Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Just listened to some Fostex T50RPs today... WOW!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just listened to some Fostex T50RPs today... WOW! - Page 239

post #3571 of 10678

So, my T50rps are apparently enroute to a local Long & McQuade store!

 

But I'm at a loss as to what I should do to them first.  There are just so freaking many mods, and the preferred mods appear to have changed over time.  What would be the currently recommended place to start?  And what materials would I need, and what would be the easiest way to get them in Canada?

post #3572 of 10678

So, I got a chance to apply the Rastapants 2 configuration today. I already had acoustic foam on the driver-side of the baffle (over the clay) and Dynamat on the inside of the cups, so the changes for me were to

 

1) switch out the transpore (two layers) to stiff craft felt

2) close up the vents with electrical tape and cover it with acoustic foam (i previously left one slit open)

3) cover the reflex column on the back of the cup with acoustic foam

 

I actually ran out of Silverstone foam so I didn't get to cover the entire earside of the baffle with acoustic foam yet. However, I do have two layers of a half donut underneath the backside of the earcup. 

 

Although this headphone did many things well, the one thing I could not shake was a slight bloom in the midrange. This caused a slight smearing, and vocals sounded a tad muffled. Mind you, when my mind got used to the sound, I didn't notice it. But switching from the LCDs to the T50RP, it is quite noticeable. The configuration I previously found worked the best (2-layers of transpore over drivers, all vents covered except one, acoustic foam on driver-side of baffle) in fixing this bloom was still not 100% satisfactory. Plus it sucked out all of the sub-bass. The funny thing is, I heard a stock T50RP, and the vocals did not sound nearly as muffled -- but they were shouty in addition to many other problems.

 

After applying the Rastapants 2 configuration, I'm happy to say this problem has been fixed for me (!!!!). What a relief that this midrange is finally much better defined, with greater sense of air between each element of the music. There seems to be a much more "pure" air chamber inside the cups for the drivers to work its magic, without reflections or weird air movements coming from the vents. In regards to the overall sound, everything sounds very cohesive, and all the different frequencies seem well-seated and natural. 

 

After doing some quick comparisons to the LCD-2's, the most immediate thing that I notice is that the bass is much lower in the T50RP -- both in impact and in texture. On Fleet Foxe's "Helplessness Blues", when the kick drums hit, they do so with authority on the LCDs, while the Fostex remains polite. On James Blake's "Limit To Your Love", there is a bass line toward the end of the song that the Fostex barely picks up, while it is very prominent with the LCDs. However, listening to jazz recordings (Bill Evans's "Waltz For Debby" and Medeski, Martin & Wood's "Last Chance to Dance Trance"), the bass plucks are just as lively on both -- with the LCD having a good edge in impact and a slight edge in texture. But truth be told, I might even prefer the slightly more shelved down bass lines on these two acoustic tracks that the Fostex presents. This bass performance isn't surprising given the LCDs have a much bigger driver, and I'd say it is a much welcomed tradeoff given that the midrange sounds so right

 

Other things that jump out, is that the LCD's have a bigger soundstage, and are airier. Given that these are open-backed, this shouldn't come as a surprise. If I were to sum up the overall presentation differences, while both definitely sound more similar than different, the LCD is more natural and visceral, while the Fostex is more neutral and analytical. With that said, this Fostex in its current state is an endgame closed headphone for me. 

 

I definitely want to give it more critical listening, and apply some acoustic foam over the entire earside of the baffle before giving any more opinions. I want to write more in-depth comparisons with this likely "final configuration" of my Fostex, before I ship my LCD out again. I also might experiment with opening the vents a bit to infuse a bit more low-end body into the presentation (the few hip-hop songs I've tried on these sound a tad thinner than I'd like), but I'm afraid of smearing the midrange again. If that's the tradeoff, then I'd gladly leave it as is. 

 

Thanks again to all of the work that mrspeakers has done and has shared with us. 

