or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SR60-Mod - Page 30  

post #436 of 5003

This thought about possible standing waves at the cups's open, less mechanically supported, end made me wonder about something else. When I first listened to my longer than stock HeadCoverage cups, besides the increased bass I noticed, I also noticed increased overall detail. Which others, and I think Bilavideo here, have also noticed. But why exactly? Perhaps this has all been covered elsewhere on this site and I'm just not up to speed (apologies if that's the case), but the only thing that made sense was that the increased megaphone effect of a longer cup was also responsible for the increased detail, but now I'm not sure that's all.

Oh, and just to elaborate a bit about the megaphone effect in case someone isn't understanding my meaning...When trying to communicate with someone at a great distance, like with a buddy down the block, when you use your hands in cupped fashion around your mouth to reinforce your voice, it helps if you hands are large (wide). And it helps if those same hands are close to, and not far from, your mouth. This reinforces sound waves and improves air flow efficiency. So with the Grado, just as the hole mod creates a more unimpeded driver back wave with increased air flow efficiency and slam, a larger megaphone effect (longer cup) should do the exact same thing. There should be less air compression of the drivers back wave and increased efficiency. Such a conclusion seems logical to me, but I'm willing to eat crow if I'm way off base on this...there, done explanation.

Anyway, loudspeaker manufacturers who offer bass reflex designs go to great lengths to eliminate the “huffing and chuffing” sound effects of air flow turbulence in the port. To that end they will stuff the port with all manner of sound absorbing/controlling material and/or flare the exposed end of the port to reduce the problem. So besides the possible standing waves at a headphones chamber end I mentioned earlier, if there is also other air flow turbulence effects in the Grados air chamber, then a longer cup has an advantage. Such possible standing waves and turbulent effects, which would be more concentrated at the open less supported end of the cup, would in a longer cup be farther away from the drivers back wave. Hence, there would be less interference with the driver's back wave and more detail should be heard. Just as I hear with my longer cups. So while a shorter cup is more ergonomic and less likely to knock into or off one's head, I'm now not so sure it's the best option, even with the increased bass of the hole mod. Same with a wider side wall spacing (remember hands further away from the mouth), as Bilavideo noted it's less efficient and less loud. Yes, walls further away resonate less, both mechanically and in regards to modifying the air within the chamber, but it's not ideal. There has to be a happy medium somewhere. Hopefully, those thinking about making their own cups might find some of this useful. Oh and sorry if one feels I've belaboured all this, and again, sorry if all this has already been covered (there's just SO much material here to be all absorbed).
 
So it seems clear to me the mass ring is most likely needed for resonate control and perhaps more. I'm also now questioning the passive radiator idea/approach too (sorry). Wouldn't a vibrating cups wall surface modify the air within the chamber? To a degree it might be good for timbre or sonic flavor but too much in too physically weak or too large a cup could be counter productive. An overly modified air envelope in the chamber could obscure musical details by interfering with the driver's back wave? So all considered, very careful design choices may be required for a happy medium for those making cups. But perhaps there's something fundamental I'm not grasping in this regard? And I don't mean to be difficult (if in fact I am), I'm just very curious about all this. And I certainly don't mean all this can't be overcome and one shouldn't try to build their own cups.

As Bilavideo said, there's all kinds of possibilities with all kinds of potential sonic effects with the  different cup choices and one should experiment. But it sure would be nice and easier if there was some sort of loading law for these open cup designs. Hey now, now there's a challenge for all you young geniuses, give us a loading law like those used in loudspeaker design cabinet loading models…just whip one up on the computer ok :).  

So then, I have to ask, has anybody tried a flared end cup, or a cup with non-parallel side walls and how did it sound?

Oh, and I don't mean to imply the Grado is fraught with faults. I think it's the best dynamic headphone on the market period. But it's air chamber is a comparatively fairly new form of loading and I like to think there's more room for understanding and improvement...even tho it's so smashingly good now. 

post #437 of 5003
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by VinylCat62 View Post

Thanks Bilavideo for your long reply. Your comments about the passive radiator effect were enlightening. I had always thought increased bass of my aftermarket wood cups was due strictly to the increased length with it's more air flow efficient larger megaphone effect, but now I wonder. However, I'm still inclined to NOT think that increased bass is due STRICTLY to cup resonance; and I don't mean to imply you meant that (you didn't mean that did you?), but I now think it more likely it's a combination of the two (length and resonance I mean - if this thinking is wrong please let me know).

