[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Been looking for older DT48's but never see any for sale on eBay etc... which is why i just ordered them new. B&H actually has a pretty good price on them. Was only $20.00 higher shipped 2 day more then what I was offered for a used "newer" model. I am looking forward to comparing them to the SA5K. I really like the neutral / highly detailed side of these cans. It is very refreshing to not have the color or veil of the other cans I own. Though I still would never part with any of my other cans.... each one has something I like (with the exception of the one set of Grado's I own) I am just amazed at the SA5K and tube amps. i am hoping the DT48 /200's will give me the same feeling.

I'm still waiting to hear the 200 ohm version.

 

[Alex_Nsk]

I hope it would be usefull for DT48 lovers. Unfortunatelly in Russian, please be patient and use google translator technique. If you have any question - just ask me

Форум
If any interested i 'll try to translate it by myself...

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Been looking for older DT48's but never see any for sale on eBay etc... which is why i just ordered them new. B&H actually has a pretty good price on them. Was only $20.00 higher shipped 2 day more then what I was offered for a used "newer" model. I am looking forward to comparing them to the SA5K. I really like the neutral / highly detailed side of these cans. It is very refreshing to not have the color or veil of the other cans I own. Though I still would never part with any of my other cans.... each one has something I like (with the exception of the one set of Grado's I own) I am just amazed at the SA5K and tube amps. i am hoping the DT48 /200's will give me the same feeling.

Erik has the vintage 200 ohm DT48. He swears by the DT48 & tube amplification. He says it gives the midrange some much needed warmth. You will probably hear your amp for the first time with these headphones.. The treble drop off compared to the SA5000 is quite drastic.. The newer models less so. I love treble myself, & lots of it, so I add treble to my DT48's when using my receiver.. The DT48 sound similar & different compared to the SA5000.. Biggest improvement was the mid range resolve & detail, & the instruments are full bodied. The SA5000 is pretty lean, even with a tube amp, from my experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drosera /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting, Antistase, I was also looking at some Nagra manuals and found the same thing. Output impedance 50 ohm, not to be used with a headphone with impedance under 600 ohm. (From the Nagra 4.2 taperecorder manual.) I doubt it'll likely to find a manual for Nagra equipment from the 1950s though. Hm, do we have to write to Nagra customer service as well?

There are 600 ohm DT48 models.. Or, at least there were..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_Nsk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope it would be usefull for DT48 lovers. Unfortunatelly in Russian, please be patient and use google translator technique. If you have any question - just ask me Форум If any interested i 'll try to translate it by myself...

Please do..

 

[k3oxkjo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are these vintage DT48e? If so, you also feel they better the newer models? Great write up.. Oh, yeah.. Beyer replied to my email.. Check your spam content.. That's where the email was. it's a headphone with equalisation switched off This fits the NAGRA to a T.. Very 'bland.' To me it's like listening in 'black & white,' Even the DT48e vintage & new model sound a bit colored in comparison.. But is more spacious to me..(NAGRA) Can't explain why. You would need to hear it.. Great theory.. So all the people who claim that the DT48 tonality & accuracy is way off, are wrong? I judge the accuracy, tonality, timbre, based on recordings only.. Mentioning sounding live is like opening pandora's box around here.. Fascinating piece Drosera.. Archive worthy IMO.. Both you and Kevin have opened my eyes, which leads me to more questions..

At the risk of boredom, here's some info on headphone response:

I encourage people to read the article yourself, but to capsulize, Keith Howard (a British technical writer) did some reserch, measuring and listening. His reserch indicated that a headphone should not measure flat:

"If we are using headphones in place of speakers, then it might seem logical that the headphone's frequency response should imitate that of a sound source at head level, 30° off the median plane— ie, where the loudspeaker would be in a conventional stereo setup. In headphone parlance, this is termed the free-field or FF response assumption."

And showed what this response is generally considered to be.

But then comes a possible curve ball:

"Self-evident as the correctness of the FF-response assumption may seem, it came under concerted attack in the 1980s, principally through the work of Günther Theile at the Institut für Rundfunktechnik (IRT) in Germany (footnote 4). Using a Gestalt model of auditory perception, Theile argued that a free-field headphone frequency response would be appropriate only if the stereo image were perceived to be forward of the listener, as it is when reproduced over loudspeakers. As everyone who has used headphones knows, this is not the case—the image is generally perceived to be either inside or close around the head. Because of this, Theile claimed, a headphone with a free-field frequency response is perceived as spectrally colored."

Oops... this FF curve is different! So what's the bottom line?

