[judy1992]

I stand corrected.. But the DT48a was not made for monitoring music, correct?
Quote:

 
Monitoring music or speech was Beyer's main concern for the DT-48, at least until they introduced the DT-480. Gordon Holt of Stereophile was possibly the most important promoter of the DT-48S (he preferred the round cushions), but he switched to using the DT-480 for monitoring, although I noticed many highly visible engineers and broadcasters using the DT-48 with oval cushions as late as the late 1980's. Exactly who would be responsible for keeping the DT-48 alive today I don't know - perhaps this forum is a big part of that - but I do find it most peculiar that Beyer would go to so much trouble to configure and manufacture the single-sided cable version when the dual-side is so much easier to build with the direct connection to the earcups, unless there was significant professional demand for the DT-48. And the single-sided coiled cable is a beautiful piece of equipment.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

I stand corrected.. But the DT48a was not made for monitoring music, correct?

 

 
No, according to the description it's intended for "aural-acoustical investigations and measurements by ear, nose and throat specialists, research laboratories, and educational facilities".
 

 

[dalethorn]

I stand corrected.. But the DT48a was not made for monitoring music, correct?

 
It depends which DT-48 we're talking about. The only difference besides impedance is the cushions. The DT-48 with circumaural oval cushions was NOT designed for hearing etc. measurements, and the one with the round supraaural cushions WAS designed for measurement.

 

[judy1992]

Thank you. You guys have a wealth of valuable information.

 

[lejaz]

You're not saying that the only difference between the 'a' and the 'e' models is the ear cushions are you? I'm surprised it that's true. I thought they were designed/engineered for different purposes.
 
Quote:

 
It depends which DT-48 we're talking about. The only difference besides impedance is the cushions. The DT-48 with circumaural oval cushions was NOT designed for hearing etc. measurements, and the one with the round supraaural cushions WAS designed for measurement.

 

[Acix]

 
Quote:

 
It depends which DT-48 we're talking about. The only difference besides impedance is the cushions. The DT-48 with circumaural oval cushions was NOT designed for hearing etc. measurements, and the one with the round supraaural cushions WAS designed for measurement.

 


Quote:

I stand corrected.. But the DT48a was not made for monitoring music, correct?
Quote:

 
Monitoring music or speech was Beyer's main concern for the DT-48, at least until they introduced the DT-480. Gordon Holt of Stereophile was possibly the most important promoter of the DT-48S (he preferred the round cushions), but he switched to using the DT-480 for monitoring, although I noticed many highly visible engineers and broadcasters using the DT-48 with oval cushions as late as the late 1980's. Exactly who would be responsible for keeping the DT-48 alive today I don't know - perhaps this forum is a big part of that - but I do find it most peculiar that Beyer would go to so much trouble to configure and manufacture the single-sided cable version when the dual-side is so much easier to build with the direct connection to the earcups, unless there was significant professional demand for the DT-48. And the single-sided coiled cable is a beautiful piece of equipment.

 

 


Quote:

Quote:

I stand corrected.. But the DT48a was not made for monitoring music, correct?

 

 
No, according to the description it's intended for "aural-acoustical investigations and measurements by ear, nose and throat specialists, research laboratories, and educational facilities".
 

 
I did my hearing test with the 48a, back in 97. If I remember they had the round foam pads.

 

[dalethorn]

Quote:

You're not saying that the only difference between the 'a' and the 'e' models is the ear cushions are you? I'm surprised it that's true. I thought they were designed/engineered for different purposes.
 
Quote:

 

That is probably the only difference.  The reasons I say that are that looking at my DT-48, it's identical to the audiometric version of 1974 (except the earpads), and identical to the non-audiometric version of 1974 with the oval earpads, physically that is.  The current versions look to be identical except for the earpads, and I see no information anywhere in all the Internet searches I made (several hundred before buying the DT-48E two days ago) that says otherwise.  In fact, in 1974 I bought both the audiometric version and the non- version, and I ordered oval cushions to replace the audiometric round cushions, and ended up with two identical headsets, identical sound.
 
My DT-48E today does sound different from the 1974 version in normal use, but I can make it sound pretty much exactly like the 1974 version, just by doing a big yawn so the earcups lose their tight seal against my head.  That was my first clue.  The cushions on my present DT-48E are sealed to the driver boxes somehow, whereas the 1974 earpads were loose and I could spin them around 360 degrees.  So that accounts for the better bass response today.  The better high-end response I'm not so sure about.  I can guess that maybe improvements in molding the diaphragms have produced something that produces high frequencies better.  Don't know.  I remember in the 1990's when I found a Sennheiser 414 anniversary edition how much better it sounded than the original, and I remember exactly how the original sounded, even now.  So I think it's possible they improved the manufacture of the diaphragms.  That makes sense too, considering that with all the new model headphones Beyer has introduced, they are obviously doing a fair amount of materials research to improve driver response.
 