 

 

post #3573 of 10678

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemonkeyflyer View Post

Paxmate over the stock black bass port felt covering from 1 to 4 of the slots (inside the cups); I prefer closing 3 slots

 

I am impressed by their extended sub-bass complexity


This is going to be my next test, and hopefully my last time opening these cups. It's encouraging to see that it's working for you, BMF. 

 

post #3574 of 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questhate View Post

So, I got a chance to apply the Rastapants 2 configuration today. I already had acoustic foam on the driver-side of the baffle (over the clay) and Dynamat on the inside of the cups, so the changes for me were to

 

1) switch out the transpore (two layers) to stiff craft felt

2) close up the vents with electrical tape and cover it with acoustic foam (i previously left one slit open)

3) cover the reflex column on the back of the cup with acoustic foam

 

I actually ran out of Silverstone foam so I didn't get to cover the entire earside of the baffle with acoustic foam yet. However, I do have two layers of a half donut underneath the backside of the earcup. 

 

Although this headphone did many things well, the one thing I could not shake was a slight bloom in the midrange. This caused a slight smearing, and vocals sounded a tad muffled. Mind you, when my mind got used to the sound, I didn't notice it. But switching from the LCDs to the T50RP, it is quite noticeable. The configuration I previously found worked the best (2-layers of transpore over drivers, all vents covered except one, acoustic foam on driver-side of baffle) in fixing this bloom was still not 100% satisfactory. Plus it sucked out all of the sub-bass. The funny thing is, I heard a stock T50RP, and the vocals did not sound nearly as muffled -- but they were shouty in addition to many other problems.

 

After applying the Rastapants 2 configuration, I'm happy to say this problem has been fixed for me (!!!!). What a relief that this midrange is finally much better defined, with greater sense of air between each element of the music. There seems to be a much more "pure" air chamber inside the cups for the drivers to work its magic, without reflections or weird air movements coming from the vents. In regards to the overall sound, everything sounds very cohesive, and all the different frequencies seem well-seated and natural. 

 

After doing some quick comparisons to the LCD-2's, the most immediate thing that I notice is that the bass is much lower in the T50RP -- both in impact and in texture. On Fleet Foxe's "Helplessness Blues", when the kick drums hit, they do so with authority on the LCDs, while the Fostex remains polite. On James Blake's "Limit To Your Love", there is a bass line toward the end of the song that the Fostex barely picks up, while it is very prominent with the LCDs. However, listening to jazz recordings (Bill Evans's "Waltz For Debby" and Medeski, Martin & Wood's "Last Chance to Dance Trance"), the bass plucks are just as lively on both -- with the LCD having a good edge in impact and a slight edge in texture. But truth be told, I might even prefer the slightly more shelved down bass lines on these two acoustic tracks that the Fostex presents. This bass performance isn't surprising given the LCDs have a much bigger driver, and I'd say it is a much welcomed tradeoff given that the midrange sounds so right

 

Other things that jump out, is that the LCD's have a bigger soundstage, and are airier. Given that these are open-backed, this shouldn't come as a surprise. If I were to sum up the overall presentation differences, while both definitely sound more similar than different, the LCD is more natural and visceral, while the Fostex is more neutral and analytical. With that said, this Fostex in its current state is an endgame closed headphone for me. 

 

I definitely want to give it more critical listening, and apply some acoustic foam over the entire earside of the baffle before giving any more opinions. I want to write more in-depth comparisons with this likely "final configuration" of my Fostex, before I ship my LCD out again. I also might experiment with opening the vents a bit to infuse a bit more low-end body into the presentation (the few hip-hop songs I've tried on these sound a tad thinner than I'd like), but I'm afraid of smearing the midrange again. If that's the tradeoff, then I'd gladly leave it as is. 

 

Thanks again to all of the work that mrspeakers has done and has shared with us. 

 

 

 

'Broham!'