But how much a contribution to bass weight and sound a cup's resonance is I'm curious about. If indeed it's a major contribution, those making aftermarket wood cups or making their own might have to check their left and right cups closely for grain and mass matching. . . . But again this speculation is dependant on if resonance is a MAJOR contributor, it could be it's not quite so great a factor, at least in this regard.

But I have to disagree with you on one point you made. I do think the mushroom end ring on a GS1000, or PS1000, or any cup's chamber for that matter, is for resonance control. I get the impression you feel some resonance is desirable, and I agree with that (again, I hope I haven't misunderstood you) but as you know, vibration travels to the point of least resistance, just as it does in a vibrating tuning fork. And if you add mass to the vibrating ends of the tuning fork, by grabbing them with your fingers for instance, the vibration (resonance) stops or lessens. In the resonate chamber of the Grado cup, the resonance would travel to the open end of the cup where, with no mushroom mass ring present, it may peak uncontrollably or negatively at some frequency. There may even be a standing wave effect at the open chamber end. Even tho it's a circle, standing waves can still occur. It must be that even the expensive GS1000/PS1000, regardless of the cup materials and implementation used, must still have a resonant tonal peak in need of control. The better aftermarket cups also have this mass ring, so there's ample evidence it's a problem, or at least something that needs to be taken into account . . . . 

 

What do we know?  Sound is a cluster of mechanical vibrations.  The microphone picks them up and converts them into electrical signals, which are then recorded onto some medium.  During playback, the electrical signals are converted back into mechanical vibrations. 

 

But what vibrates?  Forget about the digital CDs or MP3s.  Forget about the DAC, the amp and the interconnect.  Think about the speaker.  Think about the driver.  What actually converts that jiggling signal into mechanical vibrations? It's the flimsy little diaphragm reacting to the electromagnetic field created by the current, the magnet and the voice coil.  If sound is a cluster of vibrations, the attempt to recreate it involves recreating it and only it.  As those vibrations come from the driver, it's the driver we should be hearing.  This is no different from listening to a high-end loudspeaker system.  The purest rendering of the sound is that which comes directly from the drivers, as opposed to bouncing off the floor, walls and ceiling.  Bose has made a business out of marketing "reflective" sound but the best details come from the least ghosted signal, where you can dance between the raindrops, hearing the space between the notes - and not just some hissing white noise marketed as "space."

 

So why have shells at all?  One might as well ask why anyone puts speakers into cabinets.  For dipole speakers, like planars, there is such a thing as a baffle-free speaker.  On a dipole speaker, the front wave represents only half the sound.  Planars, like Maggies, are highly regarded for their transparency.  They do an excellent job of covering a wide midrange.  They don't do as well with the top and the bottom of the audible spectrum.  Most of the speakers out there are using closed "acoustic suspension" systems, semi-open "bass reflex" systems or open "infinite baffle" systems.  With proper volume and damping, acoustic suspension systems provide a combination of purity and slam (the back waves are used to push the cone back into place).  Bass reflex systems vent the back wave, either through passive radiators or through ports.  It's not as clean an approach as acoustic suspension but it does provide a lot more volume.  Infinite baffle systems provide the cleanest sound because none of the back wave is being reintroduced into the system.  It is the least efficient, in terms of volume, but where fidelity trumps efficiency, it's the way to go.

 

Some cans are easy to peg.  The orthos, with their planar transducers, are pushing the baffle-free approach.  The Ultrasones, with their closed-can design, are pushing acoustic suspension.  So are the DT770s and some of the Audio Technicas and Denons.  In-between all these are a number of "open" designs that range in their actual degree of openness - from the Sennheiser HD600/650/800s to the AKG K701/702s to the Grados.  In the sense that Grados are backless, they are "open" headphones.  But to the degree they rely on a shell to provide more volume or more slam, Grados may be described as "semi-open."  They're using the plastic, wood or aluminum to augment the work of the drivers.

