[DavidA]

   
 
Is it totally acoustically transparent?  I just realized I could probably use that  materials that's used for speaker grills. It's a bit thick, but it should be perfectly transparent and not change the sound at all.

Per a friend in the COE testing lab here in Hawaii its about as acoustically transparent a material as you will find in a fabric store.  Its not exactly cheap and you need to use some care when working with it since it will fray quite easily.

 

[sling5s]

I'm having a tough time deciding between purchasing the nhoord drivers which are on sale vs the new ypsillon drivers.. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? I loved the Ypsillon drivers in wood cups but at times it did feel a little harsh in the highs and maybe a tad forward, but otherwise I loved the drivers.

The Nhoords are less "harsh" than the older Ypsilon. They are warmer. But the mids are slightly recessed and there is also less air. 
The Ypsilon S2 are less harsh in the treble presentation over all. The bass impact and extension is slightly increased and highs are also more extended but it's less harsh, edgy or sibilant.
 
I really recommend the Epsilon R1, it's definitely less forward. It's the most neutral "grado" driver. The mids in my opinion are the best I've heard.  

 

[derbigpr]

 
The Nhoords are less "harsh" than the older Ypsilon. They are warmer. But the mids are slightly recessed and there is also less air. 
The Ypsilon S2 are less harsh in the treble presentation over all. The bass impact and extension is slightly increased and highs are also more extended but it's less harsh, edgy or sibilant.
 
I really recommend the Epsilon R1, it's definitely less forward. It's the most neutral "grado" driver. The mids in my opinion are the best I've heard.  

 
 
When you say best mids you've heard,you mean out of the Grado aftermarket drivers,  or including the stock Grado drivers like the ones in the PS500, PS1000, GS1000, RS's, etc.?

 

[sling5s]

   
 
When you say best mids you've heard,you mean out of the Grado aftermarket drivers,  or including the stock Grado drivers like the ones in the PS500, PS1000, GS1000, RS's, etc.?

You can look at my profile.
I would say this is good as, ATH-AD2000, LCD-2 (classic and fazor), Grado RS1 (Super Vintage) Fostex T50RP (modded) but more balanced to my tastes and better than all the Grado "i" and "e" and GH1 models (pretty much had all accept for SR125i/e, PS1000e and GS1000e) and finally better HD800 (with varying mods).  And yes, better than previous Ypsilon and Nhoord and Magnum V4,5 and 6. 
 
I really like the balance (bass, mids and treble) of the Epsilon. 

 

[Konstantin690]

I'm having a tough time deciding between purchasing the nhoord drivers which are on sale vs the new ypsillon drivers.. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? I loved the Ypsillon drivers in wood cups but at times it did feel a little harsh in the highs and maybe a tad forward, but otherwise I loved the drivers.

 
 
The old Ypsilon was very "picky" with the type cups used, with the Ypsilon S2 and Epsilon R1 this is not the case, they are both way easier to work with and get good results.
I listened to the Ypsilon S2 with cups that were a "no-no" with the old Ypsilon and they sound brilliant and not at all forward or harsh, especially the R1, damn!
 
 

  I've been think about this also since the Nhoord are now with aluminum housing.  I've also ordered one each of the new S2 and R1 and should get them in a few weeks.

 
As is often the case, there are more than the eye can see, while I was handling the Ypsilon S2 I noticed this.....
 

 
...one Ypsilon S2 driver on top of the other, front-to-back held like this only with their own magnet strength, this cannot happen with either the Magnum V7, the Nhoord or stock Grado drivers, their magnets are not that strong.
Not very scientific, but, you got the point.
On another note, not a big fan of the sharp slots openings of the Nhoord, there is a good reason why the vast majority of compression drivers exits, bass ports, wave guides etc. are round and rounded, it's called diffraction and it's not good.
Audeze has the so called "fazor" as a measure against diffraction.
The Epsilon R1 has some huge openings so it's not an issue.

 

[DavidA]

@Konstantin690, about you comments on cups for the Ypsilon, what did you feel like were the better ones?  And did the type of wood or style of cup have a large or small influence in your opinion?

