# Damping Mechanical Energy Distortion of STAX and other phones with SORBOTHANE and other materials.



## edstrelow (Apr 28, 2017)

(Edit October 13, 2015  This thread has changed considerably since i started it with the intention of showing how the sound of Stax phones could be improved by using sorbothane on various portions of the earcups.  Several other Headfiers have joined in to discuss the use of sorbothane and even some other materials to achieve these improvements on Stax and various other phones. This is all to the good in my opinion because it has gradually become evident that there is a problem of undamped mechanical resonance in many, if not all headphones.  The more phones which are studied the more we will come to understand the nature of the underlying issues of mechanical resonance.  It is clear that this is no longer simply an issue for Stax or even electrostatic phones. 

 My efforts and those of others to come up with damping strategies with Stax phones are found in the earlier posts.  Whenever I have modified my methods, I have edited the posts for those phones, including the Stax Lambdas, SRX III pro, Sigma/pro, SR007 and SR003 so what is there should represent my latest take.

 I am trying to get another  thread started to explain this problem.  It is taking me a while to get this together, although there are snippets of  explanations scattered throughout this thread and the previous thread dealing with the SR007 )



 I have been toying with a write-up of my efforts to damp the vibrations in the earcups of various Staxen by sorbothane, something I have been playing with for almost 1/1/2 years. I realized that it was going to take a long posting to cover the 007A, 003, SRX3  Pro, Sigma Pro, Sigma/404 , Lambda LNS and Lambda 404 and that I was just not going to get it done.  That plus the fact that I am still experimenting and have by no means fully explored this phenomenon to my satisfaction. However, I am reasonably happy with what I have done with the Lambdas and as these are probably the most common Staxen I thought it would be worth reporting these first.

 EDIT 5/28/15 - When I started this work I did not have much more to go on than that I had found that under some circumstances the application of sorbothane to the earcups or other parts of some headphones could make an almost remarkable change in their sound. Now I realize that as important as that may be, more significant is the fact that doing anything to the body of the phones could markedly change their sound. I now believe this means that there is a large amount of mechanical energy floating around most phones, which is insufficiently damped and which is messing up the sound of even the best phones. Even more remarkable is that  this phenomenon has either not been observed before or been ignored by even the top headphone makers. I will develop this argument at  a later time, although portions of it are scattered throughout this thread.  I am keeping the current thread for discussions of what may be the more effective types of sorb mods for the various Stax phones I own.

  I got started on this issue when I noticed that the arc assembly of the 007A appeared to impact the sound of these phones. http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems  I will grant that the first reaction of anyone who looked at this posting was very likely What? It is  odd  to claim that the headband has an impact on sound. But that's what I heard.  I put together a simple damping mechanism using sorbethane and a plastic clamp, played with it, liked what it did to the sound and left it alone for many months. (EDIT: so far I have only heard this on the 007, but cucera has recently reported damping the headband of the 4070, which looks like it has much the same kind of band arrangement as the 007, i.e it screws directly to the earcups. Other Stax headbands, have at least one other segment separating the headband from the earcups  and that, I used to believe, makes a big difference. Now it is more evident that it is easy for vibrations to travel  across most headbands. Companies including B&W and Audioquest are specifically working on this problem. 

 After a while it dawned on me that even though the arc assembly may have been vibrating during the playing of music, the real problem had to be where the vibrations were  coming from, presumably the earcups themselves since that was where the energy originated. I.e. there was  energy floating around the earcups which was making it to the 007A arc assembly because of the way the earcups were tightly screwed to the arcs.  If so, was there a similar issue with other Stax headphones and how could you find out?

 After an even greater time I started  playing around first with a  Sigma Pro by putting a strip of sorbethane across the bottom front of the earcups.  It made the sound awful. The bass could only be described as flatulent i.e a bass fart. There may have been some increased clarity in the upper and mid frequencies but the awful bass squelched this experiment. However it did show that something was going on in the cups and I did eventually come up with a reasonable fix for the Sigmas.   But I am still playing with it so I don't want to discuss it first.

 The Lambdas were a lot easier. There is room on the baffle board that holds the transducer to attach strips of sorbethane around the drivers.  I used self-stick sorbethane about 1/8 inch thick. (EDIT  *I am now using 1/4 inch 70 duro sorbothane, cut into small segments with no dimension longer than 3/4" to 1.*  I am also playing with 1/2 "  sorb but this is very difficult to locate on many phones, but is even better. The 1/8 inch is good but the 1/4" is better, and the small segments appear better than the longer segments noted in the original pictures.You can buy this stuff on ebay for a few bucks and it comes in various thickness down to 1 mm, with or without self-stick.  It took about 10 minutes to install this on the Lambda LNS and 404s and because it's out of sight you would never know it's there.  It may add an ounce or so weight to each cup.

 


 So what does it do to the sound? Makes it tighter, cleaner, gets rid of some fuzziness and brings out sonic detail including harmonics.   It's hard to do a before and after comparison with the Lambdas because of the time it takes to install the sorbethane but  I was able to do this with the Sigmas because with these the sorbethane  was simply stuck to the outside of the cups ( after I got an arrangement that I thought sounded good) and could be just peeled off. With both Sigmas, upon ripping off the sorbothane  suddenly there was a jump in sound level, in which an odd ambience suddenly appeared.  It wasn't unpleasant but it probably wasn't music either. It adds a fair bit to the volume though and probably ends up masking the sound coming from the drivers.  This, I think is resonance which is getting damped by the sorbothane  resulting in a lower overall signal.  With all of the Stax I have tried with sorbothane, I  find I am turning up the volume more. (but enjoying what I hear more too)

 So what have I got here?  A possible tweak with Stax  phones. It could work with others but I don't have anything else.  I would be especially curious to know if dynamic phones are affected this way. And as I stated in the beginning, these are merely first efforts. There are obviously a lot of parameters to play around with such as the location of the damping material,  how much to use,  its thickness, how it is fastened (I am still working on clamps so that the pressure can be adjusted) and whether there might be other materials which could work better.   Sorbothane also comes with different levels of stiffness (duro)  so presumably this is a factor too.

 EDIT
  A number of people have been reluctant to open them up to put sorb inside.  However there is little or no other place on the earcups to put any significant amount of sorbothane.  On other phones, you can place it outside but the Lambdas have almost no solid surface to do this, except the baffle.  The lambdas are not that hard to open.  For a start you don't need to remove the earpads, such peel them back a bit and unscrew the corner screws.


 The baffle may be somewhat stuck.  Stax does not glue them as should be obvious from the use of 4 screws to hold the baffle in place.  However the baffle can feel stuck, possibly because glue from the earpads gets in to the space.  However, a bit of careful prying will get the baffle out.



  Lift the baffle a few millimeters all around and then lift it up along with the section where the cord enters the earcup and voila you are ready to go.


----------



## edstrelow

This shot shows my latest sorbothane follies with the SRXIII Pro.  All I have done here is put some 1/8 inch self-stick strips of 50 duro sorbothane on the metal housing around the ear cups. ("duro" is a measurement of hardness, 0 being the softest and 100 being the hardest) The right side is the modded unit and the left shows an unmodded SRXIII (unfortunately not  a pro.)   If the Lambdas are the most common Stax, the SRXIII pro is probably the rarest. I recall reading that there may be as few as 1,000 made.  Mine is a "frankenphone" a SRXII with pro drivers from the Gamma pro.  I believe it was modded in England but I bought it from a Headfier in Italy.
  
 There are  a lot of low bias SRXIII's around and they were at one time quite popular. They have a very smooth middle and were often used as monitor phones.  However the bass rolls off fairly quickly and because they rest on the ear they are not as comfortable as most circumaural designs.  The pro largely corrects the bass problem of the low bias model and adds more dynamics.  Compared to many newer pro phones they have a slightly raspy sound possibly related to what sounds like a small peak around 2kHz or thereabouts.
  
 The sorbothane cleans up the sound overall, getting rid of much of the raspiness and just letting everything else like timbre, dynamics  and rhythm come through better. Last night I was  tripping with  these phones, on just about everything, even opera where I normally prefer Sigmas.  The voices were powerful, clean and smooth.  Listening to von Karajan's old Otello I felt I was hearing the recording properly for the first time, so much clean detail and ambience came through. With other music such as rock I was again struck by how good the voices were and how well localized the singers and instruments were.  The soundstage was wide and precise.
  
 As with the Lambdas I reported on above, I am happy with this set-up,  It is simple to do and cosmetic in appearance.  In fact I really should try this on the SR007A's. In any case I will try 1/4" sorbothane on the SRXIII's after I get some delivered.
  
 As tweaks go, Sorbothane is easy to work with at least on these phones. It's a few bucks to buy so you've got little to lose if you don't like what it does. It's not like spending $5K for the latest tube amp and the sonic improvement can be substantial.
  
 As I said before these are experiments and I don't believe I have figured out what the best approach may be on any of these phones.  I still like the idea of clamps to adjust the sorbothane pressure, but so far I have only tried that with the 007A and Sigmas and am still trying to find or make  a good clamp.
  
 Nevertheless I don't see myself going back to naked headphones (i.e.phones without damping.)


----------



## Tachikoma

Why would sorbothane dampen mechanical resonances any better than the coupling between the headphone to the ears/head though? I think adding sorbothane would just add a bit more mass to the cups and shift the resonant frequency, if it is a mechanical resonance you're hearing.


----------



## edstrelow

tachikoma said:


> Why would sorbothane dampen mechanical resonances any better than the coupling between the headphone to the ears/head though? I think adding sorbothane would just add a bit more mass to the cups and shift the resonant frequency, if it is a mechanical resonance you're hearing.


 
 The fact that I am hearing a significant difference in sound of Staxen with the addition a of fairly small amount of sorbothane ( and with the 003 which I haven't reported yet I use a miniscule amount) tells me that the "coupling between the headphone to the ears/head" does not dampen all the resonance that one hears.  I agree that Sorbothane  does add mass and that is a factor in what is going on.  However it is a fairly light substance so I suspect this is  not as big a factor as its elastic properties.  To the extent I have tried to figure out the science here, it seems to get into a lot of issues about materials or mechanical engineering which I have little grasp of. but which look sufficiently complicated that they will not lead to simple answers.
  
 The use of Sorbothane has been going on for decades in all sorts of areas including audio and you are probably familiar with the various footers that have been sold to reduce vibration. I am not aware of it being used with headphones although yesterday  I saw in an ad from an Amazon seller that some people are adding it to the inside of speakers.   That seems similar to what I am doing.
  
 Many of us go to great efforts to get rid of resonance problems in speakers. Speakers are generally heavy and rigid.  Some people use spikes to make  a firm connection with the floor. I see nothing like this with headphones.   Presumably the coupling you describe does something but just not enough. Obviously we are not able to add much mass or spikes to headphones. .  Maybe someone can come up with a better coupling, but so far what  I am hearing suggests that significant problems remain with current designs.


----------



## cucera

OK you made me curious and I have ordered the self adhesive sorbotane for my SR-X pro.


----------



## edstrelow

cucera said:


> OK you made me curious and I have ordered the self adhesive sorbotane for my SR-X pro.


 
  
 I see that you have "Stax SR-X MK3 pro with Omega pads."  You mean like as in the original Stax Omega?  I would not have thought that they would fit and if they did they must be expensive.  Certainly the regular SRX pad has issues,  they are uncomfortable and don't provide  a good seal. I look forward to your observations on the SRX.  You might try playing with some other phones too.


----------



## Tachikoma

Pretty sure he meant O2 pads. They do fit, but the SR-X+O2 combo can be a bit weird sounding at times. I blame the small opening on the SR-X driver, which probably causes reflections if you use a circumaural pad with them.
  
  


edstrelow said:


> Many of us go to great efforts to get rid of resonance problems in speakers. Speakers are generally heavy and rigid.  Some people use spikes to make  a firm connection with the floor. I see nothing like this with headphones.   Presumably the coupling you describe does something but just not enough. Obviously we are not able to add much mass or spikes to headphones. .  Maybe someone can come up with a better coupling, but so far what  I am hearing suggests that significant problems remain with current designs.


 
  
 Get some bungee cord and tighten the headphones more securely to your head


----------



## cucera

Yes Tachikoma is right regarding the O2 pads and Iagree somewhat with his assesment of the SR-X mod. I forgot to change my gear list, but I went back to the Stock pads. The 02 pads were verry comfortable but the bass and highs were a bit off. 

The SR-X MK3 pro is right now my second favourit Stax (009 and 007 MK1 share nr1 the first for classical the second for rock).


----------



## edstrelow

Some years back when I first went back to the SRXIII I bought a low bias model that came with a beat-up looking foam earpad.  I  bought the leatherette replacement  but found that it didn't sound as good as the foam. Unfortunately by then the foam has ripped part in the process of removing it.  The openings of the leatherette replacement pads are also a bit too small and cover part of the opening to the driver. The comfort and seal are not good either.  I am thinking of putting some foam under the pads to give them a bit more body to improve both comfort and seal.
  
 When I got the SRXIII pro a couple of years ago, I was delighted with the balanced sound even though it had a bit of roughness compared to later model Staxen.
  
 I think it would be amazing if one could get drivers for this phone rebuilt with the newer thinner membranes.  I contacted Stax Japan about this  some time back and they replied that they would only consider this if they had orders for several hundred.


----------



## edstrelow

I put some self-stick sorbothane strips around the outside of the 007A.  I am still playing with the various bits of sorb  I am using as I have sorb clamped on the headband arcs, as well as clamped on the upper part of the earcups.  The self-stick does not seem to give a good stick at first but seems to hold better after a day or so, if it hasn't fallen off in the meantime. With clamps you don't have to worry so much about adhesion and I seem to be able to tweak the sound by adjusting the pressure.


----------



## cucera

OK I can confirm that it helps a lot with the SR-X pro. The bass gets deeper with less loss in SPL and the whole sound gets more relaxed! Thanks Edstrelow.


----------



## edstrelow

cucera said:


> OK I can confirm that it helps a lot with the SR-X pro. The bass gets deeper with less loss in SPL and the whole sound gets more relaxed! Thanks Edstrelow.




Glad you like it. I am pretty happy with the sorb fixes I have used with the SRXIII, my two Lambdas and the SR003. I am still playing with the 007As and Sigmas. I am getting some good sound from these latter phones but also some bass anomalies. I am enjoying the new sound of the other phones so much that I am not spending the time to figure out the 007A and the Sigmas.


----------



## cucera

Could you please post about the 003 mod?


----------



## edstrelow

*SROO3*
  
 This is my sorbothane fix for the SR003.  It uses 1mm thick sorb.  I just pulled the ear-piece out of its holder and stuck on the sorb, no glueing was needed and then I just snapped the unit back together.
  
 I had originally used more sorb, so as to cover the entire back, except for the vent.  But I found that while the treble/midrange sounded good,  the bass became loud and distorted.  I have also noticed this at one time with my Sigmas.   So based on my guess that somewhere between the original amount of sorb and none, there would be sweet spot, I just kept cutting off sorb until I got  clarity across the audio spectrum.   I think it sounds very good.  Again, I am not saying that this is the ideal, merely something that I have found to work that is simple and cosmetic. 
  
  

  

  
 EDIT 5/28/2015  I recently made  a minor change to this mod which gave a big, and favorable change in sound.  It consisted of simply cutting the sorb piece in two and then replacing it.  This has the effect of making the mid range and treble more prominent and reducing much of the "mid-bassiness" of these phones.  Again, I don't know if this is the ideal  damping for these phones, just something which seems to work well.
  
 The last 2 photos show where I am in exploring the use of sorb with Sigmas and the 007A.  These are not necessarily recommended fixes, but rather works in progress.
  
  
   *SIGMA/404*
  
 With the Sigma/404 I had originally opened up the case to see about putting sorb on the back of the plate that holds the driver, as I had done with the Lambdas.  There  didn't seem to be enough room on the Sigma, since the case cuts down on the free room.   So I  tried just  a 1/8 in thick strip on the bottom of the outer case. Initially, this gave real bad bass, just as I noted for the SR003 above.  However, subsequently I realized that the strip was not very secure and if it was firmly attached the sound improved across the spectrum.  I did this by getting some self-stick sorbothane.
  
 You can also  see that I am toying with metal clamps to hold down the sorb. The advantages of clamping are several.  You don't need to use  glue and you can to some extent tune the sound by adjusting the tightness of the clamps.  In general, tightening the clamp gives more treble and the less bass. These metal clamps are not however very secure or cosmetic so I am still looking.
  
  

  
  
  
*007A*
  
 With the 007A, you can see my original clamps on the headband arc.  They work fine sonically  but the extra bits of sorb seems to make the sound even better.  I have added clamped sorb on the upper tab of the earcup and have added a strip of sorb around the earcup, just as I did with the SRXIII Pro.   Overall, the sound is very good but I get an occasional boom on very deep bass and  I would like to try for a better midrange.  Also the metal clamps are not very secure. So I want to do more experimenting.


----------



## edstrelow

I have determined that dynamic headphones may also need sorbothane damping.  Since I only had electrostatics in the house it wasn't clear to me if what I am observing was just a problem with stats.  However one of my daughters brought a set of dynamic gaming phones with her while she  took a break from college over the holidays.  Putting a 1" square 1/8" thick sorb on the back of these phones gave essentially the same effect as I had noted with several stats. some grungy, harsh distortion disappeared giving cleaner just about everything, spatial separation, timbre and the like. So it I would guess that most phones need damping.  I say this based on my analysis above, that headphones can not be damped as effectively as speakers because of their lightness and lack of something solid to fasten them to.
  
 I am not making much progress in finding a good damping regime for Sigmas and the 007A.   I don't have a lot of free time and frankly I am enjoying my damped Lambdas and SRXIII pro so much that I feel little incentive to work on those other phones. Which is odd because for a few years previously  I preferred the Sigma/404 and 007A to all others. Hopefully I can figure out something in time for the Canjam in Orange county California in the next few months.  If not I'll just show up with what I have and some sheets of self-stick sorbothane.


----------



## cucera

I can report a clearer sound and dryer bass with the Stax 4070.


----------



## edstrelow

Where did you put the sorbethane and how much did you use?


----------



## cucera

I damped the Headband like your 007 and put one aditional stripe at the bottom of the cup.


----------



## edstrelow

I get a nice dry, punchy bass with the Lambdas and the SRXIII pro too.  In fact I was just listening to a recent DG recording of Tchaikovksy's  5'th symphony on  my damped lambda LNS and the 3'rd movement was dazzling with  the pizicato, drums and solo instruments. Very much the sound you expect to hear in the concert hall. However I have yet to get this effect properly with the Sigmas and 007A.  I am getting an occasional booming deep bass with the 007A. Although adjusting the clamping force of the clamped sorb helped.  However, I want to start all over again with them because I think that if you can work out the optimal damping of the 007's they could be incredibly good.
  
 One of the more interesting experiences I have had with sorbothane damping is getting boomy and distorted bass, first with a Sigma and then with an 003. The Sigma's problem went away when I re-glued the sorb and the 003 required me to reduce the amount of sorb I was using.  At a guess, I would say that the sorb was storing some of the bass energy and feeding it back to the drivers. So it can be tricky getting it right.


----------



## edstrelow

Eureka! The 007A comes alive with the right damping.  While I first started to explore the use of sorbothane on Stax phones with the 007A, in the last few months  my 2 damped Lambdas, LNS and 404, have been getting more listening, along with the damped SRXIII pro.  So  I removed all my previous damping efforts on the 7 and started over. One of the reasons I suspect that the damped Lambdas sounded so good was that the sorbothane was placed right on the  baffles next to the drivers. I.e. you can't get it any closer to the drivers than that.  Unfortunately the 7 defeats you on that score, I just couldn't see where to put sorb next to the drivers unless I was willing to put it one the dust covers. So instead I put 1/8 inch sorb on the plate that holds the phones together, still pretty close to the drivers.
  
*IMPORTANT EDITS*
  
 (Edit Feb 20/15 - now using 1/4 in 30 duro sorbothane which seems better. )
  
 ( I spoke to a technical person at Sorbothane on April 27, 2015 who advised me that damping occurs on a basis of about 40 dB/cm of thickness at 50 Hz and above.  He did not however have any data on the linearity of the damping)
  
 ( Edit April 27, 2015 Following a tip from a seller of sorb that smaller pieces were more effective than large pieces, I cut the ring of 1/4 inch duro into 4 sections, whereas it had originally been a solid ring.  This seems to improve performance by reducing the bassiness of the phones and making the other frequenciess more dynamic. Thus I now am getting a dynamics and bounce to individual instruments more like I have been getting with the modified Lambdas.  I tried a partial segmenting on the 007 phones I displayed at Canjam in March and finally did the last sectioning and like the result very much.)
  
 EDIT 5/28/2015  Cutting the ring into 8 segments was even better.  Even better dynamics and less bass boominess.   I think this is now the world's best headphone!

  
 This sounded very much better than my last effort with these phones.  The previous sorb effort, (see pictures in earlier posts)  while generally sounding better than the basic phone, had a somewhat recessed midrange and an occasional deep bass boom.  Now the sound was much better balanced.  However, still, it was arguably no better than the damped Lambda LNS .
  
 I looked at the headband arcs again, which is what got me started in the first place. When I tap them, they still ring.  So if any energy is getting from the ear cup, it could resonate here and even get over to the other cup, giving crossfeed.    So I took the old arc dampers and placed them at the base of the arcs, and also over the top metal and plastic portions of the earcups and then screwed them in place.
  
 Each damper consists of two rigid plastic sections about 3 inches  by 1 1/2 inches and each has 4 1/8 in sorb pads about 1 in square, 2 on the top and 2 on the bottom plastic sections.  They are placed on the inside and outside of the arc band and screwed together  with one screw and nut .  Another advantage of this system is that you can tweak the sound to some degree by tightening and loosening the screws. Generally if these are fairly loose you will get more bass, as you tighten them, the bass decreases and the treble comes up.  However I have not checked these effects over all ranges of tightness.  If you tighten them too much I suspect they don't do much other than add some mass to the phones.
  

  
 The sound is now very, very nice. Great definition of all frequencies, individual voices and instruments tend to jump out at you and finally an 007 which sounds better than the damped Lambdas.   As I have noted above on some other phones,  I believe the overall volume becomes lower after the damping is applied  and I seem to be turning the amp, a 717, up higher than on undamped phones.   This is possibly not surprising given that we are talking about "damping."
  
 So what exactly is going on here?  I believe the damping is getting rid of a lot of energy in the earcups of the headphones, which is coloring the sound (and increasing the volume.)  In this respect what I am doing is like damping speaker boxes or putting spikes under them to stop the boxes from coloring the sound. Of course a full explanation  may not be that simple, but hopefully this will get figured out in due course.
  
 Anyway, for the moment I just want to spend some time enjoying these, and then hopefully on to the Sigmas.
  
 I hope to bring several of these phones to the SoCal CanJam in March.


----------



## edstrelow

Technical/promotional material from the sorbothane people about this material. Among other interesting points, they contend that the energy which gets absorbed is turned to heat. http://www.sorbothane.com/blog/what-material-is-best-for-damping/


----------



## soren_brix

very interesting read Edstrlow. Thnx a bunch for sharing.
 In rgrds to the Sigma's, have you considered placing the sorbotane on top of the driver? (the side that faces towards the inside of the housing, and on the inside of the side facing the head (or hole to the ear)?
 As far as I remember from doing the 404 upgrade, there are some space around the driver that is stuffed with glass wool. (I might remember wrong though)
 Another thing is the 007 ... have you considered damping the top mess? the part that is covered by the earpads ... or would it just be crying for trouble?


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> very interesting read Edstrlow. Thnx a bunch for sharing.
> In rgrds to the Sigma's, have you considered placing the sorbotane on top of the driver? (the side that faces towards the inside of the housing, and on the inside of the side facing the head (or hole to the ear)?
> As far as I remember from doing the 404 upgrade, there are some space around the driver that is stuffed with glass wool. (I might remember wrong though)
> Another thing is the 007 ... have you considered damping the top mess? the part that is covered by the earpads ... or would it just be crying for trouble?


 

 Actually there is almost no space left here.  Even though the  Sigmas are the predecessor of the Lambda, the Lambda has far more space here.  However, I have just finished work on the Sigma/404, see below.


----------



## edstrelow

Finally I got a sorbothane mod for the Sigmas which I like.  As I noted above, the problem with them is finding space on these phones, which is flat and preferably close to the driver on which to put some sorbothane.   So far, I think the best I have done is with the lambdas (404 and LNS)  where the sorb is placed on the baffle that holds the driver. (See first photo below)
  
  
  
 .
  
 Unfortunately, there is very little room on the baffle of the Sigma.  However, when I opened up my Sigma/404, I realized for the first time that the baffle extends around to the ear side of the earcup. 
  

 The baffle is a piece of metal, bent to about 90 degrees.  The earpads are then fastened to what is, in this photo, the vertical section.  And there is a reasonable amount of flat space here.  (Even though there looks like open space around the driver it ends up being pretty much taken up when the rest of the earcup is assembled to the baffle.)
  
 Also I have now got a new supply of sorb,  1/4 in. thick, and 30 duro hardness (i.e. pretty soft, smaller duro is lest rigid  and I assume, better for damping).  So I cut a number of pieces of 1/4 sorb to go on the top and bottom of the vertical section around the earhole opening. (new edit)  I am now using a total of 6 pieces of 1/4 inch sorb on the baffle, away from the driver 3 each on the top and bottom. I have since stopped using any sorb  on the back edge for the Sigma Pro and  the Sigma/404  so the picture is a  off in that regard.  To be clear, now there is none behind the ear. The benefits are a marked reduction in the bass boominess of the Sigmas, and a much more balanced sound.)  .
  
  

  
 The 1/4 in.sorb was not self-stick so I had to use adhesive, 3M Rubber and Vinyl 80.  I would not want to use this on an exterior part put this is a metal part and on the interior so if I have to remove the sorb, not real harm should ensue.
  
 On the other hand the wiring is pretty tight here, this is the original Sigma/404 that I had made by Yamasinc several years ago http://www.head-fi.org/t/175556/the-sigma-404-a-new-stax-headphone and they didn't leave much room to work.   In fact I had to resolder one of the stator leads.  This is the only damage I have done to any headphone during this exercise.
  
 The sound is the best I have heard from the Sigma yet.  After I had realized you could damp the 007 by putting sorb on the metal arcs
http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems  I started on the Sigmas but had some really odd effects including. at one time. bass distortion.   However, this current arrangement seems to give very clean sound.  I spent some time listening to the naked Sigma/404 i.e. without sorb, before I did this mod.  After getting it modded and back together ( and after I fixed the broken lead) my first impression was of a reduction in harshness, greater separation of instruments and voices, better dynamics and a wider spatial field.    The bass is good, probably a bit better than before, but I wish it were a bit drier.  For my first listening,  I put on  the first recording of Lucia di Lammermoor by the great Australian soprano, Joan Sutherland, and was blown away by how good she sounded when she was young.
  
 I do not know if what I have done is the best you can do with these phones, but I am prepared to put this out on Head-fi because I think it is at least good.  I now realize, for example, that you can add sorb to the back edge of the earcups near the head, since this is almost part of the metal baffle.  Anyone who wants to play with sorbothane  on the Sigma without opening them up might want to put a strip here as a first experiment.  I may yet myself.
  
 I intend to bring these to the Canjam in March.


----------



## soren_brix

Hi Edstrelow
  
 Again thnx for sharing your work and impression.
 I have taken the liberty to work a bit on one of your photo's in order to visualize what I had in mind (it still may not work, or simply being pursuing other kinds of problems)

  
 I can't figure out from your description whether you have already done damping the BLUE area on the 'vertical' part using the stickers you have designet.
 The BLUE and GREEN area on the driver itself could make a difference?
 Finally the RED will involve diassembling the protection filter and damp the stator ... there might not be enough space, or it is simply crying for trouble doing so ... was just inspired by some folks experimenting with full size ESL's where they do something like that.
  
 Anyway I just wanted to share my thoughts on your brilliant work, and look forward to hear comments


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> Hi Edstrelow
> 
> Again thnx for sharing your work and impression.
> I have taken the liberty to work a bit on one of your photo's in order to visualize what I had in mind (it still may not work, or simply being pursuing other kinds of problems)
> ...


 

 Yes I put sorb on the blue, vertical sections. Sorry if that's not clear  in my description. The green and possibly the other blue sections might work too.   I would be loath to do the red just because I wouldn't want to mess with the dust covers, but who knows?   I  do not contend that I have exhausted examination of this topic.  There are potentially a lot of parameters to play with here: location, hardness of sorbothane, attachment and clamping.  I still like my first clamp on the 007 headband because it allowed some tonal adjustment.   Plus, based on my experience of bad bass on some attempts, you apparently can also screw the sound up, suggesting  positive feedback messing up the sound.
  
 So you say someone has tried damping electrostatic speakers with sorbothane?  No reason why not, I have put some on my conventional speakers.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> Yes I put sorb on the blue, vertical sections. Sorry if that's not clear  in my description. The green and possibly the other blue sections might work too.   I would be loath to do the red just because I wouldn't want to mess with the dust covers, but who knows?   I  do not contend that I have exhausted examination of this topic.  There are potentially a lot of parameters to play with here: location, hardness of sorbothane, attachment and clamping.  I still like my first clamp on the 007 headband because it allowed some tonal adjustment.   Plus, based on my experience of bad bass on some attempts, you apparently can also screw the sound up, suggesting  positive feedback messing up the sound.
> 
> So you say someone has tried damping electrostatic speakers with sorbothane?  No reason why not, I have put some on my conventional speakers.


 

 Just to be absolutely clear: I really appreciate your effort and work in this area, and that you are sharing - it is a great inspiration, at least to me )
  
 In rgrds to damping ELS's with sorbothane; I am not sure about the use of sorbothane, although I have read a few places that damping the stators makes a difference.
[url=http://www.eraudio.com.au/Loud...speaker_Kits/Acorn_ESL_kit/acorn_esl_kit.html[/url]
*Stator Damping*
Thin metal stators tend to “ring” when producing sound so it was important to provide some damping to the grid to deaden the colouration that would occur. This is especially important where large areas of unsupported stator are exposed.​ Fortunately, our experience with the ESL III and the use of a polyurethane material, which gave superb damping in this speaker, was very successful in stopping ringing. We have therefore adopted the same material and method in this design.​  ​ Never tried it, so I cannot comment on the effects.​  ​ I guess doing it on the Lambda drives will need a spacer between the driver and the protection film and it might incure other problems due to the surface the damping occupies.​  ​  ​ I have ordered some sorbothane from: [url[https://www.divineaudio.co.uk/audioquest-sorbothane-self-stick-sheet [/url] ...I will try damping my Sigma/404 and see what happens and report back afterwards.​


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> Just to be absolutely clear: I really appreciate your effort and work in this area, and that you are sharing - it is a great inspiration, at least to me )
> 
> In rgrds to damping ELS's with sorbothane; I am not sure about the use of sorbothane, although I have read a few places that damping the stators makes a difference.
> [url=http://www.eraudio.com.au/Loud...speaker_Kits/Acorn_ESL_kit/acorn_esl_kit.html[/url]
> ...


 
 And I appreciate your discussion because I don't think it is very clear  what is going on here and it's an interesting topic, which is I think quite important in headphone design.
  
 I am uncertain as to what type of damping was used by the makers of the electrostatic speakers you link to.  I am sure there are other substances which can provide damping. They refer to "polyurethane material" but sorbothane just happens to be well-known and it has been used heavily in audio applications for footers and the like.
  
 I got this definition of damping from Wikepedia:
  
 "*Damping* is an influence within or upon an oscillatory system that has the effect of reducing, restricting or preventing its oscillations. In physical systems, damping is produced by processes that dissipate the energy stored in the oscillation. Examples include viscous drag in mechanical systems, resistance in electronic oscillators, and absorption and scattering of light in optical oscillators"
  
 The key seems to be "dissipate the energy."  The sorbothane people claim their material does this by converting it to heat  which I guess falls under the category of "viscous drag.".   The speaker people you link to seem to be concerned as much with ringing of the stators.  However it seems to me  that this may be  slightly different issue.  You could make the stators extremely rigid and attach them to some major amount of mass to lower the frequency of ringing.  But you would still have energy passing into the rest of the "system"  which could be damped with sorbothane.
  
 Previously you suggested putting damping directly on the stators.  That might get rid of both the ringing and the energy passing through.   However, thinking that electrostatic drivers are fairly delicate, I am reluctant to mess with them, although this in the end could be the best location to start damping.
  
 I did one brief test applying sorb to some dynamic phones  and found the sound improving, so I think it's not just a stat issue.


----------



## edstrelow

I am staying up too late listening to the newly damped Sigma/404  and 007.  The 007 has more punch, more detail in the treble and deeper bass.  However the Sigma/404 has that great openness of sound and out of head projection.  Listening to The Book of Mormon ( the musical not the actual book - once described by Mark Twain as "chloroform in print")) I am hearing the recorded ambience clearly for the first time.  Previously I had thought of this as a good recording, but somewhat dry.  I don't get much sense that the sorb differentially affects any set of frequencies.  On the other hand, I seem to be finding the treble almost spectacular in places, especially sopranos.  The bass is generally better on both phones now, no bass distortion as I got on my first damping effort on the Sigmas,  but I still would like a drier bass with the 007, like I get with the damped  LNS Lambda,


----------



## edstrelow

I made a change to the 007's which seems to have brought them to a higher level. This involved removing the 1/8 in sorbothane from the metal plates over the drivers and replacing it with 1/4 in sorb. This sorb is also softer and solid because it consists of rings cut from a large sheet. Previously the rings were assembled from several smaller pieces. So essentially I have doubled the amount of sorb.  The sound is so good just with these new rings that  I have yet to use any clamping on the arcs, even though  I am sure they are causing ringing.(Edit I am now using the damping clamps where the arc meets the earcup as is shown in the previous picture of these phones. I am using 1/4 in at the arc and 1/8  over the top of the earcups)
  
 On the other hand adding more sorb to the Sigma/404 just made the sound boomy so  I am sticking with what I reported above for these phones.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> ...So what does it do to the sound? Makes it tighter, cleaner, gets rid of some fuzziness and brings out sonic detail including harmonics. (first post)
> 
> ... my first impression was of a reduction in harshness, greater separation of instruments and voices, better dynamics and a wider spatial field.    The bass is good, probably a bit better than before, but I wish it were a bit drier.  For my first listening,  I put on  the first recording of Lucia di Lammermoor by the great Australian soprano, Joan Sutherland, and was blown away by how good she sounded when she was young.... (later posting)
> 
> ...


----------



## edstrelow

I have mounted 3M200MP on the vertical plate only, and can report similar impression. Although "greater separation of instruments and voices, better dynamics" this seems to be what I notice the most, greater separation and way better dynamics ...
 Will let this settle for some days before doing some more, but definately worth a try.
  
  


soren_brix said:


>


 
 Good to hear this. The sound may change over time as the sorbothane bond cures although some of this could be getting  used to the new sound.


----------



## soren_brix

Tried the same damping on a pair of 202 much similar to what Edstrelow did to his 404's.
 Damping the baffle only.
 After some listning I recognised the better clarity. The sound is more tight and clean.
 Tried to damp my 404 using sorbothane around the driver itself, rather than on the baffle. (the green area on the pic shown earlier, although going around the hole driver except for the area with the terminals). The result sounds much similar to the result from damping the baffle of the 202.
 The much spoken etch that the 404 has almost disappeared.
 As far as my experience the damping reduce the coloration and results in a cleaner sound with greater separation
 Based on these findings and from Edstrelows reports, it seeems that the damping works best when applied to the source of vibrations or very close to, and can make things even worse if placed far from the source of vibration, although it seems to work damping the chamber of the 4070 also.
 As far as I remember Spritzer made a few comments about the lack of glueing of the 404 driver itself using adhesive instead and that caused a great deal of coloration.I cannot see whether my 404 drivers are glued or pressed together using some adhesive.I guess using the sorbothane directly on the driver rather than at some distance must be the right way.


----------



## edstrelow

Good that you like what the sorbothane addition does to the sound.  I don't think I have been exaggerating these effects.  Anyone who wants the best sound from their phones, irrespective of make, should try this stuff.
  
  I think the best location to add this stuff is as close to the drivers as you can get. However I have noticed that merely adding a small piece on the oustide of an earcup (as in the SRX III) can give you some improvement too although I think the ideal would be close to the drivers.or as you note, on the drivers.
  
 I can just vaguely visualize drivers made where the sorbothane is on the drivers as part of the design.
  
 Re the 404 drivers:  I have also found mine to come loose, in fact I had to put them back where they were supposed to be before I could add the sorbothane.  Now the sorb helps to keep them in place.
  
 I don't know how many Stax phones have this "wandering driver" problem .  My LNS and my old Nova (since sold) didn't do this.


----------



## soren_brix

to my knowledge the driver should be glue to the baffle and not able to move at all.
If your driver is loose I suggest you glue it to the baffle or fixate it using adhesive as Spritzer tend to. 

The sigmas i have converted to sigma/404 has the driver glued to the baffle.


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> to my knowledge the driver should be glue to the baffle and not able to move at all.
> If your driver is loose I suggest you glue it to the baffle or fixate it using adhesive as Spritzer tend to.
> 
> The sigmas i have converted to sigma/404 has the driver glued to the baffle.


 
 I understand what you are saying.  The 404 drivers are firmly in place right now but they move over time because the glue seems to have become soft over the years.  If the problem continues I will have to try some other glue but I am more wary than Spritzer about messing with the drivers.


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> Tried the same damping on a pair of 202 much similar to what Edstrelow did to his 404's.
> Damping the baffle only.
> After some listning I recognised the better clarity. The sound is more tight and clean.
> Tried to damp my 404 using sorbothane around the driver itself, rather than on the baffle. (the green area on the pic shown earlier, although going around the hole driver except for the area with the terminals). The result sounds much similar to the result from damping the baffle of the 202.
> ...


 
  
 I don't have an open Lambda and I can't recall how the dust cover is set up. As I understand it you have attached the sorbothane to the edge of the 404 driver, i.e. the what you show as green in your previous picture of the Sigma (which uses the same driver as the Lamda).  Can it be placed on the top of the driver, i.e. what you mark as blue without interfering with the dust cover?


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> I understand what you are saying.  The 404 drivers are firmly in place right now but they move over time because the glue seems to have become soft over the years.  If the problem continues I will have to try some other glue but I am more wary than Spritzer about messing with the drivers.


 

 As far as I have experienced the driver sandwich is rather stable and rigid. I have experienced some lambda drivers litteraly falling apart when cutting them free from the baffle; the glue has simply lost its gluing ability due to aging I guess. Those were drivers back from very early 80's.
 Cutting the drivers free from the baffle is kind of a rather delicate process were you need a lot of patience. But I guess yours are not that firm glued since they move over time, so a sharp thin Stanley knife and some patience should do the trick.
  
 In rgrds to soldering the terminals I remove the connector (loosen up the screw) for the diapragm it self and solder that before I attach it again; I don't know if the heat from the iron can damage the diapragm so I am a bit carefull here. The stators I just solder.
 According the 404/Mod thread started by Spritzer you will probably get a better bass from glueing the driver more firmly in place. (have a look at the 'case' site).


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> I don't have an open Lambda and I can't recall how the dust cover is set up. As I understand it you have attached the sorbothane to the edge of the 404 driver, i.e. the what you show as green in your previous picture of the Sigma (which uses the same driver as the Lamda).  Can it be placed on the top of the driver, i.e. what you mark as blue without interfering with the dust cover?


 
  
 "As I understand it you have attached the sorbothane to the edge of the 404 driver, i.e. the what you show as green in your previous picture of the Sigma"; YES, I did that - I used Sorbothane on the entire circumference except where the driver terminals are on the 404's ...on the Sigma/404 there are no space on the one side of the driver due to the housing, so the green areas in the pic pretty much shows where I put the damping.
 Doing the vertical part of the baffle (blue) made a significant improvement, doing the (green) is not that significant a difference .....might notice after a few weeks and then remove it again ...
  
 "Can it be placed on the top of the driver, i.e. what you mark as blue without interfering with the dust cover?" ....hmmm.....since the Lambda house is screwed a bit it looks like a tight fit at least.
  
 I've been listning to a few ECM recordings using my Sigma/404s (s for Sorbothane  and better clarity, separation, dynamics is still what I notice.


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> "As I understand it you have attached the sorbothane to the edge of the 404 driver, i.e. the what you show as green in your previous picture of the Sigma"; YES, I did that - I used Sorbothane on the entire circumference except where the driver terminals are on the 404's ...on the Sigma/404 there are no space on the one side of the driver due to the housing, so the green areas in the pic pretty much shows where I put the damping.
> Doing the vertical part of the baffle (blue) made a significant improvement, doing the (green) is not that significant a difference .....might notice after a few weeks and then remove it again ...
> 
> "Can it be placed on the top of the driver, i.e. what you mark as blue without interfering with the dust cover?" ....hmmm.....since the Lambda house is screwed a bit it looks like a tight fit at least.
> ...


 
  
 Do you have an opinion as yet as to whether the sound is better with sorbothane directly on the drivers or on the baffle that holds them?  Related to this question is whether or not it would be a good idea to add more sorbothane to whichever of these areas has no sorbothane..
  
 I have found with some phones that "less is more" i.e. at some point adding sorb causes a degradation in sound.  Last night I went back to the SRXIII pro, opened it up and added some 1 mm sorb over the plastic which covers the driver.  To make a long story short, this  caused some sweetening of the sound, but also  an unpleasant bump in the bass and I ended up removing about half of this new sorb.   They then sounded good  and I spent the rest of the evening listening to these phones..  However I have some other ideas about what to do with the SRXIII and I will post the details after I get a chance to test these.
  
 The bass boom has cropped up before, first with the SR003 where I also ended up cutting down the amount of sorb until the sound got balance.  Then when I recently added more sorb to the Sigma/404s the bass also got boomy.  Fortunately it's not particularly hard to find the optimum amount of sorb, "if the sound gets worse, cut back on the sorb until the sound is good."   I am curious as why this sometimes  happens but so far I have no good explanation..
  
 BTW I like the "s" designation you are proposing for these modded phones (eg."Sigma/404s.")  Soundwise it's almost a new phone.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> Do you have an opinion as yet as to whether the sound is better with sorbothane directly on the drivers or on the baffle that holds them?  Related to this question is whether or not it would be a good idea to add more sorbothane to whichever of these areas has no sorbothane..
> 
> I have found with some phones that "less is more"
> 
> ...


 
 I need more time with the various phones, and probably also an oppertunity to remove some of the damping, before I can say anything about that.
 Short term the experince from the 202 (baffled damped, like your 404s) and my 404s that are damped directly around the driver is about the same.
 The Sigma/404s (I really, really love those even more now) I have damped even more (around the driver and on the vertical part of the baffle) .... don't hear that much of a difference.
 I heard the Garbarek Dresden concert on ECM this evening and did some comparison with the 007mki I have .... sorry to say, but the Sigma/404s definetly have better dynamics....still the 'odd not linear' characteristic .... but I have to say, these Sigma/404s is really good. (the 007 is more delicated, more refine bla bla .... that is right, but those Sigma/404s do rock in a very attractive way )....  "Soundwise it's almost a new phone" ....couldn't agree more.
  
 Please post some pics of what you are doing with the SRx ....


----------



## edstrelow

"Please post some pics of what you are doing with the SRx ...."
  

  
 OK, this is a picture of what I was doing with the SRXIII pro.
  
 On the upper left is the metal cover. It is made of thin aluminum and has the earpad glued to it. It is then held on the main body by two screws that also act as sleeves where the headband is attached.   You can see one of these screws on the upper right.
  
 So you pull the headband off, unscrew these two screws and pull off the aluminum cover.  There are  three scerws on the top of the main body( shown with the cord running from it.) which can be unscrewed allowing access to the driver.  I didn't see much room in there for any sorb though.
  
 When the metal cover is placed on the main body, there is a bit of space between it and the aluminum cover.  Stax has some minuscule rubbery/sorb type dampers here.  So I decided to try some 1 mm sorbethane there ( you can see one piece I cut out on the lower left and another  on top of the main body.)
  
 When I put it back together, it was  a  tight fit and hard to get the two screws in place so I extended the holes in the aluminum covers a bit by filing with a circular file. This took about 30 seconds of filing.
  
 I put the phones back together, still keeping the previously added 1/8 in sorb attached to the outside of the aluminum cover.  See previously posted picture showing a treated and untreated SRXIII.
  

  
  
 The overall sound was too bassy and I went back and cut off about 1/2 of the amount of 1 mm sorb.  This gave a much better sound now.  Compared to the previous sound  (with just the 1/8 in sorb on the outside of the aluminum)  the  sound now was smoother and less harsh and the bass seemed to be both more extended and sonorous.  All in all a good sound and I spent the rest of the night just listening to these phones.
  
 However I do want to try these phones without the outer ring of sorb, but with  thicker sorb between the main body of the phone and the aluminum cover.  The screw holes on the aluminum cover won't match but can be extended by the above mentioned circular file or just drilling new holes.
  
 For the moment I am going on the belief that sorb is best placed closest to the drivers and here that means on top of the main body of the earpiece as opposed to the outside of the aluminum cover.   I also have one extra SRXIII low bias with perforated  drivers that I can use for spare parts.
  
 Honestly folks,  if you are interested in getting the best sound from your  phones, this is a pretty interesting way to spend spend your time.This is not high level tinkering and as long as you take a modicum of care you shouldn't damage anything.  All of the effects  are reversible and sorbothane sheets are cheap (BTW it is about 1/3 the price on ebay and amazon than what the audio dealers are charging)
  
 When I get a good result, which is about 80% of the time, I often just stop and spend hours/days or weeks just listening to the phones, enjoying the new sound or listening for subtle faults.  It is super cool to be able to adjust favorite phones to your own preferences.
  
 In general I would say, based on almost 2 years of playing with sorbothane, that it is most effective on cleaning up the sound of the middle and upper frequencies.  The effects on bass are generally good but can sometimes go wonky.  If so this can generally be corrected by reducing the amount of sorb.
  
 However there are a range of other sonic benefits such as better space between instruments and dynamics as soren_brix notes.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> ...
> In general I would say, based on almost 2 years of playing with sorbothane, that it is most effective on cleaning up the sound of the middle and upper frequencies.  The effects on bass are generally good but can sometimes go wonky.  If so this can generally be corrected by reducing the amount of sorb.
> 
> However there are a range of other sonic benefits such as better space between instruments and dynamics as soren_brix notes.


 

 These 'new' Sigma/404s still impress me a lot; I have been listning to a lot of different records since the mod, and the overall impression stands.
 I'd say that people should at least try this; it's rather cheap and totally reversible - although in my case it is not reversible, since the improvement is so significant ...'S' for significant, Sigma/404s ;o)


----------



## edstrelow

These mods show that most headphone designs are  inadequate and that the designers have missed something basic, going back to when  the first phones were made. Possibly it didn't matter before there were high performance designs.
  
 So far  I have only sorbed one set of dynamics and it seemed to have the same effects as with the Stax, so  I doubt that this is just a Stax or electrostatic problem. As best I can tell it has to do with getting rid of earcup vibrations caused by the basic operation of the drivers which is not being effectively dissipate.
  
  I discovered this by accident.  Many months ago it would not have occured to me to try this stuff on headphones. I had used sorbothane footers under  things like turntables but I would have assumed that just sticking it on an earcup would have no effect whatsoever.
  
 Instead,  my 2 Lambdas sounded better after adding the sorb than my unmodded 007.  Upgrading the lambdas this way cost less than $1.00/ phone. Upgrading from a current Lambda to an 007 will cost in the region of $1,500.  For anyone looking for a sonic upgrade, unless you just like pissing money away, I suggest you try this first.
  
 Re: the modded Sigma/404,    of all the Stax phones, I have so far tried the sorb fix on, the Lambdas (404 and LNS) have sounded the best to my ears. And by this I mean, improvements across the full frequency spectrum with no frequency anomalies( I did have bass problems on my first attempts with the Sigmas).  At the same time adding air and dynamics.They are historically related designs and use the same drivers. The mods on the other phones are good but  I suspect could be better although this may take a lot of trial and error.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> Instead,  my 2 Lambdas sounded better after adding the sorb than my unmodded 007.  Upgrading the lambdas this way cost less than $1.00/ phone. Upgrading from a current Lambda to an 007 will cost in the region of $1,500.  For anyone looking for a sonic upgrade, unless you just like pissing money away, I suggest you try this first.
> 
> Re: the modded Sigma/404,    of all the Stax phones, I have so far tried the sorb fix on, the Lambdas (404 and LNS) have sounded the best to my ears. And by this I mean, improvements across the full frequency spectrum with no frequency anomalies( I did have bass problems on my first attempts with the Sigmas).  At the same time adding air and dynamics.They are historically related designs and use the same drivers. The mods on the other phones are good but  I suspect could be better although this may take a lot of trial and error.


 
 As far as my experience the Sorb needs to be added at or very close to the origin of the vibration in order to be a clear improvement.
  
 @Edstrelow: "I did have bass problems on my first attempts with the Sigmas" - but you were addind the sorb to the chassie rather than the driver or close to it, right?
  
 As for the Lambda/Sorb improvement, I've done two different types of Sorb'ing on a 202 (Baffle) and a 404 (around the driver itself) , and the improvement are about the same.
 The Sigma/404s has both Sorb on driver and baffle, but due tolack of proper space it cannot be done to the same extent as on the Lambda's.
  
 Comparing the Lamda/Sorbs to my 007mki is still in the favor of the 007mki.
 Comparing the Sigma/404s with the 007mki is kind of another story since they excel in different areas; after doing the sorb mod to the Sigmas they get a lot more listning time than before. Might be a matter of preference/taste. (the 007mki as unaltered).
  
 As for dynamics, I have a BeyerDynamic DT990 Premium....that has some boomy/treblish signature that works ok for electrical music but certainly not for any acoustics. I have added small pieces of sorb around the driver and onto the back of the driver - not much, because the space is very limited - but the result is about the same. It still have the signature but the sound is definately more clear and dynamic in comparison


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> As for dynamics, I have a BeyerDynamic DT990 Premium....that has some boomy/treblish signature that works ok for electrical music but certainly not for any acoustics. I have added small pieces of sorb around the driver and onto the back of the driver - not much, because the space is very limited - but the result is about the same. It still have the signature but the sound is definately more clear and dynamic in comparison


 
 That's very interesting. Tends to confirm my thoughts that the damping issue is a general one in headphones and not just stats. It's been so long since I owned any dynamics that I was in no position to tell. I hope to get a chance to  try some sorb on others at the upcoming Canjam where I will be setting up most of my sorbed phones.


----------



## soren_brix

Did some 'investigations' of mine 007s.
 Putting them on my head, and then start tapping various places on the house, the mesh, and right onto the tab where the arc is fixed to.
 As far as I can hear there are several clear  resonanses going on.
 The arc has a few dominant ones and the mesh contribute with some as well.
 Tabbing the mesh with my fingernail returns some ringing as well as a more distant deeper one that is clearly reduced when holding onto the arc.
 I disassembled the arc from the housings and investigated the houses alone.
 Sounds like there are some not so prominent resonanses when tapping the mesh.

 I have not damped the black metal plate onto where the pads are fixed. Tabbing those did provoke any ringing as far as I could hear.
 The arc resonances are really the most significant and also hardest to get rid of in my experience.
 The approach described by Edstrelow seems to work the best.
 Tried to strip the arc from the leather stockings and add sorbothane ... didn't work out.
 I guess Edstrelow has a point when he suggest that the 007 arc is a mistake.
 The Omega arc/Lambda type of arc seems to be a better choice.
 AFAIK Spritzer had (or has) an Omega with 007mki replacement drivers + some other Birgir specials, that he has described as the best Stax ever. Maybe it boils down to the being the arc? The 009 arc seems to be more similar than different from the Omega arc.
  
 I have done almost the same mod as Edstrelow to one of my 007's, and added to that:
 two pieces of sorbothane approx 1" x ½", which is placed on the tab where the arc is fixed (on top of the STAX logo that is), and another piece across the housing/mesh rim.
 Yellow areas on the pic. On the red areas I've laced clamps like Edstrelow.
 I can confirm the same findings as Edstrelow as to the improvement in sound quality.


----------



## soren_brix

Attached a FG to one channel and swept through the lower fq's <200Hz.
 Sounds like the arcs resonance is close to 150Hz. not actually measured - but found by hearing with help from a FG, like tuning a guitar)
 What I noticed the most is that somewhere between 150-200Hz and below there is a clear resonance present in the opposite channel.
 Putting the clamps on, or even just damping the arcs with a hand is enough to remove the resonance.


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> Attached a FG to one channel and swept through the lower fq's <200Hz.
> Sounds like the arcs resonance is close to 150Hz.
> What I noticed the most is that somewhere between 150-200Hz and below there is a clear resonance present in the opposite channel.
> Putting the clamps on, or even just damping the arcs with a hand is enough to remove the resonance.


 
 That looks like an excellent way to study this problem.  A 150 Hz resonance would be quite audible and deletetious to sound. (I assume that FG means frequency generator?)
  
 I don't fault Stax for missing the need to dampen the earcups with sorbothane or whatever other means one can find because I think this problem has been largely or entirely missed by other headphone designers.  However, I do think they should have spotted that their arc assembly was a bad design. I suspect that they did and that is why the 009 has a different assembly. It is probably too much to expect them to say "we goofed."


----------



## soren_brix

no japanees say we "goofed" ... would be kamiaze ;o)


----------



## edstrelow

Post deleted


----------



## edstrelow

"Damping" and "resonance" mean several different things as applied to headphones and speakers. "Damping" in my use refers to the reduction of  vibrations in headphones  by materials (in this situation, sorbothane.)  What  vibrations? In this context we are referring to the vibrations passed to the earcups and other parts of the headphone by the movement of the driver. Newton tells us that there is an "equal and opposite" reaction to the driver's motion. That seems to indicate that the energy getting into the earcup is equal to what is making all the sound we listen to and thus there is considerable potential for distortion of headphone sound by these vibrations. 
  
 Here is a definition from Wikipedia: 
  
*"Damping* is an influence within or upon an oscillatory system that has the effect of reducing, restricting or preventing its oscillations. In physical systems, damping is produced by processes that dissipate the energy stored in the oscillation"
  
 How does sorb dampen vibrations?  According to the company by converting the vibrational energy to heat.  Again according to  Newton, energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be turned into some other form of energy.   I would assume that the vibrational energy getting into the cups normally dissipates, probably as heat, but probably a bit slowly.  What I think the sorb does when added to the cups, is get rid of the vibrations faster so they have less impact on what we hear.
  
  Damping also is used to refer to the use of foam and other materials behind the drivers which is used to tailor the sound.  Thus my SRXIII's have a wad of fiber material behind the drivers. The 007's don't. Presumably these materials behind the drivers dampen specific frequencies.
  
 I have also used the term "resonance," sometimes when I probably meant vibrations. Resonance refers to the tendency of physical objects and airchambers to vibrate at specific frequencies. Thus  a headphone has a specific frequency which it will tend to maximally vibrate at.  soren-brix, above, also notes that individual parts may have their own resonant frequencies and that for the 007 arc assembly that seems to be about 150Hz.
  
 A definition from Wikipedia:
 "In physics, *resonance* is the tendency of a system to oscillate with greater amplitude at some frequencies than at others."
  
 In these experiments the sorbothane appears to be dampening vibrations, including resonant frequencies although exactly how much of what frequencies I don't know.
  
 I am uncomfortable in these discussions because I have no background in physics other than some high school and college classes, nor am I a mechanical engineer. My doctorate is in experimental psychology in perception, including the study of vision and hearing. I also spent 5 years doing post-doctoral work in a Department of Electrical Engineering but I have been a lawyer for the last 25 years. But none of this background  really prepares me for this specific topic. However I have observed the various odd things about sorbothane and headphones described above and am trying to make some sense of it all. Anyone else is free to have a go, preferably after having tried some sorb mods themselves.
  
 soren_brix "no japanees say we "goofed" ... would be kamiaze ;o)
  
 Hopefully no-one at Stax will fee the need to commit ritual suicide because we criticize their design of  the 007.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> "Damping" and "resonance" mean several different things as applied to headphones and speakers. "Damping" in my use refers to the reduction of  vibrations in headphones  by materials (in this situation, sorbothane.)  What  vibrations? In this context we are referring to the vibrations passed to the earcups and other parts of the headphone by the movement of the driver. Newton tells us that there is an "equal and opposite" reaction to the driver's motion. That seems to indicate that the energy getting into the earcup is equal to what is making all the sound we listen to and thus there is considerable potential for distortion of headphone sound by these vibrations.
> 
> Here is a definition from Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Talking about Newton's Third, you'll have factor the mass'es in question into account, so the moving diaphragm weighs significant less than the housing.
 Just had a quick glance at the mylar density, (is the mylar density really roughly the same as air?? looks like it) and some quick calcs ends up in the area of 20mg (using 5cm radius, and 2my as thickness).... I guess the housing itself would be in the neigbourhood of 200g ... so the relation would 1:10.000 .... it shouldn't be audiable at all ...
  
 In rgrds to a mecahnical system there are often several resonances present and usually one dominate one where the system will 'burn' the energy that came from the system being excited; like hitting a door bell - hiting the bell and you hear the ringing (resonance(s)) in return.
 If you disassemble the 007 and hold the housing on the tip of a screwdriver and hit it gently ...theres a ringing going on ... putting in the driver and that ringing is gone (or damped significantly).
 if you tap in the mesh with your fingernail, theres a short ringing from the mesh ... putting a gentle fingertip on the mesh ... that ringing is gone.
 Taking the big O-ring (that holds the housing) and is attached to the arc's, and hold the O-ring on a screwdriver and hit it, you have the doorbell.
  
 Now, the two big O-rings are attached to each other by the two arc's forming a close-loop (the arc's seems to be made of a material that pretty much resembel the steel used for making springs. Bad choice IMO.
 If one the arc's are being hold fix at one end and the other end is free, there is a resonance (not surprisingly) that resembels the sound that can be heard when wearing the phone and tapping on the housing.
  
 I noticed a small difference between the two 007s I have.

  
 Sorry for the fuzzy pic.
 The 70xxx I have has the arc's fixed directly to the big O-ring(holding the actual house), and on the other side there are those small washers inbetween the arc and the big O-ring.
 The Sz1-xxx I have has no such washers.
 The O-ring resonance is damped when the Arc is mounted in either way (with or without washers).
 But the arc resonance is of course more damped if the washer is not used. Having washers one side only or both sides one one arc doesn't change things much. I prefere to not use the washers.
 I find it a bit peculiar to use washers like that, I mean washer are intended to be right under the head of the screw.
 If the headphones are adjusted to the arc's is touching the headband the coloration is also damped.
  
 I suspect that the culprit is a combi of the construction (having two arc's) and the arc matrial.
  
 Finally, as said in the begining of this post, it shouldn't possible for the driver to excite the resonans to an extent that it flows back as an audiable coloration, but it actually does ...I am puzzeld by this.
  
  
  
  
  
 "


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:
			
		

> Finally, as said in the begining of this post, it shouldn't possible for the driver to excite the resonans to an extent that it flows back as an audiable coloration, but it actually does ...I am puzzeld by this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 So is the distortion we hear in the undamped phones feeding back to the drivers or are we hearing it from the vibrating earcups?


----------



## edstrelow

"More is not better. A large lightly loaded sheet will have a high spring rate and will not deflect enough to provide good isolation. Over compression will lead to short service life. The proper compression range is 3 to 20 per cent depending on the "Shape Factor." Shape factor is the ratio of contact surface (one side) divided by perimeter area. Use many small discs rather than a few large rectangles for best vibration isolation performance. Thickness matters. The thicker the sheet the lower the natural frequency. You need a sheet at least one-inch thick to get your natural frequency down to 10 Hertz. (10 Hertz is your target natural frequency for a 900 RPM motor.) 3M 200MP pressure sensitive adhesive backing easily bonds the Sorbothane sheet to metal, plastic and other surfaces. This sheet is perfect for cutting to meet the needs of special applications or can be used whole. Can be but using a sharp utility knife or scissor. Apply sheet as a whole or use to coat the inside of speakers or equipment housings to provide sound insulation. 1 cm of Sorbothane can isolate up to 40 dB of sound"
  
 I found this on an Amazon add for 1/8 in sorbothane.   I have no idea how accurate it is but it gives some suggestions.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> So is the distortion we hear in the undamped phones feeding back to the drivers or are we hearing it from the vibrating earcups?