 

^^ Wonderful and spot on. LCD-2 more natural and visceral.... For now. That is until your ears acclimate to the more over 'live performance' super flat sound. =p Not to mention these are more anaylytical and with these mods, they are producing the loudest (biggest) sound I've ever heard out of the T50rp.

 

Now, Don't laugh at me, but give it say...... 3-4 hours. While the LCD-2 remains a Bigger sound (because it's open and the driver is 4-5x as large) I found the Rasta Pants 2 T50 to be nearly superior in ever way. The LCD-2 romanticises the bass, but it actually doesn't sound as natural to me as RP 2 T50. The lcd-2 has had an injection of 'romanticizing serum' additive, whearas the T50 is quite simply the most resolving - more NATURAL(!) sounding of any dynamic phone I've ever heard.

 

Mids and highs T50 = greater than lcd-2. More mids than anything else. Bass goes just as deep -around 11-13hz - and sounds more natural than 'clingy romantic to me.' I used to ache for the LCD-2's. Now

 

The lcd's do not come close. However, just make sure every mod you've applied is applied perfectly, no smudges, or errors. (And make sure you has plasticine on top of the driver around the craft 'creatology' felt. Aplly exactly as is in the pictures.

 

IMG_0394.JPG

 

Also, I'm not sure if dynamat helps the sound in the cups or not. LFF and I have made the same observation, but then again, mrspeakers is the only one to try the dynamat under the foam.

 

T50 >Omnmonom lcd-2 imho. ; )

 

You also havn't heard these with pads on = footing as the lcd-2 yet. ; ) Lcd-2 pads or the stax pads will really open up the soundstage. (Even more than it already is!)

 

Left to right I also found imaging better than LCD-2. Deepness to sound though the lcd-2 trumps. BUT this is with stock.. With angled pads of similar quality, I'm nearly willing to bet a finger the lcd is going to take a fall. (Pretty much trumped in every respect..)

 

However this is just what I've found.

 

Tell you what Marvin. ; ) Listen to your T 50 for one - two days soley. Then put back on your lcd's. Tell me what you think. ; )

 

~Mike

 

Edit!

 

P.s. Btw Marv, thanks so much for sending all of us that acoustic foam. That's the silverstone in the picture. ;/ I'm sorry you ran out. ;(

 


Edited by Hennyo - 10/8/11 at 1:36pm
post #3575 of 10678

Yeah, I should emphasize the point that I'm splitting hairs more than anything. They sound much more alike than they do different. Those delicious orthos mids are undeniably the star of the show on both. But there are definite differences between the open vs. closed configurations of these headphones that probably can't be reconciled with any amount of modding. 

 

I probably should get some O2 pads to give them a fair shake, but truth be told I'm so happy with these right now that i'm more tempted to spend that money on two more pairs of T50RP's to keep around as backup. 

 

I should also note, that my LCD-2 has been re-cabled to 8-conductor silver, while the T50RP cable remains stock. I'm sure if I ever upgrade these cables, the Fostex will be even better. 


Edited by Questhate - 10/8/11 at 1:39pm
post #3576 of 10678

very nice! just a few thoughts:

 

-I've been from team semi-closed ever since the cd3k, you get the best of both worlds: decent isolation and killer 3D SS...why have you all decided to cripple the potential of those drivers? It seems to me that once you've peeled off the back membrane of the driver, you're SOL and are forced to close the cups completely otherwise no more bass for you. And then bye bye stadium SS [:touko08]

 

-Who can say that paxmate provides a higher acoustic damping factor than newplast/tungsten putty? I'm willing to accept that paxmate will be better than blutack/regular plasticine, though.

 

-In my experiments, a thicker than 4mm layer of Paxmate wouldn't allow enough air to let the drivers breathe and the sound would end up utterly muffled....the RP2 scares me a bit as all I can see from here is a suffocating driver.

