Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › [Review] Brainwavz HM5, A New Neutral Champ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Review] Brainwavz HM5, A New Neutral Champ - Page 11

post #151 of 1671

So, I bought one. I saw in others post about a wood cup fo fa-003. I am very intersting in buying one. So do you think these cups ( http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=04fea777994d26cd84e01a5e54f4c01d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.head-fi.org%2Ft%2F491632%2Freview-fischer-audio-fa-003-a-neutral-champ%2F780&v=1&libid=1324853721544&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gd-audiobase.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_virtuemart%26category_id%3D20%26page%3Dshop.browse%26Itemid%3D2%26limitstart%3D0%26limit%3D50&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.head-fi.org%2Ft%2F491632%2Freview-fischer-audio-fa-003-a-neutral-champ%2F795&title=Review%3A%20Fischer%20Audio%20FA-003%20-%20a%20neutral%20champ!&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gd-audiobase.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_virtuemart%26amp%3Bcategory_id%3D20%26amp%3Bpage%3Dshop.browse%26amp%3BItemid%3D2%26amp%3Blimitsta...&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13248541858317 ) will work in Brainwavz HM5? Would be a good improvement. I saw people selling fa-003 velour pads. The question is, will it Blend?, will it fit?

post #152 of 1671

The wooden cups and velour pads will fit, because HM5s and FA-003s share the exact same housing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans030390 View Post

 

I can say that I'm really enjoying these now. After the mods, the treble is a bit too sharp for my tastes. It's nice and detailed, but feels somewhat artificial and piercing at times. I also can't pick up some of the fine details in the music like I can with my T50RPs, which are not as bright.

dynamat_with_without.gif

dynaxorb_with_without.gif

 

Source

 

You may want to try removing the foil from the dynamat. The foil could be the cause of the nasty treble. As you put some foam on top of the dynamat on the back, that should be fine. But the foil the dynamat pieces around the cups (on the sides) would reflect sounds making them artificial.

 

post #153 of 1671

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpage View Post

 

You may want to try removing the foil from the dynamat. The foil could be the cause of the nasty treble. As you put some foam on top of the dynamat on the back, that should be fine. But the foil the dynamat pieces around the cups (on the sides) would reflect sounds making them artificial.


The foil is an extremely important part of Dynamat. Someone had posted about it in the T50RP thread, but I can't remember how exactly they explained it and don't want to dig through that thread.

 

I'll probably put some foam on the non-covered Dynamat soon, just in case. 

 

post #154 of 1671

Dynamat is not supposed to be used facing the back of the drivers, but next to the drivers as shown in the diagrams from the manufacturer.

 

You're using Dynamat like Dynaxorb which is a different material. If you like the sound, that would be all right. But if not, the implementation is not optimal. You should read the link I provided.

post #155 of 1671

No Dyamat with the foil out is the wrong material to use. The foil is going to reflect the back-wave back to the driver and then to the ear. Dynamat is used to isolate the driver from the cabinet so that the vibration from the driver does not vibrate the cabinet that the driver is mounted. The foil is used to reflect higher frequencies away from the cabinet. Look at the second picture Dynaxorb is used to absorb the back-wave which is the main issue with headphones. Dyamat can help in reducing outside sounds from coming in and increase the mass of the cups which can reduce the cups from vibrating.


Edited by john57 - 12/25/11 at 6:18pm
post #156 of 1671

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpage View Post

Dynamat is not supposed to be used facing the back of the drivers, but next to the drivers as shown in the diagrams from the manufacturer.

 

You're using Dynamat like Dynaxorb which is a different material. If you like the sound, that would be all right. But if not, the implementation is not optimal. You should read the link I provided.

 

I don't think you quite understand how these products work and what they're meant for. Dampening the cups can be a great idea, as they're often made of cheap plastic that resonates too easily. This usually creates distortion or unwanted sound. Dynamat can greatly help with this. It can also be applied around and "on" the driver for dampening as the link you pointed out mentions. Dynamat is primarily used in DIY car dampening, and people apply it everywhere. I've done it to my car. Exterior and interior layer of the car doors, floors, trunk, etc. You can do the same for headphones to some extent.

 

Dynamat does nothing for the sound reflection problem, hence the reason for products like Dynaxorb. It is often applied on top of Dynamat that is used in the interior of car doors, much like dampening the cups. I use the acoustic foam instead of Dynaxorb to achieve a similar effect.

