I assume they want every headphone to be great at its price point.

I don't. 

 

I mean, I am sure that they have certain goals, and that its kind of obvious that they have a specific sound signature in mind listening to the HD414, HD580/600, and HD800 but they run the very real risk of creating competition within their own brand if they make too many headphones that sound the same. The flagships don't even sound the same - you can just tell they are all on the same path...

 

Grado and Beyer regularly get ridiculed for having 2 significantly similar sounding cans at different price points. 

 

There is also the target demographic - why make a headphone that sounds like a flagship when all the kids want is more bass with their bass?

 

There is nothing good to say about this beyond demonstrating supreme engineering knoweldge - after which point they know they wont be able to make any money. 

 

PS: we put a subwoofer in your subwoofer so your bass can have more bass. 

I don't think "great at its price point" means sounds the same, or sounds like a flagship. It means they have certain goals and a certain budget, and within those parameters, they make the best thing they can that will appeal to the targeted market. That is to say, they are not purposefully hamstringing designs.

I don't think "great at its price point" means sounds the same, or sounds like a flagship. It means they have certain goals and a certain budget, and within those parameters, they make the best thing they can that will appeal to the targeted market. That is to say, they are not purposefully hamstringing designs.

 

I was responding to Tyll. 

Didnt see you posted until after mine was up. 

There's also the Beats problem.

 

If a manufacturer like beats gets a significant hold of market share, it's only natural to put out some models at different price points with a similar sound to try to grab some of that market.

 

The beats is an extreme example, but any large manufacturer really should have a finger on what the opposition is about.

 And I just got some crazy custom made (amorphous) iron from Lundahl which is part of the next project.

 

 

$$$ stuff.

I've always wondered how the difference would sound.

Let us know what you think.

 

 

I think I wish I had never tried it as there is no going back now. Amazing stuff. Piercingly clear and liquid.

does amorphous iron sound better than other iron like up-occ silver cable sounds better than uhplc copper cable?

anyway, might be time to revisit the hd800 for the upteenth time.

Not sure the spirit of that question. Different core material has different permeability and easily measurable and audible differences.

sceptical i must admit but i want to believe. what are you measuring to verify the difference in sound that you're hearing?

Edited December 11, 201411 yr by tin ear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal_transformer

sceptical i must admit but i want to believe. what are you measuring to verify the difference in sound that you're hearing?

 

I think he's using these transformers as gain elements so they're right in the heart of the signal path

http://www.hitachi-america.us/ice/transformer/

Edited December 11, 201411 yr by wink

http://www.lundahl.se/

 

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/transformers/transformers.html

 

http://www.sowter.co.uk/pdf/GAVS.pdf

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/KandK/messages/3413.html

sceptical i must admit but i want to believe. what are you measuring to verify the difference in sound that you're hearing?

Endorphin and oxytocin

Edited December 11, 201411 yr by luvdunhill

sceptical i must admit but i want to believe. what are you measuring to verify the difference in sound that you're hearing?

 

I know the audio world is full of nonsense, but this is not one of those places.

 

Above is a basic comparison of various cores.

 

 

This is a comparison of the same Cinemag transformers, one with hi nickel core, the other with pinstriped nickel and M6 steel.

 

What you should notice is that for both, at low signal levels, the nickel has considerably lower distortion. However, as the signal level increases and the core reaches saturation, the steel becomes better. This is why nickel generally makes less sense in a single ended transformer where the DC leads to early saturation -- basically, by the time the core is large enough to accommodate the DC, it is so big that its permeability is reduced to the level of steel. But in an application with little to no DC, the better core can be utilized.

 

Much more is available in Chapter 11 of The Handbook for Sound Engineers, Third Edition by Bill Whitlock. Available from http://www.jensen-transformers.com/application-notes/

I think he's using these transformers as gain elements so they're right in the heart of the signal path

 

In this particular case, I am using amorphous cobalt input transformers, mu metal gain transformers, and amorphous steel outputs.

 

My, what big cores you've got! 

Scene Core

you do know that the wood is conductive...

you need a ground wire for the wood.

 

(no kidding, granite audio puts a ground wire on their faux granite case)

In this particular case, I am using amorphous cobalt input transformers, mu metal gain transformers, and amorphous steel outputs.

 

IMAG0296.jpg

Interesting ideas, a shame I've only some K401s as my dynamic headphones.

I know the audio world is full of nonsense, but this is not one of those places.

core_comparison2.png

 

Above is a basic comparison of various cores.

 

core_comparison.png

 

This is a comparison of the same Cinemag transformers, one with hi nickel core, the other with pinstriped nickel and M6 steel.

 

What you should notice is that for both, at low signal levels, the nickel has considerably lower distortion. However, as the signal level increases and the core reaches saturation, the steel becomes better. This is why nickel generally makes less sense in a single ended transformer where the DC leads to early saturation -- basically, by the time the core is large enough to accommodate the DC, it is so big that its permeability is reduced to the level of steel. But in an application with little to no DC, the better core can be utilized.

 

Much more is available in Chapter 11 of The Handbook for Sound Engineers, Third Edition by Bill Whitlock. Available from http://www.jensen-transformers.com/application-notes/

interesting. thanks for that.

I know the audio world is full of nonsense, but this is not one of those places.

 

I just wanted to clarify. While there is much science behind transformer design, there is of course plenty of nonsense too. The best manufacturers do a pretty good job of steering clear of too much nonsense.

unlike cable "design" which seems to be based entirely on nonsense

Edited December 15, 201411 yr by tin ear

Transformers are dealing with I believe hundreds (maybe thousands?) of feet of wire were you to actually unwind the thing, and have actual magnetic fields and stuff, you know, physics and science and such.

People have wound transformers with "exotic" wire before. 

 

I remain skeptical to any claims that the differences from winding material cause a larger difference than the differences from using the same materials (cores, bobbins, wire) in a slightly different way. 

 

In other words:

Mucho cost for (basically) no change 

VS

(maybe not even a) small difference in labor cost for likely change.