[regal]

Here is a webpage witha bunch of old antique headphones for sale.  Yea they share a little similiarity in the construction but look at the really high impedances of the drivers.   Now it would be easier to build a tube amp for 2000 ohm Grados but this isn't the case,  so I'm afraid Grado nay-sayers,  the antique references are really only skin-deep.
 
http://oldheadphones.com/crystal/phones/phones.htm 

 

[zmd]

Grados look old-timey. I don't think anyone ment they had old tech in them.

 

[power911]

that's oldskool!

somehow this thread makes me appreciate my alessandro ms-1i even more XD

 

[regal]

I like these,  4000 ohm impedance,   one could make a killer OTL tube amp for these easily with that high impedance.
 
 
 
 

 

[zenpunk]

Are those prototypes or the new models? 

 

[flargosa]

Are those steel drivers?  It either sound surprisingly good, or really bad.
 
Quote:

I like these,  4000 ohm impedance,   one could make a killer OTL tube amp for these easily with that high impedance.
 
 
 
 

 

[stevenswall]

I think acoustics in general is ancient technology... measuring acoustics is not however, because until microphones where invented, and used on things like the KEMAR mannequin, we had no way to objectively measure things like FR and square wave response. In this regard, I would say Etymotic has the most advanced system for measuring and controlling earphone acoustics... I'm just waiting for them to make a full size model.

 

[regal]

Ah I still believe most measurement is in the stone age,  distortion measurements are all based on breaking down a sound wave with a fourier transform .    Yet nop one has proven that thear/brain functions as a  yet into
yet no one has proven how the brain processes a sound wave,  surely our perception isn't based on a simple fourier transform?  Our measurements are based
on an assumption that hasn't been proven yet.  It means that an old 20's technology SET amp with 1% distortion may sound better than a modern amp with .001 THD because
a fourier transform is not revelant to our perception?  The old wise tale that some people like distortion may be a fallacy 'cause we don't know what distortion we measure truly is, in relation to our perception of sound?

 

[stevenswall]

I agree that we may well be in the stone age concerning square wave response and harmonic distortion, but as far as frequency response measurements it seems more cut and dried. Etymotic says their earphones are more accurate than competitors, except for electrostatics which can cost thousands of dollars (and I would throw in $1000 Magnetostatics as well). After going to CanJam 2010, I couldn't agree more, a headphone may have sounded more musical (Radius DDM, HD800, T1, ect.) but to me, only the Audeze LCD-2, and perhaps the HifiMan sounded more accurate, and thus real.... Stops sounding like a headphone, starts sounding like reality with the Audeze.
 
Would be really interesting to hear someone give a review of a 40+ year old headset. Give us an idea of how much we have progressed (if at all.)

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Ah I still believe most measurement is in the stone age,  distortion measurements are all based on breaking down a sound wave with a fourier transform .    Yet nop one has proven that thear/brain functions as a  yet into
yet no one has proven how the brain processes a sound wave,  surely our perception isn't based on a simple fourier transform?  Our measurements are based
on an assumption that hasn't been proven yet.  It means that an old 20's technology SET amp with 1% distortion may sound better than a modern amp with .001 THD because
a fourier transform is not revelant to our perception?  The old wise tale that some people like distortion may be a fallacy 'cause we don't know what distortion we measure truly is, in relation to our perception of sound?

A few things.  The reason simple distortion measurements aren't entirely relevant is because they don't take into account where the distortion is in the spectrum.  Distortion in some areas is more noticeable than in others, and this is not taken into account.  If that .001% distortion is in the wrong place it may well sound worse than the if there was 1% distortion in less critical areas.
 
Also you seem to be coming at this from the angle that sound equipment should be true to life.  That's just flat out impossible with conventional recording and playback systems so I don't even see the point in trying.  Its a far better idea to stay true to the recording since that's actually possible.  Current equipment already does this marvelously.
 
If you want your equipment to sound true to life there are few options.  The first is a complete overhaul recording and playback implementations involving multiple independent channels.  The second would be a fiendishly complex DSP that could extract something similar out of a conventional stereo mix.  The third would be to make everyone give up speakers and use binaural mics for all recordings.

 

[fatcat28037]

Hmmmmmmmm.......radio headsets, I don't think there was much fidelity there.

 

[zero7525]

DT 48s everywhere. 

 

[magzcampos]

mhmmmmmm I love vintage, vintage clothing !!, time to look for vintage headphones!

 

[stevenswall]

 
Quote:

"...make everyone give up speakers and use binaural mics for all recordings."

 

 x2