Originally Posted by TheAttorney
I've previously done the "bending the front arc" tweak to reduce the front of pad pressure, but what's the purpose of flattening the top of the arcs? If it's to reduce the overall pad pressure, then I imagine that's only applicable for "big headed" people - I find the default arc setup already gives me a fairly loose fit.
Correct. No particular purpose, other than setting the correct distance between the two earspeakers, then using the angling to follow one's head shape.
I have tried a loose fit too (achievable by flattening the arc and/or modifying the angle), and it sounded nice and open with a bigger soundstage, but it is inferior to a medium tight fit with the correct shape: the latter is the same open, has better focused sound stage, snappier bass with deeper string resonance.
Then, too wide (too flat) headband shape is not good, either, somehow sounds like out of phase speakers.
BTW, I tried rotating the spring as you have done. Sound seemed to change, but not conclusive as to what's best, so for the moment it's back to pointing to the seam. I guess this is more significant with the foam change.
Indeed the foam change makes it more prominent. In my case it is obvious and quite big effect (for me). I think the effect is more noticeable when everything else is correctly set: this is the last fine-tuning which should be done.
Finally, have you tried damping the arcs? As per edstrelow's thread.
The arcs don't really bother me, until I hit them :). Yes, I tried, it's not significant IMO, and it looks bad. In turn, I was playing with the thought to damp the spring, the circumference of the earspeakers below the pads, and perhaps the perforated plate too, with thin felt pads - likely would make the highs even more "calm". But this is a bit difficult tuning, and in the end I am fine with the treble of the 007. Likely it is worth doing with the 009, but maybe not with the 007.
I agree with your last point, particularly for those who find the 007's too dark or lacking bass impact. These types of changes do open it up nicely. However, all this flexibility is a double edged sword for the impatient: It's great that you can tweak it to sound brilliant, but it's also a drag that you have to tweak it to sound brilliant.
I couldn't agree more. Very few manufacturers seem to put enough money in truly optimizing the acoustic environment of the headphones. That's why I mentioned in some earlier post that e.g. earpad design is like black magic. I don't know if there is a reliable methodology (e.g. finite element analysis) which can help designing earpads given the earspeakers' measurements.
For instance, I have also played with e.g. the HE-500, and that was a lot easier than with the 007. Without earpads the HE500 sounded really good, except tizzy and zingy, but bass was excellent, clean and resonant, and was a better starting point that the all-midrange honky sound of the 007 without the earpads. The earpads used in the orthos and the stats are clearly old-school textbook golden paths, unlike the pads on the Senn HD800 or AKG K812. I wonder what earpads could Sennheiser or AKG design for the stats...
But then this may all be mistaken, as the earpads of the 007 are actually close to an optimum, especially with the versatility offered by the spring design (though I don't know if that is a side effect or a planned one). Given that earpads cannot really be manufactured at exact tolerances, and because the 007 is so sensitive to this, it is very hard to 'standardize' tuning the 007's. The manufacturer should do this, measure every single headphone like Sennheiser does, and fine-tune each piece separately until they are near optimum. At least my current settings seem to work well with most of my friends and family, so there is a better optimum than the factory default. Stax, take the point for next products.
Edited by zolkis - 3/23/14 at 6:21am