[Bijl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass They'd probably do a decent job keeping your ears warm in winter (though I wouldn't want to run around outside with big and comparatively fragile cans), but being open cans, they don't offer much isolation at all.

Well, if I'm walking the dog or something in this time of the year, these would be quite nice, if my NW-A3000 could drive them, and they 're probably less fragile then AKG k26p.

 

[sgrossklass]

Closed cans would probably work better for keeping warmth in due to higher clamping force, but the '805 as-is should already do better than the smallish supraaural K26P, and sensitivity is about on HD497 level and thus perfectly fine for a portable. I don't know how well they'd like cold and humidity though.

 

[sgrossklass]

While I still like the last EQ I posted, here's one that's yet a bit smoother sounding (which, as I've noticed, is something I seem to prefer in the evening):
Code:

[left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 8 0 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 8 0[/left]

Previously I tried this EQ, which gives about as much brightness as I'd still call listenable (with my equipment):
Code:

[left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0[/left]

(OK, you can listen to Rock without any EQ, but a lot of other things may be too bright and bassy then.)

EDIT: Here's a mix between the first EQ in this post and the older good one:
Code:

[left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 8 4 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 8 4[/left]

That's the 49th one btw

EDIT^2: For binaural recordings which obviously need a linear instead of rolled-off freq response (no dispersion to simulate here), this one works better:
Code:

[left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 0[/left]

 

[hawky]

http://www.hifi-forum.net/viewthread-61-40-last.html

???

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawky http://www.hifi-forum.net/viewthread-61-40-last.html ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by kspv@hifi-forum I was in Delhi for few days this week. To kill time, I went to Ansal Plaza's "Music Today" outlet, and found that the store stocked several headphone models (conventional, mini, sports, cordless etc.)of Philips, Panasonic, Technics, DJ-Galleria (never heard of this brand before)amongst others. The highest priced among conventional headphones was a Panasonic costing Rs.3,700/-. The lowest priced was Philips HP805 costing 1,190/-. I actually did a listening test between the models available, and was amused to find that the lowly priced Philips was beating the pants off (near pro quality)the others. However, I was not very sure of my judgement. So I did some Googling, and found an exhaustive review by another person of Indian origin, Sushant Gore, on www.headfi.org, on this model. Gore had heaps of praise for this headphone. For the benefit of headphone enthusiasts, I am posting the excerpts from his review below. All the credits go to Sushant Gore. Incidentally, I ended up buying this model, and am thoroughly enjoying its sound. [...]

I'd say

instead of ???.

 

[sgrossklass]

Oh no, yet another one...
Code:

[left]0 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 0 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4[/left]

Strangely enough, they get more and more straightforward. During my iAudio G3 + HD420SL adventure, I noticed that I don't mind a touch more bass and don't need recessed upper mids, so that reflects here.

 

[NotoriousBIG_PJ]

The koss ur-40 headphone is one bad sounding headphone. Porta pros, ksc35's and koss r80's all easily destroy it when it comes to sound quality. But at least the ur-40 looks nice.

Biggie.

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass Oh no, yet another one... Code: [left]0 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 0 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4[/left]

So that would translate in foobar as:
Code:

[left]-2 -4 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -4[/left]

Did I get it right? If so, I like the one you posted in #51 better.

I'm an EQ newb and I'm impressed by how much it improves these cans. They do alright on their own for some music but I can't stand that bass for most music. I bought them for low-volume evening listening (and also out of curiosity and they deliver but, along with your EQ, they sound better than I expected as I turn up the volume... They're comfy and I'm wondering if they could be HD555-killers for me! The build quality is pretty abysmal though, at least on my pair.

Anyway, this has got me wondering... how do you come up with these EQs. Is there a method and/or some tools or is it purely an instinctive and iterative process? Are there some EQ resources or tutorials out there?

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat So that would translate in foobar as: [snip] Did I get it right? If so, I like the one you posted in #51 better.

Yup, that looks correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat I'm an EQ newb and I'm impressed by how much it improves these cans. They do alright on their own for some music but I can't stand that bass for most music. I bought them for low-volume evening listening (and also out of curiosity and they deliver but, along with your EQ, they sound better than I expected as I turn up the volume... They're comfy and I'm wondering if they could be HD555-killers for me! The build quality is pretty abysmal though, at least on my pair.

