[Ishcabible]

I could plainly hear down to 50. 40 is muted. Anything else was absolutely gone.

Now that I think of it, I remember someone else (I think shamu*numbers*?) Suggested the wetting bit.

And before I forget, this is a reminder to post the awesome Sony headphone history website when I get home that talks about the Z6 and Z7. I may be remembering things incorrectly, but the Z7 might have the palladium coated diaphragm the Z6 may not have.

 

[oldshoe99]

 
Quote:

I could plainly hear down to 50. 40 is muted. Anything else was absolutely gone.

Now that I think of it, I remember someone else (I think shamu*numbers*?) Suggested the wetting bit.

And before I forget, this is a reminder to post the awesome Sony headphone history website when I get home that talks about the Z6 and Z7. I may be remembering things incorrectly, but the Z7 might have the palladium coated diaphragm the Z6 may not have.

30 hz is clearly audible on the new DT-48E.  But for those who are unaware, the older DT-48's with oval cushions are much lighter in the bass.  The DT-48's with round cushions have negative bass - start with no bass and subtract some.
 
The sound of the DT-48E is much like a full-range crossoverless horn speaker.  Not very similar to electrostatic, although with a fairly smooth response, about as good as the Canadian guy describes.

 

[oldshoe99]

between what other people hear, I heard from DT48e and DT48, and Tyll measured them to repro, and what you say we should hear, an old marketing brochure from god knows how long back and measured god knows how (and after who knows how many driver/earpad/etc versions), I'm not inclined to trust the last two in the slightest.

If they don't sound good to you then that's the end of that. Hard to argue bad experience into good, don't you think? The Canadian guy I referred to had a long struggle with his, and while it would be interesting to know exactly why he suffered through all of that and didn't just move on, I doubt that anybody is going to ask him/her why he did stick with the DT-48E. But he/she did, and now we know something, yes?

 

[oldshoe99]

For people who are new to the hobby, I just want to make it clear that the DT48 was not designed for music

That may be true of the 1937 version, or even the 1960 version etc. But not true of the newer versions with oval cushions, which were obviously designed for music listening. Evidence is abundant in the form of the oval (and improved) earpads (original = round pads), the default 1/8 inch terminator with 1/4 inch as an accessory (original = 1/4 inch or unterminated), and the overall sound, which is far more hi-fi than the versions of 30 years ago.

 

[Kernmac]

Quote:

If they don't sound good to you then that's the end of that. Hard to argue bad experience into good, don't you think? The Canadian guy I referred to had a long struggle with his, and while it would be interesting to know exactly why he suffered through all of that and didn't just move on, I doubt that anybody is going to ask him/her why he did stick with the DT-48E. But he/she did, and now we know something, yes?

 
I'm not anti DT48, it is just another sound signature.  Some will like it and many won't, as appears to be the reported history based on Headfi recounts.  All I have stated is that to claim the DT48 is best dynamic headphone ever (implied for music use, not audio-metric testing- it is Headfi afterall) and that vintage headphones have it all over modern ones, are extreme (and woeful generalisations IMO) rather than moderate claims.  Many people here tend to take a view (a persons opinion) and make it into something else, like a fact.  Point in case above.  What do we now know as the result of some unidentified Canadians opinion?  The DT48 E goes from poor sounding headphone to music wonder, after 400 hours?  That's simply one persons opinion, it doesn't make it something we now all know to be true.

 
This was my last post in this thread, trust your ears and your own opinion.
 

 

[oldshoe99]

 
Quote:

 
I'm not anti DT48, it is just another sound signature.  Some will like it and many won't, as appears to be the reported history based on Headfi recounts.  All I have stated is that to claim the DT48 is best dynamic headphone ever (implied for music use, not audio-metric testing- it is Headfi afterall) and that vintage headphones have it all over modern ones, are extreme (and woeful generalisations IMO) rather than moderate claims.  Many people here tend to take a view (a persons opinion) and make it into something else, like a fact.  Point in case above.  What do we now know as the result of some unidentified Canadians opinion?  The DT48 E goes from poor sounding headphone to music wonder, after 400 hours?  That's simply one persons opinion, it doesn't make it something we now all know to be true.
This was my last post in this thread, trust your ears and your own opinion.

 
But why not indulge the guy?  After all, I've seen some pretty outrageous claims by some of the most venerated and respected members here.  I hope I don't have to quote any of that.  My only point is to accept the outrageous (but positive!) claims in the spirit in which they're given, i.e. exaggeration.  OTOH and unfortunately, when outrageous (and negative) claims have been made by esteemed members/contributors, they are let slide more often than not.

 

[oldshoe99]

I had another thought or two.  One is that almost none of what we see on the Internet can be trusted unless we do our own investigations.  Even the big news organizations can slant their stories by selective reporting.  I get a lot of useful info here, but I look for facts, whether proven or not, since at least if something is stated as a fact (i.e. the bass has moderate impact with a good seal) as opposed to an opinion (i.e. the bass is really good), then I can compare that fact to competing facts elsewhere to see whether it holds up.
 
My take on the Canadian guy isn't based on any known reputation etc. - it's based on what he said compared to personal experience.  The comment he made about "electrostatic"-like sound I would take as exaggeration.  I think the DT-48E sound has more in common with a horn driver than an electrostatic, but that's an obvious generalization of course.
 
