[halcyon]

Yes, our ears can hear it in many cases.

For example putting a closed enclosure in place of an open enclosure, will most certainly effect mid frequencies and bass response (+ add a lot of reverbation, causing notes to decay more slowly perceptually).

This all is audible and measurable.

Whether it is true to the original acoustic signal, is another matter, but if it sounds very good, then why not.

Also, this doesn't mean that replacing or modifying the enclosure cannot improve some aspects of the headphone. I dare to venture a guess that SA-5000 could benefit from a better enclosure.

That clearly audible critical frequency range resonance it has, is probably more enclosure than driver related.

Of course, this is more conjecture, but some DIY mods seem to have perceptually improved this by adding some damping material on one of the surfaces on the enclosure.

But this isn't about Sony, this is about HD-650.

The only truely proper way to find out is to go for the mod and test it oneself. If one likes it, there were gains to be had.

 

[RnB180]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Larry slaps on random enclosures. His enclosures are very beautiful. However, afaik none of the modders MEASURE or do statistically valid analysis of perceptual listening evaluations of their modified cans. That doesn't mean they can't sound GREAT to a lot of people. But in acoustical engineering terms, the results will likely be added distortion, more than fixing of any previous ones. Often we like added distortion (compression, harmonic distortion, etc). This is what I tried to convey.

I picked up some woodies used, and liked them so much ordered a pair for my 580s

. My woodied 600s is on a whole other level above the 580s with stock grills. Could be the cans, could be the woodies? who knows. but I need some closed/semi closed 580s

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RnB180 but I need some closed/semi closed 580s

 

[RnB180]

why

?

When Im sitting at starbucks listening to my tunes, too much chatter around me and kills sound stage. So is it wrong to pick up the closed woodies? I dont think so

so would I be better off spending $180 on a new set of closed cans instead of woody mods? NO

why? Because I like the senns headphones, I like the sound, I like the comfort of the velour, I like the design, I like the look, and I already have recables for them. You also have to understand that art and design is my background and interest in my life field I will be persuing, and IMO Larrys work is definately a work of art, that alone is very attractive to me as a product. It may not be something of worth to you, but it is to me. In fact if I ever pick up 650s I would woody them with open grilled woodies, simply because of the overall aesthetic appeal to them. Hey artwork and design have always been a major part of everything I build or purchase.

IMO there would be no $180 cans available that I would prefer over my senns.

DT880s are tempting, but they cost more then the woodies, and I'd be a freak and recable and mod everything in it. Since I want to avoid the hassle, I dont think I should get new cans, If I do, they will certainly be the 650's

and that my friend will also get the woody recable treatment

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon Of course, the proof is in the eating of pudding, so if one likes it - no harm done.

halcyon,

And that's exactly what renders virtually all measurements useless. Whenever we measure performance we do it with the implication that our measurements are psychoacoustically relevant, that we capture what's musically important by measuring certain aspects of the sound, that our measurements are descriptive of how humans perceive music. The history of audio engineering shows that that is simply not the case. Are transistors better than tubes? Is digital recording better than analog recording? If no-negative feedback tube amps sound more musical, coherent and engaging than transistor amps with harmonic distortion so low we can hardly measure it, it does not show that a nice helping of harmonic distortion is beneficial, it shows that THD measuremets are fairly meaningless. If acoustical engineering data are at odds with our perception of what is better suited to reproduce music, it's not the fault of our perception. It just demonstrates how flawed and rudimentary our set of measurements is.

If I want to "MEASURE" musical accuracy, I use the very best device for the job: myself. For the task of music reproduction is not to convince a meter that it listens to music, but a human listener.

 

[sgrossklass]

As far as "closed '580s" go, DT250s would probably a better choice - these were designed as closed cans, at least.

Closing open cans or vice versa, making closed cans open really messes with the design - that's a fundamental change. If the result still sounds good, all the better, but don't complain if it doesn't. Not even headphone makers always get that kind of thing right, examples apparently are HD265 (closed version of HD565), HD270 (closed version of HD570) and ATH-AD300 (open version of A300).