 

anyways, all that matters is end-user utter enjoyment...I got two spare T50RP's in a drawer, as soon as I get that 4mm acoustic foam sample and ebay tungsten putty, it'll be time to rock on again =D


Edited by leeperry - 10/8/11 at 1:51pm
post #3577 of 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questhate View Post

So, I got a chance to apply the Rastapants 2 configuration today. I already had acoustic foam on the driver-side of the baffle (over the clay) and Dynamat on the inside of the cups, so the changes for me were to

 

1) switch out the transpore (two layers) to stiff craft felt

2) close up the vents with electrical tape and cover it with acoustic foam (i previously left one slit open)

3) cover the reflex column on the back of the cup with acoustic foam

 

I actually ran out of Silverstone foam so I didn't get to cover the entire earside of the baffle with acoustic foam yet. However, I do have two layers of a half donut underneath the backside of the earcup. 

 

Although this headphone did many things well, the one thing I could not shake was a slight bloom in the midrange. This caused a slight smearing, and vocals sounded a tad muffled. Mind you, when my mind got used to the sound, I didn't notice it. But switching from the LCDs to the T50RP, it is quite noticeable. The configuration I previously found worked the best (2-layers of transpore over drivers, all vents covered except one, acoustic foam on driver-side of baffle) in fixing this bloom was still not 100% satisfactory. Plus it sucked out all of the sub-bass. The funny thing is, I heard a stock T50RP, and the vocals did not sound nearly as muffled -- but they were shouty in addition to many other problems.

 

After applying the Rastapants 2 configuration, I'm happy to say this problem has been fixed for me (!!!!). What a relief that this midrange is finally much better defined, with greater sense of air between each element of the music. There seems to be a much more "pure" air chamber inside the cups for the drivers to work its magic, without reflections or weird air movements coming from the vents. In regards to the overall sound, everything sounds very cohesive, and all the different frequencies seem well-seated and natural. 

 

After doing some quick comparisons to the LCD-2's, the most immediate thing that I notice is that the bass is much lower in the T50RP -- both in impact and in texture. On Fleet Foxe's "Helplessness Blues", when the kick drums hit, they do so with authority on the LCDs, while the Fostex remains polite. On James Blake's "Limit To Your Love", there is a bass line toward the end of the song that the Fostex barely picks up, while it is very prominent with the LCDs. However, listening to jazz recordings (Bill Evans's "Waltz For Debby" and Medeski, Martin & Wood's "Last Chance to Dance Trance"), the bass plucks are just as lively on both -- with the LCD having a good edge in impact and a slight edge in texture. But truth be told, I might even prefer the slightly more shelved down bass lines on these two acoustic tracks that the Fostex presents. This bass performance isn't surprising given the LCDs have a much bigger driver, and I'd say it is a much welcomed tradeoff given that the midrange sounds so right

 

Other things that jump out, is that the LCD's have a bigger soundstage, and are airier. Given that these are open-backed, this shouldn't come as a surprise. If I were to sum up the overall presentation differences, while both definitely sound more similar than different, the LCD is more natural and visceral, while the Fostex is more neutral and analytical. With that said, this Fostex in its current state is an endgame closed headphone for me. 

 

I definitely want to give it more critical listening, and apply some acoustic foam over the entire earside of the baffle before giving any more opinions. I want to write more in-depth comparisons with this likely "final configuration" of my Fostex, before I ship my LCD out again. I also might experiment with opening the vents a bit to infuse a bit more low-end body into the presentation (the few hip-hop songs I've tried on these sound a tad thinner than I'd like), but I'm afraid of smearing the midrange again. If that's the tradeoff, then I'd gladly leave it as is. 

 

Thanks again to all of the work that mrspeakers has done and has shared with us. 

 

 


Thanks for sharing your results.  Which ear pads are you using?  

