Topic: Differences in SR-007 pads (Read 588 times)

grev · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:03:13 AM »

I had a bit of Trypophobia with the original image...

Tari · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:05:51 AM »

Had to look that one up.

You shouldn't read arguments on the internet then.

arnaud · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:37:04 AM »

My early mk1 also have this very transparent screen definitely the mk2.5 has denser woven cloth.

As for the use of it, it would do a pretty poor job as dust cover and every driver has a wrinkled impervious membrane on both stators that act as dust covers. Not sure about the 30 hours hand rubbing, but indeed you'll get nasty resonances with the diaphragm unless you wrinkle it / mount with little to no tension.

For the screen, it is probably partially to block debris (skin, hairs) but absolutely it also acts like an acoustic filter just like every over drivers. You should expect a roll off from the mids up due to both the barrier performance (e.g. Direct driver radiation into the earcup) as well as absorption performance (e.g. Reflected waves bouncing of the skin back to the driver).

The thicker and /or denser the screen, the stronger the effect and lower te frequency from which it will have influence. In that sense, the screen should be pretty much acoustically transparent up to lower mids, if only some additional driver damping in the case of light membranes (estat, and I guess orthos to a lesser extent?)

As it stands, I am totally digging my mk1 with the "old" style pads. I have the sr009 when I want more treble

.

grev · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:28:48 AM »

Quote from: Tari on October 23, 2012, 12:05:51 AM

Had to look that one up.

You shouldn't read arguments on the internet then.

Stax is creepy.

omegakitty · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:32:14 AM »

Quote from: Tari on October 23, 2012, 12:01:15 AM

Well, I took off the grill cloth on both pads, ( it was a PITA getting them back on - first time changin the pads out on MK1's, really weird system) - it feels even cleaner and more transparent, but I don't know what to chalk up to bias in this case. My KGSSHV only has one jack so no direct AB is possible. I'd really like to know if this is something that damages the headphones for some reason, as I'm loving the sound right now.

Pictures on the morrow.

Test tracks if anyone cares: Denny Zeitlin - I-thou, Jeanne Lee/Mal Waldron - You Go to My Head, The Meters- Hey Pock a Way

Like ujamer says there is a real dust cover around the stators (things like HE60 do not have one), along with PCB stators it is one of the things that makes the O2 drivers so durable. This speaker cloth is probably for keeping out larger debris.

Tari · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:47:26 AM »

Quote from: arnaud on October 23, 2012, 12:37:04 AM

My early mk1 also have this very transparent screen definitely the mk2.5 has denser woven cloth.

As for the use of it, it would do a pretty poor job as dust cover and every driver has a wrinkled impervious membrane on both stators that act as dust covers. Not sure about the 30 hours hand rubbing, but indeed you'll get nasty resonances with the diaphragm unless you wrinkle it / mount with little to no tension.

For the screen, it is probably partially to block debris (skin, hairs) but absolutely it also acts like an acoustic filter just like every over drivers. You should expect a roll off from the mids up due to both the barrier performance (e.g. Direct driver radiation into the earcup) as well as absorption performance (e.g. Reflected waves bouncing of the skin back to the driver).

The thicker and /or denser the screen, the stronger the effect and lower te frequency from which it will have influence. In that sense, the screen should be pretty much acoustically transparent up to lower mids, if only some additional driver damping in the case of light membranes (estat, and I guess orthos to a lesser extent?)

As it stands, I am totally digging my mk1 with the "old" style pads. I have the sr009 when I want more treble .

That's interesting, so essentially the clearer/more transparent sound I'm hearing (which at the same time I was saying was less dark) was just that - a headphone with less roll off, and thus perceived clarity due to more "sparkling" highs. It would be interesting to measure the difference to see how negligible it is.

I hang around magicians a lot, so I have to worry about quarters falling out of my ears at inopportune times - perhaps its worth keeping the cloth on for that.

raif · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2012, 05:59:40 AM »

Quote from: Tari on October 23, 2012, 02:47:26 AM

It would be interesting to measure the difference to see how negligible it is.

I would love to see something like this. I remember a discussion in the past where people were throwing the dreaded placebo(expectation bias?) term back and forth about cloth over drivers. It would be nice to see that put to rest.

Also, it would save my clumsy self from ruining my SR-007BL trying to figure it out. It has replacement pads with the newer tightly woven cloth over the drivers.

rhythmdevils · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:17:47 AM »

I'm not sure about the theory that material in front of the driver only changes FR and that is what accounts for the sound difference. I think it does change FR, but you also loose subtle details in the filtering process, though this is just my experience from experimenting.

Quote from: raif on October 23, 2012, 05:59:40 AM

I remember a discussion in the past where people were throwing the dreaded placebo(expectation bias?) term back and forth about cloth over drivers.

That is idiotic. Of course it does something. Whether it is substantial enough to make a difference depends on the material and then of course the user. And whether the difference is good or bad depends on the driver and the rest of the phone as well. I prefer the HD650 with foam in.

Marvey · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:24:43 AM »

Coverings do tend to suppress the region around 8kHz-15kHz.

Damping around 'stats tends to magically flatten peaks and irregularities in FR - rather amazing in this regard. (Damping with orthos tends push bass down and treble up, e.g. LCD3 Toiletpants mods.) In this case, I don't think there's enough material for damping the STAX diaphragm. The effect is more likely some suppression of mid/high treble and absorption / masking of plankton / information.

MuppetFace · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Tari on October 23, 2012, 12:01:15 AM

Well, I took off the grill cloth on both pads, ( it was a PITA getting them back on - first time changin the pads out on MK1's, really weird system)

I still have periodic PTSD flashbacks of my first attempt changing the SR-007's pads. LOL. Definitely one of the most time-consuming systems employed on a headphone, but I appreciate the utility once they're fixed on there.

I also infinitely prefer it to adhesive backing (as in the Lambdas or the Sony R10...).

Author Topic: Differences in SR-007 pads (Read 588 times)

grev

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

Tari

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

arnaud

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

grev

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

omegakitty

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

Tari

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

raif

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

rhythmdevils

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

Marvey

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

MuppetFace

Re: Differences in SR-007 pads

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: Differences in SR-007 pads (Read 588 times)

omegakitty