Latest Thread Images

Headphone CSD waterfall plots
Sep 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM Post #271 of 937
Over damped. Dead? Never really thought veil was good word for it either. But then again the cheapest amp I've ever heard the HD650 from was an EHHA. I don't think I've ever plugged in that headphone into a poor matching amp. There was also talk about the HD650 driver being replaced with something more lively sounding.
 
Sep 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM Post #272 of 937
Marv, this is all nice but ... where are the 009 results? I see a reference above but can't find the plot anymore (you're posting way too many graphs man ! :wink: ).
 
Also, would you be able to do a low frequency test where I can see the diaphragm first resonance?
 
Sep 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM Post #274 of 937
Hi Marv, 
 
I was more thinking along the lines of a tone sweep between say 10 and 200Hz. The reason is that I suspect the first resonance is below 70Hz...
 
Sep 30, 2011 at 11:57 PM Post #275 of 937
Ah OK. Can you wait until the middle of next week? I'm travelling for work. Any data I post is stuff I already have.
 
Sep 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM Post #276 of 937
U gonna drop that Senn plot u freak?  
tongue.gif
  Stop enjoying your headphones and get back to work.
 
On the Senn veil issue.  My theory is the increased acoustic impedance is from the thicker paper/felt material on the drivers.  I heard the same issue w/ the 555/595 and the 558/598 cleared this problem.  Upon dissection Senn moved to a thinner material that I presume reduced this acoustic impedance letting the driver operate w/ less restriction.  This seems to correlate w/ the mods posted by Apuresound on the Senn HD6xx's.  I can only assume in my ignorance that a proper amp is just able to help muscle the driver through the increased acoustic impedance reducing or negating the effect.
 
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:14 AM Post #277 of 937


Quote:
Stop enjoying your headphones and get back to work.
Click to expand...

If I had those Stax around I wouldn't be doing any work whatsoever.
tongue_smile.gif

 
 
 
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:14 AM Post #278 of 937
OK posting the HD-25-1 II results in a bit. I haven't processed them yet. Let me get the data and run them through.
 

Sennheiser HD-25-1 II

Impression: Bassy signature, a little bit too much for me. It's another supra-aural, like the V-Moda M-80 I measured last night. What's up with these. They look good - utilitarian - not as awesome of the V-Moda's though. It sounds OK. Not as involving as the M-80s. Hmm. There's some minor ringing. At 4k and 7k is my guess (you heard me say this didn't you?)
 
Plots pending.
 
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:20 AM Post #279 of 937

 
Quote:
purrin said:
At 4k and 7k is my guess (you heard me say this didn't you?)
Click to expand...


Just did.  
tongue.gif
  Could have been playing w/ my tubes at the time.  
wink.gif
  I do remember the rest for sure.
 
 
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:22 AM Post #280 of 937

Sennheiser HD-25-1 II

 
 
Not horrible for what it is. There is some ringing at 6kHz reinforced by another node an octave higher. A peak at 9.5kHz, but in comes down relatively smoothly.
 
Compared to M-80:
 
 
The HD-25 does have a U-curve. This was obvious during listening. I found the M-80 a better listen despite the midrange bump. (I would rather have a midrange bump with a treble roll-off than an U-curved FR.) Honestly I couldn't say the HD-25 sounded faster. Maybe a little clearer. I just couldn't get over its tonal signature.
 
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:39 AM Post #282 of 937
Oct 1, 2011 at 12:57 AM Post #285 of 937
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top