[Nik]

As a classical player (I had a lot of hand built guitars... spanish, italian, japanese and others...) I know very well sound of differents woods adopted to build a highest class instrument. The back and the lateral parts of the guitar do not must sound, the only part that really sound is the harmonic surface. The back and lateral parts must be of the heavy and hardest wood (Brazilian or indian rosewood, "Jakaranda") because these woods reflect and push the sound out of the instrument. The ebony is used just for the handle and is very hard to be worked.

Best!
Nicola

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nik The back and the lateral parts of the guitar do not must sound, the only part that really sound is the harmonic surface.

Nik,

First, I hope you're well, nice to talk to you again!

I believe anything that has a physical mass has resonance properties. And whatever material is used in a headphone design (or in the design of a guitar - or any other string instrument) will have an influence on its overall resonance behaviour and its sound. I'd take your statement that "the only part that really sound is the harmonic surface" with a grain of salt. That's like saying the only part in headphone that really sounds is the driver's diaphragm, or the only part in a guitar that really sounds are its strings. I believe that's much too narrow a view. And I believe that the choice of enclosure material plays a major role in the sound of any closed headphone. Thus, I'd excpect the W5000 to sound quite a bit different from its cherry tree wood ancestors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugano-san (...)ebony should sound more "precise" than any type of cherry(...) it gives a tight percussive sound

Sugano-san,

I agree with both statements. When I used different wood variants as resonance modification devices in my system (I still use ebony wood blocks styled along the Cardas Golden Cuboid idea as component feet), I found ebony (which has very high density, it's heavier than water) to be very precise, transparent and fast sounding. On top of my components, though, ebony was a little too precise, lean and cold for my taste, not enough midrange bloom. Strange.

A Brazilian Rosewood enclosure for the new AT headphones would have been most interesting, but that's an endagered species nowadays. However, I am sure Nik loves his expensive concert guitars with Rosewood body. Am I right?

 

[elmoe]

...TomCat is an audiophile? Did your headphone habit make you give up CCG?

 

[Sugano-san]

I am not entirely sure what Nek is trying to tell us, but his post is contradictory in itself. Back and sides of a guitar MUST be made of high-quality heavy and hard tone woods PRECISELY BECAUSE there is an influence on the sound. If one were to use a lightweight, porous and soft wood for the back and sides, the instrument would sound soft and without projection.

It would therefore be naive (more precisely: plain wrong) to allege that the material of a guitar's back and sides has no influence on the sound. There are many prominent examples in the history of musical instruments that disprove such a superficial statement, but one of the best known examples is that of the Martin D-18 (mahogany body) vs. the Martin D-28 (rosewood body), two instruments that are otherwise identical, in particular the top wood, which is normally Sitka spruce on either model (in the old days it was Adirondack, but in any event the same on either model).

Ceteris paribus, a D-18 will always sound like mahogany (softer and lighter) and the D-28 always like rosewood (brilliant and more robust), and that difference is not only easy to hear, it has also been accepted among real guitar experts for ages. Those of you who have tried guitars with maple bodies will surely remember how completely different that tone wood sounds, assuming all other tone woods used for that guitar are the same as for the mahogany or the rosewood version.

That is why the choice of wood for the back and sides of a guitar is HIGHLY IMPORTANT. Also, anyone who has bothered to read the links I provided above will see that the guitarmaker is referring to other parts of a guitar, i.e., the neck and the fingerboard. These parts are in direct contact with the vibrating strings of the guitar and therefore have an immediate influence on the sound, but so do the back and sides .

Please note that the guitarmaker referenced above states that he uses a Macassar Ebony neck on his personal main guitar, apparently for this very reason.

Coming back to headphones, I am still unsure what any of Nek's post has to to with the W5000's, but there is no doubt in my mind that the tone wood used for the earcups has an immense influence on a headphone's sound. Anyone who has heard a Grado RS-1 (or 2) knows what damage can be done to a headphone's sound when wood is being used that is too lightweight and porous---the tone wood's resonances become audible and "color" the sound. I therefore repeat my statements:

"Macassar is not only beautiful but also an excellent wood for top-class musical instruments."

"Sonically I expect a lot of good things from the w5000's, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they sounded clearly better than the Leatherheads."

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jashugan ...TomCat is an audiophile? Did your headphone habit make you give up CCG?