And then it gets weirder...... Last night I investigated 50 or so websites that had various tones - single tones, sweep tones, all kinds of tones.  I focused on the simple sine-wave tones in discrete frequencies to see how the DT-48E would respond.  First, I could not believe the differences from different websites, playing (supposedly) the same tonal frequency.  There were sites that had 30 hz tones I could not hear or feel.  And there were a couple of sites with 30 hz tones that made the DT-48 sound like a Sennheiser 800 (or better).  Unbelievable.  Now I know from many loudspeaker and headphone reviews that people can be fooled about bass response by harmonics or standing waves or half a dozen other effects.  Not this time.  I heard (and felt) real 30 hz tones on the DT-48, at about the same level as 90 hz tones.  Maybe the sites that had those tones stored the WAV or MP3 files at a higher volume for the ultra-low tones.  Still, it was most impressive experiencing that on the DT-48.

 

[MDR30]

Directions to the correct/reliable frequency sweeps, please.

 

[svyr]

why not just get audacity or any other editing tool with tone generators and make some?

 

[shamu144]

As a wild guess, I would say materials are the same, but the different impedance suggest something was wired differently between the A and E. Also, drivers are hand matched within 1dB tolerance over the whole spectrum in the case of the A version. The tolerance for E drivers is around 10%. And of course different ear pads. But to my ears, they are definitely not that different, the DT48A having basically better imaging and separation ability (if you can believe that) and better treble reponse.
 
Quote:

You're not saying that the only difference between the 'a' and the 'e' models is the ear cushions are you? I'm surprised it that's true. I thought they were designed/engineered for different purposes.
 
Quote:

 
It depends which DT-48 we're talking about. The only difference besides impedance is the cushions. The DT-48 with circumaural oval cushions was NOT designed for hearing etc. measurements, and the one with the round supraaural cushions WAS designed for measurement.

 

 

[lejaz]

Good information thanks. If they're even better than the 'e' I'm definitely interested. Unfortunately they seem to be rare as hen's teeth on ebay.
At the moment I'm trying to find out if there's a better amp for the 25ohm 'e' version than the LD mkV. There are a few amps that were specifically designed for low impedance phones....I'm tempted to try one.
Quote:

As a wild guess, I would say materials are the same, but the different impedance suggest something was wired differently between the A and E. Also, drivers are hand matched within 1dB tolerance over the whole spectrum in the case of the A version. The tolerance for E drivers is around 10%. And of course different ear pads. But to my ears, they are definitely not that different, the DT48A having basically better imaging and separation ability (if you can believe that) and better treble reponse.
 
Quote:

You're not saying that the only difference between the 'a' and the 'e' models is the ear cushions are you? I'm surprised it that's true. I thought they were designed/engineered for different purposes.
 
Quote:

 
It depends which DT-48 we're talking about. The only difference besides impedance is the cushions. The DT-48 with circumaural oval cushions was NOT designed for hearing etc. measurements, and the one with the round supraaural cushions WAS designed for measurement.

 

 

 

[MDR30]

Anyone got the DT48 with these pads?
 

 

[kesslerjesus]

Just a small update. I was able to turn my mono dt48s into stereo with a little bit of tinkering, a knife, some tape and and my teeth --lol. I also had to sacrifice some old dbi pro 700s to utilize their neutrik 1/8" plug, but it was worth it.
 
I love the sound my headphones now, and the separation between different elements in music is even better. Now I can finally mix properly with these headphones by panning left/right

 

[judy1992]

Someone does.
 
http://apuresound.com/images/cables/v3/dt48s/index.html#
Quote:

Anyone got the DT48 with these pads?
 

 

[judy1992]

I love my Orthos too.. I came across a review of the HE6 & DT48 in the long HE6 thread. You might like it..
 


Overview. 2 headphones from 2 different eras, purposes, & technology come together with interesting results.



Brief history. The NAGRA DT48S is the first headphone released to the public in the mid 50's. The NAGRA DT48S is based off the original that was restricted to professional use for 20 yrs. Since 1937. So we have a headphone based on the first moving coil design. Due to their technical prowess, They met NAGRA's strict standards for recording purposes & other professional applications, even though they were released to the public. From what I know they were modified sonically before their release. & some say were 600 ohms. My NAGRA DT48S is from 1955-1957, only 5 ohms, & has been repaired & re cabled by Alex from apuresound.com. To put it bluntly, I decided to compare the NAGRA DT48S to the HE6 cause I feel they are the best headphones I ever owned, & quite possibly , the best I heard. My apologies to the K1000.



