Shane D
Headphoneus Supremus
But I only have one on the list! Wahhh.
Headphone collection list
- Thread starter protoss
- Start date
Shane D
Headphoneus Supremus
I don't have a single model on this list! I am WAY too poor to hang with this crowd.
thecrow
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2014
- Posts
- 4,494
- Likes
- 3,580
For Arrested Development fans:
i will bite
Why are many of these phones "irrelevant" and in what ways to they get "destroyed" by newer phones? How many of these listed phones have you owned or even heard before coming to that conclusion? Or if not direct experience, is there some measurement you can point to that justifies your position? Let me also guess, the relevant ones according to you would be the really expensive ones (HE90, R10, Omega, etc)...
Many people like myself actually seek out the older stuff because the tunings that phones from the 60s to 90s were going for were either flat field(ish) or later diffuse field(ish), and someone like me much prefers that to the common bass boost/V shaped/Harman tunings of today.
Furthermore, of all the "research" happening in phones today, what exactly has it gotten us performance wise? From what I know, dynamic drivers improvements recently (Sennheiser ring radiator/Focal M dome) have definitely been able to reduce distortion and rolloff... in the subbass... lol (much of the stuff I listen to doesn't have much subbass so moot point). I'm not exactly sure what has improved technically since the 90s for electrostatics. MLER/2/3/8675309 or whatever, we're already in miniscule distortion figures for electrostats here, is there anything audible they can get? STAX went to pro bias to get the extension in the lows and highs way back in the 80s.
Even beyond sound, what of reliability? Sure, I'll grant that the X9000 mesh driver is probably more reliable than the Omega (the Omega is pretty much the jankiest phone ever lol) but STAX to this day doesn't seem to have figured out channel imbalances all that well.
At least planars have seen a lot of development in the past 15 years or so, but low bar given that the technology was mostly on the shelf since the eighties until the late 2000s. There are those ribbon phones too, that's a legit technological development yes. But in terms of what these actually bring to sound over older designs, I remain unconvinced (especially for planars).
Kerry56
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Posts
- 608
- Likes
- 133
So, since I own a Creative Aurvana Live!, I'm a king of my own domain? Yay! I don't have to pay $1600+ for one of those on the second list? Yay again!
It's good to be king.
It's good to be king.
Kevintj604
Headphoneus Supremus
They're irrelevant because you can't buy this entire list new. You can't even buy most of this list used on the second hand market. Almost the entire list are small unit run unicorns from 10-20 years ago. In the case of both Audeze examples that he gave as well as all of the HiFiMan's they won't even service those so if you have a failed transducer the headphone is all of a sudden a spare parts unit and essentially worthless.
Transducer technology has progressed immensely so if we're talking about detail retrieval, speed and resolution, sub bass response, distortion the top tier Summit-Fi headphones manufactured today are FAR better for those indexing for those qualities.
This list is for a super niche collector who's okay with dumping a tonne of money into a device that may or may not sound like it was originally intended to. You’d have to be okay with that but to say that there have been no good headphones released in the past 20 years is a ridiculous statement.
Last edited:
Mink
Headphoneus Supremus
I can read this post two ways:
1. A celebration of every pair of headphones you own. Every pair has its own unique character and not one pair is ultimately better than the other.
I agree in the sense that I can enjoy every pair I own on their own merits. But I could not rank every pair as S tier, so I don't agree completely.
2. Getting a bit tired of this hobby and the senselessness and maybe snobbiness of it all. Just randomly pick a pair and enjoy. Sod rankings and useless comparisons.
I do share this sentiment to a certain point.
So I pretty much disagree with both your points here.
In terms of availability, speaking as someone who actually seeks out and pays the premium for new old stock (forget used which is quite easy to find for many models), I've been able to get a ton of working vintage phones.
This is me being super picky about what to get, passing on many used phones to grab them new old stock later, and if I had to get used, it was almost always in pristine condition, and the only one left I really want to get and am struggling a bit is the CD1700 (beyond that there are a few others that I kinda want to get but not really). They are not only available, but with two exceptions (the R10 and Omega) they are much cheaper than current "summit fi" offerings.
In terms of sound, well let's just say that earlier I had the FOCAL Clear and Utopia, and also grabbed a STAX SR 009S and SR L500MK2 a bit after, and there's a reason those phones have been long sold (to be sure most of my vintage phones have been/will be sold as well, but not for example, the CD3000 which I use as a reference including directly with the FOCAL stuff and modern STAX which came up short)
As for transducer technology improvements, let's go through these:
Pretty sure I can hear all the details on most phones that don't have some sort of major auditory masking (generally due to bass boost and so most of my phones are flat/rolled off in the bass as compared to modern offerings which should probably exhibit worst auditory masking), this was one of the most disappointing things about so called "summit fi" offerings like the Utopia or 009S, can't really hear anything new with them as compared to not just like my CD3000s, but take a lightweight phone that came with the Walkman in the eighties the MDR 51 lol.
Speed? Not exactly sure what this is meant to be when its used in audiophile circles, but generally speaking, the biocellulose drivers tend to do better at this than even beryllium of the Utopia, it's a stiffer and lighter material. Then you have the nanocomposite drivers in the Qualia/SA5000/SA3000 which were even faster (though they lost the natural tonality). This is to say of nothing of electrostats whereas STAX and Sennheiser already went to 1 nanometer diaphragms in the mid eighties (Lambda Signature) and early nineties (HE90), and actually STAX has went back to slightly thicker diaphragms for all their modern offerings. I simply do not see how the impulse response measurements of the modern stuff are demonstrably better than much of the vintage stuff.