 

If it's the driver that vibrates, and not the shell, one must ask why shells are needed in the first place.  If you have a baffle to separate front and back waves, why add lateral reflections of the back wave into the mix?  The conventional answer is that the shell is either avoiding driver resonance or removing it.  I find such an explanation difficult to accept, if not entirely nonsensical.  There is less resonance with a shell-free driver than there could be with the shell made from unicorn tears.  If you have a working baffle - to separate the front and back waves - there is absolutely no need for a shell, not if reducing resonance is the mission.  Back waves freely released are going to offer less resonance than back waves reflected into the mix, albeit from lateral reflections and felt-covered semi-permeable vents, ten of which come with every full-size Grado.

 

As for the idea that the driver needs to have resonance drained from it, I'm skeptical.  Resonance isn't a disease.  Resonance is actually desirable.  The diaphragm that oscillates with the signal is resonating.  If it didn't, we wouldn't hear anything.  It's not "resonance" we don't want.  It's unwanted resonance.  Just as an audiophile listening to a loudspeaker system wants to hear the drivers, not secondary signals or reflections bouncing microseconds later off the ceiling, floor and walls, we want to hear one thing and one thing only: the driver.  If we do, we get a single signal, unghosted, sharp, fast, dimensional and full of that "space" between the notes, not hissy white noise passing for it.

 

Listen to the HD800 and you'll hear a remarkably fast, detailed and spacious can.  I'm not thrilled about some of the HF suck-out which leaves me panting for a little more of the high-mids, but there's no question that the HD800 is an extremely revealing can.  It's not because the HD800's "revolutionary" driver is made of unicorn tears, though it doesn't hurt to use a larger driver that employs ring magnets to get out of the way to avoid center-wall reflections.  It's because the HD800 doesn't have a rear shell.  It has a grill but its back waves are about as free as they can be, short of pulling a K1000.  But it has no slam, at least not as much slam as a Grado-head really craves.  The HD800 reaches lower but its midbass is tepid compared to that of a decent Grado.  Rocking out with an HD800 takes a bit of overkill, in terms of amping and cabling.  The RS1 beats it to death at half the price.

 

The resonance you don't want is a series of ghosted reflections, the kind of resonance that fuzzies up the presentation, killing little details and absorbing that space between the notes.  Yet when has Grado ever bothered to damp the inside walls of $500, $700, $1000 and $1,700 shells?  If wood does such a fine job, why mix it with aluminum?  If aluminum does such a fine job, why mix it with wood?  If plastic is such a second-rate material for chambers and rear grills, why use it for the front grill?  Why not make the spider out of wood instead of plastic?  Does anybody realize how much plastic surrounds the sides, front and immediate back of the diaphragm?  If ever there was a time to use the phrase, it's time for sensible minds to utter the words, "That dog won't hunt."

 

Do lathiers dress violins in so many layers of wood in order to avoid resonance?  Of course not.  Wood is used - not just for drums but for pianos and stringed instruments - not because it "removes" or "absorbs" resonance.  It's used because it resonates.  It's a useful means of providing acoustic amplification.  Wood is highly cellular.  A single sheet of it contains many tiny cellular chambers.  Aluminum is not the stiffest metal but it's lightweight.  The real parlor trick of the GS1000 was not its ability to "remove" resonance so much as amplify it at a certain frequency.  In others, the GS1000 was a mechanical, acoustic, bass boost.  It did this enough to allow the jumbo cushions to widen the HF dispersion creating a presentation that was heavy at the top and bottom.  One could get that EQ smile at low volume.  The typical complaint was that it reduced midrange (which was what it was intended to do).  In fact, it didn't reduce the midrange at all.  The midrange was there as before.  It was simply overwhelmed by midbass and treble.

