[Mr Trev]

Hi,

The only thing holding in that outer shell are three screws from the inside. It wouldn't be necessary to destroy it. If you can manage it, you can make a new wooden back shell in the shape of the old one, while also creating three threading points for the screws to screw into. You can then apply some sort of glue/sealant along on the underside of the circumference on the wooden shell, the rest it on/into the housing and screw it down with the three screws. I can't really show you any pictures of what I am saying, and the HP100/150 is not even my product, but I hope that helps you with your endeavors somehow. Or, I guess you could wait for the HP300 to come out (as I've heard it is), since that is supposed to have a wooden back I hear.

Also another note, while the drivers are 53mm, the actual plastic frame of the drivers are ~100mm.

Sincerely,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

That 100mm frame does make it a bit of work getting the hm5 earpads fitted. The standard aren't too bad - just takes some patience. The angled pads however don't get fully round when installed which could be an issue do to the way the vinyl backing gets stretched (possibly easy to rip)

 

[7keys]

I'm thinking of making a wooden fence around the driver, something like you find in the dt770 only tone-wood.

Is the fence you're referring to that black part surrounding the driver? What effect does that have on the sound?

I'm not sure but I imagine it has something to do with the soundstage...........but really I don't have a clue.

 

[goober-george]

7keys, are you going to create a grado like cup with that fence or a new cup design similar to dt770s?

 

[7keys]

7keys, are you going to create a grado like cup with that fence or a new cup design similar to dt770s?

I want to use the hd150's cup, open it up and put a wood cup around the driver, making it an open cup within a closed cup...........for some reason I have an erge to try it.....just some experimentation

 

[Packdemon]

I'm thinking of making a wooden fence around the driver, something like you find in the dt770 only tone-wood.

7keys

I see. Then you'd probably wrap cotton around that wooden fence, right? That would certainly work to dampen the drivers. Pretty much any dampening materials (dynamat/butyl, polyfill, cotton, foam, etc.) for headphones will work to dampen headphones though. So, you just got to figure out how much treble/reflections you want to remove exactly, and then get the best suitable materials to achieve that amount. From the looks of it your project is going to take a lot of work, so I wish you good luck. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it turns out!

Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

 

[DecentLevi]

Well the outstanding mods that Packdemon does for the HP 100 / 150's include a lot of the shiny reflective stuff rather than any sort of cotton dampener, and I truly think this is where modding for these SoundMagics excel the best - as the kind of dampening that absorbs a bit of the treble and allows for a big soundstage, as well as tightening up the bass thru several processes. I would imagine that a mod such as the above photo in the SoundMagics would tighten up the bass a lot, but likely kill the soundstage completely (unless the cotton ring is otherwise a transparent foam material instead, or is half it's current height).

 

[7keys]

I'm thinking of making a wooden fence around the driver, something like you find in the dt770 only tone-wood.

7keys

I see. Then you'd probably wrap cotton around that wooden fence, right? That would certainly work to dampen the drivers. Pretty much any dampening materials (dynamat/butyl, polyfill, cotton, foam, etc.) for headphones will work to dampen headphones though. So, you just got to figure out how much treble/reflections you want to remove exactly, and then get the best suitable materials to achieve that amount. From the looks of it your project is going to take a lot of work, so I wish you good luck. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it turns out!

Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

I've done a lot of modding on the t50rp and grado style cups so playing around with these should be fun not work. When I had my T50RP's I tried a new mod every coulpe of weeks for about a year. I'm also constantly trying new cup dimensions for my senngrado's and Magnums. I haven't seen this fence thingy in any of the cans I've played around with so I thought I'd start playing around with that to get an idea of it's purpose.

 

[Packdemon]

 
Well the outstanding mods that Packdemon does for the HP 100 / 150's include a lot of the shiny reflective stuff rather than any sort of cotton dampener, and I truly think this is where modding for these SoundMagics excel the best - as the kind of dampening that absorbs a bit of the treble and allows for a big soundstage, as well as tightening up the bass thru several processes. I would imagine that a mod such as the above photo in the SoundMagics would tighten up the bass a lot, but likely kill the soundstage completely (unless the cotton ring is otherwise a transparent foam material instead, or is half it's current height).

