Orthodynamic Roundup
May 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM Post #17,296 of 27,137
It's always difficult to explain what it is I'm hearing, but truly open... ie, undamped or extremely light like the LCD or HE is what I'm getting at. The old NAD is terrible in the open and the little padding they had on the driver didn't do much as it was probably an acoustic lens but in it's native state they sound pretty awful to me. I guess I should have prefaced by saying all that stuff was bad 'to me'. I still have the NAD drivers here on the table teasing me. I think there is some awesome in there but like Yammy drivers, I've yet to succeed in getting what I like out of them.
 
I have very specific likes and dislikes with these various drivers so I really shouldn't generalize like I did in my comments. The loading I'm referring to is air coupling. There are certain drivers which need close coupling (high loading) and others that need less. I'm not an audio or physics expert so you'll need to excuse my poor choice of wording to describe what my various tests are telling me. Of course I may be barking up the wrong tree in some cases as all I'm going on is my extensive tests and trials which are hardly scientific but all I have, given my limited knowledge. I make no bones of the fact that I am frequently academically challenged and am a very long way from being an EE.
 
Anyway, people were asking about the fostex T50RP in the open. To me sounds muddy, ill defined, plasticy and boomy. When I say 'plasticy' the way that describes is best is that the sound has a similar sound quality to tapping the bottom of a plastic bucket, if you tap the NAD or fostex drivers you'll hear a similar sound and that comes through when played. :) In the open It lacks the solidity and clarity of sound the LCD2 has in spades. Close the back and add some damping and they can sound quite similar. The Native T50RP is a nice phone that improves drastically with some work. Lets face it, it has to be of a certain standard to allow it to become what I feel is an awesome phone. One of the big problems I have with them is their shallow ear opening which squishes my ears. I don't know about everyone else but if my ears are flattened my hearing response is drastically affected, like it kinks my ear canals or something. It took me quite a while to figure that out until I decided to do tests on my ears as well as phones. Now I always give them enough room to avoid compression. It has the added bonus of angling the drivers as a result. This has less effect than bending my ears flat though, so for me the angling is a secondary advantage, keeping my ear canals normal was my primary goal. It's also more comfy for me.
 
We all like different things and what I consider awesome may well sound bleh to others. Personally I've yet to get the Yamaha drivers, of the numerous ones I've heard, to sound good for my tastes but I'm still working on it. Many others love them to bits so I'm assuming one day I will too. I hope some of this made some sense to somebody.
 
confused.gif
redface.gif
blink.gif

 
 
 
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 2:31 AM Post #17,297 of 27,137
^ I suppose I got the gist of it, though the word 'plasticy' probably has different meanining either of us.Also, the fact, that you & I own different versions of NAD makes it difficult to compare notes.

Here's my take on Mylar NADs, LCD-2 & T50RP :

1.) All three share the common ancestor : the 70's fostex T50; the NAD being its OEM, the T50RP a cost reduced descendent & the LCD-2 a tweaked & improved version.

2.) They all share the serpentine trace design : I am sure in case of NAD & T50Rp since I have seen their driver diaphragm. The LCD-2 diaphragm I haven't seen personally but I am reasonably sure from its grille & magnet openings & its similarity in sound signature to NAD & T50RP.

3.) I believe that serpentine drivers were meant for an open shell & don't react well to chamber reflections. hence, the problems some us have with their mid range.

4.)So why do LCD-2 possess a much larger soundstage than the NAD if they are indeed so similar ?

I believe the SS of NAD collapses due to two factors : first, the on-ear earpads & secondly the yellow fibrewool biscuits used for damping.
In my experiments, I replaced the stock pads with w11 pads & removed the damping biscuits. The result was NADs having a soundstage which appeared even more expansive than LCD-2 (confirmed by the open palm test).

5.) BUT without the damping biscuits the gain of SS comes at significant sonic cost.The NADs sound muddy, no bass impact, bloated mid bass & general lack of definition typical of under-damped orthos.

6) So, the quetion now is how do the the LCD-2 combine the open feel of an undamped ortho with the slam & definition of a damped one ?
Any suggestions, anyone?
 
edited the image out since I mistook its context.
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 3:38 AM Post #17,298 of 27,137


Quote:
got this picture of other site, I believe it was uploaded by don.
The left one is LCD driver- magnet assembly, on the right is Sansui SS-100 driver diaphragm.
The LCD-2 do seem to be having some kind of damping layer & the whole assembly is sealed pretty well.
 
 

 
Problem with the picture: The LCD-2 driver is square and does not look at all like the Sansui driver....
 
What you have there on the picture is the Sansui driver, the magnet on one side, and the membrane on the other side.
 
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM Post #17,299 of 27,137
Talking about the Sansui... could somebody who dared to pry it open, tell me how you do this and share some dumping experiences with the SS100?
These cans sound pretty nice, and personally I can live with the rolled off LF, but the mids are too forward and rather "unrefinend". My damped hp1 doesn't have Sansui's SS but in terms of tonality is way much nicer.
 
Also did somebody with a normal head succeded in having good sealing with the SS100? Nobody tried different  pads?
 
 
Thanks.
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 9:27 AM Post #17,300 of 27,137
Quote:
 
Problem with the picture: The LCD-2 driver is square and does not look at all like the Sansui driver....
 
What you have there on the picture is the Sansui driver, the magnet on one side, and the membrane on the other side.
 
 

Thanks for correcting. Am I also wrong about LCD-2 being a serpentine driver ?
 