 
 I do not believe so much in the action/reaction theory on this, the mass realtion is simply too small.
 What I came to think of is some music instruments.
 For instance the spanish guitar (Torres), has been altered for seven, eight and sometimes even more strings. If you play one of those, you'll instant notice, that the bass become fuller and get more sustain. That is also true if you play it as a regular six string (not using the seventh or eights string), but those string will add to the sound anyway since they will vibrate sympathetically.
 That is also used in various ways in grand pianos.
 Blüthner uses an extra string to create this, called aliquot (meaning something 'extra', also known from number theory in Math).
 Steinway also uses a similar method called duplex, which is actually a short tail to the string itself.
 Fazioli uses a more refined version of the Steinway duplex, as those can be individual adjusted. Steinway has their duplex fixed to the frame and cannot be adjusted.
 What happens is that the system (string, or arc) has a resonance, and when this resonance, or octaves of it, are hit by sound (air vibrating), those 'free' systems (the aliquot, duplex, or the arc) will kick in.
 In the case of the 007, my experince is that it is the arc itself that has this resonance, and it is transfered to the house by the connection to the big O-ring.
  
 The most effective way of 'finding' this resonance, is to wear the phone, and tap on the outside of the one house with the finger tip, at 1-2 o'clock ...then it is clearly audiable.
 Also doing the same, while placing a light finger tip on only one arc, an inch or two distant to the connection point, you can almost dampe it away. Not entirely, but almost.
 When playing music, the arc adds some reverb and sustain to the lower end, and also a bit of smear. As far as I have experienced.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> "More is not better. A large lightly loaded sheet will have a high spring rate and will not deflect enough to provide good isolation. Over compression will lead to short service life. The proper compression range is 3 to 20 per cent depending on the "Shape Factor." Shape factor is the ratio of contact surface (one side) divided by perimeter area. Use many small discs rather than a few large rectangles for best vibration isolation performance. Thickness matters. The thicker the sheet the lower the natural frequency. You need a sheet at least one-inch thick to get your natural frequency down to 10 Hertz. (10 Hertz is your target natural frequency for a 900 RPM motor.) 3M 200MP pressure sensitive adhesive backing easily bonds the Sorbothane sheet to metal, plastic and other surfaces. This sheet is perfect for cutting to meet the needs of special applications or can be used whole. Can be but using a sharp utility knife or scissor. Apply sheet as a whole or use to coat the inside of speakers or equipment housings to provide sound insulation. 1 cm of Sorbothane can isolate up to 40 dB of sound"
> 
> I found this on an Amazon add for 1/8 in sorbothane.   I have no idea how accurate it is but it gives some suggestions.


 
 if you hold up the baffle from a lambda (404 and older) and hit it, you'll have a clear door bell.
 Placing two 1/5" x 1/5" sorbothane in each corner, and this is gone.
 The thing that puzzels me is the fact that the baffle with mounted driver and mount in the house sounds rather dead, and still the sound is clearly improved by add damping.
 I recall back in the days that I modified a Thorens 166.
 All in all a nice turntable but with hugh potential.
 The platter itself was ringing as hell and even a rubber mat that took away almost everything left 'something' behind. I damped the platter using some car damping from Volvo (very light, much lighter than sorbothane) and the improvement was significant.
 A friend of mine which had the Thorens 160 (a bigger model, that had a heavier platter, and an innerplatter that in combination sounded like they cancelled each other out - the outer platter, and inner platter were both ringing, but together, no ringing). He did the same damping of his platter, and had the same experience.
 Since then I have got an Oracle Delphi that has this MVSS system. The MVSS (Micro Vibration Stabilisation System) is mount just nearby the springs and according to Jaques damps micro vibration that travers through the springs.
 The Delphi is mechanical so well built (the electric part is kind of having the 'french' charm, so to speak  that it is kind of surprising that something like MVSS should improve anything at all - but it actually does.
 Basically the MVSS is crying simpel - just a stick in a small tub filled with silicone. Taking the stifness and masses of the floating plate, the platter etc into account, it shouldn't have any effect.


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> I do not believe so much in the action/reaction theory on this, the mass realtion is simply too small.


 
 I think I see the point you are making here, that because the electrostatic drivers are virtually massless  their mass is not contributing much to the vibrations of the driver housing that are presumably the source of the vibrations getting into the earcups.  However the electrostatic drivers are still pushing air around which has a resistance and the housing and earcups are still going to have energy pumped into them because of  that action, Newton's "equal and opposite" energy  principle. Presumably with heavier drivers such as magnetic planars and dynamics,  there is even more energy transmitted into the earcups to be damped because now the mass of the driver is a significant factor.
  
 I agree that ringing exists, especially in the 007's arcs.  .   Every object is going to have a resonance, the earcup, one, and individual parts may have their own giving a complex set of resonant peaks when stimulated by sound.  You can thus clean up headphone sound by damping generally, especially when by placing sorbothane close to the driver, or target specific problem areas such as the 007's arc assembly.
  
 I am more familiar with pianos, having 2 in my house. Pianists use damping to adjust the sound by depressing the pedals.  The right pedal allows "sympathetic resonance" in which other strings, even if they have not been struck by the keys can be induced to vibrate and contribute to the richness of sound.
  
 Here is a description from Wikipedia
 "The sustaining pedal, the right pedal on the modern piano, has been called "the soul of the piano".[1] This pedal *raises all the dampers off the strings *so that they keep vibrating after a key on the keyboard has been released. It adds much expressivity, allowing notes to resonate, and certain harmonies and notes to be connected together."
  
 There is also on some pianos a middle pedal which leaves damping in place except for the notes being struck:
  
 Again Wikipedia:
  
 "The last pedal to be added to the modern grand was the middle pedal, the sostenuto, which was inspired by the French. By using this pedal, a pianist can *sustain selected notes*, while other notes remain unaffected"
  
 However, what may be good in a piano is not good in a headphone. There is no way we want "sympathetic resonance" in headphone cups. That would always be distortion in my estimation although I am sure many designers have played with it deliberately or inadvertently to give a  headphone its particular "euphonic" sound.  With substances like sorbothane you don't have to play the euphonic game so much.


----------



## edstrelow

edstrelow said:


> "More is not better. ..Use many small discs rather than a few large rectangles for best vibration isolation performance."


 
 Getting my damped 007A ready for Canjam. I felt that it lacked the additional bounce and dynamics that I have been getting with my other damped phones.  My last damping of the 7 involved putting a solid ring of 1/4 inch sorb on the metal plate in front of the drivers.  Following the suggestion of the Amazon retailer noted above I decided to cut the ring at the top and the bottom so the ring was now 2 semi circles with a gap of about 1/8 inch between them. That made a big difference.  Now its dynamics are similar to other phones and the bassiness is reduced.    I will probably show this one at Canjam.  I don't want to be fiddling with phones up to the last minute.


----------



## edstrelow

Damn! Cable coming out of the 007 left earcup just broke.  I am going to have to patch something up before next weekend but  I will be away this whole weekend.


----------



## edstrelow

Got it fixed rather quickly. I will be bringing a meter, soldering iron and some tools to Canjam, along with some sorbothane.


----------



## Tachikoma

How did you repair your 007's cable? Also, does the thickness of the sorbothane matter?


----------



## edstrelow

tachikoma said:


> How did you repair your 007's cable? Also, does the thickness of the sorbothane matter?


 
 This set apparently got yanked some time back and I have had to repair both sides using 2 different procedures.
  
 Firstly you need to identify which of the three cables is broken.  If it's not obvious when you open the cup, then  a meter may be used to   test from the plug to where the cables join the junction, before  the driver.  
  
 Even though this is an 007 A it seems to have a weakness just outside the earcups  at the strain relief just like the Mk1. One way I have repaired these  was to  cut off the bottom part of the strain relief and peel the cover from the broken wire to expose the break.  Then I soldered a bit of extra Stax wire  someone once gave me using silver solder. You could use other wire I think.  Then I sealed the wire with black silastic  silicone and when this was dry,heavily wrapped everything in black electrical tape. 
  
  

  
  
 For the other side, I unsoldered the wires at the junction in the earcups just before you get to the drivers.  You would have to be damn careful soldering the drivers because you could easily melt the mylar so  this is why I think Stax uses this junction ploy. It is also necessary to identify which wire goes where so you can put it all back together. Then pull the whole cable out of the strain relief ( I still had to cut off the bottom section of the strain relief  to get the cable to move easily.  Then cut off the whole cable below where the break is, reinsert  the cable through the strain relief, strip some cover off the wires and solder the three wires back on the junction.  Obviously this shortens the cable an inch or two.
  
 I am not sure exactly what these cables cost to replace,  but I am guessing $100-$200.
  
 Some day, after I have finished messing around with modding these phones I will probably buy one along with a new set of earpads.    These breaks were not originally caused by my modding but apparently by the cleaning ladies who sometimes get a bit rambunctious,  (Yeah sure blame the staff!)
  
 Let me know if this is not clear
  
 As regards the thickness of the sorbothane: yes different thickness give different results.  At the moment I don't have a clear idea what is best and have mostly been using 1/8 inch 40 or 50 duro self-stick.  In some applications I have used  1/4 inch 40 duro, and 1 and 2 mm thick.  Following a suggestion from an advert I saw, I think it may be better to use multiple  smaller pieces (irrespective of what thickness you choose) rather than large pieces. But that is not gospel. This is still very much  a trial and error operation. 
 I think the 1/8 sorb is a good starting place.


----------



## edstrelow

Sorbothane damping may be a game changer in headphone design either by forcing manufacturers to start using the stuff or come up with other solutions to cup resonance problems. I am hoping to listen to enough other designs at Canjam to see if any maker have been handling problem better than Stax.  But so far I doubt it  because if they did they would be touting it as  a sales booster.  (Edit: arnaud pointed out recently that Sennheiser may have come to this party at least with their FD800.  In their advertising for the HD 800 they discuss the damping of this phone's metal headband with visco-elastic treatment, which could  be Sorbothane or something similar.  This is of course what I have been saying about the Stax SR007 metal headband for 2 years now.  I have given some links in  a later post below)
  
 Cup design seems to be  a black art, by and large we purchasers are happy if they look good and suspect that if they are heavy they will sound good too. Certainly weight will reduce resonance problems, but has obvious restrictions for headphones.  I have noted for years that my heavy, 2 lb Koss ESP6's have less harshness than any Stax phone. http://www.head-fi.org/t/234504/koss-esp6-refurbished-vintage-electrostatics  Unfortunately they also have less dynamics and imaging..
  
 Those of us who are electrostatic fans  look to driver design as the key factor.  I can see what Stax was trying to do with the SR009, make a super transparent, but very rigid stator grill, along with a large driver.  And they did get rid of the faulty headband arc design of the SR007, although they continue to sell this model without change.  (Hint  a sorbothane clamp will make it sound better) http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems
  
 I also understand the emergence of magnetic planar drivers, these are very much like electrostatic drivers and those that I have heard have a similar sound quality.
  
 HOW ABOUT NOISE CANCELLING TO CUT RESONANCE?
 But the principles of cup design seem to be largely ignored or at least unadvertised in the business. Sorbothane damping as best I understand it,  gets rid of cup vibrations by turning mechanical energy into heat. There may be other materials or other technologies which could also work.  One that occurs to me would be  similar to the technology used in noise-cancelling headphones. Split off an out-of-phase electrical signal from the drivers and feed this into the earcups to cancel the earcup vibrations.
  
 Nevertheless, sorbothane damping  is an easy and cheap way to improve the sound of your phones. And by cheap I mean a dollar more or less!  But it does take some trial and error.  One simple way to start is with small pieces, gradually adding more in different locations and listening to see if the sound gets better or worse.  With many phones you can simply stick it to the outside of the earcups although I think you will get more optimal results putting it close to the drivers.
  
 PROBLEMS I HAVE HAD WITH SORB
  Not all of my attempts have worked well. Some large pieces of sorb have not sounded good, poorly fastened sorb may make the sound worse, and excessive clamping (when I have used clamps) has not been effective.  Sometimes these misses cause the treble to go bad, sometimes the bass.  However it is no big deal to fix these problems and highly satisfying when you get a better result.
  
 CHANGES IN SOUND SIGNATURE?
 Also interesting is that sometimes you can change the apparent sonic signature of the phones with sorb.  I recently pulled up the mid frequencies of both the SR007 and the Sigma/404 simply by cutting larger pieces of sorb into smaller pieces and re-gluing them in place.  Sorb gives you some freedom to tailor the sound of headphones to your own taste.  You may find that a cheaper damped phone rises in the ranking of quality.  I really like my damped Lambda LNS and 404 and found it hard for a long time to get the SR007 to the point where I really thought it was better than the much cheaper Lambdas.  soren_brix on the other hand seemed more impressed by his damped Sigma/404 than the damped Lambdas.  I suspect either that we just like different things or that we are using slightly different amounts, thicknesses and duro of our sorb and this may be affecting our impressions.
  
 Right now I am packing up   2 CD transports and dacs, three Stax amps and 5 or 6 headphones to take to Canjam.


----------



## wink

Bon voyage and happy meeting, greeting and listening.
  
 p.s. don't go sticking any sorb on the Hifiman HE-1000 without Fang's permission....


----------



## edstrelow

wink said:


> Bon voyage and happy meeting, greeting and listening.
> 
> p.s. don't go sticking any sorb on the Hifiman HE-1000 without Fang's permission....


 
 Thanks. It should be fun. The last one I went to was in LA and that was cool.
  
 Are you sure that other makers are not already using sorb?  Arnaud just today steered me to the Sennheiser HD 800.
  
 Evidently Sennheiser had a problem with the metal headband used with the HD800similar to what I noted with the Stax SR007.
  
 This is from their webpage: "Metal headband with inner-damping element"  http://en-us.sennheiser.com/dynamic-headphones-high-end-around-ear-hd-800. It even says "minimal resonance."
  
 This you tube video shows the headband in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlA84jbTkxk
  
 This one talks about "the worlds most advanced sound dampening frame:"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLgOWgk7PU
  
 This is from the HD 800 ad on Amazon:
  
 *The headband consists of a sandwich design in which a metal layer is covered with several layers of plastic. The high-tech plastic possesses incredible attenuation characteristics and ensures that oscillations are not transmitted to the headphone mountings."
  

 Sounds like things I have been saying.
  
 There appears to be damping under the band. Could it be sorbothane? If you have one to hand possibly you could have a look.


----------



## wink

Quote:edstrelow 





> There appears to be damping under the band. Could it be sorbothane? If you have one to hand possibly you could have a look.


 
 I think it's the cheese from a MacDonalds junior cheeseburger......


----------



## edstrelow

wink said:


> I think it's the cheese from a MacDonalds junior cheeseburger......


 
 The Aussie version of sorbothane?


----------



## Tachikoma

edstrelow said:


> For the other side, I unsoldered the wires at the junction in the earcups just before you get to the drivers.  You would have to be damn careful soldering the drivers because you could easily melt the mylar so  this is why I think Stax uses this junction ploy. It is also necessary to identify which wire goes where so you can put it all back together. Then pull the whole cable out of the strain relief ( I still had to cut off the bottom section of the strain relief  to get the cable to move easily.  Then cut off the whole cable below where the break is, reinsert  the cable through the strain relief, strip some cover off the wires and solder the three wires back on the junction.  Obviously this shortens the cable an inch or two.


 
 With the 007 mk1, I learnt that the wires can't be pulled up from the strain relief, because Stax uses really thin and tiny wires to connect the drivers to the rest of the cable. I had the molded part cut in half with a scapel, and found a semi-translucent plastic piece inside where the cable has to thread through. In the end I tossed that part, pulled the wires through the strain relief and glued the strain relief back together with araldite. I'm willing to put money on this repaired cable lasting a lot longer than the original design - why in the world did Stax overcomplicate things so much on this cable?


----------



## edstrelow

Sounds like a little different design than the Mk2 where are long as I removed the bottom half of the strain relief I could pull the complete cable through.


----------



## Earspeakers

Hi Guys,
    I've got some time now and so would like to experiment with this. I've read the thread but am not clear on an approach. Caveats:
  

I don't want to disassemble or extensively modify the headphones, just add it externally to where it will have the greatest potential effect
I'd also like to do blind A-B tests. Which is two headphones in the same line (Lambda-Lambda or Omega-Omega) one with, and one without. I'll have my wife place the speakers on my head with my eye closed so I don't know which is which.
  
 Ideally they'd be the same model, but I have a 404 and 404LE that practically sound the same. So, given a Lambda frame, what should I do given that I'm not going to disassemble? 
  
 I haven't worked with Sorb previously, so please recommend a source from Amazon (Prime shipping ideally) that would be a good choice for this test if you have any thoughts on this. 
  
 Thanks!


----------



## edstrelow

Lambdas are a problem  because they are virtually all plastic grill and you need a solid flat spot to put the sorb. That's why soren_brix and I opened them up and put it on the metal baffle. That also means you are damping a spot close to the origin of vibrations and the sorb should be more effective there.
  
 The only spot  I can see where you can put anything on the outside of the Lambda  case are the thin strips of plastic at the edge next to the earpads. Thin strips of sorb there might just do something.
 .
 With the 007A and SRX3, I placed much larger strips around the outer edges of the ear cups and of course, I maintain that the metal arcs  of the 007 need damping.
  
 I never understood why people here talk about blind testing of tweaks, cables and the like  but not when it comes to picking new equipment. Can you really say those new $1500 cans were objectively better than the $500 pair. We also chronically misue the term double-blind. That refers to a type of testing in which neither the testor nor testee know what is coming next.
  
 I have spent 9 hrs today  at Canjam. I was able to do some A/B demos with my two high bias Sigmas, one damped and the other not. Most people said the differences were clear. Maybe 2 people in the whole said they couldn't tell the difference.
  
 My basic test is to listen to familiar music and determine if anything sounds different or better.


----------



## edstrelow

Set-up at Canjam. 2 cd systems, 3 Stax amps and 5 Stax phones, 4 of them damped.


----------



## Earspeakers

edstrelow said:


> I never understood why people here talk about blind testing of tweaks, cables and the like  but not when it comes to picking new equipment. Can you really say those new $1500 cans were objectively better than the $500 pair.


 
  
 Yes, because there's 'better' and 'different'. I only listen to classical music (am a musician), and can absolutely hear when a component screws up the sound of a cello, piano or orchestra. Everything does, except Stax which is the only component which gets it to the point where I can't distinguish from reality. Then there's different, which are changes in tonality and presentation usually. For example, the 4070 sounds "flatter" and "thinner" than the 009 - but it's just as real. It's no different than listening in a different concert hall. 
  
 Finally there are imaginary differences. I notice they seem to happen most often when I first hear something, and after listening for a while. The first bit is probably a hormone rush from trying something new. The later bit is my brain rewiring itself to the sound. The latter effect happens so frequently is the reason we need blind tests. 
  
 Calibration is also needed. I calibrate myself against my concert grand in the living room, to the sound of a recorded grand. 
  
 Finally though isn't it odd you complain about how people say one component is better than an other, when you are promoting sorbothane as a big improvement? 


> We also chronically misue the term double-blind. That refers to a type of testing in which neither the testor nor testee know what is coming next.


 
  
 Which is why I called it a blind test. 
  
 I have spent 9 hrs today  at Canjam. I was able to do some A/B demos with my two high bias Sigmas, one damped and the other not. Most people said the differences were clear. Maybe 2 people in the whole said they couldn't tell the difference.
  
 My basic test is to listen to familiar music and determine if anything sounds different or better.


----------



## edstrelow

earspeakers said:


> Yes, because there's 'better' and 'different'. I only listen to classical music (am a musician), and can absolutely hear when a component screws up the sound of a cello, piano or orchestra. Everything does, except Stax which is the only component which gets it to the point where I can't distinguish from reality. Then there's different, which are changes in tonality and presentation usually. For example, the 4070 sounds "flatter" and "thinner" than the 009 - but it's just as real. It's no different than listening in a different concert hall.
> 
> Finally there are imaginary differences. I notice they seem to happen most often when I first hear something, and after listening for a while. The first bit is probably a hormone rush from trying something new. The later bit is my brain rewiring itself to the sound. The latter effect happens so frequently is the reason we need blind tests.
> 
> ...


 
 I have been a stat fan most of my life,  first with Koss, then Stax and even Jaecklin. I appreciate the sense of reality they provide and their tonal accuracy.  I take it you hear a lot of acoustic music that gives a reference to decide if a sound is accurate. People who only know amplified sound lack this reference and mainly seem to judge on the basis of bass slam, as in a rock concert. And if that's what you like and will be listening to and don't mind damaging your hearing, that's fine.
  
 The main criticism of stats is edginess of treble and lack of dynamics because they are so hard to drive. That's why the $5,000 amplifiers. The sorb helps in both respects, even though you have to turn the volume up a bit more.  Having just spent time at Canjam, so do the $5,000 amplifiers.


----------



## Earspeakers

edstrelow said:


> I have been a stat fan most of my life,  first with Koss, then Stax and even Jaecklin. I appreciate the sense of reality they provide and their tonal accuracy.  I take it you hear a lot of acoustic music that gives a reference to decide if a sound is accurate. People who only know amplified sound lack this reference and mainly seem to judge on the basis of bass slam, as in a rock concert. And if that's what you like and will be listening to and don't mind damaging your hearing, that's fine.


 
  
 We're of the same mind on this exactly. I only listen to acoustic music. Classical, about 8 hours a day while I work at the computer these days mainly. I agree with what you say about amplified music. It starts off as an electronic signal, then is sent through compressors and all sorts of stuff, and out a dynamic speaker at 130 SPL. What's the obsession with reproducing that?
  
  
   


> The main criticism of stats is edginess of treble and lack of dynamics because they are so hard to drive. That's why the $5,000 amplifiers.


 
  
 I think they're both myths because of the reasons you say above. People are used to hearing an electronic instrument through dynamic speakers, and stats will reproduce that as ... an electronic signal through dynamic speakers. That is, exactly as they sound. The "lack of dynamics" and "treble edge" myth is because it's the wrong transducer for a type of music that was created and mixed for dynamic drivers. 
  
 There is no lack of dynamics, and no treble edge with Stax with classical music, which has more dynamic shifts and use of the treble than electronic music.


----------



## soren_brix

earspeakers said:


> Hi Guys,
> I've got some time now and so would like to experiment with this. I've read the thread but am not clear on an approach. Caveats:
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Now, this isn't rocket science nor is it particular difficult to play with.
 If you are going to try it out on your lambdas x04 and prior, you will most probably benefit the most from adding the sorb directly onto the baffle or the driver itself (around the edge) - in my experience it doesn't make much difference.
 Dismantling your Lambda's isn't particular hard either.
 Just lift the very corner of your pads, and loosen up the screw.
 When you have removed all four screws you probably need to use some gentle force draging out the baffle - put the screwdriver into one of the screw holes ...angle it a bit and drag gently ... then it pops out, and you can add the sorb. Takes about five min.
 afterwards you can press the baffle back into place - but leave it unscrewed - for your initial listning.
 In rgrds to Lambda x07 its different, all plastic ... no expereince ... as I recall some guy "Calgary" changed the baffle on his 407 or 507 into aluminium ... and reported improvement ... but I have no experience.
 In rgrds to the 007 ... you can just tab on the housing and easily find the resonance ...also a very gentle finger on each arc removes it completely
 Before being taken away sorbing the 007 please make sure that your pads/springs are correctly setup ... it does change the sound significantly.
  
 Source: I have used sheets of 3M 200MP, I am not sure what Edstrelow has used.
  
 Lets us know of your findings )


----------



## Don Quichotte

So, just to be sure, this is it, right? http://www.ebay.com/itm/SORBOTHANE-SHEET-6X6x1-8-VIBRATION-ISO-RUBBER-PAD-50D-/370216984580


----------



## Don Quichotte

I don't know why I cannot edit my post. I forgot to mention that I couldn't find (cheap) self adhesive sorbothane. Would any regular double sticky tape be appropriate in this case? Thanks!
  
 Edit: now I've found the EDIT button... stupid me...


----------



## Earspeakers

soren_brix said:


> Now, this isn't rocket science nor is it particular difficult to play with.


 
 Didn't say it was 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I just want to do it according to best practice so as to get the best result.
  
 Thanks otherwise.


----------



## soren_brix

Quote:


earspeakers said:


> I don't want to disassemble or extensively modify the headphones, just add it externally to where it will have the greatest potential effect


  
 Quote:


earspeakers said:


> Didn't say it was
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I guess there are not much you can do with sorbothane apart from making things worse.
 If you are talking about the Lambdas(x04 prior)/Sigmas you don't improve anything without doing a diassemble - however the mod is fully reversible 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 The 007 you need to removed the Pads in order to do the Edstrelow mod (I haven't),


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> I guess there are not much you can do with sorbothane apart from making things worse.
> If you are talking about the Lambdas(x04 prior)/Sigmas you don't improve anything without doing a diassemble - however the mod is fully reversible
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Just to convince yourself that something is going on here you might get somewhere by sticking
 bits of sorb around the case of a phone,  However there is not much room on the Lambdas. Then again as you say it will not be as effective as placing it on the baffle.
  
 At Canjam someone handed me a pair of Audio Technica's http://www.trustedreviews.com/audio-technica-ath-w1000x-review to see what I thought.  I of course thought they needed damping so I put a thin strip of 1/8 sorb on the metal section next to each wooden cup. I could tell a slight gain in bass, and spatial imaging  and a bigger reduction in raspiness The owner seemed quite happy with the results.
  
 With the 007 you only need to take off the pads to dampen where I placed sorb. That's the easy part, getting the pads back on is tricky.  Stax really didn't put much effort into this aspect of this phone but I now have a routine for doing it.  I also dampen the headband which is obviously easier to get to.
  
 I think you can hear some benefit sticking sorb on the outside of the SRXIII and the 007 and I am sure now that the 009 needs it.


----------



## edstrelow

don quichotte said:


> So, just to be sure, this is it, right? http://www.ebay.com/itm/SORBOTHANE-SHEET-6X6x1-8-VIBRATION-ISO-RUBBER-PAD-50D-/370216984580


 
  
  


don quichotte said:


> I don't know why I cannot edit my post. I forgot to mention that I couldn't find (cheap) self adhesive sorbothane. Would any regular double sticky tape be appropriate in this case? Thanks!
> 
> Edit: now I've found the EDIT button... stupid me...


 
 This looks like what I have been using except the self-stick. This one is a self stick. 
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/SORBOTHANE-SHEET-6X6x1-8-150mmx150mmx2-4mm-PAD-SELF-STICK-SHEET-AUDIOQUEST-/251852273912?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3aa390b8f8


----------



## Don Quichotte

Thanks! I'll post my impressions after trying the mod (will take a few weeks due to the long shipping time).


----------



## edstrelow

Currawong pointed me to this site which does expensive rebuilds of phones and which include damping material called dynamat, a car stereo sound deadener. It would seem to serve the same purpose as sorbothane although I don't know about the relative effectiveness of the two substances. Their discussion about cup vibrations mirrors my own thoughts. Of course the sorbothane mods only cost a dollar or so.  This site charges up to $1400.00,  although it includes recabling and wooden cups.
  
http://www.lawtonaudio.com/fostexupgradepackages.html


----------



## Tachikoma

That whole website screams TLDR at me. Where are the price tags?


----------



## wink

On your bill after the mods are done


----------



## edstrelow

tachikoma said:


> That whole website screams TLDR at me. Where are the price tags?


 
 Towards the bottom of the first page. What is TLDR?


----------



## Tachikoma

Too long don't read.


----------



## wink

Torn Leg, Didn't Run.


----------



## Earspeakers

wink said:


> Torn Leg, Didn't Run.


 

 Ugh, I'm due for a run this morning and have a sore tendon. Don't say that!


----------



## edstrelow

Duplicate post (see below)


----------



## edstrelow

Duplicate post (see below)


----------



## edstrelow

Duplicate post, see below.


----------



## edstrelow

Interesting thread on mechanical damping issues in audio by a mechanical engineer. He supports the use of sorbothane footers rather than solid items such a cones. I would have though solid spikes would at least work better for speakers although you can still reduce vibrations with sorbothane.  This has some bearing on the damping of heapdphone ear cups.
  
 "09-02-06: Rotarius The last time I replied to a similar post it never made it past the moderators for some reason. Placing different materials like wood or brass under a cd player or tube equipment will alter the sound slightly at times for better or worse but are not very effective in isolating the component from the mechanical vibrations via the rack. If you look up isolation or vibration damping devices you will find that materials like polyurethane are used often. Sorbothane is just ultra soft polyurethane. As a mechanical engineer with access to vibration analysers it is easy for me to see which materials dampen vibrations and which don't but I doubt I can convince any of the serious audiophiles to give up their high dollar cones and ball bearings for something that cost a few bucks. Rotarius (Threads | Answers | This Thread) "
  
 Here is the thread:
  
 http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1146508660&read&keyw&zzsorbothane


----------



## edstrelow

A technical advisor at Sorbothane  told me today that damping occurs on a basis of about 40 dB per cm of thickness at 50 Hz and above.  So essentially the thicker the sorb, the more damping which will occur. He did not however have any data on the linearity of the damping or advise on how to damp the lower frequencies or how this varied with duro (softness of the sorbothane). Unfortunately this means a lot of trial and error is still called for here to get uniform damping across the frequency spectrum.
  
 Low frequency boominess has been more of a problem with the 007A than any other of the phones I have tried so far but I may have part of a solution. Following a tip from a seller of sorb that smaller pieces were more effective than large pieces, I cut the ring of 1/4 inch sorb into 4 sections, whereas it had originally been a solid ring. This seems to improve performance by reducing the bassiness of the phones and making the other frequenciess more dynamic. Thus I now am getting  dynamics and bounce to individual instruments more like I have been getting with the modified Lambdas. I tried a partial segmenting on the 007 phones I displayed at Canjam in March and finally did the last sectioning and like the result very much.
  
 I don't understand why segmenting works though. However the information from the Sorbothane technical support may explain why there is a bass problem after damping with sorb. If the sorb is mainly supressing resonances above 50 Hz, the frequencies below 50 Hz are still there, at their original volume and thus the system may sound bassy. Sorb is subtracting sound from the mix you hear from your phones, it has been pretty obvious to me from the beginning of this experiment that I have to turn the volume up after applying sorb. 
  
 Of course what you are losing by damping the earcups is not really music, it is resonant rubbish, which sometimes sound "airy." This is not just a Stax problem, but as best I can tell no phones other than the Sennheiser Hd800 have made any effort to get rid of  these resonances.


----------



## Tachikoma

So I ran out of PTFE (teflon) tape for wrapping around my headphones, so I grabbed some cling film, rolled it up a bit and used that instead. I immediately heard a decrease in high frequency "air" on the side that had the cling film on, which sounds a lot like the effect you guys are getting from attaching sorbothane to parts of the headphone.
  
 Here's a picture of what I did if you're interested:
 http://imgur.com/nT63bkU


----------



## maverickronin

edstrelow said:


> I have been a stat fan most of my life,  first with Koss, then Stax and even Jaecklin. I appreciate the sense of reality they provide and their tonal accuracy.  I take it you hear a lot of acoustic music that gives a reference to decide if a sound is accurate. People who only know amplified sound lack this reference and mainly seem to judge on the basis of bass slam, as in a rock concert. And if that's what you like and will be listening to and don't mind damaging your hearing, that's fine.


 


earspeakers said:


> We're of the same mind on this exactly. I only listen to acoustic music. Classical, about 8 hours a day while I work at the computer these days mainly. I agree with what you say about amplified music. It starts off as an electronic signal, then is sent through compressors and all sorts of stuff, and out a dynamic speaker at 130 SPL. What's the obsession with reproducing that?


 
  
 I have to say I disagree with this.  I'm fully "converted" to 'stats and my primary genre is metal.  IMO, short of the HE1000 or possibly a properly modded HD800 (haven't actually heard one, but the measurements I've seen look promising) nothing comes close to the speed and separation of stock SRS-2170 system.  I prefer my Lambdas for any genre of music for that reason.
  
 Thanks for the heads up on the sorbothane though.  I just ordered one of the self stick sheets and I'm going to compare and contrast it with the dynamat that I used in modding orthos before I got into 'stats.


----------



## edstrelow

maverickronin said:


> Thanks for the heads up on the sorbothane though.  I just ordered one of the self stick sheets and I'm going to compare and contrast it with the dynamat that I used in modding orthos before I got into 'stats.


 
  
 That'll be interesting because dynamat evidently works much like sorbothane.  I haven't tried it myself although as I google it various people have used it with a number of phones and I know of one modding company that will install it.
  
 One good thing about sorb is that it comes in various thicknesses and hardnesses (what they call "duro.")  I assume that softer is better for absorbing energy but I could be wrong and am not sure whether different duro absorb different frequencies.  My impression so far is that it is better to use  samller pieces than large sections, even if the total amount of sorb is the same.
  
 Of one thing I am sure though, that virtually all headphones have resonance problems and that this problem has been mostly overlooked by the industry.


----------



## Don Quichotte

So, I've tried it on my SR-303. Actually, after removing the 4 screws, I couldn't for the life of me separate the baffle from the grey outer shell (is earcup the right word?). Therefore, I got another idea. Since I just had to replace my earpads and I hadn't stick them to the baffle yet, I placed some thin (about 5mm) strips of sorbothane right on the inner edge of the baffle, even touching a bit the metallic mesh that protects the driver. I used 2 strips for each headphone first, about 5 cm each, placed on opposite parts of the oval window of the baffle, then I cut them shorter and even completely removed one of them. Still experimenting, trying to find the right amount.
  
 I was pretty sure I will hear a difference, but I wasn't expecting such an obvious one. The sound is cleaner, less hazy, with less air and milder upper mids / highs, fuller, bassier; in complex passages, it's easier to hear what's going on in the lower mids area. Pretty much in line with what has already been posted. On the negative side, too much sorbothane made the bass a bit boomy in my system (which was tweaked to sound pretty balanced to my ears). Also, I had a feeling that the mids, perhaps around 800-1000Hz, I'm not sure, had a tendency to become a tiny little bit... shouty, I should say. Perhaps this is how these headphones sound in my system anyway, but the extra energy above this frequency area was masking a bit this shouty-ness?! Not a strong phenomenon, and dependent on the amount of sorbothane, of course, but it made Garbarek's saxophone on the 4th track of his Visible World album (ECM), for example, a bit too upfront, a bit unpleasant sometimes. Perhaps the most important, the diminished air made the sound somehow less free, expansive, sometimes even less expressive in a way - to my ears and in my system. The cymbals in particular were less metallic than they should have been now. When applying an excessive amount of sorbothane, the sound became dead, perhaps similar to speakers in an overdamped room. This made me think that 'hearing only the driver" was not the goal to be aimed at here, and made me remember the thin, underdamped speaker walls concept of Harbeth (some speakers I would really like to hear, but I haven't had the chance yet). I found myself wishing I could somehow retain the better clarity of the modded headphones and the airy quality of the stock ones at the same time.
  
 So, jury is still out. I'm pretty sure I will end up with some amount of damping, but how much, this I will determine over long term listening. As a side note, I have also tried damping the outer part of the headphone by placing a short (~3cm), thin strip of sorbothane just under the plastic fork, on top of the headphone so to speak, where there is a small darker piece of plastic with "STAX SR-303" written on it. To my astonishment, I could hear a small difference even with such a small amount of damping applied in such an innocuous location! (the baffle was not damped when I tried this) I didn't expect it would matter at all and I don't understand why it did, but I heard what I heard.
  
 Many thanks to edstrelow and the other fellows for inventing and refining this tweak, and I encourage all the other Stax afficionados to try it.


----------



## edstrelow

don quichotte said:


> So, I've tried it on my SR-303. Actually, after removing the 4 screws, I couldn't for the life of me separate the baffle from the grey outer shell (is earcup the right word?). Therefore, I got another idea. Since I just had to replace my earpads and I hadn't stick them to the baffle yet, I placed some thin (about 5mm) strips of sorbothane right on the inner edge of the baffle, even touching a bit the metallic mesh that protects the driver. I used 2 strips for each headphone first, about 5 cm each, placed on opposite parts of the oval window of the baffle, then I cut them shorter and even completely removed one of them. Still experimenting, trying to find the right amount.
> 
> I was pretty sure I will hear a difference, but I wasn't expecting such an obvious one. The sound is cleaner, less hazy, with less air and milder upper mids / highs, fuller, bassier; in complex passages, it's easier to hear what's going on in the lower mids area. Pretty much in line with what has already been posted. On the negative side, too much sorbothane made the bass a bit boomy in my system (which was tweaked to sound pretty balanced to my ears). Also, I had a feeling that the mids, perhaps around 800-1000Hz, I'm not sure, had a tendency to become a tiny little bit... shouty, I should say. Perhaps this is how these headphones sound in my system anyway, but the extra energy above this frequency area was masking a bit this shouty-ness?! Not a strong phenomenon, and dependent on the amount of sorbothane, of course, but it made Garbarek's saxophone on the 4th track of his Visible World album (ECM), for example, a bit too upfront, a bit unpleasant sometimes. Perhaps the most important, the diminished air made the sound somehow less free, expansive, sometimes even less expressive in a way - to my ears and in my system. The cymbals in particular were less metallic than they should have been now. When applying an excessive amount of sorbothane, the sound became dead, perhaps similar to speakers in an overdamped room. This made me think that 'hearing only the driver" was not the goal to be aimed at here, and made me remember the thin, underdamped speaker walls concept of Harbeth (some speakers I would really like to hear, but I haven't had the chance yet). I found myself wishing I could somehow retain the better clarity of the modded headphones and the airy quality of the stock ones at the same time.
> 
> ...


 
 As you note, the effects are not subtle even though you weren't able to place the srobothane where soren_brix and I think it is most effective. Still, this sounds like progress.  Too bad you couldn't get the baffle off the Lambdas.  They get stuck in the cup, especially if they haven't been removed in a decade or more.  I have sometimes used a sharp knife to gently pry under the edge. between the baffle and the outer earcup.  I undestand your hesitation about breaking something though.
  
 Regarding the "air" that seems to be reduced.  I have noticed this as well, but believe what you are hearing is not actual ambience but rather earcup resonance.  When I turn the volume up a notch I often find that I am hearing the hall ambience for the first time on many recordings.
  
 I found that the arrangement I first applied to the lambdas worked very well on both an LNS and 404 Lambda. I got no sonic anomalies ,have left it alone and have been very happy with the sound.   Frnaky, it was os good that it took a lot of experimenting before I could get my 007A to sound better.
  
 I have had some of the problems you note with other phones however, and have had to proceed by trial and error to get rid of especially bass boominess.  One thing I am finding is that putting the sorb into smaller segments seems to keep the bass from getting boomy.  You might try this, but still I hope you are able to succeed in opening your Lambda and putting the sorb on the inside baffle.  As you can see however, this is a fun activity, cheap to get into and with a big payoff when you get it right.


----------



## Tachikoma

Have you considered sending a sorb-modded phone to Tyll for measurements?
  
 I'd like to echo Don Quichotte's observations, wrapping the driver with cling film decreased the "air", but also made it easier to hear things in the lower mid area, so I'm guessing that its also helping to dampen driver vibrations.
  
 The reason I wrapped the driver originally, was to seal the baffle properly. The glue Stax used either deteriorates over time or simply wasn't good enough, so the baffle is often leaky in older Lambdas. If the driver doesn't fart when pushed against the ears, its leaky.
  
 On my LNS, I used a spatula to push the baffle out, but you could probably do the same with a plastic knife.


----------



## edstrelow

tachikoma said:


> Have you considered sending a sorb-modded phone to Tyll for measurements?


 
 Not a bad idea. I am using my SRXIII pro for experimentation but  I should contact Tyll to see if he would be prepared to do some measurements. Most of it's sorb is on the outer casing, so it can be removed for a before and after measurement.


----------



## edstrelow

I am pretty sure that I have made the world's best headphone with the most recent mods to the 007A.   The latest mod is something I have tried with success on other phones too,  basically cutting the larger pieces of sorbothane into smaller pieces.  It was originally suggested by a sorb seller on ebay and he was definitely on to something. I have made some edits in earlier posts to explain these, where I have described how I have damped different phones.
  
 "World's best?"  That's quite a claim, but I spent some time comparing my modded 007A with an 009 at the last Canjam in SoCal and while I concede that unmodded, the 009 is probably better than the 007A,  even  with the more limited mods, the 007A was in the same league  as the 009 if not better.  The 009 seemed to have  a smoother  frequency response and more extension in both bass and treble.    But the 007A had dynamics and  more realistic tonal characteristics. I have now  reduced the size of the sorb pieces inside the earcup twice since then and each time the 007A has got noticeably better.  Now the inner ring of 1/4 inch sorb is in 8 sections.  At Canjam it was three. I have owned Stax phones for over 30 years and that experience gives me a familiarty with the nuances of sound.  "Golden ears" if you like.  Even after that long experience with about a dozen Stax, it is clear that the sorb mods make these phones a lot better.  
  
 zolkis  claims that his mods to the 007 and 009 using different foam and earpads also give big improvements, and since I have not heard these I can't say.  However, the sorb mods are simpler and much cheaper and it seems more obvious why they work. Sorb is simply a damping material.  It gets rid of audible mechanical resonance in the phones. I suspect some of his mods work for the same reason.
  
 I am pretty sure that a properly modded 009 would be even better  than my 007A  but I am not going there.  Possibly after my last kid graduates college (as I sit here I am paying on 4 apartment leases in Berkeley, which is next door to  San Francisco the most expensive city in the US) I may put out the bucks for an 009 but the sorb mod only costs a few bucks, not  a few thousand and gives more sonic improvement anyway. Even my modded Lambda 404 is remarkably good and its performance has been the model for judging whether the mods on the other phones are as good as they should be.
  
 When I started this work I did not have much more to go on other than that I had found that under some circumstances the application of sorbothane to the earcups or other parts of some headphones could make a remarkable change in their sound. Now I realize that as important as that finding may be, more significant is the fact that doing anything to the body of the phones could markedly change their sound. I now believe this means that there is a large amount of mechanical energy floating around most phones, which is insufficiently damped and which is messing up the sound of even the best phones. Even more remarkable is that  this phenomenon has either not been observed before or has been ignored by even the top headphone makers, although not by speaker makers who seem to go to much more effort to reduce mechanical resonance.
  
 I do not claim to fully understand what is going here but briefly what I think is going on is based on simple Newtonian laws of physics.  When a headphone is running, as much energy is going back into the earcups as is making the drivers move  (equal and opposite principle). This energy has to go somewhere since it cannot be "created or destroyed."  It shakes the earcups and possibly the driver again and thus you end up hearing it along with what the drivers are doing. Sorbothane reduces this energy by converting it to heat.  What I hear in an undamped phone is a sort of ambience which goes away when the phone is damped. There is generally a marked drop in volume when sorb is added.  But turn up the volume a notch and now you hear better tonality and definition.  The triangles ring better, there is more bite to the double bass and less overall harshness. ( Yes Stax can sound harsh)   More often now I am hearing the recording ambience which I would have sworn was not there.  And I am swinging and swaying more  to the music.   
  
  I will develop this argument at  a later time, although portions of it are scattered throughout this thread and the earlier one http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems  However  I am keeping the current thread for discussions of what may be the more effective types of sorb mods for various Stax phones.  I have also played with some dynamic phones and they also show the same effects of adding sorb, but that is for others to work on.


----------



## katulu

Very interesting thread. As an engineer, I have a little understanding of resonance (from the structural perspective) and how masses and their damping properties can affect response. I must say that it is interesting to read through this thread, because as noted previously, placement, amount, and size of dampers are all very important. For example, cutting up the same size of sorb into smaller pieces and then applying it may work better because of the fundamental frequencies of the smaller pieces may be more in tune with the frequencies you are trying to correct, instead of the bigger piece. Unfortunately, these things are always system-dependent to a large extent, so what works for one headphone may not work for the next. But I would be interested in knowing what size/thickness/amount of sorb would be particularly effective for 1500 Hz and 5200 Hz, for my TH900 headphones. This could also be the key to damping the treble peaks of the HD800s (without going all anax mod, etc).


----------



## edstrelow

katulu said:


> Very interesting thread. As an engineer, I have a little understanding of resonance (from the structural perspective) and how masses and their damping properties can affect response. I must say that it is interesting to read through this thread, because as noted previously, placement, amount, and size of dampers are all very important. For example, cutting up the same size of sorb into smaller pieces and then applying it may work better because of the fundamental frequencies of the smaller pieces may be more in tune with the frequencies you are trying to correct, instead of the bigger piece. Unfortunately, these things are always system-dependent to a large extent, so what works for one headphone may not work for the next. But I would be interested in knowing what size/thickness/amount of sorb would be particularly effective for 1500 Hz and 5200 Hz, for my TH900 headphones. This could also be the key to damping the treble peaks of the HD800s (without going all anax mod, etc).


 
 I tried to get some technical specs form Sorbothane but I didn' t get the feeling that they had much to hand out. I talked with one engineer at Canjam who casually mentioned that his electronics firm used a custom ordered sorb, so I should keep after Sorbothane to give me more info. At the moment all  I can say is that it's a trial and error proposition.
  
 I have accumulated a fair stock of various sorbs that exceed my likely needs. If you or anyone else wants to pm me, exchange addresses and send me an SSA with a dollar postage I would send a sample of enough to get going on most phones. 1/8 in  30 duro self-stick seems to work with a lot of phones, although my 007A  is mostly using 1/4 in.
  
 As regards the HD 800 this is the only phone I know about which claims to be trying to solve this problem by damping. Whether they have done enough  I don't know.


----------



## edstrelow

tachikoma said:


> So I ran out of PTFE (teflon) tape for wrapping around my headphones, so I grabbed some cling film, rolled it up a bit and used that instead. I immediately heard a decrease in high frequency "air" on the side that had the cling film on, which sounds a lot like the effect you guys are getting from attaching sorbothane to parts of the headphone.
> 
> Here's a picture of what I did if you're interested:
> http://imgur.com/nT63bkU


 

 I am sure that many materials can dampen mechanical vibrations, even cling film.  The question is which does the best job and/or gives you the sound you want.  I haven't experimented with putting damping right on the edge of driver as you appear to have done, but soren_brix has.  In general  I would think you want to stop as much vibration getting out  as you can at the source (i.e. the driver) but if you can't stop it all you would still need to dampen other places on the phones.  With the Stax SR007 and the Sennheiser HD 800, the metal headbands appear to be a particular problem.


----------



## preproman




----------



## wink

Ooops.... Pass me the Alka Seltzer     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Too much popcorn..........


----------



## edstrelow

I repeat my previous offer to provide sorb to anyone interested enought to try it themselves.  I have accumulated a stock of various sorbs that exceed my likely needs. Pm me, exchange addresses and send me an SSA with a dollar postage ( or more if outside the US. The envelope would probably not exceed 3 oz)  I would send a sample of enough to get going on most phones. 1/8 in 30 duro self-stick seems to work with a lot of phones, although my 007A is mostly using 1/4 in.


----------



## edstrelow

Looks like crap, sounds amazing.  While I satisfied my initial quest to find good damping arrangements for most of my Stax phones, I suspect that I have not found the ideal damping set-ups.  At the moment I am playing with the SRXIII Pro to see how much sorb you can add before sonic improvements end or the sound goes bad.  If I am correct and sorbothane is simply  damping the resonance in the earcups, the more you add, the less resonance there should be, and the closer the sound will be to what the drivers produce, because. you are simply getting rid of mechanical resonance distortion.
  
 The problem with this theory  is that several times with various Stax phones, I have been forced to cut back on the amount of sorb, because I started to get audible anomalies, usually boomy bass. However, recently I have found that if you cut the sorb into small pieces, you can add more sorb with no boom and a still notable improvement in overall sound. Why this happens, I do not know but I am guessing that larger sizes of sorb resonate at low frequencies.    
  
 The photo shows the SRXIII pro with an extreme amount of sorbothane on the outside of the earcups, but applied in smallish pieces.  In particular I have added more to the plastic section thinking that because it is directly connected to the driver, damping will be more effective if sorb is applied here. (The metal portion and the earpads are part of cup-like arrangement which is simply pressed onto the plastic section and is not in direct contact)
  
 The results are very good indeed. The best attack and transients I have ever heard, beautiful tonal qualities and an ability to play louder than before.  It's still an SRX however, no bass monster and a bit peaky around about, I would guess 2 kHz.
  
 The next step will be applying thicker, 1/4 inch sorb, vs the 1/8 I am currently using.  But  I am enjoying the sound of these so much I am in no real hurry.


----------



## Don Quichotte

I have tried this mod on my AKG K1000. I didn't have the time to experiment a lot, but placing 2 strips of sorbothane on the white wire mesh on each side (inner and outer side, both left and right, so 8 strips in total) resulted in a similar effect. Here the tonal balance change was the most obvious and important, as my bass-light K1000 coupled with my bass-light T-amp really benefit from a bass boost. Just a confirmation that some dynamic cans can indeed benefit from this mod too.


----------



## edstrelow

don quichotte said:


> I have tried this mod on my AKG K1000. I didn't have the time to experiment a lot, but placing 2 strips of sorbothane on the white wire mesh on each side (inner and outer side, both left and right, so 8 strips in total) resulted in a similar effect. Here the tonal balance change was the most obvious and important, as my bass-light K1000 coupled with my bass-light T-amp really benefit from a bass boost. Just a confirmation that some dynamic cans can indeed benefit from this mod too.


 
 Photos of your modded AKG K1000 would be useful to other owners. It is interesting that the effects of sorbothane damping seem to apply to all manner of headphones.  At the outset because I dealt solely with Staxen, it seemed  possible that the effects would be limited to electrostatics. But instead, the resonance problems that sorbothane reduces seem almost universal among headphones.
  
 I think it shows a fundamental problem with the design of phones, whether high or low cost. Fortunately sorbing helps but it seems clear to me that it would be better if the resonances could be prevented at the outset. Exactly how, I am not sure since everything resonates. Possibly  driver design in which a cancellation signal goes into the earcups, rather like the way noise cancelling headphones work. Then you would just get the a pure sound from the drivers without the resonance overlay.


----------



## Don Quichotte

I'll take a few photos at some point, I just want to experiment a bit more before offering a more elaborate personal conclusion. Unlike you, I perceive the result as more of a trade-off because the "air" /HF "shimmer" that gets lost due to the sorbothane sounds more like music to me, rather than "noise". Somehow, the sound is more relaxed / natural with it, despite being hazier (I don't know if this make sense to anyone but me...). Of course, being a trade-off doesn't mean you can't win more than you lose, overall it seems to be rather beneficial, but it still depends a lot on the rest of the system.  In my system, the 303's simply got a bit too dark for my tastes in most occasions, so now I only damp the outer case occasionally, when the recording seems to be particularly in the need of such a mod. The K1000's on the other hand really need this bass boost - if it only got a little deeper too! (apparently it didn't, or not very significantly).
  
 I have a very unscientific theory. Just a wild (and not so educated) guess. Perhaps all the physical parts of the various headphones that sit between the membrane of the driver and the ear (including the perforated plate that is part of the driver "sandwich" of the electrostatic headphones) create a certain muffling of the sound, just as when you partially cover a tweeter with your hand. This is mitigated by the (mostly high frequency) resonances in the earcups and other parts of the headphone. So it's an act of balancing two shortcomings which impact the sound in opposite ways. And of course the tonal tuning, so to speak, of the actual driver is also part of this equation. In the K1000's case, I guess the best sound would be obtained by completely removing the white wire mesh parts, combined with damping the baffle.
  
 Does this sound totally crazy, or there might be something true in all this "theory"?


----------



## edstrelow

don quichotte said:


> I'll take a few photos at some point, I just want to experiment a bit more before offering a more elaborate personal conclusion. Unlike you, I perceive the result as more of a trade-off because the "air" /HF "shimmer" that gets lost due to the sorbothane sounds more like music to me, rather than "noise". Somehow, the sound is more relaxed / natural with it, despite being hazier (I don't know if this make sense to anyone but me...). Of course, being a trade-off doesn't mean you can't win more than you lose, overall it seems to be rather beneficial, but it still depends a lot on the rest of the system.  In my system, the 303's simply got a bit too dark for my tastes in most occasions, so now I only damp the outer case occasionally, when the recording seems to be particularly in the need of such a mod. The K1000's on the other hand really need this bass boost - if it only got a little deeper too! (apparently it didn't, or not very significantly).
> 
> I have a very unscientific theory. Just a wild (and not so educated) guess. Perhaps all the physical parts of the various headphones that sit between the membrane of the driver and the ear (including the perforated plate that is part of the driver "sandwich" of the electrostatic headphones) create a certain muffling of the sound, just as when you partially cover a tweeter with your hand. This is mitigated by the (mostly high frequency) resonances in the earcups and other parts of the headphone. So it's an act of balancing two shortcomings which impact the sound in opposite ways. And of course the tonal tuning, so to speak, of the actual driver is also part of this equation. In the K1000's case, I guess the best sound would be obtained by completely removing the white wire mesh parts, combined with damping the baffle.
> 
> Does this sound totally crazy, or there might be something true in all this "theory"?


 
  
It doesn't seem that you have yet been able to open up the Lambda 303 to place sorb pieces on the driver baffle as I suggested.  Certainly  you can get some damping of the resonance of most phones by sticking sorb on the outside of the earcups.  However with the plastic lattice-type case or even the tab of the Lambdas but there is very little flat surface  for the sorb to actually stick to.    I had fairly poor results with the Sigmas, which have a similar design, trying to stick sorb on the outer case. Finally I opened them up and put the sorb on the baffle around the drivers as I do with the 404 and LNS Lambda.

 I have the 404's with me in my office and the difference between them and the untreated 404 is night and day.  You will hear music with dynamics and tonal accuracy you never realized was possible.  These are very similar to the 303, I think they only differ in their cabling.  I hope you will continue to experiment.
 
As regards the improved bass on  AKG K1000,  a good outcome with most phones.  I may have a partial explanation.  When I contacted the tech people at sorbothane I was told that sorb damps  best above 50 Hz.  So if you are damping the higher frequencies, you are lowering the output of those frequencies and will probably find yourself turning up the volume more. to compensate.  The below 50 Hz signals are however not damped, thus I would expect to hear more bass.
 
I have had a few problems sorbing some phones,  Sigmas, Sr003 and SR007A,  getting excessive  and distorted bass.  Cutting the sorb into smaller pieces got rid of most of the problems.  Why, I am not sure.
 
As regards your theory about high frequency resonance replacing the treble which is lost by various things in the earcup which can muffle sound, I think that is true.  And that is why I consider virtually all current headphone designs to be obsolete.  You don't want your earcups contributing to the sound you hear from your phones any more than you want cabinet resonances contributing to the sound of your speakers.   High fidelity is all about neutral playback, not euphonic coloration.   I have come to the conclusion that there is no easy way to control headphone coloration and that is why we have had so much more coloration even in the best phones, compared to the best speakers.  Fortunately there is sorbothane.


----------



## edstrelow

My mod of the 007 does not create much risk to the phones, because you are only taking off the earpads to apply the sorb. I received a question about this the other day and here  was my reply:
  
 "I would say that the risk to damaging the 007 phones doing my sorb mod is minimal.  This is because unlike many of the other phones I have worked with, you don't actually open up the earcups and the drivers remain protected from damage by a very strong perforated metal  cover.  The sorb is simply stuck to the perforated cover.  Normally I would try place sorb closer to the drivers but with the 007,  I couldn't see any place to put the sorb nearer the driver.
  
 What you are doing then is: *Firstly*, pull the earpads off the earcup,  they are held in place by having their leather bottoms, (kind of a skirt) tucked into a groove that runs around the earcup, next to the metal support that holds the earcups to the headband.  Just pull them off gently and they will come fairly easily.
  
*Secondly* you will see a round  plastic/leather mesh which has a metal spring which fits into a rubber mount in the center of the metal cover.  This you just lift off and then *thirdly*, you are ready to apply the sorb.  I use small pieces of 1/4"  soft  sorb (40 duro I think) stuck to the perforated metal cover so as to make a ring around the edge.  I have not been able to find self stick 1/4 inch on Amazon or Ebay so I have stuck it on with 3M 80 adhesive.
  
 Frankly the hardest thing is getting the earcups back on.  What I do is, after I have figured out the correct orientation of the earpad ( you want the thickest part towards the rear bottom - most people just say orient the pad stitching at the level of the eyes) just tuck the leather skirt into the groove using a blunt kitchen knife.  It's quite easy and usually takes about 1 minute to go all the way around the earcup.
  
 I also dampen the two metal arcs of  headband since I am convinced that because it is firmly attached to the metal earcups, it passes vibrations between the cups.   I just cut 2 short pieces of plastic (metal or wood could work too) and stick a bit of sorb where it will contact the 2 metal arcs and hold this together with a bolt and nut.  I use 2 of these dampers, partially covering the top of the earcup, to get more damping, but  a single one will work reasonably well.  One interesting thing is that you can tune the sound by adjusting the tightness of the nut and bolt."


----------



## crazychile

Maybe this was covered somewhere previously in this thread. If so, my apologies.
  
 Is it possible to mod the SR-507 with sorbothane and bring the performance even remotely close to the stock SR-007Mk2?
  
 I have Koss ESP-950s and am looking at buying a pair of Stax to complement (not replace) the Koss', but If I can spend less than half the price of the 007 and get something that is smooth yet has better top end detail than the ESPs, I may consider the 507s.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## edstrelow

crazychile said:


> Maybe this was covered somewhere previously in this thread. If so, my apologies.
> 
> Is it possible to mod the SR-507 with sorbothane and bring the performance even remotely close to the stock SR-007Mk2?
> 
> ...


 
  
 The 507 is a Lambda and the mods I showed for the LNS and 404 Lambda should work. Those used 1/8 inch sorb on the inside baffle.  I haven't opened  up a 507 but I 
 assume it is essentially the same as other Lambdas.  Soren_blix even suggested attaching the sorb directly to the edge of the driver.  I used self-stick 1/8 in 30-40 duro sorb on these phones, and think it gives  a major improvement.
  
 Is it as good as an umodded 007?  In some ways better since you  are getting rid of a type of distortion, that as best I can telll, bedevils all current headphone designs of whatever make or cost. When I modded my Lambdas, I stopped listening to my 007, and listened entirely to the Lambdas. However, I do think that my currently modded 007 is a better phone than my modded Lambdas and now I listen to it exclusively, except at work where I have my modded 404.    Having listened to some big amps for Staxes at the recent Canjam  I also think that these mods do more for musicality than a superamp and at a negligible cost, versus the  $5K which seems to be the starting price for super amps.
  
 There is one change that I would make to the above mod, I would cut the pieces of sorb in half and the re-apply them.  So far I have found that reducing the size of the pieces of sorb, while using the same total amount, gives  a better result, certainly it did with with the 007 and Sigma/404.
  
 Another change  that I am contemplating is to replace 1/8 inch sorb with 1/4 inch in the Lambdas and Sigmas but so far I just haven't had time to play with this. Going from 1/8 to 1/4 really helped the 007 although part of it was that the 1/8 just didn't do as much for the 007 as it did for the Lambdas, possibly because the 007 is a very heavy phone compared to a Lambda and needed more damping material.


----------



## crazychile

Thanks Edstrelow. Very informative.
  
 On the subject of using smaller pieces yet same quantity of sorb....
  
 I can confirm that this concept does work. I discovered this myself back in the 90's when using Dynamat in vehicles with high end audio systems. Spreading 1 inch squares around the inside of a door panel worked as well and sometimes better than just plastering the whole 1 ft piece in the center of the door. I did this initially for customers that wanted to stretch their budget, but quickly suggested it for customers with big budget systems once I realized the benefits.