 

Either way, the cups were dampened with thick felt before. The Dynamat should do a better job dampening it, and the acoustic foam should work just as well at reducing reflections. At least, this is what I'd think. I could be wrong. They didn't seem to sound any worse, at least, but I suppose my ears could be wrong.

 

post #157 of 1671

I did the CAL! dynamat mod exactly like most people have done and it sounded great, but that doesn't mean the foil layer didn't introduce unwanted reflections.

 

The diagrams are taken straight from the official site, showing how Dynamat products are used in speakers. If you think what I, and others, have said is wrong, you may want to write to Dynamat to let them know that the diagrams are not presenting the whole story so that they will change them.

 

I don't know if you've read this post I linked.

 

Besides, you don't realise we are actually in agreement. Otherwise, why would you cover the big patch of Dynamat with something else? I find it strange that you first stated I didn't "quite understand how these products work", then went on to say basically what I said (about covering the Dynamat with accoutic foam to act like Dynaxorb).


Edited by kingpage - 12/26/11 at 1:21am
post #158 of 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by hans030390 View Post

Quote:

 

I don't think you quite understand how these products work and what they're meant for. Dampening the cups can be a great idea, as they're often made of cheap plastic that resonates too easily. This usually creates distortion or unwanted sound. Dynamat can greatly help with this. It can also be applied around and "on" the driver for dampening as the link you pointed out mentions. Dynamat is primarily used in DIY car dampening, and people apply it everywhere. I've done it to my car. Exterior and interior layer of the car doors, floors, trunk, etc. You can do the same for headphones to some extent.

 

Dynamat does nothing for the sound reflection problem, hence the reason for products like Dynaxorb. It is often applied on top of Dynamat that is used in the interior of car doors, much like dampening the cups. I use the acoustic foam instead of Dynaxorb to achieve a similar effect.

 

Either way, the cups were dampened with thick felt before. The Dynamat should do a better job dampening it, and the acoustic foam should work just as well at reducing reflections. At least, this is what I'd think. I could be wrong. They didn't seem to sound any worse, at least, but I suppose my ears could be wrong.

 


I just realized something. Do you like these cans WITHOUT any mods or they are just not good? Because I don't wanna go through the trouble of having to mod them to sound GOOD like their advertised. I think you should have let them burn in at least 100 hrs and then see if there was a difference. I don't want to even consider these cans anymore if they require modding to sound good. Granted I know that what one thinks sounds bad, another thinks sound great. I just wish you would have given them a chance and burnt them in. I dunno we'll see when more reviews come out. 

 

post #159 of 1671

Do they get more or less bass after burn in?

 

Any idea?

 

 

Greetings,

 

 

post #160 of 1671

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingpage View Post

I did the CAL! dynamat mod exactly like most people have done and it sounded great, but that doesn't mean the foil layer didn't introduce unwanted reflections.

 

The diagrams are taken straight from the official site, showing how Dynamat products are used in speakers. If you think what I, and others, have said is wrong, you may want to write to Dynamat to let them know that the diagrams are not presenting the whole story so that they will change them.

 

I don't know if you've read this post I linked.

 

Besides, you don't realise we are actually in agreement. Otherwise, why would you cover the big patch of Dynamat with something else? I find it strange that you first stated I didn't "quite understand how these products work", then went on to say basically what I said (about covering the Dynamat with accoutic foam to act like Dynaxorb).


I was under the impression that you were saying I should not be using Dynamat in the cups, just something that would do the same thing as Dynaxorb. I'm not really sure why Dynamat's pictures don't depict them using it on the speaker baffle and the "wall" behind it (along with Dynaxorb on top). Most people in the DIY car audio crowd do just that. Oh well, looks like we're on the same page anyway!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Player1josh46 View Post

I just realized something. Do you like these cans WITHOUT any mods or they are just not good? Because I don't wanna go through the trouble of having to mod them to sound GOOD like their advertised. I think you should have let them burn in at least 100 hrs and then see if there was a difference. I don't want to even consider these cans anymore if they require modding to sound good. Granted I know that what one thinks sounds bad, another thinks sound great. I just wish you would have given them a chance and burnt them in. I dunno we'll see when more reviews come out. 