 

With the O2 and 840 pads, the bass on these has more authority than the LCD-2.  It may be that you are not getting the bass because the stock pad has a very low air volume relative to the 840 and O2, but as I said, I have spent no time at all with stock pads.  This might change the "closed vent," which is mandatory with the wider/deeper pads.  You might try a pinprick or two, or opening one slit 1-2mm (no more, this is REALLY sensitive, and that might muddy the mid-bass).  

 

Also, when you add the extra mass to the back cup, dynamat or even plasticine, this will clean up the mids and mid bass a bit further. I don't find the soundstage on mine to be at all lacking.  

 

Anyone wanting to try this who doesn't have dynamat or fat mat can easily use plasticine.  It won't do quite as well, but it's easier to work with, and cheap.  

 

 

post #3578 of 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

very nice! just a few thoughts:

 

-I've been from team semi-closed ever since the cd3k, you get the best of both worlds: decent isolation and killer 3D SS...why have you all decided to cripple the potential of those drivers? It seems to me that once you've peeled off the back membrane of the driver, you're SOL and are forced to close the cups completely otherwise no more bass for you. And then bye bye stadium SS [:touko08]

 

-Who can say that paxmate provides a higher acoustic damping factor than newplast/tungsten putty? I'm willing to accept that paxmate will be better than blutack/regular plasticine, though.

 

-In my experiments, a thicker than 4mm layer of Paxmate wouldn't allow enough air to let the drivers breathe and the sound would end up utterly muffled....the RP2 scares me a bit as all I can see from here is a suffocating driver.

 

anyways, all that matters is end-user utter enjoyment...I got two spare T50RP's in a drawer, as soon as I get that 4mm acoustic foam sample and ebay tungsten putty, it'll be time to rock on again =D

 

When the cup is closed but all the internal reflections are killed through huge use of palmate the soundstage opens up.  It's not a law of physics that closed=cramped.

 

Paxmate is not a substitute for putty of any type, newplast, fat mat, dynamat, etc.  Paxmate absorbs sound reflections within the cup.  The putty damps vibration within the plastic that adds colorations.  They are both important, and you can't use a putty without acoustic foam.  The foam is vital, always.

 

You can always take foam out if your driver is "suffocated," but the reality of the mod is incredible transparency and speed.  Nothing muffled in the spectrum on my set, anywhere.   Try this on one of those sets in the drawer and A/B, would love to hear the impression.
 

 

post #3579 of 10678

I forgot to mention...

 

With extra damping using Paxmate around outer cup rims, over baffle plasticine, and covering every square inch inside the cups, I discovered an interesting mod for those of you who have removed the stock white driver felt.  --->  Don't put anything over the back of the naked drivers.  No kidding, try it compared to stiff craft felt, 1 or 2 layers of 3M Transpore, or whatever you have been using.  (But, I prefer 2 layers of 3M Transpore)

 

I tried them all and, naked, the sound is very similar to these other materials after adding the extra Paxmate.  You can leave the stock black bass port felt in place or remove it, then experiment with closing off 0 to 4 of the bass port slots with electrical tape on the outside of the slots.  Depending on the material and number of layers you apply over the drivers, you will find that you need to close varying numbers of bass port slots to get the sound quality where you want it. The other variable to consider when determining the number of slots to seal is whether or not you remove the stock bass port felt or leave it in place.

 

The rule of thumb is: fewer covered bass port slots produce more bass, less treble energy, and run the risk of midrange bloom + recessed treble ; more covered slots produce just the opposite; too many covered slots may not provide the bass quantity you want and exaggerate the treble frequencies.  

 

The extra damping with Paxmate is forgiving with regard to tuning the bass ports.  The difference in SQ effects with different numbers of sealed slots is subtle, at least with my ears, requiring repeated comparisons with a variety of music ranging from bass, to mid, to treble emphasis to "get it right" for the greatest variety of music. The sweet spot for me in the configuration, below, is achieved by leaving the stock bass port felt in place and covering 3 slots with Paxmate.  I find this set-up delivers the least negative effects, the right amount of quality sub-bass, clear mids for vocals and instrument separation, and detailed, airy treble.  I think the extra damping eliminates almost all, if not all, refelections and standing waves inside the cups and allows the drivers to do their work, unimpeded.  