 

The PS1000 "fixes" this problem by reducing the bass.  How?  It replaces the secondary wooden shell with aluminum.  Grado speaks of "decay rate," but that's just another way of saying that less wood creates less resonance.  If Grado really cared about eliminating resonance, there wouldn't be four vents, porting the back wave into the driver itself.  Unlike the AKG Sextett 240, which used six passive radiators to augment the bass (through an obvious bass reflex system), Grado vents the driver within the area covered by the diaphragm. Instead of mixing it in - on the side like any bass port - it introduces all of this back wave directly into the driver.  Without a shell, one could argue that Grado is venting the driver to "reduce resonance."  But with a shell, reflecting back waves laterally - back and forth - venting the driver means porting the shell.

 

The idea of pinching the shell with forks - utilizing plastic pins on the lower Grados and metal pins on the higher ones - does, indeed, provide a horizontal axis on which to make vertical adjustment of the shells.  Together with the vertical axis of the gimbal rod, you have a true gimbal providing four-way motion.  Personally, I find this more elegant than the head clamps employed by Sennheiser and the boys.  But the real utility of this design is the limited contact point between the headband and the cups.  This is especially important for Grados because it doesn't unnecessarily damp the oscillation of the shells.  Greater stiffness is employed by all those other headphone makers who play clamp the skull.  

 

None of which is to say that I have any problems with big wooden shells - whether my own or someone else's.  I'm just offering a different explanation for why they come in handy.  While there's a lot of enthusiasm for the idea that all resonance is evil, I think the use of wooden shells is evidence that some resonance is desirable.  I have a soft spot in my heart for my old M^3 headphone amp, with its variable bass boost, but once I vented my drivers, I found it largely unnecessary.  My headphones were doing what my amp had been doing.  The amp forced the airflow, which my headphones now achieved on their own.

post #438 of 5003
Thread Starter 

While I'm working through my own explanations for how all this works, I have to admit that using a longer tube does have its benefits, including "increased overall detail."  When I built a headphone using the Double Decker shells, I got a lower bass, less midbass (and so, less slam) but greater space and little details popped up like crazy.  Maybe, in my desire to unburden myself of a certain fan-like assumption that "bigger is better," I've forgotten my own experiences.  I don't, at the present, have a series of identical cans I can swap out but comments like your own make me want to go back and see if I haven't been too "slash and burn" with my views.  I made a pair of monstrously large headphone shells for my brother, who recently went on about the level of detail he discovered when he tried them out.  Without saying anything beforehand, I'd been quietly wondering if I hadn't given him some kind of pink elephant gift by handing him these headphones, so it was a relief to hear otherwise.

 

Originally Posted by VinylCat62 View Post

This thought about possible standing waves at the cups's open, less mechanically supported, end made me wonder about something else. When I first listened to my longer than stock HeadCoverage cups, besides the increased bass I noticed, I also noticed increased overall detail. Which others, and I think Bilavideo here, have also noticed. But why exactly? Perhaps this has all been covered elsewhere on this site and I'm just not up to speed (apologies if that's the case), but the only thing that made sense was that the increased megaphone effect of a longer cup was also responsible for the increased detail, but now I'm not sure that's all.

post #439 of 5003

No no Bilavideo, I really, really do think some resonance is a good thing in the Grado. I think that's one of, if not the, reason they're so expressive and fun. But I think too much could cause a tonal resonate peak if the cup isn't carefully designed and would explain the mass damping ring (the more mass, the more energy required to move it). I sensed you were wondering about the ring...that's why I mentioned it...that's all. And no, I don't think it's wise to drain away or remove resonance from the driver or cup, just wise to damp any potential runaway resonance. Besides, draining away any vibration from the driver/cup could excite resonance in other connecting parts...which could potentially color or reinforce the wanted vibrations...which may potentially be detrimental.

