[maverickronin]

Quote:

The only reason I am saying this is because you have probably read the T50RP OMG What AMAZING thread and yes, they are quite good for the price, but no, they are not better than an HD650 for example. Well, that's my personal opinion, anyway.
 

I like my T50RPs better than my HD650s and I had the HD650s first.  

 
I do agree that it's useful to have another good 'phone to tune against so you'r not wandering in the dark, but if you're strapped for cash just get the ortho and then a vintage integrated amp or receiver if it turns out you need more power.

 

[wualta]

It depends most heavily on how much time and effort (and cash) you're willing to sacrifice to the Headphone Adventure. Many people like the T50RP right off, without mods, so it's possible you could live with it as you collect other bits of headphone gear-- try to get an audition before you buy.
The T50RP is the most efficient of the affordable orthos, so it's a safe bet for ampless portable listening. I used to use mine to listen to my little portable MiniDisc recorder, not much more powerful than Smeggy's Nano. Is this as good as listening on a 30w/ch amp, assuming it's a good one? No. But it's good enough for now. Worry about amps later. There's plenty of talk about using vintage amps for headphone listening. 

 

[nickchen]

Quote:

 
The only reason I am saying this is because you have probably read the T50RP OMG What AMAZING thread and yes, they are quite good for the price, but no, they are not better than an HD650 for example. Well, that's my personal opinion, anyway.
 

IMO their technical merits aren't bad at all, I think the T50RP is quite an impressive PRaT machine which offers a high grade of detailling abilities. However, their tonality isn't for everybody dead sure, that is what differentiates lovers from haters. I don't like them.
 
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

How is the tone different than the T20v2, Nico?  I've only heard the T50rp Smeggy-ized in which case it had very good tone I thought.  But as you can see from Tyll's brilliant measurements, the enclosure and damping have a huge effect on the sound...

 

[rhythmdevils]

I love all my orthos straight from my ipod.  All the more important things are just as good with an ipod.  A better amp and source, IMO, just add bonuses like better detail, soundstage, imaging, dynamics.  The only headphone that I can't listen to with even a portable amp is my K340, and I don't think my SOHA is up for the task either. 

 

[Armaegis]

I've owned two pairs of K340 and sold/traded both because I couldn't coax adequate sound of them. Sure I probably should have held on to one in case I ever moved up to heftier amping, but heck, interesting trade offers roll by and you gotta roll with it.
 
Has anyone ever tried making a dual or hybrid ortho?
 
Also I think I asked this a couple pages back but didn't see an answer... has anyone else tranplanted ortho drivers into an angled earcup?
 
Or more interestingly, how about into an Ultrasone housing? Having received a borked Ultrasone in a trade recently, I can't help but wonder how S-Logic and orthos would mix.

 

[gurubhai]

All this talk about efficiency reminds me that I wanted to pose this question : What determines the efficiency of orthos ?
 
I earlier had my bet on strong magnets but it seems that Hifiman orthos are very inefficient despite using strong magnets.
They also claim to get better efficiency in HE-4 by using just one magnet.

 
OTOH, the fostex T50 (original and the RP) have about the same efficiency even though they are separated by 30 years.
 
So what gives, why are the manufacturers still not able to better a 40 year old design ?

 

[Kabeer]

Quote:

All this talk about efficiency reminds me that I wanted to pose this question : What determines the efficiency of orthos ?
 
I earlier had my bet on strong magnets but it seems that Hifiman orthos are very inefficient despite using strong magnets.
They also claim to get better efficiency in HE-4 by using just one magnet.

 
OTOH, the fostex T50 (original and the RP) have about the same efficiency even though they are separated by 30 years.
 
So what gives, why are the manufacturers still not able to better a 40 year old design ?

Did they really claim more efficieny with one magnet? sounds like nonsense...
I have sometimes wondered what the thought process was behind their desigs..
 
The answer to your question is (i think) a combination of magnet strength and impedance. Lower impedance will mean higher sensitivity, along with more powerful magnets.
Well thats just from my observances anyway

 

[smeggy]

well, that and membrane weight/stiffness/area/trace density/air gap/magnetic flux/size of deflector dish and bussard collectors.... no, wait... 
 
lots of different stuffs go into them that all combine together to make them beaches to drive. I'd still love to have the machinery to try making my own drivers. Semi-decent ones anyway.
 
Anyway, transplanting into an angled cup. Yes, done that a few times. I don't think it makes much difference sonically, not tried in a ultrasone shell, it would probably sound awful but hey, if you already have it...

 

[gurubhai]

Quote:

Did they really claim more efficieny with one magnet? sounds like nonsense...
I have sometimes wondered what the thought process was behind their desigs..

I read posts to that effect earlier in some thread but haven't followed up to be sure.
 
 
 
 
Quote:

well, that and membrane weight/stiffness/area/trace density/air gap/magnetic flux/size of deflector dish and bussard collectors.... no, wait... 

I believe you smeggy, but what's preventing the neo ortho manufacturers from getting it right.
Fostex did it reasonably well in 70s, yamaha were able to get much higher efficiency in their later models in 80s.
 
Can't we expect something better in 2011 ?
 
 
 
 
 

 

[Kabeer]

Quote:

I believe you smeggy, but what's preventing the neo ortho manufacturers from getting it right.
Fostex did it reasonably well in 70s, yamaha were able to get much higher efficiency in their later models in 80s.
 
Can't we expect something better in 2011 ?

The LCD2 is sensitive enough to be driven to volume from pretty much anything.
 
 

 

[gurubhai]

Yeah, the LCD-2 is an exception in being the only headphone more efficient than T50 (only slightly though, not much). The efficiency is still their in the 90s though, to be properly driven from an ipod one would need sensitivity of higher than 100 dB.

 

[nickchen]

Quote:

How is the tone different than the T20v2, Nico?  I've only heard the T50rp Smeggy-ized in which case it had very good tone I thought.  But as you can see from Tyll's brilliant measurements, the enclosure and damping have a huge effect on the sound...

 
Honky and agressive mids...no matter what pads and/or damping stuff you threw onto or ribbed off them. But I guess that is the exact reason why the T50RP is so deeply loved by those who listen a lot to distorted guitars.
 
 
 

 

[nickchen]

To the amping question: I am a hardcore amping sceptic when it goes to my dynamical stuff, an MP3 thingy is sufficient in most cases. However, when my orthos are in question, I must say they sound significantly better amped, and most DAPs are too weak...

 

[gurubhai]

Yeah, its fun to listen orthos directly out of a DAP but its even MOAR fun to listen from a proper amp.