@DecentLevi


In the end, both cotton and aluminum foil + butyl putty do the same thing just in different ways. Foil+butyl acts as a (solid; closed cell) barrier which is going to (mostly) provide vibrational control dampening, while the cotton is (mostly) doing vibrational absorption by converting vibrational energy into thermal energy by way of friction of air passing through it (similar to a pop filter; breathable, open cell). In both cases, vibrations/reflections are reduced. This matters in the case of treble/soundstage because higher frequencies (generally) lose energy faster than lower ones. Sound imaging is mostly perceived from the higher frequencies, the higher you go the more that affects soundstage (while bass virtually can't be perceive for imaging at all). But that's not a problem, consider the fact that the original recording already has all the reflections of the room (or echoes added in post) that the artist wanted it to have. Having more reflections inside of the earcups messes with the imaging of the original recording. That is why open-backed headphones have more detailed soundstage imaging than closed headphones, they have less reflections since the backing is usually just a grill.

Here's great educational YouTube video to explain the difference between vibration control dampening and vibration absorption: 



So, essentially I can't tell you which one will reduce the vibrations/treble more between the cotton and the foil+butyl since I don't have both to test (though I do have a pretty good guess since I've worked with both), but what I can tell you is that they both will reduce vibrations/treble. The only other thing of concern (other than which one is more effective) would be how much space it takes up inside the headphones (or if it constrains air flow which would effect the bass), how much time/effort is involved, and the cost. I trust you will be able to discern those by yourself though.

One last thing, when using sound/vibration dampening barriers/materials (such as foil+butyl) you have the option of placing (adhering flat against it really) the material either on the inside of the earcup, the driver itself, or both. When placing the material of the driver itself, then that will absorb a lot of the vibrations as they are being produced reducing the treble a great deal and the vibrations that would eventually have reflected off of the earcup later. But with placing the material on just the inside of the earcup you reduce the vibrations (mostly treble) that would have reflected off of the earcups, which means reducing the reflections without reducing the treble too much to cause the soundstage to lose detail as well. The same principle applies to placing a sound/vibration absorption material on top of the driver (say a mesh/cloth or foam filter) rather than placing it on the inside (like the cotton fence). Though out of the four, the sound absorption filter causes the most loss of detail since it is filtering all of the sound right before it is going to enter into your ear.

Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

 

[7keys]

 
Well the outstanding mods that Packdemon does for the HP 100 / 150's include a lot of the shiny reflective stuff rather than any sort of cotton dampener, and I truly think this is where modding for these SoundMagics excel the best - as the kind of dampening that absorbs a bit of the treble and allows for a big soundstage, as well as tightening up the bass thru several processes. I would imagine that a mod such as the above photo in the SoundMagics would tighten up the bass a lot, but likely kill the soundstage completely (unless the cotton ring is otherwise a transparent foam material instead, or is half it's current height).

@DecentLevi


In the end, both cotton and aluminum foil + butyl putty do the same thing just in different ways. Cotton acts as a barrier which is going to provide vibrational control (similar to a pop filter) dampening, while the foil+butyl is mostly doing vibrational absorption by converting vibrational energy into thermal energy. In both cases, vibrations/reflections are reduced. This matters in the case of treble/soundstage because higher frequencies lose energy faster than lower ones. Sound imaging is mostly perceived from the higher frequencies, the higher you go the more that affects soundstage (while bass virtually can't be perceive for imaging at all). But that's not a problem, consider the fact that the original recording already has all the reflections of the room (or echoes added in post) that the artist wanted it to have. Having more reflections inside of the earcups messes with the imaging of the original recording. That is why open-backed headphones have more detailed soundstage imaging than closed headphones, they have less reflections since the backing is usually just a grill.

Here's great educational YouTube video to explain the difference between vibration control dampening and vibration absorption: 



So, essentially I can't tell you which one will reduce the vibrations/treble more between the cotton and the foil+butyl since I don't have both to test (though I do have a pretty good guess since I've worked with both), but what I can tell you is that they both will reduce vibrations/treble. The only other think of concern (other than which one is more effective) would be how much space it takes up inside the headphones (or if it constrains air flow which would effect the bass), how much time/effort is involved, and the cost. I trust you will be able to discern those by yourself though.

One last thing, when using vibrational absorption materials (such as foil+butyl) you have the option of placing the material either on the inside of the earcup, the driver itself, or both. When placing the material of the driver itself you will absorbing a let the vibrations as they are being produced reducing the treble a great deal and the vibrations that would eventually have reflected off of the earcup later. But with placing the material on just the inside of the earcup you reduce the vibrations (mostly treble) that would have reflected off of the earcups, which means reducing the reflections without reducing the treble too much to cause the soundstage to lose detail as well. The same principle applies to placing a vibrational control material on top of the driver (say a mesh/cloth or foam filter) rather than placing it on inside. Though out of the 4, the vibrational control filter causes the most loss of detail since it is the sound that is directly going to enter into your ear.

Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

That's some good info.