 

And if you were serious about your comment as to why a cup is needed in the first place...or for anyone else who doesn't know, it can best be described from loudspeaker dynamic driver theory. A driver sans baffle has reduced bass and output due to the 180 degree phase cancellation from the opposite wave emanating from the opposite side of the driver. To reduce or eliminate this effect (if that's the goal of the designer - sometimes it's not), the driver needs to be placed on a baffle to negate the cancellation effect, and the bigger the baffle and/or the greater the distance between the front and rear waves, the greater the reduction of cancellation and more bass and output is produced. The Grado, with it's characteristically light bass, needs a good size baffle otherwise cancellation occurs. The designers probably discovered a flat one big enough to sufficiently reduce the cancellation would for some have an impractical diameter, so the only option was to fold it. And one of the consequences of folding it is potential megaphone effects as mentioned. So really I think, boiling things down, the Grado could best be thought of as a folded baffle cup loaded headphone :). And I just wanted to clear these things up...OK, nuff said. Cheers.  

 

post #440 of 5003

Has anyone ever though about putting dividers into the cups? putting a cross shaped divider would split the cup into 4 chambers, and in theory (oh delicious terrible theory) push the resonant frequencies up, as well as widen the resonant peaks since the chambers would no longer be cylindrical. Taking this further, another idea was to take a straw and cut it up into a bunch of small pieces and make a sort of honeycomb lattice (not too sure how to hold it all together... maybe hairspray as a temporary fixative?) and place that into the cup. If nothing else, it forces a bit more directionality.

post #441 of 5003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armaegis View Post

Has anyone ever though about putting dividers into the cups? putting a cross shaped divider would split the cup into 4 chambers, and in theory (oh delicious terrible theory) push the resonant frequencies up, as well as widen the resonant peaks since the chambers would no longer be cylindrical. Taking this further, another idea was to take a straw and cut it up into a bunch of small pieces and make a sort of honeycomb lattice (not too sure how to hold it all together... maybe hairspray as a temporary fixative?) and place that into the cup. If nothing else, it forces a bit more directionality.



That's interesting. I know that straws are sometimes used in speaker ports. I can't remember how though...could be it's just friction. Or perhaps a light spray adhesive before inserting would hold them securely. Don't know what such possibilities would do to any of the wanted vibrations in the Grado cup but it could potentially be a good idea. And I do see another possible benefit. Such structural elements could be in contact with the magnet, etc and add to mechanical grounding. Such an idea was I believe first implemented by Linn products (the famous Linn Sondek LP12 turntable makers) in their speaker lineup. As an owner of a pair of Linn Kan speakers I can confirm the validity of the concept. The Kan has detail and dynamic properties that the otherwise identical BBC LS3/5A monitor and other speakers don't have. So It's definitely worth trying I think.

post #442 of 5003

Now here's a thing,,All the mods i have done to my 80i's -Nickchen's woodies ,Bilavideo's biro throu the felt on the back of the drivers,etc,etc,have improved them beyond all recognition.On the other hand all similar mods done to my 325is's have ,without exception,been a step in the wrong direction ,to me,They seem to take away the sound i got them for in the first place.Have now gone back to ally cups,complete with plastic spacer ring,less the buttons.I didn't put the biro throu the felt,so they are just about standard,will keep them like this as a reference line for the future. Thanks for your help Bilavideo,but you really must try to get out more..biggrin.gif

post #443 of 5003


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinylCat62 View Post

That's interesting. I know that straws are sometimes used in speaker ports. I can't remember how though...could be it's just friction. Or perhaps a light spray adhesive before inserting would hold them securely. Don't know what such possibilities would do to any of the wanted vibrations in the Grado cup but it could potentially be a good idea. And I do see another possible benefit. Such structural elements could be in contact with the magnet, etc and add to mechanical grounding. Such an idea was I believe first implemented by Linn products (the famous Linn Sondek LP12 turntable makers) in their speaker lineup. As an owner of a pair of Linn Kan speakers I can confirm the validity of the concept. The Kan has detail and dynamic properties that the otherwise identical BBC LS3/5A monitor and other speakers don't have. So It's definitely worth trying I think.


