[r3cc0s]

This is my option right now, I listen to house, techno, electronica stuff, ambiance, and rock.

From all the reviews I have heard the 325 is the one for me.

What I want to know is: ARE all the drivers from the reference series the same as the 325???

I am pretty sure that the difference than the Rs-2's are just the aluminum encasing, which produces a sound that is more analyitical (for my music) perfect.

I listended the the Rs-2's and to be honest, they weren't the 200 dollar difference, no cannot perform to what I liked on for my type of music, (for classical of course the Rs-2's produced an amazing auditorium style sound and coloration) but that color just didn't sound right for the electronica and rock style music I listen to.

Just want to know
if they are the same driver
why is the rs-2 rated 14-28000 and the 325 18-24000?

 

[evilcthul]

r3cc0s,

The SR325 does have the same features as the RS2 including the same UHPLC copper on the voice coils and connecting cord plus 0.5dB driver matching.

The frequency response of the SR325 is a little less probably due to the rigidity of the aluminium air chambers. Wood is a lighter more flexible air chamber material which gives the headphones a slightly better frequency response.

The SR325s are definitely great for rock and electronic...

 

[Beagle]

The drivers are the same, from the SR225 up to the RS-1, UHPLC copper on the voice coils plus 0.5dB driver matching, as mentioned. According to John Grado in July 1996 Stereophile, the diaphragms of the RS-1 driver are de-stressed "twice", they "paint a formula on them".

As far as the frequency response specs of 14-28,000 and 18-24,000, well the RS-1 HAS to have better specs, right? It's more expensive!

Besides, I doubt anyone would hear the specific difference anyway.

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Besides, I doubt anyone would hear the specific difference anyway.

So every review I read on these headphones were wrong?

 

[morphsci]

Perhaps the differences in the reviews reflect something other than the frequency range extension or the frequency response (See the graphs on Headroom)?

 

[Beagle]

KR: I meant the audible difference between 14-28,000 and 18-24,000, not the difference in the sound of the two headphones.

 

[KR...]

oh ok, sorry about that.

Oh and those graphs are wrong, headroom said so, they are fixing them.

 

[kwkarth]

Look the same to me...

 

[KR...]

Did headroom finish re-testing all the headphones for their new website? The new graphs on their beta new website didn't come out right the 1st time around, I hope that's not you are posting now.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... Did headroom finish re-testing all the headphones for their new website? The new graphs on their beta new website didn't come out right the 1st time around, I hope that's not you are posting now.

I dunno. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they change!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by kwkarth I dunno. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they change!

Even if they're erroneous in the absolute sense, their relative sameness tells a tale!!

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... Did headroom finish re-testing all the headphones for their new website? The new graphs on their beta new website didn't come out right the 1st time around, I hope that's not you are posting now.

I believe these are from the new testing since it states it is a normalized graph using the ten reference phones. The old graphs were not.

BTW Kudos to headroom for using normalization. We use normal references (either experimental or statistical) in our experiments all the time. A very powerful tool.