"If you suppose that, as a result of Theile's work, there is now a headphone-industry consensus that the DF response assumption is the correct one, prepare yourself for disappointment. Headphones continue to espouse widely differing response philosophies: some close to FF, some close to DF, and others nearer to flat. Which is "right" remains a bone of contention"

Open ended is more like it. But to cut to the chase, Mr. Howard measured 4 phones, corrected them for both FF and DF curves, then auditioned them with an eye (ear?) to trying to confirm one or the other technique. His determination:

"I am beginning to suspect that a response somewhere between DF and flat is actually optimal. But these are early days; as other headphones pass through my lab, it will become clearer whether this is indeed the case."

The DF curve, BTW, has a first dip slightly below 3Khz, a peak at about 6.5Khz with a dip back down at 8Khz and a recovery above 10 khz and the somewhat rounded curve from low bass to 1 Khz.

FWIW...

Kevin

 

[k3oxkjo]

BTW, I am staying overnight in NYC for my job due to the pending snow, but I brought my HD-800, my vintage DT-48 and my portable source and will try and do some comparisons...

Kevin

 

[Drosera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_Nsk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope it would be usefull for DT48 lovers. Unfortunatelly in Russian, please be patient and use google translator technique. If you have any question - just ask me Форум If any interested i 'll try to translate it by myself...

Fascinating stuff Alex! I wonder if I'll ever have the nerve to take apart my 200 ohm DT48 like that. Then again, if it really adds to the spaciousness and HF frequency response it might very well be something I'm going to attempt.

Something I couldn't quite make out: did you do anything to the damping of the driver? I know you say (and have said previously in this thread) that you think it's been done rather cheaply with cardboard. Can this be improved?

Funny by the way that you noticed such a huge improvement with a new cable in your 200 ohm DT48 too, I had exactly the same experience. Perhaps mine had the same problem with high resistance.



@k3oxkjo

Great contribution! I think I read a couple of times in audiological research papers that a DT48 was used with an FF equaliser. I wonder if it's possible to generate some kind of template for both FF and DF equalisation that people can then use with their DT48 and hardware or software equalisers.

You certainly aren't boring me, so keep it coming!

 

[Alex_Nsk]

The Fr smoothness really can be estimated via simple sweep-tone test. From there it is clear that DT-48 do the flat listening response when used supraaural way (as seen in DT-48A ones). The modern ones use circum-aural design as more comfortable, but it must to be corrected by EQ for flat subjective listening approach.
Is it too difficult to understandin?
i can't hear exact qestion about my modifications. All is clear?
And BTW everybody is welcome to write down the questions in my personal site at appropriate threads...

 

[rhythmdevils]

I take it the DT48 would be great headphones for monitoring audio in video production applications? Sounds like that's what they were made for.

 

[Alex_Nsk]

it sounds like definition without any harsh plus absense of clouds. Neitral, possibly uninvolving for ordinary not skilled listener... is it what you mean?

 

[EYEdROP]

Im still looking around for an amp for the DT48E. Ive been reading alot about tube amps and really like the idea of tube rolling and the even order distortion tubes have. But at the same time, I read that some tubes have a problem with low impedance headphones. They also break easy.

Has anyone tried the DT48E 25 Ohm with the Compass DAC/AMP? I read the unit is versatile and sounds good on many different headphones, which would be a good thing.

 

[EYEdROP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_Nsk /img/forum/go_quote.gif it sounds like definition without any harsh plus absense of clouds. Neitral, possibly uninvolving for ordinary not skilled listener... is it what you mean?

Yes, you have the right idea. No reverberation inside the earcups, no smearing sounds. Harmonics are presented in a balanced manner which makes the tonality great on some recordings. But I personally believe other recordings are recorded under the assumption that you are listening to a diffuse field sound or speakers inside a room, not headphones. It does not sound harsh or have piercing sound but can be claustrophobic with all of the details and precise imaging in a small orb outside your head. The soundstage barely reaches outside the head but the imaging is very presice in location.

KBI said something in this thread that basically states thats the DT48 sounds very "pedestrian" or plain jane. They dont play any tricks such as Ultrasones S-Logic or "bass enhanced" earcup designs. These "tricks" arent bad by any means and are actually necessary for adding excitement in the music, kind of like adding salt and pepper to your food. It can make things more interesting and spice it up a bit.

The DT48 tastes like water instead of Coke. The Coke is more exiting and unique tasting than water, but water is the more correct type of fluid for your body. At the end of the day, Coke always tastes great and satisfies with caffiene, sugar, etc... But it isnt until you start drinking lots of water that you relise how refreshing water is compared to coke, especially when dying of dehydration in the desert. The DT-48 is the same way. You really begin to appreciate the things it does right after listening for a long time.

 

[spartan123]

I have a Compass and will try my 48's on it when they come in. but mine will be 200 Ohm version

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a Compass and will try my 48's on it when they come in. but mine will be 200 Ohm version

I thought you had a SP MP?

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I take it the DT48 would be great headphones for monitoring audio in video production applications? Sounds like that's what they were made for.