----------



## edstrelow

crazychile said:


> Thanks Edstrelow. Very informative.
> 
> On the subject of using smaller pieces yet same quantity of sorb....
> 
> I can confirm that this concept does work. I discovered this myself back in the 90's when using Dynamat in vehicles with high end audio systems. Spreading 1 inch squares around the inside of a door panel worked as well and sometimes better than just plastering the whole 1 ft piece in the center of the door. I did this initially for customers that wanted to stretch their budget, but quickly suggested it for customers with big budget systems once I realized the benefits.


 
  I have seen that there are some professional modders out there who apply dynamat to headphones (and charge exorbitant amounts for this)   As far as I understand, dynamat is designed to block external sound, such as road noise, getting into cars.  To the extent that it also dampens vibrations it is doing the same thing as sorbothane. I, or someone else  ought to try it with headphones and compare it to sorb. There really is a lot of research that needs to be done here.


----------



## EveTan

I'm curious, if you were to isolate the sorb mods into two parts: the one on the driver grill, and the one on the headband,
  
 Which mod changes the sound the most?


----------



## edstrelow

evetan said:


> I'm curious, if you were to isolate the sorb mods into two parts: the one on the driver grill, and the one on the headband,
> 
> Which mod changes the sound the most?


 
 Using 1/4 inch sorb on the grill, I would say the grill. It seems to me that if you could totally damp the 007 from the grill, the headband damping would not even be necessary since no vibrations would make it to the headband. However I certainly haven't managed that trick yet.


----------



## richard51

Dear Edstrelow my sincere gratitude for your very kind offer..... I have accepted it and i must say WOW! i was on the verge to no more listen to my he 400 because my basic stax system was more interesting.... But with 10 patches of sorbothane on each cups of the he 400.... The mids was better the higher frequencies more clear the bass more oceanic...totally different experience than my he 400 witout this mod another headphone no more v shape headphone for me but a  more equilibratred one with a more great soundstage ....more like speakers than headphone....I cannot transform the stax in the same manner, i had the stax lambda basic and i am afraid to open them.....But your idea is very important for any designer of headphone now......i cannot figure why they have not  try it....i will send photos of my he 400 ....i think that if i had the guts of opening them perhaps near the driver the sorbothane will made miracle.... Thanks for you generous perseverance here


----------



## richard51

its like i had bought a  new world class headphone : the he 400 sorbothanized headphones.... Sound more like a speakers now than the old he 400


----------



## richard51

i go on listen ....i think i want to kiss you Edstrelow......incredible mods .......


----------



## MermaidMan

Is there a possibly...cleaner way to put sorb on the HE400's to reduce resonance? I'm getting them soon and plan on heavily modding them, including a champagne colored paint (ala SR007), but wanted to keep them looking nicer than a bunch of pieces on the ear cup lol.


----------



## dxanex

richard51 said:


> its like i had bought a  new world class headphone : the he 400 sorbothanized headphones.... Sound more like a speakers now than the old he 400


 
 Is this mod possible to do inside the HE-400 cups? Not the most attractive mod on the outside of the cups...


----------



## richard51

Quote: 





mermaidman said:


> Is there a possibly...cleaner way to put sorb on the HE400's to reduce resonance? I'm getting them soon and plan on heavily modding them, including a champagne colored paint (ala SR007), but wanted to keep them looking nicer than a bunch of pieces on the ear cup lol.


 

 i just try the grill mod and this is only  a slight change at the risk to damage your headphone....i am not interested in cosmetics( painted new grill for example) the sorbothane mod is extraordinary that change the character of the hifiman he 400 completely.... i dare not to put the sorbothane on the interior part behind the grill perhaps it is a good idea ....i am not sure.... there is no place the other side behind the pads..... For the moment i put the sorbothane pieces on the exterior cup  i dont give a damn on cosmertics.... the sound transform my he 400 ( they are no more V shape but more U shape now with  less recessed mids ) and they are more real sounding for my taste than my stax basic lambda .... thanks to Edstrelow again..... His thread are very important.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 in this photo i have removed the paper on the sorbothane patch...less ugly but  slightly more sticky


----------



## negura

richard51 said:


> i just try the grill mod and this is only  a slight change at the risk to damage your headphone....i am not interested in cosmetics( painted new grill for example) the sorbothane mod is extraordinary that change the character of the hifiman he 400 completely.... i dare not to put the sorbothane on the interior part behind the grill perhaps it is a good idea ....i am not sure.... there is no place the other side behind the pads..... For the moment i put the sorbothane pieces on the exterior cup  i dont give a damn on cosmertics.... the sound transform my he 400 ( they are no more V shape but more U shape now with  less recessed mids ) and they are more real sounding for my taste than my stax basic lambda .... thanks to Edstrelow again..... His thread are very important.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Where did you buy those adhesive patches from?


----------



## Beolab

Does this mod also apply for the Abyss headphone, have anyone tested this?


----------



## preproman

And now how about the HE1Ks?


----------



## richard51

you must experiment yourself with 30 duro and 40 duro 1/8 inches.... ALL headphones are like stax or my hifiman he 400 they ALL VIBRATES that affect very negatively the sound and incredibly no engineer for hifiman. stax , and others cie have think about this simple mod and have added  some sorbothane.. try in the beginning  with your headphone at the exterior cup , if the result is like mine ( extraordinary) try inside and report here...... people are fond to buy 12 thousands dollars amp to improve the he 6... i think that this simple move is way better or at less equal for improvement.....its reversible, low cost, simple to make.......i wait for your report....


----------



## MermaidMan

As soon as my 400's and sorb arrive I will be doing the fuzzor mod only using sorb instead of craft foam and comparing it to sorb on the outside of the cups. Impressions by Friday hopefully!!


----------



## richard51

thanks we are waiting with impatience


----------



## richard51

preproman said:


> And now how about the HE1Ks?


 

 the hek are vibrating also but what are the better mod for them? where to put the sorbothane? what duro will be the more efficient? what thickness ? you must experiment and report here the cost will be less than 50 dollars , the improvement probably very great.....Please report here


----------



## Beolab

Its funny when the High-End headphone developers fighting against each other to produce the best possible headphones money can buy, but they are missing a simple easy thing to damp their headphone correctly. Its like Wilson or Focal should skip to put in dampening wool in the speakers just to make a slight bigger profit, that sounds very strange to me, but i buy the fact that i works. Doesn't they know of this, it sounds crazy if they don't.. 

So you can buy a HE-400 and do som dampening tweaking and outperform a 
Stax SR-009, for one third of the Stax price, that is remarkable to me but more strange things have happened before.


----------



## MermaidMan

beolab said:


> Its funny when the High-End headphone developers fighting against each other to produce the best headphone money can buy, but they miss a so simple thing to damp their headphone correctly, its like Wilson or Focal should skip to put in dampening wool in the speakers just to make a slight bigger profit, that sounds very strange to me, but i buy the fact that i works. Doesn't they know of this?
> 
> So you can buy a HE-400 and do som dampening tweaking and outperform a
> Stax SR-009, for one third of the Stax price tag.


 
 If my soon-to-be-modded HE400 sounds better than an SR009 then I'm done with headphone upgrades until a true R10 successor comes out. But I probably won't be able to afford an R10 successor, so I guess I'd be done forever...


----------



## richard51

not outperform a stax 009........but my stax basic lamda nova......i prefer the he 400 with this mod and with Ember tube 7193 ... yes.......But after edstrelow a 007 with this mod outperform a 009 not modded... read the thread please


----------



## richard51

i have said STAX BASIC LAMBDA not stax 009...... there limits also to some modification..... but try it and report here......


----------



## dxanex

mermaidman said:


> As soon as my 400's and sorb arrive I will be doing the fuzzor mod only using sorb instead of craft foam and comparing it to sorb on the outside of the cups. Impressions by Friday hopefully!!


 

 That's great news, as I had the same idea! I'm very much interested in your impressions and if possible, can you include some pics from the process?
  
 If it sounds great, I'll probably opt for the same mod. 
  
 P.S. What pads are you using? I've heard that Focus pads (original Focus, not Focus-A) do a bit to tame the highs on the HE-400.


----------



## john57

Can someone tell me clearly what the sound differences between Focus and Focus-A pads?


----------



## MermaidMan

dxanex said:


> That's great news, as I had the same idea! I'm very much interested in your impressions and if possible, can you include some pics from the process?
> 
> If it sounds great, I'll probably opt for the same mod.
> 
> P.S. What pads are you using? I've heard that Focus pads (original Focus, not Focus-A) do a bit to tame the highs on the HE-400.



I'll be sure to include pics! Unfortunately I'm only using the velour, it's what the seller had and I got a good deal but I will be making jergpads almost certainly as they helped my 500s.


----------



## dxanex

mermaidman said:


> I'll be sure to include pics! Unfortunately I'm only using the velour, it's what the seller had and I got a good deal but I will be making jergpads almost certainly as they helped my 500s.


 

 Sweet! Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier just to order some Focus pads? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was under the impression that Focus pads are essentially mass produced Jerg pads.


----------



## MermaidMan

dxanex said:


> Sweet! Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier just to order some Focus pads? :tongue_smile:  I was under the impression that Focus pads are essentially mass produced Jerg pads.



Jergpads are fairly similar to Focus pads, and I can make jergpads in an hour for free (the seller gave me both the velours and pleathers). Plus I know what mistakes not to make the second time around so they should be easy to make.


----------



## Earspeakers

Sorry if this has been discussed, but has anybody tried sticking on the Sorb _while_ listening? Simple foolproof A-B kind of test. I find that even swapping headphones is enough of a delay to fool me, the mind (at least my mind) likes to play tricks.


----------



## crazychile

I may have missed this in an earlier post, but where are you guys buying this 30 and 40 duro, adhesive backed Sorb that's 1/8 thick? Ideally Id like to have it be no more than 1/2 wide, but would be willing to cut a sheet.
  
 I also usually avoid ebay.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## richard51

crazychile said:


> I may have missed this in an earlier post, but where are you guys buying this 30 and 40 duro, adhesive backed Sorb that's 1/8 thick? Ideally Id like to have it be no more than 1/2 wide, but would be willing to cut a sheet.
> 
> I also usually avoid ebay.
> 
> Thanks.


 
 This is the place.:
  
  
 http://www.isolateit.com/vibration-isolating-sheets-pads-6/sorbothane-thin-film-with-3m-adhesive-backing-1-8-x-6-x-12in-1-sheet.html


----------



## richard51

earspeakers said:


> Sorry if this has been discussed, but has anybody tried sticking on the Sorb _while_ listening? Simple foolproof A-B kind of test. I find that even swapping headphones is enough of a delay to fool me, the mind (at least my mind) likes to play tricks.


 

 its evident for me immediately in few seconds.... No a/b test necessary... When you dont want to listen your he 400 compared to your Stax or speakers before this mod and suddenly when you dont want to listen now your stax but prefer your he 400 after this sorb mod, there is no need for proof to your ears... But for example i attempt the famous grill mod on the hifiman and it was a change yes but far less evident and convincing....There is mod and there is mod....all headphone are vibrating, the discovery of EdStrelow here is that no cie had realize that.... The sorbothane mod is low cost, reversible, simple, what proof do you need? experiment yourself....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  For me this thread here is the most important thread in head fi...the difference for me was extraordinary....Please report your experiment here....thanks for your time and interest...


----------



## crazychile

richard51 said:


> crazychile said:
> 
> 
> > I may have missed this in an earlier post, but where are you guys buying this 30 and 40 duro, adhesive backed Sorb that's 1/8 thick? Ideally Id like to have it be no more than 1/2 wide, but would be willing to cut a sheet.
> ...




Bookmarked. Thank you!


----------



## MermaidMan

So the 400's came in but I'm still waiting on the sorb... Did the jergpad mod shorty after but somehow managed to mess up... Slightly. So the pads are sealed to the cups with electrical tape and the cans are running right off my phone (viper4android on 10x gain is justtt enough volume). Picked up an onkyo htr330 receiver and I'm going to hook it up to my laptop when I get the right cable. As SOON as the sorb comes I will begin modding/experimenting. Good thing about the 400's is the driver is smaller than my old 500's so the sorb-fuzzor mod should be much less time consuming and easier. Will report impressions asap!


----------



## edstrelow

earspeakers said:


> Sorry if this has been discussed, but has anybody tried sticking on the Sorb _while_ listening? Simple foolproof A-B kind of test. I find that even swapping headphones is enough of a delay to fool me, the mind (at least my mind) likes to play tricks.


 
 One of my earliest experiments like this  involved pulling off a sorb strip from a Stax Sigma.  Removing the sorb* increased *the volume quite noticeably.  I.e. the sorbed phones need to have the volume turned up a bit. But what you heard was a  sort of added ambience in the unmodded phone. It was not unpleasant but it is not the real music either, rather I am now convinced it is a general grunge as the  earcups are driven to vibrate as much as the driver and thus adding their own signature sound to that of the driver.   Newton's laws of physics state that  energy equal and opposite to that coming through the drivers is getting into the earcups.
  
 As far as direct comparisons of modded and unmodded phones , I have done this with 2 Stax SR003's  one damped and one not.  At the last Canjam I used 2 Sigma pro's, one damped and one not  because I did not want to have to keep cleaning the earbuds of the SR003.   I sat there for 2 days demonstrating these as well as the damped SR007. Most people seemed to get the idea.
  
  Aside from lowering the volume,  the sorbed phones show  better dynamics; instruments and voices can jump out at you in almost a startling fashion.  When I found myself tapping my feet to the music, I realized that I was on to something. Additionally the tonal quality is a lot more detailed and less harsh.  Harshness can be a real issue with electrostatics and it is a great relief to be able to get rid of so much.  One of the other more subtle effects is that you start to hear the ambience of the recording.  In many instances it was a revelation to hear what the studio people were probably hearing.  This goes back to my point about the pseudo ambience created by the earcups, it masks the real sound you should be hearing.
  
 I am convinced that the sorb effects show that there is  a big resonance problem with virtually all headphones, which has been mostly unacknowledged or not studied. I have only seen  acknowledgment of this issue in some of the advertising for the Sennheisser HD800.  And even then Senn does not appear to have solved the problem, because there are professional modders for these phones charging  a few hundred bucks to do what I suspect is no more than you can do with sorbothane for  a few dollars.
  
 Anyway there is a lot of experimentation to be done to figure out what are the best ways to dampen different phones. Each of the modded phones I have reported on in this thread is I think a big improvement on the original, but there still may be better ways to go.
  
 I am sorry to see that some of the people with Stax Lambdas are reluctant to open them up to put sorb inside, where I think it will be  most effective. I suspect those folk are worried about damaging the phones, and certainly you might end up breaking a wire. If you don't have  an electronics soldering iron that could be a real problem.  However, the sorb placement I showed on the inside  of the baffle gives a very good sound.


----------



## richard51

important remark : i had made the sorbothane mod on my he 400 with 8 patches on the exterior cup but i had not place a perfect circle of patch, there stay  a hole void of patches around the cup, yesterday i put two more patches on each place possible on each side of each cups (8 smaller patches in all with the 8 others greater ones) and at the end all patches made a circle without holes around the headphones.... WOW immediately better higher frequencies and soundstage.... Morality : you must put patches where it is possible around the headphone without big hole between the patches....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I repeat that this thread is for me a revelation.... and the most important thread for headphone user now... My he 400 are now high end headphones thanks to Ed


----------



## MermaidMan

richard51 said:


> important remark : i had made the sorbothane mod on my he 400 with 8 patches on the exterior cup but i had not place a perfect circle of patch, there stay  a hole void of patches around the cup, yesterday i put two more patches on each place possible on each side of each cups (8 smaller patches in all with the 8 others greater ones) and at the end all patches made a circle without holes around the headphones.... WOW immediately better higher frequencies and soundstage.... Morality : you must put patches where it is possible around the headphone without big hole between the patches....
> 
> I repeat that this thread is for me a revelation.... and the most important thread for headphone user now... My he 400 are now high end headphones thanks to Ed



So would a single strip of sorb on the cups all the way around be ideal?


----------



## richard51

mermaidman said:


> So would a single strip of sorb on the cups all the way around be ideal?


 

 yes.... for me yes...... the circle cannot be perfect with my he 400 but there is no more big interval without patches around it... The result was without any expectation immediately audible .... I am in my second extasy with this sorb mod.... I suspect that all is important.... the form,the duro, the thickness, the relation surface covered/ not covered, we must experiment and report here.... Also i wait for someone who will put the sorb inside the he 400 , i will try that after him 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i am not the most clever modding genius here !
  
 the effect are more open soundstage and less recess mids on the hifiman he 400...For me now this hifiman is high end....


----------



## jackharm

All this talk about the HE-400 is getting me a bit curious. And when I get curious I tend to do it within the next few days . . . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Judging from the pictures it seems you do not need a 3m tack side on the sorbothane to get it to stick to the outer side of the HE-400's?
  
 But if I do get around to messing with this mod, I will probably try to test out patches vs a continuous/ 2 part strip depending if the sorbothane can slip under the he-400's gimbal.


----------



## richard51

jackharm said:


> All this talk about the HE-400 is getting me a bit curious. And when I get curious I tend to do it within the next few days . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 dont do that.... NO Continuous sorbothane strip .....this is already experimented by EdStrelow ...   read this thread first.....and like  i said a post earlier :
 «I suspect that all is important.... the form,the duro, the thickness, the relation surface covered/ not covered» 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 this mod is simple and reversible and more spectacular than the grill mod  or the change of pads on the hifiman he 400 for exemple


----------



## jackharm

Ah, I must have misunderstood your comment above as I thought you were agreeing that a single strip around the cup would be good for the he-400's, since I did remember reading that a continuous strip caused some unwanted effects on the bass.
  
 Would putting something on the outer side of the sorbothane like electrical tape/some thin film have a negative effect?


----------



## richard51

jackharm said:


> Ah, I must have misunderstood your comment above as I thought you were agreeing that a single strip around the cup would be good for the he-400's, since I did remember reading that a continuous strip caused some unwanted effects on the bass.
> 
> Would putting something on the outer side of the sorbothane like electrical tape/some thin film have a negative effect?


 

 i apologize if i had give this impression but if you  read this thread you will know that it must be PATCHES of sorbothane not continuous strip.....I dont know for sure but i dont think that a thin film will affect negatively.... For example a 3 m adhesive film will do no damage for sure


----------



## jackharm

Thank you for your advice, I look forward to trying out this mod in the near future!


----------



## richard51

jackharm said:


> Thank you for your advice, I look forward to trying out this mod in the near future!


 

 and remember to report here for the benefit of us all..... thanks


----------



## richard51

its necessary to experiment... i patched 4 squares 1/4 inches duro 50 on each cup + all the others already glued (duro 30 1/8 inches) and the result was more precise mid and bass  frequencies...the female and male voice are more present, astonishingly responding to sorbothane mod....form, duro, thickness change the sound...you tweak it for your liking....I cannot end my listenings....


----------



## MermaidMan

richard51 said:


> its necessary to experiment... i patched 4 squares 1/4 inches duro 50 on each cup + all the others already glued (duro 30 1/8 inches) and the result was more precise mid and bass  frequencies...the female and male voice are more present, astonishingly responding to sorbothane mod....form, duro, thickness change the sound...you tweak it for your liking....I cannot end my listenings....:atsmile:



Could you post a picture please? I'm having trouble understanding how to place the sorb.


----------



## richard51

mermaidman said:


> Could you post a picture please? I'm having trouble understanding how to place the sorb.


 

 i have already 2 pictures 2 pages back.... you will see the patches around the cup.... For the other patches you places them on  external side of the  cup with scissor for matching the sorb form to the free space.. its simple ...


----------



## marshallmole

While I happened to perform both the fuzzor mod and the Sorbothane mod on my HE-6 today, I can almost be sure that the Sorb helped increase the transparency of their sound. This is because last time I modded one side with fuzzor and left the other side intact, and the difference was mostly about tonal accuracy. Now the HE-6 has about equal transparency as the balanced T1 I used to own (transparency had been the single area where HE-6 seemed to be following behind T1). 
  
 I placed little sorb patches on the back inner part of the housing. The amount wasn't large. I think it is aesthetically a better place than just putting them on the outside of the cups.


----------



## richard51

marshallmole said:


> While I happened to perform both the fuzzor mod and the Sorbothane mod on my HE-6 today, I can almost be sure that the Sorb helped increase the transparency of their sound. This is because last time I modded one side with fuzzor and left the other side intact, and the difference was mostly about tonal accuracy. Now the HE-6 has about equal transparency as the balanced T1 I used to own (transparency had been the single area where HE-6 seemed to be following behind T1).
> 
> I placed little sorb patches on the back inner part of the housing. The amount wasn't large. I think it is aesthetically a better place than just putting them on the outside of the cups.


 

 very interesting..... if you had photos of your mod it will be useful for us all ...... Congratulations ! and thanks


----------



## marshallmole

I may be able to take some photos tomorrow. Now it's too dark to make out the details, as the black sorbothane is attached to the black interior housing.


----------



## richard51

marshallmole said:


> I may be able to take some photos tomorrow. Now it's too dark to make out the details, as the black sorbothane is attached to the black interior housing.


 

 thank you very much.... many people will be interested by that......


----------



## crazychile

I received my 1/8 in. 40 Duro Sorbothane yesterday and decided to try it on my least used headphones, the AT ATH-M50s. These get used mostly when the environment calls for a set of closed cans, or when I want to listen to something with a bit of bass slam. I put some pieces on the side of the driver in the cup and the internal part of the back chamber, as well as the outside of the ear cup, on the surface that is underneath the pads. Probably a total of 8 1/3x1/3 inch pieces per side. At first I had an extra couple underneath the earpad right next to the opening in the speaker grille but I took them off because it seemed like it took it too far.
  
 I haven't listened to these for a few weeks and had made another system change recently (adding the Uptone Audio USB Regen to my DAC) so I didn't have a good "before mod" reference. I may have lost a bit of low level decay, but these 'phones didn't have a lot to begin with. There is also a bit of mid bass muddiness that is noticeable on some material, and not so much on others. Again, I felt that this was an issue before. It was still fun to listen to, but the jury is still out on this one. I may try removing a few more pieces after I've listened to them for a while. These headphones aren't high-end by any means, but I thought it would be a good candidate for a first time experiment.  I think the HD-598s are next and eventually I'll have to see what this does to my Koss ESP-950s.


----------



## marshallmole

Here are some pics of my sorbothane mod on HE6:

  

  

  
 It's by no means a neat work, but I personally think it won't look bad if you could space out the sorb patches more regularly. I 'stacked' two patches together at the bottom part of the ring, because of the lack of room for more patches. (I'm going with the 'extreme' version of the grill mod which is no grid at all... but you should be able to re-attach grills after this mod, if you just keep the size of sorb patches in control. )
  
 I have noticed a slight increase in the dynamic range of the headphones along with greater transparency. But I also think some part of the frequency spectrum happen to be overly dampened, making some particular instrument a little lifeless, I think it's the low notes of violins. It could be related to the particular configuration used here.


----------



## edstrelow

marshallmole said:


> Here are some pics of my sorbothane mod on HE6:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You might want to try another experiment with 1/4 inch sorb. Reminds me some of the Stax SR007.  I started trying 1/8 sorb but it was only after I shifted to 1/4 inch that I got a big improvement in sound.  (There is also the issue of damping the 007's headband but that is another matter and probably doesn't apply to these phones.)   My theory is that with larger and heavier phones you need a greater amount of sorb .
  
 There is a lot of trial and error needed with this topic.  It's not exactly rocket science fiddling with sorb, although understanding it is rocket science or at least mechanical engineering.


----------



## marshallmole

Yes I agree it might have to do with the specific configuration, size, etc. I will listen for some more and decide if I need to change something. It would indeed take a lot of experiment, equipment and time to objectively understand the effect function of this mod, and then it would still be headphone-dependent I guess.


----------



## richard51

marshallmole said:


> Yes I agree it might have to do with the specific configuration, size, etc. I will listen for some more and decide if I need to change something. It would indeed take a lot of experiment, equipment and time to objectively understand the effect function of this mod, and then it would still be headphone-dependent I guess.


 

 thank you for us all for your photos..... a question important : What is the thickness of these pieces and what is the duro?
  
 i experiment  on the exterior cups with 1/8 inches and the result was good (duro 30 )


----------



## marshallmole

Mine is actually 1/8 inch at 50 duro.


----------



## richard51

marshallmole said:


> Mine is actually 1/8 inch at 50 duro.


 

 i am not sure but its seems  better 30 duro 1/8 .... its what i have ..... I add 4 pieces duro 50  of 1/4 duro.... the result has  not satisfied me  and i prefer to cut them to 1/8 and i am not sure that this addition to my 10 pieces of 30 duro  was so good... to my ears  the 1/4 50 duro ( only 4 patches) was put out some high frequencies... i dont have money now to buy more sorb (40 duro and 30 duro  and some thickness  variation pieces with these two duro like 1/10  or 1/12  not only 1/8 to experiment.... Others i hope will enlightened me here.... i cannot afford any expense now...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks to you for your participation....


----------



## richard51

crazychile said:


> I received my 1/8 in. 40 Duro Sorbothane yesterday and decided to try it on my least used headphones, the AT ATH-M50s. These get used mostly when the environment calls for a set of closed cans, or when I want to listen to something with a bit of bass slam. I put some pieces on the side of the driver in the cup and the internal part of the back chamber, as well as the outside of the ear cup, on the surface that is underneath the pads. Probably a total of 8 1/3x1/3 inch pieces per side. At first I had an extra couple underneath the earpad right next to the opening in the speaker grille but I took them off because it seemed like it took it too far.
> 
> I haven't listened to these for a few weeks and had made another system change recently (adding the Uptone Audio USB Regen to my DAC) so I didn't have a good "before mod" reference. I may have lost a bit of low level decay, but these 'phones didn't have a lot to begin with. There is also a bit of mid bass muddiness that is noticeable on some material, and not so much on others. Again, I felt that this was an issue before. It was still fun to listen to, but the jury is still out on this one. I may try removing a few more pieces after I've listened to them for a while. These headphones aren't high-end by any means, but I thought it would be a good candidate for a first time experiment.  I think the HD-598s are next and eventually I'll have to see what this does to my Koss ESP-950s.


 

 i think that Stax and hifiman phones are big headphone with many loose parts inside.... hence the sorb  mod was more evidently  perceptible.... i had some time ago ath m50 they were smaller and more solid... Perhaps they need less of this mod....And remember that the DURO, the THICKNESS, and the form of the pieces are important.....


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> You might want to try another experiment with 1/4 inch sorb. Reminds me some of the Stax SR007.  I started trying 1/8 sorb but it was only after I shifted to 1/4 inch that I got a big improvement in sound.  (There is also the issue of damping the 007's headband but that is another matter and probably doesn't apply to these phones.)   My theory is that with larger and heavier phones you need a greater amount of sorb .
> 
> There is a lot of trial and error needed with this topic.  It's not exactly rocket science fiddling with sorb, although understanding it is rocket science or at least mechanical engineering.


 

  stax are not hifiman....  i think that the form, the metal case,  are different exigence than that rectangular plastic case of stax....i was very satisfied with your 30 duro pieces 1/8....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks to you my hifiman now are mostly my listening phones...not my lambda without sorb...


----------



## richard51

I had put 12 patches of 30 duro 1/8 inches + 4 patches 1/8 duro 50
  
 i  have discarded  the  four (on each cups)  patches 1/4 duro 50 ... that put out the higher frequencies... I discard also the four patches 1/8 duro 50 .... same reason.... i think that the grade duro is very important.... For me its now only 30 duro 1/8 inches  around the exterior cup  and the results are astounding.....no more experience before  i stole a bank.....


----------



## richard51

12 patches 1/8 inches 30 duro around the cups..... I dont have any loss on any part of the frequency spectrum like with the duro 50 1/4 inches.......  i wait to mod the stax lambda nova basic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 because my hifiman are so good that i dont listen to them now... nobody want to try ?
  
 I dont give a damn of the look !.... The sound is for the first time on my 3 years search for high end audio ( at the least cost ) the best i had ever hear and the sorb mod is no less better than any other upgrade gear i had bought...
  I cannot thank enough EdStrelow....


----------



## EveTan

HOLY SCHIIT...
  
 Sorry, lost my composure there...
  
 My 007As now feel like a different headphone. 
  
 I don't know if that's due to the Sorbothane or due to the increased depth of the earpads.


----------



## richard51

evetan said:


> HOLY SCHIIT...
> 
> Sorry, lost my composure there...
> 
> ...


 

 if you have put sorb its the sorb... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 my he 400 are a  transmuted headphone now .. its the sorb mod... thanks to EdStrelow...


----------



## EveTan

Hmm, I'm not sure what this is due to. But the bass definitely seems punchier and more dominate. The upper frequencies are more separated. 
  
 Soundstage sounds more open (although I feel that's due to a lack of seal + thicker pads).
  
 Not sure if I like it better this way though. It feels a bit fatiguing now.


----------



## richard51

evetan said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure what this is due to. But the bass definitely seems punchier and more dominate. The upper frequencies are more separated.
> 
> Soundstage sounds more open (although I feel that's due to a lack of seal + thicker pads).
> 
> Not sure if I like it better this way though. It feels a bit fatiguing now.


 

 you description of the difference is EXACTLY mine experience with a totally different headphone....For the fatiguing aspect look for your amp the srm 252s... I have it and i must connect it to My Ember tube  amp Preamp/ out to attenuate the fatiguing harshness of the sound... But now my he 400 are better anyway...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The problem is not your oo7 phones but the stax amp...


----------



## EveTan

Hmm... everything sounds so thin...  
  
 There's alot of bass rumble. Alot of high end... 
  
 It wasn't this way when I just had the port modded 007A. 
  
 Mid range way more recessed than the port modded ver..


----------



## edstrelow

evetan said:


> Hmm... everything sounds so thin...
> 
> There's alot of bass rumble. Alot of high end...
> 
> ...


 
 Are you trying multiple mods at the same time. I personally found the port mod of the 007 ( by which I assume you mean plugging the port) unlistenable, because it produced so much bass. If that is what you are doing then try unplugging it to see what the sorb does by itself.
  
 Also, I find the sound can change markedly with the sorb mods over a day or so, as the bond cures. Were you using glue or 2sided tape to stick the sorb on? I have not tried the latter and cannot say how well it works. I have previously noted that poorly bonded sorb can produce some sonic anomalies, bad bass in particular. I used 3M 80 glue with my 007A. If you follow my procedure exactly, I think you will be very happy with the 007.
  
 Still there is a lot of room for experimentation with this stuff.


----------



## EveTan

edstrelow said:


> evetan said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm... everything sounds so thin...
> ...


 
 There shouldn't be anything with the bond itself. I used 2 sided mounting tape but I can't imagine it would be the cause of making the midrange so recessed. Also, not sure if its worth noting that I cut the strips into 12 parts. I'm not ready with 3M glue just because it does create a rather permanent bond. 
  
 I removed the port mod when I put on the sorb. The bass on the sorb mod wasn't bad... but the quantity was too much. Instrumental separation and just general soundstaging was improved. But since the mod changes two factors, resonance and pad depth, I don't know which is which. I feel that after the mod, everything just feels a bit analytical.


----------



## richard51

evetan said:


> There shouldn't be anything with the bond itself. I used 2 sided mounting tape but I can't imagine it would be the cause of making the midrange so recessed. Also, not sure if its worth noting that I cut the strips into 12 parts. I'm not ready with 3M glue just because it does create a rather permanent bond.
> 
> I removed the port mod when I put on the sorb. The bass on the sorb mod wasn't bad... but the quantity was too much. Instrumental separation and just general soundstaging was improved. But since the mod changes two factors, resonance and pad depth, I don't know which is which. I feel that after the mod, everything just feels a bit analytical.


 

 i have not experience with sorb mod on stax, i hope Edstrelow will have an answer   ....For my hifiman the mids are less recessed precisely and all the rest is better....experiment with sorbothane is in infancy...i am lucky that the first recipe made anything right for my hifiman i think....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 i can tell you for sure that  the number of patches, the form of the patches, the thickness of the patches, the duro of the patches  are in each individual headphones important factors for the results....


----------



## edstrelow

evetan said:


> There shouldn't be anything with the bond itself. I used 2 sided mounting tape but I can't imagine it would be the cause of making the midrange so recessed. Also, not sure if its worth noting that I cut the strips into 12 parts. I'm not ready with 3M glue just because it does create a rather permanent bond.
> 
> I removed the port mod when I put on the sorb. The bass on the sorb mod wasn't bad... but the quantity was too much. Instrumental separation and just general soundstaging was improved. But since the mod changes two factors, resonance and pad depth, I don't know which is which. I feel that after the mod, everything just feels a bit analytical.


 
  


richard51 said:


> i have not experience with sob mod on stax, i hope Edstrelow will have an answer   ....For my hifiman the mids are less recessed precisely and all the rest is better....experiment with sorbothane is in infancy...i am lucky that the first recipe made anything right for my hifiman i think....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 The Sorbothane site has technical information site and a data sheet 103 on "adhesive recommendations." http://www.sorbothane.com/technical-data-sheet.aspx.  Double-sided tape is not on their list. It obviously creates a physical barrier between the earcup and the sorb, changing the nature of the  coupling. The idea being to allow maximum transmission of energy between the two surfaces.  It seems that this is the main difference between how,I mounted sorb on the 007A and how you did and you results seem rather different, so I would have to assume the tape is the issue.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The Sorbothane site has technical information site and a data sheet 103 on "adhesive recommendations." http://www.sorbothane.com/technical-data-sheet.aspx.  Double-sided tape is not on their list. It obviously creates a physical barrier between the earcup and the sorb, changing the nature of the  coupling. The idea being to allow maximum transmission of energy between the two surfaces.  It seems that this is the main difference between how,I mounted sorb on the 007A and how you did and you results seem rather different, so I would have to assume the tape is the issue.


 

 thanks important remarks about the glueing process...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  the glueing process must not isolate the sorb from the surface of the headphone...


----------



## nick n

why not get the stuff with the adhesive layer preapplied? that is offered as one of their versions of it.


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> why not get the stuff with the adhesive layer preapplied? that is offered as one of their versions of it.


 

 for my hifiman he 400 i was lucky to had duro 30 _self adhesive_ 1/8 inches.... perfect solution in the first strike...i was lucky because  EdStrelow had opened up my trail... my experiment with some patches of non self adhesive with duro 50 1/4 inches or 1/8 inches was not good for some frequencies...different headphones will needed different patches, duro, thickness .... its important to read the glueing requirement of sorbothane...
  
http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/data-sheets/103-Sorbothane-adhesive-recommendations.pdf


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> for my hifiman he 400 i was lucky to had duro 30 _self adhesive_ 1/8 inches.... perfect solution in the first strike...i was lucky because  EdStrelow had opened up my trail... my experiment with some patches of non self adhesive with duro 50 1/4 inches or 1/8 inches was not good for some frequencies...different headphones will needed different patches, duro, thickness .... its important to read the glueing requirement of sorbothane...
> 
> http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/data-sheets/103-Sorbothane-adhesive-recommendations.pdf


 
 I personally have not been able to find 1/4 inch sorb with self stick. Thus you need to be prepared to use some form of glue. The only non-glue method I can think of is clamping, as I did with the 007A headband. It has the advantage of allowing some frequency tuning as you adjust the tightness of the clamp.  However,  I haven't figured out a clamp to be applied to the inside of the 007A earcups on the perforated  metal plate.


----------



## Henery

Tried this mod with my DT 48 E 200 ohm and it works well.I bought 12"x12" 1/8" 50 duro matt from ebay.Glued 7x4 mm 1/8" thick pieces on to sides of both earcups.Sound is now more dynamic,more resolving and soundstage is more accurate.I also modded PortaPro with this but didn´t hear any significant differences.


----------



## richard51

henery said:


> Tried this mod with my DT 48 E 200 ohm and it works well.I bought 12"x12" 1/8" 50 duro matt from ebay.Glued 7x4 mm 1/8" thick pieces on to sides of both earcups.Sound is now more dynamic,more resolving and soundstage is more accurate.I also modded PortaPro with this but didn´t hear any significant differences.


 

 very interesting.... The negative results are perhaps explained by the adequacy of the duro.... try 30 duro....


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> very interesting.... The negative results are perhaps explained by the adequacy of the duro.... try 30 duro....


 

 Always interesting to see another phone benefiting from sorbothane damping. At this point I have concluded that damping, or rather the lack of damping, is an issue for all phones and thus I too am interested in those phones that don't show a benefit. When I worked on my Stax models, I had some that were difficult to figure how to get a decent result.  Sometimes it turned out that the problem was the wrong sorb, possibly too high a duro or wrong thickness( I have used thicknesses between 1 mm and 1/4 inch), poor attachment to the phones, or more often put on  the wrong position on the phones. In my experimenting, the sorb was most effective if was attached close to the driver.  If that was not possible, then attached on to a solid surface in direct connection with  the driver.


----------



## edstrelow

I have moved over to using only 1/4 inch sorb on the Sigmas cut into small sections, less than an inch in the longest dimension. I did this with the Sigma pro 2 nights ago and  it now sounded better than my modded Sigma/404. The sound was much punchier and the Sigma/404 with the previous mod sounded anemic by comparison, more like an unmodded phone. So I took the Sigma/404 apart and used the same arrangement of 10 pieces of sorb on the baffle of each earcup.  (See photo)
  

  
  
 The next day one of the pieces came loose on the Sigma/404, because some of the fiber material used inside these phones got in the way and the glue didn't fully hold. The sonic effect of this loose piece was to make the phones sound as if there was  a bass peak/boom at some frequency.  I have had something similar happen when I first started work on the Sigmas, an improperly applied piece of sorb caused a nasty bass fart sound. 
  
 I fully removed the loose piece and just to see what was the effect of removing one piece of sorb, I removed the corresponding one from the other earcup  to listen to the sound. The result was a noticeable reduction in lower mid bass. Both pieces are back in place now and the sound is much fuller in the bass and without the troublesome peak.  This shows that even small adjustments in sorb can give noticeable sonic effects allowing some adjustment of frequency response.
  
 I still have no explanation as to why smaller pieces work better than a comparable length of a long piece. 
  
 As regards the current difference between the Sigma/404 and the Sigma Pro,  the Sigma/404 has a notably better frequency response, more treble and a bit deeper bass, This was true even before these phones were modded, but it seems even more obvious after the mods of the last few days.
  
 I am now also going to go back to the Lambda LNS and 404, and will try the small 1/4 inch pieces.  The Lambdas were pretty much  my earliest success and I had been quite happy with the 1/8 inch, longish strips.  However the above experience with the Sigmas makes me think I may have been missing something and thicker damping material cut into smaller pieces may add further quality.


----------



## richard51

the sigmas are much thicker than the lambdas isnt true? and the thicker sorb  made the sigmas sound better.... its very interesting... In the beginning of my experience i put sorb not all around the cups of the hifiman he 400 and in the end it was better with 12 patches around ALL the cups with no big hole between .... Its so good now than i dont want to modify them... Alas! there is no self stick sorb except duro 30 1/8 inches...i dream to buy now  the he 6 used  .... the he 6 is made identical in design to the he 400... Hence my 12 patches will do the same to them.... The sound will be better Many people  already prefer the he 6 to all headphone hence imagine their sound without plagued vibrations ?  ... Less costly than the he1000....the he 1000 is completely different design....I will not dare to mod it at this price...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 best regards to all and to you EdStrelow


----------



## richard51

i dont understand that so few people are interested by this mod.... I had only few reactions when i speak about that...think about the different modification of the pads....Less substantial transformation of sound, more complicated to do it yourself also, but more esthetically appealing mod... I think people dont want to see patches like mine at the exterior of the cups... I dare not now opening my stax.... I prefer the planar sound anyway....i will waited to buy the he 6.... What are the reaction at some meet with your modded Stax edstrelow ?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i dont understand that so few people are interested by this mod.... I had only few reactions when i speak about that...think about the different modification of the pads....Less substantial transformation of sound, more complicated to do it yourself also, but more esthetically appealing mod... I think people dont want to see patches like mine at the exterior of the cups... I dare not now opening my stax.... I prefer the planar sound anyway....i will waited to buy the he 6.... What are the reaction at some meet with your modded Stax edstrelow ?


 
 I don't think many people realize how big a deal this is because they are used to being oversold on expensive equipment that adds only small increments to sound quality.  It is hard to get your head around a mod which involves  less tha a dollar's worth of material, producing differences that you would expect from paying thousands. In fact no amount of money in amps or DACs will get rid of the resonance distortion so in that sense you cannot buy your way to this level of sound quality.
  
 Also it is hard to realize that adding sorb to an earcup would do anything at all.  I had this stuff lying around the house for years, using it under various pieces of equipment with no reason to even think about sticking it on headphones.
  
 The sorbothane effect shows that there is a fundmental flaw in the design of even the most expensive headphones.  Either the designers did not understand the nature of the problem or they chose to ignore it.  I suspect the former though.
  
 I doubt that there is anyway to design away these resonance problems, because everything resonates.  The only solution is damping with something like sorbothane.   This stuff was only invented in 1982 and headphone design was well established in its current patterns by then.   The Stax Sigma and Lambda were already out by then.  It may take a long time to change the culture to the point where the problem is recognized and headphones are built with their own damping or some other cure is invented.
  
 As regards my own demonstrations at Canjam at few months ago.  I had very good responses from the hundred or so people who listened.  Very few could not discerne the difference between my modded and unmodded Sigmas.  However the majority of my listeners were unfamiliar with Stax phones.  I even had a couple of mechanical engineers who agreed with my Newtonian theory about what was happening.  One guy said, sometimes we miss the simple and the obvious.
  
 Anyway I am tripping out on the remodified Sigmas, especially the Sigma/404.  I am hearing detail and subtlety I have never heard before, not even from the superamps.


----------



## richard51

thank you EdStrelow for this wise remarks...i was totally in agreement with you after reading these astute reflexion...


----------



## richard51

the damping sorbothanized modification of my he 400 had some unexpected consequences... Prior to that modification i prefer listening to my monsoon speakers and i usually raved about them... Now i dont want to listen music anymore with them , they lack the body and  more 3-d sounding of my hifiman he 400.... Prior to the sorb mod i would prefer to listen music with these speakers...And now i dream an upgrade to the mini maggies ( more than 2 000 dollars with a sub )... I had already said that i now prefer my hifiman he 400 to the basic stax....  This week i read an extraordinary review here , very detailed, very good writing, of someone who prefered the basic stax system to the he 1000....Now this made for an interesting question : if 2 people have the basic Stax system, one prefer the stax basic system over the he 1000, the other (without knowing the he 1000)  prefer the  hifiman he 400 with sorb mod to the basic stax, that says something about the impact of the sorbothane mod....I know that not 2 people listen in the same manner but... at least that pose the question : What will be the sound of the he 1000 adequately sorbothanized ?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> the damping sorbothanized modification of my he 400 had some unexpected consequences... Prior to that modification i prefer listening to my monsoon speakers and i usually raved about them... Now i dont want to listen music anymore with them , they lack the body and  more 3-d sounding of my hifiman he 400.... Prior to the sorb mod i would prefer to listen music with these speakers...And now i dream an upgrade to the mini maggies ( more than 2 000 dollars with a sub )... I had already said that i now prefer my hifiman he 400 to the basic stax....  This week i read an extraordinary review here , very detailed, very good writing, of someone who prefered the basic stax system to the he 1000....Now this made for an interesting question : if 2 people have the basic Stax system, one prefer the stax basic system over the he 1000, the other (without knowing the he 1000)  prefer the  hifiman he 400 with sorb mod to the basic stax, that says something about the impact of the sorbothane mod....I know that not 2 people listen in the same manner but... at least that pose the question : What will be the sound of the he 1000 adequately sorbothanized ?


 

 Some people use sorbothane footers for speakers.  I have not used them myself, preferring to use metal spikes under the speakers or metal wall brackets to take care of basic damping issues, but some people rave about these footers.  However I have added sorbothane to the speakers for additional damping and find they give additional clarity. I have glued it to the front panels and it is  covered by the grill cloth so as to be invisible.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Some people use sorbothane footers for speakers.  I have not used them myself, preferring to use metal spikes under the speakers or metal wall brackets to take care of basic damping issues, but some people rave about these footers.  However I have added sorbothane to the speakers for additional damping and find they give additional clarity. I have glued it to the front panels and it is  covered by the grill cloth so as to be invisible.


 

 i have used sorbothane feet for my monsoon 2000 woofer, and to my swan m10  speakers before i had stumble on this most important thread of yours here, and the result were for me immediately stunning...Clarity+clarity in high and bass frequencies .... Hence when i read your posts here i was astounded by the logic of your experiment and convinced  before trying with the headphones.(never this idea to put sorb on the headphone cross my mind, i guess i was a poor thinker though  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) And me i have not glued the sorb however  around the speakers but put it under the speakers... i think your idea is very interesting  i will try it someday around my 2 monsoon speakers....what are the dimension and duro you had used for the speakers?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> monsoon speakers....what are the dimension and duro you had used for the speakers?


 
 1/4 inch 30 duro glued using 3M 80.  I cut the pieces pretty small no more than about an inch in any dimension.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> 1/4 inch 30 duro glued using 3M 80.  I cut the pieces pretty small no more than about an inch in any dimension.


 

 thanks ed


----------



## richard51

after 2 weeks with this formula : 12 patches of sorb around the cups of my he 400.... The sound is better today than it was in the beginning... I explain that by the gluing process that tighten the patches to the cups better... And Brain burn in probably to the new sound ( the new sound is essentially more 3-d)....Its not possible for me now to enjoy anything but the he 400... my 2 others gear remain silent


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> after 2 weeks with this formula : 12 patches of sorb around the cups of my he 400.... The sound is better today than it was in the beginning... I explain that by the gluing process that tighten the patches to the cups better... And Brain burn in probably to the new sound ( the new sound is essentially more 3-d)....Its not possible for me now to enjoy anything but the he 400... my 2 others gear remain silent


 

 I have noticed that the sound can change a lot over a few hours/days after installation, which I attribute to the glue holding the sorb to the phones, hardening.  For example I recall playing around with my SRXIII Pro, changing the sorb and deciding that it didn't sound  that good.  But rather than rip it all out, I thought, maybe if it sits overnight it might sound different.  The next day in fact it sounded much better.  It shouldn't be too hard to realize that if you are going to use something like sorb as a damper, it will need to be firmly attached to the earcup, a loose bond means you are not getting the full benefit of the material  since the sound vibrations are not all getting into the sorb,   and I have also notice a tendency for bass boominess with loose sorb.
  
 My project for today was to replace the 1/8 sorb on my Stax Lambda 404  with 1/4 inch sorb.  So far it seems like an improvement  but it has been on for less than an hour and I wait to hear what tomorrow's sound will be.   I am leaving the 1/8 sorb on the Stax Lambda LNS, as a comparison. The two phones have some differences in sonic signature, whether damped with sorb or not, but they also have a lot more similarities than any other 2 phones I have except the Sigma/404 and Sigma Pro.  I have been pretty happy with the conversion of the Sigmas from a mix of 1/8 and 1/4 to all 1/4, but cut into smaller pieces. However I am playing with removing small sections of sorb to tailor the sound. For example removing 1 segment from each cup of the Sigmas, brought up the mid/upper mid frequencies although with a  slight loss of dynamics.
  
 Getting back to the Lambdas,  a number of people have been reluctant to open them up to put sorb inside.  However there is little or no other place on the earcups to put any significant amount of sorbothane.  On other phones, you can place it outside but the Lambdas have almost no solid surface to do this, except the baffle.  The lambdas are not that hard to open.  For a start you don't need to remove the earpads, such peel them back a bit and unscrew the corner screws.

  
 The baffle may be somewhat stuck.  Stax does not glue them as should be obvious from the use of 4 screws to hold the baffle in place.  However the baffle can feel stuck, possibly because glue from the earpads gets in to the space.  However, a bit of careful prying will get the baffle out.
  


  Lift the baffle a few millimeters all around and then lift it up along with the section where the cord enters the earcup and voila you are ready to go.


----------



## edstrelow

Using 1/4 inch 30 duro sorbothane vs 1/8 is a major improvement on both my Lambda 404 and LNS. This is my recommended sorb fix for these phones as well as the Sigmas from now on. I am editing the previous posts to show this. 1/8 inch does work just that if you are going to the trouble of opening up these phones to place this on the baffles why not go for the best. The only downside I can see is that you will have to glue this sorb since I do not see any selfstick. I use 3M 80 adhesive.


----------



## edstrelow

I have been fine tuning the Sigmas to reduce  the mid bass by eliminating some of the sorbothane sections.  The basic problem can be seen in Tyll Hertsen's frequency response of the original Sigmas.http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSRSigma07381.pdf.  While his graph is of the low bias model, I suspect that the high bias Sigma pro and Sigma/404 are similar but with more extension in the treble and bass. But essentially this design has a broad peak between about 100 Hz and 1kHz probably because of the boxy earcup design.
  
 Over several days listening I decided that the sorb, while doing great things for dynamics and tonal accuracy,  was making this region more prominent.  I can't say exactly which frequencies  were worse, but I would guess 400 Hz to 800Hz.  Possibly this was the result of further curing of the glue holding the sorb, since I did notice this problem for several days.  So I started cutting out sections of sorb that were glued behind the ear, 1/2 a section at  a time. Finally I felt that the Sigma Pro sounded better balanced with 2 entire segments removed whereas the Sigma/404 needed 2 1/2  removed and possibly three, I am still undecided on that but homing in on a final decision.
  
 This is one of the nice things about experimenting with sorb,  you can keep playing with different sizes, and duro measurements and adding it until you don't like the sound anymore, at which point you change it, or in this case remove some. The 3M 80 glue I have been using does not hold so firmly that you can't pull the sorb off.
  
 An alternative to putting glued sorb off and on is to clamp it in place, as I still do with the 007A headband.   Adjusting the pressure allows for some tuning of the sound, thus tightening the clamps on the 007A reduces bass.  The problem is that short of some serious machining of parts there is no obvious way to clamp sorb to most phones and few need damping on the band except the Stax 007's  and 4070, which use similar headbands and the Sennheiser HD800.     If headphone manfacturers ever catch on to the need for damping, my advice would be to skip the gluing and hold sorb in place a clamping system, possibly one that can be tightened and loosened by the user.


----------



## dxanex

Wow, sorbothane is kind of expensive for a sheet! Anyone have any extra pieces or scraps they'd be willing to send me if I pay for shipping? I'd just like to try it out for myself.


----------



## edstrelow

dxanex said:


> Wow, sorbothane is kind of expensive for a sheet! Anyone have any extra pieces or scraps they'd be willing to send me if I pay for shipping? I'd just like to try it out for myself.


 
  
 PM me if you want some 1/8. But tell me what phone you want to try it on. I did this for a while, even handed out strips at Canjam but have finally used up my stock of excess 1/4 which I am increasingly using.over 1/8.  Some of the audio dealers have bumped up the price, but search Amazon and  Ebay. You only need a small amount for most phones so a 6x6 inch sheet would suffice.  I am seeing prices on Amazon under $15.00/sheet.  Some 1/8 inch  is self-stick.  The 1/4 that I am using more now needs glue.


----------



## nick n

Thanks for all the info in here especially the updates, application methods ( strips vs sections ) and thickness preferences.
  
 Got some mods on the go sometime soonish I hope will check out the 30D adhesive backed 1/10" stuff.
 Better than Dynamat Extreme I would assume


----------



## nabwong

I've never been one to mod my headphones. I appreciate that different makers have different ideas of good sound and they probably have a lot more knowledge than I do in engineering and acoustic terms. That said, maybe damping has been an oversight? 

My experience with damping the HE-400 has opened my eyes. The difference is not subtle, it's jaw dropping. Don't get me wrong, it has not changed the sound signature or character of the HE-400. It is still quick, energetic and fun. What the damping did was to make it clean. It's almost like surgical cleansing; you just killed all the germs. In this case, unwanted noise is eliminated. Look, i'm not an engineer. So I can't quantify it for you and I have no desire to. I'm a musician and when I listen to a damped HE-400, i'm marveled by how clean and well defined the sound is now. 

Speaking of well defined sound, much of that I feel is due to the increased rate of decay. There is just the right amount of space now between sounds. It was just slightly bleeding over before, in the highs especially. I think that did a lot to cover up the mids. Now that the dust has been wiped off the window, I can see clearly. 

The other thing that is apparent is how much heftier the sound is, not that it was anorexic before but it just has a little more weight to the sound. To me, it's like the difference between bouncing a volleyball and a basketball. One's a little denser, weightier and bounces better. The bounce sounds better too. I think the weight is more proportioned to the speed of the attack. Ping pong balls are now golf balls. Overall, it just gives a feeling of solidness. It doesn't light up or distort when you push it. As susceptible to interference. Another way to explain it is like having a bad or good tripod. The good tripod doesn't transfer the vibration to the camera, so you can take longer exposure pictures without worrying that the picture will get too noisy.

Can you overdo the damping? I'm sure. I think we all have to find the right balance for ourselves. I've been listening to all sorts of music and I've been impressed every single time. Lorde, Herbie Hancock, Mahler, Acoustic stuff, Dave Brubeck, Piazzolla, Green Day. I'm in love with the HE-400. I think the driver is competent enough. All it needed was a little fine tuning. 

*lined the inside of the he-400 and then closed the grill. Used 1/10" thick, 50 duro 3m adhesive.



*also did the inside of my yamaha mt220. Significantly "cleaner" but also heftier sound.


----------



## MrMateoHead

edstrelow said:


> I have seen that there are some professional modders out there who apply dynamat to headphones (and charge exorbitant amounts for this)   As far as I understand, dynamat is designed to block external sound, such as road noise, getting into cars.  To the extent that it also dampens vibrations it is doing the same thing as sorbothane. I, or someone else  ought to try it with headphones and compare it to sorb. There really is a lot of research that needs to be done here.


 

 Dynamat also "deadens" cars by adding weight/mass to door and floor panels. I assume that to some extent doing this to the plastic cups is killing external noise / internal resonances / vibrations. There seems to be quite a lot of good performance data at their website - maybe a more technical person can tell us more about what is there.


----------



## Eurobeat

IMO you might want something like this.

 http://www.amazon.com/Isolate-It-Sorbothane-Acoustic-Vibration/dp/B00A4E0CL4/ref=pd_sim_sbs_328_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1RZ4CFKQRJABF0C5ZC28&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_

 "Accoustic and Sound Dampening?"

 I was looking at this last night when I was really tired, but now that I think about it, I hope it wouldn't cut the sound...

 It soundedl ike something we would want... though?


----------



## edstrelow

eurobeat said:


> IMO you might want something like this.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Isolate-It-Sorbothane-Acoustic-Vibration/dp/B00A4E0CL4/ref=pd_sim_sbs_328_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1RZ4CFKQRJABF0C5ZC28&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_
> 
> ...


 
 Looks like the type of sorb I and others have been trying.  Two points , though: this is a pretty large sheet and is a lot more than you would need for one phone.  As well, it is 50 duro, which means it is stiffer than the 30 duro I have been generally using. However my use of 30 duro is only based on a hunch that softer sorb is better than harder.   I haven't made a direct comparison between harder and stiffer sorb. There is a lot we don't know on this topic.
  


mrmateohead said:


> Dynamat also "deadens" cars by adding weight/mass to door and floor panels. I assume that to some extent doing this to the plastic cups is killing external noise / internal resonances / vibrations. There seems to be quite a lot of good performance data at their website - maybe a more technical person can tell us more about what is there.


 
 I suspect that dynamat will have at least some of the properties of sorbothane although it seems to be primarily designed to block sound rather than absorb it and convert it to heat as is claimed for sorbothane.  As I say above, there is a lot we just don't know about how to proceed here and a lot of experimentation needed.
  


nabwong said:


> I've never been one to mod my headphones. I appreciate that different makers have different ideas of good sound and they probably have a lot more knowledge than I do in engineering and acoustic terms. That said, maybe damping has been an oversight?
> 
> My experience with damping the HE-400 has opened my eyes. The difference is not subtle, it's jaw dropping. Don't get me wrong, it has not changed the sound signature or character of the HE-400. It is still quick, energetic and fun. What the damping did was to make it clean. It's almost like surgical cleansing; you just killed all the germs. In this case, unwanted noise is eliminated. Look, i'm not an engineer. So I can't quantify it for you and I have no desire to. I'm a musician and when I listen to a damped HE-400, i'm marveled by how clean and well defined the sound is now.
> 
> ...


 
 Sounds like you have found a sweet spot for damping these phones.


----------



## nabwong

edstrelow said:


> Sounds like you have found a sweet spot for damping these phones.


 
  
 I'm wondering how the hardness affects the sound but for right now, it's sounding pretty awesome.


----------



## Eurobeat

edstrelow said:


> Looks like the type of sorb I and others have been trying.  Two points , though: this is a pretty large sheet and is a lot more than you would need for one phone.  As well, it is 50 duro, which means it is stiffer than the 30 duro I have been generally using. However my use of 30 duro is only based on a hunch that softer sorb is better than harder.   I haven't made a direct comparison between harder and stiffer sorb. There is a lot we don't know on this topic.


 

 It seems there are 2 kinds. "Accoustic and Vibration dampening" and "vibration dampening."  I wonder if the acoustic would hurt the music, or work better?  I would assuming "acoustic dampening" would refer to making a silent room, or something...  

 Not sure if we should test the difference, or not..  Maybe I'll contact the company and get the info .

 I'm not sure which ones to get (duros), but I thought someone mentioned 50.

 I think I'll give the company a chat, and see what they believe is the best options for our headphones, and then I will post here with some info .


----------



## richard51

very good idea... thanks i will wait  for 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





their answer...


----------



## MrMateoHead

Well my research into the subject is that Dynamat is also a visco-elastic material (Buytl Rubber), which is different than Sorbathane but Sorbathane has comparison data showing that it is a superior damping agent (shock, vibration, impact) compared to Buytl rubber. In short, dynamat has always been a "room treatment" which leads to better sound - primarily by lowering the noise floor of cars.
  
 Considering that the typical vehicle will have peak noise near 80 dB under accelaration and highway noise of 70 dB +- 4 dB, and that dynamat can reduce this by 3-18 dB, this is extremely significant. As you know, cutting road noise by just 3-6 dB would allow you to reduce your power roughly by half to achieve the same volume. When I am cruising the highway, I need my deck at minimum volume 17-20 to significantly overcome road noise, and my setup clips around 23-25 on the dial (out of 35 - I know - the preouts suck on that deck or the DSP does whatever). In any case, I am listening at significantly over 70 dB at that point - probably 75 dB + peaks - not great for my hearing long-term and harder on the equipment. I won't dynamat my car (don't feel like it) but I can imagine the stuff could do wonders in terms of improving the listening experience + reduce driver and ear fatigue. Assuming I got a reduction of road noise of 10 dB or so, I would likely achieve comfortable listening at lower volumes, and could do things like EQ aggressively without worrying about clipping.
  
 SO when we are using sorbathane on these headphones we are seeking better sound by treating the speaker's "room" - in this case round plastic ear cups with mesh on the ear end promoting sound transfer, and wire mesh + fabric on the other end which allows transfer but must, as a result of the grill, result in some reflection of the back wave (hence the grill mods that "improve" the sound). I think the basic assumption is that the HE-400s are living in a very "live" room, where reflections and energy are not dissipating enough prior to reaching our ears. But it is the back wave firing "through the room", while our ears are in either a "pleather room", or a "velour room", the former probably closed cell foam, the latter might be open (slightly more absorptive but modded pleathers certainly are better damped).
  
 I would think the only reason to use higher duro values would be to gain tear resistance, or use with heavier objects as the softer duro probably deforms a bit more easily. I want to try 30 duro patches, and probably apply some to the back of the driver frame, to really prevent the backwave from traveling back through the cup, and possible to quell slight vibrations that may be in the driver housing? But obviously, overdamping the headphones could sound worse. Then there is choosing thickness - how much space is there between the grill and the driver housing? Could .25 inch fit better than 1/10 inch?