 

Hmm, maybe use a little round block of wood and couple the driver to the grill... (temporarily with hot glue or blue tack or something). That should drastically reduce the backwave.

post #444 of 5003
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by wallace View Post

Now here's a thing,,All the mods i have done to my 80i's -Nickchen's woodies ,Bilavideo's biro throu the felt on the back of the drivers,etc,etc,have improved them beyond all recognition.On the other hand all similar mods done to my 325is's have ,without exception,been a step in the wrong direction ,to me,They seem to take away the sound i got them for in the first place.Have now gone back to ally cups,complete with plastic spacer ring,less the buttons.I didn't put the biro throu the felt,so they are just about standard,will keep them like this as a reference line for the future. Thanks for your help Bilavideo,but you really must try to get out more..biggrin.gif


Wallace, I'll take your advice and "get out more" tonight.  But before I do, I should tell you that the aluminum cups have a plastic ring inside the shells, which must have been placed there to prevent someone from pushing in on the metal screen, which is glued down.  The glue is sufficient to hold this screen and the plastic ring is simply there to maintain a stronger barrier to having the screen pushed in.  Be that as it may, it does affect the sound - and does so quite measurably.  I have removed it from my SR325is and I can't tell you how much better it sounds.

post #445 of 5003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilavideo View Post

 


Wallace, I'll take your advice and "get out more" tonight.  But before I do, I should tell you that the aluminum cups have a plastic ring inside the shells, which must have been placed there to prevent someone from pushing in on the metal screen, which is glued down.  The glue is sufficient to hold this screen and the plastic ring is simply there to maintain a stronger barrier to having the screen pushed in.  Be that as it may, it does affect the sound - and does so quite measurably.  I have removed it from my SR325is and I can't tell you how much better it sounds.





I think th ring is a stopping point for the driver. I had a pair of 60s that dont have the ring and when i put the two halves back together i pushed to hard and spit the wire in half. I noticed on the 325s with the ring, this cant happen.
post #446 of 5003

Can anyone comment on the change of sound from removing the fine cloth layer directly over the driver, will I notice anything?

post #447 of 5003
Thread Starter 

Photo on 2010-12-08 at 23.36.jpg

 

Another experimental project "finished" tonight.

 

Photo on 2010-12-08 at 23.44.jpg

 

A buddy at work asked me to reshell his SR60s.  I went back and forth on whether to do it up this way.  I couldn't make up my mind whether the shell was too long, but he said he didn't care.  It's a good thing, too.  There's something to the idea that a longer shell bring benefits that are worth getting sand kicked in your face by the cool kids.

 

Photo on 2010-12-08 at 23.37 #3.jpg

 

Even with these worn-out pads, the bass is slamming but it doesn't kill the soundstage.  In fact, there's so much space, the music is three-dimensional.  Subtle details show up like crazy.  Except for the headphone pressure on my ears, I feel like I'm "there," but with no loss of presence.  I was listening to AC/DC's "Got You By the Balls," and the subtle echoes were matched by the slight mismatches in track layers and the bone-shivering details in that throaty "yeeeeeaaaaaahhhh."

 

Photo on 2010-12-08 at 23.37.jpg

 

I still need to screen the front and rear grills.  One thing that's cool about these is the "liberated drivers."  The plastic cage has been replaced by wood.  The only plastic in these Grados is literally in the driver, that plastic basket with the holes.  There's no plastic pepper shaker in the front - and it shows.  

 

Photo on 2010-12-08 at 23.37 #2.jpg

 

I'm not convinced these are the ideal cans for listening to classical music, but that may be a pad issue.  All I have right now are comfies, which preserve an intimacy that may under-serve the spatial needs of symphonic music.  On the other hand, the level of detail is striking.  When I listened to The Imperial March from The Empire Strikes Back, I was surprised at the level of detail and vividness to the music, from the flutes and triangles down to certain effects on the snare drums, effects I lack the vocabulary to properly describe. At the risk of earning the derision of serious classical listeners, I went on to listen to the Main Theme from Jurassic Park, a piece that combines French horn and flutes in all their breathy, raspy wonder.  I don't know what excited me more: that last little bit of ring to the French horn, the sound of pages being turned, the heretofore unnoticed triangle, or the throb of cellos and basses.  The Main Title from Star Wars was scrumptuous, with tight horns, snappy snare drums, sparkling glockenspiels and a wonderful space between lush first and second violins.  I love the punch and slight, airy, decay.  On the theme from Jaws, I don't think I had every fully appreciated that bottom of the piano that forms the inky darkness out of which the basses and cellos emerge.  Again, the slight, airy, echo adds so much.  Instruments emerge from one another.  You can hear the air between taps of the glockenspiel.  You can hear the distance of the drum beats that mark this track like a metronome.  You can hear the slight asynchrony of the horns.