 

[Konstantin690]

  @Konstantin690, about you comments on cups for the Ypsilon, what did you feel like were the better ones?  And did the type of wood or style of cup have a large or small influence in your opinion?

 
I believe that the dimensions of the acoustic chamber to have the most influence on sound, I got my cups from Elleven Acoustica, they are very well made-finished, looks awesome and sound wonderful.

 

[DavidA]

   
I believe that the dimensions of the acoustic chamber to have the most influence on sound, I got my cups from Elleven Acoustica, they are very well made-finished, looks awesome and sound wonderful.

Thanks for the reply, I got a pair of cups from Elleven Acoustica also, and they are very nicely finished.

 

[derbigpr]

 
You can look at my profile.
I would say this is good as, ATH-AD2000, LCD-2 (classic and fazor), Grado RS1 (Super Vintage) Fostex T50RP (modded) but more balanced to my tastes and better than all the Grado "i" and "e" and GH1 models (pretty much had all accept for SR125i/e, PS1000e and GS1000e) and finally better HD800 (with varying mods).  And yes, better than previous Ypsilon and Nhoord and Magnum V4,5 and 6. 
 
I really like the balance (bass, mids and treble) of the Epsilon. 

 
 
Wow that's impressive if they're on the level of high end drivers from big manufacturers.
 

   
  ...one Ypsilon S2 driver on top of the other, front-to-back held like this only with their own magnet strength, this cannot happen with either the Magnum V7, the Nhoord or stock Grado drivers, their magnets are not that strong.
Not very scientific, but, you got the point.
On another note, not a big fan of the sharp slots openings of the Nhoord, there is a good reason why the vast majority of compression drivers exits, bass ports, wave guides etc. are round and rounded, it's called diffraction and it's not good.
Audeze has the so called "fazor" as a measure against diffraction.
The Epsilon R1 has some huge openings so it's not an issue.

 
 
Nhoords have 3D printed grills if I'm not mistaken, so it's hard to get a nice fillet on an edge with that.
 
Will you maybe install the Epsilon R1 into that Audeze headphone that you put the old Ypsilons into?

 

[fleasbaby]

   
 
The old Ypsilon was very "picky" with the type cups used, with the Ypsilon S2 and Epsilon R1 this is not the case, they are both way easier to work with and get good results.
I listened to the Ypsilon S2 with cups that were a "no-no" with the old Ypsilon and they sound brilliant and not at all forward or harsh, especially the R1, damn!
 
 
 
As is often the case, there are more than the eye can see, while I was handling the Ypsilon S2 I noticed this.....
 
 
 
...one Ypsilon S2 driver on top of the other, front-to-back held like this only with their own magnet strength, this cannot happen with either the Magnum V7, the Nhoord or stock Grado drivers, their magnets are not that strong.
Not very scientific, but, you got the point.
On another note, not a big fan of the sharp slots openings of the Nhoord, there is a good reason why the vast majority of compression drivers exits, bass ports, wave guides etc. are round and rounded, it's called diffraction and it's not good.
Audeze has the so called "fazor" as a measure against diffraction.
The Epsilon R1 has some huge openings so it's not an issue.

 
...I'm not sure I see the parallel between the fazors on Audeze's planars, and the dynamic drivers used in these designs. Especially given the fazors are mounted on the magnets in the planars, are part of the sound-wave-producing surface, not separated and placed away from the sound-wave-producing surface. What do I know though...this is speculation.
 
Interesting about the magnet strength though. I wonder if that's responsible for the original Ypsilon tuning being so neutral compared to the Nhoord and the Magnum. Can you tell if the magnet in the R1 is stronger than the S2 which is in turn stronger than the original version?
 
I'd love to try the R1, but the price is too steep. At that point I'd find it hard to buy and then be possibly disappointed. Tempted by the S2 though.

 

[Konstantin690]

   
...I'm not sure I see the parallel between the fazors on Audeze's planars, and the dynamic drivers used in these designs. Especially given the fazors are mounted on the magnets in the planars, are part of the sound-wave-producing surface, not separated and placed away from the sound-wave-producing surface. What do I know though...this is speculation.
 