----------



## nabwong

mrmateohead said:


> Well my research into the subject is that Dynamat is also a visco-elastic material (Buytl Rubber), which is different than Sorbathane but Sorbathane has comparison data showing that it is a superior damping agent (shock, vibration, impact) compared to Buytl rubber. In short, dynamat has always been a "room treatment" which leads to better sound - primarily by lowering the noise floor of cars.
> 
> Considering that the typical vehicle will have peak noise near 80 dB under accelaration and highway noise of 70 dB +- 4 dB, and that dynamat can reduce this by 3-18 dB, this is extremely significant. As you know, cutting road noise by just 3-6 dB would allow you to reduce your power roughly by half to achieve the same volume. When I am cruising the highway, I need my deck at minimum volume 17-20 to significantly overcome road noise, and my setup clips around 23-25 on the dial (out of 35 - I know - the preouts suck on that deck or the DSP does whatever). In any case, I am listening at significantly over 70 dB at that point - probably 75 dB + peaks - not great for my hearing long-term and harder on the equipment. I won't dynamat my car (don't feel like it) but I can imagine the stuff could do wonders in terms of improving the listening experience + reduce driver and ear fatigue. Assuming I got a reduction of road noise of 10 dB or so, I would likely achieve comfortable listening at lower volumes, and could do things like EQ aggressively without worrying about clipping.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for adding some useful knowledge to the discussion. I'm really enjoying this thread, compared to the cable and pad threads. Yes, shots fired. lol.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Just ordered a sheet of 6x6 1/10 30 duro from ebay for $15 bucks. I suppose I can just stick some in my computer case if it doesn't work out lol. I'm going on the theory that the Duro ranking is probably a little less important - but I'd rather have had 1/8 or even 1/4 inch thick stuff if I could find it (40d limit). My guess is that the amount of the stuff + the size of the pads will largely determine the strength of the damping. To those concerned, I doubt it will "reduce the bass". In an untreated room, a flat speaker can sound very "boomy" in the low / mid bass depending on the resonance of the surrounding structures + placement. Its good to "deaden" a room, but you don't want it "dead" - particularly with these, they've tended, if anything, to need a little boost in the 50 hz range.


----------



## richard51

i have 1/8 and 30 duro and the bass was improved...


----------



## edstrelow

mrmateohead said:


> Just ordered a sheet of 6x6 1/10 30 duro from ebay for $15 bucks. I suppose I can just stick some in my computer case if it doesn't work out lol. I'm going on the theory that the Duro ranking is probably a little less important - but I'd rather have had 1/8 or even 1/4 inch thick stuff if I could find it (40d limit). My guess is that the amount of the stuff + the size of the pads will largely determine the strength of the damping. To those concerned, I doubt it will "reduce the bass". In an untreated room, a flat speaker can sound very "boomy" in the low / mid bass depending on the resonance of the surrounding structures + placement. Its good to "deaden" a room, but you don't want it "dead" - particularly with these, they've tended, if anything, to need a little boost in the 50 hz range.


 
  
  


richard51 said:


> i have 1/8 and 30 duro and the bass was improved...


 
  
 I  have not found that bass falls off with damping. In several of my efforts, bass has actually  increased after damping . My explanation is that as a Sorbothane tecnician told me, the dampening ability  of sorbothane  falls off below 50Hz. The sorb generally lowers the volume of those frequencies it damps, presumably because it is abosrbing the resonant energy in those frequencies. If the frequencies less than 50 Hz are not damped, they would end up  proportionately louder,  Of course there is not usually much musical signal there and most phones are somewhat deficient in the bass anyway so this is not usually a problem.
  
 However I have noted that loose or poorly installed sorb may give an unpleasant bass boost.  Seems like it may actually vibrate in this situation.
  
 When I have used a mechanical clamp to hold the sorbethane, as I still do on the headband of the Stax SR007A, you can to some extent tune the bass.  Tighter clamping seems to reduce bass.
  
 Lots of things here that I don't understand.


----------



## Eurobeat

edstrelow said:


> I  have not found that bass falls off with damping. In several of my efforts, bass has actually  increased after damping . My explanation is that as a Sorbothane tecnician told me, the dampening ability  of sorbothane  falls off below 50Hz. The sorb generally lowers the volume of those frequencies it damps, presumably because it is abosrbing the resonant energy in those frequencies. If the frequencies less than 50 Hz are not damped, they would end up  proportionately louder,  Of course there is not usually much musical signal there and most phones are somewhat deficient in the bass anyway so this is not usually a problem.
> 
> However I have noted that loose or poorly installed sorb may give an unpleasant bass boost.  Seems like it may actually vibrate in this situation.
> 
> ...


 


 So you're saying the frequencies are being altered/lowered?  Wouldn't that affect the entire sound then? Wouldn't it be a lot diffrent/odd?


----------



## edstrelow

You would think the bass would be up, but as I say there is so little music below 50 Hz, if this does happen  it is not obvious. And I should say, I am going on a verbal statement from a technician with no  documentation, such as a graph to back it up.  I  doubt that the the damping factor ends abruptly at 50 Hz, it probably rolls off at that point so it may not be that pronounced. I say try it yourself and see what you hear. That's what matters in the end.


----------



## MrMateoHead

eurobeat said:


> So you're saying the frequencies are being altered/lowered?  Wouldn't that affect the entire sound then? Wouldn't it be a lot diffrent/odd?


 
 I am no expert but here is my intuition:
  
 When "damping" anything - be it a car or a pair of earphones, you are damping/absorbing vibrations / resonances that are unwanted. Hence in a car "lowering the noise floor" means that you are eliminating broadband noise that normally intrudes in the "listening space" via wind and road noise transferring through the metal / plastic / glass surfaces. You can defeat that noise floor by going even louder, but to some extent I think that the speaker / "room" interaction might lead to excited or dampened frequencies (peaks and dips in response) that you didn't want. Of course if the problems are with the speakers themselves, you still end up with problems, but that is what EQ is for too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 A "perfect" speaker in a "perfect room" doesn't, to my knowledge, have a perfectly "flat" response, but would be close to it (maybe a slight downward tilt). I consider the Revels to be a benchmark in that regard.
  
 Anyway, you can get above the noise floor, but you are not eliminating distortions that are present given the way the speaker and the room are _interacting_ (e.g. boosting or cutting frequencies). Particularly with the HE-400s, "ringing" in the midrange seems to be a critical issue. In my opinion, that could relate to the plastics inside or the driver itself - is excess energy present because the materials naturally resonate near critical frequencies? Is it because of the "waffle" frame of the driver? We can't change that. But, it it would be ideal to have the ability to push the resonant frequencies of the "room" itself far away from human "audibility" (probably either below 20 hz or above 20 khz). If the "room" of the HE-400 driver can be pushed 40 dB "below" whatever it is currently at any frequency above 50 hz, perhaps it will "get out of the way" and allow the drivers to make their music with less distortion. This isn't changing the speakers, it is changing the room - we just don't know what the impact on the overall response then becomes. Ideally, we kill the ringing issues and any reflections that might contribute to frequency response peaks that are audible and undesirable contributing to fatigue. In short, I believe that what this does is create a "dead" room for the drivers that should, I would think, eliminate some of their existing distortion as measured. Or maybe lots - who knows?
  
 In a car some of the noise occurs at low frequencies, others at high (you can sort of tell where your problem frequencies are particularly in the bass where there never seems to be good midbass response but often jacked up at 40-50 hz). Next time you are driving turn off the radio and just listen - that "white noise" is competing with your speakers to be heard - it still exists even when you drown it out. Hitting expansion joints etc "thumps" and usually has a lower frequency. The engine makes noises and so on. It all impacts the response of the car overall no matter the quality of the system. The speakers are affixed to panels that are treated - but you don't treat the speakers themselves so they are free to vibrate / resonate / create noise into the empty space - they just no longer do so with whatever additional resonances or reflections the car might add. What has changed is not the speakers output or response, but the characteristics of the "room" insofar as they relate to the overall response. There are always lots of unwanted reflections + less than ideal placement but killing broadband noise is doing wonders for headroom and allowing you to play speakers at levels where they probably "behave" better.
  
 In short, outside of an anechoic chamber, the world is a noisy place and any speaker will behave differently whether in a yard, in a room, a closet, etc. Optimizing response goes beyond having a good driver - it includes having a good room. Hence, your bass response will be way out of whack if you have a massive subwoofer in a tiny room, or a tiny subwoofer in a large room. I just have no idea how this is actually working in a headphone space, since both the room and the ear introduce physical variations.
  
 The HE-400s are, stock, still one of the better headphones for the money particularly if you want to get some Planars (my new choice would be Oppos). Slight mods addressing damping have improved the sound so far - and I do think there is still performance on the table. Certainly planar speakers are placed differently than dynamics in a room, because dynamics either have a "dead" backwave trapped in an enclosure ideally of non-parallel surfaces or are vented to boost bass response (notice vents NEVER get tuned to midrange / treble frequencies). When I get my sorbathane, I will try to do some listening before and after (including with grill on and grill off to see if that is the real "difference"). I will try to "measure the backwave" / frequency response with totally non-professional equipment. Just basic freq response and SPL if I can get it. If sound overall is improved, I'll let everyone know. This is a pretty neat little experiment - and I would tend to think there is some real potential benefit to it. Just know that "overdamping" can be bad - "dead" or "lifeless" sound, probably with little "air" or "excitement". This is partly a balancing act, and my personal preferences and biases will apply. But I would fully expect this stuff to help with ringing somewhat, and lower THD even, but without getting a "properly damped" measurement, we won't know. Maybe we send a modded pair to Tyll!


----------



## MrMateoHead

Just taking a trip over to Innerfidelity to re-examine the measurements, I would add that the HE-400s definitely have significant ringing issues.
  
 Also, THD seems to be high from 200hz-600hz, 1 to 1.2 khz, and about 2.5 khz. Possibly an issue starting around 7 khz - 10 khz, but the measurements don't reach that far. That is with pleather pads on, presumably, totally unmodded. So I would assume these are the offending frequencies, and of course the overall measurements show lots of rippling probably masked by smoothing the data.
  
 No matter how you slice it, I still think these things need a fair amount of creative EQ'ing to balance out the sound a bit. That will be my last step.


----------



## edstrelow

mrmateohead said:


> I am no expert but here is my intuition:
> 
> When "damping" anything - be it a car or a pair of earphones, you are damping/absorbing vibrations / resonances that are unwanted. Hence in a car "lowering the noise floor" means that you are eliminating broadband noise that normally intrudes in the "listening space" via wind and road noise transferring through the metal / plastic / glass surfaces. You can defeat that noise floor by going even louder, but to some extent I think that the speaker / "room" interaction might lead to excited or dampened frequencies (peaks and dips in response) that you didn't want. Of course if the problems are with the speakers themselves, you still end up with problems, but that is what EQ is for too.
> 
> ...


 
 Noise is generally defined as "unwanted sound."  It can apply to both sound from internal and external sources, i.e. background sounds in a listening room are noise, electrical disturbances which cause sound are noise in a stereo system, and I guess you can define all manner of distortion in stereo systems as noise but at some point you have to bear in.mind the different origins of these different kinds of noise because the methods of defeating them are going to be quite different.
  
  Damping is the process of reducing the amplitude of oscillations in an " oscillatory system. " What we seem to be doing with sorbothane is reducing the oscillations of portions of the earcups of headphones which seem to be coming from the drivers in accordance with the Newtonian principle that for every action there is an  equal and opposite  reaction. I.e. sound is going by direct mechanical coupling from the drivers to the surrounding structures. 
  
 Ideally there should be no contribution to the sound you hear in a headphone from oscillations of the structures surrounding the drivers anymore than you want to hear sound coming from the surface  of your loudspeakers and good speakers go to considerable effort to reduce this. To reduce these sounds, speakers are often heavy, rigid and coupled to even larger structure by things like floor spikes.
  
 With headphones, there appears to have been a general assumption that such direct mechanical oscillations are not a problem. However,  the sorbothane effects show there is a quite noticeable problem.  Why this has not been noticed before, I am not sure. Possibly just that  there are few thing you can do with a headphone compared to a loudspeaker to reduce the problem. You can't just keep adding mass and you are not going to add spikes. Even increasing rigidty may not do.much because everything resonates no.matter how stiff. It may very well be that adding something like sorbothane is just about all you can do.
  
 The term "resonance" is also used with different meanings in audio. Often we are talking about the resonances within chambers, such as rooms or the open spaces of headphone earcups. However here I am talking about  what I call "mechanical resonance" to refer to vibrations within the physical structures of the earcups, not the spaces around them.
  
 Ayway, this is my understanding of what is happening here. Obviously some serious research is needed to confirm this or provide an alternate explanation. 
  
 As regards measurement, what I think is really needed is measurements of the vibrations of the earcup structures themselves. This would need some kind of sensor on the surface of the earcup, not a microphone in the air.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Edstrelow - great additional comments, and a good idea to distinguish what we mean by noise, damping, and resonance.
  
 Polycarbonate plastics have a density that approaches that of metal, so I would assume natural resonances would be similar. 500 hz? 600 hz? I don't know. Either way there is definitely mechanical coupling taking place, and these are powerful drivers. Amazing to think these could behave like big speakers in a big room (where you can hear the windows rattling! Just the scale is so much smaller one can't really perceive the issues by "ear".


----------



## Eurobeat

Thanks for the info...  Still no reply from them, and I decided that I'm probably not buying the Yamahas MT220's anymore.


 Got the Pioneeer HRM-7's instead.  They might need sdome rework, but dont see any comments like that.


----------



## richard51

the he 400 shell earcup is a bell.... full on unwanted resonance partly annihilated by the sorbothane.... When i read this thread some months ago it was intuitively evident.. i dont regret it a bit.... the most important upgrade for minimal cost.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks to Edstrelow.....


----------



## Eurobeat

How easily does the adhesive stick?  Does it come off fairly easily if we put too much on/want to remove it?


----------



## richard51

the self adhesive sorbothane 
 stick very well and is easy to remove without almost any trace........


----------



## jackharm

Ordered some 1/8 40D self adhesive sorb.
  
 Will most likely end up messing around with some sort of hybrid fuzzor/sorbzor(?) modifications + some on the inner outside housing which has been shown previously on the HE-400's.


----------



## richard51

jackharm said:


> Ordered some 1/8 40D self adhesive sorb.
> 
> Will most likely end up messing around with some sort of hybrid fuzzor/sorbzor(?) modifications + some on the inner outside housing which has been shown previously on the HE-400's.


 

 remember to report here... 40 duro its interesting....


----------



## MrMateoHead

As I drove down the highway today, I noticed how bad the reflection from the windshield / dashboard was. I could literally see the whole dashboard as if it was grafted onto the road in front of me like a hologram. Then I thought about how I wouldn't be seeing it if I were wearing a pair of polarized sunglasses. That sort of "visual glare" must be similar to audible "glare" - that sense that the image of the sound you are trying to see is both present but accompanied by reflections that are mostly unwanted. Probably common sense to the lot of you, but a needed "insight" for me before I went about the business of modding my HE-400s (again).
  
 Particularly when the recording itself makes ample use of reverb / chamber-like "echo" and space, glaring resonances and reflections only make the listening experience a bit glaring / difficult. One of the first songs I queued up was Joss Stone "Love Me", a song I've been listening to a lot lately. I am not 100% positive, but immediately it seemed the treble peak was subdued quite a bit (even missing?) and a lot of midrange glare was absent - her voice and that of her backup singers seemed to be presented nearly as clearly as it is on my PSB M4Us. I am going to try out more recordings that usually assault my ears and report back.
  
 I am doing some listening right now but will post pics and some pretty unscientific data later.


----------



## richard51

interesting remarks indeed ...


----------



## MrMateoHead

Sorbathane Mod:
  
 You can lookup the "grill mod" to see how the stock grills are removed - its surprisingly easy but I did use a razor as I have useless fingernails. The rings seem to not be brittle, which was a relief. That said, they are tiny. Be careful. Once two tabs are popped, you can safely pull out the ring and continue.
  
 Here you are looking at 1/10" thick 30 Duro Sorbathane crudely cut by hand with a razor. The stuff is gummy and I was using a 6x6 sheet. You have about 1/4" depth in the HE-400 cups so I cut to about 1/4" or so and then lined the inside with varying lengths of the stuff. You can pinch this stuff hard and it deforms readily, but goes right back to shape:

 In the process of doing this I did notice that there is no "empty cavity" - there is either some sort of liner/membrane, or plastic obstruction that seems to separate the main chamber from the back chamber. Even so, I decided to cut additional strips of 1/8" width and added an "L" shaped treatment to the driver housing itself - on the side of the driver that would NOT be the back of my ear, but the front. I guess this might be like putting a bit of carpeting in front of your loudspeakers as opposed to doing it behind them "absorbing first reflections". I am thinking about surrounding the whole driver with these thin strips, but am now curious as to why doing the back, as opposed to the front, seems to have made a desired impact - reducing "glare" and "resonance" from the mid-range response in particular and "cleaning up" the treble response insofar as I can claim to actually hear a difference (and I am quite sure I can). I am quite stunned. Yes, the treble is still dialed up a little too hot, but I swear it is not as pronounced / distracting as it was on some tracks before the mod (I note that I am NOT EQ'ing presently, but will probably EQ after playing around). In short, the "polarized sunglasses" are on, and it's a nicer ride. I think one could easily use thicker sorbathane as well - 2/10" would seem to fit fine with a little cramming.
  
 Here is an attempt to measure any changes. This is a Nexus 7 + RTA app with NO calibrated microphone measurements, so they cannot be taken in any way as comparable to anything published out there. The mic clearly rolls off at around 150 hz and misses the 1 khz "hump" documented elsewhere, so I am sure its response curve might be odd (but appropriate for OK recording of human voices / phone call duty). But I am also certain that despite this, it is better than my ear at actually quantifying possible differences in amplitude. Given that the MIC reports high frequencies, it could be full-range and the lack of bass could be from a lack of seal - I am not sure which. Maybe I can record a "sine sweep" with it or something and figure out where its cutoffs actually are. Or maybe I'll actually get a measurement mic sometime.
  
 HE-400 (Ear Side), Pink Noise, Raw response

 HE-400 (Grill Side), Pink Noise, Raw Response

 HE-400 Sorbathane Treated (Ear Side), Pink Noise, Raw Response

 HE-400 Sorbathane Treated (Grill Side), Pink Noise, Raw Response

  
 I should note that I did not discern, immediately, any real difference from having the stock grills on or off. I expected a sense of "air" or otherwise some enhanced clarity but in the few moments I bothered to check, found that inconclusive. I also alternated holding up the grills and not, and again, NBD. So, for all intensive purposes, they are probably quite efficient / transparent already. Having spent time with the PSB M4U1's lately, I also consider those to sound more "open" than the HE-400s anyhow with a more resolving and authentic treble (heresy I know - the PSBs are closed back!).
  
 The Horizontal Bars you can see represent +- 12 dB - a SIGNIFICANT difference in amplitude. That makes interpreting this raw data a lot harder. Unfortunately, I don't have a program that scales more closely, so I can get a better window into response. Roughly half that is 6 dB, and half of that is a range (+- 3 dB) where I think we approach "flat" response. The yellow line is an averaged response (32 samples a second or whatever) that smooths things out a lot. If I had to guess, I'd say a change is, on the grill side, some smoothing of response between 2-3 kHz, and again from 3 kHz - 6 kHz. There seems to be some tightening of response in the 8-20 kHz range, and a smoother roll-off to 20 kHz. Mind you, I am not referring to the actual shape of the raw data line (which looks little like real measurements done elsewhere with good equipment) - I am focused on whether the rippling of the averaged line looks significantly different (for example, an absence of ripples that fit within approximately +- 3 dB that did not before). That would seem to indicate to me that the Nexus 7 is "hearing" something different.
  
 Measuring Pink Noise on the ear side, I notice in both cases a response that steps down about 12 dB by 3 kHz, and 18 dB by 6 kHz. It then rises from 6 kHz up to a peak around 10 kHz, if my microphone is to be believed. The most significant difference appears to be that response tightens up after 6 kHz, and the treble roll-off after the peak is more severe. But it is still there.
  
 All in all the measured response looks pretty darn similar - with closer inspecting revealing what look to me to be differences in slope and some clear changes in overall responses (pretend you can draw straight lines through the yellow line particularly in the treble regions).
  
 It would be better to see waterfall plots to look for signs that ringing has been reduced at different frequencies. Maybe someone else can do this with a modded pair.
  
 But i can say that listening comfort is up - particularly at high volumes - and that is a very good sign. I am quite satisfied with the change. As a next step, I am tempted to see if "framing" the driver on the ear side might provide a little more damping, or just ruin the sound. Or, would more damping in the rear be a good idea? I could follow the plastic around the outer "circle" to further drape the back wave. I am not sure what I might try first, particularly as the overall change has already been pretty good. I am open to all opinions!


----------



## MrMateoHead

And just to wrap up, here is an idea for really "overdoing" the back of the driver - by sticking more sorb on all the orange parts:
  

 I could either double up on the cup itself, or focus on the white plastic "driver housing". Might make for a very "dead" backwave.


----------



## richard51

thank you very much....very interesting experiment ... i will read all your posts
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and that will inspire my future mods also


----------



## richard51

mrmateohead said:


> And just to wrap up, here is an idea for really "overdoing" the back of the driver - by sticking more sorb on all the orange parts:
> 
> 
> I could either double up on the cup itself, or focus on the white plastic "driver housing". Might make for a very "dead" backwave.


 

 I will try the same mod in the interior of the cup in some future...I had 1/8 sorb duro 30 12 patches  on the exterior cups of the he 400....For me that clean up the sound....more precise highs and bass....if i understand your posts its the same thing with your mods ?


----------



## MrMateoHead

richard51 said:


> I will try the same mod in the interior of the cup in some future...I had 1/8 sorb duro 30 12 patches  on the exterior cups of the he 400....For me that clean up the sound....more precise highs and bass....if i understand your posts its the same thing with your mods ?


 
 The best way I can describe it right now is that my HE-400s are doing their normal thing but now with "polarized sunglasses" on that remove unwanted reflections. A sense of some glare and resonance usually present in the midrange / treble particularly at higher volumes seems to be further suppressed if not gone (modded pleathers reduce it, velour reduces it about the same amount while sounding better to my ears). The sorbathane seems to have continued this trend but reached a new level.
  
 I don't personally see a benefit to the bass (effect=null), but certainly a sense of "clutter" in the critical midrange / treble frequencies seems to have been removed from the picture.
  
 Despite the positive result, I listened to these EQ'd for a long time and would still boost 50 hz and cut the upper treble by a few dB to "complete" the sound to my preference. I have also come to think they need a boost at 3.5 kHz to conform better to the harmon curve, but it is no longer clear if the treble from that point forward needs to "roll off" rather than continue as a "jagged" if straight-ish line ala Innerfidelity's measurements.
  
 I am baffled as to why this seems to actually work. I understand that planars are essentially dipole, so you really don't want the "backwave" bleeding into your frontwave - but even with grills off that should be irrelevant to a headphone should it not? That leaves me with the possibility of the plastic and waffle-shaped driver housing ringing / reflecting sound in a bad way and having never gotten damped. I am starting to wonder what a few dabs of this stuff could do for the PSB's . . .


----------



## richard51

thank you very much for these precisions....that make my day .......


----------



## edstrelow

mrmateohead said:


> The best way I can describe it right now is that my HE-400s are doing their normal thing but now with "polarized sunglasses" on that remove unwanted reflections. A sense of some glare and resonance usually present in the midrange / treble particularly at higher volumes seems to be further suppressed if not gone (modded pleathers reduce it, velour reduces it about the same amount while sounding better to my ears). The sorbathane seems to have continued this trend but reached a new level.
> 
> I don't personally see a benefit to the bass (effect=null), but certainly a sense of "clutter" in the critical midrange / treble frequencies seems to have been removed from the picture.
> 
> ...


 
 Nice to see some experimentation on this phenomenon. About the only thing I can suggest is cutting the strips into shorter segments. That has given me a notably better sound when I have tried it. Like you, I started with strips but I got the idea of shorter pieces from a guy who was selling the stuff and recommended this with speakers.  Why this works, I do not know.


----------



## MrMateoHead

edstrelow said:


> Nice to see some experimentation on this phenomenon. About the only thing I can suggest is cutting the strips into shorter segments. That has given me a notably better sound when I have tried it. Like you, I started with strips but I got the idea of shorter pieces from a guy who was selling the stuff and recommended this with speakers.  Why this works, I do not know.


 

 Good advice. I think I've possibly already "nailed it", but could possible "snip" the area around the driver to create whatever effect smaller pieces has. I'm not sure that adding a few more 1/8"x1/2in or so blocks around the driver housing itself is necessary but I will probably go back in there and stick some on anyway to cover around 50% or so of the remaining surface area.
  
 Also, what size strips did you start with, and what size did you end up with? How might you describe the difference if you can remember?


----------



## MrMateoHead

Tonight I fine-tuned my sorb mod a bit:
  



 Still a tad rough I know - but I did learn that scissors work quite well with the 1/10" stuff. I did notice a little issue as well - some of the sorbathane that I put on last night was not adhered, or falling off. Evidently this is an issue with the 3M backing, I removed a film left behind when I removed a block and re-stuck it to the cups. I took the opportunity to cut my blocks smaller while I was at it. I also followed the edge of the driver as you can see, but took care not to stress the wires, which I am sure introduce a very minor distortion on their own. I hate seeing the glue there - guaranteed to fail someday. I also broke one of the tiny tabs holding the driver grill to the earcups - not sure how I did that but a good reminder to BE CAREFUL. Take your time. I was, but something happened. Whatever.
  
 In short - this tweaking did not seem to make a difference over and above what I've already done. I get the feeling the main benefit is in doing the ear cup itself. The next question would be, how much of this stuff could I remove before I hear the ringing start to return?


----------



## edstrelow

mrmateohead said:


> Tonight I fine-tuned my sorb mod a bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 These planars are more similar in construction to electrostatics than conventional dynamic drivers. I have never dampened an electrostatic driver directly, because of the high voltages on the outer plates. I think soren_blix put sorb on the plastic edges of stat drivers and seemed to like the results.


----------



## jackharm

Finished sorbing my he-400's outer side with some 1/8 50D. So far I guess I could say they are more clear, mids are a tad more present, and the bass is less bloated and more refined.
  
 Can't say the modification did any bad to the phones though!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Oh and alongside my other mods (fuzzor+hm5 angled velour+ grill) and dac/amp (nfb-15) I can say sibilance on these phones are nearly non-existent.


----------



## MrMateoHead

jackharm said:


> Finished sorbing my he-400's outer side with some 1/8 50D. So far I guess I could say they are more clear, mids are a tad more present, and the bass is less bloated and more refined.
> 
> Can't say the modification did any bad to the phones though!
> 
> ...


 

 Do you think the felt essentially had already accomplished the same thing and that is why the sorb didn't necessarily do anything dramatic? The sorb mod has, IMO, been a pretty dramatic change (for the better).


----------



## jackharm

I suppose I would say that.
  
 For sure the the phones did benefit from the application of the sorbothane, but I do suppose the previously applied fuzzor mod already corrected a majority of the issues that came along with the HE-400's.
  
 But at the end of things, this sorbothane is a nice compliment to the handful of modifications I have already done.
  
 Will probably have to give them a day or two of listening before I comment more upon any possible changes due to this mod but I think I am noticing a bit more air in the he-400's sound.


----------



## edstrelow

I talked to one of the engineers at Sorbothane in Ohio this morning and he acknowledged that they had not collected much data about the sound absorbtion properties of sorbothane such as would be useful in the headphone application. Of course it is not their business to work on specific applications , they make the material which is used in a wide variety of situations and it is up to individual companies or entrepeneurs to apply it and possibly do their own research and data collection.
  
 The website has a lot of information, unfortunately you need to have  a degree in mechanical engineering to understand it all.
  
http://www.sorbothane.com/
  
 Here is the engineering guide
  
http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/product-guides/Sorbothane-EDG.pdf
  
 A couple of things I noted though:
  
 There is an emphasis on using the right amount of sorb for your application, too much can make things worse.
  
 Circular pads may be better than square, supposedly because they bulge better at the sides. However these would be a bit of a pain to make, but not impossible.
  
 The engineer noted that because higher duro is more dense, it may have better damping characteristics. I have tended to assume that low duro would be setter becasue it would be softer.
  
 I thought I had found  a discussion of the right type of adhesive to use with this material on the site but the site seems to have been re-organized since my last veture there.


----------



## MrMateoHead

At this point then, it might be a good idea to consider how Dynamat (buytl rubber) and Sorbathane are being used to do the same thing (provide damping in an under damped environment). I honestly don't think that "circle v. square" matters in this case, because the stuff isn't bearing a load (the "coupling" between speaker / ground is not an issue - we are just tacking it into our ear cups the same way we'd take dynamat to our car doors). Sounds like we should use small circles IF we are asking it to de-couple a something from a surface subject to vibrations.
  
 In terms of choosing a density, that is an interesting point. But I'm not really sure what frequencies are impacted? We are still on the assumption that it is 50 hz on up. I am persuaded that the mass is doing something (changing the resonance frequency), and the material is also "capturing" some of the energy of reflected waves. It might therefore be interesting to apply it to the front wave, and then see if its done something horrible (like jack up bass reponse and literally kill treble e.g. overdamped somehow). I figure density / mass is important, but I assume that a softer duro would actually be more absorptive, not reflective. Otherwise, why would cotton batting work? It is not dense at all, but dampens the back wave.


----------



## edstrelow

mrmateohead said:


> In terms of choosing a density, that is an interesting point. But I'm not really sure what frequencies are impacted? We are still on the assumption that it is 50 hz on up.


 
 This engineer I spoke to clarified that they didn't measure any frequencies below 50 Hz for the one test they did about damping characteristics.So the statement I was previously given  about damping rates above 50 Hz doesn't actually mean there is no low frequency damping. Basically they just didn't test those frequencies. Sheesh!
  
 I tried to give a pep talk about how headphone damping could be a new application and that people really need to see some measurements. We'll see if it gets them to do anything.


----------



## TPSRA

May I ask do you think the 1/10 30 duro will be a good choice on the HE500?
 I can't find where to buy the 1/8 30 duro configuration you recommended
 I will take your word not to use the 50 duro since your are the few who have tried more than one configuration on the HEs


----------



## richard51

tpsra said:


> May I ask do you think the 1/10 30 duro will be a good choice on the HE500?
> I can't find where to buy the 1/8 30 duro configuration you recommended
> I will take your word not to use the 50 duro since your are the few who have tried more than one configuration on the HEs


 

 i had not try *only* 50 duro patches....I had try mostly 8 or ten 30 duro patches with 4 only  50 duro patches simultaneously  at the exterior of  the cup, 1/8 inches for the 2 duros... But it was too much muddied sound ( perhaps i do not glue them properly, the 50 duros patches were not self sticked like the other patches) ...  Hence I strip off the 50 duros patches (4 or 5 patches ) and keep the 8 pieces of 30 duros self stick patches only this time +4 others 30 duros patches, and it seems very good to me ( now i had these 12 patches  of 30 duros 1/8 inches ). I want to try 40 duros and experiment also with different thickness patches... I cannot now because of money  ... i cannot say with certainty that 50 duro dont do any good... Its depend also of the spacing of the patches, numbers, thickness... Others had try 50 duros only  with success... 1/10 is another experiment...i had 1/8 inches i will wait for your impression...at this time all of us must try and experiment  and communicate results here... best regards


----------



## MrMateoHead

tpsra said:


> May I ask do you think the 1/10 30 duro will be a good choice on the HE500?
> I can't find where to buy the 1/8 30 duro configuration you recommended
> I will take your word not to use the 50 duro since your are the few who have tried more than one configuration on the HEs


 

 Here is what I would do a second time around. With whatever sorb you decide to go with, I would start with two small patches, on on the cup, one on the driver housing. Then listen.
  
 Add two more small patches (as if you are going 12, 3, 6, 9 O'Clock around the housing). Listen some more. Did you notice a _positive_ change?
  
 I have a feeling that I could have used a little less sorb and "balanced" the impact a little better if I was so inclined.
  
 Leave the grills / ring off the whole time you listen. I personally don't feel the grill alters the sound meaningfully for the HE-400s, so you can "tune" without it. Just take measures to keep dust and gunk away!
  
 I imagine you will love the improvement. The focus and clarity is just so nice with planars.


----------



## BeatsWork

jackharm said:


> I suppose I would say that.
> 
> For sure the the phones did benefit from the application of the sorbothane, but I do suppose the previously applied fuzzor mod already corrected a majority of the issues that came along with the HE-400's.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Do keep us updated as I'm debating whether to mess with existing Fuzzor mod of my HE-500 or leave well enough alone


----------



## nick n

I tried out Sorbothane squares.
 Got a square of the 1/10 inch 30D
  
 I quickly whipped off 2 things as a trial to see what I noticed.
 BTW I did just get my hearing professionally tested again at work this morning and no change these last few years and it is in great tip top shape 
  
 I used the squares configuration no rectangles or strips.
*Larger* *squares* in one of my custom Soviet ortho builds ~ 6 @ 1/2inch ones close to the driver ( on each side )
  
*Smaller squares* in the dynamic because that is all that would fit due to the huge amount of white fabric damped baffle vents.
 1 directly on driver rear between the 4 rear magnet housing holes, 15 around driver and avoiding the massive amount of white fabric damped vent holes. So 16 total @ ~8-9mm each. ( on each side )
  
_YES I do notice it._
  
_It's tighter overall plus the notes seem to have a cleaner feel with more body and concise bulk to them. Details are more exposed "organically" due to this and overall tonality is improved. Bass is bolder._
_No question._
  
  
 My idea was simply to treat the inner baffle surface around the driver and where I could.
 Following suit with people who seem to have achieved better results using squares or close to that shape. I figure it must allow for more vibration "fixing" this way since all the smaller pieces can deal with it best instead of transmitting it through a massive connected shape(???) I dunno just thinking out loud.
 Sadly I was limited due to inner arrangements in the Soviet ortho build, but the effect is there also. Not as pronounced perhaps, I simply could not fit enough in there.
*Damn I wish I knew about this stuff sooner.*
 I need to order another batch or two I plan to use it on as much as possible, and I have a lot of headphones.
 It's bad enough nailing down numerous mods on them but now I definitely have to go back again and see how I can add this  to the mix wherever properly possible.
 It's like the Twilight Zone it does not end, but this is worth it.
  
 *** just thinking the ortho build already had the driver secured to the baffle with a ring of Dynamat Extreme , so this could perhaps be why the effect was slightly less noticable _*in comparison to*_ the results on the dynamic that had nothing to begin with ( in addition to a couple other factors regarding how it was done like Twaron Angel Hair etc. ). I still did notice though. Likely not enough.
 I will likely go back in and add more , like 10 more pieces per cup around the baffle walls ( yeah it is a strange shell )
  
  
 Will be forwarding some to a pal when I ship out his Yamaha MT220 to see if he notices. Honestly can't see how he won't.
  
 Stuff is great I will be recommending it.
  
 A BIG THANKS to everyone in here.
  
  
_*EDIT:*_
  Couldn't resist even though it's late here. Went back in to the ortho and added more :6 small squares and 4 larger ones in both sides all over the inside of the baffles wherever they fit.
 Off for a test run.
 =====!!!!! _this stuff is incredibly *great* _!!!!!
 yep not enough in this one before.


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> I tried out Sorbothane squares.
> Got a square of the 1/10 inch 30D
> 
> I quickly whipped off 2 things as a trial to see what I noticed.
> ...


 

 thanks for your testimony....By the way what is your headphone tested ? what is a soviet ortho?
  
 P.s. ok i have search Soviet ortho.... I am curious of how they sound compared to hifiman family ....thanks for your impressions and best regards


----------



## MrMateoHead

I'm tempted to stick a patch onto my PSBs...but concerned that trying to open them up could damage what I have seen as fragile internal wiring. They do have a slight ringing to them however, so I am wondering if anyone has tried this stuff with drynamic phones yet. I assume this sorb stuff could help with any speaker.


----------



## nabwong

So one question I have is how much "better" are other headphones compared to the Sorbed he400? Man, i'm so in love with the he400 now. I just wished it was a little lighter. But the sound now, I dare say, it's perfect for me, tight bass, mids are more forward than before, highs are tamed significantly. Looking to buy another pair of headphones (of course just for the sake of it), seems like a daunting proposition. Haha.


----------



## MrMateoHead

nabwong said:


> So one question I have is how much "better" are other headphones compared to the Sorbed he400? Man, i'm so in love with the he400 now. I just wished it was a little lighter. But the sound now, I dare say, it's perfect for me, tight bass, mids are more forward than before, highs are tamed significantly. Looking to buy another pair of headphones (of course just for the sake of it), seems like a daunting proposition. Haha.


 
 I bought the PSB M4U's because I had gotten a bit unstatisfied with the HE-400, and figured I would want a more neutral phone with hopefully less glare. Now, they both seriously compete for my head time, and I love switching back and forth. Unfortunately, the PSBs are so efficient I really need the O2 at unity gain, while the HE-400s love the 2.5x gain. That means I have to cut system volume significantly to get some play in the dial for the PSBs. But man, the things sound glorious and other than a little ringing, are awful close to being superior to the HE-400s. Despite playing well off any device, I think they still need a dedicated amp to sound their best. Just probably something in the 50-100 mW range.
  
 Post-sorb about the only knock I can bring up is that the HE-400s are ultimately a little on the dark side, and despite EQ, the upper mids / treble just aren't quite as "airy" and resolved as they are on the PSBs. I would like to see them a tad more forward. But the speed of the planars bring a sense of "effortlessness" that I don't think the PSBs can quite match. That and the bass is probably superior in texture and detail, though I find the PSBs quite awesome as well. Just not planar-awesome.
  
 All in, on the basis of SQ alone, the modded HE-400s do not leave me wanting for much at all. But I think the overall quality of the fit / finish and materials leaves a lot to be desired (I would say the same about a lot of headphones in this price range of $200-$400, for the money, they should all be ridiculously comfy and well-fitted).


----------



## nabwong

mrmateohead said:


> I bought the PSB M4U's because I had gotten a bit unstatisfied with the HE-400, and figured I would want a more neutral phone with hopefully less glare. Now, they both seriously compete for my head time, and I love switching back and forth. Unfortunately, the PSBs are so efficient I really need the O2 at unity gain, while the HE-400s love the 2.5x gain. That means I have to cut system volume significantly to get some play in the dial for the PSBs. But man, the things sound glorious and other than a little ringing, are awful close to being superior to the HE-400s. Despite playing well off any device, I think they still need a dedicated amp to sound their best. Just probably something in the 50-100 mW range.
> 
> Post-sorb about the only knock I can bring up is that the HE-400s are ultimately a little on the dark side, and despite EQ, the upper mids / treble just aren't quite as "airy" and resolved as they are on the PSBs. I would like to see them a tad more forward. But the speed of the planars bring a sense of "effortlessness" that I don't think the PSBs can quite match. That and the bass is probably superior in texture and detail, though I find the PSBs quite awesome as well. Just not planar-awesome.
> 
> All in, on the basis of SQ alone, the modded HE-400s do not leave me wanting for much at all. But I think the overall quality of the fit / finish and materials leaves a lot to be desired (I would say the same about a lot of headphones in this price range of $200-$400, for the money, they should all be ridiculously comfy and well-fitted).




Interesting. I will have to give it a try. Wonder how the psb compares to the mt220. I didn't like the yamaha at first and it sounded amazing too after I sorbed it. Actually I also sorbed my audio technica w10vtg and it is sounding pretty awesome too. The sound is really balanced. There's no mid bass bump like the yamaha and hifiman. If I had to describe the sound of the w10vtg in color, it would be light blue.


----------



## richard51

mrmateohead said:


> I bought the PSB M4U's because I had gotten a bit unstatisfied with the HE-400, and figured I would want a more neutral phone with hopefully less glare. Now, they both seriously compete for my head time, and I love switching back and forth. Unfortunately, the PSBs are so efficient I really need the O2 at unity gain, while the HE-400s love the 2.5x gain. That means I have to cut system volume significantly to get some play in the dial for the PSBs. But man, the things sound glorious and other than a little ringing, are awful close to being superior to the HE-400s. Despite playing well off any device, I think they still need a dedicated amp to sound their best. Just probably something in the 50-100 mW range.
> 
> Post-sorb about the only knock I can bring up is that the HE-400s are ultimately a little on the dark side, and despite EQ, the upper mids / treble just aren't quite as "airy" and resolved as they are on the PSBs. I would like to see them a tad more forward. But the speed of the planars bring a sense of "effortlessness" that I don't think the PSBs can quite match. That and the bass is probably superior in texture and detail, though I find the PSBs quite awesome as well. Just not planar-awesome.
> 
> All in, on the basis of SQ alone, the modded HE-400s do not leave me wanting for much at all. But I think the overall quality of the fit / finish and materials leaves a lot to be desired (I would say the same about a lot of headphones in this price range of $200-$400, for the money, they should all be ridiculously comfy and well-fitted).


 

 I must say that the he 400 driven directly  by the speakers out of a receiver (mine is Hitachi sr-904) transform completely the he 400, more than the sorb mod, in a HIGH END can... I dont want to upgrade now (except top of the line can, in the 2 or 3 thousands dollars range  - Odin Or HEK - nothing less because the he 400 are extraordinary now for me) Planars need power...I had the Ember, very good headphone amp and there is no comparison between it and the Hitachi ... i know now that planars need quality amp but also power amp...the Hitachi cost me 100 dollars.... the Ember with tubes more than 500 hundred... Ember is a very good quality/ price ratio amp with good sound... But planars are hungry  and their potential is not revealed with many headphone amp ....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks for your enthusiasm and impression


----------



## MrMateoHead

nabwong said:


> Interesting. I will have to give it a try. Wonder how the psb compares to the mt220. I didn't like the yamaha at first and it sounded amazing too after I sorbed it. Actually I also sorbed my audio technica w10vtg and it is sounding pretty awesome too. The sound is really balanced. There's no mid bass bump like the yamaha and hifiman. If I had to describe the sound of the w10vtg in color, it would be light blue.


 

 Just know that the PSB were the first in a family of "roomfeel" type headphones influenced by the Harmon Curve (which is unfinalized). I don't think  they really get the respect they deserve aside from Wirecutter adoring them. So you have the PSB M4U (pretty much nuetral), the NAD HP50 (warm tilt, seal problems), the Focal Classic (smooth) / Spirit Pro (nuetral/punchy/analytical), and who knows what might come out later? I suspect all of these come with a caveat however, small cups (PSD/Focal) and seal problems (NAD). Sealed, the clamp force and tendency for pleather make them less comfy (I like velour the best overall). In short, I would assume that the PSBs would tread the line of "bass lean" for a lot of listeners. They also have a small drop in the 60-80hz region compared to alternatives - that's what I think of as "punch / fat bass". In comparison to the HE-400s, where the darker signature draws my attention to the bass more, the PSBs focus my attention a bit more on the midrange and while it hits similar depths and has nice tone and texture in the bass, it doesn't quite "slam" at lower volumes. But we're talking an adjustment of 2-3 dB tops to bring it up to the level I want on some songs at sane listening volumes.
  
 I think the Oppo PM3s would be a VERY strong contender for my money, except I don't want to spend $400, period. MAYBE $300. But Harmon Curve / planar resolution is something I definitely think could be a game changer. I spent $200 on the PSBs (like new used price) and I am OK with that (they may have QC issues with internal wiring). I don't think there are a pair of phones' worth it above about $400 anyway, as much as I'd like a pair of Senn HD 600s. Yes, some headphones have, IMO, a $1000 dollar sound, but I've realized that manufacturers really need to get the comfort equation / damping issues sorted. Nearly every pair of desirable phones I look at seem to be underdamped and uncomfortable for longer listening periods.


----------



## MrMateoHead

richard51 said:


> I must say that the he 400 driven directly  by the speakers out of a receiver (mine is Hitachi sr-904) transform completely the he 400, more than the sorb mod, in a HIGH END can... I dont want to upgrade now (except top of the line can, in the 2 or 3 thousands dollars range  - Odin Or HEK - nothing less because the he 400 are extraordinary now for me) Planars need power...I had the Ember, very good headphone amp and there is no comparison between it and the Hitachi ... i know now that planars need quality amp but also power amp...the Hitachi cost me 100 dollars.... the Ember with tubes more than 500 hundred... Ember is a very good quality/ price ratio amp with good sound... But planars are hungry  and their potential is not revealed with many headphone amp ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I have to assume that because most receivers have to be designed to handle 4-16 ohm loads, they excel at ultra-low output impedance and high current - which is what a lot of planars need!
  
 If you read up on the quasi "blind" test over at Innerfidelity, they just tested a ton of high-end phones with high-buck amps in both sighted/unsighted tests. Obviously, there is no such thing as an unsighted headphone test. But it seemed clear that the only reason the HD-800 could be used to "detect" the other amps is because of its ridiculously broad and demanding impedance curve, coupled to amps with unknown (and probably in some cases high) output impedances. 
  
 Not trying to start a war here, but the only think I learned was to skip the HD-800s, expensive amps, and expensive headphones in general as largely no one could reliably distinguish between the amps and all had issues with the best headphones in the world. The HE-1000s, like our planars, doesn't care what the output impedance is, meaning the only amps we really need are amps with good low-current drive. But for like $3,000, no thanks. Heck, I'm probably don't with Hifiman since they raised their prices a lot higher, I want to see some better warranty's too! Gosh I'm demanding


----------



## nabwong

mrmateohead said:


> Just know that the PSB were the first in a family of "roomfeel" type headphones influenced by the Harmon Curve (which is unfinalized). I don't think  they really get the respect they deserve aside from Wirecutter adoring them. So you have the PSB M4U (pretty much nuetral), the NAD HP50 (warm tilt, seal problems), the Focal Classic (smooth) / Spirit Pro (nuetral/punchy/analytical), and who knows what might come out later? I suspect all of these come with a caveat however, small cups (PSD/Focal) and seal problems (NAD). Sealed, the clamp force and tendency for pleather make them less comfy (I like velour the best overall). In short, I would assume that the PSBs would tread the line of "bass lean" for a lot of listeners. They also have a small drop in the 60-80hz region compared to alternatives - that's what I think of as "punch / fat bass". In comparison to the HE-400s, where the darker signature draws my attention to the bass more, the PSBs focus my attention a bit more on the midrange and while it hits similar depths and has nice tone and texture in the bass, it doesn't quite "slam" at lower volumes. But we're talking an adjustment of 2-3 dB tops to bring it up to the level I want on some songs at sane listening volumes.
> 
> I think the Oppo PM3s would be a VERY strong contender for my money, except I don't want to spend $400, period. MAYBE $300. But Harmon Curve / planar resolution is something I definitely think could be a game changer. I spent $200 on the PSBs (like new used price) and I am OK with that (they may have QC issues with internal wiring). I don't think there are a pair of phones' worth it above about $400 anyway, as much as I'd like a pair of Senn HD 600s. Yes, some headphones have, IMO, a $1000 dollar sound, but I've realized that manufacturers really need to get the comfort equation / damping issues sorted. Nearly every pair of desirable phones I look at seem to be underdamped and uncomfortable for longer listening periods.




I had the pm-3 for about 2-3 weeks. I liked how smooth it is from top to bottom. It's really well balanced. The isolation is great and the clamp is about neutral. Not too tight for a portable. 

But I sold it after I sorbed my mt220. Why? Because the pm-3 felt too compact. It was a wall of sound and I felt it didn't breathe well. If you like that feel, then you'll like the pm-3. Even my iems don't feel so compact. It has to be the most compact sound headphones I've ever heard.


----------



## MrMateoHead

nabwong said:


> I had the pm-3 for about 2-3 weeks. I liked how smooth it is from top to bottom. It's really well balanced. The isolation is great and the clamp is about neutral. Not too tight for a portable.
> 
> But I sold it after I sorbed my mt220. Why? Because the pm-3 felt too compact. It was a wall of sound and I felt it didn't breathe well. If you like that feel, then you'll like the pm-3. Even my iems don't feel so compact. It has to be the most compact sound headphones I've ever heard.


 

 So you mean that you felt they lacked an "open" sound? Because TBH the PSB are my first "closed" cans in a long time, and the slight "pressure" of sound buildup in the cups, and eery quiet (I can't hear ANYTHING when they are on) make them perhaps more fatiguing than my other typically open cans. Maybe it contributes to a "compact" feeling sound to which you refer.
  
 Sounds like you didn't like the fit of the PM3s - that is enough to make me look the other way for now! Perhaps the next generation will be better.


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I must say that the he 400 driven directly  by the speakers out of a receiver (mine is Hitachi sr-904) transform completely the he 400, more than the sorb mod, in a HIGH END can... I dont want to upgrade now (except top of the line can, in the 2 or 3 thousands dollars range  - Odin Or HEK - nothing less because the he 400 are extraordinary now for me) Planars need power...I had the Ember, very good headphone amp and there is no comparison between it and the Hitachi ... i know now that planars need quality amp but also power amp...the Hitachi cost me 100 dollars.... the Ember with tubes more than 500 hundred... Ember is a very good quality/ price ratio amp with good sound... But planars are hungry  and their potential is not revealed with many headphone amp ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Are you still using the sorb mod with the bigger amp?


----------



## richard51

mrmateohead said:


> I have to assume that because most receivers have to be designed to handle 4-16 ohm loads, they excel at ultra-low output impedance and high current - which is what a lot of planars need!
> 
> If you read up on the quasi "blind" test over at Innerfidelity, they just tested a ton of high-end phones with high-buck amps in both sighted/unsighted tests. Obviously, there is no such thing as an unsighted headphone test. But it seemed clear that the only reason the HD-800 could be used to "detect" the other amps is because of its ridiculously broad and demanding impedance curve, coupled to amps with unknown (and probably in some cases high) output impedances.
> 
> Not trying to start a war here, but the only think I learned was to skip the HD-800s, expensive amps, and expensive headphones in general as largely no one could reliably distinguish between the amps and all had issues with the best headphones in the world. The HE-1000s, like our planars, doesn't care what the output impedance is, meaning the only amps we really need are amps with good low-current drive. But for like $3,000, no thanks. Heck, I'm probably don't with Hifiman since they raised their prices a lot higher, I want to see some better warranty's too! Gosh I'm demanding


 

 its seems to me that this is wise reflexion and wise remarks...the receiver is so good because planars need power like  planars speakers .... i am satisfied by my actual gear and if i upgrade in the future , it must be real upgrade ....Like you i am sceptic about the ratio quality/ price in the high end...I look for the exceptional amp solution for the price, now the Hitachi is marvellous....( microzotl in the future)....best regards to you ... i like your reflexion...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
correction and update : Now i prefer the Ember +the sorb mod.... some months after that the resolving power of the ember for me beat the solid state hitachi...


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Are you still using the sorb mod with the bigger amp?


 

 For sure.... Its impossible to go back.... The he 400 is better , way better with the sorb mod.... How could i go back?  thanks to you.... But if you had planars headphone, the receiver transform totally the headphone....I dont listen to my headphone amp now.... sorb mod + hitachi receiver =  top of the line planars 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 headphone


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> For sure.... Its impossible to go back.... The he 400 is better , way better with the sorb mod.... How could i go back?  thanks to you.... But if you had planars headphone, the receiver transform totally the headphone....I dont listen to my headphone amp now.... sorb mod + hitachi receiver =  top of the line planars
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It sounds like the overall result of using the bigger amp on sorbed phones is very good.  My question, which you may not be able to answer is would the big amp be as impressive on on phones with no sorb damping?
  
 I have a somewhat similar issue with Stax phones.  There are several high end amps for these phones selling $5,000-$6,000.00. I have heard some of these at 2 Canjams and they were clearly  better with my unmodified phones  than my $1,000 amp..  But I also think the sorbed phones sound better on my $1,000 amp than the unsorbed ones did on those expensive amps.
  
 However,  I have yet to listen to sorbed phones any of the $5000 amps,  except for one and on that one (no name mentioned) I didn't hear enough benefiton the sorbed phone to justify that kind of expense. Of course I was also listening to a different transport and DAC with the expensive amp and I suspected that  these  were working against the quality of the amp.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> It sounds like the overall result of using the bigger amp on sorbed phones is very good.  My question, which you may not be able to answer is would the big amp be as impressive on on phones with no sorb damping?
> 
> I have a somewhat similar issue with Stax phones.  There are several high end amps for these phones selling $5,000-$6,000.00. I have heard some of these at 2 Canjams and they were clearly  better with my unmodified phones  than my $1,000 amp..  But I also think the sorbed phones sound better on my $1,000 amp than the unsorbed ones did on those expensive amps.
> 
> However,  I have yet to listen to sorbed phones any of the $5000 amps,  except for one and on that one (no name metioned) I didn't hear enough benefits to justify that kind of expense. Of course I was also listening to a different transport and DAC with the expensive amp and I suspected that  these  were working against the quality of the amp.


 

 Its completely 2 different things.... the Hitachi receiver offer to my he 400 what they needed....power....there is no comparison between  headphone amp (i have a very good one the Ember ) and the Hitachi....Planars needed raw power its simple ...Before trying i was sceptic...the sorb mod affected all headphone  because that dissipate vibration... With sorb mod any headphone (he 400 included) is *no more the same headphone ... *With the receiver the he 400 is _*no more under-amped... *_i know now that planars headphone are, more often than not, with ordinary headphone amp under amped...What is better ? sorb mod or receiver mod? the TWO are necessary if you had planar headphone...they dont affect in the same manner.... The sorb mod refines all the tonal spectrum, the receiver amplify all that to a new level.... i am in sonic bliss now.... and not in hurry to upgrade...the sound is REALISTIC , 3-d, with a real textured timbre, an oceanic bass, a fluid higher frequencies and more mids, my he 400 are no more v-shape more u-shape...thanks to sorb mod +hitachi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. my stax without any mod  has a more refined sound than my he 400 without any mod...but  without modification i prefer already  the more incarnated sound less surreal sound of my he 400... with sorb mod i prefer it more.... and way more with the Hitachi.... Stax are other animals than planars... They are probably more sensitive to the sorb mod than planars hence the sorb mod transform them more than an upgraded amp... Planars need to be more incarnated in the 3-d world, the sorb mod give them a better refinement all across the spectrum but the impact of a powered speakers amp on them is spectacular...i will not go without  the sorb mod, no way.... I will not go without strong amplification no way with the he 400... sorb mod =refinement, reequilibrium... power amplification= more realistic 3-d sound and soundstage
  
 REVISED OPINION : the sorb mod rightly applied (check my 6 rules below ) has more impact on the sound of my HE400 than any of my amp... I must say that Edstrelow was right when he speaks of that with his stax... same here with Hifiman headphone ... Thanks Edstrelow


----------



## nick n

richard51:
  
 The Soviet stuff is all over the map according to which model, a couple have a T50/30 -like driver, one is a giant rectangular thing and another couple are 55 and 60mm circular PMB type ( but not PMB ). Then another yet is rare and very unique circular driver.
 I used a TDS-16 Smela model 55mm for that mod, but it sounds quite different due to specific mod materials used and shell cavity and mini damping chamber directly on the driver rear I did.
  Hard to say how the HE models will compare due to size differences and other factors.
 This one is unique anyhow even against it's stock relative.
  
 And the Dynamic thing was a clone of another I have or so I thought, but it was good in it's own right so I decided to test it out due to simple and cheaper materials construction.
 Not worth mentioning it since it is only 1 of 2 I have ever seen.
  
 I went in to see what effects I could get out of my Ultrasone Pro2500 a few minutes ago.
 I tried *10 x 1cm squares* on each side arranged around the outer baffle perimeter equally.
_*It killed the sound!*_
 I reduced to *6* = a bit better.
 I reduced to *3* and here it is back much closer to it's full glory again. I might reduce to 2 per baffle on either side of the driver opening at the bottom section.
 Looking up the *kees mod for Ultrasone *( Pro900 actually but similar baffle setup ) he used only a single circular damper and some things inside. O course not Sorbothane either which is why I wanted to try this version.
  
 I don't get that nagging feeling that it sounds "slightly held back or slightly dead" right now.
  
 So with *3 x 1cm squares* per side = Bass is faster and bolder, and highs seem to have a bit more clarity and it seems easier to peer into the layering of everything.
  
 I will update this when or if I try reducing it to just the 2 on either side of the driver openings.
  
 Thought I'd post this because I went for bust and it turned out to not have the results I was expecting. Less was "more" in this particular case.
 And this might happen with others I'd be curious to hear of similar results, though this does seem to be a limited crew playing around here.
  
 Was not expecting that but I am hearing the effects here now.
 Will it be tweakable down to 2 per side and stay improved?
 Only time and a trial will tell.
 But I will live with this for a bit. It's easy to narrow results down close to a bullseye but when you get this close it is best to sit with something for a while and learn it IMHO.
  
*EDIT*
  
 Using 2 x 1cm squares brought it too close to stock sound =3 is the magic noticeable  transition point. Of course these baffles are only screwed in at 4 points and metal so that will explain why they are so sensitive to such a minor amount.
 Would expect other builds to need the increased amounts.


----------



## Hutnicks

Question. Does anyone know of a liquid sorbothane that can be poured and let to set?


----------



## nick n

Only tried the liquid version of Plasti-dip myself, but that is of a different consistency entirely compared to this 30D.
 Sorry for the no-help 
 Will look around
  
 One possibility is a pourable Silicione material. http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/rtv-silicones/potting-compounds/rtv615/
 When I get to trying the Permatex polyurethane on the car seals I will gunk a buit into a mold and see how it compares after it dries.
 I have a sample of it on a paper no idea where it is. I t was more forgiving than Plasti-dip that's for sure.
  
 I wonder how viscoelastic gels are poured and how to source those?
  
 Wow visiting the MG Chemicals link under the technical data section, then under the Cured properties link  is a blue link with the following:
  
*Durometer Hardness Comparison Chart ( WOW gives direct equivalent to Sorbothane measurement "D" ratings )* at room temperature (25°C)
  
 it gives that pourable silicone linked a Durometer value of 44 which is a nice range within the Sorbothane options
  
 Cured Properties -
 MECHANICAL Hardness, Shore A Durometer 44
 Tensile Strength, kg/cm2 (psi)65 (920)
 Elongation %120
 Shrinkage, %0.2
 Refractive Index 1.406 ( wonder how this compares )
  
 I'll see if the local industrial electronics wholesaler here can get me a litre plus the 1:10 curing agent. They have a ton of MG stuff as it is.


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> richard51:
> 
> 
> I went in to see what effects I could get out of my Ultrasone Pro2500 a few minutes ago.
> ...


 
 Glad you found a sweet spot however I am curious about how much attenuation you got when you used 10 squares.  The generally find that sorbing a phone reduces the volume maybe 5-10 dB, maybe one notch on the volume control of an amp, which I put down to the loss of the reduction of vibrations in the earcups.  You seem to be talking about a whole different amount of reduction almost as if the driver was switched off.  Possibly something else in the way of a mechanical fault was occuring.
  


hutnicks said:


> Question. Does anyone know of a liquid sorbothane that can be poured and let to set?


 
  
  


mrmateohead said:


> At this point then, it might be a good idea to consider how Dynamat (buytl rubber) and Sorbathane are being used to do the same thing (provide damping in an under damped environment). I honestly don't think that "circle v. square" matters in this case, because the stuff isn't bearing a load (the "coupling" between speaker / ground is not an issue - we are just tacking it into our ear cups the same way we'd take dynamat to our car doors). Sounds like we should use small circles IF we are asking it to de-couple a something from a surface subject to vibrations.
> 
> In terms of choosing a density, that is an interesting point. But I'm not really sure what frequencies are impacted? We are still on the assumption that it is 50 hz on up. I am persuaded that the mass is doing something (changing the resonance frequency), and the material is also "capturing" some of the energy of reflected waves. It might therefore be interesting to apply it to the front wave, and then see if its done something horrible (like jack up bass reponse and literally kill treble e.g. overdamped somehow). I figure density / mass is important, but I assume that a softer duro would actually be more absorptive, not reflective. Otherwise, why would cotton batting work? It is not dense at all, but dampens the back wave.


