[stacker45]

  So  you really don't know how old the cushions are.
Anyway, it still seems strange, as I said the original (L) cushions I bought for my 80i are still in excellent condition.

 
The only Grado earpads that I've changed because they had started to disintegrate, were my GS1000's G-cush. I've bought them new in 2006, and they were my only pair of headphones. I guess you could say that I was at an early stage of the disease.

 
Because they were my one and only pair, they got a lot of head time. As the years passed, the disease got worse, and I bought more pairs of Grados, so my old GS1k saw less, and less action. I had to buy new earpads for them, two years ago, so the original G-cush lasted 8 years, wich is not bad, if you ask me! 

 

[ib1dance]

Hello,
 
I own a pair of Grado SR80. Thinking about the upgrade to the SR125e E series. I've  browsed this thread and there is the all too common "They sound better take my word for it" response (Donald trump style rhetoric). Though I haven't see any actual recorded measurements.
 
Quote taken from From the Grado website http://www.gradolabs.com/headphones/prestige-series/item/3-sr125e
 
"Grado Labs developed our proprietary SpaceBlack Polycarbonate to absorb stray sonic vibrations. Those unwanted secondary impulses can 'muddy' the sound, and we're all about purity. The SR125e uses ultra-high purity long crystal oxygen-free copper voice coil wire, and an eight-conductor cable. That's scientific. Get onboard"
 
"Each iteration of our products represents a significant step forward in sonic reproduction"
 
Now of coarse all this can be verifiable by using the correct instrumentation to record and measure the new E series whilst comparing them to the latter series. Bandwidth of frequency production is easy to measure. Additional added/removed distortion also.
(it's comparably simple to measure electronic instruments because they can be measured using electronic instruments.Compared to environmental science which has a task of trying to measure some incredibly complicated biological systems) )
 
I can only presume that Grado are withholding the data (cant find it on their website) that shows the new E series audio production improvements  . Either that or they are making unfounded claims in order to sell more headphones ( like product manufactures would stoop so low!.). It's so easy to dupe people whom don't understand the science behind a topic.Or maybe they use the  "best guess test" or "I believe,I want,I wish test". ( A bit like the "I believe I can fly test". Flap your arms to discover you can't defy the laws of physics even if you really really truly believe you can)
 
However,I really like the Grado's (SR80's) .The Driver, acoustic chamber,open and lightweight minimal design go together to produce high quality audio (plus the other high quality abiotic objects in the audio chain and  biological ear >> brain to interpret the signal/information )  without having too much extra weight on your head.Now when headphones produce audio of this high quality (price > audio quality ratio),any claims that this has been improved upon needs validating. Or the new E series may simply sound slightly different.And it's so easy to confuse a difference in audio production with a improved "purity" of audio re-production.
 
 
Apologise if I'm asking too many questions. I'm a scientist (evolutionary ecology mainly) thus asking questions is what we do best.And luckily for you ( headphones and associated audio production technology) quite often scientific find the most significantly correct answer.
 
 
Oh yes. I also like how Grado seems to advocate a sensible use of resources. Instead of shipping certain products thousands of miles ( burning unnecessary fuel ) that can and should be made locally by local people.

 

[GreenBow]

I auditioned the SR80, the SR125, and the SR80i. I owned the SR60 and the SR125i, and of them all I liked the SR125i better. Now I have the 225e. 
 
Remember if you buy some new ones, they will most likely need burn-in time. They may sound bass light from the box.
 
When I bought the 225e after the 125i, I heard the detail. I was slightly shocked by the new sound signature though and felt it was fractionally sharp and too sparkly sounding.
 
On reflection, I realised it was because the 225e needed burning in. It was because at the time I was not aware that my 225e were in fact 225e. I bought 225i but they have the red 225e drivers. Therefor what I thought was, 'my new 225i have already been burned-in', because the e-series sound partly run in.

