Perhaps my approach to a proper headphone design would be different from how those at Sony see it, but here are some of the pain points I saw from my perspective:

 

1) The structure indeed acts like a massive box of air to create the "subwoofer" boomy feel. But only if that is the case in practice. In reality, the Z7 doesn't sound anything like a subwoofer, and it's far from that.

 

2) The cross structure in the middle is indeed a reflecting chamber intended to boost the upper midrange and lower treble to give the Z7 a bit of "clarity", per se, but all it really accomplishes is resonance at those frequencies. Measurements (not made by me) have shown that the Z7 has resonance around 3KHz, and then extra resonance at 7-8KHz.

 

3) The plastic enclosure is far too light to reduce excess vibrations caused by the super strong drivers. As a result, the Z7 would have a bit of extra lower midrange or upper bass resonance that can "mask" clarity. This is not shown on a frequency response graph since these graphs are obtained using an impulse sent at a specific frequency, but play back any other frequency, and the lower midrange actually would peak up a little in an RTA analyzer, suggesting enclosure resonance.

 

4) Having the enclosure that way would create reflections in the inner chamber that can effectively drown out any high frequency content. This is evident in actual listening.

 

So instead of sounding like a high-end headphone with subwoofer bass, as intended, the Z7 actually sounds like a muddy, thick, blurry, and super indistinct mess of a headphone.

 

As for my choice of materials, if you'd read the links you provided, you'd know a bit more:

 

1) The "thick rubber material" is actually a shelf-liner with essentially the same properties as sound-absorbent foam. Here's what your link has to say about sound-absorbent foam:

 

Quote:
Generally available in two shapes / profiles, flat and egg box, the foam family are usually opaque in colour and have a closed cell construction, The foam cells are chosen to be a specific size / diameter in order to provide a bulk material characteristic suitable for acoustic damping, i.e. the cells are mostly airtight and provide resistance to the passage of air if you try to blow through the material. This closed cell structure absorbs energy when the cell content, air, is compressed and rarefied due to the sound pressure wave. This type of damping is used to alter the high frequency response of cabinets and transmission lines. It does not work well for low frequencies as the amount of damping / energy absorption which the foam can support is relatively small.

 

This is what I did intend for the foam to be. The foam is there to reduce extra reflections caused by the aluminum surfaces of the dynamat pieces underneath. Also, they lay relatively flat against the surface, so the reduction in volume is minimal. The reduced 80-250Hz content is actually due to the effect of blocking the top port of the Z7 rather than as an effect of the foam. The foam by themselves are only there to smooth out midrange and high frequency peaks.

 

Here are graphs (I didn't measure these, but you can probably look up the rest on Google) of the effects of covering the top and bottom vents on the Z7:

 

Covering top vent:

 

Covering bottom vent:

 

2) As mentioned, using dynamat as a dampening and mass-loading material would work well for reducing excess vibrations and resonance at lower frequencies, but they would cause reflections, so proper care has to be taken while applying these things. I did intentionally use the shelf-liner to tune the upper midrange and lower treble peak of the Z7, though, as I found those peaks to be too much contrast out of the recessed feel of the frequencies around them.

 

3) Using acoustic fiber or some sort of wool felt in order to "effectively increase internal volume" would work well, but then that only works for sound waves. It limits air flow inside the enclosure, and again, proper care has to be taken in order to make sure pressure difference between both sides of the diaphragm is minimal. I realized later on that the Z7 already has a fairly clever way to achieve this, and so... the ports really are just there to tune frequency response. Since I enjoy a more "flat" frequency response than what the stock headphone had to offer, I nudged the frequency response in the direction that I saw fit.

 

4) Since that post, I did poke around a bit more and learned more about the design of the Z7 to apply a more advanced scheme of the dampening mod in order to achieve a completely different sound. But the frequency response would look almost exactly the same, because at some point, I'd bump into the stock tuning of the frequency response of the drivers. That's a hardware limitation that would require more... invasive methods to alter.

 

Needless to say, I didn't quite like the way the Z7 sound at stock, but I loved its technicality.

 

I have not heard the CD3000, so I have no idea how it would sound like... but like you said, if someone already loves the way the CD3000 sound like at stock, then I would say... don't bother messing with it.

post #170 of 385
Good post!
Will repost it to Z7's thread.
post #171 of 385

I wanted to post a few thoughts on the cd3000 as I had the opportunity to spend some time auditioning it over this past weekend. Let me say this right up font, I am very rarely truly surprised by the performance of a headphone. I have owned or auditioned most of the best hp's ever released and the amps that make them sing. 

 

The cd3000 was shockingly good. The pair that I heard was modded to include dual exit cable from the cups and with an after market copper cable. It took several minutes for me to get my thoughts around the performance of this vintage wonder. Imaging, sound staging, neutrality of the frequency exceeded all other closed hp's that I've heard. In fact the performance surpassed many top performing hp's including many of the better planar mags that I've owned. I really need to spend more time with it to get a complete idea of just what the cd3000 is capable of. Let's just say that I had a jaw dropping moment with this Sony. 

post #172 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTCG View Post

I wanted to post a few thoughts on the cd3000 as I had the opportunity to spend some time auditioning it over this past weekend. Let me say this right up font, I am very rarely truly surprised by the performance of a headphone. I have owned or auditioned most of the best hp's ever released and the amps that make them sing. 