 
 Among the many things that need to be investigated in regard to damping is what materials damp what aspect of earcup vibration. I use sorbothane because it has been used for a long time for damping various items of equipment, although as best I can tell it was not previously used on headphones.  I am sure other materials will do something.  One guy I met at Canjam in Orange County showed me his dynamic phone which he said used some sort of soft copper inside to dampen them.  They sounded pretty good too.


----------



## BeatsWork

edstrelow said:


> One guy I met at Canjam in Orange County showed me his dynamic phone which he said used some sort of soft copper inside to dampen them.  They sounded pretty good too.


 
  
 Copper oxidizes easily on it's own + Perspiration + other metals:  I'd be worried about galvanic corrosion


----------



## edstrelow

beatswork said:


> Copper oxidizes easily on it's own + Perspiration + other metals:  I'd be worried about galvanic corrosion


 
 I didn't get a chance to look  inside to see if he had taken steps to protect it.  I raise this example just to show that there may be other ways to solve this problem. I offered to add some sorbothane to his phones to see if that would further improve the sound but they had wooden covers and he didn't want to possibly damage them with the self-stick on the sorb.


----------



## nick n

edstrelow said:


> Glad you found a sweet spot however I am curious about how much attenuation you got when you used 10 squares.  The generally find that sorbing a phone reduces the volume maybe 5-109 dB, maybe one notch on the volume control of an amp, which I put down to the loss of the reduction of vibrations in the earcups.  You seem to be talking about a whole different amount of reduction almost as if the driver was switched off.  Possibly something else in the way of a mechanical fault was occuring.


 
 Is that a typo? Do you mean 5-10dB?
  
 Sorry that was a very poor descriptor on my part.
 What I mean to say is that it imparted an overall dullness and lifelessness to the sound regardless of volume levels.
 I do think the particular construction of that series of Ultrasones is the culprit there in that the drivers are bonded ( with holes exposing only half the driver ) onto the metal baffle plate, and that baffle plate is only attached by 4 tiny screws at 4 points.
 I think in this case it relies on that plate and is tuned to this exact arrangement.
 Very strange yes it is, since this is contrary to the other dynamics I have tried it on so far.
 I would have thought otherwise had I not tried it firsthand.
 Suppose at some point I can retry that again.
  
 Have some more things to try it on as more 1/10 30D arrived and the list is long.
  
 BTW some more favourable results posted tonight that seem to be in line with what people are finding.
 This initial picture and initial brief impressions 3 posts down.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/658673/yamaha-hph-mt220-thread-merged/2250#post_11973031


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> Is that a typo? Do you mean 5-10dB?
> 
> Sorry that was a very poor descriptor on my part.
> What I mean to say is that it imparted an overall dullness and lifelessness to the sound regardless of volume levels.
> ...


 
 I am glad to see discussions of sorb and other damping issues spreading to other threads. Yes that was indeed a typo, I expect to hear 5-10 dB reductions with damping.
  
 As regards dullness, I find that sometimes loose sorb, i.e. sorb that is not sticking properly sometimes gives odd results like dullness and bass boominess. No idea why, just that I have noticed it a few times. Part of the many mysteries of mechanical damping. 
 On a related matter, before using sorb to dampen headphones, I used various commercially available sorb pucks under cd players, turntables, amps and the like. There appeared to be some benefits although the results were not overwhelming. Some puck makers note that you have to match puck size to weight, something not easily done.  I am trying small self-stick sorb squares on equipment and think I am getting better results than with pucks. If you have some sorb left over you might want to experiment here.


----------



## nick n

Unsure how many more "proof of concept" trials are needed here since it all seems excellent.
 I will continue to post new things simply to bump this thread.
*Once again thanks for starting this and bringing this product to our attention.*
  
  On to the next project here.
 Today is a vintage _*Audio Technica Electret, the AT-706*_.
 Running off it's proper adaptor unit that can provide either 5 or 10 volts with the flick of a toggle.
  
 In stock form these have a low end advantage over the Stax electrets since these have a factory integrated yellow biscuit material ( glasswool ) under the rear driver housing struts, as well as a massive puck of the same in the cups.
 Stax does not have the integrated damping in the drivers ( same drivers ) or as thick of a rear puck, more like a thin disc in the back against the outer mesh.
  
 I installed rectangular segments of 1/10 in 30D ( all will be the same Sorbothane in my mods ) all along the entire outer raised edge of the drivers between mounting posts, and 6 small squares on the inner walls of each of the thin aluminum cups.
  Upon checking the first side I did immediately notice a lower volume, in line with what* edstrelow *mentioned above , perhaps around 5 or 6 dB on the "Sorbed" side.
  
  *Contrasts noticed in treated side*
  

volume drop ~5-6 ish dB
much more clarity =clarity extends through into the improved depth of sound. Stock form is still very clear but it seemed to have a slight fuzz or haze which would otherwise not have been detectable except in direct A/B comparison!
more bulk
bolder low end is more extended in comparison
 So overall a _definite_, _concrete_, _noticeable_ improvement.
  
*Impressive*
  
 A pic is always nice. Same as my 705 below but different colour scheme. No pics of internal mod that would be boring and it's hard to capture in this set.


----------



## nmatheis

nabwong said:


> I had the pm-3 for about 2-3 weeks. I liked how smooth it is from top to bottom. It's really well balanced. The isolation is great and the clamp is about neutral. Not too tight for a portable.
> 
> But I sold it after I sorbed my mt220. *Why? Because the pm-3 felt too compact. It was a wall of sound and I felt it didn't breathe well. If you like that feel, then you'll like the pm-3. Even my iems don't feel so compact. It has to be the most compact sound headphones I've ever heard.*




I feel the same way about PM-3. The felt quite cramped physically and audibly and got hot pretty fast due to the small closed cups. 

Anyway, I'm joining the sorb-mod crowd. Mine'll be in Tuesday, and I'll be putting it into my HE400. I'll report in. Thanks for the help getting going with this!


----------



## nick n

Excellent!
 Please post up.
  *I just did another vintage Fostex ortho tonight *and the bass goes lower, is bolder, and all sorts of details are exposed vs before.
 Took it for a long walk and yes it has changed.
  
 Now on to see what I can add to the Yamaha HP-1 mod. Yes HP-50 and HP-1 orthos are done.
  
 If I get the guts to try to take off the pads on the PM3 I will add some Twaron Angel Hair ( will take care of the more closed sound ) and Sorbothane, but the risk of breaking baffle pad tabs is pretty scary since the whole set with the matching drivers will need to be warrantied as I understand it.
 Might do it and throw caution to the wind.


----------



## richard51

i had some news on the Frontline of Sorbothane mod... I take off 4 or the 12 patches i had put on the HE 400 (duro 30 1/8inches) and put them on the exterior faceplate of the cups of my FOSTEX TH7-B... Wow the sound is better in the mids BUT the sound of the He 400 with only 8 patches on the exterior edge of the cups was way better, in the highs and mids frequencies...The lesson to be learned is : Not to much sorbothane... very important


----------



## MrMateoHead

richard51 said:


> i had some news on the Frontline of Sorbothane mod... I take off 4 or the 12 patches i had put on the HE 400 (duro 30 1/8inches) and put them on the exterior faceplate of the cups of my FOSTEX TH7-B... Wow the sound is better in the mids BUT the sound of the He 400 with only 8 patches on the exterior edge of the cups was way better, in the highs and mids frequencies...The lesson to be learned is : Not to much sorbothane... very important


 

 Hi Richard - Thanks for the update. I also feel that I may have overdamped a tad, and should pull a few patches off. Can you supply a picture of your latest change. Or, what, in percentage terms, would you say is the sorb-coverage you are at now - 75%? 50%?
  
 If I break one more tab on my retaining ring I am in trouble, but I was thinking if pulling 1/2 patches off so that Noon - 3pm, 6pm, and 9 pm were uncovered. I'll leave my small strips on the driver itself, which I guess is beneficial (I did real that sorb can be stuck, for example, right to the back of tweeter - I'd love to try that too).


----------



## richard51

Quote: 





mrmateohead said:


> Hi Richard - Thanks for the update. I also feel that I may have overdamped a tad, and should pull a few patches off. Can you supply a picture of your latest change. Or, what, in percentage terms, would you say is the sorb-coverage you are at now - 75%? 50%?
> 
> If I break one more tab on my retaining ring I am in trouble, but I was thinking if pulling 1/2 patches off so that Noon - 3pm, 6pm, and 9 pm were uncovered. I'll leave my small strips on the driver itself, which I guess is beneficial (I did real that sorb can be stuck, for example, right to the back of tweeter - I'd love to try that too).


 

 i think that i have 60 percent covered not less perhaps 65 ...more than that (  8 patches for each cup all on the exterior edge of the cup) the sound was muffled in the mids  and the highs...way better now with more air ....I put the sorb without, not inside, because the necessity to open them for the experiment multiple times...I will put the sorb inside perhaps later...the external sorb was not in the way anyway...i put the 8 extra patches on my Fostex and that was exactly better also...less spectacular than with the he 400 but very good...good luck with your ring... take extra care my friend...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. My Fostex TH7B had a better  upper bass with the 4 patches of sorb on the exterior cup... their mid is so well put, their balance so exquisite, that for 60 dollars they beat the hell out of my stax basic and he 400 (slightly less inferior, i will say different because of their balance and imaging depth )...If you are poor , dont kill yourself buy them (80 dollars now new)i know now that price is not the only warrenty of a good sound...few dollars of sorb change also many things...
  
 IMPORTANT NOTE : i put another little piece of sorb on the center of the plate where the four pieces circle her.... INCREDIBLE transformation with this one little piece... better soundstage...Added : i had cut the 5 pieces in 4 little pieces with a blade....the result for me is better


----------



## nick n

Great impressions. Thanks.
 Some things it changes quite drastically in a good way, some not so much.
  
 Tried some on a ruby-evaporated dynamic driver set last night and _I had to start removing most of it again _and am down to just a thin strip around the driver mounts inside.
 Even that I am not sure yet. Perhaps a few less pieces.
 Need to change back to the stock pads to confirm.
  
*As you say* : "The lesson to be learned is : Not too much sorbothane... very important





"


----------



## richard51

(it is possible to made the cut cleaner than mine with a razor blade..)
  
  
_*How to make a simple filtering space with many pieces of damping sorbothane*_ : *6* *RULES*:  *1* Many small pieces works better than more large one  *2* too big mass of sorbothane does not work well , because too much is worse, (too much damping is a catastrophy, blutak mod for example is damping mod hence +sorb mod maybe too much damping simultaneous mod) and *3* the right thickness and duro...mine is 30 duro,1/8 inches for the metallic cup of the HE400, i had not try higher duro because i think the 30 duro work so well for me *4*  and not more than 65% of the surface covered by sorbothane and probably around 50% or a little more  is way better ....*5*  cut rule modulo 6 : with a razor blade or an exacto you cut a rectangular pieces in 6 little squares. ( it is not necessary to cut it before sticking it to the headphone, it was more easy for me to cut it after because i want them very close one another)I had originally stick 4 pieces of sorb at the bottom of the hoop, i cut now the four rectangular pieces of sorb in 6 pieces each, hence at one level i have 4 pieces of sorb, at another level i have divided these 4 pieces of sorb in 24 pieces, and i think that the mass of sorb act  at one level as a 24 frequencies filtering mass, at another level act like an agglomerate 4 filtering frequencies mass of sorb... the principle is simple : divide the mass in cutting it in  6...

  
i am no engineer but the end result was extraordinary...clear sound across the board...that is my experience... The filtering of frequencies is not optimalized  if the mass of damping  sorb is  too much  big for the space damped or too homogeneous...In short i think the agglomerate of 48 located masses(6X8 on each cup)  absorb better  some higher vibration and the 4 little masses  in the upper part of the cups and  the 4 in the lower part of the cup act like 8 separate units and absorb better some other  bass vibration... In short  the *GOLDEN RULE :*cutting  in 6 the damping mass of sorbothane transform it in a filtering space for various resonance. Effectively the form of any piece of sorbothane play a major role in vibration absorption.If for example  the cuts were not totally completed and if the 6 little pieces are always partly linked together because the cutting was not absolutely complete the lack of clarity of the highs frequencies will be evident in a less detailed soundstage ...  
*Added 24oct: **It seems that the filtering effect of the highs are better realized for me with this design cuts :* 
  


* the highs are clearer and the bass untouched or less marked by these cuts, a rectangular  piece of sorb cutted in 6 little squares.... i had translate all i had previously  written in this post  with my new experience (4 into 6 pieces) this is way better mod that clearly made an improvement of the definition of soundstage, if higher frequencies are more clearly defined, soundstage and localization of instruments are better , hence the filtering effects of dividing strip of sorb in 6 is an astounding  improvement....*
*rule* *6** : * necessary to square *all* pieces of sorb,never sticking an integral piece of sorb without cutting in 6 or the sound will be more muffled; the filtering of the sound makes all frequencies more organic and will offer to you a more airy sound (Of my 8 pieces of sorb when 2 or 3 has been stick without being cutted in 6 the effect is immediately audible the sound was less airy less clear) . But i think,  i had not try that,  it is intuitive speculation, that the cut in diagonals will be better for the filtering effect : ( if someone try that let me know the results, i dont have leftover sorb to try )   
  
i am no engineer but the end result was extraordinary...clear sound across the board ON MY 2 DIFFERENT headphones...that is my experience... The filtering of frequencies is not optimalized  if the mass of damping  sorb is much too big for the space damped or too homogeneous, that is the fundamental rule of rules...In short i think the agglomerate of 6 little squares  act like one located mass and absorb better  some  bass vibration and the 6  separate little masses  in each of the 4 upper and 4 lower rectangular pieces absorb better some other  higher vibration... In short  the* GOLDEN RULE* cutting  in 6 the damping mass of sorbothane transform it in a filtering space for resonance. Effectively the form of any piece of sorbothane play a major role in vibration absorption (the sorbothane site affirmed that if i remember).   I am no scientist, it is only my explanation... 
 
 It is an experiment  in relation with the basic material of your headphone, plastic or metallic, the densities of your headphones, etc,and you must explore by Yourself and experiment, and READ the thread of Edstrelow to know the basic...People dont read these days... i put the sorb. outside BECAUSE nobody already know the right from wrong now for this or that headphones in particular, hence i dont want to mess with the delicacy of the grill right now in assembling and desassembling it many times.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. i put duro 30 1/8 inches on my HE400 i cannot imagine better...duro 30 is very malleable under pression and perhaps better for the HE400
  
 IMPORTANT NOTE: i cannot insist enough on that : too much sorb or too big piece will DESTRUCT the sound...i made this mistake in the beginning... i cannot insist enough on that:worsening the sound is very easy...My 6 rules will help you to try and when you will got it right, the result will be unmistakable. Essentially it is the end result when you have a *clarification on all the  spectrum*,with an organic very fluid sound,restitution of a more natural midrange with more depth,nearly out of the ears soundstage, a real 3-d sound,this would be the end result for the HE 400...good luck to all
  
  
 P.S. *description of the mod* : i have *four*  rectangular pieces (3/4 inches by 1 inches) at the bottom of the hoop... the spacing is visible on the photos... i had *four* other little pieces (each  2 set of 2 little  squares pieces of approx 1/2 inches by 1/2 inches approx. distributed between  the center of the hoop in the  upper half of the cup... the height is very tight there with 1/8 inches thick pieces of sorb( if i had one i would have tried with 1/10 inches there ) .. it is important to cut all these pieces in 6 ,,, the sound is better more soundstage and very silky sound.... Hence i had now 8 pieces on each cup of the headphone in all cutted in six...Between the 2 groups of 6 pieces on each cup there is a void space of approx 2 inches 1/2 without pieces...
  
*Conclusion*
 The naked metallic case of the HE400 product vibrations resonance that kill the sound... I had not listen with pure bliss  to my he 400 really for next to 2 years because these vibrations plagued the sound... i changed 4 times of amplifier with some good results but nothing was great before i begin to investigate this sorb. mod. this thread of Edstrelow is a great discovery the most important one... the great crowd of headfiers listen now their headphone without knowing that they dont have access to their true potential... it is a pity... it is the reason i put my observation here...*In reality the Sorbothane application is not a modification of the headphone but a true restitution of the headphone potential*... Perhaps it will be better to name this sorb. restitution rather than modification, it is in the end not a physical structural modification of the original product but the cancelling of the negative effect of vibration... *My method confirm Edstrelow discovery that the sorb. mod transform the Stax more than an upgrading amplification and i confirm that for the HE400,* with the application rule i describe below...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I apologize for my bad English(it not my first language ) thanks for your kind interest
  
*p.s.* i had seen a video about *anax mod* for taming senn HD800... i am pretty certain than the application of Sorbothane there will do a more miraculous cure... the reason is simple the material used in the anax mod  does not have the filtration capacity of a pieces of sorbothane squared or diagonalized... A material only per se cannot filtrate highs and bass , sorb cannot if not squared, hence the anax mod must cure the peculiar high frequencies problem of this headphone but cannot cure all his vibration problem..I dont have an HD800 to experiment with,only my 2 cent as i say i am only an amateur...  Same probably for ALL headphones...
  
 EVIDENTLY ALL HERE PRESENTED LIKE FACTS ARE ONLY MY HUMBLE OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE if you do  not apply my guideline for 2 reasons: with sorbothane very little variation with form, cuts,thickness, duro, made BIG differences , and secondly in audio all is matter in the end of personal taste and past experiences...thanks to all of you
  
IMPORTANT NOTE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : after 2 months with the sorb mod. it seems that the  gluing process is very slow on metal, and the glue adhrence take weeks, I now observe a spectacular more imaging capacity and 3 d presence ....Hence WAIT for the better to come if you put the sorb on metal cups...I was listening the he 400 for 2 days now after 2 weeks without  listening to them and i observe that upgrade with the gluing bonding  adherence with awe...


----------



## BeatsWork

Internal vs. external is a really interesting question and I suspect very different effect? i.e. if placed inside then it's going to directly absorb some of the sound energy vs. externally where it would only reduce resonance in cup? I've only done Fuzzor mod on grill side of open planar but may throw some sorb on external cup surface to see what happens ...


----------



## richard51

beatswork said:


> Internal vs. external is a really interesting question and I suspect very different effect? i.e. if placed inside then it's going to directly absorb some of the sound energy vs. externally where it would only reduce resonance in cup? I've only done Fuzzor mod on grill side of open planar but may throw some sorb on external cup surface to see what happens ...


 

 i think it is better to try one mod at a time...the sorb on the exterior cup absorb the echo vibration that muddle the sound i think... when apply on the exterior cup  adequately the transformation is extraordinary.... more clarity on all frequencies better soundstage... So good that i cannot imagine that fuzzor mod will not meddle with that...i will wait for your review...thanks


----------



## richard51

I got an extraordinary result this evening... The sorb mod had great effect... but i was not completey satisfied....my last modification was  yesterday the discovery that *too much is worser than too little*....then i remove   4 patches off my HE400 and that was way better for them...I put the extra patches on my fostex yesterday and the tuning of the Fostex was extraordinary also on all the spectrum frequencies... this evening i put an extra patche on the center of the 4 patches on the Fostex that was better also (the photos are a little higher  on this thread) ...Then this evening i decide with an exacto (without removing the  rectangular self stick pieces off the headphones) that i will cut each rectangular pieces in four squares... the result was a more greater clarity on all the spectrum with the HE400 and with the Fostex... this is a great lesson _*smaller is better     *_




  
 Best regards to you all


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I got an extraordinary result this evening... The sorb mod had great effect... but i was not completey satisfied....my last modification was  yesterday the discovery that *too much is worser than too little*....then i remove   4 patches off my HE400 and that was way better for them...I put the extra patches on my fostex yesterday and the tuning of the Fostex was extraordinary also on all the spectrum frequencies... this evening i put an extra patche on the center of the 4 patches on the Fostex that was better also (the photos are a little higher  on this thread) ...Then this evening i decide with an exacto (without removing the  rectangular self stick pieces off the headphones) that i will cut each rectangular pieces in four squares... the result was a more greater clarity on all the spectrum with the HE400 and with the Fostex... this is a great lesson _*smaller is better     *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Among the many things we don't understand about damping headphones is how you can use too much damping material such as sorbothane. You would think that when you have damped the hell out of a phone then additional damping material would have no further effect. Yet we consistently find that you can overdo it with the  damping. I recall that with both my Stax Sigmas and SR003's I got unpleasant bass boosts with too.much sorb.


----------



## nick n

I started out using smaller squares then later on in some things tried the longer rectangle pieces. I had initially thought that smaller squares would be better at breaking up standing waves and have more edge area to release vibes and /or more actual surface area since edges of it are also exposed.
  
 Perhaps vibrations hitting more smaller bits is dealt with better than vibration travelling through a larger single solid mass of sorb.
  
  
 Think I will go back to smaller squares again.
  
  
 This is getting interesting.


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> I started out using smaller squares then later on in some things tried the longer rectangle pieces. I had initially thought that smaller squares would be better at breaking up standing waves and have more edge area to release vibes and /or more actual surface area since edges of it are also exposed.
> 
> Perhaps vibrations hitting more smaller bits is dealt with better than vibration travelling through a larger single solid mass of sorb.
> 
> ...


 

 i had no idea why it is the way it is but i just cut open the rectangular pieces into four squares without separating them with my hand only  separating them by cutting them with an exacto.... the result was better for me and unmistakable... Now i had finished with this mod on my 2 headphones... For the Stax i will wait the moment i will had the courage to open the baffle...


----------



## LancerFIN

More pieces = more surface area. Each cut introduces two open sides.


----------



## richard51

lancerfin said:


> More pieces = more surface area. Each cut introduces two open sides.


 

 exactly...and i think that i had a beginning of answer to the question of Edstrelow.... Why more damping is so bad...The filtering of frequencies is not optimalized if the mass of damping  sorb is  much too big for the space damped or too homogeneous...the important point is :  cutting  in 4 the damping mass of sorbothane transform it in a filtering space  It is my fifth rules ... i will write it now...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 see my 5 rules in the post below this one ... It is only the written experience of an "amateur", i am no engineer...But the sorb mod is a miraculous mod for me... i had my HE400 for next to 2 years , it is the first time i enjoyed them fully...English is not my first language and i apologize for my inhability to nuance all...
  
 and Yes Edsrelow i can say now that the Sorb mod. rightly applied is more extraordinary transformation than my new Hitachi  amp or at least on par with an upgrading new  amplifier... this thread i had already said it, is the most important one for me on HEADFI period.
  
 P.S.
 With the right application of the sorb. mods I am in love with the relax and silky sound of the FOSTEX TH7-B  (60 dollars)and way better now for me  than my stax basic system non-sorbothanized ( the soundstage of the Fostex are less spacious than Stax because it is a semi-closed can but the mid organic sound and rendering naturalness of the human voice and instrument is the winner, keep in mind that my Stax are not sorbothanized, if they will the result will be different )... i know that is not credible but it is the truth...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the HE400 is planars on steroid with a more open soundstage also superior for my taste  to the Stax basic non-modded... Now with sorb.mod rightly applied i prefer the  HE400 but the  Fostex isolation and natural timbre with voice is very rewarding... 2 different animals ...i cannot part with one or the other ...  I cannot thank you enough Edstrelow...


----------



## screwdriver

I have a hifiman HE6 in which I did the grill mod and replaced the stock pads with hifiman focus pads and the lohb suspension mod, I dd not do the fuzzor mod as I like the he6 that way  very clear . I use oppo 103 to play hi res files - schiit yggy - nelson pass F1J amp speaker taps to norne audio draught  - hifiman HE6
 With this set up it made the he6 sound so good wide open sound stage and when listening I experiment a bit placing my hands in front , at the top , at the back and below the earcups as if to half cup or half closed the headphones  - the best sound for me was when the hands are in front .
 I obtained  sorbotane 1/8 thick  40 duro  and I placed three strips on each earcup but mostly at the front half of the earcup to mimic what I experimented on - strips of 1/2 x 1 , 1/2 x 1 and 1/2 x 1 1/2
  
 now listening to my he6 I enjoy them even more - bass is tighter , there is more air
  
 I then experimented to put more strips at the rear half of the earcups but I did not like the sound  so I removed the sorbothane pieces from the rear half of the earcups
  
 im glad I came across this mod


----------



## TPSRA

screwdriver said:


> I have a hifiman HE6 in which I did the grill mod and replaced the stock pads with hifiman focus pads and the lohb suspension mod, I dd not do the fuzzor mod as I like the he6 that way  very clear . I use oppo 103 to play hi res files - schiit yggy - nelson pass F1J amp speaker taps to norne audio draught  - hifiman HE6
> With this set up it made the he6 sound so good wide open sound stage and when listening I experiment a bit placing my hands in front , at the top , at the back and below the earcups as if to half cup or half closed the headphones  - the best sound for me was when the hands are in front .
> I obtained  sorbotane 1/8 thick  40 duro  and I placed three strips on each earcup but mostly at the front half of the earcup to mimic what I experimented on - strips of 1/2 x 1 , 1/2 x 1 and 1/2 x 1 1/2
> 
> ...


 
 Interesting....
 But why didn't you do the fuzzor mod? It shouldn't demolish the clarity.


----------



## screwdriver

U do the fuzzor mos to tame the highs,I don't need it in my set uo


----------



## aroldan

screwdriver said:


> U do the fuzzor mos to tame the highs,I don't need it in my set uo


 
 The fuzzor mod is meant to reduce the internal wave reflections. It actually increases clarity and details, without a compromise on the highs.


----------



## screwdriver

aroldan said:


> The fuzzor mod is meant to reduce the internal wave reflections. It actually increases clarity and details, without a compromise on the highs.


 

  well in my current  case , in my set up it robs the treble too much ( F1J amp.)
 I had the fuzzor mod when I used the Sophia el34 amp - the treble was shrill at timesn  - the fuzzor worked well in that case
  
 maybe in your system it works the way u say it , but not in my case now.


----------



## nick n

Now we need *nmatheis *to check in after he tries it.
  
  I revisited the Ultrasone PRO2500 again.
 I had toned it back to 3 x 1cm squares of 30D 1/10.
  
 =*Two* on either side right at the offset driver and *one* at the top opposite that, all were on the mu-metal baffle plate but away from the edges about 8mm-sh. This also helps the pads stay a bit more snug ( less backing off ) with their fast-swap tab system.
  
 It was a bit too tight sounding and even though clarity was great it was lacking some of the increased body that some of the other mods I have done managed to bring out.
  
 So I decided to move all Sorb away from the driver.
 I ended up with * only two 1cm squares *directly across from the driver at the top of the metal baffle plate. BINGO. Things bulked up more with greater bass extension and overall improvement. *No longer have that feeling of "something is off *"
  
  
 I gave some of this stuff to my brother to try out on his Ultrasone PRO2900 so will hassle him until he tries it, and hopefully he can see the difference, as he is new to this, but each time they are out he gets to check out a ridiculous amount here so is likely now better able to distinguish before and after, and at least describe what he is hearing.
  
  
 I'm sure there was another thing I did up ( if not more ), but can't recall right now what that was.
  
 Oh yes the Fostex T50RP special mod I had. ( but there are more I forget what )
 It's not pretty but nobody sees it.
 Plus it is directly on top of the Dynamat extreme. Dynamat adds very little to my mind, I might as well not use it except for sealing drivers to baffles.
 Effects noted at link > http://www.head-fi.org/t/618659/fostex-t50rp-incremental-mods-and-measurements/1935#post_12010490
 This particular case is an example of more is better 
 added an extra row:


----------



## nmatheis

I'll check in sometime in the not too distant future. Just got a bunch of portable gear in for testing. After I pass that on, I'll get to concentrate on my HE400.


----------



## richard51

screwdriver said:


> well in my current  case , in my set up it robs the treble too much ( F1J amp.)
> I had the fuzzor mod when I used the Sophia el34 amp - the treble was shrill at timesn  - the fuzzor worked well in that case
> 
> maybe in your system it works the way u say it , but not in my case now.


 

 you MUST cut the pieces of sorb in 4 pieces or better in 6 , the highs will be better, yesterday i cutted many of my rectangular,  pieces in 6 little squares : the high begins to shine way better and clarity across mids and highs, bass unaffected... Wow...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 p.s. for sure fuzzor mod is a damping mod with no filtering effect , i think sorb. mod is not compatible with other simultaneously damping mod without destructing the effect...


----------



## screwdriver

richard51 said:


> you MUST cut the pieces of sorb in 4 pieces or better in 6 , the highs will be better, yesterday i cutted many of my rectangular,  pieces in 6 little squares : the high begins to shine way better and clarity across mids and highs, bass unaffected... Wow...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ill try this out tonight


----------



## nick n

I doubt they will post in here so:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/779750/sony-h-ear-on-mdr-100aap-199-hi-res-audio-over-ear-headphones/210#post_12019489
  
 Also great transformation on the Martin Logan Mikros 90 here with a few mods of course.


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> I doubt they will post in here so:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/779750/sony-h-ear-on-mdr-100aap-199-hi-res-audio-over-ear-headphones/210#post_12019489
> 
> Also great transformation on the Martin Logan Mikros 90 here with a few mods of course.


 
 Good to see the use of sorbothane damping spreading to other threads and headphones.  nick n seems most impressed with the fact that the sorbothane tamed bass bloat in his phones.   I have found that damping bass can be somewhat tricky to achieve but finally got success with  the Stax SR007 and Sigma pros which had been more problematic than other phones.   You seem to need just the right amount of sorb,   Too much, or too large  pieces  may actually give a bass boom.
  
 I also think that as the adhesive bond ages boominess tends to go away.  On a couple of occasions I have not liked the sound of a sorb mod, but decided to wait a day to see if it still sounded off after 24 hours.  Sometimes  the sound improved over time.  The sorb needs to be firmly in place.  It seems obvious that if it is loose, it will not be able to damp effectively because less vibrational energy will get into the sorb.  I suspect that if it is loose it may even start to vibrate, and worsen the mechanical vibrations already in the earcup and thus make the sound worse. 
  
 nick n seems to have got lucky on what I assume is his first effort,  he got the right amount of sorb.  It doesn't look like  he is using adhesive. It seems that he is able to hold the sorb in place by rescrewing the structures of the earcup back together with the sorb in the middle like the meat in a sandwich.


----------



## waynes world

edstrelow said:


> Good to see the use of sorbothane damping spreading to other threads and headphones.  nick n seems most impressed with the fact that the sorbothane tamed bass bloat in his phones.   *I have found that damping bass can be somewhat tricky to achieve but finally got success with  the Stax SR007 and Sigma pros which had been more problematic than other phones.   You seem to need just the right amount of sorb,   Too much, or too large  pieces  may actually give a bass boom.*
> 
> I also think that as the adhesive bond ages boominess tends to go away.  On a couple of occasions I have not liked the sound of a sorb mod, but decided to wait a day to see if it still sounded off after 24 hours.  Sometimes  the sound improved over time.  The sorb needs to be firmly in place.  It seems obvious that if it is loose, it will not be able to damp effectively because less vibrational energy will get into the sorb.  I suspect that if it is loose it may even start to vibrate, and worsen the mechanical vibrations already in the earcup and thus make the sound worse.
> 
> nick n seems to have got lucky on what I assume is his first effort,  he got the right amount of sorb.  It doesn't look like  he is using adhesive. It seems that he is able to hold the sorb in place by rescrewing the structures of the earcup back together with the sorb in the middle like the meat in a sandwich.


 
  
 Interesting points. I had done the below to my yamaha mt220's:
  

  
 They certainly sounded like different headphones! But I've thought that possibly the bass was a bit too boomy, so I just now removed 4 corner pieces of sorb from each driver, and I swear the bass is now "just right". Makes me want to experiment more with the configuration (ie smaller pieces, or fewer yet more evenly spaced pieces). Anyway, amazing stuff. And props also to nick n for always being so helpful.


----------



## nick n

Oh that is the other guy in the Sony thread not me! 
 I merely linked his first efforts.
  I would hope he uses adhesive style next, but as you say looks like a lucky first try given random depths and pressures on the stuff.
 He does have a large music background so seems to know his sound also.
  
 I am sending some out to another orthonaut soon and he is likely to check in to this *master* thread also at some point.
  
  
  
 Waynesworld so that went from boomy with all that to a little more tight and  refined? Did the levels drop at all or I would imagine maybe clarity/transparency increased? = if that is possible on those MT220.


----------



## richard51

it seems that nobody dare to CUT the sorb like i experiment...for me cutting the sorb in pieces was way more subtle method for  damping  and filtering of the resonance...


----------



## nick n

My pieces are all on the small side now. I have not yet tried to slice down though.


----------



## waynes world

nick n said:


> My pieces are all on the small side now. I have not yet tried to slice down though.


 
  
 Since the mt220's, I used 1cm squares (that you suggested) for the Mikros 90's. I like that size.
  



richard51 said:


> it seems that nobody dare to CUT the sorb like i experiment...for me cutting the sorb in pieces was way more subtle method for  damping  and filtering of the resonance...


 
  
 I just saw your posts showing that. I might try that, thanks.


----------



## edstrelow

Quote from article by Lynn Olson which explains the mechanical resonance issues in loudspeakers. He also notes the use of sorbothane. I would say the issues are the same in headphones but that they have been ignored and thus a problem in most if not all headphones.
  
 "The unwanted mechanical energy must be quickly discharged in two ways: rigid, low-loss mechanical links to the earth itself (a rigid path from the magnet to stand to floor to ground), and also dissipated as heat energy in high-loss, amorphous materials such as lead, sand, *sorbothane*, etc. The energy that is not removed is re-radiated as spurious noise from every single mechanical part of the speaker and cabinet, _each_ of which has its own individual resonant signature." (bold added)
  
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/speaker-design1.html


----------



## saidentary

edstrelow said:


> Quote from article by Lynn Olson which explains the mechanical resonance issues in loudspeakers. He also notes the use of sorbothane. I would say the issues are the same in headphones but that they have been ignored and thus a problem in most if not all headphones.
> 
> "The unwanted mechanical energy must be quickly discharged in two ways: rigid, low-loss mechanical links to the earth itself (a rigid path from the magnet to stand to floor to ground), and also dissipated as heat energy in high-loss, amorphous materials such as lead, sand, *sorbothane*, etc. The energy that is not removed is re-radiated as spurious noise from every single mechanical part of the speaker and cabinet, _each_ of which has its own individual resonant signature." (bold added)
> 
> http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/speaker-design1.html


 
 What he refers to as low-loss would seem to correspond to coupling, as is done with brass points and other coupling devices.  The "mechanical link to the earth itself" is the "coupling."  Such coupling obviously isn't possible with headphones.  This leaves only the high-loss, amorphous materials and, of course making the headphone as sturdy and non-resonant as possible to begin with.


----------



## edstrelow

I am going to stop using the term 'resonance' as the key term because that is I suspect only part of the problem. 
  
 Wikipedia's definition of "resonance" states :
  
 " In physics, *resonance* is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a *specific preferential **frequency."*
 (bold added) 
  
 I think that we are not just dealing with a "specific preferential frequency" problem.  Energy of a wide range of frequencies flows from the drivers to the earcups.  This is Newton's third law. Certainly if this energy  triggers specific resonance frequencies this may cause even greater problems, but I suspect that problems of sonic degradation occur even because of the non resonating frequencies.
  
 My feeling is that the fundamental problem that one tries to solve with damping is getting rid of energy in the earcups, whether or not anything is actually resonating in the earcups.
  
 This I have changed the heading of this thread.


----------



## saidentary

edstrelow said:


> I am going to stop using the term 'resonance' as the key term because that is I suspect only part of the problem.
> 
> Wikipedia's definition of "resonance" states :
> 
> ...


 

 Technically correct (I think) but I suspect that the meaning of "resonance" inferred by the readers of this thread is more generic.  That is, "resonance" is used more loosely to refer to unwanted vibrations that cause audible degradation of the intended signal.  These vibrations occur at multiple frequencies, and not just the "resonant" frequency of the driver enclosure.


----------



## richard51

I think that the earcups are complex vibrational and resonant systems and are coupled to the  vibrational and resonant systems of the drivers,hence they resonate....The damping process trials (experimented  with the listening device of the ears and experienced by the ears) is optimized by the  use of the sorbothane with varied thickness, duro,form,  to maximize some vibrations and frequencies and minimized some others ... why ? because resonance are not always musically bad...Because resonance is also  «the intensification and enriching of a musical tone by supplementary vibration».
  
 Hence,«Resonance can be a good or a bad. Musical instruments are designed to take advantage of resonance to increase volume or control its timbre. When the strings of a violin, for example, are bowed, the sound resonates within the body, which is the hollow part of the instrument, and thus becomes a bit more amplified for us to hear»  The same thing for an earcup of headphone apply, sorbothane is only a means for finetuning the resonance desired and eliminate the non desired one...In other words the earcup play an important active role in the restitution of the sound or in his destruction, sorb mod is only the possibility of optimization of this positive function, like the form and content of the living room play a part in the listening experience of the sound of speakers...All object, and all systems of objects vibrate, some vibration are not desired some other are desired....2 objects or systems if coupled resonate , some resonance must be damped to some degree, some to another degree, some other not....I am not an engineer this is only my 2 cents, if someone can teach me i will listen...best regards to all of you ...thanks to Edstrelow for this interesting thread ...


----------



## edstrelow

Grado has now joined Sennheiser in dampening earcup vibrations.  I picked up a catalog from Audio Advisor today and I see a Grado SR80e  ad saying:
  
 "* the SR80e  has...a new polymer to damp resonant distortion in the plastic housing.... The way the SR80e's new driver and plastic housing move air and react to sound vibrations virtually eliminate transient distortions. " *
  
    Looking at their website I see that Grado has introduced a third series of headphones, called the e-series which use a vibration absorbing material.  *"Grado's proprietary SpaceBlack Polycarbonate is engineered to absorb excess energy and reduce secondary impulses, for a clearer tone."*
  
 In the same catalog, Sennheiser HD800 is still touting anti-resonance in its headband as they have for some time:
  
 ".*..while the sandwich-material, anti resonance headband... utilize(s) advanced technology from the aerospace industry."*
  
 The Grado blurb is right on point, the earcups vibrate  and need damping.  I am interested to see that Grado see the problem as reducing *transient distortion*. We definitely need an explanation of how earcup vibrations degrade sound. I had certainly not thought of it as problem mostly affecting transient response. So this may be a helpful clue.   Also possibly easy to measure with square waves.
  
     But what about Sennheiser using the headband for damping?  I would have been sceptical about applying damping so far away from the drivers and earcup, except that I found a similar issue some years back  with the Stax SR007A  
  
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems .
  
 This was where I originally got started on the damping problem because I could hear a sonic improvement from damping the SR007A headband with sorbothane. However I should note  that this is only a problem in headbands that are tightly fastened to the earcups something the SR007 and HD800 seem to have in common.
  
 However, as best I can tell, the new megabuck Sennheiser HE 1060 electrostatic has a similar headband to the SR007 and HD800.  So is its  band also damped like the HD800?  And if so, is merely damping the band sufficient to get rid of audible problems of earcup vibration or is it merely a halfway step?   To me, the way to test that would be to add bits of sorbothane and see if there is any additional benefit.
  
 Still no sign from Stax that they are dealing with the problem, even with their new 500 and 700 Lambdas.


----------



## edstrelow

The Stax SRX III Mk 2 pro just seems to get better as I add more sorbothane to the earcups. Listening to it with my old SRM1 Mk2 Stax amp, it is now probably the most detailed and subtle phone I have ever heard.  The downside is  a slight harshness, which it had before the sorb mods and which I suspect is caused by the old, thick driver material.  Remember this is a 1970's headphone.
  
  

  
 You can see that I have essentially covered both the plastic and metal portions of these phones with 1/8 inch 40 duro sorb pieces.  However, not every Stax phone I have worked on sounds good with lots of sorb.  For example I ended up removing some from my Sigma/404, Sigma Pro and SR003 to get rid of some bass boom. The SRX does not seem to show such a boom although it is no bass monster either so maybe it doesn't matter for  phones phones that are somewhat bass-shy at the outset.
  
 I will be trying some comparisons of different sorb damping arrangements using the extra set of metal earpad holders shown at the right.  These can be swapped over in about a minute. I intend to use the current  version as my comparison and then compare the effects of changing the materials, thickness, duro etc. on the spare pads.


----------



## arturo71

This is a great thread. There is my experience so far:
  
 I modded my Stax Lambda 404 as on pg 1 of this thread with sorbothane duro 30 1/4 thick. The change of sound was immediate and to me an improvement. Tighter sound, more focused image, slight increase of bass (probably related to the frequency cutoff of the sorbothane). A clear improvement. To be clear: it did not turn the Lambda into an Omega or something else but into a better class of Lambda. As a bonus I put some pieces of sorbothane as feet of my mac mini and under the shelves of my rack, clearly reducing vibrations/resonances (whatever you call it). Overall one of the best bang-for-the-buck upgrades I have experienced.
  
 Then the other side of the coin: driven by my first successful experience, I tried the same with my Sennheiser HD600. This is a phone I thought may benefit from the mod because of this veiled sound of theirs I thought might come from resonances. There I had some problems: there was no much space left inside the ear cups so I had to put many small pieces of sorbothane, and the 2 sided tape I used would not glue them well. They were coming off all the time. Worse, I perceived no change/improvement in the sound. Eventually I reversed the mod. No hurt done and I am happy I tried.
  
 Then I tried with my Stax 007A. I detached the earcups and glued pieces of sorbothane as explained in this thread, but then I failed miserably to put the cups again! The sorbothane (plus the two-sided tape) was too thick to put the ear cups back. So I reversed the mod. I ordered self-adhesive, thinner sorbothane and I will try again.
  
 Best,
  
 Arturo


----------



## cpt000

Am getting the Mikros 90 and it responds to the sorbothane mod.
  
 Can anyone spare about 12 small pieces of sorbothane? Will pay for cost and shipping. Please PM me...thanks.


----------



## richard51

something i want to say about sorbothane and something very important that has been already observed by Edstrelow... I think that the glue of the sorb pieces takes time to paste and merge completely with the surface... the sound improvement will be continuing after  weeks... it is my experience...I have no other explanation why my he 400 sound so good now after all these months  with the sorb mod. i had made no other change in my gear...
  
 p.s. the he 400 had  painted metal cups, this is probably why the adherence process take longer that in plastic cups, with the painted metal ...the betterment is there in the beginning but not apparently completely and optimally manifest in the first days and weeks... this is my only explanation for this puzzle... i must say that i have listen very little to my headphone for the 2  last weeks....hence my discovery of this  evident and completely imprevible  improvement...it is like the sound opened up more drastically...I am going back listen all the cd i know most for the last 2 days...wow


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> something i want to say about sorbothane and something very important that has been already observed by Edstrelow... I think that the glue of the sorb pieces takes time to paste and merge completely with the surface... the sound improvement will be continuing after  weeks... it is my experience...I have no other explanation why my he 400 sound so good now after all these months  with the sorb mod. i had made no other change in my gear...
> 
> p.s. the he 400 had  painted metal cups, this is probably why the adherence process take longer that in plastic cups, with the painted metal ...the betterment is there in the beginning but not apparently completely and optimally manifest in the first days and weeks... this is my only explanation for this puzzle... i must say that i have listen very little to my headphone for the 2  last weeks....hence my discovery of this  evident and completely imprevible  improvement...it is like the sound opened up more drastically...I am going back listen all the cd i know most for the last 2 days...wow


 
 I definitely agree with your observation that the sound can improve markedly as the bond gets better. I have noticed this in several of my phones too. When I first started trying sorb damping I realized that I at least had to wait overnight after sticking some on before deciding if I liked the effect or not. But I agree that there seem to be  long term effects too. What you will notice is that the bond is much stronger after a few weeks and months and that it  can be harder to remove the sorb.
 I should also note that I have had one phone, the Sigma, where the sonic effects got worse over time. The phones started sounding to bassy and boomy until I removed some sorb and finally got a  nice tonally balanced  sound.
 I keep meaning to do some comparisons with different types of bonding material using these on  my interchangeable covers of my SRXIII but I just I just don't seem to have the time.  I would like to try superglue, since this is just about the strongest and fastest setting glue available.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I definitely agree with your observation that the sound can improve markedly as the bond gets better. I have noticed this in several of my phones too. When I first started trying sorb damping I realized that I at least had to wait overnight after sticking some on before deciding if I liked the effect or not. But I agree that there seem to be  long term effects too. What you will notice is that the bond is much stronger after a few weeks and months and that it  can be harder to remove the sorb.
> I should also note that I have had one phone, the Sigma, where the sonic effects got worse over time. The phones started sounding to bassy and boomy until I removed some sorb and finally got a  nice tonally balanced  sound.
> I keep meaning to do some comparisons with different types of bonding material using these on  my interchangeable covers of my SRXIII but I just I just don't seem to have the time.  I would like to try superglue, since this is just about the strongest and fastest setting glue available.


 

 thanks that confirm my experience....but now with the completing of the gluing process adherence i am astound by the transformation of my he 400.... thanks very much to you....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 i understand NOW what you have already said with your Stax experience about the sorb mod.versus a stax amp  upgrade... I know now that no amp can do that to my he 400 ....except the sorbothane... i cannot thank you too much....i will wait for your reviewing different gluing process....


----------



## edstrelow

I  got a nice result sorbing a cheap earbud phone with pieces of 1 mm sorb.  I have never liked any regular dynamic phone since I went electrostatic many years ago, but some of the earbud and IEM phones have impressed me.  These  current phones are a no-name brand that came with a recently purchased Tecsun portable radio.  When I tried them out on the headphone amp of a Sherwood CD player, they seemed fairly decent although a bit limited in air, bass and treble.  So I tried attaching some small pieces of 1mm thick sorb.  The self-stick on the sorb didn't stick to whatever these were made of but 3M 80 adhesive did the job.  You can see some excess which I will remove after the bond is more secure in a day or so.  The benefits were obvious right away, better dynamics, more  air and sparkle to the treble. Still not much  help with the bass.   Probably just not much there on these phones.  Still a sweet improvement for an expenditure of about 10 cents.  
  
 This makes the point again that there are serious design issues with most headphones, relating to the vibrational characteristics of the enclosures.  Hopefully with Sennheiser using viscoelastic damping on their HD 800 (and I would assume their new super phone) and Grado coming up with a proprietary plastic to dampen vibrations there will be a gradual move by manufacturers to deal with the damping issues.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I  got a nice result sorbing a cheap earbud phone with pieces of 1 mm sorb.  I have never liked any regular dynamic phone since I went electrostatic many years ago, but some of the earbud and IEM phones have impressed me.  These  current phones are a no-name brand that came with a recently purchased Tecsun portable radio.  When I tried them out on the headphone amp of a Sherwood CD player, they seemed fairly decent although a bit limited in air, bass and treble.  So I tried attaching some small pieces of 1mm thick sorb.  The self-stick on the sorb didn't stick to whatever these were made of but 3M 80 adhesive did the job.  You can see some excess which I will remove after the bond is more secure in a day or so.  The benefits were obvious right away, better dynamics, more  air and sparkle to the treble. Still not much  help with the bass.   Probably just not much there on these phones.  Still a sweet improvement for an expenditure of about 10 cents.
> 
> This makes the point again that there are serious design issues with most headphones, relating to the vibrational characteristics of the enclosures.  Hopefully with Sennheiser using viscoelastic damping on their HD 800 (and I would assume their new super phone) and Grado coming up with a proprietary plastic to dampen vibrations there will be a gradual move by manufacturers to deal with the damping issues.


 

 Inspired by this post and several converstations with NickN, I used your method on a pair of Sony Ericsson HPM 62 earbuds. These became my "go to" earbuds a while ago when I picked up a pair at a thrift shop and recabled them and was subsequently stunned at the sound staging and quality.
 So cutting a couple of corners off a sheet of sorbo (thanks Nick) I stuck them on in a similar config to your pic and went for a walk. What was great bass before now was focused to almost perception and balanced with the new clarity of the mids and highs. Soundstagine seemed to jump out a kilometer in each direction. I was stunned and put it down to "new headphone syndrome"
 Well it's killer cold right here and as I was on my way back one of the little triangles let go and fell of unknown to me. My immediate response was that something was wrong with a channel on the player. I just started laughing when I pulled the but out and found the sorbo had gone. Got home cut a new piece and just now have taken them off. Mobile, home system, this gets my seal of approval and thanks.
 You guys just helped make a great product even better.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> Inspired by this post and several converstations with NickN, I used your method on a pair of Sony Ericsson HPM 62 earbuds. These became my "go to" earbuds a while ago when I picked up a pair at a thrift shop and recabled them and was subsequently stunned at the sound staging and quality.
> So cutting a couple of corners off a sheet of sorbo (thanks Nick) I stuck them on in a similar config to your pic and went for a walk. What was great bass before now was focused to almost perception and balanced with the new clarity of the mids and highs. Soundstagine seemed to jump out a kilometer in each direction. I was stunned and put it down to "new headphone syndrome"
> Well it's killer cold right here and as I was on my way back one of the little triangles let go and fell of unknown to me. My immediate response was that something was wrong with a channel on the player. I just started laughing when I pulled the but out and found the sorbo had gone. Got home cut a new piece and just now have taken them off. Mobile, home system, this gets my seal of approval and thanks.
> You guys just helped make a great product even better.


 
 Good to get some supporting observations. Interesting about the bass, that I got little boost whereas you got a lot. I have just tried some little pieces of sorb on  an old Sennheiser IEM(I can't see the model #.) This phone was of much higher initial quality than the previous earbuds and had ample bass. Adding the sorb turned it into  such a bass monster that I could feel my skull vibrate. Obviously way too much bass and I will probably  cut some off or split them into smaller pieces, something I have noticed before to give a more balanced sound.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> Good to get some supporting observations. Interesting about the bass, that I got little boost whereas you got a lot. I have just tried some little pieces of sorb on  an old Sennheiser IEM(I can't see the model #.) This phone was of much higher initial quality than the previous earbuds and had ample bass. Adding the sorb turned it into  such a bass monster that I could feel my skull vibrate. Obviously way too much bass and I will probably  cut some off or split them into smaller pieces, something I have noticed before to give a more balanced sound.


 

 I am very tempted to run a strip on the ER4S. If anything needs a bass boost it would be them. I did try it on the B&W C5 and it cleaned things up a little but overall had much less effect than on the Sony's. The beemers suffered from slightly aritficial highs and the sorbo has calmed them down .
  
 I have the Senni CX300 and CX270s. The 300 is an outright bass machine so that may well be the beast you have. They don't get much use here for that very reason.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> I am very tempted to run a strip on the ER4S. If anything needs a bass boost it would be them. I did try it on the B&W C5 and it cleaned things up a little but overall had much less effect than on the Sony's. The beemers suffered from slightly aritficial highs and the sorbo has calmed them down .
> 
> I have the Senni CX300 and CX270s. The 300 is an outright bass machine so that may well be the beast you have. They don't get much use here for that very reason.


 
 Yes, I think my Senn IEMs may be  the CX 300, that  sounds familiar. I keep them as a back-up to the, Stax portable when  I travel and it is too noisy for the Stax, mostly inside an airplane. Interestingly, they sound better this morning, there is still  a lot of bass but it is more listenable. I attribute this change to the glue bonding better overnight. I have noticed this before with other phones, that the sound may change somewhat over time after sorb is added. Generally the  sound gets better overvtime but at least one phone, the Sigma, got worse and I ended up removing some sorb to reduce bassiness.
  
 One of the many things we do not understand about vibrations and damping of headphones is how adding a damping material such as sorb can INCREASE the sound levels at some frequencies. I have spoken with the technical advisers at Sorbothane a couple of times and they have told me that sorb does not attenuate much below 50 Hz.  So if it damps other frequencies , then the bass below 50 Hz would end up proportionately louder. However I think there may also be some positive feedback or low frequency resonance coming in here to, especially when the glue is not yet set. I seem to be hearing too much bass to be explained just by differential damping, which then goes away after the glue sets.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> Yes, I think my Senn IEMs may be  the CX 300, that  sounds familiar. I keep them as a back-up to the, Stax portable when  I travel and it is too noisy for the Stax, mostly inside an airplane. Interestingly, they sound better this morning, there is still  a lot of bass but it is more listenable. I attribute this change to the glue bonding better overnight. I have noticed this before with other phones, that the sound may change somewhat over time after sorb is added. Generally the  sound gets better overvtime but at least one phone, the Sigma, got worse and I ended up removing some sorb to reduce bassiness.
> 
> One of the many things we do not understand about vibrations and damping of headphones is how adding a damping material such as sorb can INCREASE the sound levels at some frequencies. I have spoken with the technical advisers at Sorbothane a couple of times and they have told me that sorb does not attenuate much below 50 Hz.  So if it damps other frequencies , then the bass below 50 Hz would end up proportionately louder. However I think there may also be some positive feedback or low frequency resonance coming in here to, especially when the glue is not yet set. I seem to be hearing too much bass to be explained just by differential damping, which then goes away after the glue sets.


 

 I think a large part of it is when the resonance get controlled freq's that were masked by out of control resonance now become clearly audible.


----------



## richard51

Dear friends, it is my second headphone sorbothanized : the Stax SR-5... Wow, *WOW !  *The sound before sorb application ( 10 little pieces under the pads hence totally invisible this time) was better for me than the lambda basic nova sound but with a narrow soundstage, very narrow...after sorbothane application and immediately soundstage exploded ,  the  instrumental timbre was no more too thin, and i must say that this 40 old Stax earspeakers sound so good that i question my upgraditis now for any future headphone... This SR-5 sorbothanized  crushed for me my 3 other headphones...i connected the energizer to a Sansui AU 7700 ... thanks to Edstrelow and thanks to sorbothane
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 P.s.  without the sorb the rendering of the musical timbre was already superior to any of my headphone, the sorb mod. added the tone and more weigh to the timbre, hence a superior sound, impossible to beat less than to pay i dont know how much...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Dear friends, it is my second headphone sorbothanized : the Stax SR-5... Wow, *WOW !  *The sound before sorb application ( 10 little pieces under the pads hence totally invisible this time) was better for me than the lambda basic nova sound but with a narrow soundstage, very narrow...after sorbothane application and immediately soundstage exploded ,  the  instrumental timbre was no more too thin, and i must say that this 40 old Stax earspeakers sound so good that i question my upgraditis now for any future headphone... This SR-5 sorbothanized  crushed for me my 3 other headphones...i connected the energizer to a Sansui AU 7700 ... thanks to Edstrelow and thanks to sorbothane
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 As you say, sorbothane damping is a cure for upgraditis. Even cheap phones can become much more enjoyable. As I noted above, even a set of my  no-name earbuds, became quite enjoyable. The reason is, in part, that we have come to accept the distortions found in undamped headphones (and in many speakers), but when this type of distortion is reduced,  the sound of is a damn sight better than we would have ever  expected even from cheap phones.
  
 Also this type of distortion cannot be eliminated by any other means than damping of the earcups, with sorbothane or other materials as Grado and Sennheiser seem to be trying.  No  $10,000 amp or dac will solve the problem.
  
 Regarding the SR5, did you put 10 pieces under each earpad , or 5 under each, for a otal of 10?  I have an SR5 which I know want to try out.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> As you say, sorbothane damping is a cure for upgraditis. Even cheap phones can become much more enjoyable. As I noted above, even a set of my  no-name earbuds, became quite enjoyable. The reason is, in part, that we have come to accept the distortions found in undamped headphones (and in many speakers), but when this type of distortion is reduced,  the sound of is a damn sight better than we would have ever  expected even from cheap phones.
> 
> Also this type of distortion cannot be eliminated by any other means than damping of the earcups, with sorbothane or other materials as Grado and Sennheiser seem to be trying.  No  $10,000 amp or dac will solve the problem.
> 
> Regarding the SR5, did you put 10 pieces under each earpad , or 5 under each, for a otal of 10?  I have an SR5 which I know want to try out.


 

 A partial cure though!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 For the sr-5 i put ten little pieces, it is an experiment and i dont know now if it will be ideal...Half of the space under the pads is covered but perhaps 40 % will be better... Like you say it will be necessary to experiment but the first results are good...i will report here for that...It is simple for the sr-5 tu put the sorb under the pads...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
*update* : after 24 hours the gluing process is beginning really, the adhesive process is going on , and the results are astonishing for me, the headphone now had a clearer  sound, more definite soundstage, more body to the sound, and the rendering of instrumental timbre and tonality is marvellous, i realize that it is the first time  i had listen to a real HIGH END  headphone...I think that without sorbothane  or prehaps even with it i will not return to the lambda nova basic, the SR-5 is so good, and the hifiman he 400, even with the sorbothane, seems to me now so veiled and irrealistic that i will not return to  it...Damn it! i am so entrhralled by the Stax sr-5...i know there is better headphone probably with or without sorb mod but at what price? i amn so pleased that upgraditis is recessimg in my imagination... I know that it will be possible to live with the SR-5 only...Thanks to edstrelow who initiate me to that experience...stop me someone to ravishing...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> A partial cure though!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I agree that you have to allow for the bond to cure for a few days before you can really tell what the sorb is going to sound like. Some day I want to see how superglue works using it to glue sorb pieces to  the spare cover of my SRX3 Pro.
  
 Getting back to the SR5, I have now also tried the 10 pieces of sorb under each earcup (1/8 inch, 30 duro sorb) of mine and this makes it a new phone.  Brings up the dynamics and gets rid of the somewhat thin sound. Of course to.my ear most undamped phones sound thin and raspy, even the SR009 that I listened to at the last CanJam in SoCal. (However I am pretty sure I could  sorb the 009 into what might be the best phone ever. However my other sorbed phones, the 007, Sigma404, and Lambda 404and LNS are so good that I can't see the point or the need to spend so much money. )
  
 The SR5 has a very balanced sound, no obvious tonal imbalance,  although possibly a bit down at the extremes of treble and bass, but not seriously so.  This is the first time I have damped a low bias Stax and I can certainly say it is effective. Some day I might try to mod these to high bias. If their driver is like the SRX3 you could separate the stators from the diaphragm fairly easily. On the other site, it is claimed that all you need to-do is to put an extra spacer between the diaphragm and each stator using a piece of office paper. You would then need to.knock out the middle ground  pin on the plug and join to the remaining ground. High bias does give more dynamics.  Sorbed, high bias 5's could be a knockout.


----------



## richard51

thanks for the suggestion and feedback... Very useful... How do you compared this low stax sr-5 to your other Stax ? no comparison ? or an other wold completely? Is the stax sr-5 define a sound world of his own or is it crushed completely by your other sorbothanized Stax ? i love the stax sr-5 very much, and it is the first time i am  so pleased with an headphone... For me it is a game changer in the steps of Stax phone because of the ratio  low cost/ sound quality... The dharma for exemple, a high end can for a relatively low cost, is way more costly than my Stax sr-5....I feel that it will be better  at the same cost to buy a used Stax  and sorbothanized it... I dont know wich one after the stax sr-5 ... It seems that the version gold of the Sr-5 is better? what do you think? A Lambda will it be better than the Sr-5 gold or not? if i pay 1000 a stax headphone  and apply sorb mods to it is  that will crushed the sr-5, even with the sorb? perhaps you know already something because you own many Stax?  For now my upgraditis is quiet because i dont know for sure what to buy, and the SR-5 seems so good to me, but i had not  listen to anything else... Thanks for your time ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





edstrelow said:


> I agree that you have to allow for the bond to cure for a few days before you can really tell what the sorb is going to sound like. Some day I want to see how superglue works using it to glue sorb pieces to  the spare cover of my SRX3 Pro.
> 
> Getting back to the SR5, I have now also tried the 10 pieces of sorb under each earcup (1/8 inch, 30 duro sorb) of mine and this makes it a new phone.  Brings up the dynamics and gets rid of the somewhat thin sound. Of course to.my ear most undamped phones sound thin and raspy, even the SR009 that I listened to at the last CanJam in SoCal. (However I am pretty sure I could  sorb the 009 into what might be the best phone ever. However my other sorbed phones, the 007, Sigma404, and Lambda 404and LNS are so good that I can't see the point or the need to spend so much money. )
> 
> The SR5 has a very balanced sound, no obvious tonal imbalance,  although possibly a bit down at the extremes of treble and bass, but not seriously so.  This is the first time I have damped a low bias Stax and I can certainly say it is effective. Some day I might try to mod these to high bias. If their driver is like the SRX3 you could separate the stators from the diaphragm fairly easily. On the other site, it is claimed that all you need to-do is to put an extra spacer between the diaphragm and each stator using a piece of office paper. You would then need to.knock out the middle ground  pin on the plug and join to the remaining ground. High bias does give more dynamics.  Sorbed, high bias 5's could be a knockout.


