[JumboHashish]

"We have optimised the geometry of the baffle design from the foundations up. A stable high-tech compound material reduces unwanted vibrations and provides exceptional harmonic sound reproduction with silky treble frequencies." — Beyerdynamic's T5p.2 product page.
 
So that little rubber tab is what 'stable high-tech compound material' means in Beyer's marketing speak? 

 

 

[Traveller]

Originally Posted by JumboHashish /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
"We have optimised the geometry of the baffle design from the foundations up. A stable high-tech compound material reduces unwanted vibrations and provides exceptional harmonic sound reproduction with silky treble frequencies." — Beyerdynamic's T5p.2 product page.
 
So that little rubber tab is what 'stable high-tech compound material' means in Beyer's marketing speak? 

 

Also interesting are the following paragraphs from this interview:
 
What accounts for the particularly clean sound?
Gebhardt: It is the result of many details. What should be specially mentioned is the ring-shaped magnet, that permits positioning a central drilling immediately behind the centre of the membrane in order to minimise discolouring resonances. Apart from that, we use a special multi-level membrane that effectively suppresses unwanted break-up vibrations and consequent distortion. 
 
What else is it that particularly distinguishes the Tesla headphones?
Gebhardt: The particular highlight of Tesla technology is the design as a full metal system. It prevents any uncontrolled resonation by parts of the casing leading to distortion of the sound. Apart from that, the metal shields the construction from electrical disturbance fields. In a Tesla headphone, the only thing that causes the membrane to emit sound is the musical signal itself.
 
Regarding the comment "Full metal system", I can only assume Gebhardt is referring to the driver /transducer as the cups are plastic. The interview was conducted well before the T5p.2 came out and now they can no longer make this claim thanks to the rubber / plastic plug smack in the center of their Telsa driver...

 
~~~
Despite making fun of their "magical tab", I am still pleased with the headphones and I think it would be arrogant (of me) to make assertions on what materials should and should not be used to design a good pair of cans

 

 

 

[JumboHashish]

Despite making fun of their "magical tab", I am still pleased with the headphones and I think it would be arrogant (of me) to make assertions on what materials should and should not be used to design a good pair of cans

 

 

 
From a non-expert's POV it looks like a very efficient and clever way to reduce resonances in the driver assembly. The problem arises from the superlative marketing-speak used to describe the clever but simple engineering: that's what so laughably funny.

But indeed, all is forgiven because music sounds so good on these!

 

[JumboHashish]

I have to clarify that while the T5p.2s sound better with the Mojo (than with the AK320 or Dragonfly Red), we are talking about a slight increase in "air" and just a little less treble roll-off. Is that worth the €600 and the need to lug additional weight? Only you can decide. In terms of driving the T5p.2s directly from a smartphone, chances are we are again talking about slight losses (maybe in pace, impact, etc.) given that the T5p.2s are relatively easy to drive. My recommendation to you before you put down more of your hard-earned $ is to try to collect enough opinions from other iPhone owners... .
 

 

How good are the DAC sections alone on the Dragonfly Black and Red? I was thinking a good system would be to get one of the Dragonflies for portable use and use them as a DAC at home to feed a dedicated amplifier like the Rupert Neve Headphone Amp which is being touted for its accuracy. Considering the Black is USD 100 and the RNHP is USD 500, that costs as much as a Mojo but with more flexibility in different scenarios. The assumption being the DAC section on the Dragonflies being good enough to feed the RNHP.
 
Is it possible to use the Mojo only as an amp? Then one could try feeding it from the DAC in the Dragonflies and see whether the output from the Dragonfly-fed Mojo sounds as good as the Mojo alone. AND compare this system's synergy with the T5p.2 

 

 

[Traveller]

 

Despite making fun of their "magical tab", I am still pleased with the headphones and I think it would be arrogant (of me) to make assertions on what materials should and should not be used to design a good pair of cans...

 
From a non-expert's POV it looks like a very efficient and clever way to reduce resonances in the driver assembly. The problem arises from the superlative marketing-speak used to describe the clever but simple engineering: that's what so laughably funny.

Well my own CV pretty much mirrors their marketing prose... hey, we're all in it to win!!!

 
~~~
 
You are not the only one to suggest the purpose of said tab is to reduce resonances in the driver assembly. I'm wondering if it's not the opposite. The driver's neodymium magnet is nicely encased by a pretty solid back-plate (and I assume a front-plate of some kind..)
 
Now, while the headphone "cups" are made of a sturdy plastic, it's still plastic... which makes me think that it could be just the opposite - using the heavy magnet housing to stabilize the cup. We can imagine what kind of resonance a plastic cup will make when it is brought to vibrate (and yes, at specific frequencies). As we know, occasionally such resonances dirty the original audio signal...
Food for thought!

 
 

I have to clarify that while the T5p.2s sound better with the Mojo (than with the AK320 or Dragonfly Red), we are talking about a slight increase in "air" and just a little less treble roll-off. Is that worth the €600 and the need to lug additional weight? Only you can decide...