 

[stacker45]

  Hello,
 
I own a pair of Grado SR80. Thinking about the upgrade to the SR125e E series. I've  browsed this thread and there is the all too common "They sound better take my word for it" response (Donald trump style rhetoric). Though I haven't see any actual recorded measurements.
 
Quote taken from From the Grado website http://www.gradolabs.com/headphones/prestige-series/item/3-sr125e
 
"Grado Labs developed our proprietary SpaceBlack Polycarbonate to absorb stray sonic vibrations. Those unwanted secondary impulses can 'muddy' the sound, and we're all about purity. The SR125e uses ultra-high purity long crystal oxygen-free copper voice coil wire, and an eight-conductor cable. That's scientific. Get onboard"
 
"Each iteration of our products represents a significant step forward in sonic reproduction"
 
Now of coarse all this can be verifiable by using the correct instrumentation to record and measure the new E series whilst comparing them to the latter series. Bandwidth of frequency production is easy to measure. Additional added/removed distortion also.
(it's comparably simple to measure electronic instruments because they can be measured using electronic instruments.Compared to environmental science which has a task of trying to measure some incredibly complicated biological systems) )
 
I can only presume that Grado are withholding the data (cant find it on their website) that shows the new E series audio production improvements  . Either that or they are making unfounded claims in order to sell more headphones ( like product manufactures would stoop so low!.). It's so easy to dupe people whom don't understand the science behind a topic.Or maybe they use the best "best guest test" or "I believe,I want,I wish test". 
 
However,I really like the Grado's (SR80's) .The Driver, acoustic chamber,open and lightweight minimal design go together to make a comparably high quality audio reproduction without having too much extra weight on your head.Now when headphones produce audio of this high quality (price > audio quality ratio),any claims that this has been improved upon needs validating. Or the new E series may simply sound slightly different.And it's so easy to confuse a difference in audio production with a improved "purity" of audio re-production.
 
 
Apologise if I'm asking too many questions. I'm a scientist (evolutionary ecology mainly) thus asking questions is what we do best.And luckily for you ( headphones and associated audio production technology) quite often scientific find the most significantly correct answer.
 
 
Oh yes. I also like how Grado seems to advocate a sensible use of resources. Instead of shipping certain products thousands of miles ( burning unnecessary fuel ) that can and should be made locally by local people.

 
"Each iteration of our products represents a significant step forward in sonic reproduction"
 
I disagree with this statement. In some cases, it might be true for the entry level models, but not for the more expensive Grados. This is what I think would've been a more accurate statement.
 
''Each iteration of our products represents a significantly different step in sonic reproduction''
 
I wonder how Grado would validate that statement if they would be confronted about the fact that the RS1(i) used to sell like hotcakes, and now, their new RS1e are being dropped like hot potatos!
 
I realize that there are people that like the RS1e, but in my opinion, they are the least popular Grados, by a huge margin.
 
Regarding Grado's headphones measurments availability. I own 6 pairs of Grado, and the sophisticated instrument that I use to test them hasn't failed me yet, it's called my ears.

 
Like I always say, the day that I'll start listening with my eyes, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs.

 

[joseph69]

   I had to buy new earpads for them, two years ago, so the original G-cush lasted 8 years, wich is not bad, if you ask me! 

Exactly, I bought my (L) cushions in 2012 for my 80i and they are in perfect condition regard less if I haven't worn them in a long time, they should definitely be lasting longer than 1 year.
 

  Hello,
I own a pair of Grado SR80. Thinking about the upgrade to the SR125e E series.

What series 80 do you own?
Regardless, before buying the 125e (if you don't already use them) I would put (L) cushions on the 80 before doing anything and you'll hear a nice improvement!

 

[ib1dance]

   
"Each iteration of our products represents a significant step forward in sonic reproduction"
 
I disagree with this statement. In some cases, it might be true for the entry level models, but not for the more expensive Grados. This is what I think would've been a more accurate statement.
 