----------



## richard51

sorry double post !


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> thanks for the suggestion and feedback... Very useful... How do you compared this low stax sr-5 to your other Stax ? no comparison ? or an other wold completely? Is the stax sr-5 define a sound world of his own or is it crushed completely by your other sorbothanized Stax ? i love the stax sr-5 very much, and it is the first time i am  so pleased with an headphone... For me it is a game changer in the steps of Stax phone because of the ratio  low cost/ sound quality... The dharma for exemple, a high end can for a relatively low cost, is way more costly than my Stax sr-5....I feel that it will be better  at the same cost to buy a used Stax  and sorbothanized it... I dont know wich one after the stax sr-5 ... It seems that the version gold of the Sr-5 is better? what do you think? A Lambda will it be better than the Sr-5 gold or not? if i pay 1000 a stax headphone  and apply sorb mods to it is  that will crushed the sr-5, even with the sorb? perhaps you know already something because you own many Stax?  For now my upgraditis is quiet because i dont know for sure what to buy, and the SR-5 seems so good to me, but i had not  listen to anything else... Thanks for your time ...


 
 The sorbed SR5 is highly competitive with my other sorbed high bias Stax. Oddly enough I found that  its performance went up even more when I used it with its SRD-6 adapter box, run from a fairly modest Sherwood receiver. I had been running it from a SR1mk2 Stax amp  which has both low and high bias sockets. Usually  I find this to be a good amp but in this instance the receiver/adaptor box is definitely  better. The rest  of the system is a Woo WTP-1 cd transport and a Musical Fidelity XPSU3   DAC with XDAC power supply. The high treble and deep bass weakness that I noted with the SRM amp has disappeared. This set-up has definitely hit a sweet spot of high level performance at a modest price and I think you would be disappointed if you spent much money on something else.  You just wouldn't gain that much. This is particularly remarkable because I would have called this set-up obsolete before listening to it now. I would have never guessed itt would work so well. Thanks richard51.
  
 I would be curious to know what  a low bias Lambda would sound like sorbed and run from the SRD6.  My high bias lambdas sorb up beautifully.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The sorbed SR5 is highly competitive with my other sorbed high bias Stax. Oddly enough I found that  its performance went up even more when I used it with its SRD-6 adapter box, run from a fairly modest Sherwood receiver. I had been running it from a SR1mk2 Stax amp  which has both low and high bias sockets. Usually  I find this to be a good amp but in this instance the receiver/adaptor box is definitely  better. The rest  of the system is a Woo WTP-1 cd transport and a Musical Fidelity XPSU3   DAC with XDAC power supply. The high treble and deep bass weakness that I noted with the SRM amp has disappeared. This set-up has definitely hit a sweet spot of high level performance at a modest price and I think you would be disappointed if you spent much money on something else.  You just wouldn't gain that much. This is particularly remarkable because I would have called this set-up obsolete before listening to it now. I would have never guessed itt would work so well. Thanks richard51.
> 
> I would be curious to know what  a low bias Lambda would sound like sorbed and run from the SRD6.  My high bias lambdas sorb up beautifully.


 

 i cannot thank you enough, not only for your  generous sharing experience with me and others, but also for your generosity in the first day when you give me the sorb in the first place....By the way at the lecture of this last post my wife was smiling: it is not necessary to spend much more money .... oufff! i am very pleased also.... My urge to upgrade was quieting....Perhaps i will upgrade some month to go with the gold version this will be the end road...for the next 2 years...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. My Sansui AU-7700 is a marvel with my speakers, and your remark about your stax amp versus the sherwood is gold for me...i will not try anything else with the Sr-5... ( the audiophile quality of the tone control and filter of the Sansui AU-7700 made marvel for tweaking the sound of the SR-5, i wish you to find one for a low price) Perhaps i will try my lambda nova basic  pro bias  after sorbothanization with a new energizer with  2 bias out of the Sansui also ( i had the intuition that my sansui would be  better than my srm 252s stax amp , you confirm it )...i will upgrade only my dac ( bushmaster mkII) which is very good for a  better R2R dac (mhdt labs)... My speakers Monsoon MM 2000 are  so good that they match my Sr-gold... impossible to upgrade that except for the Minnie Maggies at a much , much higher cost...For cable i think that the morrow interconnect are very good...i will upgrade for a MA4 , i had MA3 now....


----------



## edstrelow

I am listening to the low bias SR5's and still impressed by how good they sound damped with sorb. However I noted that when I plugged the SRD6 energizer in to the mains,( I had unplugged it as the bias charge holds up for a long time), the sound quality went down. I decided it had to be transformer vibrations and sure enough when I added  5 small pieces of self-stick sorb on the bottom, the sound quality came back. Not all the SRD6's use mains bias and I suspect the self-biased models may actually sound better. The same with the later model Stax energizers, SRD7, I think.  So a simple tweak to pull up the sound, says he like a broken record, 50 cents worth of sorbothane.
  
 Now I can't claim this is an original observation because I first read about using sorb damping years ago that the esteemed British Company Naim, was using it on their circuit boards. I also spoke with with one of the Schitt designers at the last Canjam, who said they did this. What I can add is something about what kind of sorb to use.  The common sorb footers seem not to be as good as small 3/4 inch square bits of self-stick. 
  
 I remain staggered by how many audio companies, Stax included, remain oblivious to damping problems.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I am listening to the low bias SR5's and still impressed by how good they sound damped with sorb. However I noted that when I plugged the SRD6 energizer in to the mains,( I had unplugged it as the bias charge holds up for a long time), the sound quality went down. I decided it had to be transformer vibrations and sure enough when I added  5 small pieces of self-stick sorb on the bottom, the sound quality came back. Not all the SRD6's use mains bias and I suspect the self-biased models may actually sound better. The same with the later model Stax energizers, SRD7, I think.  So a simple tweak to pull up the sound, says he like a broken record, 50 cents worth of sorbothane.
> 
> Now I can't claim this is an original observation because I first read about using sorb damping years ago that the esteemed British Company Naim, was using it on their circuit boards. I also spoke with with one of the Schitt designers at the last Canjam, who said they did this. What I can add is something about what kind of sorb to use.  The common sorb footers seem not to be as good as small 3/4 inch square bits of self-stick.


 

 very interestring remarks like always... my srd6 is self bias , i will remember that and upgrade with SRD-7SB/MK2 or SRD-X/Pro someday but i dont know if they are self bias or if they need a power supply...i think there are not self bias, no... i will put then 5 pieces of sorb under the srd i i understand correctly ...thanks


----------



## richard51

i put four pieces of sorb on the feet of my srd-6 sb  and i hear that the highs and bass are more refine and the soundstage a bit larger... oufff am i dreaming ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 no, the effect is subtle but it is there .... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  i put four other pieces under the amplifier.... all in all the sound is more airier yes ... i am glad !


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i put four pieces of sorb on the feet of my srd-6 sb  and i hear that the highs and bass are more refine and the soundstage a bit larger... oufff am i dreaming ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Almost certainly an amp will benefit from mechanical damping.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Almost certainly an amp will benefit from mechanical damping.


 

 Yes and believe me the magic is there... incredibly airier...i am in paradise now...Sorbothane is the utmost important thing to know about headphone... And for me now stax is the way to go.... For 70 dollars i had pay the Stax sr-5 crush all my 3 headphones, no comparison possible...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Yes and believe me the magic is there... incredibly airier...i am in paradise now...Sorbothane is the utmost important thing to know about headphone... And for me now stax is the way to go.... For 70 dollars i had pay the Stax sr-5 crush all my 3 headphones, no comparison possiblIe...


 
 I still can't get over how good the damped SR5 sounds, even though it is low bias, and run through a transformer and modest receiver. I have been listening to it for couple of days, in preference to systems like the damped SR007 A and Stax 717 amp. I recall paying about $100.00 for the SR5 some years ago, whereas the 007/717 set me back about $4,000.00. Sure the 007/717 has more dynamics and tonal purity but it also has a bass hump that even sorbothane doesn't fully eliminate. The damped SR5 by comparison has no  vices. Enjoy yours richard 51.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I still can't get over how good the damped SR5 sounds, even though it is low bias, and run through a transformer and modest receiver. I have been listening to it for couple of days, in preference to systems like the damped SR007 A and Stax 717 amp. I recall paying about $100.00 for the SR5 some years ago, whereas the 007/717 set me back about $4,000.00. Sure the 007/717 has more dynamics and tonal purity but it also has a bass hump that even sorbothane doesn't fully eliminate. The damped SR5 by comparison has no  vices. Enjoy yours richard 51.


 

 Your words says a lot and carry a lot of  weigh for me ... you had more experience with the Stax and the message is extraordinary : The history of products is not always for the better in the absolute sense of the word... there is always some trade in and trade out...No headphone is perfect, our only guide is the quality/price ratio... For me this is the only absolute law in audio and the Stax SR-5  is the Crowning gem of this comparison ladder for all time to come : almost perfect for a ridiculous price... i said almost yes! For a simple reason :their musicality more than their sound crush anything i had listen to...


----------



## edstrelow

I see this reference to damping on the new Hifiman Shangri la: ,"
  
"Dr. Bian stated that another critical design element involves his use of precisely tensioned metal mesh stators, which offer great self-damping and facilitate sonic transparency."
  
 I can't tell if this is the sort of mechanical damping I am interested in or whether it refers to overshoot of the diaphragm.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I see this reference to damping on the new Hifiman Shangri la: ,"
> 
> "Dr. Bian stated that another critical design element involves his use of precisely tensioned metal mesh stators, which offer great self-damping and facilitate sonic transparency."
> 
> I can't tell if this is the sort of mechanical damping I am interested in or whether it refers to overshoot of the diaphragm.


 

 i dont know nothing in engineering for sure but that seems the second case of your alternative...not the damping of all the cups...


----------



## nick n

Some great results with cup /headband hinge treatment, as well as some more general impressions. It's a few posts in a row.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24360#post_12338213
  
 Glad you both are getting fantastic results with the SR-5. Sadly I no longer have mine to try, but confirmation enough is already established from you two.
 This should also apply well to the SR-3 and the assorted variants of those too.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Thanks.


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> Some great results with cup /headband hinge treatment, as well as some more general impressions. It's a few posts in a row.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24360#post_12338213
> 
> Glad you both are getting fantastic results with the SR-5. Sadly I no longer have mine to try, but confirmation enough is already established from you two.
> ...


 
 If more people realized how good some cheap phones sound damped, there would be a lot less money spent on upgrades of all kinds. The SR5 sounds  obscenely good for a $100, obsolete, low bias electrostat, especially through its tranformer, which is also obsolete technology.  Richard51 was not exaggerating.
  
 It's good to see people figuring out how to dampen other designs such as the orthodynamics. Since the manufacturers have mostly overlooked the damping issues, it falls upon us hobbyists to figure out how to do it.


----------



## nick n

Agreed. It might save people a lot of $
  
  One thing I find myself doing now when considering people's general impressions on something, is then extrapolating the extra potential with added Sorb. Increases the possibilites in my mind greatly. ( hope that makes sense it is really late here )
 So if something seems to have minor quirks or "issues" then I can hypothetically discount the bulk of those and add the extra improvement factor on top of that.
 Gets me curious a bit too much now.
  
 I always liked the SRD-7 Pro adapter unit ( and the normal bias ones for that matter ) since it allowed me to swap out "real" fullsized amps instead of relying on what the company decides they want to give you. Certainly didn't sound obsolete to me at the time 
 If I get to it I might add some into a few electrets ( large diameter not the smaller Stax/AT type ) that are recabled with the tiny in cup transformers bypassed  to use with transformer boxes. Possibly the PWB stats too since the SR5 is showing that much potential.
  
 The list is growing.
  
 This thread should be* far* more busy than it is.
 I think this is one of those things that people might read and think " oh another minor mod thing ..."
  
 This is not minor.
  
 It's changed my whole approach and listening experience.


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> Agreed. It might save people a lot of $
> 
> One thing I find myself doing now when considering people's general impressions on something, is then extrapolating the extra potential with added Sorb. Increases the possibilites in my mind greatly. ( hope that makes sense it is really late here )
> So if something seems to have minor quirks or "issues" then I can hypothetically discount the bulk of those and add the extra improvement factor on top of that.
> ...


 

 Yes , i think that all other modifications are at best minor improvement and designed for a particular headphone only..., The sorb. mod is a transformation of all the sound, rightly made that is giving you a  new headphone, no amplifier can make the same difference in my experience...But i think that some headphone are more prone to vibrations and resonance effects because of their internal design and material construction...The Sr-5  had  big plastic cups, they are hence completely transformed by the sorb.


----------



## richard51

i have been on headfi forum for almost 3 years now, and almost all people speaks about high, mids, bass, etc to describe the problems or qualities of their headphone... This is an engineering language,  but in musical  terms the timbre instrument  sound and  realistic tonality obtained by adding all the frequencies without disturbing resonance  and vibrations are the ONLY important final quality of the headphone perceived by our ears... The Sorb.mod clean the distortions introduced by the design of the headphone and let the membrane speaks more clearly...That is my understanding...I cannot thank enough the initiator of this thread...


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> Agreed. It might save people a lot of $
> 
> One thing I find myself doing now when considering people's general impressions on something, is then extrapolating the extra potential with added Sorb. Increases the possibilites in my mind greatly. ( hope that makes sense it is really late here )
> So if something seems to have minor quirks or "issues" then I can hypothetically discount the bulk of those and add the extra improvement factor on top of that.
> ...


 
 The damping problem has  been missed by the manufacturers and accordingly there has been virtually no mention of it except the brief mention by Sennheiser re the HD800 and more recently Grado's use of new polycarbonates throughout their lineup. To the extent that hobbyists have debated  design issues, they have concentrated on the driver design and things like cables.
  
 Your average headfier is probably not much into messing with the construction of their phones. I have dealt with a couple of people who won't consider opening up the Stax Lambda, Sigma or 007 . Those with technical skills are mostly into circuitry and soldering irons. However the damping problems falls more into the ambit of mechanical rather than electrical engineering and requires different knowledge and skills.
  
 It must also be remembered that we have only been able to deal with the damping problem fairly recently. I see that the patent on sorbothane only goes back to 1982. The initial design of the Stax Lambda goes back to about 1979, so it is not surprising that it didn't deal with the issue.  I doubt that we had many materials that could provide effective damping back then. Even now, while sorbothane is good I am not sure if it is the ultimate. For a start I am not sure how durable it is and if it will hold up over many years. 
  
 I am waiting to see what Sennheiser will divulge about their latest superphone. They used damping in the headband of the HD800. As best I can tell from photos, the superphone uses a similar headband and it would be surprising if they did not use the same technology in their $50K top-of-the-line model.  If so, I would bet that most of its advantages, if any, over other TOL's will turn out to be due to the use of 50 cents of damping material rather than the marble case and other crapola they have put in to create the aura of a $50K superphone. And of course if it is it not damped it will not be better than many phones damped by amateurs,  which cost a fraction as much.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The damping problem has  been missed by the manufacturers and accordingly there has been virtually no mention of it except the brief mention by Sennheiser re the HD800 and more recently Grado's use of new polycarbonates throughout their lineup. To the extent that hobbyists have debated  design issues, they have concentrated on the driver design and things like cables.
> 
> Your average headfier is probably not much into messing with the construction of their phones. I have dealt with a couple of people who won't consider opening up the Stax Lambda, Sigma or 007 . Those with technical skills are mostly into circuitry and soldering irons. However the damping problems falls more into the ambit of mechanical rather than electrical engineering and requires different knowledge and skills.
> 
> ...


 

 Great infos and observations !  thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 the sorbothane is so efficient, his application so simple and evidently for the better, modulo some precautions, that it is very surprising that very few are interested...
  
 One thing is clear for me... the pricing has no linear relation to sound quality and with the sorb mod, we discover that a cie. like Stax produce new produts that are different but not necessarily better than his older one. If a vintage Stax is soborthanized like the Stax sr-5, if i had read you correctly, he can compete with some pricier newer stax, hence the ratio quality /price of a vintage like the sr-5  annihilated the upgraditis syndrome, upgraditis in my case is related to a basic insatisfaction with the rendering of musical timbre of instrument... with the Sr-5 i  suffer  from it no more, hence i will put my money in a new dac , cable, or speakers... Perhaps i am curious about the sr-x mkIII pro, or the normal bias version...
  
 By the way i had a question for you : what is the exact model of your sherwood? Because you write so stellar appreciation of the SR-5 from this amp and you said it is an ordinary amp... Mine is a very good Sansui  one of the very good one, hence i think that  your appreciation of the sound with this Sherwood truly speaks great words about the SR-5... imagine your impression with a good amplifier...i am thinking these toughts ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks Edstrelow


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Great infos and observations !  thanks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 The SR5 and its transformer  is being run off a Sherwood RX 4109 receiver. I have had it for 4-5 years and thought it was a good, clean sounding amp. Cost less than $200 and claims to be 100 watts/channel.  Probably bought it off Amazon.
  
 I think one reason I prefer this over the Srm1 mk2 amp, which I usually recommend, is that the receiver puts out more voltage swing than the SRM. You tend to have to put out a lot of money for a headphone amp which can do that. Things like the BHSE which cost $5-6K.  The risk with transformers, especially with low bias phones which have less spacing between the diaphragm and stators, is that you will overdrive them. Causing arcing and a possible hole in the diaphragm. 
  
 .


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The SR5 and its transformer  is being run off a Sherwood RX 4109 receiver. I have had it for 4-5 years and thought it was a good, clean sounding amp. Cost less than $200 and claims to be 100 watts/channel.  Probably bought it off Amazon.
> 
> I think one reason I prefer this over the Srm1 mk2 amp, which I usually recommend, is that the receiver puts out more voltage swing than the SRM. You tend to have to put out a lot of money for a headphone amp which can do that. Things like the BHSE which cost $5-6K.  The risk with transformers, especially with low bias phones which have less spacing between the diaphragm and stators, is that you will overdrive them. Causing arcing and a possible hole in the diaphragm.
> 
> .


 

 it seems to be a good amp...When you speak about overdriving the headphone, it is because of too much power coming from the amp?
  
 by the way i find the pre amplification tuning control of the sansui au-7700 to be great for the sr-5 finetuning sound...it make them shine...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> it seems to be a good amp...When you speak about overdriving the headphone, it is because of too much power coming from the amp?


 
 Yes, that's my understanding and that there is no protection circuit in the transformer, at least in this one.  Not even electrostatic headphone amps put out the power of a regular power amp which is what this is. So be somewhat careful. On the other hand, I have seen old SRX3 diaphragms with holes, that you couldn't easily tell just from listening.


----------



## Oregonian

So gents, I understand how the sorbothane mod was applied to the HE series from HiFiMan, which I added to my HE-400 successfully. 
  
 For other phones, where do you put the damping?  Inside cups?


----------



## edstrelow

oregonian said:


> So gents, I understand how the sorbothane mod was applied to the HE series from HiFiMan, which I added to my HE-400 successfully.
> 
> For other phones, where do you put the damping?  Inside cups?


 
 There is still a lot of trial and error here. My belief is that, all things being equal you should  try to get  material on a metal piece close and  attached to the driver. This works well with the Stax Lambda where the driver is mounted on a metal plate. The theory being stop the problem at its source. That often means inside the earcup and that also helps with the cosmetics. Sometimes that is not possible. At a Canjam last year, I put sorb on the outer metal frame of an earcup for what I recall was an Audio-Technica and that it was quite effective. On a very few phones, where the headband is fastened directly to the earcups, you can even damp the headband. That is what Sennheiser is doing with the HD800 and what I did with the StaxSR007, although I still add a lot inside the earcup.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> There is still a lot of trial and error here. My belief is that, all things being equal you should  try to get  material on a metal piece close and  attached to the driver. This works well with the Stax Lambda where the driver is mounted on a metal plate. The theory being stop the problem at its source. That often means inside the earcup and that also helps with the cosmetics. Sometimes that is not possible. At a Canjam last year, I put sorb on the outer metal frame of an earcup for what I recall was an Audio-Technica and that it was quite effective. On a very few phones, where the headband is fastened directly to the earcups, you can even damp the headband. That is what Sennheiser is doing with the HD800 and what I did with the StaxSR007, although I still add a lot inside the earcup.


 
 I recently became a firm disciple of headband damping after working on a pair of TDS phones which creaked and concatenated no end. By pure accident as I was damping the cups the sorbothane I was using contacted the ferrules on the yokes when re assembled. The difference is purely indescribable. I was a convert on sorbo for damping before but the headband had escaped my attention. From now on I will be making serious efforts to evaluate its use there on any given phone.
  
 Makes me wonder about the possibilities of the cable connections in some IEM's.


----------



## nmatheis

Where exactly would you be putting the Sorb on IEM @Hutnicks?


----------



## Hutnicks

nmatheis said:


> Where exactly would you be putting the Sorb on IEM @Hutnicks?


 

 I have some Shure shells here waiting for a project. I am considering using thin strips of sorbo in the cable entry holes to trap the cables and hopefully disuade any mechanical interference travelling from wire to shell. Also considering small ring as a driver mount.


----------



## nmatheis

Gotcha. Thx!


----------



## Hutnicks

nmatheis said:


> Gotcha. Thx!


 

 If I get to it, I will post up pics. The more experimentation the better methinks.


----------



## richard51

the sorbothane (4 pieces duro 50) was put under the little rubber feet of the srd-6 energizer , but this little machine weigh very little , hence for the sorb. to be efficient there must be an optimal weigh for optimizing the sound...*too much weigh will stress too much the sorb, too little would have no effect*... This* 2 bricks* on top of the srd-6 sb make the trick...The soundstage is less constricted, hence better imaging ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 these 2 bricks  made with pure audiophile mortar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 cost me less than the sorb and apply the right pressure on the 4 pieces of sorb. and trust me make the energizer sing  with the singing Stax ...Because if the sorb is not rightly apply with the right amount of pressure or load on it,  nothing will go the right way in the sound...


----------



## nmatheis

Sorb + Brick Mod :blink: :wink_face:


----------



## richard51

I must add that the result is incredible...Sorb under the feet of the energizer and  new pieces of semi-spherical cone sorb under the feet of the Sansui au-7700 amp (no need of bricks for the Sansui
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here under the amp  i had the inverse problem: the 4 too much stressed  little square pieces of sorb i replace by the 4 more thicker  cones)... I dont recognize the soundstage now  (more detailed depth in fact )... Ok perhaps it is a bit exagerated i recognized it, but it is imaging  more clearly now , hence the better improvement is there ... The soundstage was the last minor limitation of an otherwise ultra high end headphone : the Stax SR-5 , and  now  cured with the brick+sorb mods.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i think that the soundstage is a very sensible information resonant virtual  space that is constructed by very sensible tiny bits of  sound information frequencies, very few vibrations  may blurred all that, hence the potency cure  of the sorbothane in this area...How lucky we are to have stumbled on this thread in the first place...I have said it already, for me this thread is the most important thread  in headfi...thanks Edstrelow
  
*update*: after few hours of listening, i must say that i had not exagerated  a bit in my first impression, 2 bricks and 8 pieces of sorb made magic come true...(10 pieces of sorb 1/8 inches 40 duro under each pads and* 4  pieces of semi-spheric cone sorb. -50duro- under amp*  in replacement of my too stressed 4 little squares and  4 squares pieces under the energizer with 2 bricks  of working load for a more efficient damping  on the srd-6) and i dont recognize my sr-5 anymore, chokingly good...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is impossible to exagerate the profits  and advantages of a rightly made sorbothane application , the recovery of sound qualities with my  so call "obsolete" headphone and their transformation in high end products cure definitively upgraditis for me...
  
 p.s. remember to put 4 pieces of sorb. under your dac with an appropriate load on it to made the weigh ideal for the absorbing sorb. it made a subtle but clear difference also...there is a marble plate with 2 little amps on top of  my dac, hence the weigh is optimal for my 4 sorb pieces of 50 duro...
  
*final update* after 8 hours and the 2 bricks + the sorbothanization of the energizer and the dac and the amplifier: the sound is now not only clear on all frequencies , the sound  experience is now totally IMMERSIVE ...it is like any sorbothane correction of all the pieces of gear added one by one to the sum total: immersive musical experience for the first time in my life with an headphone, my audiophile speakers are crushed by the Stax SR-5 already...
  
*the lesson learned is this : if the load is too light or too ponderous on the sorbothane pieces, that will not work  so good...*
  
 Some people will say that i exagerate the impact of the sorbothane on the Stax SR-5 sound... i will be clear : there is absolutely no comparison for me between the sound of the stax SR-5 before the application of the sorbothane and after it, and with the right application of the sorb. under the energizer, the dac, and the amplifier...*NO COMPARISON.*


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> the sorbothane (4 pieces duro 50) was put under the little rubber feet of the srd-6 energizer , but this little machine weigh very little , hence for the sorb. to be efficient there must be an optimal weigh for optimizing the sound...*too much weigh will stress too much the sorb, too little would have no effect*... This* 2 bricks* on top of the srd-6 sb make the trick...The soundstage is less constricted, hence better imaging ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I have been hearing of using bricks on components for several years, The basic idea is to increase the mass of material in which vibrations in the component  can dissipate. Sorbothane relies more on its elastic properties to dampen vibrations. than its mass. Btw why not put the footers in contact with the case of the transformer rather than the footers?  Also,
 is there really such a thing as "audiophile mortar?"


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I have been hearing of using bricks on components for several years, The basic idea is to increase the mass of material in which vibrations in the component  can dissipate. Sorbothane relies more on its elastic properties to dampen vibrations. than its mass. Btw why not put the footers in contact with the case of the transformer rather than the footers?  Also,
> is there really such a thing as "audiophile mortar?"


 

 Yes i  had understand that , but i had not realized it before in a simple experiment except with my dac already under a load with sorb......I had listen in the beginning only to simple square of sorb under the feet of the energizer with a subtle betterment but with 2 bricks the change was more drastic... The foot of the energizer was more  than 1/8 inches hence instead of putting the sorb in place of these feet , i put the sorb at the end of these feet...Anf if i had put the sorb sticken to the case without pressure the result would  been  less efficient..." audiophile mortar" is rare and constitued with the dust of remains of great composer and jazz  musician and it is not necessary to kill them, i sell it now...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   i think that i listen now with all gear  sorbothanized the same SR-5 you listen to , saying that they almost compete with  all the other top Stax earspeakers... And for sure  i understand  now and for the first time  in my life the sense of the audiophilic expression  « immersive music and sound ».. thanks


----------



## richard51

The reason of my enthusiasm here is simple: i own plus  the Stax SR-5, 3 excellent headphone, the stax lambda nova, the hifiman HE-400+sorb, the Fostex th-7b+sorb,  BUT the SR-5 kills my desire to listen to them... It is not all, because  i had also  excellent desktop speakers, the Monsoon MM-2000 and before the Stax SR-5 they were in a league of their own versus my headphones... I read that on the net about the Monsoon MM-2000- and it is truly my experience also : 
  
 « We have used the Monsoons for some years now. I have fooled people into believing they were listening to a high end stereo system costing 100 times as much when these tiny panels were next to the high end speakers and played at a pleasantly moderate level with Diana Krall singing with her trio. All this for $200 - perhaps the biggest bargain I have ever found! Unfortunately the original two models mentioned were hard to find. These are licensed by Bruce Thigpen of Eminent Technology »
  
 Now the Stax SR-5  beat the hell out of it, and they give all my phone ­«a run for their money»   and this is  BECAUSE  the SR-5 +sorb  is in an IMMERSIVE sound space , the others are not...
  
 I am enthusiast about that yes!  and thanks to you...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. Solderdude has measured the SR-5 Stax and said in a final note that these headphone can «give a run for their money to most headphones», except for their bass extension, but we know how to partially cure that here...sorb+ light equalization at low volume
  
 http://diyah.boards.net/thread/215/vintage-stax-sr5-converted-energiser?page=1


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> " audiophile mortar" is rare and constitued with the dust of remains of great composer and jazz  musician and it is not necessary to kill them, i sell it now...:atsmile:
> 
> That's good. At least its not some kind of "snake oil."


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> The reason of my enthusiasm here is simple: i own plus  the Stax SR-5, 3 excellent headphone, the stax lambda nova, the hifiman HE-400+sorb, the Fostex th-7b+sorb,  BUT the SR-5 kills my desire to listen to them... It is not all, because  i had also  excellent desktop speakers, the Monsoon MM-2000 and before the Stax SR-5 they were in a league of their own versus my headphones... I read that on the net about the Monsoon MM-2000- and it is truly my experience also :
> 
> « We have used the Monsoons for some years now. I have fooled people into believing they were listening to a high end stereo system costing 100 times as much when these tiny panels were next to the high end speakers and played at a pleasantly moderate level with Diana Krall singing with her trio. All this for $200 - perhaps the biggest bargain I have ever found! Unfortunately the original two models mentioned were hard to find. These are licensed by Bruce Thigpen of Eminent Technology »
> 
> ...




I agree the SR5 is a great phone. My impression was that it had no vices, which is my way of saying it sounds quite flat. The measurements on the other site in fact show it as +-5dB from 30 -15kHz which is quite remarkable if his measurement system is correctly set up. 
Sorbothane damping really brought it to life. I also had to dampen the Srd6 adapter when I found that turning on the mains power source messed up the sound compared to when it was unplugged and running off stored bias charge. I put this down to microphonics caused by the vibrations from the mains transformer. However you are saying that damping helps even a self -biased unit, which does not have a mains transformer. I am puzzled as to why this could be. I will have to open my unit up to see what is there. The only possible source of vibration in your unit would seem to be the step-up transformers that boost the voltage of the audio signal. Possibly, just like headphones, their own mechanical vibrations, cause problems to the very signal they are boosting.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I agree the SR5 is a great phone. My impression was that it had no vices, which is my way of saying it sounds quite flat. The measurements on the other site in fact show it as +-5dB from 30 -15kHz which is quite remarkable if his measurement system is correctly set up.
> Sorbothane damping really brought it to life. I also had to dampen the Srd6 adapter when I found that turning on the mains power source messed up the sound compared to when it was unplugged and running off stored bias charge. I put this down to microphonics caused by the vibrations from the mains transformer. However you are saying that damping helps even a self -biased unit, which does not have a mains transformer. I am puzzled as to why this could be. I will have to open my unit up to see what is there. The only possible source of vibration in your unit would seem to be the step-up transformers that boost the voltage of the audio signal. Possibly, just like headphones, their own mechanical vibrations, cause problems to the very signal they are boosting.


 

 Like always. very interesting remarks.... i had not think about it frankly when i put the sorb under the feet of the energizer and the bricks  on top of that....I dont know why it is the way it is, but i am sure now that any link where there is vibration, resonance, interaction beteween electrical parts, sorbothane made miracles, if the pressure applied is right, permitting the damping mechanism to act his part...The miraculous transformation of my stax begins with the sorb under the cups...But this was not sufficient for the opening of the imaging and the 3-d effect i observe after that first phase ( almost as extraordinary than putting the sorb on the headphone, finishing the cleaning job i would say) My observation was immediate on hearing the Stax , i had put the sorb under the amplifier properly this time, and  the 2 bricks on the sorbothanized energizer, the change was manifest  almost totally there with the amp sorbothanization + 2 bricks , the sorbothanization of the dac was made after and add some silky effect to this sound transformation... What is the important part : the amplifier properly sorb. or the energizer? i think that the energizer part was crucial, but i had no explanation, it is true that there is no  main transformer in this energizer but there is other transformer ... Perhaps i am mad?  Though  I am sure now  that any vibration or electrical vibrating part made an interference with the subtle character of the sound...  After all what is there in the headphone ? no transformer but an electrical current on a membrane... Why it is the way it is, is  finally beyond my knowledge and head... Thanks to you i had finally an audiophile system for a ridiculous price...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. put 2 bricks on top of your srd and put sorb  under his feet not only on the main transformer ... you will see...


----------



## richard51

You have cast a doubt in my mind! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i decide to take back the 2 bricks, and listen without them, and after that listen with them....  One simple result is for me evident and clear after one minute  : less compression of the sound and more airier detailed sound with the bricks who act with the right pressure to compress the sorb  under the feet , without them the energizer is too light for these pieces of sorb ( duro 50) Perhaps duro 30 will not necessitate these audiophile bricks of mine,  perhaps  needs only one bricks,  i dont know that i dont have duro 30 pieces anymore... But the energizer need damping that is clear, not only the main transformer, step up transformer also vibrate ...... There is no going back without the bricks pressure on my four pieces of sorb  duro 50 under the energizer and the explanation is at the end simple...* ANY vibrating parts mechanical or electrical interact with the subtle rendering of the sound image.*..Sorbothane is the cure... thanks to your informative and experimental thread...
  
 p.s. by the way, have you put some sorb. under _your dac_ and _amplifier_? that make difference also, i had experiment with that in the beginning and under my speakers 2 years ago ... The idea i had never had is to put that inside the headphone... marvellous idea ! Miraculous idea! thanks to your thread and imagination..* An important note i must add is that it is not sufficient in my experience to damp only the headphone, it is in my experience necessary to touch all  the link in the gear chain  for obtaining the outmost potential experience, it is  necessary to damp the DAC, the AMP, the SPEAKERS, the ENERGIZER, and the TURNTABLE if you have one... *the subtle transformation of the imaging depth of the SR-5 is not the result only of the sorb put in the headphones but of the damping process occurring in each links of my gear chain ...


----------



## richard51

how do you like the sound of the sr-x mkIII pro compared to the stax sr-5 ? i am curious of this vintage Stax now because of you Edstrelow ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> how do you like the sound of the sr-x mkIII pro compared to the stax sr-5 ? i am curious of this vintage Stax now because of you Edstrelow ...



It is a bit hard to compare these because The SRX3 Pro will of course only run off my SRM 1Mk2 amp. The Sr5 will run off the same amp but performs better from its transformer. The two phones are about the same vintage and both seem to have a pretty flat frequency response. However the 3 seems a bit treblish. The 3 being a pro does have a bit more dynamics, but as I said the 5 is a great performer with no vices. One day I may see if I can mod it to be a high bias phone. Some say just put another spacer between the stators and the driver and a slight rewiring of the plug. Unfortunately I have more projects I would like to do than I have time.

For the near future I am laying in stocks a different types of sorbothane which I want to test on the 3, using an extra cap/cover which can be taken on and off quickly so as to compare different strategies and materials. 

To return to your damping of equipment, I agree that this is often beneficial. For years I tried various sorbothane footers on amps and the like with modest improvements. However when after I realized that smaller pieces of self-stick worked well on headphones, I tried this on amps, cd players etc. and got notably better results.

Mostly we are damping vibrations from transformers and cd drives which presumably cause microphonics on other parts of the amp, cd player, etc. This seems to me to be notably different from damping headphones.

As you say, who would have thought of damping headphones? I had sheets of sorb around for about a decade and it never occured to me that it would be of any use there. I came upon the idea more by accident. There was just no discussion of the damping problem in this business although now we are starting to get some recognition from headphone makers.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> It is a bit hard to compare these because The SRX3 Pro will of course only run off my SRM 1Mk2 amp. The Sr5 will run off the same amp but performs better from its transformer. The two phones are about the same vintage and both seem to have a pretty flat frequency response. However the 3 seems a bit treblish. The 3 being a pro does have a bit more dynamics, but as I said the 5 is a great performer with no vices. One day I may see if I can mod it to be a high bias phone. Some say just put another spacer between the stators and the driver and a slight rewiring of the plug. Unfortunately I have more projects I would like to do than I have time.
> 
> For the near future I am laying in stocks a different types of sorbothane which I want to test on the 3, using an extra cap/cover which can be taken on and off quickly so as to compare different strategies and materials.
> 
> ...


 

 very interesting, it seems i must try it myself the sr-x....For me i dont see a big difference between damping headphones, dac, amp,energizer, etc ... It seems that the sorb act like his essence order him to act : suppressing destructive vibrations and manifestation of  indesirable resonance effect that interact all the way up the chain...electrical courant induce  mechanical oscillation and resonance that interact with the sound frequencies... 
  
 Thank you for your time, and dedication....i am truly your debtor...and a Stax nut now...


----------



## edstrelow

My theory about why the sorbothane helps the SRD-6 needs a major revision. I had assumed  the problem was vibrations from a mains transformer.  However when I opened the unit I don't see any such transformer.  The mains cord goes to a circuit board not a transformer.  there are two transformers but they would be the voltage step-up transformers.  Now I don't have a circuit diagram for this unit and I doubt that I could fully figure its operation even if I had one.
  
 The question is what is the source of the vibration which is being damped by the sorb?  I guess its possible that the circuit board is vibrating and creating microphonics. Or what else is going on?
  
 The second picture shows the sorb added to the transformers.

  

  
 I put some lumps of sorb on top of the step-up transformers and this seemed to make the sound sweeter and more detailed.  These do change somewhat several hours after application presumably because the glue (3m80) bonds better.


----------



## richard51

very interesting indeed!... In my case experiment i put the sorb under the feet and apply pressure with the 2 bricks.... very different methods, same better results in the sound!....But i think it is better to stress and compress a little the sorbothane with a pressure for the optimal results, it is not possible in the headphone  except with clamps but on all the rest of the gear chain it is possible...
  
 It is near 3 am here, i was  not sleeping , and i have the idea to put 6 pieces of sorb. under the plastic case of the  *power strip Panamax PM8-AV*, where all my audio gear are connected , with 2 bricks on top of it to apply the right pressure on the sorb piece... *guess what? * Incredible more clearer sound across the spectrum, no more compression of the sound at all, perhaps one of the most evident and spectacular effect with this last experiment...For my ears the SR-5 is characterized now by a total  tonal equilibrium with a silky almost tubish sound in the highs and more clearer bass with no or little sub-bass but who cares, hence  absolutely  more refine sound than ever. I had paid  60 dollars and i doubt that there is better cans than that under one thousand dollars, compared to that my others phones are in the limbo of obsolete gear, i know that now with my ears and not only with your testimony...i was dreaming surely....
  
 It is clear for me with that , *the electrical interaction with the material component induce resonance effect  that go up the chain, blurring the imaging sound*....Now *ALL* element of my gear chain are finally sorbothanized all the way down: to begins with the headphone, the dac, the amplifier, the energizer Stax, the woofer, and last but not least the power strip panamax.... the result are always more clearer sound and more *opening of the soundstage* *and imaging* .... I will listen more tomorrow.... Dear Edstrelow they are no doubt for me that *sorbothane is one of the most spectacular refinement method for the  audio sound* *for almost no cost *...I dont know any other.... I must sleep now ,3h.30m .... thanks for all that , your eternal debtor ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
*update* : I am in the morning now, and i listen astonished to my music, and i recognize absolutely nothing.... It is a new world of sound with a perfect rendering of the instrumental timbre in a musical way, and not in little  bits of frequencies measured with apparatus, all is organically linked in the best imaging space i have ever heard ... If someone thinks it  is exagerated, that will not cost big money to put my claims in a coffin... Try it....


----------



## richard51

Life is full of surprizes!  It has been more than a week that i had not listen to my lambda nova basic, nor the he 400 and 2 days since i had open the speakers, because in sorbothanizing the amplifier , the dac , and the power strip, after the energizer, i had listen only to the stax SR-5 and the progress in clarity and imaging was very extraordinary... Guess what, this evening by curiosity i listen for the first time the Lambda nova basic  and the he 400, and the speakers for the first time in days after all this use of sorb in the amp, the dac, and power strip... The surprize was total, now i can say that all my gear sound so good than i cannot choose with the same exclusive evidence ... In final i prefer the Sr-5 (because the musical timbre are the most natural on it ) but it is no more so evident, even the speakers are better....The morality of this adventure is simple: the Sorbothane act his magic ALL the WAY up, power strip, dac, amplifier, energizer, headphone, at the end it is a matter of preference which i will listen but if i must choose only one this will be the SR-5 for sure... The sorbothane is magic ...


----------



## nick n

Much of the other tweaks and effects, other than in this main thread, are being played with in the Orthodynamic Roundup thread, as well as a few behind the scenes not posted and working within the PM system...
 There's likely a lot more to follow should they feel the urge to share.
  
 Notice the picture here, this is a very clear and extremely obviously improved sounding damping scheme since I have done it in the exact same headphone.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24330#post_12297726
 Bucketinabucket applied a couple more bits than me, but effects are likely very close.
 He snuck that picture in there, not sure that he posted about it.
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24360#post_12338868
 Current impressions however brief, PLUS soon to have a direct comparison between two identical orthos. One Sorb modded, one unsorbed and stock.
  
 I know of many other ongoing mods and results yet to be posted.


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> Much of the other tweaks and effects, other than in this main thread, are being played with in the Orthodynamic Roundup thread, as well as a few behind the scenes not posted and working within the PM system...
> There's likely a lot more to follow should they feel the urge to share.
> 
> Notice the picture here, this is a very clear and extremely obviously improved sounding damping scheme since I have done it in the exact same headphone.
> ...


 

 It is very important if possible  to centralize the  results... thanks to post for us all here...


----------



## zolkis

Thanks for figuring all these things out, putting a lot of effort into it, and sharing it for free.
 As I am settled with my own 007 mods, I would like to give this one a try, eventually also including other damping materials (e.g. Deflex).
 Trying to figure out what to do on the 007 Mk1, I have questions on post #20:
  


edstrelow said:


> Eureka! The 007A comes alive with the right damping.  While I first started to explore the use of sorbothane on Stax phones with the 007A, in the last few months  my 2 damped Lambdas, LNS and 404, have been getting more listening, along with the damped SRXIII pro.  So  I removed all my previous damping efforts on the 7 and started over. One of the reasons I suspect that the damped Lambdas sounded so good was that the sorbothane was placed right on the  baffles next to the drivers. I.e. you can't get it any closer to the drivers than that.  Unfortunately the 7 defeats you on that score, I just couldn't see where to put sorb next to the drivers unless I was willing to put it one the dust covers. So instead I put 1/8 inch sorb on the plate that holds the phones together, still pretty close to the drivers.
> 
> Edit Feb 20/15 - now using 1/4 in 30 duro sorbothane which seems better.
> (...)
> ...


 
  
 The questions:
 1. Do you have 1/4" or 1/8" sorb (8 pieces) on the 007 driver protection plate?
 2. What is the width of a piece? Is the width optimized?
 3. Do the pieces touch each other? On the picture they seem not to touch each other, but are very close.
  
 Based on my experience with the 007, I could explain some of the effects you noticed without taking resonances in mind:
 - elevating the ear pads changes frequency and time domain response
 - cutting the sorb into 4, then 8 pieces created ports that loosened the bass
 - when you tighten the screws on the headband damping and therefore slightly modifed the shape of them.
 What I noticed was that all these factors, especially small headband modifications can alter the sound considerably. Which is great for tuning, but also exposes a lot of variables. 
 So, to the last question:
 4. I wonder if did you come across a methodology to make sure the mods alter the body _vibrations_, and not only the body itself? Do you have any heuristics for where to start from and which direction to move, how to change when you hear something? I mean, anything cues other than just experimentally EQ'ing the headphone (the way I started pad mods)?


----------



## edstrelow

zolkis said:


> Thanks for figuring all these things out, putting a lot of effort into it, and sharing it for free.
> As I am settled with my own 007 mods, I would like to give this one a try, eventually also including other damping materials (e.g. Deflex).
> Trying to figure out what to do on the 007 Mk1, I have questions on post #20:
> 
> ...




I started with 1/8 inch but found 1/4 was more effective. I am not sure of the exact size but it is just wide enough so that it doesn' t block the driver openings on the grill. Ikeep the pieces from touching each other.

There is a lot we don't know about what sorbothane is doing to vibrational damping. I recal soren_brix noting that what we were doing with sticking bits of sorbothe was not rocket science. However to actually understand what is going on is probably as complex as rocket science. One thing that is needed is the capability to measure vibrations in the materials comprising the body of earcups and in some instances, like the Stax 007 and Sennheiser Hd800, the headband. 

I am sure that if you stress the shape of the earcups that you could change its vibrational characteristics although I don't think it would change the damping characteristics, since the vibrational energy has to be lost by conversion to heat. At least that is what sorbothane claims to do. 

 While the shape of some phones, especially plastic, may be,altered as you say the 007 would seem to be less likely to do that since the basic earcup is fairly thick alloy of some kind.

As I say some complex issues and all we have at the moment is trial and error.


----------



## zolkis

Thank you! I will use 1/4" sorbothane then, 30 duro self-adhesive if I find such. It's already a helpful cue, saves me from trying a lot of types.


----------



## Pokemonn

my sorbothane sheet arrived my home 
 I will try to mod my SR-L700


----------



## zolkis

Looks like this is the best if I want self adhesive stuff:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sorbothane-Vibration-Isolation-Adhesive-Backing/dp/B009O34WWQ
  
 The other option is cutting up a sheet like this, and use glue:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sorbothane-Vibration-Isolation-Square-10-16cm/dp/B005JRN9WU/
  
 Since I want the mod reversible, I think I will go with the former option.


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Life is full of surprizes!  It has been more than a week that i had not listen to my lambda nova basic, nor the he 400 and 2 days since i had open the speakers, because in sorbothanizing the amplifier , the dac , and the power strip, after the energizer, i had listen only to the stax SR-5 and the progress in clarity and imaging was very extraordinary... Guess what, this evening by curiosity i listen for the first time the Lambda nova basic  and the he 400, and the speakers for the first time in days after all this use of sorb in the amp, the dac, and power strip... The surprize was total, now i can say that all my gear sound so good than i cannot choose with the same exclusive evidence ... In final i prefer the Sr-5 (because the musical timbre are the most natural on it ) but it is no more so evident, even the speakers are better....The morality of this adventure is simple: the Sorbothane act his magic ALL the WAY up, power strip, dac, amplifier, energizer, headphone, at the end it is a matter of preference which i will listen but if i must choose only one this will be the SR-5 for sure... The sorbothane is magic ... :atsmile:



Well my friend you have pointed me in another direction. I was sceptical that sorbothane would be of any use on a power strip since I couldn't see where the vibration would come from. Still, I tried it on one and after the glue dried there seemed to be a definite improvement in clarity, the bass in particular lost a certain bloom.or fuzziness. 

 I use pretty solid metal power strips, in fact some are 220 v hospital grade and showed definite sonic benefits over cheap plastc even before damping. The effects of damping power strips are less obvious than with damping phones and I had a hard time hearing any difference over my speakers. However listening over stat phones was more convincing. So I intend to.look into this some more.

 I still find it hard to credit that ac in wires could cause enough mechanical vibration to justify damping. I have had plenty of noisy transformers overvthe years, but power strips?


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Well my friend you have pointed me in another direction. I was sceptical that sorbothane would be of any use on a power strip since I couldn't see where the vibration would come from. Still, I tried it on one and after the glue dried there seemed to be a definite improvement in clarity, the bass in particular lost a certain bloom.or fuzziness.
> 
> I use pretty solid metal power strips, in fact some are 220 v hospital grade and showed definite sonic benefits over cheap plastc even before damping. The effects of damping power strips are less obvious than with damping phones and I had a hard time hearing any difference over my speakers. However listening over stat phones was more convincing. So I intend to.look into this some more.
> 
> I still find it hard to credit that ac in wires could cause enough mechanical vibration to justify damping. I have had plenty of noisy transformers overvthe years, but power strips?


 

 dear edstrelow, you have changed my audiophile life and i am glad to be useful... By the way you are right that it is not all that like to discover that an obsolete stax can compete with a higher stax or other high end headphone...  some are a little rude about that news...But even if my Stax SR-5 is no competition with  some over one thousand dollars headphone , (i have no comparison of my own in my experience), the sound of the SR-5 + sorb.  is *truly near a natural rendering of the instrumental musical timbre*, and this is the MOST important feature in the qualities set of an headphone for me ...
  
 By the way i sorb. not only my plastic power strip but also my dac and amplifier, plus the energizer, each made an audible difference of his own, but the 4 mod in unisson made the sr-5 sing...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> dear edstrelow, you have changed my audiophile life and i am glad to be useful... By the way you are right that it is not all that like to discover that an obsolete stax can compete with a higher stax or other high end headphone...  some are a little rude about that news...But even if my Stax SR-5 is no competition with  some over one thousand dollars headphone , (i have no comparison of my own in my experience), the sound of the SR-5 + sorb.  is *truly near a natural rendering of the instrumental musical timbre*, and this is the MOST important feature in the qualities set of an headphone for me ...
> 
> By the way i sorb. not only my plastic power strip but also my dac and amplifier, plus the energizer, each made an audible difference of his own, but the 4 mod in unisson made the sr-5 sing...


 

 Certainly no dispute about damping amps and the like. The audio shops have been selling sorbothane  footers for this purpose for years although I personally find that small bits of self stick sorb are more effective and cheaper.


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> Much of the other tweaks and effects, other than in this main thread, are being played with in the Orthodynamic Roundup thread, as well as a few behind the scenes not posted and working within the PM system...
> There's likely a lot more to follow should they feel the urge to share.
> 
> Notice the picture here, this is a very clear and extremely obviously improved sounding damping scheme since I have done it in the exact same headphone.
> ...


 

 Good to hear about experimentation in this area.  I finally have some sorb on order to allow me to make comparisons of different types of sorbothane on a set of SRX3 Pro's. The inside portion of these phones come off fairly easily in about a minute and I have an extra SRX3 with blown drivers. So while I can't do an immediate comparison of two identical phones I can compare the effects of different types of damping on the two inside portion by swapping theses  around.


----------



## edstrelow

pokemonn said:


> my sorbothane sheet arrived my home
> I will try to mod my SR-L700




A sorbed L700 should be quite interesting.   I have been quite happy with my older sorbed Lambdas, putting the sorb on the back of the metal plates holding the drivers,


----------



## edstrelow

I see sorbothane damping as a cheaper and sometimes more effective alternative to expensive methods to reduce mechanical vibrations which are a hallmark of much high-end audio. As an example is this description of a $20,000 cd player which is:

" housed in a machined solid aluminum case in order to prevent any trace of interaction between the moving parts of the mechanism and the rest of the player"
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/ta-elektroakustik-releases-pdp-3000-hv-sacdcd-playerdac/

A lot of super high-end equipment is heavy and certainly mass will help dissapate vibrational energy, but at a considerable cost. And of course with something like headphones, we don,t want 2 lb headphones. I actually own a pair of such a phone the old Koss ESP6 where the weight comes from step-up transformers mounted in the earcups. When I got this relic cleaned up and usable I noted its lack of harshness compared to the Stax offerings although I had not idea that this might be due to its superior damping characteristics. http://www.head-fi.org/t/234504/koss-esp6-refurbished-vintage-electrostatics


----------



## richard51

i think your remarks are spot on...My sorbothane now are transforming the sound of my planars speakers...i wait for more sorb. i had purchased to isolate my cd player also..


----------



## richard51

by the way edstrelow, i want your advise about the Sr-x mkIII... is it possible to put some thin sorb 1/10 inches for example under the pad , and gluing them if necessary... I dont want to put the sorb externally... do you think that it is possible experiment?  thanks


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> by the way edstrelow, i want your advise about the Sr-x mkIII... is it possible to put some thin sorb 1/10 inches for example under the pad , and gluing them if necessary... I dont want to put the sorb externally... do you think that it is possible experiment?  thanks :atsmile:



The problem is that the SRX3 earpads glue on to the front of the earcups. There is no space under them as there is with the SR5. Now if you want to try gluing sorb to the front and them gluing the earpads to the sorb, that might work but it seems messy.

However, the earcup is made of a plastic main case and a metal cover (to which the earpads are glued) which slides off once you undo the two screws at the side which double as holders for the headband. You can put very thin sorb under here, say 1 or 2 mm. In fact that is what I have done myself. If the sorb is too thick, the holes on the metal cover will not line up with the plastic, but you can drill new ones in the metal, or just turn the holes into slots so that metal cover cab be adjusted depending on the thickness of the sorb. The metal cover is very soft metal. 

I am about to start some experiments with my SRX3 pro to compare different sorb densities, sizes and the like. When I am done, I may have somexdifferent recommendation for how to sorb these phones.


----------



## richard51

thanks very much, i dont have the sr-x now hence i will wait for your advise after that.... in the meantime, i am in search of the SR-X pro.. I thinmk they are rare and superioir to the normal bias SR-X  is it correct ? ... thanks


edstrelow said:


> The problem is that the SRX3 earpads glue on to the front of the earcups. There is no space under them as there is with the SR5. Now if you want to try gluing sorb to the front and them gluing the earpads to the sorb, that might work but it seems messy.
> 
> However, the earcup is made of a plastic main case and a metal cover (to which the earpads are glued) which slides off once you undo the two screws at the side which double as holders for the headband. You can put very thin sorb under here, say 1 or 2 mm. In fact that is what I have done myself. If the sorb is too thick, the holes on the metal cover will not line up with the plastic, but you can drill new ones in the metal, or just turn the holes into slots so that metal cover cab be adjusted depending on the thickness of the sorb. The metal cover is very soft metal.
> 
> I am about to start some experiments with my SRX3 pro to compare different sorb densities, sizes and the like. When I am done, I may have somexdifferent recommendation for how to sorb these phones.


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


richard51 said:


> thanks very much, i dont have the sr-x now hence i will wait for your advise after that.... in the meantime, i am in search of the SR-X pro.. I thinmk they are rare and superioir to the normal bias SR-X  is it correct ? ... thanks


 
 The SRX3 pro is very hard to find.  i have read that Stax only made 1000 in total. Mine is a modifed low bias unit with Gamma Pro drivers, made by a guy in the UK.   Some people claim that you can modify an existing SRX to high bias by putting  paper spacers between the diaphragm  unit and the stators. You would then have to  rewire the bias on the plug.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The SRX3 pro is very hard to find.  i have read that Stax only made 1000 in total. Mine is a modifed low bias unit with Gamma Pro drivers, made by a guy in the UK.   Some people claim that you can modify an existing SRX to high bias by putting  paper spacers between the diaphragm  unit and the stators. You would then have to  rewire the bias on the plug.


 

  Interesting, indeed they were so rare, i will not dream about that, hence the low bias is my only possibility, i think ...do you know if there is a big difference betweem the normal low bias and the pro?


----------



## nick n

One thing that came to mind completely out of the blue. Since the topic is stats, I recall reading in the available literature that SONY using a visco-elastic gel in channels of the ECR-800 cup housings.
 Since they saw fit to use that "gel" i'll be sticking with the most gel like Sorb.
 Just a random thought.


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Interesting, indeed they were so rare, i will not dream about that, hence the low bias is my only possibility, i think ...do you know if there is a big difference betweem the normal low bias and the pro?



I have both.  The pro has more dynamics and possibly more bass heft. This tends to be the case with pro versus high bias Stax.
 


nick n said:


> One thing that came to mind completely out of the blue. Since the topic is stats, I recall reading in the available literature that SONY using a visco-elastic gel in channels of the ECR-800 cup housings.
> Since they saw fit to use that "gel" i'll be sticking with the most gel like Sorb.
> Just a random thought.



That was my assumption too.  On the other hand, I have spoken with a Sorbothane company technical rep who suggested using  high duro (i.e. stiff) because it had more mass. I can't say that Sorbothane had a  whole lot to assist in this application. They do make special orders for various  companies. I spoke with a Schitt engineer at CalJam SoCal last year who told me that had a custom order of sorb although I didn't ask what equipment they used it with.
 
I will be trying a duro comparison soon on my SRX3 Pro's.
 
I had never heard of these Sony's although I did once own some Sony electrets and because I got a deal on close-outs, gave several away as presents.  The electrets were good but nothing to write home about.  The little I can find about the ECR-800 indicates that Sony put some advanced technology into them. If they used the gel for damping they were ahead of us.  On the other hand maybe they used them for earpad filler.


----------



## nick n

A couple more posts, figured I would crosslink them here saves other searches
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24390#post_12371889
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24390#post_12373225
  
  
 Cleaned up bass in current configuration but that mod will be added to shortly as soon as other materials arrive by mail on his side of the water and improvements should be synergistic with those materials for even better results. At least a directly noticeable effect with a smaller amount without any other mods:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24405#post_12373727


----------



## zolkis

edstrelow said:


> Getting back to the SR5, I have now also tried the 10 pieces of sorb under each earcup (1/8 inch, 30 duro sorb) of mine and this makes it a new phone.  Brings up the dynamics and gets rid of the somewhat thin sound. Of course to.my ear most undamped phones sound thin and raspy, even the SR009 that I listened to at the last CanJam in SoCal. (However I am pretty sure I could  sorb the 009 into what might be the best phone ever. However my other sorbed phones, the 007, Sigma404, and Lambda 404and LNS are so good that I can't see the point or the need to spend so much money. )
> 
> The SR5 has a very balanced sound, no obvious tonal imbalance,  although possibly a bit down at the extremes of treble and bass, but not seriously so.  This is the first time I have damped a low bias Stax and I can certainly say it is effective. Some day I might try to mod these to high bias. If their driver is like the SRX3 you could separate the stators from the diaphragm fairly easily. On the other site, it is claimed that all you need to-do is to put an extra spacer between the diaphragm and each stator using a piece of office paper. You would then need to.knock out the middle ground  pin on the plug and join to the remaining ground. High bias does give more dynamics.  Sorbed, high bias 5's could be a knockout.


 
  
 I am seriously considering getting an SR-5 Gold, just for comparison. Could you please check what are the approximate sizes of the pieces? Thanks! 
 This high bias conversion seems intriguing, too.


----------



## edstrelow

zolkis said:


> I am seriously considering getting an SR-5 Gold, just for comparison. Could you please check what are the approximate sizes of the pieces? Thanks!
> This high bias conversion seems intriguing, too.



I am listening to the damped SR5 right now and remain impressed by how good it sounds from running from my receiver and the mains operated srd6 transformer, which for reasons which remain unclear also needed damping with sorb. Frankly, I had assumed it would be a waste of time to work with the low bias phones, until richard51 reported his success with these phones.

The sorb pieces are each about 3/8 by 1/2 inch and are 1/8 self-stick. With these phones you stick the sorb right on the main plastic body and that probably helps. I just did a comparison on the SRX3 pro, of sorb on the main body versus the metal cover and it was more effective on the main body. I am doing some other sorb comparisons, and depending on what I find, I may replace the 1/8 in sorb on the 5 with 1/4 inch.

I don't know anything about the gold series, but i can say that I am impressed with the basic SR5 design, at least after sorbing.


----------



## nick n

Wondering where everybody else is in here.
 There has to be more people using this stuff are they terrified of posting in here or something?
  I thought there was a few HE-400 owners who got some?
  
 Another success story tonight.
  I have had these Pioneer 700D Dual Bass Horn things for a while. A 2 way driver setup with a tiny 15mm driver in front of the main 43mm one.
 You'd think with the specs like that it should kick butt...
 Clarity and top end separation through the roof, low end not so much.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/pioneer/SE-700D.html&usg=ALkJrhg6FrgG7-1rCJZjzbjOU9yTL00nSw

  
 Zero stuff inside the cups in stock form.
  
 This mod tonight took them to a fantastic level.
*Per cup =*
 SORB :

8 @ 7mm by 15mm bits around the inner rear cup walls base
6 @ 7mm by 10mm = 3 top of driver on outside of baffle 3 bottom
1 @ 6mm by 15mm in the recess of the headband by the headband slider
2 smaller triangles below that in some headband arm cutouts
  
 0.3 grams Twaron Angel Hair inside
 Thin dense foam from some wrongly sent Audio Technica Active Noise Cancelling pads( ATH-ANC )  
 actually these ones http://www.ebay.com/itm/271702767252?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&fromMakeTrack=true
 This has an added outer ring of foam which sits the pads slightly higher. Awesome foam I want to get more.
  
 ABSOLUTELY no comparison to stock. Some real potential in these but no way stock was going to cut it. No wonder they were not in production for long.
 Great concept, poor execution. Unless something was seriously off with my set, but doubtful they were clean.
  