The cd3000 was shockingly good. The pair that I heard was modded to include dual exit cable from the cups and with an after market copper cable. It took several minutes for me to get my thoughts around the performance of this vintage wonder. Imaging, sound staging, neutrality of the frequency exceeded all other closed hp's that I've heard. In fact the performance surpassed many top performing hp's including many of the better planar mags that I've owned. I really need to spend more time with it to get a complete idea of just what the cd3000 is capable of. Let's just say that I had a jaw dropping moment with this Sony. 
Yes, they are best and very sensitive too, best without extra amping for (portable) mp3/pc/laptop media etc.
According to this livestage guy, it have the "best" flat FR:
post #173 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTCG View Post
 

I wanted to post a few thoughts on the cd3000 as I had the opportunity to spend some time auditioning it over this past weekend. Let me say this right up font, I am very rarely truly surprised by the performance of a headphone. I have owned or auditioned most of the best hp's ever released and the amps that make them sing. 

 

The cd3000 was shockingly good. The pair that I heard was modded to include dual exit cable from the cups and with an after market copper cable. It took several minutes for me to get my thoughts around the performance of this vintage wonder. Imaging, sound staging, neutrality of the frequency exceeded all other closed hp's that I've heard. In fact the performance surpassed many top performing hp's including many of the better planar mags that I've owned. I really need to spend more time with it to get a complete idea of just what the cd3000 is capable of. Let's just say that I had a jaw dropping moment with this Sony. 

 

Yup, this is why the lowly CD3000 has remained a favorite of mine even as much more expensive headphones come and go in my collection.

post #174 of 385

    

 

So, all done hand sewing up the ear pads, headband and its support piece, and this pair is looking smooth! Now all I need is to sand off the icky paint on the cups and airbrush these a nice purple plum pearlescent, and I'll be finished restoring them. Italian lambskin, Japanese silk thread, and memory foam for the cushions. Also put a very comfortable insole insert for the support piece of the headband so it'd be more comfortable, and I padded up the headband as well so it wouldn't feel flat to hold. :)

Yay!

Also, this took seven days of almost non-stop work to do. It was not fun, and I so don't want to do it ever again (though I would :P). I was inspired by the R10 ear pads, which I understand are angled (yes, I know the CD3k is already angled itself). The ear pads are a bit angled themselves and bear a pretty striking resemblance to the R10's pads, which is just neat! Isolation is amazing, soundstage is wonderful. :3 Memory foam and uber soft leather means wearing never gets tiring. Oh yeah, and I previously refitted an elastic strap in the headband so it would fit more tightly, which means no more loose CD3ks.


Edited by E3E - 1/28/15 at 5:09pm
post #175 of 385
Good job! Looks good like a "R10" now, but what a hassle to make and adds bulky weight, warming-up and sweaty more?
I just keep using my original ripped/peeled collagene-pleather earpads that are now bare breathable cloth base-material.

Its sounds much better now, the enclosed bass resonance is lessend and the "closed" feeling is more open (isolation lessend?).
And what's good about the breathable "fluffy" cloth is it still (less) warm but not sweaty and feels like nothing is there on the face contact! I can wear whole day without the "claustrophic" fatigue.

With (p)leather you still feel the "tight" material on the skin contact and the sticky sweaty feel.
So If you still have the flacking originals, you should try that out.
Edited by cdsa35000 - 1/29/15 at 2:41am
post #176 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdsa35000 View Post

Good job! Looks good like a "R10" now, but what a hassle to make and adds bulky weight, warming-up and sweaty more?
I just keep using my original ripped/peeled collagene-pleather earpads that are now bare breathable cloth base-material.

Its sounds much better now, the enclosed bass resonance is lessend and the "closed" feeling is more open (isolation lessend?).
And what's good about the breathable "fluffy" cloth is it still (less) warm but not sweaty and feels like nothing is there on the face contact! I can wear whole day without the "claustrophic" fatigue.

With (p)leather you still feel the "tight" material on the skin contact and the sticky sweaty feel.
So If you still have the flacking originals, you should try that out.


It is certainly a hassle to make, my friend, but the reward is amazing if you have a passion for modding and DIY. My ears have never gotten too hot or sweaty from wearing headphones, not noticeably anyway. Perhaps it's because my ears might be better at heat dissipation; I do not have tiny ears. :P The headphones are incredibly comfortable with the padded support piece and memory foam cushions. The sound is very isolated with any music on, which is amazing. No sticky or sweaty ears here. Lambskin is usually what one refers to as "glove leather," and so the feel is incredibly "buttery" as many tend to describe lambskin. It's soft yet supple and very gentle against the skin.

Yes, I know how the headphones sound with the original flaked off pads, as that's the condition they were in for around the 8 years of my ownership until now. More open, airy, softer and more rounded, but I'm not a big fan of that sound. I personally prefer the sound leather pads bring.

I also tested the sound with just the memory foam stuffed in the original pad covers (since the inner circumference's stitching wore away for them), and yes. Open, airy, but not too my liking.

I also have a $6 pair of pleather replacements from China and I was not a big fan. The pleather was soft but obviously of a much different construction than the originals. The sound quality was also not as fine as the leather versions. So I have tried multiple variants of ear pads and I've found leather to be my preferred material.

post #177 of 385

When any of you guys decide to give up this hp for something else...pm me...please. 

post #178 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTCG View Post

When any of you guys decide to give up this hp for something else...pm me...please. 
Sorry not from me ever!

What are you going to drive these hp, because they are low 32 Ohms and very sensitive (no ext. headamp needed) 104dB/mW and with "most" sources you can hear the constant (background) hiss of the (op)amps/amplifier.
I listen CD3000 mainly without ext. headamp to portable media/psp/nds/keyboards, sofar only with Aspire 8930 laptop and Archos Gemini500 mediaplayer can deliver a "hiss free" output.
It sound crappy mismatched with the hybrid tubeamp X-CAN V3, bassless, shrill/harsh treble, thin sounding and amp hiss.

Thats why I have the SA5000 matched with X-CAN.
post #179 of 385

I primarily drive these from my Pico which sounds fantastic. Not a hint of hiss.

post #180 of 385
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Sony CD3000 Thread