Interesting about the magnet strength though. I wonder if that's responsible for the original Ypsilon tuning being so neutral compared to the Nhoord and the Magnum. Can you tell if the magnet in the R1 is stronger than the S2 which is in turn stronger than the original version?
 
I'd love to try the R1, but the price is too steep. At that point I'd find it hard to buy and then be possibly disappointed. Tempted by the S2 though.

 
I'm not sure I follow your thinking, anyways, speculation is not.
The magnets in Plannar drivers are NOT "part of the sound-wave-producing surface", that is the job of the diaphragm, but regardless if one is Plannar and the other Dynamic they both have a moving diaphragm that passes sound through an opening.
This opening in the case of the Audeze's Plannars drivers are the SLOTS formed by the multiple parallel bar magnets (where the fazor elements are attached) in front of the diaphragm as a measure against "interference patterns" (diffraction).
In the case of the Nhoord that opening is their SLOTS pattern on the shell that produces "interference patterns" (diffraction), I wonder if this is the reason for their lack of coherency.
See the relevance now?
 

 
 
 
 
In any case, passing sound waves through slots is not a good practice.
 
I don't have a way to measure their magnet strength, the higher magnet strength of the Ypsilon S2 and Epsilon R1 compared to the Magnum V7 and the Nhoord was easily noticed and I thought worth mentioning.
According to Elleven Acoustica the Epsilon R1 has a little stronger magnets than the Ypsilon S2.
 
I think the Epsilon R1 is a BARGAIN for the sound quality you are getting out of them, the Ypsilon S2 is still wonderful sounding and a step forward over the old Ypsilon.
 
 
 

   
 
Wow that's impressive if they're on the level of high end drivers from big manufacturers.
 
Nhoords have 3D printed grills if I'm not mistaken, so it's hard to get a nice fillet on an edge with that.
 
Will you maybe install the Epsilon R1 into that Audeze headphone that you put the old Ypsilons into?

 
Yes it is impressive.
 
It's more the slot pattern opening than the edge finishing.
 
Time permitting, it's in my "to-do" list, right now I'm enjoying the R1 in the Grado-ish cups.

 

[fleasbaby]

   
I'm not sure I follow your thinking, anyways, speculation is not.
The magnets in Plannar drivers are NOT "part of the sound-wave-producing surface", that is the job of the diaphragm, but regardless if one is Plannar and the other Dynamic they both have a moving diaphragm that passes sound through an opening.
This opening in the case of the Audeze's Plannars drivers are the SLOTS formed by the multiple parallel bar magnets (where the fazor elements are attached) in front of the diaphragm as a measure against "interference patterns" (diffraction).
In the case of the Nhoord that opening is their SLOTS pattern on the shell that produces "interference patterns" (diffraction), I wonder if this is the reason for their lack of coherency.
See the relevance now?
 

 
 
 
 
In any case, passing sound waves through slots is not a good practice.
 
I don't have a way to measure their magnet strength, the higher magnet strength of the Ypsilon S2 and Epsilon R1 compared to the Magnum V7 and the Nhoord was easily noticed and I thought worth mentioning.
According to Elleven Acoustica the Epsilon R1 has a little stronger magnets than the Ypsilon S2.
 
I think the Epsilon R1 is a BARGAIN for the sound quality you are getting out of them, the Ypsilon S2 is still wonderful sounding and a step forward over the old Ypsilon.
 
 
 
 
Yes it is impressive.
 
It's more the slot pattern opening than the edge finishing.
 
Time permitting, it's in my "to-do" list, right now I'm enjoying the R1 in the Grado-ish cups.

 
I get your explanation regarding whether or not the fazor is part of the sound-wave-producing surface. That makes sense. I still don't fully agree on the parallel between planars and dynamics though. They are different animals. The diaphragm in a planar acts differently because its got an array of magnets its sandwiched between, not one in the center right behind it.
 
Is there further reading on this somewhere I can get at, something that references both planars and dynamics? I want to know more. Its a concept I might explore in my personal builds if it warrants investigation.
 
Hehe...bargain is a relative term.