 Now of course, well, of course they are transformed and supremely enjoyable.
 Might swap out for a pad with a smaller opening and see what it brings to the low end which is now exposed and more prominent.


----------



## richard51

*It is very important to sorbothanized the amplifier also*, but my Sansui AU-7700 is heavy and his feet  has stressed  too much and almost had ripped one of my sorb. piece (duro 50 that i will replace in days to come with a duro 70 ) put under his feet... Hence i decided to put the sorb. pieces between two granite plates like i had already did some years ago with my heavy subwoofer, to equalize the pressure of the load  applied on the sorbothane  and this  with great success...
 :
  *In fact after the sorbothanization  of the headphone , all pieces of gear ( including the dac+ the energizer Stax+surge protector) benefit greatly of this damping method* *and mostly the amplifier*, Putting sorbothane under amplifier is  a beneficial modification  almost on par with the sorbing of the headphone ( i means that if you listen with a sorb.-headphone, a sorb.-amplifier, you will certainly hear the difference,especially in the subtleties of the imaging, so the benefits are multiplied by one another ) ....
  
 By the way  like i had already said i had also put 2 granite plates under my subwoofer with pieces of sorbothane in between them  some years  ago with great sound benefit,  i think that this method with 2 granite plates under the amplifier  is more effective (better imaging and more airier sound stage); without the granite plates when i put the sorb directly under the 4 feet of the heavy  gear, that create some potential instability, and the stress imposed on the sorb was less homogenuously applied, the damping less  effective  (  some of my piece has even  been rip by the load) with the 2 granite plates all was stable and the effect was better. I now think that  this is the more effective way to put sorbothane pieces under heavy amplifier or subwoofer, not directly under the feet...  ... Thanks to all for the great communication here of their  interestings and helping results....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
  
*update* : after 24 hours  with sorb. between 2 granite plates under my Amplifier i can say that this  is one of the better idea i have had... Definitevely more velvet sound, refinement, and no  more problems with the sorb  right pressure, the plates equalize it rightly... I must say that the big transformer of the Sansui are  on one side of the amp  and made a desequilibrium so huge that the pieces of sorb that i previously put under the feet was too much press and break...The result was less convincing...With the plates all is simple, stable, and the sound is so better that this is evident on first hearing... I will replace the 50 duro pieces by 70 duro one this week, because for the long term this will be better...The sorbothane between the plates absorb better the vibration and resonance of the amp , homogeneously, without breaking...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 now...
  
 After the *2 bricks +sorb. under the feet  mod. *for lighter gear like my energizer and my surge protector, for heavyer gear like my sub. and amp.it is the *2 plates mod. with sorb. in between* ...This look like a joke but it is not ... All is better... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
*UPDATE-2 *the effect of correctly damping the amplifier is more spectacular on my  planar hybrid speakers  than on my Stax SR-5... i am very glad.... This confirm that application of the right pressure on the sorb is a good thing...


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> Wondering where everybody else is in here.
> There has to be more people using this stuff are they terrified of posting in here or something?
> I thought there was a few HE-400 owners who got some?
> 
> ...


 

 i think that almost  the first time i read some remarks of Edstrelow that give me the hunch about the importance of using sorbothane pieces in the headphone and not only under my speakers or amp , he said that sorb. transform ordinary headphone in extraordinary one, this is an extraordinary testimony illustrating that fact ...


----------



## waynes world

kman1211 said:


> True, sometimes coming across something new is an enlightening experience in terms of audio. Not sure if it's a temporary or permanent preference over the Nighthawks yet, only time will tell. Just didn't expect the original/first dynamic headphone driver to sound so good. *The DT 480 is the DT 48 in a large housing, which is good which allows for easier modding and pad rolling. It's main problems in stock form are resonance, glare, and seal issues. Modding and pad rolling can be quite fun. It's sad how few headphones are complete so to speak, most headphones just don't have enough and the right type of dampening. *That's what's so great about the Nighthawks, it's a complete and fully realized headphone, it's the only headphone I've ever owned that I never had an urge to even consider modding.


 
  


waynes world said:


> Have you tried sorbothane in those DT 480 puppies of yours?


 
  


kman1211 said:


> No I haven't, I really should, just making do with what I have on hand, don't have anything I know that would work very well sadly. Need to get serious about dampening and modding these sometime. Still kind of bass light but tinkering with dampening has showed the bass can be coaxed out and the bass can be very physical(kind of scares me in a sense), more so than even the Nighthawks, benefit of having rigid aluminum drivers that allow for pistonic motion. I like them fine stock with the Shure SRH-1540 pads(though I think different pads may be better) but I know I can squeeze so much more out of them. So much untapped potential.


 
  


kman1211 said:


> Thank you for the link. I already have a couple ideas how I would apply it to the drivers. Probably putting some on or near the outer rim of the driver inside.


 
  
 Hey @nick n, got any thoughts about how kman might want to go about sorbing hit dt480's?


----------



## nick n

Jeeze anyone else got any ideas.
  Assuming you are used to what they can do stock, do one side at a time maybe. I'd for sure try it slowly depending on how many times you want to open up.
  
 Could apply it on the outside if you don't mind peeling it off again when you decide on the final mod  and putting it inside.
  
 I'd do squares top and bottom of the driver there, looks like maybe 4 can fit, 2 top 2 bottom, then inside the cups try to get some close to headband arm entry spots as *hutnicks* has shown headband treatment can often work wonders too ( or a square /bit hidden on the headband itself?)
  
 Can't hurt to throw some sound dampening material in the cups also to soak up some stray stuff.
  
 Anybody got  any other ideas?
  
 Solid pads no doubt would be best for low end bump.


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> J
> Anybody got  any other ideas?
> 
> Solid pads no doubt would be best for low end bump.




Some of us have been finding that large pieces of sorb don't work as well as smaller ones. But don't take that as gospel. Whatever size you chose, make sure its firmly attached. Not only does loose sorb not damp well, a couple of times in my experience it seems to add to bass boominess. I have talked to the tecnical advisor at Sorbothane a couple of times. He admitted that they didn't have much data that would help in audio applications. Some that they had showed reduced damping of thinner sheets below 50Hz. However elsewhere on their site there is a reference to damping down below 20 Hz using very thick sorb. There is quite a lot of information on their site. However some of it looks like rocket science and I'm not a rocket scientist.


----------



## DougD

edstrelow said:


> ... < snip >
> 
> The sorb pieces are each about 3/8 by 1/2 inch and are 1/8 self-stick. With these phones you stick the sorb right on the main plastic body and that probably helps. I just did a comparison on the SRX3 pro, of sorb on the main body versus the metal cover and it was more effective on the main body. I am doing some other sorb comparisons, and depending on what I find, I may replace the 1/8 in sorb on the 5 with 1/4 inch.  < snip>


 
  
 Ed, I apologize because you have probably previously posted this, but where can people buy 1/8" thick 30 duro Sorbothane sheets ? I'm not finding any sources by Googling.


----------



## richard51

It is not possible to repeat too often this Fact : with sorbothane it is necessary to estimate the right amount of compression applied on the sorb. hence to choose rightly the duro and surface of the sob and his height (experimenting is necessary ) ... i had receive the 70 duro pieces i want to put between the plates under the amplifier (30 pounds) in replacement of the 50 duro pieces... More clarity and better effect...


----------



## richard51

dougd said:


> Ed, I apologize because you have probably previously posted this, but where can people buy 1/8" thick 30 duro Sorbothane sheets ? I'm not finding any sources by Googling.


 

 in place of absent Ed i dare to give you this adress :
  
 http://www.isolateit.com/vibration-isolating-sheets-pads-30/sorbothane-vibration-damping-sheet-stock-12-x12in.html
  
 you choose the thickness...


----------



## edstrelow

dougd said:


> Ed, I apologize because you have probably previously posted this, but where can people buy 1/8" thick 30 duro Sorbothane sheets ? I'm not finding any sources by Googling.


 
   You can also check ebay and amazon.


----------



## DougD

richard51 said:


> in place of absent Ed i dare to give you this adress :
> 
> http://www.isolateit.com/vibration-isolating-sheets-pads-30/sorbothane-vibration-damping-sheet-stock-12-x12in.html
> 
> you choose the thickness...


 
 Much thanks, Google probably wasn't finding the combo I spec'd due to the drop-downs in that page.
  
 Be nice if you could buy "an experimenter's pack" with a variety of different duro ratings and thicknesses.


----------



## richard51

dougd said:


> Much thanks, Google probably wasn't finding the combo I spec'd due to the drop-downs in that page.
> 
> Be nice if you could buy "an experimenter's pack" with a variety of different duro ratings and thicknesses.


 

 very good idea we must suggest to sorbothane cie. a varied duro forms and thickness special pack  for audiophile !


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> It is not possible to repeat too often this Fact : with sorbothane it is necessary to estimate the right amount of compression applied on the sorb. hence to choose rightly the duro and surface of the sob and his height (experimenting is necessary ) ... i had receive the 70 duro pieces i want to put between the plates under the amplifier (30 pounds) in replacement of the 50 duro pieces... More clarity and better effect...


 
 I am sure that these things do make a difference.  On a similar vein,
  
 n my very first sorbing experiments  I used  clamps to hold sorb onto the metal headband of a Stax SR007A. This was just two pieces of stiff plastic attached by a nut and screw.  I found that you could get some variation in tonal characteristics by adjusting the tightness.  Generally looser gave more bass, tighter less bass and more treble. I must return to this some day.  If you are prepared to do some physical modification of earcups. you could have some kind of tightening arrangement with sorb located inside earcups and then somewhat adjustable.  You can see these and two small metal clamps in the picture.  I finally settled on just the plastic clamps moved down to the top of the earcups.
  

  
  
  
  
  
 The other thing to consider with equipment is mounting sorb inside equipment, such as on circuit boards.  Obviously you are not going to do this where boards get hot.


----------



## richard51

very interesting suggestions to meditate... expecially about screw in the metal headband... thanks Ed


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I am sure that these things do make a difference.  On a similar vein,
> 
> n my very first sorbing experiments  I used  clamps to hold sorb onto the metal headband of a Stax SR007A. This was just two pieces of stiff plastic attached by a nut and screw.  I found that you could get some variation in tonal characteristics by adjusting the tightness.  Generally looser gave more bass, tighter less bass and more treble. I must return to this some day.  If you are prepared to do some physical modification of earcups. you could have some kind of tightening arrangement with sorb located inside earcups and then somewhat adjustable.  You can see these and two small metal clamps in the picture.  I finally settled on just the plastic clamps moved down to the top of the earcups.
> 
> ...


 

 Wow Edstrelow i will thank you till my death!
  
 I put only a piece of 1/8 inches sorb duro 40, pinches  thightly in place by paper metal clamp inside the interior part of the square logo  between the headband and the metal arms attached to the cup of the Stax SR-5 and incredibly that put more clarity on the sound with a better imaging.... INCREDIBLE  2 little pieces of sorb only!   I think that is not possible and yet i hear it now!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I think now that it is necessary to put also the sorb near the headband or on it...The more extraordinary effect is way greater clarity in the high frequencies(bass is also tighter )....It is incredible  and i listen to it now....I think the effect is so extraordinary because the sorb is compressed by the clamps like with my two granite slabs compressing the sorb under my amp... The sorbothane  ideally need some optimal compression to  absorb the vibrations in a better way ...
  
*UPDATE :  *Imaging is definitively better and sound are less forward...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Wow Edstrelow i will thank you till my death!
> 
> I put only a piece of 1/8 inches sorb duro 40, pinches  thightly in place by paper metal clamp inside the interior part of the square logo  between the headband and the metal arms attached to the cup of the Stax SR-5 and incredibly that put more clarity on the sound with a better imaging.... INCREDIBLE  2 little pieces of sorb only!   I think that is not possible and yet i hear it now!
> 
> ...


 

 If I understand it, you are placing sorb on the headband.  I wouldn't have thought much vibration could get there on these phones.  There is a lot in the Stax 007 because the metal strips which comprise the headband are directly connected to the earcups.  However, Sennheiser puts its damping material in the headband of the HD800, but I believe it's headband is also tightly connected to the earcups.  At any rate, what you report would indicate that the SR5's can use more sorbothane damping material.
  
 I finally figured out how to open these phones up with the intention of doing exactly that.
  
 1. The earpads simply lift and pull off although mine were also attached in two spots by 2 1/2x1/2 inch  pieces of double-sided tape. If yours have these, locate their locations and pull the tape off slowly.
  
 2. Unscrew three small screws that hold the earcup together.
  
 Mine were in quite good condition considering their age, there was no dirt and the dust covers over the driver were intact.  In fact they looked almost new.
  

  
 I added 8 strips of 1/8 inch 30 duro sorb as shown in the picture. Each piece was about 3/8 inches deep and 3/4 inches long.
  

  
 I added 3 more small 5/8 x 5/8  inch pieces under the earpad locations and put the earcups back together.
  
 While you really want to let the sorb adhesive cure over night before doing serious listening. I was starting to hear some improved dynamics and tonal detail.  I found myself swaying and tapping my toes to the music, always a good sign.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> If I understand it, you are placing sorb on the headband.  I wouldn't have thought much vibration could get there on these phones.  There is a lot in the Stax 007 because the metal strips which comprise the headband are directly connected to the earcups.  However, Sennheiser puts its damping material in the headband of the HD800, but I believe it's headband is also tightly connected to the earcups.  At any rate, what you report would indicate that the SR5's can use more sorbothane damping material.
> 
> I finally figured out how to open these phones up with the intention of doing exactly that.
> 
> ...


 

 i must say that i try to put the sorb. on the headband without any hope of results because the headband on the Stax SR-5 is so loosely attached to the cups but i was hearing way more cleanness than i was prepared to hear....
  
 I had a question, before you had put the sorb like mine under the pads, now you have tried this new placement of sorb. : Do you have listen a betterment superior to the first placement  when it was directly place under the earpads? i will wait for  the gluing process to go for sure and wait for your impressions....thanks
  
                                                                       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Dear edstrelow, if my theory about compressing the sorb. for better damping process is right , that will explain my results with the piece of sorb on the headband press on by the paper clipper, that method permit a better absorption reaction by the pressured sorb.... My Stax SR-5 are now extraordinary better than with only the sorb. put only under the earpads and that  with ONLY  one piece of sorb 1/8 inch (duro 40) 1/2 inch by 1/2 inc on each cup... I want that you try that because it is so simple and take 1 minute with 2 paper  metal clip and 2 little pieces of sorb....*I want a confirmation of this idea, compressing the sorb is better than just applying it with gluing process*.... Like with my 2 granite plates compressing the sorb (duro 70 ) between them made all the difference in the world  on  the speakers and on the Stax SR-5,  or like putting 2 bricks on the gear and  the sorb rather than just gluing the sorb. on certain part of the gear....Thanks


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i must say that i try to put the sorb. on the headband without any hope of results because the headband on the Stax SR-5 is so loosely attached to the cups but i was hearing way more cleanness than i was prepared to hear....
> 
> I had a question, before you had put the sorb like mine under the pads, now you have tried this new placement of sorb. : Do you have listen a betterment superior to the first placement  when it was directly place under the earpads? i will wait for  the gluing process to go for sure and wait for your impressions....thanks
> 
> ...




The sorb I added inside the earcup is in addition to that under the earpads. As I.listen this morning the SR 5' s sound tremendous through the SRD6. They have better dynamics and sound more solid at the bottom end, with a cleaner and more tonally pure sound than before. I can't believe I am listening to a 40-year old, obsolete design. It's very close to the sorbed Lambdas. The sorbed 007 has a more pure sound and extended bass and treble, but annoyingly suffers from a somewhat bassy sound. The SR 5 is very nicely balanced and that makes it delightful and highly listenable in its own way.

It doesn't surprise me that your procedure of mechanically clipping sorb to the metal headband gives a good result although I am surprised that so.much vibration is making it up to the headband. Presumably if the SR5 was more heavily damped at the earcup there would be less vibration to get to the headband. Still the HD 800 seems to be relying solely on damping material in the headband.

As I noted, my very first efforts using sorb on phones used a mechanical clamping system and it gave different tonal characteristics depending on how much pressure was appled. Clamping presumably allows the sorb to fasten better to the surface of what you are applying it to, at least better than some glues. Also the pressure from the clamp, or clip in your situation, may change the damping characteristics if the sorb.

I have just laid in a stock of superglue so that I can compare its effectiveness against self-stick and 3M glue.

This topic starts out looking pretty simple but in the end is quite complicated.


----------



## richard51

I have finally put the sorb. 12 pieces (6 rectangular pieces cut in 2  contiguous squares  )  (duro 30 1/4 inches) on  each of the planars speakers this time and not only the subwoofer.... Incredible better clarity and midrange, better tonality and timbre representation, no audible compression of the sound now, and the anterior level of distorsion at high volume is now greatly remove  and the only "caveat" is that the razor shape holographic sound of this planars had no mercy for bad recording now more than ever but with good recording they are more detailed than my Stax altough less musically true , but trust me they are truly high end for a ridiculous price....In truth this sorb. mod is an audiophile revelation.... Thanks Edstrelow ...
  
  
  
  


edstrelow said:


> It doesn't surprise me that your procedure of mechanically clipping sorb to the metal headband gives a good result although I am surprised that so.much vibration is making it up to the headband. Presumably if the SR5 was more heavily damped at the earcup there would be less vibration to get to the headband. Still the HD 800 seems to be relying solely on damping material in the headband.


 
  
  
 My response is , any vibration transmit itself along a line or point of contact and induce some resonance cumulative  effect with all other vibrating parts  in the chamber of the earcup muddling with the membrane speaking true sound ....It is the reason certainly for that spectacular effect with a little piece of sorb compressed on 2 points along the the headband i had observed, if you remember that the headband connect the 2 earcups chamber, hence sorbothane on the headband act  on the connexion between the resonant 2 earcups and not only in  the resonant chamber of one earcup, they *isolate each earcup of the other earcup resonance echo*  ....And also too much sorb is not always good, compressing the sorb on the headband is better i think than putting more gluing sorb on a earcup( that have already many pieces) and that because of the  positive effect of the* right amount* of  compression, and like i had already  said because of the killing  of the resonance echo between the 2 earcups... But you said that putting more sub inside near the membrane make them better and i must try that in some time to come, perhaps that will be more better to try that also, anyway thanks Edstrelow for your experience and advice... 
  
                                                                       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 An important remark for all people reading this : if you dont have other   better headphone for comparison or reference point  with your damped one final result, remember that the only and most important characteristic of an headphone, is not measured frequencies, but the testimony of our own ears listening what is the most natural rendering of  musical instrument timbre or the naturalness of intonation of voice in a recreated 3-D space resulting from the synergetic interaction of all our gear ...it is that that convince me in the end and only that....
  
 Now my speakers completely damped  and ALL my gear completely damped and the sR-5 completely damped give me a sound so good in the last 24 hours that literally i  almost dont recognise any of my cd , hence by trials and error i had a final result i think....
  
 In truth my Stax SR-5 kills upgraditis..."In fine" the science of headphone is already there for 60 years, the big problem was and is now : how to induce the transmission of sound by the membrane not to be muddled by the vibrations-resonance effect of the headphone himself...It is my understanding of the problem...No more...i am no engineer...
  
 It is probably possible to create a perfect headphone with  almost no supplemental big cost...that will kill the market...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 oups! i think that this headphone already exist, it is a Stax rightly damped and  my SR-5 is a good candidate to some high point in the route to perfection...i will buy a  future Stax with a graphene membrane + manufacture sorbothanization included  for sure, but waiting  for that in the mean time i will  listen to my old SR-5 "imperfection"  partly corrected by the sorb. mod ...


----------



## richard51

ed i have a question? How do you remove the 2 pins that hold together the 2 cups? they are so small that i am afraid to break something and i dont see any sign  on top of the head that they unscrew like an ordinary screw...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> ed i have a question? How do you remove the 2 pins that hold together the 2 cups? they are so small that i am afraid to break something and i dont see any sign  on top of the head that they unscrew like an ordinary screw...:atsmile:



You don't unscrew them, they stay on. To open the earcups, first you pop the earcups off the headband, which you may have already
done, which is quite easy, and then pull off the earpads. You will then see three screws which hold the earcups together. These unscrew and the assembly opens quite easily. They don' t stick as the Lambdas tend to do.

BTW if you take the earpads off , you might want to do something like put a chalk mark on each earpad and earcup so you can line them up properly when you put them back. The inside shape is elliptical and I found one ear was uncomfortable because the pad was slightly rotated when put back.


----------



## Pokemonn

please someone teach me how to glue sorbo pieces to headphone?
 should i use double sided sticky tapes? i want to do it with reversible.
 Thank you very much.


----------



## richard51

pokemonn said:


> please someone teach me how to glue sorbo pieces to headphone?
> should i use double sided sticky tapes? i want to do it with reversible.
> Thank you very much.


 

 you can buy self-stick sorbothane.... you must study if you apply another glue on the sorb. instead of selfstick sob. what glue will not degrade the sorb., hence better to buy self stick....It is not necessary to gluing the 2 side sorb.
  
 you can look for that  here :
  
 http://www.isolateit.com/
  
 this buyer was ok for me also :
  
 http://www.ebay.ca/sch/dang-good-stuff/m.html?item=251232796378&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562
  
 By the way applying sorb. rightly is not an instantaneous solution, you must learn to evaluate the weight of the product to damp (amplifier,dac,speakers,sub-woofer,power strip, energizer, etc) and try the right solution using trials and error because the thickness of the sorb. and the duro number  and the form of the piece needed to be adjust to the product you want to damp...Simple trials and error attempt with you ears open will guide you right to the golden spot... Simply read this not too long thread to learn basic...
  
 If you want to damp only your headphone i had try with success, duro 30 and duro 40 self-stick sorb..The thickness better is probably 1/4 or 1/ 8 inches depend of your headphone and the densities of the cups, no one had a definitive answer yet for that, read Edstrelow experiments here and adjust that to your headphone...
  
  Sorbothane , it is my experience , made more for the sound than any other product, that will not transform for sure a bad amplifier in a good one, but that will make ALL you gear true to their own potential... It is  my experience... ALL my gear is sorbothanized...thanks to Edstrelow beginning with the headphone... This thread was the most important news for me in all headfi simply because of the price/quality ratio solution it offer...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 good luck to you


----------



## richard51

just a remark to you all :
  
 i had put 4 sorb. pieces duro 70 ,3/4 inches diameter, under my amplifier between 2 granite plate, but my amplifier weigh is little more than 30 lbs and the side with the transformer had all the weigh, hence the sound was clearer but the sorb. pieces too compressed by the weigh, hence the sound also was too compressed... _THis morning_  I put 3 pieces duro 50 on the heavier side with the 4 other little pieces duro 70...Now the sound is clearer yes, but no more compressed....This is an elementary lesson and i must say that *just this little change in correcting the amount of sorb. under the amp made a very big last  improvement *...The way i put the sorb between 2 granite plate was more stable and with better results than directly under the feet off the amplifier....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And it is  very important to say that the correct damping of my amplifier reflect in refinement sound listening with my speakers yes, BUT reflect also immediately audible refinement in my Stax SR-5, especially  in correcting the depth-shape of the soundstage with this better clarity gain from the amplifier rightly sorbothanized... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 In my experience the soundstage imaging of an headphone necessitate, to be reconstruct, so subtle cues of information, that any blurring interference resonance from your  other piece of gear without sorbothanization (dac,amp, energizer, power strip) will muddle it... And effectively it is just NOW that i can listen to the real soundstage imaging of the SR-5 AFTER this last  right implementation of sorb. under my amplifier HENCE all piece of gear must be sorbothanized ...
  
 Finally with sorbothane, there is no definitive improvement from only one piece of gear, all improvement are great and audible  if sorb. is rightly put, all improvement were evident in my  experience, with for sure trials and arror, *BUT ALL PIECE OF GEAR must be sobothanized for a  completely satisfying  optimal final result*...I will not describe the sound of my 60 dollars SR-5  now because i dont want to push price higher up
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, suffice to say that they beat my planar speakers Monsoon MM 2000 sorbothanized, which are probably one of the best  desktop speakers under 1000  dollars, and they blew them off with a natural timbre musical rendering and with a better  imaging, and i was in love with my Monsoon sorbothanized... thanks God for the creation of Edstrelow ! and the invention of  sorb. mod. ...




  
*final update* *after few hours of listening*  : It is the first time in 3 years after trying headphones, amplifiers,dac, that i finally listen to the immersive music without thinking  what the f...  is not so good with my gear ?... and surprizingly it is  only after this last move in adding the right  pieces of sorb. under the amplifier, and  yesterday adding 2 pieces of sorb. compressed by metal paper clips on the headband of the Stax SR-5 , it is after these  2 last modifications i have  finally obtained  what i have dreamed of  for the last 3 years ,  and at almost  no cost, (while thinking desesperately, not so long ago, to invest  many thousand of dollars i dont have, in better amp or headphone)
 : simply, clear, immersive 3-d  fluid, organic field of music with natural musical timbre of voice or instrument...Thanks God( or edstrelow)* i have touch my holy grail*.... the best  Hifi system of the world in 1975 was precisely these 2 : stax Sr-5 and Sansui au 770, and with sorbothane i think these 2 are  now  after 41 years always one of the best Hifi  in the world for their price, a ridiculous price in the used market...I dont know now what else to do, all my gear are rightly sorbothanized and the result is pure music...I had nothing else to say... good luck to all ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I have finally put the sorb. 12 pieces (6 rectangular pieces cut in 2  contiguous squares  )  (duro 30 1/4 inches) on  each of the planars speakers this time and not only the subwoofer.... Incredible better clarity and midrange, better tonality and timbre representation, no audible compression of the sound now, and the anterior level of distorsion at high volume is now greatly remove  and the only "caveat" is that the razor shape holographic sound of this planars had no mercy for bad recording now more than ever but with good recording they are more detailed than my Stax altough less musically true , but trust me they are truly high end for a ridiculous price....In truth this sorb. mod is an audiophile revelation.... Thanks Edstrelow ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have seen references to damping speakers with sorbothane by sorbothane sellers but until your post, no mention on Head-Fi.  I am sure it works, because I have been playing with it too and also like the results I am getting.  In a simliar vein,some people have used sorbothane footers under their speakers. That makes less sense to me because I think you want to keep your speakers as rigid as possible.  In my two speaker systems are kept rigid, the smaller set (Spica's) are fastened to metal brackets studs in the wall of the room. The larger set (Polk SDA1) use spikes into the floor and are further fastened to the wall behind them although that is mostly to stop them falling over in earthquakes.  
  
 It has always seemed to me that speakers should be less susceptible than headphones to distortion from mechanical resonance in their structures, because  they would have sufficient  mass to dissipate the energy which degrades the sound.  Also you can help the dissipation of energy by attaching them to heavy object by floor spikes and brackets. So it is with some surprise that it seems sorbothane damping can even help speakers that use these other techniques.   
  
 I often wonder if the audio industry is deaf to these developments.  Certainly because sorbothane is a comparatively recent invention, patented in 1982, before this time, there probably was no way to  address this problem other than by adding mass to systems. I remember things like speakers built into concrete pipes, and filled with sand  However, now we know at least that Sennhesier and Grado are working on this problem.  So I am optimistic that changes are coming.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I have seen references to damping speakers with sorbothane by sorbothane sellers but until your post, no mention on Head-Fi.  I am sure it works, because I have been playing with it too and also like the results I am getting.  In a simliar vein,some people have used sorbothane footers under their speakers. That makes less sense to me because I think you want to keep your speakers as rigid as possible.  In my two speaker systems are kept rigid, the smaller set (Spica's) are fastened to metal brackets studs in the wall of the room. The larger set (Polk SDA1) use spikes into the floor and are further fastened to the wall behind them although that is mostly to stop them falling over in earthquakes.
> 
> It has always seemed to me that speakers should be less susceptible than headphones to distortion from mechanical resonance in their structures, because  they would have sufficient  mass to dissipate the energy which degrades the sound.  Also you can help the dissipation of energy by attaching them to heavy object by floor spikes and brackets. So it is with some surprise that it seems sorbothane damping can even help speakers that use these other techniques.
> 
> I often wonder if the audio industry is deaf to these developments.  Certainly because sorbothane is a comparatively recent invention, patented in 1982, before this time, there probably was no way to  address this problem other than by adding mass to systems. I remember things like speakers built into concrete pipes, and filled with sand  However, now we know at least that Sennhesier and Grado are working on this problem.  So I am optimistic that changes are coming.


 

 My speakers are hybrid planars, hence vibrating ribbons in a part metal, part plastic casing, the sorbothane glued on it  immediately act spectacularly like for an headphone....For the sub-woofer i think like you it is not a good idea to put sorbothane feet under them for many reasons, one of them is the  better homogenuous compression of the sorb with granite plate , the best solution is mine, 2 granite plate slightly compressing the sorb. without destabilizing the woofer, spectacular result like under my amp...
  
 Ed what is the result of your listening with the SR-5 ?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> My speakers are hybrid planars, hence vibrating ribbons in a part metal, part plastic casing, the sorbothane glued on it  immediately act spectacularly like for an headphone....For the sub-woofer i think like you it is not a good idea to put sorbothane feet under them for many reasons, one of them is the  better homogenuous compression of the sorb with granite plate , the best solution is mine, 2 granite plate slightly compressing the sorb. without destabilizing the woofer, spectacular result like under my amp...
> 
> Ed what is the result of your listening with the SR-5 ?


 
 I am listening to the sorbed SR5 a lot.  It's surprisingly competitive with the later high-bias phones. Like the SRX3 low and high bias, it seems very neutral but with no harshness. The 007A probably has better treble and bass and lower distortion, but the 5 has a musicality or listenability.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I am listening to the sorbed SR5 a lot.  It's surprisingly competitive with the later high-bias phones. Like the SRX3 low and high bias, it seems very neutral but with no harshness. The 007A probably has better treble and bass and lower distortion, but the 5 has a musicality or listenability.


 

 i was asking that to you because i dont have any comparison at hand except the lambda nova basic non-sorbothanized...I was very surprized of your experience with the Sr-5, because i was thinking like almost all people that there was " progress" in the technology of headphone... But experience confirm a sort of trade off , trade in, between the qualities you develop and the qualities you dont bother with anymore when you want to market a new product...Personaly i dont want a better treble and bass without musicality...Hence my surprize because your 007 A is with sorb like the SR-5.... The Sr-5 is veritably a success for stax, without doubt the omega must be  more musical, and with more bass and more highs, and less distorsion also ... With sorb. the omega would be a must listen...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i was asking that to you because i dont have any comparison at hand except the lambda nova basic non-sorbothanized...I was very surprized of your experience with the Sr-5, because i was thinking like almost all people that there was " progress" in the technology of headphone... But experience confirm a sort of trade off , trade in, between the qualities you develop and the qualities you dont bother with anymore when you want to market a new product...Personaly i dont want a better treble and bass without musicality...Hence my surprize because your 007 A is with sorb like the SR-5.... The Sr-5 is veritably a success for stax, without doubt the omega must be  more musical, and with more bass and more highs, and less distorsion also ... With sorb. the omega would be a must listen...




The SR007 and 009 resemble the SR5 in construction, i.i. the are all round, circumaural phones. Stax went to the rectangular Lambda design after the SR5, So Stax ' progress is somewhat circular. You should try to sorb your Lambda, which I assume is a low bias. A lot of people seem afraid to.open up their phones. I have almost never had a problem this way. Of course, it helps to have a soldering iron, in case a wire breaks or comes off.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The SR007 and 009 resemble the SR5 in construction, i.i. the are all round, circumaural phones. Stax went to the rectangular Lambda design after the SR5, So Stax ' progress is somewhat circular. You should try to sorb your Lambda, which I assume is a low bias. A lot of people seem afraid to.open up their phones. I have almost never had a problem this way. Of course, it helps to have a soldering iron, in case a wire breaks or comes off.


 

 i will open it ( i had already the sorb. for that )....But for now enjoying the Sr-5 is so extraordinary for me that my motivation to made the move is low.... Like you said probably this organic musical  coherence  effect of the sound  is linked somewhat to the circular membrane and the design of the chamber cup versus  rectangular cheap plastic atrocius square 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




....I am sure now that to made my system really better than what i have now and not a sidegrade move, a real upgrade move will cost me thousands of dollars... I plan to try with the money of my  "old age" the microzotl amp + a linear power supply  with an energizer for my Stax SR-5.... Only this will cost me near 2 thousand.... And for upgrading the dac one thousand more....I will made that around the Stax SR-5... I am afraid to buy an headphone now without hearing it before buying, because of this inherent musical quality of the SR-5... I have observed that without sorb. the SR-5 was musical already....I know that sorb dont make a non organically musical headphone  an organically musical one... Hence i am stuck with the SR-5 for a good time to come


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i will open it ( i had already the sorb. for that )....But for now enjoying the Sr-5 is so extraordinary for me that my motivation to made the move is low.... Like you said probably this organic musical  coherence  effect of the sound  is linked somewhat to the circular membrane and the design of the chamber cup versus  rectangular cheap plastic atrocius square
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Here is an easy sorb mod to try.  Following your comment about putting sorb on the head band of the SR5, I have tried doing something similar on a Lambda 404 and my Sigma/404.  (see pix)  I think I am hearing something good, but each of my phones already has sorb mounted near the drivers so it is a bit unclear.   If you haven't yet modded your Lambda yet, possibly you can put a few pieces of self-stick on the headband and let us know if  you think it does anything.  I chose the underside for cosmetic reasons.


----------



## zolkis

Did anyone make measurements on the effect of various thickness/duro etc or Sorbothane in any headphone applications?
  
 I know that tuning "by ear" also works if you have a good test bed and methodology, but using measurements speeds up considerably the process of converging to optimum, and the understanding how damping works in a certain application. I have recently set up (thanks to Sorrodje) a cheap, but calibrated MiniDSP UMIK1 USB microphone with the free RoomEQWizard program and a DIY coupler, and started measuring what I was doing. I will make a post about my rig later.
  
 I am testing again all my optimizations on the TH900 and 007 through measurements + listening tests now, it's so much more efficient. I noticed there is a huge measurable difference on the effects of earpads and other damping (in the order of 6-18 dB depending on frequency). Even small differences (2-3 dB) make quite a big subjective difference during listening tests, but now I have a better correlation tool for optimizing parts vs optimizing the whole.
  
 I expect my Sorbothane shipments arrive in the weekend or early next week and will post some measurements.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Here is an easy sorb mod to try.  Following your comment about putting sorb on the head band of the SR5, I have tried doing something similar on a Lambda 404 and my Sigma/404.  (see pix)  I think I am hearing something good, but each of my phones already has sorb mounted near the drivers so it is a bit unclear.   If you haven't yet modded your Lambda yet, possibly you can put a few pieces of self-stick on the headband and let us know if  you think it does anything.  I chose the underside for cosmetic reasons.


 

 very good idea i will try and report it here ! trhanks Ed


----------



## richard51

zolkis said:


> Did anyone make measurements on the effect of various thickness/duro etc or Sorbothane in any headphone applications?
> 
> I know that tuning "by ear" also works if you have a good test bed and methodology, but using measurements speeds up considerably the process of converging to optimum, and the understanding how damping works in a certain application. I have recently set up (thanks to Sorrodje) a cheap, but calibrated MiniDSP UMIK1 USB microphone with the free RoomEQWizard program and a DIY coupler, and started measuring what I was doing. I will make a post about my rig later.
> 
> ...


 

  exciting! i cannot wait for your results... thanks very much ...


----------



## edstrelow

I don't know what is going on but I look forward to any measurements here. My guess is that sorbothane damping reduces distortion and I would not necessarily expect it to change the frequency response of a headphone. However that is merely a guess and I may be guessing wrong.

I have personally spoken with technical reps at Sorbothane a few times and they had done virtually no measurements of the sonic effects of sorbothane.

What I would personally like to see measured is the mechanical vibrations in various parts of the earcups, with a sensor that attaches to the physical structure rather than a microphone that is measuring sound in the air.


----------



## zolkis

edstrelow said:


> My guess is that sorbothane damping reduces distortion and I would not necessarily expect it to change the frequency response of a headphone.





> (...)
> I have personally spoken with technical reps at Sorbothane a few times and they had done virtually no measurements of the sonic effects of sorbothane.


 
  
 I think it will change the frequency plot because every material in the way of audio waves does that. However, distortions and impulse response change are valid enough measurement data.
  


> What I would personally like to see measured is the mechanical vibrations in various parts of the earcups, with a sensor that attaches to the physical structure rather than a microphone that is measuring sound in the air.


 
  
 Since these vibrations cause harmonic content, they will show up in the distortion and impulse response measurements. Sometimes these give a better idea about how a change sounds than the frequency plot, but in my experience usually that changes also.


----------



## edstrelow

zolkis said:


> I think it will change the frequency plot because every material in the way of audio waves does that. However, distortions and impulse response change are valid enough measurement data.
> 
> 
> Since these vibrations cause harmonic content, they will show up in the distortion and impulse response measurements. Sometimes these give a better idea about how a change sounds than the frequency plot, but in my experience usually that changes also.


 
 Many years ago I worked in a lab with a state of the art Bruel and Kjaer frequency response system which cost as much to buy  as a new house. It used 30 sets of filters such that when it measured say 500 Hz it eliminated everything else from consideration. It was good for what it did, but would not register any distortion product away from the target frequencies. That's what I am thinking could be missed.  
  
 I should add that Grado claims that their new polycarbonate material, used in the construction of their e series headphones, affects transient response.  So impulse or square wave measurement could be where to look.


----------



## zolkis

Hmm, maybe I fell into a measurements fallacy. When in doubt, trust your ears - and training them never harms either 
 Anyway, let's see if something can be measured that sticks out of statistical measurement errors.


----------



## richard51

With only my ears in 5 seconds, the change was dramatically better, spectacular change , clarity without any distortion...... The imaging of these monsoon speakers gain so much that i like that speakers on par with my beloved Stax SR-5 after applying the sorbothane (5 pieces duro 30) ....
  
*Conclusion : sorbothane is not for headphone only*....
  
  
  
  







  
*And If you have an  heavy amplifier put 2 granite slabs with in between some sorb.* with the adequate duro for the weigh, and thank me not but the initiator of this thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 By the way when applying sorb sometimes too much is worse, i have originally put 3 more pieces on the monsoon speakers  that i had put off because the sound was too compressed, experiment and try....


----------



## edstrelow

I find that the sound generally changes after a few hours/days as the glue or self/stick bonds so it can take a bit longer determine the best sorb arrangement. Often I find that the sound is slightly bass heavy when the sorb is first applied andcthis eases off after a few hours. So these days I usually let the system sit overnight before I decide if its properly damped.


----------



## edstrelow

zolkis said:


> Hmm, maybe I fell into a measurements fallacy. When in doubt, trust your ears - and training them never harms either
> Anyway, let's see if something can be measured that sticks out of statistical measurement errors.




 Certainly if it doesn't sound good to.me I don't care what the measurements show. Still there's a lot of basic science needed to try to understand what is happening here, so some measuremens may help.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I find that the sound generally changes after a few hours/days as the glue or self/stick bonds so it can take a bit longer determine the best sorb arrangement. Often I find that the sound is slightly bass heavy when the sorb is first applied andcthis eases off after a few hours. So these days I usually let the system sit overnight before I decide if its properly damped.


 

 i have verified that effectively, but sometimes the result were so good, the change so effective, than it is immediately felt, but the time goes on and the gluing process add some new flavor for the better.... The change in my  speakers were not so good the first day, because i had put too much sorb. but after one day i decide to reverse it slightly by removing 3 pieces of sorb. and cutting the remaining one in 2... the change was so better than it was immediarely felt in a less compressed sound, with time and gluing process i dont doubt that  will be better...that was the same in my He-400...


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> Certainly if it doesn't sound good to.me I don't care what the measurements show. Still there's a lot of basic science needed to try to understand what is happening here, so some measuremens may help.


 

 Not completely convinced that the measurement junkies have it right at the best of times.
  
 Using materials to damp out mechanical vibrations would tell me that the logical way to proceed would be to measure the phone to see _where_ it is vibrating and at what frequencies. That means the outside, the headband, etc. Simply stuffing materials in and on a phone and measuring the resultant change in sound sig  strikes me more and more as a crude shotgun type approach.
  
 Tyll has an article about the HD800S which pretty much illustrates the differences between the modder who claims to use the "scientific method" and the manu who actually understands it and employs it.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> Not completely convinced that the measurement junkies have it right at the best of times.
> 
> Using materials to damp out mechanical vibrations would tell me that the logical way to proceed would be to measure the phone to see _where_ it is vibrating and at what frequencies. That means the outside, the headband, etc. Simply stuffing materials in and on a phone and measuring the resultant change in sound sig  strikes me more and more as a crude shotgun type approach.
> 
> Tyll has an article about the HD800S which pretty much illustrates the differences between the modder who claims to use the "scientific method" and the manu who actually understands it and employs it.




I totally agree that measurements of the vibrations of the structure of the headphones are probably the key to understanding what is happening here. Unfortunately few if any of us have the equipment to do these measurements. 

My theory is that the entire sound signature of what is put out through the driver goes into the earcup as well, as is predicted by Newtonian physics. To the extent that these vibrations are not damped by the structures of the earcups (and damping by sorbothane means coverting the energy to heat, again Newton since energy is not created or destroyed) they cause audible distortion. I don't know if this distortion is because the vibrations of the eacups get transmitted through the air to the ears or by feed back through the earcup structures to the drivers. Both explanations might even apply so this might not be an either/or situation.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I totally agree that measurements of the vibrations of the structure of the headphones are probably the key to understanding what is happening here. Unfortunately few if any of us have the equipment to do these measurements.
> 
> My theory is that the entire sound signature of what is put out through the driver goes into the earcup as well, as is predicted by Newtonian physics. To the extent that these vibrations are not damped by the structures of the earcups (and damping by sorbothane means coverting the energy to heat, again Newton since energy is not created or destroyed) they cause audible distortion. I don't know if this distortion is because the vibrations of the eacups get transmitted through the air to the ears or by feed back through the earcup structures to the drivers. Both explanations might even apply so this might not be an either/or situation.


 

 The issue of aerodynamics comes into play as well. Baffle grills, coverings, reflected sounds all play a part in the sig.
  
 I think you can probably use a small mic and put it in contact with cups, headband, and other parts to get a fair determination of what the largest culprits would be.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> The issue of aerodynamics comes into play as well. Baffle grills, coverings, reflected sounds all play a part in the sig.
> 
> I think you can probably use a small mic and put it in contact with cups, headband, and other parts to get a fair determination of what the largest culprits would be.


 
 My concern with some measurements is that they may be inaccurate or not even relevant to the key issues.   Also the equipment needed to do this well is quite costly.  I have worked in or around  engineering or acoustics labs and the equipment costs are huge.  Certainly I expect companies like Sennheiser, Phillips and possibly even Grado to have some of this.  As I have mentioned, Sorbothane doesn't seem to offer much data on their products or do much measurement related to these issues.
  
 In the end you are concerned with the sonic product the ear or microphone actually picks up but you need to tease out what the mechanical vibrations are doing to this sonic product as distinct from the airborne reflections coming from the parts you mentioned.  As well there are resonances in the air chambers of the headphones and physical characteristics of the drive to consider.
  
 Another  technique which might help is what I think are called "waterfall" graphs. I have seen some, which looked at the decay of impulse sounds over a few milliseconds.  I think zolkis was referring to these.earlier.  These don't directly tell you what is going on due to vibrational issues since they pick up all the delayed signals. However if you compared plots from damped vs undamped systems you might get some clues as to what’s going on although it wouldn’t give you definitive answers.
  
 Ultimately, I think you need a different kind of sensor than a regular microphone to tell what sort of vibrations any part of the earcup is undergoing. And even then, if you had a sensor which you could directly attach to portions of the earcups it would need to be heavily insulated to keep airborne signals from getting to it and contaminating the results.
  
 All in all, I don’t think this is an easy problem to understand or solve and it seems to fall more into the realm of mechanical rather than electrical engineering. However most of the people working in audio, seem to have an EE background. I recall reading a post from a mechanical engineer in another forum who was quite caustic about theories put forward by audiophiles and EE types about mechanical type issues in audio. He was saying that they had come up with their own version of science unmoored from the real thing. In my opinion, much the same could be said about the psychoacoustic discussions on these forums.


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

Such is the lot of the enthusiast...but this directed play can still be a whole lot of fun. Plenty of learning to do for all.


----------



## zolkis

hutnicks said:


> Not completely convinced that the measurement junkies have it right at the best of times.
> 
> Using materials to damp out mechanical vibrations would tell me that the logical way to proceed would be to measure the phone to see _where_ it is vibrating and at what frequencies. That means the outside, the headband, etc. Simply stuffing materials in and on a phone and measuring the resultant change in sound sig  strikes me more and more as a crude shotgun type approach.




Still better than doing the same and just listening without measuring. Measurements do help guiding or at least sanity-checking the process. Of course you have to know the given application, that goes without saying. For instance the TH900 seems to be a type of Onken loading and it's more likely to be fixed by port tuning than controlling resonances, but the latter may play a role as well. If big enough to show up in measurements, certainly needs to be handled. The Lawton mods do result in measurement changes, as do any mods tgat put whatever small piece of material in the way of sound waves. Consistent correlation between measurements and listening is where the art begins. If enthusiasts do nothing else than noticing issues and show some results, it's good enough contribution. Perhaps the pros will pay more attention next time.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> All in all, I don’t think this is an easy problem to understand or solve and it seems to fall more into the realm of mechanical rather than electrical engineering. However most of the people working in audio, seem to have an EE background. I recall reading a post from a mechanical engineer in another forum who was quite caustic about theories put forward by audiophiles and EE types about mechanical type issues in audio. He was saying that they had come up with their own version of science unmoored from the real thing. In my opinion, much the same could be said about the psychoacoustic discussions on these forums.


 
 Thisis quite a good summary IMHO. I think foremost one of the largest issues is one you addressed partially about the accuracy of measurements. When dealing with uncalibrated rigs from myriads of users the results you see fall well into the realm of Subjective observations. Just because something is measured does not by definition mean it is objective. In essence what we wind up with are "opinions" with some decent graphed interpretations. That is not necessarily a bad thing, until someone starts working with it as empirical truth.
 I have worked both ends of the gig with EE's and ME's. Some interesting conversations are to be observed when they get together to solve some inherent problem with an electro acoustic device
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The whole psycho acoustics thing as is currently understood and under review, if given the due it deserves on this and any other Headphone forum would shock most. There is a large movement studying concert halls and making recommendations to revamp them worldwide. The way we hear is now better understood and in all truth headphones could not possibly capture all the input needed for our brains to trully perceive a recording.
 I would strongly urge anyone with an interest to read up on or look up the TED talk with Evelyn Glennie. She is the most successful percussionist in history, and happens to be deaf. She was one of the first people to be recruited into evaluating concert venues as her insight into hearing is tremendous.
 Another recent issue is more in regards to ancient venues a fascinating little blurb is to be found here.http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/byzantine-angel-wings/470076/
 This type of research if married into a playback device may well be a step in creating realistic soundstaging that is not just a gimmick.
  
 So yes, in short the mechanical end of the spectrum offers a lot of hope, and I am sure a lot of red herrings as well.
  
  
  


tyll hertsens said:


> Such is the lot of the enthusiast...but this directed play can still be a whole lot of fun. Plenty of learning to do for all.


 
 You have a search bot running to report whenever you're mentioned
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Great little article on the HD800S, thanks for that. It is definitely food for thought for modders and gives a hint into what you need to have in the bag to implement the elegant solution.
 Katz's Oppopotamus article was great as well.
  
 PS. If by any chance you have em around and are bored some time. Try sticking a couple of strips of Sorbothane across the rear of the cups of the Tascam TH02's. I have been working with those for a while and the results to be had out of that 20 dollar wonderphone are pretty impressive. If everyone could standardize on that and test mods out on it and publish results we would be a long way toward all getting on the same page.


----------



## richard51

if it is a purely  mechanical engineering problem only, why sorbothanizing my Sansui amplifier, with the sorb. between the 2 granite plates, or with sorbothane under my Stax energizer,  translate immediately  in a new  perception of the sound from  the mechanical vibrating  membrane of my speakers or headphone, when in my amplifier or in the energizer the sound is _only  an electrical impulse without supposedly any interaction with the mechanical aspect _of the amp. or of the energizer ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 i think it is because the problem is in the interactive frontier  between electrical and mechanical problem... a complex resonance problem not a simple one located only at the membrane and chamber-cup site...My 5 cents...My remark is more a question than an affirmation however, because i am more in the genus dumb poet than  in the species nobel science prize ...


----------



## zolkis

I tried 1/2" and 1/4" self-adhesive Sorbothane Duro 30 on my modded Fostex TH900, first too much, then removing some, in order to settle with a subjective optimum.
  
 I measured the same driver before and after. The repeatability of my rig is pretty good, even through removing and replacing the headphones. Depending where I applied the Sorb, impulse response improved or stayed, but not much change. Distortion figures improved in all cases. Frequency response has slightly changed, but it's not significant either. So as far as measurements go, it seems that Sorb tends to reduce distortions (depending on the place, it can be 2 times reduction). In the figure, green line is with no Sorb, THD=0.602%, red line is with the best Sorb configuration, THD=0.335%, both with 1/6 octave smoothing. Note that this is my modded version. The stock one measures even worse.
  

  
  
 Subjectively it sounds a tad darker but smoother, and with a more constricted/confined sound stage in the case of the TH900. The difference is quantitatively small, but quite noticeable.
  
 Sorb seems to be the same material I used in certain speakers in the end of 90's called Deflex, which looks like 30 Duro Sorb with a special ragged surface, designed to be put on the back panel of a speaker to deflect, attenuate and scatter the primary backwaves. I noticed that time that when Deflex is in the direct path of the sound waves, it tends to make things darker and muddier. However, it worked much better when I used them on vibrating panels but on the other side, i.e. not hit by sound waves. 
  
 I have found that in the case of the Fostex TH900, since the Sorb was placed on the driver's magnet, and/or driver assembly, and/or driver support plate, and/or cup - it was in the way of the sound waves and caused issues, the biggest issue being reducing sound stage. The least intrusive application (in the picture above) was 1/4" strips around the driver frame, and 4 short pieces of 1/4" on the driver support plate. However, after 8-10 hours of subjective listening, I have ended up removing all Sorb from the TH900. Also, without Sorb it works better with the original Fostex dampers (made of foam rather than felt, for obvious reasons: QC). That is darker sounding and more bassy to start with (goes flat to 20 Hz 6 dB higher than the green line), and didn't sound good with Sorb.
  
 All in all, the sorbothane mods seem to be non-intrusive, low risk and cheap mods, both in money and time, but you need to find the right place to apply it and the right amount.
 I assume Sorb would work better on open headphones when applied to the frame externally (not in the direct way of the sound waves). My Stax 007 will be the next target.
  
 Don't take the above for granted, even if I measured things - of course they have not much more authority than subjective opinions.


----------



## richard51

zolkis said:


> I tried 1/2" and 1/4" self-adhesive Sorbothane Duro 30 on my modded Fostex TH900, first too much, then removing some, in order to settle with a subjective optimum.
> 
> I measured the same driver before and after. The repeatability of my rig is pretty good, even through removing and replacing the headphones. Depending where I applied the Sorb, impulse response improved or stayed, but not much change. Distortion figures improved in all cases. Frequency response has slightly changed, but it's not significant either. So as far as measurements go, it seems that Sorb tends to reduce distortions (depending on the place, it can be 2 times reduction). In the figure, green line is with no Sorb, THD=0.602%, red line is with the best Sorb configuration, THD=0.335%, both with 1/6 octave smoothing. Note that this is my modded version. The stock one measures even worse.
> 
> ...


 

 my experience is when there is too much sorb. the soundstage is constricted with my speakers or headphone...Very interesting remarks and analysis... thanks very much ...
  
 By the way i am sure that your remark about applying the sorb. externally and not too close to the driver is right on the spot ....
  
 And i must say that with my Stax sr-5 and hybrid planar speakers, the application of the sorb. give more tonal and timbre accuracy, a better 3-d imaging,  hence certainly not a more bassy and darker headphone or speakers, hence i think that the application of sorb. is a case by case experiment with no general rule for all headphone or speakers, except not too much sorb, right duro, right thickness, and right form and right place for the sorb.  for each particular case of study 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 the Headphone is _the most difficult_ piece of gear to sorbothanize....For an amplifier with near 30 pounds like mine, the best method is the sorb. between 2 granite plates, the same with my 30 pounds woofer.... i will not repeat all i had already said here, just one thing : all sorbothanization of each piece of my gear, surge protector, dac,energizer, amplifier, woofer, speakers, each time converge towards a more better tonal timbre, and 3-d imaging, and  sorbothanizing only the  headphone was already  an extraordinary result to obtain, the most difficult to rightly implement, but the final extraordinary result i listen to now  is the cumulative  effect of  the sorbothanization of all the  gear....


----------



## edstrelow

zolkis said:


> I tried 1/2" and 1/4" self-adhesive Sorbothane Duro 30 on my modded Fostex TH900, first too much, then removing some, in order to settle with a subjective optimum.
> 
> I measured the same driver before and after. The repeatability of my rig is pretty good, even through removing and replacing the headphones. Depending where I applied the Sorb, impulse response improved or stayed, but not much change. Distortion figures improved in all cases. Frequency response has slightly changed, but it's not significant either. So as far as measurements go, it seems that Sorb tends to reduce distortions (depending on the place, it can be 2 times reduction). In the figure, green line is with no Sorb, THD=0.602%, red line is with the best Sorb configuration, THD=0.335%, both with 1/6 octave smoothing. Note that this is my modded version. The stock one measures even worse.
> 
> ...



Wow, actual frequencies response and distortion measurements even with a caveat. Not something we see too often in these forums. Very interesting indeed.


----------



## zolkis

Don't take these measurements for anything yet: I am still learning my way with Sorbothane . I think I've got the taste of it: it should indeed "calm down" the sound and make background blacker, 3D more defined, and attacks/decays cleaner. Of course it won't make the same magnitude change in each application, especially when the opportunity for improvement is masked by other, bigger problems, but indeed every equipment should deserve some time of Sorb applicability testing .


----------



## wink

I put some sorbathane in my shoes, and now when I walk around listening to my headphones - I don't rock as much.....


----------



## edstrelow

wink said:


> I put some sorbathane in my shoes, and now when I walk around listening to my headphones - I don't rock as much.....    :blink:




Glad it works for you mate. Should keep the old brain from rattling around in an empty skull.


----------



## bnsb

wink said:


> I put some sorbathane in my shoes, and now when I walk around listening to my headphones - I don't rock as much.....


 
 Wont try that, I love Rock and Roll 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Seriously one of the best use of Sorbs are as shoe inlays for rehabilitation or correction.


----------



## edstrelow

bnsb said:


> Wont try that, I love Rock and Roll    Seriously one of the best use of Sorbs are as shoe inlays for rehabilitation or correction.



While things like sorbothane footers have been sold in audio for probably a couple of decades now, if you check the Sorbothane company website you will see that there is a wide range of sorbothane products that have nothing to do with audio. Sorb or similar products get used to dampen vibrations of factory machines, jet engines and a range of biological applications such as insoles. I often wonder if the concussion problem in American football isn't partly due to the use of the wrong padding in football helmets and whether better chosen damping material might reduce these injuries.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> While things like sorbothane footers have been sold in audio for probably a couple of decades now, if you check the Sorbothane company website you will see that there is a wide range of sorbothane products that have nothing to do with audio. Sorb or similar products get used to dampen vibrations of factory machines, jet engines and a range of biological applications such as insoles. I often wonder if the concussion problem in American football isn't partly due to the use of the wrong padding in football helmets and whether better chosen damping material might reduce these injuries.


 

 I do not think Sorb would be the ideal for helmets.  It is usually the second impact (Brain hitting Skull) that causes the most damage
  
 For super damping Alpha Gel is the only way to go.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> I do not think Sorb would be the ideal for helmets.  It is usually the second impact (Brain hitting Skull) that causes the most damage
> 
> For super damping Alpha Gel is the only way to go.




 That's impressive. Maybe we need to look into this material for headphones. I was aware that there are other materials out there but haven't seen any claims yet for audio usage other than dynamat which is sold for soundproofing but gets some use as a damping material in headphones too. It could be that very soft (low duro) sorbothane could do what is shown in the video too.  Sorb is used in some helmets but I  don't know if the NFL is seriously working on the most effective shock absorbing/damping material.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> That's impressive. Maybe we need to look into this material for headphones. I was aware that there are other materials out there but haven't seen any claims yet for audio usage other than dynamat which is sold for soundproofing but gets some use as a damping material in headphones too. It could be that very soft (low duro) sorbothane could do what is shown in the video too.  Sorb is used in some helmets but I  don't know if the NFL is seriously working on the most effective shock absorbing/damping material.


 

 The price of Alpha Gel makes sorbo look pedestrian by comparison. 1.5cm cubes are about 2.50 euro each. Another alternative are moon gel pads. These are the silicone compound that musicians use to damp drum kits. For those there is an economical alternative. Those window stickers you buy for your kids are actually the same compound. It's good stuff but not as strong as sorb in damping vibration. It is a fine tuning material.


----------



## richard51

hutnicks said:


> The price of Alpha Gel makes sorbo look pedestrian by comparison. 1.5cm cubes are about 2.50 euro each. Another alternative are moon gel pads. These are the silicone compound that musicians use to damp drum kits. For those there is an economical alternative. Those window stickers you buy for your kids are actually the same compound. It's good stuff but not as strong as sorb in damping vibration. It is a fine tuning material.



 


Have you compare alpha gel to sorb. for damping audio gear?


----------



## Hutnicks

richard51 said:


> hutnicks said:
> 
> 
> > The price of Alpha Gel makes sorbo look pedestrian by comparison. 1.5cm cubes are about 2.50 euro each. Another alternative are moon gel pads. These are the silicone compound that musicians use to damp drum kits. For those there is an economical alternative. Those window stickers you buy for your kids are actually the same compound. It's good stuff but not as strong as sorb in damping vibration. It is a fine tuning material.
> ...


 

 No I have not. Cannot find a decent source and as mentioned it is pricey stuff. What I do glean from their info is it works best between two solids. It is not elastic and does not return to shape naturally so just using it as a single sided damping material may well lead to a constant change in the sound sig. They describe it as more of a liquid by nature than solid material so it needs to be well supported.


----------



## richard51

hutnicks said:


> No I have not. Cannot find a decent source and as mentioned it is pricey stuff. What I do glean from their info is it works best between two solids. It is not elastic and does not return to shape naturally so just using it as a single sided damping material may well lead to a constant change in the sound sig. They describe it as more of a liquid by nature than solid material so it needs to be well supported.



 



I have observed that sorbothane make better damping if place under stress 50 to 75 % for example between two granite plate compressing it under my amplifier..... I had put 2 bricks on the granite plate on the dac with sorb. under it because the load was too light ... i had bricks on the power strip and energizer to compress it also ... The results are very audible...The great discovery for me what it is necessary to apply damping method with sorbothane to ALL THE GEAR....not only headphone....


----------



## bnsb

The weight of the amp itself should compress the sorb 50% or more unless you have chosen hard option of 70. Why would you need still more weight?
  
 Sorb hemis are designed for optimum compression as they are stuck wide cut diameter up. 
  
 I am not trying to argue with you, but to get more relevant logic/information.


----------



## richard51

You are right, this 50 % rule is good start, if the amplifier is compressed adequately it is not necessary to put some supplementary load....My amp compressed adequately the sorb. I had put it between 2 granite plate under my amplifier because the result are better : the amplifier is more stable on his feet, and the load is adequately homogeneously compressed, i had try 30 duro but it was not sufficient and it was too much compressed, and the inside load of the parts of my amplifier is not equally distributed, the transformer is very heavy on one side, hence i put 70 duro little pad on one side and 50 duro pieces on the others side under the amp between this 2 granite plate... Same with 50 duro piece with my sub woofer 

For the energizer, it is too light load, the result without some compression with some bricks under it was more satisfying, the gear floated under the 30 duro piece hence with some load the results was better and very audible for me....Same reasonning with my very light power strip..... Idem for the very light bushmaster dac.... The compression of the sorbothane give the better result for me....