 

[eaglearrow]

Hello guys, can someone tell me how does the HP150 compare to fidelio x1? i am confused between these two. I am mainly looking for a fun HP with a wide soundstage. Will be listening mostly to POP and vocals. Thanks

 

[DecentLevi]

I've listened to both and through critical listening, I've found the Philips Fidelio X1 X2 to be overtly dull / non-engaging, muddy and lacking in soundstage / detail; whereas the HP 100 (which I prefer to the 150) was much more musical, engaging, detailed and moderately larger soundstage. But with the mod mentioned in my signature, all of the above that's good about the SoundMagics was preserved with much refinement to the bass, spiky treble was smoothed out, mids are lusher and soundstage was even much better.
 
Edit: the above was Fidelio impressions were mainly on the X2 not X1, wheras the former is likely even more inferior

 

[Packdemon]

@DecentLevi


In the end, both cotton and aluminum foil + butyl putty do the same thing just in different ways. Foil+butyl acts as a (solid; closed cell) barrier which is going to provide (mostly) vibrational control dampening, while the cotton is (mostly) doing vibrational absorption by converting vibrational energy into thermal energy by way of friction of air passing through it (similar to a pop filter; breathable, open cell). In both cases, vibrations/reflections are reduced. This matters in the case of treble/soundstage because higher frequencies (generally) lose energy faster than lower ones. Sound imaging is mostly perceived from the higher frequencies, the higher you go the more that affects soundstage (while bass virtually can't be perceive for imaging at all). But that's not a problem, consider the fact that the original recording already has all the reflections of the room (or echoes added in post) that the artist wanted it to have. Having more reflections inside of the earcups messes with the imaging of the original recording. That is why open-backed headphones have more detailed soundstage imaging than closed headphones, they have less reflections since the backing is usually just a grill.

Here's great educational YouTube video to explain the difference between vibration control dampening and vibration absorption: 



So, essentially I can't tell you which one will reduce the vibrations/treble more between the cotton and the foil+butyl since I don't have both to test (though I do have a pretty good guess since I've worked with both), but what I can tell you is that they both will reduce vibrations/treble. The only other thing of concern (other than which one is more effective) would be how much space it takes up inside the headphones (or if it constrains air flow which would effect the bass), how much time/effort is involved, and the cost. I trust you will be able to discern those by yourself though.

One last thing, when using sound/vibration dampening barriers/materials (such as foil+butyl) you have the option of placing (adhering flat against it really) the material either on the inside of the earcup, the driver itself, or both. When placing the material of the driver itself, then that will absorb a lot of the vibrations as they are being produced reducing the treble a great deal and the vibrations that would eventually have reflected off of the earcup later. But with placing the material on just the inside of the earcup you reduce the vibrations (mostly treble) that would have reflected off of the earcups, which means reducing the reflections without reducing the treble too much to cause the soundstage to lose detail as well. The same principle applies to placing a sound/vibration absorption material on top of the driver (say a mesh/cloth or foam filter) rather than placing it on the inside (like the cotton fence). Though out of the four, the sound absorption filter causes the most loss of detail since it is filtering all of the sound right before it is going to enter into your ear.

Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

Hi all,
 
I thought I'd let you guys know that I had the two backwards (with the foil+butyl and cotton), but my point still stands. My apologies, I have since edited my original post to now match the correct information.
 
Best Regards,
Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers

 

[eaglearrow]

  I've listened to both and through critical listening, I've found the Philips Fidelio X1 X2 to be overtly dull / non-engaging, muddy and lacking in soundstage / detail; whereas the HP 100 (which I prefer to the 150) was much more musical, engaging, detailed and moderately larger soundstage. But with the mod mentioned in my signature, all of the above that's good about the SoundMagics was preserved with much refinement to the bass, spiky treble was smoothed out, mids are lusher and soundstage was even much better.
 
Edit: the above was Fidelio impressions were mainly on the X2 not X1, wheras the former is likely even more inferior

Thank you Decentlevi

 

[7keys]

I thought I'd let you guys know that I had the two backwards (with the foil+butyl and cotton), but my point still stands. My apologies, I have since edited my original post to now match the correct information.

Best Regards,

Lyova Margaryan of Tru-Fi Speakers
[/quote]


Thanks.

 

[ocsfox]

Hey folks. Looking to get the hp150's as my first step on the audiophile ladder. Can anyone tell me their opinions on them. I currently own the Bose qc15's, skullcandy aviators and the Soundmagic e10 in ears which i enjoy but I would like to take my listening on headphones to a new level. I was close to buying the Akg k550's but have had my head turned to these. They will be used through my teac reference 380 hifi and also iMac.