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 9:38 AM Post #17,301 of 27,137
Sorry for the double post.
 
 
Talking about the Sansui... could somebody who dared to pry it open, tell me how you do this and share some dumping experiences with the SS100?
These cans sound pretty nice, and personally I can live with the rolled off LF, but the mids are too forward and rather "unrefinend". My damped hp1 doesn't have Sansui's SS but in terms of tonality is way much nicer.
 
Also did somebody with a normal head succeded in having good sealing with the SS100? Nobody tried different  pads?
 
 
Thanks.
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 12:47 PM Post #17,302 of 27,137


Quote:
Thanks for correcting. Am I also wrong about LCD-2 being a serpentine driver ?
 
 


All square drivers and some round drivers that we know of have serpentine traces. I am not sure about the LCD-2 but I would guess so.
The round middle-clamped drivers have a different layout, but they basically have the same idea of alternating N and S pole magnets between traces.
 
 
May 27, 2011 at 1:02 PM Post #17,303 of 27,137
 


Quote:
It's always difficult to explain what it is I'm hearing.....
 



I ,,,,,, musssst ..... resssissst .... at .. all ... costs.... 
wink.gif

 

Quote:
Here's my take on Mylar NADs, LCD-2 & T50RP :

1.) All three share the common ancestor : the 70's fostex T50; the NAD being its OEM, the T50RP a cost reduced descendent & the LCD-2 a tweaked & improved version.



not really, true for the most part regarding the T50 and the oems ( if that was what they were )
 
One day Audeze' may publish the details of their driver but suffice to say that the LCD2 is significantly different from the T50. It has many tricks up its sleeve and in some ways is an amalgamation of the yamaha and fostex drivers. ( I think shape is not relevant ) 
 
The driver is what sets the LCD2 apart from the rest of the crowd, including the multitude of offerings from HiFi Man. One of the great things about Fang's endeavors is that he has proven that you do not need the fine trace density to achieve good results. The traces on the HE series are approx 10mm ( which probably speaks to their lower efficiency ) but the planar sound appears mostly unaffected. I was thinking this to some extent with some of the initial driver repair I did - I noticed that fusing several traces in order to restore continuity had very little impact on both measured impedance and perception of sound quality.  Which again begs the question for DIY planar drivers - if I could etch some thin mylar without too much trouble, I would be all for it. ( well give me till the end of August when my time becomes my own again ) 
 
Getting side tracked.... the LCD2 is both tightly suspended with an additional 2mm ( approx ) give, the traces are dense and the magnets are powerful. So you have a system which is sensitive, well damped by air as the diaphragm is light and has internal "support" yet has the ability to move a decent amount of air = what you get is a happy smegster. 
 
..dB
 
May 27, 2011 at 3:07 PM Post #17,305 of 27,137

 
Quote:
Sorry for the double post.
 
 
Talking about the Sansui... could somebody who dared to pry it open, tell me how you do this and share some dumping experiences with the SS100?
These cans sound pretty nice, and personally I can live with the rolled off LF, but the mids are too forward and rather "unrefinend". My damped hp1 doesn't have Sansui's SS but in terms of tonality is way much nicer.
 
Also did somebody with a normal head succeded in having good sealing with the SS100? Nobody tried different  pads?

 
SS-100 are very nice headphones but it's hard to open... and imho not too much place inside to play. Inside you'll find just double yellow biscuits only.
Outer grlls twists but I can't remeber now if its clockwise or opposite. I wouldn't change anything inside it's ok, you can shape the sound with pads much better.
I tried SS-100 with O2 pads and those are the pads they need. Unfortunately pads were not firmly attached (compression was as good as it could) but used over original ones. That is I guess exactly what you look for.
Wide soundstage, trebles are getting slightly more gentle, it adds precision and moves SS-100 sonically towards stats presentation. And bass gets better, stronger.
The only problem that the construction (not too much pivot on headband, etc) makes it not so convenient to use with 1'' thicker pads or you need to bend them slightly to fit perfectly.
 
May 27, 2011 at 4:58 PM Post #17,308 of 27,137
I contacted what remains of Wharfedale a while ago to see if they still had any papers, drawings, plans, manufacturing notes etc. and was told the whole shebang is gone forever. It all went up in a big fire a long time ago and everything they had relating to the ID1  was lost, along with a bunch of other old wharfedale classic designs. The only things left are the phones themselves, but compositions, material specs and so forth are now guesswork or Lab work to determine what exactly they did and used. It looks pretty simple but I imagine, in reality, not as simple as it looks. I'm loathed to disassemble mine due to the fragility of some of the materials. The rubberized magnets crumble, the cheap alloy frame warps and bends easily and I'd hate to pop a contact off the driver sheet.
 
I'm sure they could be reproduced at reasonable cost with more efficient materials these days, getting someone with the cash to have the magnets and cages made is the biggest stumbling block as I have no idea what type of tooling costs are involved. I do think a modern ID1 for the masses would be an awesome endevour though. They work very well in the open, they work ported and work circumaural. Most importantly, they can be affordable to a much wider audience than current orthos, lass the Fostex ones.
 
Maybe we can talk Kevin Gilmore into working some magic in his lab.
 
May 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM Post #17,309 of 27,137
In another thread someone posted a kind of interesting plot of what frequencies different instruments create.  They also place different descriptive terms to specific frequency ranges.  Like "whack" is supposedly between 1 and 2k.  And "honk" is supposedly between 400hz and 1k.  I'm not sure how much truth there is to that, but it's funny to look at. 
 
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top