There was a recent review of the Audience 2+2 loudspeaker in Stereophile and TAS, which claimed unusual sound for the 2+2, as though it had a nearly distortionless sound due to the absence of crossovers etc.  I wonder if the peculiar sound of the DT-48E is somehow related to that, not so much in terms of crossovers per se, but as a matter of simpler design than most of the current high-tech headphones.  I think there's something there, but it's unlikely we will ever know given how marginal the DT-48E is in today's hi-fi business.

 

[Ishcabible]

Quote:

Same driver, different cups.

I see you're correct. http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/SONY/DR-Z6.html&usg=ALkJrhjRW8Ek72RBf6S1bzKj7MPbFdDtnA
 
 

 

[MDR30]

Quote:

I see you're correct. http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/SONY/DR-Z6.html&usg=ALkJrhjRW8Ek72RBf6S1bzKj7MPbFdDtnA
 
 

Seems the moderator removed my original answer to the question about the Sony DR-Z6 drivers/cups for some inexplicable reason, but let me guide readers to Graphicism's thread about this very interesting headphone with photos et al:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/479489/sony-dr-z6-vintage
 

 

[Deep Funk]

Quote:

I had another thought or two.  One is that almost none of what we see on the Internet can be trusted unless we do our own investigations.  Even the big news organizations can slant their stories by selective reporting.  I get a lot of useful info here, but I look for facts, whether proven or not, since at least if something is stated as a fact (i.e. the bass has moderate impact with a good seal) as opposed to an opinion (i.e. the bass is really good), then I can compare that fact to competing facts elsewhere to see whether it holds up.
 
My take on the Canadian guy isn't based on any known reputation etc. - it's based on what he said compared to personal experience.  The comment he made about "electrostatic"-like sound I would take as exaggeration.  I think the DT-48E sound has more in common with a horn driver than an electrostatic, but that's an obvious generalization of course.
 
There was a recent review of the Audience 2+2 loudspeaker in Stereophile and TAS, which claimed unusual sound for the 2+2, as though it had a nearly distortionless sound due to the absence of crossovers etc.  I wonder if the peculiar sound of the DT-48E is somehow related to that, not so much in terms of crossovers per se, but as a matter of simpler design than most of the current high-tech headphones.  I think there's something there, but it's unlikely we will ever know given how marginal the DT-48E is in today's hi-fi business.

Now I have to try the new DT48E just to find out...
 
 

 

[EYEdROP]

The DT 48 is very different and takes time to realize their full potential. Just remember they arent made to sound pleasurable. Instead they are industrial and standardized in the looks and sound, which is their beauty. Took me a good 24 hours of mental burn in to "get it".

 

[Deep Funk]

Quote:

The DT 48 is very different and takes time to realize their full potential. Just remember they arent made to sound pleasurable. Instead they are industrial and standardized in the looks and sound, which is their beauty. Took me a good 24 hours of mental burn in to "get it".

Please check my profile. Given I can enjoy the DT48S-5 on a whim this warning is purely amusing spam posted in vain. Thanks anyway

...
 
(Time to ignore this thread.)
 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

The DT 48 is very different and takes time to realize their full potential. Just remember they arent made to sound pleasurable. Instead they are industrial and standardized in the looks and sound, which is their beauty. Took me a good 24 hours of mental burn in to "get it".

I guess that explains how someone can think they're the best dynamic driver headphone ever, it would take such traits in a HP, differentiating itself from others, to convince someone of such a standpoint.
 
 

 

[oldshoe99]

The DT 48 is very different and takes time to realize their full potential. Just remember they arent made to sound pleasurable. Instead they are industrial and standardized in the looks and sound, which is their beauty. Took me a good 24 hours of mental burn in to "get it".

That would be true perhaps of old DT-48's from ages ago. But the current DT-48E was obviously designed for high fidelity music listening. I bought three brand new sets in 1974 and one brand new in 2011, and the difference is like a pocket radio to a hi-fi system.

Comparing the current DT-48E to the DT-1350:

DT-48E bass is fairly flat from 60 hz down given a good seal, but it's several db lower in amplitude than the flat bass of the DT-1350. The DT-48E bass does not roll off any more than the DT-1350, it's just several db less (hard to explain).

DT-48E extreme highs are rougher than the smooth extreme highs of the DT-1350.

DT-48E mids are very smooth and properly balanced, where the DT-1350's mids are accentuated significantly, imparting a very dry or even hollow sound.

DT-48E recession in upper area below 10 khz is similar to the DT-1350, but sounds much better because the 1350's accentuated mids makes the detail in the area below 10 khz difficult to hear.

 

[oldshoe99]

 

I guess that explains how someone can think they're the best dynamic driver headphone ever, it would take such traits in a HP, differentiating itself from others, to convince someone of such a standpoint.
 
 

If you have heard a lot of dynamic headphones, you may not have heard anything quite like a DT-48E. I would suggest, at least for someone's serious study if they have the time and inclination, that the DT-48E is a separate category from other dynamics, as are orthos, electrostatics, and so on. I don't know if it's because the driver design is so old, or because it's unique somehow. But it's quite different in its fundamental character, and that's one thing that hasn't changed since 1974. It reminds me of a metallic sound, like a classic horn driver in a speaker system. The measurements that were done at Innerfidelity did nothing to explain that peculiar sound.