[bracko]

Quote:

 
This pair was re-listed by the seller and ended up going for 38 euros. I'd've bid had the seller quoted shipping.
 
This brings up another point I've briefly talked about elsewhere. People who are into out-of-production headphones often seem sensitive about openly discussing those headphones on forums like HF out of fear that it would drive up the prices. On the contrary, I've personally noted regarding several old models that talking about them here does very little to increase prices; for instance, in the case of the Unipolar, prices now seem generally about half of what they were last year. (This works in the favor of DefQon on his eternal quest for a pair.)

How much did you pay for your HD600?

 

[vid]

Just enough to swear off buying dynamic headphones.

 

[DefQon]

Your "most headtime used" K314 is using a dynamic driver. lol

 

[bracko]

Quote:

Just enough to swear off buying dynamic headphones.

 
I think you are exaggerating a little bit. 

 

[vid]

I knew someone would whine about the K 314.
 
Older mid-fi planars cost less and sound better than mid-fi dynamics; it's a no-brainer on a budget.

 

[DefQon]

But old planars suck on its own unmodded, not to mention the time, effort and extra cost involved to mod them to sound anything acceptable against well regarded modern dynamic/planar headphones.

 

[vid]

I'd say the cost to mod old planars to decency is about $5; and the time required - thanks to other people having already done most of the work for you and for free as well - is a couple of evenings. Beyond that, you can spend as much extra time and money as you want, but mostly just time.
 
In any case, since I'm not sure if there can truly be a lazy audiophile, the price/effort of modding thing seems to some degree a timid excuse.

 

[bracko]

Quote:

I'd say the cost to mod old planars to decency is about $5; and the time required - thanks to other people having already done most of the work for you and for free as well - is a couple of evenings. Beyond that, you can spend as much extra time and money as you want, but mostly just time.
 
In any case, since I'm not sure if there can truly be a lazy audiophile, the price/effort of modding thing seems to some degree a timid excuse.

 
In many cases, a couple of evenings would mean a couple of hundreds of dollars for many people. 

 

[DefQon]

Also not to mention that some material's used for dampening and such are not available cheaply in other countries. Dynamat for example can be scored for cheap in the USA, here we have to import in and it costs around $40-50, about the same price as some Yamaha orthos go for, substitute products are similarly priced.
 
Then there is the issue of different sound preferences, I've tried some of the mods posted in the Ortho roundup thread back when I had some of the popular Yamaha orthos for fun, it didn't sound very great to these ears as it took too much away from the original sound signature so I either threw them out or sold them as fast as I could. 

 

[bracko]

Quote:

 
 
Then there is the issue of different sound preferences, I've tried some of the mods posted in the Ortho roundup thread back when I had some of the popular Yamaha orthos for fun, it didn't sound very great to these ears as it took too much away from the original sound signature so I either threw them out or sold them as fast as I could. 

 
And that is the single most important factor of them all. No matter how linear, "fast", etc. a headphone is or how good it behaves on measuring tests it means nothing if we don't like it's sound.   

 

[vid]

I see Mux constructed his own opportunity to badmouth measurements, there.
 
There's no requirement by law to mod headphones to be this or that way. Old Yamas seem relatively easy to mod flat in the lower and midrange, which is inherently going towards an audiophile ideal. As I said, you're then free to spend as much time as you want tweaking them to your preference; I've not found this level of malleability in dynamic headphones. My modded HP-50, for instance, has a very similar tonal balance to the HD 600, the difference being that the HP-50 sound more refined and cost 15 euros + a couple of euros in materials.
 
Mind you, when I say planar, I literally mean all planars, including the Unipolar.

 

[DefQon]

Unipolar's are not planars? 
 
But have you heard all planar's though? I've heard a majority of everything the market has to offer plus some vintage/unobtanium stuff and there is a reason why one should not jump on the gun and disregard what dynamic transducers can do. Not to mention, once you hit the high end planars they lose to the high end dynamics in a lot sound aspects.
 
But I do agree due to the construction nature of planars, they are more responsive to mods than dynamic headphones. But I'd blame 70/80's flawed construction design when manufacturers put most of there efforts in the transducer technology itself. 

 

[bracko]

Quote:

I see Mux constructed his own opportunity to badmouth measurements, there.
 
 

 
Uh...opportunity to badmouth measurements? 

 Don't be ridiculous. How could I ever have anything against measurements, I have degree in Electrical Engineering so I can assure you that measurement is a part of many aspects of my work/life. What audio measurements can tell us is how a piece of equipment performs regarding certain criteria. It cannot ever tell us whether we like what we hear or not. That is what I wanted to say. I am not sure how you interpreted what I said.
 
Personally I am not fond of polarizing discussions, black-white, measuring-listening, science-sense, good-bad etc. because I know the things are not so simple. Our perceptual system for example, comprises of more than mere sensors detecting sounds, light, warmth etc. It is a very complex machinery very hard to recreate and simulate in the lab environment. You would certainly need more than a mic and some PC software. Don't dig yourself too much into measurements. Enjoy some music instead!

 

[vid]

You're taking the view, mux, that it's an undue simplification to substitute the listening experience with measurements. Fair enough. But in doing so, it seems you simplify in the other direction by discrediting the objective basis for the subjective experience.
 
The way I meant 'planar' is any flat driver of the ortho or stat type.

 

[bracko]

Quote:

You're taking the view, mux, that it's an undue simplification to substitute the listening experience with measurements. Fair enough. But in doing so, it seems you simplify in the other direction by discrediting the objective basis for the subjective experience.
 

 
No v, you've got it all wrong.  Which, by the way, proves my point exactly.