''Each iteration of our products represents a significantly different step in sonic reproduction''
 
I wonder how Grado would validate that statement if they would be confronted about the fact that the RS1(i) used to sell like hotcakes, and now, their new RS1e are being dropped like hot potatos!
 
I realize that there are people that like the RS1e, but in my opinion, they are the least popular Grados, by a huge margin.
 
Regarding Grado's headphones measurments availability. I own 6 pairs of Grado, and the sophisticated instrument that I use to test them hasn't failed me yet, it's called my ears.

 
Like I always say, the day that I'll start listening with my eyes, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs.

 
Thanks for the post, the info on how the RS1e maybe not so popular is interesting though purely speculative.
 
Of course people have a individual preference when choosing a particular sound signature, though my above post is specifically about the quality of sound in relation to Grado's s (and many other manufactures) whom suggest that each new model is an improvement of sound quality (e.g - headphones designed for less distortion,"better" drivers etc etc etc etc)  than the previous model.
 
Originally Posted by stacker45 
 
"Like I always say, the day that I'll start listening with my eyes, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs."
 
If it was practical I'd go into a shop and compare the Grado's SR80's with the newer model (thus ,my ears make a choice) . And maybe I'd simply prefer the newer models sound signature, should it be different. But your statement doesn't really doesn't make sense when you actually place it into the context of the scientific method and why science relies on the use of instruments to gather data. Rather than "trusting" peoples  individual preference.Science is about obtaining the most accurate knowledge of what is objective reality, using a system that tries to remove the bias of humans subjective reality. Thus in science, if some scientists makes a statement such as "less distortion" .They will have had to published the results and explained the methods they used to significantly prove that there was a reduction in distortion. Thus other scientists would then be able to replicate the findings and either strengthen the evidence( by obtaining similar results) or maybe find systematic errors  in the original research.
 
Thus with regards to your "listening with my eyes " out of context statement. You could equally say "the day I start trusting a thermometer that is calibrated to  within 0.001 of a Degree Celsius (results displayed on a graph)  rather than trusting my own sense (touch) that the air is in fact zero degrees, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs".
 
What method do you "trust" to give the most accurate results. Some guy guessing when the temperature reaches 0 degrees or a calibrated thermometer ?. The latter will be based on understanding the former is a form of faith in your own ability to sense when it's exactly 0 degrees Celsius . Of course many do use faith to trust things.
 
Good luck with that "method".
 
As of course there are many "things" that humans simply can not "sense". In fact many other animals have far better quality of hearing that humans (as in a  more sensitive) . Bats can even "see" (navigate) using sound at incredible speeds!. Some animals use sound to stun and or change the behaviour of their prey. Insects can see ultra violet light.Many animals can sense and use the planets magnetic field to navigate.
The list of how humans are not so (God like) and are more in fact just human  (animal like) goes on and on.

 

[stacker45]

   
Thanks for the post, the info on how the RS1e maybe not so popular is interesting though purely speculative.
 
Of course people have a individual preference when choosing a particular sound signature, though my above post is specifically about the quality of sound in relation to Grado's s (and many other manufactures) whom suggest that each new model is an improvement of sound quality (e.g - headphones designed for less distortion,"better" drivers etc etc etc etc)  than the previous model.
 
Originally Posted by stacker45 
 
"Like I always say, the day that I'll start listening with my eyes, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs."
 
If it was practical I'd go into a shop and compare the Grado's SR80's with the newer model (thus ,my ears make a choice) . And maybe I'd simply prefer the newer models sound signature, should it be different. But your statement doesn't really doesn't make sense when you actually place it into the context of the scientific method and why science relies on the use of instruments to gather data. Rather than "trusting" peoples  individual preference.Science is about obtaining the most accurate knowledge of what is objective reality, using a system that tries to remove the bias of humans subjective reality. Thus in science, if some scientists makes a statement such as "less distortion" .They will have had to published the results and explained the methods they used to significantly prove that there was a reduction in distortion. Thus other scientists would then be able to replicate the findings and either strengthen the evidence( by obtaining similar results) or maybe find systematic errors  in the original research.
 