Yes.. The list includes voice reproduction. Hearing test. Aural acoustic investigations. Field monitoring. Sound track editing. Lab research. Measurements, DAT engineers. studio monitoring. ENT/ENG work. Medical studies & test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_Nsk /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Fr smoothness really can be estimated via simple sweep-tone test. From there it is clear that DT-48 do the flat listening response when used supraaural way (as seen in DT-48A ones). The modern ones use circum-aural design as more comfortable, but it must to be corrected by EQ for flat subjective listening approach. Is it too difficult to understandin? i can't hear exact qestion about my modifications. All is clear? And BTW everybody is welcome to write down the questions in my personal site at appropriate threads...

Please translate.. If not the whole post, then the most important parts would do..

Quote:

Originally Posted by k3oxkjo /img/forum/go_quote.gif At the risk of boredom, here's some info on headphone response: I encourage people to read the article yourself, but to capsulize, Keith Howard (a British technical writer) did some reserch, measuring and listening. His reserch indicated that a headphone should not measure flat: "If we are using headphones in place of speakers, then it might seem logical that the headphone's frequency response should imitate that of a sound source at head level, 30° off the median plane— ie, where the loudspeaker would be in a conventional stereo setup. In headphone parlance, this is termed the free-field or FF response assumption." And showed what this response is generally considered to be. But then comes a possible curve ball: "Self-evident as the correctness of the FF-response assumption may seem, it came under concerted attack in the 1980s, principally through the work of Günther Theile at the Institut für Rundfunktechnik (IRT) in Germany (footnote 4). Using a Gestalt model of auditory perception, Theile argued that a free-field headphone frequency response would be appropriate only if the stereo image were perceived to be forward of the listener, as it is when reproduced over loudspeakers. As everyone who has used headphones knows, this is not the case—the image is generally perceived to be either inside or close around the head. Because of this, Theile claimed, a headphone with a free-field frequency response is perceived as spectrally colored." Oops... this FF curve is different! So what's the bottom line? "If you suppose that, as a result of Theile's work, there is now a headphone-industry consensus that the DF response assumption is the correct one, prepare yourself for disappointment. Headphones continue to espouse widely differing response philosophies: some close to FF, some close to DF, and others nearer to flat. Which is "right" remains a bone of contention" Open ended is more like it. But to cut to the chase, Mr. Howard measured 4 phones, corrected them for both FF and DF curves, then auditioned them with an eye (ear?) to trying to confirm one or the other technique. His determination: "I am beginning to suspect that a response somewhere between DF and flat is actually optimal. But these are early days; as other headphones pass through my lab, it will become clearer whether this is indeed the case." The DF curve, BTW, has a first dip slightly below 3Khz, a peak at about 6.5Khz with a dip back down at 8Khz and a recovery above 10 khz and the somewhat rounded curve from low bass to 1 Khz. FWIW... Kevin

I heard about this before. It means nothing since the DT48 was never made for the general consumer or listening pleasure.. These headphones were made for certain applications. Of course if Beyer applied this method to their T1 that would have been silly & slammed by the majority of reviewers & listeners.. This rule doesn't apply to the DT48 because they are after a certain market.. Either you like what they have to offer or you don't.. That's why it's a headphone for a niche group of audiophiles who like 'bad' sound... To me they are real & natural. I heard a song with finger snapping.. The imaging was great first of all.. 2nd.. you could feel the friction between the fingers rubbing off each other.. The texture of the skin.. The bone & flesh.. The snap sounded as real as day. If that's 'un natural', 'weird', or bad sounding I'm looking for worse..

Another member claims that the best headphone he heard, bar none, was the R10.. & goes on to say, the DT48 is the closest he has gotten to that sound signature.. You would think these would be at the extreme opposite here.. But to this listeners ears they sounded a like..

 

[Drosera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif I heard a song with finger snapping.. The imaging was great first of all.. 2nd.. you could feel the friction between the fingers rubbing off each other.. The texture of the skin.. The bone & flesh.. The snap sounded as real as day. If that's 'un natural', 'weird', or bad sounding I'm looking for worse..

Fingersnaps are a great gauge for midrange purity. The Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disk uses 'em for this purpose. Last night I was listening to a live opera recording which had a lot of things going on on stage, flowing water, tinkling china, etc. All of those sounded incredibly lifelike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another member claims that the best headphone he heard, bar none, was the R10.. & goes on to say, the DT48 is the closest he has gotten to that sound signature.. You would think these would be at the extreme opposite here.. But to this listeners ears they sounded a like..

Well, again I guess this is a good example of how we hear things differently. I heard the R10 and listening to it is like stepping into a warm bath after a hard day's work (or perhaps after downing some ketamine). Ultimate lushness. Compared to that, the DT48 is like the harsh light of day.
(If I had $6000 that I didn't know what to do with though, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Perhaps the recent success of the HD800 and T1 will spur Sony into developing a R10 mkII? Probably not...)