 

[Konstantin690]

   
I get your explanation regarding whether or not the fazor is part of the sound-wave-producing surface. That makes sense. I still don't fully agree on the parallel between planars and dynamics though. They are different animals. The diaphragm in a planar acts differently because its got an array of magnets its sandwiched between, not one in the center right behind it.
 
Is there further reading on this somewhere I can get at, something that references both planars and dynamics? I want to know more. Its a concept I might explore in my personal builds if it warrants investigation.
 
Hehe...bargain is a relative term.

 
Well, you don't get it because you are trying to correlate different technologies where there is no reason to.
The problem with "interference patterns" (diffraction) has absolutely nothing to do with the drivers technology involved, it has to do with the pattern (shape) of openings the sound wave passes through before it hits your ears.
A sound wave is a sound wave, regardless if it's coming from a Plannar an Electrostatic or Dynamic actuated diaphragm.
 
Have a look at the T50RP driver openings....
 

 
Why you think it's made with multiple round openings (holes) instead of a long SLOT opening along the bar magnet length?
Have you ever seen a driver cover from a major manufacturer with SLOTS pattern openings on it?
Do a Google search on "Diffraction".
 
Considering what Grado charges for their upper models and the sound quality you get from the Epsilon R1, Oh Yeah, they are a BARGAIN.

 

[fleasbaby]

   
Well, you don't get it because you are trying to correlate different technologies where there is no reason to.
The problem with "interference patterns" (diffraction) has absolutely nothing to do with the drivers technology involved, it has to do with the pattern (shape) of openings the sound wave passes through before it hits your ears.
A sound wave is a sound wave, regardless if it's coming from a Plannar an Electrostatic or Dynamic actuated diaphragm.
 
Have a look at the T50RP driver openings....
 

 
Why you think it's made with multiple round openings (holes) instead of a long SLOT opening along the bar magnet length?
Have you ever seen a driver cover from a major manufacturer with SLOTS pattern openings on it?
Do a Google search on "Diffraction".
 
Considering what Grado charges for their upper models and the sound quality you get from the Epsilon R1, Oh Yeah, they are a BARGAIN.

 
Okay, disregarding the fact that the diaphragm on a dynamic is driven differently compared the diaphragm on a planar because of the magnet position, I had a look at the Beyerdynamic DT880, the AKG K701 and the Sennheiser HD600 and HD650. They all seem to have straight lines in the grills over their driver faces. If the Nhoord sounds incoherent, I don't buy that its the grill design that causes it. 

 

[Konstantin690]

   
Okay, disregarding the fact that the diaphragm on a dynamic is driven differently compared the diaphragm on a planar because of the magnet position, I had a look at the Beyerdynamic DT880, the AKG K701 and the Sennheiser HD600 and HD650. They all seem to have straight lines in the grills over their driver faces. If the Nhoord sounds incoherent, I don't buy that its the grill design that causes it. 

 
 
OK, I'll give it one last try to help you understand (before I turn the thread into a physics class

)
You got me wondering about the DT880, K701, HD600 etc. here they are........
 
 

 
 
Sorry if I do not see anything that resembles the Nhoord narrow slots openings, all the above have some huge openings in comparison.
Keep in mind that diffraction occurs when you pass a wave through a SLOT.
 

 
Back to the Audeze example, Audeze HAD to found a way against diffraction (in the form of the Fazors) because the plannar drivers, by design, have very long (bar shaped) magnets in front (and/or back) of the whole area of their diaphragms that forms slots the sound wave HAS to pass through.
In a dynamic driver however that is not the issue, there's only one small (compared to the diaphragm) round magnet (and the pole piece) at the center-back of the diaphragm.
 
Here's what happens with the slots....
 
 

 
Left side is diaphragm, producing a coherent sound wave (black thick vertical lines), Yellow line is the Nhoord cover with the slots (just two illustrated, with multiple slots it looks worse) passing the sound wave.
Each slot, right at their exits now acts as an independent sound source ruining the coherent initial sound wave, so, why on earth would you want to put a diffraction causing "element" in front of a dynamic driver diaphragm?
Hope it's clear(er) now.