Your intended use would explain why you prefer the brighter older EQ (#35 for me). Build is OK here, nothing but the mentioned noises from the size adjustment. (Are all the screws tightened properly on yours? Not too much, of course, very finitely thick plastic can't take everything.) Inexpensive headphones certainly have come a *long* way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat Anyway, this has got me wondering... how do you come up with these EQs. Is there a method and/or some tools or is it purely an instinctive and iterative process? Are there some EQ resources or tutorials out there?

Well, the HP890 measurements once taken by Nak Man along with the comments on SHP895 vs. HP890 (along with my own sonic impressions, of course) already gave me a hint at what to expect. Other than that, it's purely ear-tuned with my other cans as references, as I have no equipment to take measurements with. I'd be interested in how the EQ'd SHP805 fares against the HD555.

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass Your intended use would explain why you prefer the brighter older EQ (#35 for me).

No, I was thinking about "normal" listening. The kind of music I was listening to might explain why I wanted something bright actually.
For low-volume listening, I don't need any EQ (although it might help, I've got to try).

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass (Are all the screws tightened properly on yours?

Good guess... there's a missing screw actually!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass I'd be interested in how the EQ'd SHP805 fares against the HD555.

The 555s are obviously much better as a main can, if only because they don't require EQ, but I'm using them as a complement to my 580s... in that role, the 805s show some promise. I'll let you know if (and why) I end up choosing one or the other.

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat For low-volume listening, I don't need any EQ (although it might help, I've got to try).

You might try #47 then:
Code:

[left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0[/left]

It fills in the "hole" around 800 Hz or so, without doing much with the highs.

Quote:

Good guess... there's a missing screw actually!

That must've slipped through QC. If you can't have it swapped for a complete sample anymore or are not inclined to do so, you could try finding a matching screw, otherwise a "clear tape mod" may not be the worst idea.
I guess that kind of stuff tends to happen with cheap cans once in a while - the first set of KSC-50s I had came with a defective (rattling) driver.

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFat Good guess... there's a missing screw actually!

Oops! Sorry, Philips: it was simply screwed in deeper and I missed it. Well, the other cup has at least stopped sliding down the headband by itself now. Thanks for reminding me that some things can be fixed with a screwdriver.

Handling the 805 reminded me how cheap the whole thing feels... you get what you pay for, I guess. The single-sided cable is a nice touch though.

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass You might try #47 then: Code: [left]0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0 0 3 5 6 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 5 5 6 5 0[/left]

Still liking the old one more (this one feels constricted)... I've got to do my own now.

And the cup has started sliding down the headband AGAIN... it's hopeless. I don't know if it temperature-realted or what but that screwdriver business seems to have been yet more Head-Fi placebo.

As to 805 vs 555, I think the the main thing that's going to make the 805 a winner is that it doesn't have the Senn grip: it rests more on my ears than around them.
My ears tend to touch the drivers so I can't say it's totally comfortable but it's a relief when switching from the Senns. And if I pull the pads from the cups a bit, my ears stop touching the drivers (for a while anyway)... did anyone try modding the pads?

 

[]|[ GorE]

But you gotta agree that the philips look DAMN COOL from a distance.

 

[sgrossklass]

YAEQS:
Code:

[left]0 1 3 4 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 0 1 3 4 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3[/left]

As for the size adjustment, it slides easily when the cans are off the head but hardly moves when sideways pressure is applied, at least on my sample. Kinda neat if you ask me (I guess it was intended that way, at least that would make sense).

Pad mods? Hmm, might be a case for gerG's "phatpads" - look 'em, up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ]|[ GorE But you gotta agree that the philips look DAMN COOL from a distance.

For inexpensive fullsize cans, they look really nice indeed, and they're still not bad looking absolutely speaking.

YAEQS^2:
Code:

[left]0 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 0 0 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 0[/left]

That's more leaning towards the revealing side of things, but still very listenable. Might be good for recordings not EQ'd too much for speaker playback.

Code:

[left]0 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 0 0 2 4 5 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 0[/left]

Perhaps someone also likes this one.

Now I only hope that there isn't some poor soul out there who stumbles across this thread and is totally cunf00sed by the number of choices. The good thing about stan^W EQ settings is that there are so many to choose from...