Jashugan,

You're talking about CGCs=Cardas Golden Cuboids, no? I tried all kinds of different feet devices, with ball bearings or exotic ceramics. But what sounded best and most natural and musical to my ears were Cardas Golden Cuboids. By far. I just thought why not try different woods for them? I suspected that myrtle isn't the ideal tone wood, and I was right. It's somewhat murky and slow compared to some of the more established and heavier tone woods. Using DIY Golden Cuboids is a lot cheaper too - and one can tune the resonance character and the system's sound by using different woods.

 

[Sugano-san]

How "golden" are your DIY cuboids? That is to say, how precisely were you able to reproduce the 0.618 : 1 : 1.618 ratio that Cardas alleges their cuboids comply with?

(Do you believe in the first place that the Cardas cuboids are accurately manufactured down to the third decimal point? Personally, I doubt it, but I haven't checked.)

Did you find any evidence that the "golden-ness" of the cuboids is the decisive factor for their (undisputed) effects? Or would you say that the material is the main factor? Would you say that any nicely finished small wooden blocks of similar size and shape should have similar virtues (assuming the choice of material is correct), or would you say the 0.618 : 1 : 1.618 ratio is essential?

Although I'm really good at maths I have never been able to follow George Cardas' "conclusion" that the golden ratio has particularly beneficial effects in an audio context (and I don't say you belong to that school, but maybe you do. At least you've tried and I haven't.), and I cannot say that the sound of my room speakers improved dramatically when I set them up according to the Cardas "golden ratio node-cancelling" method.

In fact, I have a hard time accepting that speaker positioning according to the golden ratio should have a "node-cancelling" effect per se, but maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[Nik]

Guys, when I said the the back and sides parts of the guitar do not sound I mean that the sound is produced by something in movement, vibrant, that in the guitar is the surface (and strings tha do not are parts of the instrument). All the parts of the instrument have a work to the best performance of the guitar, but no all produce that sound. The back and the sides work reflecting the sound out of the instrument as a "passive amplification".
In many cans there are some dumping parts inside of the cups, (DT880 for example), these parts sound? I think no, no properly, they help the diaphgram to move correctly and controlled.

About the W5000 I also hope that they will sound even "better" than the L3000... but (as any others ATH cans, I think that better is a imprecise word... different is the right one (IMO).

Best!
Nicola

PS:
Nice to meet you again Tomcat !

 

[Jahn]

Mahoghany is my #1 fave tonewood for guitars - more than the bright maple or the dark rosewood. Mahoghany just has those beautiful warm mids to die for, and my Guild acoustic and Les Paul both use those woods for the body liberally (tho the top of the guild is spruce and the top of the LP is maple!)

I love that Grado chose Mahoghany for the RS-1, I wouldn't have it any other way. Sweeeet mids!

 

[Sugano-san]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nik I mean that the sound is produced by something in movement, vibrant, that in the guitar is the surface (and strings tha do not are parts of the instrument). All the parts of the instrument have a work to the best performance of the guitar, but no all produce that sound. The back and the sides work reflecting the sound out of the instrument as a "passive amplification".

That statement is misleading at best.

I currently own approximately 20 guitars, and the back and sides of each single one vibrate when I play them. It is crystal clear that back and sides "produce" a guitar's sound, just as the top does, and that is precisely why a guitar's sound changes when the material for the back and sides is changed. It is very easy to understand that this is due to more than mere reflection.

The top is glued to the sides and the sides are glued to the back. If the top vibrates, the sides will vibrate too, and that vibration is transmitted to the back. Consequently, back and sides vibrate just as the top vibrates, and they therefore shape the sound of a guitar just as the top does. If the back and sides of your guitar don't vibrate while you play, there must be something wrong with the guitar. But I presume they do.

If there is such an effect as "passive amplification" by reflection, it would be best to make the back and sides of guitars out of a totally non-resonant, reflective material. This has been done since the late 60's by an American company called Ovation. Their guitars have plastic/fiberglass bowl-shaped bodies with "real" wooden tops. That's also how they sound. N.B.: These guitars are very good for amplified stage work, as they do not readily feed back due to their lack of sensitivity to vibration, but "unplugged" they just sound like plastic. This demonstrates clearly that a guitar's sound depends on many more factors than just the material of the top.

In a traditional wooden guitar the degree of "passive amplification" (the "gain", metaphorically speaking, or simply the loudness of the guitar) is determined by the size and shape of the body much more than the chosen tone wood. The tone wood determines the sound, the body size determines the volume (as a general rule).