I noticed no real difference in sound after 50 hours of burn-in, so I took to modding them. Did they sound bad before? No. I was expecting a neutral sound, and my ears did not find the HM5s to be neutral. They have that dip at 300Hz and the bass hump below, which makes the sound a bit strange IMO. Still, it's not bad by any means. My opinion is exaggerated because I'm used to my modded T50RPs, which sound much more natural and even than the HM5s do. My opinions of the HM5s are probably not indicative of what most people would think of them.

 

For $150 or less, they're very nice headphones. Would I be willing to pay more for them? Probably not. I think they're over-hyped, what with people claiming they sound as good as headphones costing $300-500. I found the HD598s to be much more "neutral" overall, though the bass was very slightly lacking.

 

The HM5s certainly don't need mods to sound good, but I don't think people should be fooled into thinking these are as neutral as many people claim they are. It might not look like much, but that 300Hz dip and bass hump really do make a big difference in the sound overall.

 

Honestly, the only "mod" that really made a noticeable difference was closing up the vents on the side of the cups a bit. I think that's the main problem with the design of this headphone. The vents are too big, and it creates that nasty bass hump. The other mods I did were really just meant to improve on the existing dampening, not entirely change the sound.

 

I still would not hesitate to recommend these, but I think people should be a little bit more realistic in describing these.

 

post #161 of 1671

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flumphy View Post

Do they get more or less bass after burn in?

 

Any idea?

 

 

Greetings,

 

 


Neither. I'm still at ~30 something hours, so maybe they will change more, but so far the bass has more or less stayed about the same in quantity. It has changed though. Out of the box it had a tendency to be really boomy and bloated, sometimes muddying up the mids and making the highs sound a little recessed. While it still sounds boomy in quality because of an uneven frequency response, it no longer is bleeding into the rest of the sound. Well, maybe it does slightly, but not to a point where it gets in the way of anything else. These headphones now sound very balanced to me, in terms of bass-mids-treble. I also think the bass has gotten deeper. In fact, extension at both ends is improving. That's what I'm hearing thus far anyway.


Edited by manveru - 12/26/11 at 10:51am
post #162 of 1671

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans030390 View Post

I think they're over-hyped, what with people claiming they sound as good as headphones costing $300-500.

 


I don't know about $500, but I think the comparisons to HD600's and similarly categorized headphones are fair enough. Right now the HM5 clearly do a few things better than my HE-300, and in reviews some people said they liked those better than HD600/650's. Perhaps it's a little bit of an unfair comparison, as my HE-300's are "rev1," and I can't claim to have extensive knowledge in this area. I think that at minimum they are, if not on par, then at least very very close for less than half the price.


Edited by manveru - 12/26/11 at 4:55pm
post #163 of 1671

hmmmm....

i shall soon break my silence and chime in. 
i'm not sure what neutral is supposed to sound like. maybe like the m4's with slightly more mids?

well. doesn't matter. mine are here but don't have time to listen today. 

i will tomorrow!

post #164 of 1671

Neutrality is different from person to person. And when FA-003 was reviewed by LFF and other people, the graphs at innerfidelity were not available to influence what people think of the cans. Although I do think FR curves are very useful and indicative of the 'phones actual sound, there is merit when people say we shouldn't read too much into the graphs. It's interesting that nobody focused on the dips and peaks of the FA-003s before all the measurement.

 

Now that we have at least three different FR graphs for the FA-003, it is not surprising that we would "hear" what the graphs say.

post #165 of 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpage View Post

Neutrality is different from person to person. And when FA-003 was reviewed by LFF and other people, the graphs at innerfidelity were not available to influence what people think of the cans. Although I do think FR curves are very useful and indicative of the 'phones actual sound, there is merit when people say we shouldn't read too much into the graphs. It's interesting that nobody focused on the dips and peaks of the FA-003s before all the measurement.

 

Now that we have at least three different FR graphs for the FA-003, it is not surprising that we would "hear" what the graphs say.

 

interestingly enough, i was thinking why are people trying to match the sound to the graph? listen and judge. your ears are not the same as the measuring equipment. i compared what i heard to the brainwavz m2 graph (when i had it) and it was similar but nowhere near the same.

but w/e. like i said. i'll speak once i get the chance to listen.

anywayz.

what's a general consensus on what neutrality sounds like. i assume it's pretty much hearing everything evenly?

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › [Review] Brainwavz HM5, A New Neutral Champ