 

One last observation:  with completely naked drivers, sensitivity is increased so the drivers require less power to play at a given SPL compared to covered drivers.  With each layer of material and/or reflex dot over the driver backs, sensitivity decreases and the drivers demand more power to play at the same level as when naked.   

 

I hope this helps.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemonkeyflyer View Post

A "Re-Sounding" cheer for mrspeakers and his Rastapants v2 mods!  They look awesome and I look forward to making a set of my own to compare their sound to my evolving BMF.

 

I don't remember who posted a week or so ago about applying Paxmate to the baffles (LFF ??) and to the outer ring of the cups (??), but thanks to you both.  I added these mods to my set-up currently configured as follows:

 

Baffles

Paxmate donut under ear pads

baffle equalization vent open 

plasticine in the baffles

Paxmate over baffle plasticine

 

Cups

Paxmate in the cups

2 layers of 3M Transpore tape in place of the white driver felt 

Paxmate over the stock black bass port felt covering from 1 to 4 of the slots (inside the cups); I prefer closing 3 slots

 

I am impressed by their extended sub-bass complexity, no bass bleed into the midrange, better midrange clarity, and more detailed treble.  Many thanks to all forum members who have developed and shared ideas that deliver amazing SQ out of these modest studio monitors.  

 

I have been away for the past 5 days and will post pictures when I return home in a few days.  I also plan to try this same set-up with 3M Micropore vs. felt vs. melamine in place of 3M Transpore tape.



 


Edited by bluemonkeyflyer - 10/8/11 at 3:20pm
post #3580 of 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemonkeyflyer View Post

 

One last observation:  with completely naked drivers, sensitivity is increased requiring less power to play at a given SPL compared to covered drivers.  With each layer of material and/or reflex dot over the driver backs, the sensitivity decreases and the drivers demand more power to play at the same level as when naked.

 

 

 

 



Thats what I was trying to tell you guys, naked drivers are the go mate, but with cotton wool in the cups. Naked drivers deliver incredible detail and resolution.

 

I tried paxmate over the plasticine baffles, tightened it up a little, but for me I already have some dynamat under the paxmate on the cups, so it wasn't night and day, but improved it slightly still.

 

 

Who can say the difference between 840 pads and O2 pads? I already got the 840 pads (angled), but I noticed the nice thick back end on the O2 pads, decent angle will give a good soundstage.


Edited by HDMan - 10/8/11 at 2:35pm
post #3581 of 10678

HDMan,

 

Yes!  Thanks for reminding me. It was your post I read last week about putting dynamat under paxmate.

 

I tried the setup I described in my last post with the bass port felt removed and all 4 bass port slots open compared to sealing from 1 to all 4 slots with paxmate.  For me, completely open to 2 sealed slots resulted in bass bleed into the mids causing some muffling or smearing of vocals.  Closing all 4 was better. Closing 3 and leaving 1 slot open was just right with very good bass, clear mids, and airy, non-recessed treble.

 

I have previously tried damping with polyester fiber-fill.  For me, this material is inferior to melamine, stiff felt, open cell foam (from T20vs), J&J Secure-Comfort tape, and 3M Transpore tape. 3M Micropore tape was worse than all of these, to me.  Maybe you are using a different type of fiber-fill than I used.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMan View Post

Thats what I was trying to tell you guys, naked drivers are the go mate, but with cotton wool in the cups. Naked drivers deliver incredible detail and resolution.

 

I tried paxmate over the plasticine baffles, tightened it up a little, but for me I already have some dynamat under the paxmate on the cups, so it wasn't night and day, but improved it slightly still.