 

[JaZZ]

[double post

]

 

[JaZZ]

Thomas... Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat ...Whenever we measure performance we do it with the implication that our measurements are psychoacoustically relevant, that we capture what's musically important by measuring certain aspects of the sound, that our measurements are descriptive of how humans perceive music. The history of audio engineering shows that that is simply not the case. Are transistors better than tubes? Is digital recording better than analog recording? If no-negative feedback tube amps sound more musical, coherent and engaging than transistor amps with harmonic distortion so low we can hardly measure it, it does not show that a nice helping of harmonic distortion is beneficial, it shows that THD measuremets are fairly meaningless. If acoustical engineering data are at odds with our perception of what is better suited to reproduce music, it's not the fault of our perception. It just demonstrates how flawed and rudimentary our set of measurements is.

...I partly agree with that.

Quote:

If I want to "MEASURE" musical accuracy, I use the very best device for the job: myself. For the task of music reproduction is not to convince a meter that it listens to music, but a human listener.

True -- to some degree. First let's suppose that we all haven't heard the modified Senns in question. However, with a bit of knowledge of electroacoustics, you can somehow imagine the (measureable) acoustical consequences of a closed back for the HD 600/650: the creation of reflections and hollow-space phenomena, certainly not entirely eliminateable by any dampening material inside the cups -- and even if that was the case, the «sonic benefit» from the closed back would be eliminated as well (apart from isolation). So do we agree that the design-inherent hollow-space phenomena are the actual sonic argument for the modification?

If you look at the original design of the HD 580/600/650, you'll notice that everything is designed for minimal internal reflection. There's not even a baffle worth this denomination, because it's actually just a plastic grid with a fine, acoustically transparent mesh on it. Only the foam pads over the drivers provide a minimal acoustic resistance between front and rear of the driver, so the air-pressure potential between both sides finds a virtually unresisted equalization. And that's what in fact annihilates the last potential «advantage» of a closed back: The incapsulation of the frontal sound waves within a «pressure chamber» between driver and ear, provided by an air-tight seal of the earpads, in order to make full use of the radiated sound waves (especially in the bass) isn't possible in such a system. So the closed-backed HD series will never be a «closed» headphone in the actual sense of the term, as it lacks the seal and therefore only represents the negative aspect of the design principle in the form of increased reflections and the consequential corruption of the original waveform.

Whether or not this corrupts the individual listening pleasure is another question. The same as e.g. the use of heavy FR distortion by equalizing to achieve a pleasing coloration or the use of an effect device such as the ones used to enhance certain recordings (and/or voices) by phase manipulation, even electronic reverberation devices or some «harmonizers», meant to create artificial harmonics, or dynamic compression... By all means it (the closed back) represents an artifical manipulation of the original signal. If it just were effective in the frequency domain, the same couldn't be said -- this would mean a different (fine-)tuning of the headphone's sonic signature and potentially a better match for some listeners' individual HRTF and/or their systems. But that's not the case: its main effect will undoubtedly happen in the time domain. Add to this the supposable increase of the cancellation effect between driver front and rear induced by the opposite phase of the reflected sound waves relative to the original sound waves.

So technically speaking, the closed back on the HD 600/650 is a bad design, in that it makes the original goal of music reproduction -- high fidelity -- impossible in a narrower sense. And independent of what any listener's ears will tell him/her, it's not an adequate reproduction, at best maybe an astonishingly successful reconstruction of the original.

As to the woodenization of the HD 580/600/650 under perpetuation of the open design, I see only little to no potential for an improvement of the original design. Since it's already as open to escaping sound waves as it gets (to minimize their adverse effect -- the main advantage of the design principle), the wooden case can only make it worse. Potentials in terms of resonance reduction from the use of wood instead of plastic are hard to imagine, since there are no isolating elements (such as speaker housings) or other parts prone to cause audible negative effects emanating from resonances -- the whole housing is virtually not more than an open frame, designed to carry driver and earpad. However, it cant be excluded that different materials may have beneficial effects, but in this case I'd see higher potential in materials such as carbon fiber or even the disdained plastic (skillfully implemented) than in wood.