How good are the DAC sections alone on the Dragonfly Black and Red? I was thinking a good system would be to get one of the Dragonflies for portable use and use them as a DAC at home to feed a dedicated amplifier like the Rupert Neve Headphone Amp which is being touted for its accuracy. Considering the Black is USD 100 and the RNHP is USD 500, that costs as much as a Mojo but with more flexibility in different scenarios. The assumption being the DAC section on the Dragonflies being good enough to feed the RNHP.
 
Is it possible to use the Mojo only as an amp? Then one could try feeding it from the DAC in the Dragonflies and see whether the output from the Dragonfly-fed Mojo sounds as good as the Mojo alone. AND compare this system's synergy with the T5p.2 

 

 
I can't really answer your first question but there is no issue with the DragonFly's ability to go "loud". A device's signature is the culmination of all components (DAC, OP-amp, etc). Having read Rob Watt's clarification of the Mojo's "logical" volume control (which answers your last question) as well as A&K's for their 3xxx DAPs that means one component less in the chain. If we look at the AQ DFR specs:
 
"DragonFly Red employs a 64-bit, bit-perfect digital volume control that resides inside the DAC chip itself"
 
Going one step further:
"The ES9016K2M SABRE Ultra DAC is powered by a +1.8V to +3.3V supply for both the digital and analog sections, with internal regulators generating the core supply. The DAC comes in a 28-QFN package, supports 1.8V logic levels and consumes less than 40mW in normal operating mode"
 
Long story-short, I think a discrete amplifier will not bring much in this chain - particularly since this thread is about a 32ohm headphone...

 

[Traveller]

From a non-expert's POV it looks like a very efficient and clever way to reduce resonances in the driver assembly. The problem arises from the superlative marketing-speak used to describe the clever but simple engineering...

To be fair to the Beyerdynamic Team, there are quite a few changes from 1G to 2G, aside from that magical "tab" and that "plug" in the driver's center.
They changed the assembly's frame pattern - looks much more reinforced now. Next, they grounded (shielded) the system and last but not least, it appears that they either changed the diaphragm(?) and/or added dampening material at the center, just below that center plug... .
 
Not only for the T5p, but also the T1 (see exploded diagram below)...
 
T5p.1 - photo c/o diyaudioblog

 
T5p.2

 
...dampening material?

 
exploded diagram of the T1.2

 

[Extorsivo]

Can someone, who has both headphones, make a comparison with a Shure SRH940 please?

 

[Traveller]

Re. T5pG2s - I have a lot of testing to do* but I'm very pleased with what I've heard so far... ! *with two top (portable) sources as well as the different pads as I also opted to buy the T1 velour pads to see which I prefer in terms of comfort, acoustics and isolation.

Look forward to hearing what you think between the pleather and velour pads.

 
So better late than never, as the saying goes, @vilhelm44

I finally got around to A/Bing the pads and wow... I thought for a second I had a pair of T1.2s on my head!!! Okay, it's been ~five weeks since I auditioned the T1.2s and thus a grain of salt follows that statement

 
 
1. Definite loss of Isolation and dramatic increase in leakage; [test method: a dense couch-pillow for insulation

] not only could I hear the song that was playing but there was only a slight difference (in leakage) compared to my open Grado 225s... ! With the regular pads, on the other hand, I could only hear certain peaks etc. - a good thing as these are marketed as closed cans

 
2. A drastic decrease in bass, sub & mid. Good or bad... ? Let's just say I was missing it. I would almost swear my JHA Angie II IEMs had more mid-bass than the T5p.2s with the 1.2 pads.
 
3. "apparent" increase in upper-mids / treble. I say apparent because it is always difficult to determine if it's a question of a treble increase due to pads absorbing / deflecting less HF or due to the decrease in mid-bass*
The problem is that the HF sounds a bit off. I scribbled down "tinny" and / or "metallic" a few times too often during my test session. Despite this apparent increase, the T5p.2s still cannot reproduce HF like the famous Angies can, with their 4 treble-dedicated BAs.
 
4. Sounds Stage / Air ...is "different". Not better - I don't want to suggest changing pads gets you that open-can feel but there is a definite change. I would even dare suggest that it's wider but more 2-D than with the standard pads. I'm not 100% sure but ironically I believe I prefer the "smaller" but more 3D presentation of the original configuration.
 
*If anyone can clarify how to make that determination, I would be more than happy to learn from you

 
 
When I was reviewing the T5p.2s along with the T1.2s and A&K T1s (32ohm) I found the latter two to be too "thin" for my tastes and was more after the sound of the T5p.2s. Someone who likes all of them (for example, for different music genres) might consider buying the T1.2 pads. At GBP 36 (Amazon UK) / I would say it's worth the risk. For those who love the bass-response of the T5p.2s "as is" need not apply

 
 
I still have the T1.2 pads on as I want to compare their HF response against my Grados some more as well as my "reference-neutral" Etymotics but I am 99% sure I will revert to the original pads. Gotta have dat bass!!! 

Speaking of which, the T5p.2s sub & mid-bass response is much cleaner, tighter than my Grados. The Grados win in sheer quantity (surprising for these open cans) but are on the boomy, slow side.
 