 


Edited by bluemonkeyflyer - 10/8/11 at 2:57pm
post #3582 of 10678

Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

It's not a law of physics that closed=cramped.


Actually, I really think it is. If the sound doesn't make it out of the cups, you will never get the so-called "out of the head" sound cues AFAIK. You'll be forced to use DH kludges.


Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

Paxmate is not a substitute for putty of any type, newplast, fat mat, dynamat, etc.  Paxmate absorbs sound reflections within the cup.  The putty damps vibration within the plastic that adds colorations.  They are both important, and you can't use a putty without acoustic foam.


Indeed, damping factor measures how much something vibrates: http://qualia.webs.com/dampingfactor.htm

 

and acoustic foam is meant for sound absorption and reducing reverberation...my acoustics knowledge is a bit rusty ù_ù

 

so I definitely want tungsten putty in the baffle and acoustic foam w/ the highest attenuation coefficient in the cups.


Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

 

Try this on one of those sets in the drawer and A/B, would love to hear the impression.


Well, I really could use the extra isolation but I currently get a stunning 3D SS, I'm not in the market for a grado-like narrow flat SS....do you get out of the head sound cues à la cd3k? I do darthsmile.gif


Edited by leeperry - 10/8/11 at 3:25pm
post #3583 of 10678

Quote:

Actually, I really think it is. If the sound doesn't make it out of the cups, you will never get the so-called "out of the head" sound cues AFAIK. You'll be forced to use DH kludges.

 

 

Sound escaping from the cups completely is equivalent to perfect damping in the cups. Now if you mean sound getting into the cups, giving you sound cues from outside, that obviously comes with the tradeoff of, well, being able to hear those sounds, i.e. poor isolation.

 

Quote:

 
Indeed, damping factor measures how much something vibrates: http://qualia.webs.com/dampingfactor.htm



and acoustic foam is meant for sound absorption and reducing reverberation...my acoustics knowledge is a bit rusty ù_ù



so I definitely want tungsten putty in the baffle and acoustic foam w/ the highest attenuation coefficient in the cups.

 

Aye, but the most important factor in determining the reflection of a wave from a surface is going to be the relative difference in impedance between the two. Air to plasticine will create a large reflection as it's going from low to high density. Air to paxmate dampens and scatters reflections a great deal because of the irregular surface and low density damping material.

 

That's why I've always wondered why people think it's given that closed headphones will always have a smaller soundstage. I understand you're certainly more likely to get a wider feel with open cans, but it should be certainly possible to get that same feeling with closed cans I would think.


Any thoughts on this?

post #3584 of 10678

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

Actually, I really think it is. If the sound doesn't make it out of the cups, you will never get the so-called "out of the head" sound cues AFAIK.

I said I wouldn't post here but....

 

Just wanted to say that this is false and I have mentioned this before. We perceive sound distance and direction (out of the head sound cues) only through cues present in the sound pressures at the two eardrums. Also, influence of the shadowing of the torso, head, and pinnae on the frequency spectrum perceived at the eardrums also influences these cues. Research has shown that direction in the horizontal plane is almost entirely determined through pressure differences between the two ears and that direction in the vertical plane is determined through comparing the frequency spectrum of the sound source to previous experience with such sources at known directions. Both of these key factors for localization are contained within a recording unless the recording is seriously flawed. Sealed headphones work just as well as open headphones to perceive these cues and under certain conditions one will be better than the other. If the sound doesn't make it out of the cup and you perceive no "out of the head" cues, it's not the headphones...it's either the recording or you.

 

 

post #3585 of 10678

My T50rp's arrived on Wednesday.  After reading through this forum and a couple of attempts at mods, I ended up with a configuration very much like Rastapants 2.  Thanks to mrspeakers for his work and posts, and thanks to LFF.  He has patiently responded to over a dozen messages, each time providing valuable advice.

 

I could not be happier.  These are the finest headphones I have ever heard!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Just listened to some Fostex T50RPs today... WOW!