My Ortho knowledge is not up to snuff. I believe planar technology was created in the 60's, (electrostats also fall in the planar family) & have some noticeable improvements over dynamic headphones. In general, the sound is more natural, effortless audio reproduction with a smoothness that voice coil technology cannot compete with. Yamaha lead the charge for ortho's in the 70's.. Even making ortho friendly receivers. Yamaha also has one of the most revered & respected Ortho ever created. The Yamaha 1000. Fostex was also a major player in Ortho technology, but mostly for the professional market. Ortho's run lasted until early to mid 90's I believe. Ortho's have a cult following, partly in due to the ease of modding, & there has been a resurgence in Ortho's recently with the Fostex T50, LCD1, LCD2, HE5, HE5 LE, & the formidable HE6, which I'm about to review.



Neutrality/Transparency



I must admit, I expected a highly colored & 'fun' headphone. To my surprise they are more neutral & transparent, then I thought. That is a good thing IMO. They lean on the tonally/timbre rich & warm side, but do so delicately, think subliminally tinkering.. The HE6 'slides' this in without notice at first, it just sounds like it should be there. & nothing in excess like the 650, which seemed overly rich & lush to the point of sounding a bit manufactured. The HE6.



rich/warm un amped instruments sound realistic & natural to me. On the flip side, you realize the HE6 does add a bit of it's own 'magic', cause drums, finger snaps, tambourine among others are too rich sounding IMO.. So it really is a mixed bag.. I was on cloud 9 then was hit with a nose dive..Cello to drums. So the HE6 isn't hard-line neutral. Drums can sound a bit artificial, but the HE6 is transparent enough to allow the listener to differentiate the type of drums/drum machine being used. Acoustics get a 'pass' with the HE6. There's a nice sense of warmth & sheen, but isn't able to re create a authentic type experience with 100% consistency & lacks the ability to dissect every layer & every fiber of the individual string. The HE6 blend string instruments to a certain extent, but with a inviting & enticing sense of warmth that pulls you into the music emotionally, while the NAGRA's just expose what is there without being discrete or trying to connect you to the music. Better used as a analyzing tool, then a headphone that touches all the right neurons for the intended response.



Tonally rich instruments sound more realistic on the HE6 then on my NAGRA DT48S. They have more 'bite', & more 'flesh.' the NAGRA's feel naked in comparison.. But the NAGRA DT48S is more consistent overall & authentic in general when comparing a host of un amped/acoustics instruments.. The HE6 is more hit or miss. & the NAGRA's removes layer upon layer of acoustics along with a life like authenticity that is unreal at times.. But with certain instruments, the HE6 really get's it right, where the NAGRA's tend to struggle a bit. Too sum it up. I was impressed with the Neutrality & transparency.. People looking for a strictly fun headphone should look elsewhere..




Midrange



IMO the midrange is what really makes or breaks a headphone. I will use an analogy by Kevin to describe the DT48's mid range. It's like a mike feed that's connected to your brain. This is very true. The DT48 mid range is the best sonic trait it has. The DT48 NAGRA is very mid centric without sounding forward. The mids are full, intimate, extremely detailed, resolving, with a true to like authentic presentation, with great clarity to match.. So how does the HE6 stack up? The mid range does sound more natural & effortless in it's presentation. Free flowing comes to mind. Very smooth, but feels a bit distance & recessed compared to the NAGRA. The vocals on the HE6 carries more weight & warmth to the vocalist voice making them sound more alive & seductive, but there is a slight gloss over the mid range that lacks the resolving power & detail extraction the NAGRA gives you in spades.. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.. The HE6 mid range is certainly detailed enough to pick up minor gaffs, & can allow for a more pleasing listening experience, masking minor ambient quirks.. The HE6 mid range wants to keep the listener engaged. The NAGRA wants to discet everything in the vocalist voice.



Bass



This is where the HE6 start to move ahead of the NAGRA. The DT48 in general is a labor of love in getting proper bass. It's very tricky but can be done, especially the vintage 5-25ohm versions. The NAGRA's are overly dependent on the source for their bass. The bass is truly neutral without any emphasis in the bass. This makes them sound 'bass lite.' I believe Beyer's did this to monitor the bass accurately for recording & other pro applications. They just wanted to hear the bass how it is. Some call this flat. There are people who feel the NAGRA & DT48 in general get the bass right, others feel you needed added emphasis to get realistic bass with acoustic instruments.