So for me wooden housings for the HD 580/600/650 can only have one objective benefit: the better look. From a true audiophile perspective (if you're interested in an uncolored reproduction without special effects) they're just a gimmick. Significantly, so far no design philosophy has been published to justify the wooden modification of existing headphones. But I think we could agree that the look is really beautiful.

.

 

[aaroncort]

jeez, I didn't think this thread was going to turn into a heated debate when I started it! I want to add the wooden cups so that the cans will isolate me from my environment more than they are now. I used to live in a quiet neiborhood but now I like on a main avenue and the din from the traffic at times can be heard through my headphones. I also now live close enough to work to walk there in a resonable time rather then drive and then have to find parking. I'd like to make my cans a little more isolating not just to help bring back some definition but at the volumes you have to listen at outside I think are damaging to your ears. I'm also not going to buy a new set of cans either. I don't like canalphones and a new set of closed cans that rivel the 650's with zu cable would be far too expensive to warent the purchase. Thanks for all your help though. Please feel free to tell me more about the woodies that you have. Thanks aaron.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaroncort I want to add the wooden cups so that the cans will isolate me from my environment more than they are now. ... I'd like to make my cans a little more isolating not just to help bring back some definition...

Well, since you asked... Quote:

...HD-650 woodie headphile mod. Am I going to effect the sound negatively?

Quote:

I'm also not going to buy a new set of cans either.

So you're decided to get it modified either way?


Quote:

jeez, I didn't think this thread was going to turn into a heated debate when I started it!

Heated debate? So far it looks very civilized, peaceful and calm to me.

.

 

[aaroncort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Well, since you asked... So you're decided to get it modified either way? Heated debate? So far it looks very civilized, peaceful and calm to me. .

I'm not going to modify it either way. I just won't do it if to me it seems like a bad idea. So far I can't quite tell. Only one person that has heard the woodie mod said he didn't care for it. A couple were from people claimingthat it collapses the sound stage slightly and brings the sound more forward. The other 15 some odd posts were from people saying what it will do in theory and the rest were from people saying that theory doesn't always cut the mustard. So right now I'm not quite sure what to think.

Also a heated debate doesn't have to mean an uncivilized or angry debate. I just didn't know that there would be so many opinions and counter opinions. my dictionary defines heated as " To become excited emotionally or intellectually." Its not as brutal as some threads about after market cables however!

 

[Xanadu777]

If a person really likes the sound of stock Senns, I see no reason to fiddle with it. A large screen woody won't tamper with the sound and is substantially cosmetic. Closing them is another story. For me personally, I prefer the sound of 600's closed. They were designed to be open right? Yep and closed cans were designed to be closed. Does that mean they can't sound good if they are changed, no, at least that's what I've proven to myself many times over with multiple different tweakings of cans. Senn designed them perfect and they shouldn't be changed... I guess they forgot about the cable

Will some love them and some hate them, yes, it depends on your ears and to each there own. When I first took a woody 600 to a Seattle meet I can't think of one person who preferred open to closed. I snagged a comment out of an old thread...

Well, the biggest suprises for me at the meet came from the same person. That would be Larry,
from Headphile. I had an opportunity to listen to a plethora of "gone woody" headphones. When I
placed the HD600 woodies on my head, I, like most expected a bad experience. In fact, I was
already prepared to tell Larry "You know, they're not bad, but I really do prefer the stock HD600's".
This however was not the case! In fact, quite the opposite. I had expected the HD600 gone woody
to sound as if I placed my hands on the metal grills of the HD600. Although with an unnatural wood
resonance to make things worse. Well, I placed them on my head, and plugged them in to Xtreme's PPA...
They sounded great! In fact, I couldn't believe what I was hearing! The bass was significantly tightened,
treble extension was unaffected, and that sweet, sweet midrange! The typically fat sounding HD600
midrange was cured! It was a miracle! In fact, I tended to like the headphile HD600 + blacksilver cable
more than the HD650 + Mobius.