 

[Dynaudio lvr]

And for a simple, non fancy unaudiophile-like description of my experience :

Yes, my velour T1 pads give a very different sound than pleather/leather pads. Less bass, more open pronounced treble.

I stopped using velour on my T5P2 because although it sounds soft and pleasing, much of the "oomfph" is missing.

 

[greenback]

I just got these tonight and I am really enjoying these cans so far. A different sound from my Elear and TH900s, but in a good way. They sound just as good, but with a better seal for noise reduction.
 
I listen to a lot of electronic music and these are perfect for that on the go, or at home for that matter.

 

[MunDa]

I just got these tonight and I am really enjoying these cans so far. A different sound from my Elear and TH900s, but in a good way. They sound just as good, but with a better seal for noise reduction.

I listen to a lot of electronic music and these are perfect for that on the go, or at home for that matter.

Congrats first of all. How is the soundstage and bass compared to elear? Is it worth having them both? Would appreciate ur thoughts.

 

[greenback]

Congrats first of all. How is the soundstage and bass compared to elear? Is it worth having them both? Would appreciate ur thoughts.

They are very similar in imaging, even their sound signature seems very similar. The Elear are warmer though. When I listen to Jose Gonzalez - Heartbeats, the guitar has more weight behind it in the Elear. It is not a huge difference, but it is noticeable.
 
There are some songs where the Elear just feels better due to the slam you can feel in some songs that isn't there with the T5P. The TP5 has better sub-bass than the Elear. Listening to Massive Attack - Teardrop, you can feel the bass more with the T5P, which I like.
 
I bought the T5P because I wanted a closed headphone that had a warm sound signature. Honestly, I would say that my Fostex TH900s have better soundstage than either of these, and of course better bass. But the mids in both of these are better, which is always the trade-off.
 
I'm glad I bought them, and they will get used a lot at work, or when I need to block out outside sound at home.

 

[hanselmann]

Hi everybody, it's Klaus again from beyerdynamic.
Every now and then the issue pops up, that the T 5 p (2nd Generation) was lacking isolation. Or that isolation was worse than predecessor. Or that the DT 1770 Pro had better isolation.
 
Actually, this leaves me a bit perplexed, so let me give you my point of view:

• The T 5 p (all Generations) is a fully closed-back headphone. No isolation difference between both generations.
• It has - indeed - bass reflex vents, which are necessary for great bass response. Leaving bass-reflex holes away would result in a sound somehow comparable to a "Tesla driven DT 770 M", which would be quiete thin (and not breathing) in the low end. Something, nobody would accept for a high-end closed-back headphone.
• Such bass-reflex holes can be found on almost all beyerdynamic closed-back headphones, such as DT 770 Pro, T 70, T 70 Pro, DT 1770 Pro. Most of these were never questioned, whether they were closed-back headphones, even if significantly stronger isolation is available as for example on a DT 770 M.
• The fact that for beyerdynamic headphones such vents are easily visible for the eye (and not hidden behind a parts joint e.g.) doesn't make the more "open" than headphones with hidden vents, providing the same acustic function.
• The ear cushions are acoustically closed ones, so no unnecessary leakage here, neither.

 
Hope, that will help.

 

[Traveller]

...The fact that for beyerdynamic headphones such vents are easily visible for the eye (and not hidden behind a parts joint e.g.) doesn't make the more "open" than headphones with hidden vents, providing the same acoustic function.
...The ear cushions are acoustically closed ones, so no unnecessary leakage here, neither.

I don't know who suggested that a visible port will leak more than one hidden from plain sight but most of us know better...

Regarding the T5p.2's pads - they are excellent at their job and very comfortable to boot. A little "tighter" than the T1p.2s pads but not an issue, comfort-wise

 
What I (and a few others) would also love to know is the primary purpose of the "cup-tab"; is Beyerdynamic's goal to minimize cup resonance, or as some suggest as a form of dampening?
 
T4S

 

[hanselmann]

  I don't know who suggested that a visible port will leak more than one hidden from plain sight but most of us know better...

Regarding the T5p.2's pads - they are excellent at their job and very comfortable to boot. A little "tighter" than the T1p.2s pads but not an issue, comfort-wise

 
What I (and a few others) would also love to know is the primary purpose of the "cup-tab"; is Beyerdynamic's goal to minimize cup resonance, or as some suggest as a form of dampening?
 
T4S

The spring steel headband is identical for both products, so if there comes a difference in clamping force, it's indeed due to the ear cushions, which will not collapse as easily as T 1's (2nd Gen). Though, these differences are tiny, since it's a Millimeter game. Both products have almost the identical clamping force.
Being a non-native speaker, I don't really understand, what you mean with "cup-tabs". I assume you mean the holes, which serve as vents and are secured with a plastic grill mesh behind. These vents act as an acoustic impedance, and have an effect on broad-band resonance in the bass range. Please note, that it's only one of many means for tuning a headphone's frequency response. I hope you will understand, that I cannot share all the details of the how-to about headphone tuning. It's part of our expertise as a manufacturer.