Anyone knows about those 2 great guys who making us the incredible LCD-2?
Sep 18, 2010 at 6:46 AM Post #16 of 31
 
Well, while it is true that orthos can get really flat, it's too bad we don't really need that. The high frequency range will always be totally messed up in headphones, regardless the design. You always bet and wish the hills and valleys harmonize with your HRTF (and pinnae & ear canal resonances). If not, you trash this hp and proceed with another, and so ad nauseam.

Having said that, I wish they would one day start selling perfectly flat headphones with a comprehensible manual on how to tune them to PERCEIVED flat with use of a sophisticated software equalizer (included).

 
Well, I wish they'd sell opamps w/ a variable FR...but let's not ask for miracles, shall we?
 
You do want a flat FR up to the upper mids, and then -if you're neutral OCD'ed- can follow this tutorial: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/413900/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial
 
My modded T50RP requires very very little EQ to sound flat in the trebles, a lot less than any other dynamic I've tried...Most ppl would get away w/ it stock I'm sure.
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 6:59 AM Post #17 of 31
According to Headroom:
 
"Headphones also need to be rolled-off in the highs to compensate for the drivers being so close to the ear; a gently sloping flat line from 1kHz to about 8-10dB down at 20kHz is about right. You'll notice all headphone measurements have a lot of jagged ups & downs (peaks & valleys) in the high frequencies; this is normal and mostly due to reflection cancellations in the folds and ridges in the outer part of the ear. Ideally however, the ups and downs of the frequency response should be fairly small and average out to a flat line. Large peaks or valleys over 3kHz in width usually indicate poor headphone response, and should be viewed as a coloring of the sound. Some small dips in the highs may actually be desirable and should exist in the 2kHz to 8kHz region."
 
It needs to rolloff from 1khz....I see leeperry has changed his entry form 5 Khz to read uppermids.  If one ever runs a 1khz test tone - 1 khz is indeed uppermids.
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 8:09 AM Post #18 of 31


Quote:
I wish they would one day start selling perfectly flat headphones with a comprehensible manual on how to tune them to PERCEIVED flat.

 
This is what modding vintage orthos is all about - no software other than your own perception and hard ware is hard wired to your specifications. It is very rewarding and can really teach you a thing or 2 about how you hear things. Eq can do similar things but being involved in the physical process and understanding that certain materials damp one range of frequencies while another material damps slightly differently - no one can do this for you , not until the day comes that you plug yourself into a machine to analyze your own perception. I am guessing that if this scifi concept ever becomes a reality, the experience will be directly sent to your neural centers, bypassing any auditory restrictions.
 
..dB
 
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 8:38 AM Post #19 of 31
 
 
This is what modding vintage orthos is all about - no software other than your own perception


I've been modding phones for a little while and I've indeed learned to find the materials I like the most...and it also works on dynamics(even if they have far less potential to boot). I find dampening and EQ to work hand in hand...but I don't see how dampening could EQ by -3dB 6500Hz and 9700Hz. One does the rough job, the other the chirurgical fiddling on top. There's a lot of fairly uncolored linear phase EQ plugins available as VST's these days.
 
Support the ortho underground!  boycott outdated driver technologies!!!
cool.gif
  Purchase a Fostex and see the light.


Everyone was calling the CD900ST the ultimate reference of uncolored phones..I've had it for a few days:
-boring and dull mids, it's basically the headphones version of the NS10 monitors
-bloated "one note" bass, due to its 40mm drivers I think...what was true for 50mm drivers seems to be even worse for 40mm
-amazing 3D SS, not cavernous whatsoever...that's the only thing I loved about it. It's like a HFI-780 on steroids.
-tiny earpads aimed at kids or very short use, otherwise you will suffer after 10 mins
-jaded trebles, no Biocellulose of any kind...and it's clearly audible
 
The T50RP when slightly modded destroys it on all accounts:
-the mids are uncolored and not boring whatsoever
-once you remove the felt before the side vents, the SS becomes eye popping...it becomes semi-closed, though.
-the trebles are very much alive and not jaded whatsoever and far more natural sounding than the cd900st
-very loud and clear low end bass, no "one note" audible here!
-not as comfy as a cd3k(this one doesn't touch your ears whatsoever), but certainly better than the cd900st
-the earpads are not sticky and are said to be quite durable...SONY have a terrible habit of making flaking earpads, and very often their center "joint" isn't even sewn.
 
if you can get a T50RP for $75(or less if you're lucky), what's the markup on the top dynamic headphones? talk about milk cows.
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 8:59 AM Post #20 of 31

 
Quote:
 

I've been modding phones for a little while and I've indeed learned to find the materials I like the most...and it also works on dynamics(even if they have far less potential to boot). I find dampening and EQ to work hand in hand...but I don't see how dampening could EQ by -3dB 6500Hz and 9700Hz. One does the rough job, the other the chirurgical fiddling on top. There's a lot of fairly uncolored linear phase EQ plugins available as VST's these days.
 

