What is the first headphone ever made?
Apr 10, 2007 at 10:06 AM Post #46 of 64
Thank's
cool.gif


Make me love even more Grado cans
rs1smile.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by scompton /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I found this picture by googling 1920's headphones. Look a lot like Grados

a1royal.jpg


Here's the web site http://members.aol.com/headphone1/phones.htm


 
Apr 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM Post #47 of 64
hah! Look at the positive and negative terminals... thank God they invented the modern 1/4" plug/jack.
 
Apr 10, 2007 at 1:20 PM Post #48 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
hah! Look at the positive and negative terminals... thank God they invented the modern 1/4" plug/jack.


If the TRS plug was invented by a deity, it wouldn't be god. Which brainiac decided that interconnecting multichannel components with a common ground was a good idea?
 
Apr 10, 2007 at 1:22 PM Post #49 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If the TRS plug was invented by a deity, it wouldn't be god. Which brainiac decided that interconnecting multichannel components with a common ground was a good idea?


Not to mention placing the connections on a single plug, forcing a short between the right channel and ground every time you plug it in or take it out.
 
Apr 10, 2007 at 9:42 PM Post #52 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl
Not a Beyer one....


Eh? I thought you grabbed an ET 1000 recently. Must've been someone else.

In any case, you already own an electrostatic telephone-- well, the transmitter, anyway.
 
Apr 11, 2007 at 4:11 AM Post #54 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer
That would be me. Great phones if I can solve the bias leaking issue.


"Great" might be too grand a word for them without reference to cost, but in the early-mid '80s when I briefly had mine, they were a good cross between the spaciousness of the ECR-500 and the tightness of the SR-X Mk 3. Best of all, they were affordable, which was amazing. German stuff was getting more outrageously overpriced every day back then.

They were good enough to show that Beyer knew how to do it right first time out of the gate. Why they stopped making them, and figured a dynamic (the DT 880) was just as good, is beyond me.
 
Apr 11, 2007 at 5:54 AM Post #56 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by wualta /img/forum/go_quote.gif
"Great" might be too grand a word for them without reference to cost, but in the early-mid '80s when I briefly had mine, they were a good cross between the spaciousness of the ECR-500 and the tightness of the SR-X Mk 3. Best of all, they were affordable, which was amazing. German stuff was getting more outrageously overpriced every day back then.

They were good enough to show that Beyer knew how to do it right first time out of the gate. Why they stopped making them, and figured a dynamic (the DT 880) was just as good, is beyond me.


Maybe they didn't want to bother having to change their name to Beyerelectrostatic.
 
Apr 11, 2007 at 7:41 AM Post #57 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by wualta /img/forum/go_quote.gif
"Great" might be too grand a word for them without reference to cost, but in the early-mid '80s when I briefly had mine, they were a good cross between the spaciousness of the ECR-500 and the tightness of the SR-X Mk 3. Best of all, they were affordable, which was amazing. German stuff was getting more outrageously overpriced every day back then.

They were good enough to show that Beyer knew how to do it right first time out of the gate. Why they stopped making them, and figured a dynamic (the DT 880) was just as good, is beyond me.


In direct comparison with the SR-X they come out on top even if they leak bias like a sinking ship. They have a very smooth and extended sound and get most things right. They are very well built, comfy for a supra aural and look absolutely stunning after I polished the forks that hold the earpices.
 
Apr 12, 2007 at 7:45 AM Post #59 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by wualta /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They're surely a headphone worth pursuing.

Again, why Beyer didn't pursue them itself and give us an ET 2000 is a very interesting question.


I think they dropped it due to high production costs although there aren't to many parts in them. They are also unique that there is really no backwave damping. That makes them one of the first.
 
Apr 12, 2007 at 8:07 PM Post #60 of 64
Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer
They are also unique that there is really no backwave damping. That makes them one of the first.


I rather think the sintered earcup cover qualifies as an acoustic resistance. Still, it's not enough to completely squelch the outside-the-head imaging ability.

As to the production cost, I think you're spot on. Much more profit to be had in the 880. Even in the '80s electrostatic headphones were a hard sell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top