Thus with regards to your "listening with my eyes " out of context statement. You could equally say "the day I start trusting a thermometer that is calibrated to  within 0.001 of a Degree Celsius (results displayed on a graph)  rather than trusting my own sense (touch) that the air is in fact zero degrees, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs".
 
What method do you "trust" to give the most accurate results. Some guy guessing when the temperature reaches 0 degrees or a calibrated thermometer ?. The latter will be based on understanding the former is a form of faith in your own ability to sense when it's exactly 0 degrees Celsius . Of course many do use faith to trust things.
 
Good luck with that "method".
 
As of course there are many "things" that humans simply can not "sense". In fact many other animals have far better quality of hearing that humans (as in a  more sensitive) . Bats can even "see" (navigate) using sound at incredible speeds!. Some animals use sound to stun and or change the behaviour of their prey. Insects can see ultra violet light.Many animals can sense and use the planets magnetic field to navigate.
The list of how humans are not so (God like) and are more in fact just human  (animal like) goes on and on.

 
Wow that's a mouthful, ok now, where do I start!, I'll copy and paste your comments, and aswer them one at a time.
 
1) - ''the info on how the RS1e maybe not so popular is interesting though purely speculative.''
 
I can only guess that you've just started reading the Grado threads, because there have been A LOT of negative comments posted regarding the RS1e. I don't agree that my comment is speculative, since these negative posts do exist, and can be read.
 
2) - ......''science relies on the use of instruments to gather data. Rather than "trusting" peoples  individual preference''.
 
I agree that science is great, and in most cases, it has had a positive impact on our lives. That being said, we are not talking about making hearth monitors here, we're talking about headphones. When you say,
 ''science relies on the use of instruments to gather data. Rather than "trusting" peoples  individual preference''. It might interrest you to know that this is exactly how Grado headphones are tuned. The sound that you hear, and like, from your Grado headphones, are John Grado's ''individual preferences.''

 
 
3) - As of course there are many "things" that humans simply can not "sense". In fact many other animals have far better quality of hearing that humans (as in a  more sensitive) . Bats can even "see" (navigate) using sound at incredible speeds!''.Some animals use sound to stun and or change the behaviour of their prey. Insects can see ultra violet light.Many animals can sense and use the planets magnetic field to navigate.
 

 I'll plea the fifth on that one!

 

[zazex]

   
Thanks for the post, the info on how the RS1e maybe not so popular is interesting though purely speculative.
 
Of course people have a individual preference when choosing a particular sound signature, though my above post is specifically about the quality of sound in relation to Grado's s (and many other manufactures) whom suggest that each new model is an improvement of sound quality (e.g - headphones designed for less distortion,"better" drivers etc etc etc etc)  than the previous model.
 
Originally Posted by stacker45 
 
"Like I always say, the day that I'll start listening with my eyes, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs."
 
If it was practical I'd go into a shop and compare the Grado's SR80's with the newer model (thus ,my ears make a choice) . And maybe I'd simply prefer the newer models sound signature, should it be different. But your statement doesn't really doesn't make sense when you actually place it into the context of the scientific method and why science relies on the use of instruments to gather data. Rather than "trusting" peoples  individual preference.Science is about obtaining the most accurate knowledge of what is objective reality, using a system that tries to remove the bias of humans subjective reality. Thus in science, if some scientists makes a statement such as "less distortion" .They will have had to published the results and explained the methods they used to significantly prove that there was a reduction in distortion. Thus other scientists would then be able to replicate the findings and either strengthen the evidence( by obtaining similar results) or maybe find systematic errors  in the original research.
 