It still isn't clear what any of this has to do with the W5000's. Back and sides of a guitar are most certainly NOT "dumping parts".

 

[Jahn]

and btw acoustically? Ovation Guitars sound like Crap. imho!

one of my fave ways to test an electric guitar before plugging it in is to put my ear on the horn of the body and pluck a string. A good body will transmit that resonance to me nice and clean and pure. If it sounds horrible, odds are the guitar is going to sound crappy too, regardless of how nice the hardware/pickups are, etc.

 

[Sugano-san]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn and btw acoustically? Ovation Guitars sound like Crap. imho! one of my fave ways to test an electric guitar before plugging it in is to put my ear on the horn of the body and pluck a string. A good body will transmit that resonance to me nice and clean and pure. If it sounds horrible, odds are the guitar is going to sound crappy too, regardless of how nice the hardware/pickups are, etc.

My point precisely. Back and sides make the sound together with the top. If you use plastic for the back and sides, the guitar will sound like crap, even if you use a really nice top (and the expensive Ovation tops can be very nice).

Some of my favorite acoustics have mahogany bodies. I just don't think it was a very wise choice, sonically speaking, to use that material for the RS-1's. But that's a matter of taste that cannot be discussed, only stated and accepted.

 

[Jahn]

don't worry, i agree with you that the RS-1 is colored, and probably has something to do with the mahoghany. but it's a pleasant coloration and a fun can, so i can forgive it hehe!

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugano-san Here are some more pics of musical instruments made of Macassar:

Wow, those macassar guitars are beautiful.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat Nik, And I believe that the choice of enclosure material plays a major role in the sound of any closed headphone. Thus, I'd excpect the W5000 to sound quite a bit different from its cherry tree wood ancestors.

I agree. I live by one of the largest acoustic guitar shops in the US, Bufflo Bros. I've played several otherwise identical guitars in various backing tonewoods - Honduran Mohagany vs. Brazilian/Indian rosewood vs. Walnut etc. The differences are just as drastic as say shifting from Adirondack to Englemann on the top IMO.

That said the few ebony backed guitars I tried had a sound I really did not like, very bright. They look incredible though. As Nik said ebony is a common fingerboard material for its hardness but rarely used elsewhere.

I have a feeling neither of these phones will sound clearly superior to the other, but I imagine they will have a different signature which may be most welcome. I plan to pick up a pair of W5000s sooner or later.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugano-san How "golden" are your DIY cuboids? That is to say, how precisely were you able to reproduce the 0.618 : 1 : 1.618 ratio that Cardas alleges their cuboids comply with? (Do you believe in the first place that the Cardas cuboids are accurately manufactured down to the third decimal point? Personally, I doubt it, but I haven't checked.)

Sugano-san,

First to your question about precision. The Cardas Golden Cuboid Myrtle Blocks I got in Germany had been OEMed by Ayre. As far as I know Cardas blocks come in two sizes: small (0.6180'' x 1'' x 1.6180") and larger (1'' x 1.6180'' x 2.6180''). Mine are the smaller ones, which means they should measure - in the metric system - 1.5697cm x 2.5400 cm x 4.1097cm. They're actual size is about 1.55cm x 2.49cm x 4.10cm. A relative of mine is a retired engineer and a very expert wood worker. I asked him to cut my DIY Golden Cuboids to this specification: 1.6cm x 2.6cm x 4.2cm. He managed to make them accurate to within 0.05cm. That was good enough for me and close enough to the Cardas' Golden Ratio idea.

The much more interesting question is whether this Golden Ratio design plays a role for the sonic result. To be honest: I have no idea. I just found Cardas Golden Cuboids to work very well (I couldn't say the same thing about the "Mpingo" ebony discs by Shun Mook Audio, for example) and tackled one area where I thought an improvement could be made on the Cardas design. I now believe that the material the blocks are made of and their fairly small mass (in my case: 14 to 18 grams each - depending on the wood's density) play a very important role. But obviously there are many factors I left unchanged or didn't consider: the shape of the blocks, the orientation of the wood's grain. I guess a luthier would have been able to do a much more competent job on those DIY blocks.

Whether the Golden Ratio is really important in all this - I doubt it. Phi - 1.618033... - is close enough to a Fifth (3/2 = 1.5) or a Minor Sixth (8/5 = 1.6) -- so there are other harmonic relations that could cause the positive effect in this case - if there is one.