Does this mean they'll be right for you? No... you may hate them. Same with the different Senn cables, to each his/her own

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanadu777 Does this mean they'll be right for you? No... you may hate them. Same with the different Senn cables, to each his/her own

Yes, certainly. Anyway, what was the design goal behind the wooden cups, expressed in physical properties/effects? So you like the closed back better, but what's the physical cause for the perceived improvement in your view?
.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ So technically speaking, the closed back on the HD 600/650 is a bad design, in that it makes the original goal of music reproduction -- high fidelity -- impossible in a narrower sense. And independent of what any listener's ears will tell him/her, it's not an adequate reproduction, at best maybe an astonishingly succeeded reconstruction of the original.

Marcel,

I guess you meant "astonishingly successful reconstruction"?!

Unfortunately, I have never heard any of Larry's wood mods, and I can't comment on whether modifying an open into a closed headphone has been successful in this particular case. I'm a sucker for closed headphones with wooden enclosures, so I suspect it might have been successful (and I have never found an open headphone or an open baffle speaker I truly liked either). But whether the mod has or has not been successful is nothing that can be shown by a simple set of measurements. Only listening to music can determine whether the mod has advanced the HD650's capabilities as a music reproduction device.

"And independent of what any listener's ears will tell him/her, it's not an adequate reproduction" you say. That's exactly where our views are diametrically opposed. Musical fidelity can only be determined by listening. Reality is much more complex than any set of measurements. Human perception, the processing of musical information, the human emotional response to music is much more complex than any psychoacoustic theory about it. Measuring THD, frequency or phase repsonse, TID or jitter will tell us about that aspect of sonic reproduction and of signal integrity with a very high degree of precision. Absolutely. What measuring doesn't tell us is whether we have measured the right thing. We may have picked a tiny particle of reality in order to describe it with the utmost precision, but we are incapable of grasping the phenomenon as a whole. I believe the knowledge of audio engineers has barely scratched the surface. Remember the early eighties when we were told that, because of their ruler flat frequency response, all CD players sounded identical - perfect. However, briefly listening with one's own ears showed that a) they all sounded different and b) they all provided as much musical pleasure as a dentist's drill. As I see it, we have a choice: we can either trust audio engineering principles and their implied psychoacoustic theory - which I consider to be frightfully limited -, or we can test the value of an audio component by simply listening to it. Because that's what it's designed to do: it's meant to reproduce music for human listeners. Isn't it for them to decide whether a component has achieved its goal?

 

[JaZZ]

Thomas...

...you're right about the «successful reconstruction».

Quote:

"And independent of what any listener's ears will tell him/her, it's not an adequate reproduction" you say. That's exactly where our views are diametrically opposed. Musical fidelity can only be determined by listening. Reality is much more complex than any set of measurements. Human perception, the processing of musical information, the human emotional response to music is much more complex than any psychoacoustic theory about it. Measuring THD, frequency or phase repsonse, TID or jitter will tell us about that aspect of sonic reproduction and of signal integrity with a very high degree of precision. Absolutely. What measuring doesn't tell us is whether we have measured the right thing. We may have picked a tiny particle of reality in order to describe it with the utmost precision, but we are incapable of grasping the phenomenon as a whole.

As you know, I'm not generally opposed to this view, in fact I widerly share it. But not in this case. Why? Imagine any of the mentioned effect devices between your digital player and your DAC (or if it's an analog device, connect it as you will...). I can imagine to like some of the effects possible with today's techniques and algorithms myself, but of course I know for sure that it's a manipulation of the original signal. Which I don't want in the end. And exactly the same is introduced here, with the addition of the reflecting earcups. There's no other technical, acoustical justification for it (again, apart from isolation) except for an artificial effect meant to please. And obviously it does, just like a subtly implemented chorus effect probably would, which it might in fact resemble to some degree. It's not meant to synergetically compensate for a contrasting deficit, such as a mirange dip (although something like this may be part of the «success»), but an isolated effect, at best meant to compensate for a lack of liveliness, lifelikeness or maybe the notorious lack of threedimensionality with headphones -- although, of course, the compensation for obvious reason is rather a substitute and by no means a synergetic effect. I hope I have been clear enough.

.