The NAGRA's bass varies greatly depending on the recording. The bass is full, tight, & snappy. Some might interpret them as bass lean due to the lack of extra weight & quantity. The NAGRA's re produce un amped bass much better then amped bass or poorly done bass. The NAGRA's lack bass definition, meat on the low end, & extends much less then the HE6. The HE6 bass is rich, better mid bass, meatier bottom end with much better extension. The DT48 roll off starts between 50-60hz from most reports. But some members have listed they go deeper, with less roll off. The HE6 just offers a fuller, richer bass with more impact & quantity without sticking out. I agree with Frank & others who say the HE6 have a balanced sound. They really do.. & the bass is no different. Bass heads look elsewhere. The HE6 bass leans more towards the accurate & realistic side of the spectrum.



Highs



This is another area that I feel the HE6 betters the NAGRAs. The NAGRA's highs are of good quality. Clean & detailed. But doesn't extend farly as much as the HE6. The highs extend very well, & smoother, better well rounded with some 'sparkle'. While the NAGRA's illustrate some roll off in the upper frequencies in comparison.



Distortion/Blackness/Noise floor



The HE6 demonstrate a type of blacker then black ground that I have yet to discover in any headphone. & sounds natural to boot. The NAGRA's are 'grayish' in comparison. The HE6 seems to have a lower distortion level, which allows for so,me great lower level resolving power that picks up more data with little effort, while the NAGRA strains a bit. The Blackness is like a void, where instruments & voices simply appear & disappear with a very authentic & life like decay.. Think playing Marco polo. You literally don't know where the instrument is coming from. Any direction & height. It's like being sucker punched but in a good way.. Truly stunning.. This was with my Panamax 5300 PC/SP/Goldpoint V9/Oppo84se combo..



Sound stage & imaging



The HE6 Sound stage is quite ordinary. In some respects that's good. It's not overly big or feels artificial. The Sound stage is bigger & rounder in the 3d sense then the NAGRA which are heavy left to right sounding. They sound exactly like a headphone. Very seldom do you get a out of head experience. The HE6 Sound stage does have better vertical depth then horizontal width & depth. The overall size is above average. They do offer a complete 3d experience. Both the space the instruments occupy & the instruments themselves are 3d & good, but not stellar imaging. The NAGRA's space is flat & 2d.. Think side scrolling gaming. But the instruments & vocals are 3D & gives you a better sense of the instruments & studios surroundings.. From reverb reflections off walls. Studio conditions. The weight & dimensions of the instruments. The NAGRA's sound stage & imaging is better equip to accommodate to the recording. The sound stage will expand, widen, get smaller, change heights of the venue. In this sense the NAGRA's are a chameleon, while the HE6 sound stage pretty much stays the same & is less transparent. You don't get the full picture so to speak with the HE6. The air around the instruments isn't very good on the HE6, & is just a tad better then my NAGRA's. Both headphones do a good job with sound stage coherency , albeit, the NAGR does a better & more believable job of it. The HE6 sound stage does give the listener a full 3d experience, with the NAGRA you kind of have to 'fill in the blanks & can seem a bit awkward at times. Think of a fighting game with 3d stages & 2d characters. The NAGRA's also offer better instrument separation, but this could easily change if the HE6 had more adequate amping.



Clarity. Detail. Speed.



I did expect more clarity & speed. I expected stat like speed & clarity. The Speed is Dynamic good. Not overly impressive, but the notes & instruments are clean & clear. Detail is very good, but it didn't expose anymore information then the NAGRA's.. Clarity & fidelity is clearly on the NAGRA's side.



Final thoughts



I won't project a winner. It wouldn't be fair to the HE6. I didn't have the juice to drive them to their potential. It would not surprise me if the HE6 are more detailed, faster, with great separation, & possibly clarity with the right power amp or mono block. So, no winner. I do, however, feel the HE6 is a very good headphone even under powered, their greatest strengths were able to shine. IMO, for 800.00 they would be a great bargain. I would even sell them for 800 for a month before starting to sell them for around 1,000. If Mr Fang does sell the HE6 between 1,200-1,600, I see this as a mistake, especially if the retail version is hard as nails to drive as this prototype. Better the sound, make them easier to drive, sell them for 995, & I think they will sell very well, despite being in direct competition with the LCD2. I would like to thank MR Fang for giving me the chance to listen to his wonderful sounding headphone. I hope he does extremely well with them.
Quote:

Well i compared the fostex t50rp and dt 48 they sound alike in a way both sound like live music is that the t50rp immenses me more