Thus with regards to your "listening with my eyes " out of context statement. You could equally say "the day I start trusting a thermometer that is calibrated to  within 0.001 of a Degree Celsius (results displayed on a graph)  rather than trusting my own sense (touch) that the air is in fact zero degrees, is the day that I'll start looking at frequency graphs".
 
What method do you "trust" to give the most accurate results. Some guy guessing when the temperature reaches 0 degrees or a calibrated thermometer ?. The latter will be based on understanding the former is a form of faith in your own ability to sense when it's exactly 0 degrees Celsius . Of course many do use faith to trust things.
 
Good luck with that "method".
 
As of course there are many "things" that humans simply can not "sense". In fact many other animals have far better quality of hearing that humans (as in a  more sensitive) . Bats can even "see" (navigate) using sound at incredible speeds!. Some animals use sound to stun and or change the behaviour of their prey. Insects can see ultra violet light.Many animals can sense and use the planets magnetic field to navigate.
The list of how humans are not so (God like) and are more in fact just human  (animal like) goes on and on.

 
Headphones and their frequency graphs are different than thermometers (and similar instruments for measurement),
no matter how carefully calibrated.
 
Thermometers measure one aspect of the physical world i.e. heat.
It''s relatively simple.
 
A headphone's FR graph measure one aspect of many which"should"
be measured for a more accurate reading.
 
What with positioning the microphones, the microphones actually
used, the machinery/electronics being used ... then translating that into
what a headphone "sounds like" > at best, the measurements obtained
do not reflect reality 100%. 
 
That's why folks like Nelson Pass and Tyll Hertsens say
(paraphrasing here) that measurements of audio gear can
tell only part of the story.
 
I'm with @stacker45 on this one > sure, graphs can give
some indication of a headphone' sound, but in the end
it's listening to the headphone that counts.

 

[Hoagie]

I'm with Stacker as well, but a different angle. It is true that instruments can measure the physics of sound signature better than our ears. The issue however is that you are measuring the wrong thing. The issue should be do you like the sound signature. Physics has no answer for this question.

One is a fact that you can see, the other is an opinion you must hear

Thus I will measure with my ears rather than my eyes

 

[GreenBow]

Grado e-Series - Page 404. I keep looking the browser tab at the top of the page and think I have an error.  

 

[joseph69]

  Grado e-Series - Page 404. I keep looking the browser tab at the top of the page and think I have an error.  

What makes you say this? What are you talking about specifically?
I'm asking because I've had nothing but issues with H-F since they changed the format.

 

[GreenBow]

  What makes you say this? What are you talking about specifically?
I'm asking because I've had nothing but issues with H-F since they changed the format.

It's nothing. Don't think anything of it. I am using Firefox and the browser tab says 'Grado e-Series - Page 404'.
 
It's just that 'error 404' is commonly seen. Stuff like error 404 - file not found, or 'page not found', etc.
 
I admit though I did prefer Head-Fi before they changed the format recently.

 

[Hoagie]

I cannot pull up a search on my iPad. Have not tried my computer.

 

[joseph69]

 

I cannot pull up a search on my iPad. Have not tried my computer.

 
It's nothing. Don't think anything of it. I am using Firefox and the browser tab says 'Grado e-Series - Page 404'.

 
It's just that 'error 404' is commonly seen. Stuff like error 404 - file not found, or 'page not found', etc.
 
I admit though I did prefer Head-Fi before they changed the format recently.

Yes, 404 is an error code…but the thread page in was 404.
I've had nothing but trouble with everything when they switched to the new format. 

 

[Amictus]

I cannot pull up a search on my iPad. Have not tried my computer.

I, too, have found that iOS doesn't like the Head-fi site. I can usually get a search box to display by going into one of the links at the top (Forums, Gallery) but it takes a while. I also don't get the comment box when I try to give reputation. It's not a happy experience. Does it have to be like this? Perhaps one of the Wise will tell us.