Everyone was calling the CD900ST the ultimate reference of uncolored phones..I've had it for a few days:
-boring and dull mids, it's basically the headphones version of the NS10 monitors
-bloated "one note" bass, due to its 40mm drivers I think...what was true for 50mm drivers seems to be even worse for 40mm
-amazing 3D SS, not cavernous whatsoever...that's the only thing I loved about it. It's like a HFI-780 on steroids.
-tiny earpads aimed at kids or very short use, otherwise you will suffer after 10 mins
-jaded trebles, no Biocellulose of any kind...and it's clearly audible
 
The T50RP when slightly modded destroys it on all accounts:
-the mids are uncolored and not boring whatsoever
-once you remove the felt before the side vents, the SS becomes eye popping...it becomes semi-closed, though.
-the trebles are very much alive and not jaded whatsoever and far more natural sounding than the cd900st
-very loud and clear low end bass, no "one note" audible here!
-not as comfy as a cd3k(this one doesn't touch your ears whatsoever), but certainly better than the cd900st
-the earpads are not sticky and are said to be quite durable...SONY have a terrible habit of making flaking earpads, and very often their center "joint" isn't even sewn.
 
if you can get a T50RP for $75(or less if you're lucky), what's the markup on the top dynamic headphones? talk about milk cows.


I've had the T20 v2 for a few days now - I have not modded it, but check out my signature.  I bought the D7000s when I was a Head-Fi member...I spoke highly of them, but never raved about them.  I will take the T20s over my D7000s - HD650s - K701s...it's not better in every area, but for sheer musical pleasure, the T20s for me wins, hands down.  The T20s is a rare? vintage that cost me 80 bucks.  I had to order a new T50RP for 70 bucks after that experience and will mod it.
 
The LCD2s on the other hand ... turned me into a shill.  Lets not get me started on the merits of the LCD2s.
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 9:08 AM Post #21 of 31
When I see what a $75 T50RP can do for me, I'm not too inclined into wasting a grand on a LCD-2...and I don't like removable cables, I want them soldered..that's one of the first things I did on the T50RP.
 
Fostex have been doing R&D on the ortho technology for ages, and they sure got their stuff right in their latest iteration.
 
I like this link about the T40RP(non-MK2), nice to see how the dampening modified its FR: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://homepage2.nifty.com/hai2audio/P1/phone/t40mod.html&ei=WPqOTJmsEomP4gagtZmBDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ7gEwADgo&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dt40rp%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 9:15 AM Post #22 of 31


Quote:
When I see what a $75 T50RP can do for me, I'm not too inclined into wasting a grand on a LCD-2...and I don't like removable cables, I want them soldered..that's one of the first things I did on the T50RP.
 


I wouldn't call a grand wasted on the LCD2s...but you are correct that if the T50 is as good as they say modded - you do hear what orthodynamic is all about...for 75 bucks, I presume it's gonna kill almost every other conventional dynamic.  The LCD2s are an open can that fixes all the negatives that come with closed cans - you've not experienced headphone bass, until you sample the LCD2s - and that's without talking about the mids.
 
Those flat graphs for the T40 links plain scare me!
 
Sep 18, 2010 at 7:23 PM Post #23 of 31
 
 
I wouldn't call a grand wasted on the LCD2s...but you are correct that if the T50 is as good as they say modded - you do hear what orthodynamic is all about...for 75 bucks, I presume it's gonna kill almost every other conventional dynamic.  The LCD2s are an open can that fixes all the negatives that come with closed cans - you've not experienced headphone bass, until you sample the LCD2s - and that's without talking about the mids.
 
Those flat graphs for the T40 links plain scare me!

 
Once you take off the side vents felt, the T50RP feels as open as can be SS-wise...but still semi-closed so you get awesome bass and great isolation.
 
yes, those phones are scary coz their price and SQ are diametrically opposed...they also scale amazingly well, it's always a good sign.
 
Sep 19, 2010 at 1:10 AM Post #25 of 31


Quote:
Thank S P Wild for the wakel engine info. It was fun to read!


Just a little info on the wankel motor (don't want to derail this great thread).  After I became a motor mechanic and was able to remove a wankel engine from an RX7 without an engine crane...I realised that it wasn't just the output power of the Le mans racing Mazda that obliterated and demoralised the giants, but the Wankel motor is 1/3 the weight of a typical piston engine.  This gave engineers unprecedented freedom to redistribute the weight saved with traditional engines (at least in the area of several hundred kilos) around specific locations on the chassis that would've meant the Mazda also had superior road holding capabilities.  So the Mazda weighed as much as other racers, but that motor (lighter and more powerful) allowed better weight distribution, therefore better handling, it was just too much of a good thing.
 