 

The reason I'd gone to John Williams tracks, in the first place, was to listen to Schindler's List.  Between different Grados, either the violins or the cellos are made prominent.  (The darkness of the PS1000 gives the edge to the cellos.)  Itzhak Perlman's violin solo is not just soul-piercing but the imaging is out of this world.  I can hear every scratch of that bow, every nuance of dynamic, every change in tempo and it stands so distinct from everything else.  It's not just angelic but in high-definition.  

 

On the Atlanta Symphony's rendition of Handel's "Messiah," I'm not sure if there's enough space - at least with the comfies - but the separation and imaging are a bit beyond the expectations of an SR60.

 

Michael Jackson's "Billy Jean" is a good example of what the long shells seem to do.  The beat is arresting but hardly bloaty.  Every little echo and secondary tone shows up in gracious abundance.  The bass is deep but doesn't invade the mids.  Alison Krauss's "I'll Fly Away," from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" has a wonderful combination of woody warmth without losing the space or the detail that make this track sound so natural.  The lush percussive brushing of "Goodnight Moon," featured on the soundtrack for Kill Bill Vol. 2, occupies a space apart from the jiggly steel guitar and the crisp vocals.  The sliding guitar fills and backup vocals all occupy their own real estate, none "blending" away their individuality.  Talking Heads' "And She Was" is a fun track, with its deep thump and slight echoey asynchronies.  I don't know if I'd ever thought of how the keyboard work is made to shimmer from ear to ear like the undulating reflections of a lake or pond.  Hank Williams Jr.'s "All My Rowdy Friends" has a headknocking thump to it that leaves the listener caught off guard, both by the front and center violin and the sneaky guitar fills.  R.E.M.'s "The Great Beyond" never sounded trippier.  On Cheech and Chong's "Dave," I can hear a low-frequency hum.  On Men at Work's "Overkill," a track I'd previously pegged as a source of sibilance, I still hear the sibilance but now I also hear the time delays.  Queen's "Sail Away Sweet Sister" is similarly sibilant but Foreigner's "Luanne" has undeniable whump.  Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is crisp, airy, thumpy and full of artifacts.  Kiss's "Shock Me" has that up-front frameless quality that reminds me of hearing this track on a decent component stereo of the time - turning your living room into a faux live concert.  Tom Petty's "Alright for Now" comes alive, sparkling, crisp and intimate.

 

Too bad I have to give these up.

post #448 of 5003
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by ejs811 View Post

Can anyone comment on the change of sound from removing the fine cloth layer directly over the driver, will I notice anything?


You'll hear sparkle, something I call "treble percussion."  There's a cool energy to unfiltered HF.  The veil is lifted.  It's worth it.  The resulting sound is cleaner.

post #449 of 5003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilavideo View Post

 

Originally Posted by ejs811 View Post

Can anyone comment on the change of sound from removing the fine cloth layer directly over the driver, will I notice anything?


You'll hear sparkle, something I call "treble percussion."  There's a cool energy to unfiltered HF.  The veil is lifted.  It's worth it.  The resulting sound is cleaner.


If you have medium-long hair I wouldn't recommend taking off the front cloth. If you do hairs get in and touch the driver = not good. I didn't notice an increase in clarity in the 2 days I had the cloth off (I broke them after 2 days). YMMV

 

My hair is slightly longer than my ears and it was an issue. If your hair is short, then I'd recommend trying it.


Edited by BobSaysHi - 12/8/10 at 10:30pm
post #450 of 5003
Thread Starter 

Grills Attached

Photo on 2010-12-09 at 01.25 #2.jpg

Photo on 2010-12-09 at 01.25 #3.jpg

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
This thread is locked