This is the only one that's demonstrably legit as I mentioned before. Subbass isn't worth the loss of tonality though, at least for me. Additional subbass also can lead to auditory masking in midrange frequencies which... reduces detail perception lol
Distortion for dynamics in the subbass yes, that's been cleaned up with things like the Sennheiser HD 800 and Focal Utopia and what not (my CD3000 audibly distorts in the subbass at higher volumes... not any real listening volumes mind you and literally talking about 20-30 Hz tones at high volume rather than real tracks I'm listening to which don't even contain material at those frequencies). Distortion elsewhere? Not seeing much of an improvement, certainly nothing audible at even high levels. In fact some of those planar "summit fi" offerings don't do great in distortion in the midrange (still pretty much inaudible at reasonable or even high levels of course same as with the vintage dynamic phones). Electrostatic headphone distortion has been super low since like the eighties of course, no meaningful/audible gains there.
Last edited:
Never thought I would witness "Getting high on your own supply" in such exquisite manner.
As a Sony fanboy of 3 decades whos owned the bio-cellulose stuff, its just plain outdated at this point.
Heck even sold my CD3000 cause it just cant keep up not to mention diaphragms getting old and ratty, the bane of all dynamic drivers.
As a Sony fanboy of 3 decades whos owned the bio-cellulose stuff, its just plain outdated at this point.
Heck even sold my CD3000 cause it just cant keep up not to mention diaphragms getting old and ratty, the bane of all dynamic drivers.
Biocellulose is a composite material and doesn't get "ratty" lol, the foam surrounds around the drivers of the do deteriorate and the voice coils can tear, but there is so much of this misinformation around biocellulose rotting and what not.
Biocellulose can be destroyed by moisture, fungus or bacteria so its not bulletproof not to mention composite tech from the 1980s is primitive compared to modern composites.
The few cars built with composite materials in the 1980s are laughable compared to the modern composites used in cars today. Material tech is far more advanced and you know composites have matured when airliners started using them.
No way I,m sitting in a plane with 1980s composites.
The few cars built with composite materials in the 1980s are laughable compared to the modern composites used in cars today. Material tech is far more advanced and you know composites have matured when airliners started using them.
No way I,m sitting in a plane with 1980s composites.
What is the equivocation with composites in planes and cars to biocellulose diaphragms of headphones lol? Many things can be destroyed by moisture, fungus, or bacteria lol (the entire headphone would be destroyed by these by the way not just the diaphragm, as would say a beryllium dynamic driver phone, an electrostat wouldn't even need much moisture to destroy it) and who is saying anything is bulletproof?
By all means enjoy the newer summit fi phones all you want, but this sort of shade thrown on people who prefer vintage phones is just weird. At least before the other guy was discussing distortion and impulse response and all that (even though it's clear there isn't an improvement beyond the subbass distortion), but fungus and bacteria and cars and planes lol?
Have you even seen the lightness/stiffness figures of different diaphragm material, and how biocellulose stacks up to beryllium, or diamond, or aluminum magnesium, or so on?
SONY in the eighties/nineties is far from the only one using biocellulose, we know of the other audiophile brands using them in recent offerings, but it's little known that Apple used biocellulose on their Earpods. It's not some obsoleted technology that has rot problems lol
Last edited:
jase2k
Head-Fier
My small list, variety of profiles:
Koss KSC75
Jabra 75e
Grado SR125x
Letshuoer S12 Pro
Airpod Pros (Gen 1)
Koss KSC75
Jabra 75e
Grado SR125x
Letshuoer S12 Pro
Airpod Pros (Gen 1)
So are you saying that composites from the 80s are just as well built, reliable and most importantly STABLE as todays stuff?.
I,m not throwing shade on how anyone enjoys their headphones but don't tell me entropy suddenly ceased to exist on stuff made 40 years ago. I am sitting here tinkering with a world band radio from 1996 and no way it compares to modern stuff today. For more info check on dental composites in the 80s and compare them to todays dental composites and they are in different universes.
"Fungus and bacteria and cars and planes lol" tells me all about what you know so LOL when a fungal infection can destroy a composite biocellulose diaphragm found in headphones not to mention biocellulose is also biodegradable.
Nostalgia is a bitch but that doesnt mean you ignore the present. The biocellulose in ZMF drivers as an example is much superior to anything from the 80s in practically all aspects both as a standalone material and while acting as a driver.
See the thing is, biocellulose (neither the original Ajinomoto biocellulose used in SONY phones of years past nor anything recently being manufactured) is not "biodegradable" because polymer composites are not biodegradable (even poor old vintage ones without all the modern goodness) lol... given that you seem to still have this idea and are just throwing other stuff left and right, it isn't worth my time to go further on the materials science topic with you.
I'd love to see some measurements of how a ZMF phone measures better than a old school R10/CD3000/CD1700/CD2000 in distortion or impulse response (I'll ignore tuning since that's subjective) beyond subbass by the way, should be easy to do if the driver is "much superior" lol
actually just searched up and found this... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/zmf-atticus-review-headphone.24191/
yeah I'll pass lol... YIKES... it doesn't even seem to do better in subbass distortion (I also paid less for a new old stock CD3000 than this phone costs lol)
I'd love to see some measurements of how a ZMF phone measures better than a old school R10/CD3000/CD1700/CD2000 in distortion or impulse response (I'll ignore tuning since that's subjective) beyond subbass by the way, should be easy to do if the driver is "much superior" lol
actually just searched up and found this... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/zmf-atticus-review-headphone.24191/
yeah I'll pass lol... YIKES... it doesn't even seem to do better in subbass distortion (I also paid less for a new old stock CD3000 than this phone costs lol)
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