If Audeze could do the same and shave some weight of their extraordinary LCD2 drivers...they might get banned also!!!
wink_face.gif

 
Sep 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM Post #26 of 31
 
you've not experienced headphone bass, until you sample the LCD2s - and that's without talking about the mids.
 
Once properly dampened, I just can't believe how deep and articulated the low end bass sounds on the T50RP...some dynamic phones have a tight/fast/aerial/detailed bass, some others a loud bloated overblown smearing bass...the T50RP has a loud/fast/non-bloated low end bass. Sashu said that dynamics have a "one note" bass compared to orthos, no question about it. Makes me crave for some vintage Fostex ribbon speakers
nico54.gif


 
Sep 19, 2010 at 12:57 PM Post #27 of 31
Orthodynamics are superior to conventional dynamics not just in the bass,  but I think pretty much every area of the frequency response.  Its pure physics - there are two magnets on either side driving the airpump - in both directions.  Kind of like a push-pull effort, like when those massive 2 man operated saws for cutting down trees.  This makes the load being driven much easier and also explains why it takes far more power to get orthodynamics to sing - it takes two men - more power.  A single man will find it harder to cut down a tree with a one man hand saw.  Pure physics, no mysteries.  Quicker driver = faster response time to the amplifiers signals.
 
Quote:



 
Sep 19, 2010 at 1:06 PM Post #28 of 31
 
 
Quicker driver = faster response time to the amplifiers signals.
 


I'm not sure that the T50RP is faster than the cd3k...I even don't think it is. It's just that it's using a zigzag coil to overcome the limitations of a rolled coil design..it's more about alleviating physical boundaries than anything else IMU.
 

 
Sep 21, 2010 at 7:01 AM Post #29 of 31
MHDT
 
The M is for Mouse, one of the, more vocal members of a group of 4 Taiwanese audiophiles that remembered that there was a brief period after the CD went mass market, where it just seemed from memory that digital audio really did hold promise for the Audiophile. That time came and went. Frustrated with trying to hear something *real* from some of the best modern DACs, they got together and tried to decide the most minimal approach, something that could get closer to the music instead of closer to this obsession for detail, because if the goal is to enjoy recorded music at it's finest, then attention should not be focused on the things that add length between you and the music in any way, including the way the digital signal is decoded. These Philips TDA chips create HF well beyond human perception, however, there is no need for a complicated filter circuit either, since simple things like ferrite beads easily filter this out, leaving behind a very organic, natural digital conversion, buffered by a tube, partly to have a proper output power, and because a very little bit of harmonic distortion from the tube sounds good to the ear, thus a very simple organic output.
 
This is a myth but it does represent the issue. "The US spent well over a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity... the Russians just used a pensil.".
 
Back to MHDT: These 4 guys went from selling their home-made units to friends, to getting some in the hands of some respected reviewers, but the entire operation was out of an e-bay store, and they only carry whatever units they decide to build at whatever time. They change units at a whim, so there are several different versions of the same model, iterations over the years, improvements, but still sticking to their ethos that less is more with the release of the Havana, which has even less on the output side, no op-amp at all... These guys came out of nowhere, but never reached a true critical mass, as in, it would have been the Woz making many many home-buiilt apple][s, and never really having the the improved devices catching on, and Apple would have gone down as a blip like many of the other could-have-beens of the time.
 
With MHDT, they do not want a Steve Jobs, they like what they do and the niche they fill. Mouse has stated that he, and his friends, will continue the persuit of designs based on the idea that less is more, regardless of how technology moves forward, there is always a way to do the new thing better with less, though for some reason we out-pace ourselves and design for every engineering hurdle, creating solutions to problems that don't need them as a simple creative circuit layout can fix the thing that could have caused the design to move to a 1bit sigma delta oversampling setup, creating complication to fix problems in the things designed to fix the problems of the original thing that didn't need fixing under the right care.
 
Audez'e could be very much like this... you are benefitting from the work of hobbyests that found a way to make enough money to support their hobby. MHDT, they did not design any DAC chip, they use NOS Philips and Burr Brown, so it makes perfect sense to me when I imagine these guys using readily available parts to design around, especially ones that have such documentation. I doubt there is not a single register or transister on the DAC chips that MHDT uses that isn't down in a spec sheet, and I am sure the driver used in the LCD-2s have been tested, plotted, and published very accurately... if it was ever yo be meant to be used in a studio... I mean, most of the tubes we love for audio were designed for a specific device, not the other way around. We just happened to note that if we wire it this way, we get a good amp circuit. WE is the source for many of the great tubes and they were generally designed to be within spec for devices very specific that are no longer used, but the tube designs aren't automagically bad because of this, it just means that is the spec on the design and we build something around it today. Back when these tubes were being rolled off the line for the first time, I am sure laughter would have been heard if someone said "this tube will end up later in it's life having a million amps deisgned around IT.!

I commend Audez'e as I do MHDT, SET amp designers, and many of the other groups of people just said enough with the BS we can take this and do something with it... It all brings us closer to the music.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top