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> hutnicks said:
> 
> 
> > No I have not. Cannot find a decent source and as mentioned it is pricey stuff. What I do glean from their info is it works best between two solids. It is not elastic and does not return to shape naturally so just using it as a single sided damping material may well lead to a constant change in the sound sig. They describe it as more of a liquid by nature than solid material so it needs to be well supported.
> ...




I can't quite tell what was done here. It seems that several things could be happening. If the bricks are on top of the equipment this will not only compress the sorbothane but will also add mass to the item of equipment. This is a trick which has been reported for years to improve sound quality, probably for much the same reason as sorbothane works, the brick dissipates mechanical energy through its mass. 

You could test the crompression hypothesis by separately compressing the sandwich of plates and sorbothane with someting like C-clamps.

I have also been trying sorb on power strips and am pretty sure that I am hearing an effect here. I can't imagine what is going on here other than that the 60 cycle power is causing some mechanical hum which causes microphonics in the cables. This gets damped by the sorb. I would not be surprised if no-one believes me. I find it hard to believe myself.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I can't quite tell what was done here. It seems that several things could be happening. If the bricks are on top of the equipment this will not only compress the sorbothane but will also add mass to the item of equipment. This is a trick which has been reported for years to improve sound quality, probably for much the same reason as sorbothane works, the brick dissipates mechanical energy through its mass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 



I think that a better explanation is that the sorbothane must be compressed optimally for not only isolating but damping effectively the vibration, certainly the brick's mass isolate from the vibration and absorb it but not like the sorb and the change in the sound was for the better all across the frequencies if the sorb. is optimally applied, hence I dont think that putting brick on gear "per se" damp effectively for the better...But it is only my opinion,neither do i really understand the phenomenon...For me i think that the sorb act like a filter that act on some resulting resonance effect...properly sorbothanized but only properly applied, the filtering effect go in the same direction on all frequencies :filtering some noise and reveal a better tonal and a better rendering of the musical timbre ... But it is only my uninformed explanation... thanks God and your mother to your existence edstrelow , i dont have acute upgraditis now anymore....

Just an exemple of one of my simple experiment i add only one brick on top of my subwoofer, and the effect was no short of extraordinary : middle frequencies and bass more define and better imaging, and all that with only one brick on top of my sub ... it is clear for me that before that the sorb under it was not optimally compressed and then the filtering effect of the damping sorb was less than optimal, it was good but not optimally good....The load of one brick compress it more and WOW ! ... 

In the beginning i naively think that putting sorb. under gear will made the difference...it is not so simple but the basic rule was simple : choosing the right duro is the first part of the job, the second part is compressing it optimally because compressed sorb. react more sensibely to the resonance vibration and absorb and dissipate it better.......


----------



## edstrelow

Here I have made a direct comparison of the benefit of using smaller vs larger  pieces of sorbothane on a Stax SRXIII pro. I keep the amount of sorbothane the same in each set-ip.  Many of us have been using smaller vs large pieces for some time, but I wanted to do a reasonably precise and direct comparison with a set-up where it is easy to go from one set-up to the other.  The original suggestion about using smaller pieces I believe came from some advertising material from a sorbothane seller and many of us seem to think that its is a good idea.
  
 DETACHABLE COVERS
  
 The SRXIII phones have a detachable metal front cover which can be quickly removed by popping off the headband, unscrewing the two screws on the side and pulling off the cover.  Since I had a extra pair of covers from an old broken low bias set, I was able to compare the effect of cutting a given size of sorbothane into smaller pieces, simply by changing the covers.  This process takes less than 2 minutes.
  
 SIZES OF SORBOTHANE AND LOCATION
  
 I cut 8 strips of  1/10 inch thick, 40 duro sorb from a 3 inch sheet.  each strip is about 3/8 inch wide, all that could be placed on the cover.
 On one set of covers I put two 3 inch strips on the top and bottom of each cover.  On the other set of covers I cut the 3 inch strips into 4 equal sized pieces. Thus each earcup had either 2  three inch strips or 8 smaller pieces which would total 6 inches in length.
  
  
 LISTENING RESULTS
  
 I have been listening to these for  3 days now, going back and forth between the two sets of covers, and the results are quite striking.
 The sound using the smaller pieces of sorb is much better on these phones. A lot of scratchy high frequency sound is gone. The bass is firmer, the individual instruments stand out more clearly and there are better dynamics.
  
 There is no other sorbothane on the earcups other than what I describe although I did leave 4 small pieces on the inside of a section of the headband as shown in the second picture.  This headband damping is surprisingly effective on its own and I owe richard51 credit for pointing this out on the SR5, which has a similar headband to the SRXIII. I would otherwise not have expected any benefits of placing sorbothane  here on this type of headband but I was wrong. I had originally started using sorbothane on the SR007A headband but its construction is very different from the SRXIII and SR5 because the SR007 earcups screw directly into its earcups. The other phones are far less directly fastened to their earcups.    Of course as best I can tell Sennheiser puts all its damping materials in the headband of the HD800  so maybe they know something about this. I suspect they would do the same with their new super electrostatic.
  
 To put this in perspective, the SRXIII pro,  as it is tricked out here with the smaller pieces, is a very listenable phone and I spent quite  a long time just enjoying it.  Using the covers with the longer strips gave some benefit, compared to no sorbothane on the covers, but did not really give you anything you would want to spend a lot of time with.
  
 I have reported on the SRXIII in the early pages of this thread and I am not saying that the current set-up is my last word on these phones. Once I have done  a few more comparisons I will probably review the lessons learned and try to come up with the best damping I can find for these phones.


----------



## richard51

i cannot wait in the few months to come to buy a srx MKIII  and try that for myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.... thanks Ed
  
 P.S. a question : some people has described the srx more studio. cans , more resolving headphone than the musical SR-5, Is the sorbothane mod. elevated them on a more musical level ? you seems to enjoy them a lot...


----------



## richard51

I have said many times here that for optimal results the sorbothane must be compressed when possible, I put this morning another load on top of my subwoofer, how did i knew that it is necessary? I only try that without hoping much because the last time  i add a load on top of it the result  was very good already, but now with 2 bricks not only one,  it seems the sorbothane was finally  compressed optimally, because The mid frequencies of my speakers liberate themself, the bass was no more interfering with them and all the imaging was incredible... I know now why those who owns the Monsoon MM 2000 so to speak, kill themself, if they cannot repair or replace it...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am very happy....thanks  for this thread, i will no more name his initiator because it will be too much praise for his humility , but i am very happy, more than ever, music give me like all of you the joy i crave in for......
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 P.S. Before reading this thread some 6 months ago , i was unhappy with all my buying... Something was always wrong or not completely satisfying, and all people's  post i read about  think of this  new headphone or of that one, or of this new amplifier or of that other one, and they say, mids are this way better , the bass, this way better , the highs this way better , and reading them with my unsatisfaction  i was hoping for the better and  try buying some upgrade with no complete satisfaction in the end... In the end  i was dreaming to buy a new high end amp more than one thousand dollars, and for sure some new dac in the same range, and also for sure some newer headphone,between one thousands  and 4 thousands dollars for the headphone only for sure ...OUFF
  
 But when i start reading Edstrelow i decide to try with his  sorb. mod. and all things suddenly fall into place gradually, so much better than i think..  after experimenting with my  love-and-hate he-400 hifiman i decided why not to try an old Stax model, like  old srx MKIII of edstrelow,  i decide to buy the SR-5 who was the better in the world  in 1975 with one of  the better amplifier in the world in 1975,(Sansui AU-7700) and i bought all  that for less  than 400 + refurbishing of the amp included ...Guess what,  after many experimentation with the sorbothane and the right application of it on the 6 element part composing my complete system , it will be very difficult for me now after the SR-5  to spend more because *when you already have a natural and musical rendering of the timbre and tonality  and  clear depth imaging it is end of the game*, some more  superior gain would be certainly possible but the  result will be minimalistic for the  higher, very higher price you must pay for, this is the famous law of diminishing return...I had  said all that for you all if, like me, you dont have plenty of money to spend and if you dream  desesperately of audiophile gear.... yes it is possible at low cost...
  
 Dont spend your money too swiftly for newer gear, wait,  read, inform youself and you will experience that it is possible to be happy with very few dollars  system adequately implemented...  Me, i am no more jealous of 20,000 thousands dollars system i see here and there, yes they are better to begin with, but compare to what i have now, i know for sure they will be put to shame by my gear, rightly sorbothanized, that cost me  a ridiculous final price,( i will call my gear :high level audio for the poor ) after all you cannot have better than an already natural, musical, rendering of the instrument and vocal timbre, you may only have perhaps better resolving or larger soundstaging headphone, but often at the price of less musicality, Stax try that after the SR-5, they call them lambdas and other names  ....
  
 Now you understand why  i praise so much this thread's existence... thanks to you all for your patience with my bad english writings...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i cannot wait in the few months to come to buy a srx MKIII  and try that for myself  .... thanks Ed
> 
> P.S. a question : some people has described the srx more studio. cans , more resolving headphone than the musical SR-5, Is the sorbothane mod. elevated them on a more musical level ? you seems to enjoy them a lot...




These were my first Stax phones although I sold them to friend when I left New Zealand for the US many years ago. Since then I have bought 2 more low bias models and 1 high bias. Both sound similar but the high bias has somewhat more power and dynamics.

These phones were reported to have a very smooth frequency response and were I believe at one time popular for use as monitors. Their mian weakness is a lack of deep bass.

However sorbothane damping really brings their performance up, reduces harshness improves dynamics, tonal accuracy etc. All the things you would now be aware of from playing with sorbothane yourself.

Just today I tried my low bias model with sorbothane only on the headband as you reported for the SR5 and that alone gives the phone a significant improvement. (The picture shows the damping on the headband and some sorb on the earcups of the high bias phones although I did not do this on the low bias phones)


----------



## richard51

Experimenting with the square logo plate,at the basis of the headband with sorb., i  have definitevely observed a relation between the thickness and duro and some blurred medium frequencies emphasis ... I had tried finally with success(better imaging, hence better highs and bass without blurring mids emphasis) to put in place  the sorbothane with some  2 cheap paper clip on each cups  : 2 square pieces of sorb. duro 50 1/4 inches* optimally compressed* in place with a bigger paper clip in the first half of the  logo-space, and 1 thinner rectangular sorbothane band 1/8 inches duro 40 in the other half with a smaller paper clip, i must put one plastic  strip band,between the clip and the sorb. on the headband plate for better grip and homogeneous pressure under it,only with the one piece 1/8 rectangular piece of sorb, a plastic strip with the 2 pieces 1/4 duro were not necessary for the stability of the grip  ...
  
 i think that the  complementary difference in duro and thickness of this 3 pieces of sorb. compressed on each side of the headband made a difference... Like  together making a filtering effect, and giving more clarity and keeping the body without compressing or  blurring  all in the mids,  as always when there is for example to much, or too thick sorb pieces .... I will wait for other with SR-5 to experiment with this idea...
  
 Now all is stable and the sound is to my ears very good with an interesting depth imaging....I think that the resonance filtering effect of the sorbothane added on the headband  between each cup already sorbothanized under the earpads is evident and i love my SR-5 ... Good music to all of you


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Experimenting with the square logo plate,at the basis of the headband with sorb., i  have definitevely observed a relation between the thickness and duro and some blurred medium frequencies emphasis ... I had tried finally with success(better imaging, hence better highs and bass without blurring mids emphasis) to put in place  the sorbothane with some  2 cheap paper clip on each cups  : 2 square pieces of sorb. duro 50 1/4 inches* optimally compressed* in place with a bigger paper clip in the first half of the  logo-space, and 1 thinner rectangular sorbothane band 1/8 inches duro 40 in the other half with a smaller paper clip, i must put one plastic  strip band,between the clip and the sorb. on the headband plate for better grip and homogeneous pressure under it,only with the one piece 1/8 rectangular piece of sorb, a plastic strip with the 2 pieces 1/4 duro were not necessary for the stability of the grip  ...
> 
> i think that the  complementary difference in duro and thickness of this 3 pieces of sorb. compressed on each side of the headband made a difference... Like  together making a filtering effect, and giving more clarity and keeping the body without compressing or  blurring  all in the mids,  as always when there is for example to much, or too thick sorb pieces .... I will wait for other with SR-5 to experiment with this idea...
> 
> Now all is stable and the sound is to my ears very good with an interesting depth imaging....I think that the resonance filtering effect of the sorbothane added on the headband  between each cup already sorbothanized under the earpads is evident and i love my SR-5 ... Good music to all of you


 

 Yes it is amazing that just damping the headband ​of the SR5 should make such an audible difference.  While I knew that the band of the SR007 needed damping, I discounted the other designs because I felt that they were too loosely linked to the earcups to pass much vibration.   Evidently I was wrong on that issue, since  not only is headband damping an issue with the SR007 and the SR5 but also the SRXIII (which has a very similar headband to the SR5) and most importantly the Lambda. I say the latter because the Lambda is still a current design and, based on the number of Lambda models, it has to be the most common Stax phone out there.  Also as best I can tell, it also employs basically the same headband system for all its models.
  
 Exactly what compression of sorbothane does is an issue remaining to be better understood.  It seems to me that it improves the contact of the sorb with the surface of what it is in contact with, thus probably allowing more vibrational energy to leave the surface to be damped by the sorb.  However it also puts mechanical force on the sorb, possibly changing its damping characteristics.  Of course both factors could be at work.  It would be nice to be able to vary them separately, but I am not sure how that could be done.
  
 As regards ways of clamping and compressing sorbothane, here are some of the things I have tried.
  
 First I made my own clamp from two pieces of stiff plastic and held together with a nut and bolt. The big advantage of the bolt and nut is that you can tighten and loosen the clamp, thus adjusting the pressure. You can see this on my SR007:
  

  

  
  
 However, I have also tried two commercially available clamps:
 :
  
 I have not yet found an application for the black c-clamp, but I have used the smaller one on my SR007 but found the plastic clamp seen above to be more stable.


----------



## richard51

interesting! i will wait for your impression with clamping sorb. thanks Ed


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Exactly what compression of sorbothane does is an issue remaining to be better understood.  It seems to me that it improves the contact of the sorb with the surface of what it is in contact with, thus probably allowing more vibrational energy to leave the surface to be damped by the sorb.  However it also puts mechanical force on the sorb, possibly changing its damping characteristics.  Of course both factors could be at work.  It would be nice to be able to vary them separately, but I am not sure how that could be done.


 
 very good explanation, i think you are right , thanks Ed...
  
 I think that the compression of the sorb, homogeneously, is very important with the glue because it improve the fusion with the surface yes...But  in my headband the compression of the duro 50 1/4 inches 2 pieces with this paper clip is not homogeneous and the result is great, in the beginning i have tried with a  thin plastic plate on the sorb.precisely to have an homogeneous pression, but the sound was less clear, and the paper clip was not stable in the gripping, hence i try without the thin plastic plate, hence non homogeneously compressing the sorb. (because the paper clip press  on a line not equally on all the surface)and the result was better...Only the thinner   rectangular piece 1/8 inches duro 40 is homogeneously compressed by the small paper clip and a thin plastic plate  on the sorb.now ... Perhaps i will try a more homogeneous clamping process in the future for the 1/4 inches pieces , but for now i must admit that it is very good like it is with these 2 paper clips clamp on each cup....  I think that perhaps with compression in general a firm adherence to the surface is necessary, but a less linear absorption of the vibration is better, if the thickness of the sorb. piece permit it. My sorb.1/4 inches  under the  bigger paper clip is pressed  non homogeneously, in a manner that make  it slightly curved...
  
 I am also convinced like you  that a tigh but not too tight  compression change the damping characteristics for the better... I am also almost certain that applying 2 different  thickness (1/4 and 1/8 inches) and  2 different duro simultaneously   on this headband has  added something better for me in terms of  a complementary filtering  of vibrations and resonance...I dont know yet which one  play the decisive effect, the 2 different duro or the 2 different thickness of the pieces, or perhaps all that together...But my sound is greatly improving in separation and  clarity with these difference in sorbothane application...
  
 It is very difficult for me now  to fault the SR-5 headphone on depth 3-d  imaging and particularly on the realistic natural organical rendering of the voice and musical timbre...Certainly other headphone are better, with a greater soundstage for  example, and with more  better imaging,  and certainly only way  more expansive one, but will they have this musicality and naturalness of timbre ?
  
 Upgraditis frighten me now, and excite me less ... How to discover something better? and at which price? sorbothane. is a cure for many headphone certainly, but this sorb. mod. resurrect my old SR-5 princess and transform it in a queen, righter of the rights in his own sound kingdom...


----------



## edstrelow

Added another piece to the puzzle about  the best size of sorbothane  to apply to a headphone for enhancing its sound.
 
Using my trusty Stax SRXIII Pro  with an set extra earcup metal covers I am able to make comparisons of different sorbothane treatments by the simple process of using the different treatments on different covers and then swapping one cover for. another. As I noted before it takes less than 2 minutes to swap the covers over.
 
Previously I noted that the applying two  3 inch strips around the covers was not as effective as using the same amount of sorbothane with each strip cut into 4 equal segments.  Specifically the high frequencies were smoother, there was better dynamics, individual instruments stood out more and the bass was more pronounced.  But was this size the best or would even smaller pieces enhance the sound more? 
 
So I took another set of strips, cut them into 8 equal parts and compared this to the strips cut into 4 pieces.  Because there are two strips on each earcup that translates to 8 and 16 pieces of sorb on each earcup. Remember the amount of sorb is still the same as on the original set-up of two 3-inch strips on each earcup..
 
The results were  mixed inasmuch as the treble seemed even smoother and the dynamics and separation of instruments were also better.  However the benefits were  lost in the lower frequencies as were the lower frequencies themselves.  Because these phones are already somewhat bass-shy  the overall effect was not too good.   I would definitely stick with  the 8 piece set-up for the SRXIII.
 
Of course you might think differently with other phones.   For example my Stax Sigmas are somewhat boomy in the bass, and lacking in treble.  They might very well benefit from smaller size pieces.
 
Another possibility is to use a range of sizes, some small pieces to tweak the treble but also some larger pieces so as not to lose bass.
 
I recognize that these results may only apply to one set of phones the SRXIII because the different construction of other phones could mean that they interact with damping materials in a different manner.   So one needs replication of these results with other phones.
 
However using the SRX III was the best I could come up with to allow easy and quick comparisons. The only two identical phones I have are the tiny SR003's which are too small to really play with.   I intend to continue with these studies with the SRXIII pro to compare different stiffnesses (duro) of sorb, different thicknesses of sorb and different adhesives to attach them with.  The photo below shows the  phones and the two sets of covers.
 


BTW is anybody else having trouble loading pictures? Could be the change to Windows 10 on my laptop.​


----------



## richard51

i had the same experience with the he 400, cutting the pieces  was better for me than not cutting them, up to a point for sure, because like you i observed that big pieces blurred the bass and mids and more pieces was better clarity and imaging...I think that no headphone are the same but this observation  is a general rule i think...


----------



## nick n

NAD 18 ortho mod
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24450#post_12451004
  
  
 +Direct A/B with identical TRIO / KENWOOD orthos and brief description of easily discernible & obvious sonic results.
  
 "So back to sorbothane..."
http://www.head-fi.org/t/111193/orthodynamic-roundup/24465#post_12457877


----------



## edstrelow

I am getting some great results applying 70 duro sorbothane across the underside of the plastic headband of both Stax Lambdas and Sigmas. I am using small pieces, no dimension greater than 3/4 inch. 

While I generally recommend applying sorb to the inside of the earcups of these phones, damping these headbands gives significant benefits in clarity and width of soundfield. I was surprised that sorb would be of any use on these headbands since they are fairly loosely attached to the earcups, unlike the SR007 where the metal headband is tightly screwed to the earcups and definitely does benefit from such damping. 

I owe it to richard51 for reporting that these other types of bands also benefit from sorb, he noticed this first with the SR5.

For anyone who thinks this is impossible, You should realize that the Sennheisser HD800, according to their own ads is using plastic damping material,solely in the headband. I suspect that this contributes significantly to this phones reputation for a wide soundstage and clarity of sound. I also suspect that Senn is also using this approach in its new $K50 superphone.

I have tried simply damping the band on a set of SRXIII pros and that alone gave an obvious. Improvement.

 For a long time I have been stumped trying to.locate spots to apply sorb to either Lambdas or Sigmas although there is space inside the earcups but some people are reluctant to open them up.

Applying sorb to the underside of the headband is simple and the sorb is barely visible. You can buy a 3 inch square piece of 1/10 inch thick, 70 duro self-stick sorb for about $6.00 on ebay. If you don't like it you just pull the stuff off. The sorb sounds best after the adhesive bond sets, so allow at least several hours before you decide about its effectiveness.

I have recently started experimenting with the harder 70 duro sorb after talking to the technical rep at Sorbothane. He indicated that it might be better in this application because it is heavier and denser than the softer 30-40 I had been using. He may be right and I will be reporting a direct comparison in a few days.

The photo shows what I am doing with the headband.


----------



## richard51

wow thanks Ed , very interesting experiment with the 70 duro.... If i understand you the result seems to are on par with sorbothanizing only inside the cups? I have not try to sorbothanized only on the headband  with my SR-5.... When possible for me because i must buy a new cable before, i will try my stax  lambda nova basic....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 There will be no excuse now for anybody for not trying this sorb. mod, simpler than that is impossible....


----------



## edstrelow

Damping applied to the headband is especially useful with the Stax Sigma because there is so little room in the earcup to place damping material. I was pleasantly surprised that damping the headband reduced the boominess that these phones tend to have. 

The Sigma is virtually unique among headphones because its drivers do not face into the ear canal but rather face forward and back. This gives their sound a notable out-of-the-head forward projection. With the damped band, I get an uncanny sense that the phones aren't there, that there is just sound out there bringing me music.

I am jumping the gun on the use of the stiffer 70 duro sorb. I am still making comparisons of 40 and 70 duro with the SRXIII, but my initial reactions were so good that I started buying 70 duro.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Damping applied to the headband is especially useful with the Stax Sigma because there is so little room in the earcup to place damping material. I was pleasantly surprised that damping the headband reduced the boominess that these phones tend to have.
> 
> The Sigma is virtually unique among headphones because its drivers do not face into the ear canal but rather face forward and back. This gives their sound a notable out-of-the-head forward projection. With the damped band, I get an uncanny sense that the phones aren't there, that there is just sound out there bringing me music.
> 
> I am jumping the gun on the use of the stiffer 70 duro sorb. I am still making comparisons of 40 and 70 duro with the SRXIII, but my initial reactions were so good that I started buying 70 duro.


 

 what thickness do you recommend with the 70 duro ? 1/4 inches   1/8 inches ect. ?


----------



## edstrelow

Quote: 





richard51 said:


> what thickness do you recommend with the 70 duro ? 1/4 inches   1/8 inches ect. ?


 
 I haven't compared thicknesses yet.  I have been using 70 duro  1/10 inch just because I was able to get a range of 1/10 inch thick small sheets.   Here is an old Stax poster.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I haven't compared thicknesses yet.  I have been using 70 duro  1/10 inch just because I was able to get a range of 1/10 inch thick small sheets.


 

 ok thanks ed i will go with that and try ...
  
 I have order 1/8 inches duro 70 for my Stax lambda and perhaps my Sr-5


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I haven't compared thicknesses yet.  I have been using 70 duro  1/10 inch just because I was able to get a range of 1/10 inch thick small sheets.   Here is an old Stax poster.


 

 i am curious to know to what this stax sigma pro sound  compared with in the Stax realm ?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i am curious to know to what this stax sigma pro sound  compared with in the Stax realm ?


 
 The Sigma is unlike any other headphone. The closest to it is the AKG 1000 which is a dynamic phone but which  allows the driver to be placed in a similar location.  Here are  a couple of threads that I started on the Sigmas:
  
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/464873/stax-sigmas-compared-low-bias-sigma-pro-and-sigma-404
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/175556/the-sigma-404-a-new-stax-headphone
  
 They preceded the Lambda series which uses a similar sized driver to the Sigma.  The are very hard to get since Stax stopped making them about 30 years ago.   Occasionally you can find an older low bias model for $500 and up.  The high bias models are selling about $1,500.  I have turned down 2 unsollicited offers on my Sigma/404 ( a Sigma modified to use the Lambda 404 driver and cable) , the last of these offers  was $1,950.00.


----------



## scotsstax

hi there edstrelow, i tried the mod using blu tack, and i can tell you this one word AMAZING!! clarity detail, no mid muddiness, spatial detail is superb!! thank you so much, you saved me several grand, and thats no joke!! i have very acute hearing, anyone  doubting this sorb mod , or blu tack, try it!! be carefull, as stax drivers are fragile 1 hour then sit back and be amazed!!


----------



## edstrelow

scotsstax said:


> hi there edstrelow, i tried the mod using blu tack, and i can tell you this one word AMAZING!! clarity detail, no mid muddiness, spatial detail is superb!! thank you so much, you saved me several grand, and thats no joke!! i have very acute hearing, anyone  doubting this sorb mod , or blu tack, try it!! be carefull, as stax drivers are fragile 1 hour then sit back and be amazed!!



Sounds very interesting. As I understand it you tried using blutak rather than sorbothane as damping material and find it works well. Can we get some more information, eg. which Stax phones and where did you apply the blutak?

I have only recently started comparing different densities of sorbothane. Looks like blutak needs to be added to the list of damping materials. While I listed "other materials" on the title of this thread yours appears to be the first report of such an other material.


----------



## richard51

scotsstax said:


> you saved me several grand, and thats no joke!! i have very acute hearing, anyone  doubting this sorb mod , or blu tack, try it!! be carefull, as stax drivers are fragile 1 hour then sit back and be amazed!!


 
 this is why i always thanks edStrelow here....saving money is one important thing, yes, improving life of someone at no cost is another more important thing... i dont understand that only few people here had try this marvellous mod.... People like to spend money without thinking i guess...It is more easy that way....But more rewarding the other way


----------



## edstrelow

I am definitely going to be using 70 duro sorbothane from now on instead of the softer 30-40 duro I have used to date.  I finished several days of listening to the Stax STXII pro alternating between the metal cover damped with 40 duro pieces or 70 duro and the 70 was clearly better.   As soon as I tried them out the soundstage was wider, the bass cleaner and the separation of instruments as well as dynamics even more pronounced.  Several people here had kind of figured out that smaller pieces were more effective than large, but the use of denser sorb is a new finding.
  
 We have discussed the issue of the duro of sorb  a bit in this forum and I assumed that the softer lower duro material would absorb vibrations better than harder material.  However some months back I spoke with a technical rep for Sorbothane who told me that the higher duro might be better because it was heavier and more dense. It seems he was right.
  
 I have a few more varieties to listen to and it now appear blutak needs to be considered too.  I should be able to stick pieces of it on the SRXIII just like sorbothane..
  
 .
  
 Quote:


richard51 said:


> this is why i always thanks edStrelow here....saving money is one important thing, yes, improving life of someone at no cost is another more important thing... i dont understand that only few people here had try this marvellous mod.... People like to spend money without thinking i guess...It is more easy that way....But more rewarding the other way


 
  
 I agree with this comment and that of Sc0ttstax, above that we are looking at improvements in sound of the sort that audiophiles will pay thousands for. As much as anything done with the various Stax and ortho phones discussed here I recall  some months  how placing 2 little bits of sorb on an otherwise crappy set of earbuds suddenly brought them into the high-fi category.  This makes me hope that we can yet do even better when starting with higher quality phones.  II expect that after I get more information from these comparison studies that I will go back to my various Stax phones and apply what has been learned.
  
 And the improvements we are seeing cannot be obtained just by throwing money at the rest of the system since damping distortion will remain in the phones unless treated somehow.
  
 It seems as if few in this forum are ready to look into this problem.  The need to damp mechanical vibrations in audio is not discussed very much.  There is some discussion of speakers, and sorb has been sold as footer for many years for speakers and equipment, but I have never had the kind of success with footers that I am getting with thin  pieces of sorb attached to the body of equipment.  Similarly I read years ago that Naim was using sorb inside its equipment and one of the Schitt engineers personally told me that they also used it, although I didn't get the details of what equipment.  But the need to damp headphones seems to have been mostly missed.
  
 Even now when we know that Sennheiser is damping the HD800 and that Grado has a new line of damped phones, the message is not getting out.
  
 There is a fanboy, flavor-of-the-month mentality in many of the forums, people are convinced that their preferred phone is the best and the posts just feed on each other. They don't follow the field very broadly.  Stax people seem convinced that quality has all to do with the driver and little else.  And having spent hundreds, if not thousands for a phone people don't want to hear that it still  has design issues.
  
 However as the manufacturers start competing in this area I expect that the importance of this aspect of design will come to the fore and then buyers of current phones are going to realize that their current models are obsolete unless they can figure out how to damp them.


----------



## richard51

i will add to this interesting and some  profound general remarks (about duro 70... i wait for mine ) that i have apply sorbothane to all my gear with means to obtain optimal pressure (solid bricks or granite plate for weigh ) with great success, no going back....the modification of all the other pieces of gear is less spectacular than the headphone, yes, BUT after the modification of the headphone very clearly audible....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 P.S. i know for sure that Edstrelow has a point : this sorb. mod is the equivalent of thousand dollars in audiophile money...


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I*t seems as if few in this forum are ready to look into this problem*.  The need to damp mechanical vibrations in audio is not discussed very much.  There is some discussion of speakers, and sorb has been sold as footer for many years for speakers and equipment, but I have never had the kind of success with footers that I am getting with thin  pieces of sorb attached to the body of equipment.  Similarly I read years ago that Naim was using sorb inside its equipment and one of the Schitt engineers personally told me that they also used it, although I didn't get the details of what equipment.  But the need to damp headphones seems to have been mostly missed.
> 
> Even now when we know that Sennheiser is damping the HD800 and that Grado has a new line of damped phones, the message is not getting out.


 
   
You are doing a large number of forum members here a diss service by posturing like that.

  
 Read through the orthodynamic roundup thread, the Fostex T50 mod threads and particularly any of the vintage ortho threads specific to the model. Blutac has been used and discussed to death in those and elsewhere. There is a wealth of information to be had if you just look for it.


----------



## richard51

it was said to means no harm i think , only that not enough people are trying, but it is true that they are many more than before  that were trying now in these last months , thanks to you  and some others also...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 ps. By the way  i cannot thank you enough for all this connected  posts here about all that...It is very important to partake information...


----------



## richard51

I have found this about damping resonance in loudspeakers using blu-tak ....I was damping my sub-woofer  and speakers with sorb. already....I think blu-tak must be very useful in some application and sorb. in others to determine with experiment... The texture and composition of the 2 products are different to say the least but the 2 are very important damping produts ... The article is long but very useful i think 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...
  
  
  
  
The Sound of Surprise (the loudspeaker/stand interface)  
 http://www.stereophile.com/features/806/index.html


----------



## edstrelow

Duplicate post


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> You are doing a large number of forum members here a diss service by posturing like that.
> 
> Read through the orthodynamic roundup thread, the Fostex T50 mod threads and particularly any of the vintage ortho threads specific to the model. Blutac has been used and discussed to death in those and elsewhere. There is a wealth of information to be had if you just look for it. ​


 
 This forum is of course the High-end forum and as best  I can tell this  is the only thread in any forum specifically dealing with mechanical damping. I am highly interested in reports of the use of other materials such as Blutac, but the first report in this forum, or even my previous thread going back to 2013 on the SR007,  is one  a few posts above.   My response to that is to order blutac myself to see how it compares to 70 duro  sorbothane, which should be easy to do with the SRXIII set-up show above.
  
 I did a general search of all forums for work on damping more than a year ago, and in the Ortho forums only came up with the damping of drivers using backing materials. This is a different kind of damping than what we are doing here.  Evidently there are other posts related to mechanical damping  with blutak.  I am glad to know this. Your contribution is welcome.  Possibly you can link to some that you consider most important. 
  
 Years go Spritzer used blutack to plug the port of the SR007's. I guess if you use enough it will provide some damping as well, but  it was reported as such.  I tried this myself and decided  that the port should stay unplugged.
  
 I hardly think my other comments constitute posturing.  I am making no attempt to mislead anyone, I stand by what I said.   There is virtually no discussion of the problems of mechanical damping  of headphones anywhere.  I have from time to time posted some in this thread that I though were related.  Some years ago I posted about someone who was doing expensive general mods of the I think it was the Sennheiser HD800.  He was not very open since it was his business but it seemed that this mod also included another material called dynamaxt. So there is a reason, I noted "other materials" in the title of this thread.  I also note that even though Grado and Sennheiser discuss what they are doing in their advertising I have not seen this discussed in the threads devoted to their phones. I have put in comments and got little follow-up.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> _*This forum is of course the High-end forum*_ and as best  I can tell this  is the only thread in any forum specifically dealing with mechanical damping. I am highly interested in reports of the use of other materials such as Blutac, but the first report in this forum, or even my previous thread going back to 2013 on the SR007,  is one  a few posts above.   My response to that is to order blutac myself to see how it compares to 70 duro  sorbothane, which should be easy to do with the SRXIII set-up show above.
> 
> I did a general search of all forums for work on damping more than a year ago, and in the Ortho forums only came up with the damping of drivers using backing materials. This is a different kind of damping than what we are doing here.  Evidently there are other posts related to mechanical damping  with blutak.  I am glad to know this. Your contribution is welcome.  Possibly you can link to some that you consider most important.
> 
> ...


 
 That right there is part of the problem. You will never get readership and input with it stuck in there. Mere mortals avoid it the same way they run from sound science forums and for largely the same reasons. Toss it in DIY and you might get some responses.
  
 Not surprising a search on mechanical damping does not turn up much. I doubt that particular phrase ever gets used. Most likely as is the vogue everything is "mod" so headband damping would be a headband mod, does not make things easier but the vernacular is what it is. 
  
   Read more and look for the user posts with the best inputs. Wualta was an excellent contributor and what he does not know about orthos or Electrostats is probably not worth knowing. His contributions were legendary. BMF or bluemonkeyflyer has some good insights and advice as well. The T50 threads are chock full of his stuff.
  
 It's not easy to ferret out a lot of the info but on the other hand an hour of reading may well save several hours on a  mod and a lot of wasted materials or worse damaged phones.
  
 Dynamat mods always raise suspicion for me. There are much better materials listed in the forums for use in headphones. I avoid the stuff as if it has leprosy myself.
  
 You will find that Manufacturers will rarely if ever, get involved with any users messing with their products. The liability is huge and experience has proven that inevitably they find themselves in a position of justifying their designs to some unknown and usually unqualified spectre of the web attempting to make a name for themselves. There is a certain other site on the web that specializes in that modus and pretty much is marked as a biohazard by some professionals.
  
 I queried one of the European companies directly about a certain phone and a popular mod and the response I got back was. Anyone can do whatever they want with our phones as long as they don't cry for warranty or pass anything they do off as authorized by us in any way shape or form. I was told that they would never directly respond to an alteration of their products whether positive or negative, it's just not a productive use of their time.
  
 The final thing to consider and it goes to my initial point up above, is that at this end of the spectrum folks are more likely to pee away 2 grand on some custom cable offering astrologically aligned electrons and musical quantum elves than they are to doing an actual mod on their own equipment. Like it or not that end of the audio industry exists on consumerism and does everything in its power to sell a solution that could in most cases be had for a few cents and some common sense. DIY'ers in Mesoshperic Fi are about as prolific as Hebrew teachers in IS.


----------



## waynes world

hutnicks said:


> Dynamat mods always raise suspicion for me. There are much better materials listed in the forums for use in headphones.* I avoid the stuff as if it has leprosy myself.*


 
  
 I can't help it... LOL!


----------



## Hutnicks

waynes world said:


> I can't help it... LOL!


 

 There is a support group out there for ya! I think it's just down the road from you too. Problem is entry will cost you those shiny new batwing headphones


----------



## waynes world

hutnicks said:


> There is a support group out there for ya! I think it's just down the road from you too. *Problem is entry will cost you those shiny new batwing headphones*


 
  
 And let him fill them up with leprosy dynamat? Not a chance! But he does have me thinking of trying out some sorb on them. He is evil lol!


----------



## richard51

For blu-tack i will wait for edstrelow experiment comparison with duro 70 sorbothane... i must say i am no sure that this will be interesting, if i understand correctly what i have read, blu-tack harden with time, hence it damp the vibration but do not react instanteneously with dissipating energy and returning to his original state like sorb. because blu-tack is harder with time...It is not only necessary to absorb vibration but necessary to absorb it with fineness, with his different duro, sorbothane act like a filter in absorbing vibration and resonance...
  
  
 « Sorbothane is a proprietary, visco-elastic polymer. Sorbothane® is a thermoset, polyether-based, polyurethane material. In addition to being visco-elastic, Sorbothane® combines shock absorption, good memory, vibration isolation and vibration damping characteristics. While many materials exhibit one of these characteristics, Sorbothane® combines all of them in a stable material with a long fatigue life. Sorbothane® has a low creep rate compared to other polymers (rubber, neoprene, silicone, etc.)
 Sorbothane® has a superior damping coefficient, over a very wide temperature range, compared to any other polymer. Sorbothane’s operating temperature range is -20° to +160° Fahrenheit (-29° to 72° Celsius). Unlike fluid-based shock absorbers or foam products, Sorbothane® absorbs shocks efficiently for millions of cycles. Sorbothane® eliminates the need for metal springs to return the system to its equilibrium position after absorbing a shock. »


----------



## Hutnicks

waynes world said:


> And let him fill them up with leprosy dynamat? Not a chance! But he does have me thinking of trying out some sorb on them. He is evil lol!


 

 It'll be the angel muff first.


----------



## richard51

hutnicks said:


> The final thing to consider and it goes to my initial point up above, is that at this end of the spectrum folks are more likely to pee away 2 grand on some custom cable offering astrologically aligned electrons and musical quantum elves than they are to doing an actual mod on their own equipment. Like it or not that end of the audio industry exists on consumerism and does everything in its power to sell a solution that could in most cases be had for a few cents and some common sense. DIY'ers in Mesoshperic Fi are about as prolific as Hebrew teachers in IS.


 
 i think you are perfectly right... edstrelow also  said the same... All great spirits think the same one day to come 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ....
  
 But i will like to made this point: putting sorbothane under an amplifier or glueing it to an headband is a very simple mod, irreversible and possible to make in minute time, it is not like a DIY enterprise, by the way i am not a DIYer myself by a long shot...


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> 1, That right there is part of the problem. You will never get readership and input with it stuck in there. Mere mortals avoid it the same way they run from sound science forums and for largely the same reasons. Toss it in DIY and you might get some responses.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 1. When I get some more data comparing different damping materials  with the SRXIII pro I should put that information there.
  
 2. At last year's Canjam one guy showed me his dynamics which used what he called soft copper as a damping material.  The phones sounded pretty good too. Sorbothane is at least designed to be used for damping  and comes in several grades but that doesn't mean other materials aren't good or even better.  Blutack is sold as an adhesive, still it will at least add some mass and that should help in and of itself.  Dynamat I don't know but  I  should eventually get a sample. Heck for all I know road tar or cookie dough could work.  
  
 3. That was somewhat of the point I was trying to make. I see fanboyism as the flip side of consumerism,  where the buyers have bought into the sales pitches.   However we may be looking at the end of an era of headphones if Sennheiser and Grado start a trend.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.  If other manufacturers start to make their own damped phones,  there are going to be  a lot of owners of current phones who will be feeling unhappy and may want to try some DIY fixes.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> 1. When I get some more data comparing different damping materials  with the SRXIII pro I should put that information there.
> 
> 2. At last year's Canjam one guy showed me his dynamics which used what he called soft copper as a damping material.  The phones sounded pretty good too. Sorbothane is at least designed to be used for damping  and comes in several grades but that doesn't mean other materials aren't good or even better.  Blutack is sold as an adhesive, still it will at least add some mass and that should help in and of itself.  Dynamat I don't know but  I  should eventually get a sample. Heck for all I know road tar or cookie dough could work.
> 
> 3. That was somewhat of the point I was trying to make. I see fanboyism as the flip side of consumerism,  where the buyers have bought into the sales pitches.   However we may be looking at the end of an era of headphones if Sennheiser and Grado start a trend.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.  If other manufacturers start to make their own damped phones,  there are going to be  a lot of owners of current phones who will be feeling unhappy and may want to try some DIY fixes.


 

 At the risk of raising the ire of a few here for pointing this out. One of the unknown manufacturers who does some incredible work with tuning and damping is JVC. Google around for some of their Victor phones and you will find some very interesting trickery going on.
  
 Upgraditis will take hold of those owners and they will just dump there phones for the new model. Watch the classifieds on hf for a month and take note of how many high end phones get turned over. It's scary.
  
 Dynamat, road tar, all pretty much the same to me  Watch for chemical reactions with some of that suff Dynamat is inert but a lot of other materials are not.


----------



## Oregonian

edstrelow said:


> 1. When I get some more data comparing different damping materials  with the SRXIII pro I should put that information there.
> 
> 2. At last year's Canjam one guy showed me his dynamics which used what he called soft copper as a damping material.  The phones sounded pretty good too. Sorbothane is at least designed to be used for damping  and comes in several grades but that doesn't mean other materials aren't good or even better.  Blutack is sold as an adhesive, still it will at least add some mass and that should help in and of itself. * Dynamat I don't know but  I  should eventually get a sample*. Heck for all I know road tar or cookie dough could work.
> 
> 3. That was somewhat of the point I was trying to make. I see fanboyism as the flip side of consumerism,  where the buyers have bought into the sales pitches.   However we may be looking at the end of an era of headphones if Sennheiser and Grado start a trend.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.  If other manufacturers start to make their own damped phones,  there are going to be  a lot of owners of current phones who will be feeling unhappy and may want to try some DIY fixes.


 
 FYI - Dynamat and now Fatmat is the stuff Lawton Audio has been using for a few years now for damping the Denon/Fostex line of headphones (D2000/5000/7000, TH600/900) with very good results.  I've used it now on 5 different headphones from that family with excellent results.  Tightens up the bass quite a bit.


----------



## bnsb

Dynamat, road tar, all pretty much the same to me 
  
 --
 Tarred highway to audio nirvana? ha ha
  
  
 I remember long time ago we used fiberglass tape (plumbers tape) to seal paper gaps in joints of floor standers and the effect was discernible. Absolute airtight fitment worked well I suppose.


----------



## edstrelow

bnsb said:


> Dynamat, road tar, all pretty much the same to me
> 
> --
> Tarred highway to audio nirvana? ha ha
> ...




I don't think anyone knows the answer here but there is a problem with mechanical vibrations which is probably more severe with headphones than speakers. However forms of treatment being looked at by some manufacturers. Sorbothane is just the hobbyists way of dealing with it after the fact.


----------



## richard51

the cable (very microphonic) of the SR-5 is his achille's heel... Mine has lost his connection because of a loose welding (40 years of existence)...Is someone know where to buy a low bias replacement cable? Is it complicated to transform the regular  SR-5 in a high bias one (pro) ? If it is complicated i will go with a new low bias cable... Or solering another time the old one i already have is the simple solution...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> the cable (very microphonic) of the SR-5 is his achille's heel... Mine has lost his connection because of a loose welding (40 years of existence)...Is someone know where to buy a low bias replacement cable? Is it complicated to transform the regular  SR-5 in a high bias one (pro) ? If it is complicated i will go with a new low bias cable... Or solering another time the old one i already have is the simple solution...


 
  
 As long as the problem is where the cable is soldered this should not be too serious although you need to be careful not to overheat the driver while you are reconnecting the cable.  That could cause it to melt. I have had  a few cable problems with Stax and they were always in the cable itself, not where the cable was soldered to the driver.  That was harder to detect.  I have fixed a few and had to buy new cables for others, ( most recently a Stax 404. )  
  
 I think you can still use a low bias cable with a high bias phone, You have to remove the middle pin of the plug because high bias uses 5 pins, low bias uses 6.  The middle pin of the low bias unit prevents it from being plugged into a high bias socket. It is also the bias pin for one channel.  However you then have to connect that channel to the remaining bias pin. 
  
 I am pretty sure that the pin/wiring  arrangement is the same for low and high bias other than for the middle pin but you should check it out first.
  
 Someone said that to convert the driver to high bias you have to separate the the outer stators of the driver and insert an extra spacer between the driver and each stator.  He said you could make one out of ordinary office paper. I have not tried this myself.  My SRXIII was converted to high bias using drivers from a related high bias phone, the  Gamma I believe.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> As long as the problem is where the cable is soldered this should not be too serious although you need to be careful not to overheat the driver while you are reconnecting the cable.  That could cause it to melt. I have had  a few cable problems with Stax and they were always in the cable itself, not where the cable was soldered to the driver.  That was harder to detect.  I have fixed a few and had to buy new cables for others, ( most recently a Stax 404. )
> 
> *I think you can still use a low bias cable with a high bias phone*, You have to remove the middle pin of the plug because high bias uses 5 pins, low bias uses 6.  The middle pin of the low bias unit prevents it from being plugged into a high bias socket. It is also the bias pin for one channel.  However you then have to connect that channel to the remaining bias pin.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks Ed, but my SR-5 is a low bias one, and this low bias  replacement cable is hard to find i think...I dont know if i can use a pro-bias cable for a low bias sr-5 ?


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Thanks Ed, but my SR-5 is a low bias one, and this low bias  replacement cable is hard to find i think...I dont know if i can use a pro-bias cable for a low bias sr-5 ?


 
  
 I think you would just have both drivers share the single bias pin if you can only get a high bias cable.


----------



## richard51

by the way, i use now my Stax lambda nova basic with only sorbothane( duro 30 and 50 together) in the headband, pressurized under metal paper clip and not only glued, and it is surprizingly good... I dont know if it would be very better to place sorb  under the pads ...I wait for the duro 70 sorb.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...


----------



## richard51

My Stax basic lambda nova are very good with the damped sorbothane headband.... I am less sad by the failure of my sr-5 cable because of that
  
 ....It is difficult to imagine that the duro 70 will be better... i cannot wait....




*UPDATE*:
 Frankly my misfortune with the SR-5 was an occasion of discovery....  I was so in love with my SR-5+ sorb.  I have not dare or deign to listen to  the lambda nova basic without sorb. , now with sorbothane on the headband  and  with the amplifier srm-252s +sorb. under it and with granite plate on it with sorb between it and the plate, and last but not least with sorbothane glued to the little transformer, what a hell of headphone!...
  After all that sorb. modification,guess what ? they are now so good that i like  them with the same love i had for  my the SR-5, they are, a bit less organically musical but the soundspace is better, the imaging better,way more detailed, hence if  they are  bit less natural they are beautiful on their own path....( *second update*: after the sorbing of the isolator and after the sorbing of the optical convertor, frankly i dont know if the Stax lambda basic is now less organically musical and less natural than the  dead SR-5)
  
_i put 2 pieces of *sorbothane (duro 30 ) glued to the little stax transformer* for my srm-252s amplifier_,  and it was very audible change more weigh to the sound, more presence,, properly sorbothanized, the lambda nova basic is superb headphone....EVERYTHING in my gear is sorbothanized, every time with better sound....i wait for my 70 duro....Frankly i dont understand that a so simple mod give so much....


----------



## Henery

I bought DT 480 few weeks ago and put some 30 duro blocks on the corner where baseplate and the "cylinder" where the driver assembly is located. I cannot say enough about their effects because original earpads are too shallow and don´t seal very well.I will order either DT 100 or 150 earpads and try again.
 On the other hand i have also tried 30 duro blocks on DT 48.Sound was clearer but mellow.About week ago i switched to almost same sized blocks of 70 duro.On both cases i used the "splitting method" to improve sorbo block´s absorption capabilites.Sound is now much more dynamic and resolving.I´m most impressed about improved bass tightness.Bass never gives up.It just kicks like a mule 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Sorbothane really is a miracle.


----------



## bnsb

Would be grateful for your input
  
 I have  Stax 407 and Sorbothane 30D. The headband feels like canvas on 407s. Will sorbs help - without opening' the headphone? If yes where to apply and how? Thanks in advance.


----------



## richard51

Update 2 :
  
 I decided after my lost of the SR-5 to apply sorb on the little stax  wall transformer of the lambda nova basic with great results.... This morning i decided to go where i have not dare and think  to go already : to put sorb on the little hifimediy isolator attached to my computer and to the optical convertor attached to it also, Guess what : the sound is clearer and all improvement.... Sorbothane is a miracle reversible at no cost, but remember that it is better  to put it in ALL OF YOUR GEAR, *headphone is the most important place, but the results at the other places will be more subtle but they add and will be there at the  end* with all pieces of the chain (12 elements in  my chain gear including the power strip and the battery charger   ), anything where there is a surface to sorb.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
*rule1* : sorb. all the gear
  
*rule2* : where you can apply slight pressure on the sorb. apply it  with a load or with paper metal  clip etc
  
*rule 3* : Ed said Duro 70 is better for the headphone , i wait for it


----------



## bnsb

richard51 said:


> Update 2 :
> 
> ... headphone is the most important place, but the results at the other places will be more subtle but they add and will be there at the  end with all pieces of the chain (10 elements in  my chain gear ), anything where there is a surface to sorb.....


 
 I must try when I have a terrible headache


----------



## richard51

henery said:


> I bought DT 480 few weeks ago and put some 30 duro blocks on the corner where baseplate and the "cylinder" where the driver assembly is located. I cannot say enough about their effects because original earpads are too shallow and don´t seal very well.I will order either DT 100 or 150 earpads and try again.
> On the other hand i have also tried 30 duro blocks on DT 48.Sound was clearer but mellow.About week ago i switched to almost same sized blocks of 70 duro.On both cases i used the "splitting method" to improve sorbo block´s absorption capabilites.Sound is now much more dynamic and resolving.I´m most impressed about improved bass tightness.Bass never gives up.It just kicks like a mule
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Really it is! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 UPDATE 3 :
  
 Pressure applied on the sorb with paper metal clip, on the sorb  which is  already glued to the isolator and to the optical convertor linked to it, is WAY better for clarity, (they  are not thick and it is possible to attach to it  a big paper clip)  and i just put the paper clip in place on this 2 little gear piece,  and that confirm my experience about optimally apply pressure on the sorb. if possible...I never had a so good imaging on a phone and had more details to listen than ever before......
  
 I know now that any link that is not sorbothanized in your gear will add some fog on the sound , i had no explanation for that, except that cumulative  resonance of vibrations interaction and transmission  kill the sound all across your gear and the evidence show for me not only in my headphone but in my very resolving Monsoon speakers ... I perhaps have the first completely sorbothanized system in the world , all  11 elements in the chain ,
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Thanks to all and to Ed...


----------



## aroldan

I applied some pieces (8 per cup) of sorb on my HE500 and the improvement is subtle but noticeable. But the most impacting change was on my ATH-ES700. I put 4 little squares per cup and also changed the inner fiber glass pad with melamine foam. They are in another league now. Will try the sorb in my Bose QC20 and will report the result.
  
 Thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## edstrelow

Quote: 





bnsb said:


> Would be grateful for your input
> 
> I have  Stax 407 and Sorbothane 30D. The headband feels like canvas on 407s. Will sorbs help - without opening' the headphone? If yes where to apply and how? Thanks in advance.


 

 Apply it to the underside of the plastic portion of the headband (not the cloth portion) and you should notice some improvement. Use as much as you can on the headband.   The problem with the Lambdas is that there is virtually no place to put damping material without opening the earcups.  I would still say that the best result requires the placing of sorbthane inside the earcup on the baffle.  30 D should work although recently I am finding 70 D is better. Still it will get you started and if you like what you hear you can decide how much more you want to do.  These are some pics of one of taking apart my Lambdas
  
  
 .
  

  

 I use shorter pieces of sorb these days.


----------



## richard51

the battery charger is under the first granite plate with sorb under his feet and sorb under the top  plate.
  
  
  
 The last thing i sorbothanize, ( the result was incredibly surprizing for me), is the battery charger for my dac bushmaster *with pressure apply under a granite plate*, my 12th use of sorbothane in my system and the last....I know that seems too much incredible, impossible, and without proper scientific explanation....But the sound improve much for another time in my speakers and not less spectacularly into  my Stax lambda that i listen to exactly now  , (after 48 hours ago the sorbothanization of the hifimediy optical  convertor and isolator from my computer, and after the little Stax power supply),and the effect was immediately audible....Clarity upgrade+ incredible 3-d presence  ! And i dont know why the effect on imaging was so spectacular, perhaps because it was the last source of noise vibration...If someone have said that to me i would not have take that seriously, what in the hell make noise and vibration from a battery charger ? But It is the first time that i hear the ethereal imaging of my Monsoon planars speakers at last... For sure imaging is a subtle phenomenon, constructed by  adding  and collecting little bit of acoustic informations from the speakers by the ears in the virtual  sound space of the brain,  only a little fog of noise destruct the pinpoint accuracy of the position and destruct the additive  and positive resonance that construct the natural and  musical timbre of instrument ...
  
 Conclusion : ALL and EACH ONE piece of gear +sorbothane counts in the end result...
  
 Compression of the sorb., if possible, give the best results...
  
 Now i have nothing, absolutely nothing left to sorbothanize...
  
 Thanks god! and some others  here... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
  
*UPDATE : *After 7 hours of listening straight with the  Monsoon speakers and Stax lambda, i am totally perplexed and amazed...what is the rational scientific reason for this ? Is it the sorbothanization with 2 little pieces press on  the isolator with metal paper clip? or with 2 others little pieces of Sorb. press on  the optical convertor yesterday? it seems impossible to have a so huge improvement with only that...Is it the last application of sorbothane on the battery charger today? it seems more implausible to me ... BUT the fact is :there is  3-d sound this time truly there more than ever, with perfect imaging....more natural instrumental timbre and voice like real voice ...I am so happy...BUT if someone had  an explanation i will wait for it....


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:


richard51 said:


> the battery charger is under the first granite plate with sorb under his feet and sorb under the top  plate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  This doesn't surprise me at all. Transformers tend to generate audible hum. I once had a fairly expensive power amp that was so noisy I put it in a closet. Such hum has the potential to create microphonics.  
  
    "*Microphonics* or *microphony* describes the phenomenon wherein certain components in electronic devices transform mechanical vibrations into an undesired electrical signal (noise). The term     comes from analogy with a microphone, which is intentionally designed to convert vibrations to electrical signals."       See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics .
  
 Reducing  microphonics would be one of the main benefits of putting the widely available sorbothane footers under equipment such as amplifiers. Years ago I read that Naim used pieces of sorb on their circuit boards and I was told by one of the  Schitt engineers that they do the same.  You may recall that  found that my Stax SRD6, which is mains operated,  needed a lot of sorb damping to sound good.


----------



## edstrelow

Continuing comparisons of different damping materials, this time I compared .25 inch thick sorbothane with .10 thick sorbothane. Both were self-stick and 70 duro density.  Again I simply applied the different materials  to the two sets of  metal covers I have for my Stax SRXIII pro's and swapped these around.   I applied 2 3- inch strips of each material cut into a total of 8  pieces  on each earcup.
  
  After listening to the two  over a period of 6 days,  I definitely prefer the sound of the .25 inch sorb. It does more of the good things that sorb tends to do, improves dynamics, instrument separation and reduces harshness more so than the .10 inch sorb.
  
 Note that while the .25 covers have 2.5 times as much sorbothane on them the footprint of the sorb on the covers is the same.
  
 So in this instance it looks like the more sorb, the merrier the sound. However I have not always found that to be true. For example,  I reduced the number pieces of sorb in the earcups of the Stax Sigmas because the bass was getting boomy.  However, here was no sign of boominess with the thicker sorb on the SRXIII.  If anything the bass was tighter and better controlled whereas the bass with the thinner sorb seemed a bit flabby/imprecise. 
  
  The Sigmas do have midbass boom. However adding sorb to the Sigma  headband seems to have reduced that problem. 
  
 I just got some bluetack in the mail. Time to make a comparison of sorb with a different material.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> This doesn't surprise me at all. Transformers tend to generate audible hum. I once had a fairly expensive power amp that was so noisy I put it in a closet. Such hum has the potential to create microphonics.
> 
> "*Microphonics* or *microphony* describes the phenomenon wherein certain components in electronic devices transform mechanical vibrations into an undesired electrical signal (noise). The term     comes from analogy with a microphone, which is intentionally designed to convert vibrations to electrical signals."       See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics .
> 
> Reducing  microphonics would be one of the main benefits of putting the widely available sorbothane footers under equipment such as amplifiers. Years ago I read that Naim used pieces of sorb on their circuit boards and I was told by one of the  Schitt engineers that they do the same.  You may recall that  found that my Stax SRD6, which is mains operated,  needed a lot of sorb damping to sound good.


 

 Yes i remember when you suggest that... It made no surprize for me after i put sorb on my energizer, and after that on my Little Stax psu following your footsteps ... But today i put sorb. on a battery charger and the upgrade in sound was huge....  After these many change and this last in the  last 24 hours, come what i was missing not knowing it, because i ever never  hear that before: the aura of the sound that make the sound a natural 3 d object with realistic timbre, especially in my speakers but in the headphone  also...
  
 Is a battery charger also inducing microphonics like a transformer? it seems that it is the case for my ears...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 One thing is evident for me, all 12 sorbothane applications give something more and the last transform my system in real marvel for me.... I am glad that the sadness of loosing my SR-5 , move me to try some new sob. application to give me solace, beginning with the sorbothanization of the headband of the Lambda....


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Yes i remember when you suggest that... It made no surprize for me after i put sorb on my energizer, and after that on my Little Stax psu following your footsteps ... But today i put sorb. on a battery charger and the upgrade in sound was huge....  After these many change and this last in the  last 24 hours, come what i was missing not knowing it, because i ever never  hear that before: the aura of the sound that make the sound a natural 3 d object with realistic timbre, especially in my speakers but in the headphone  also...
> 
> Is a battery charger also inducing microphonics like a transformer? it seems that it is the case for my ears...
> 
> ...


 
 I don't understand how your system is linked together.  Is the battery charger not actually running anything in the system like an amp or a DAC?  If so you would seem to be saying that the battery charges better if the power supply is damped.  This could mean that the battery is charging to a higher voltage,


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I don't understand how your system is linked together.  Is the battery charger not actually running anything in the system like an amp or a DAC?  If so you would seem to be saying that the battery charges better if the power supply is damped.  This could mean that the battery is charging to a higher voltage,


 

 My battery power bank and  charger is linked to my dac and drive it instead of a noisy power supply and my surprize is that even the battery is noisy, less than a power supply for sure but noisy also in the end....i only say that after all my application of sorb. : on the psu of the srm 252s stax amp, on the dac, on the amp, on the isolator, on the optical convertor, , on the stax headphones, on the energizer stax, on the speakers,on the subwoofer, on the computer, the last application was on the battery of the dac and ,last but not least, make a great contribution to the quality of sound in my headphone and in my speakers...
  
 I talk about that not to suggest to anyone to begin the  first application of sorbothane with the battery charger and power bank for a dac, probably if i have applied sorbothane to the battery of my dac in the first place, in the ocean of noise vibration in all the other pieces of gear without sorb. probably only this sorb. mod would not has been very audible in the first place ....  BUt This last application is very  evidently audible when you have sorbothanize all the rest before that....this is my point.... we must apply sorb on all the gear  for a cumulative improvement and a noise destruction effect .... Headphone is the most spectacular improvement for sure, after that speakers, amp, etc but at the end any pieces of gear count in the final result 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  My system now is so good that this would not have been possible without sorb. and not possible to have  it with only a  new better amp, at any price...Noisy resonance and vibrations is the worst enemy of audio ....If i remember i read this point in your mouth here in the beginning and you have been so damn right ! thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. by the way i apologize to you and  to all for my convoluted and bad english style...


----------



## soren_brix

Why not use a vice or some clamps for easy adjustable pressure?


----------



## richard51

soren_brix said:


> Why not use a vice or some clamps for easy adjustable pressure?


 

 i have use what i have and paper metal clip do the job for me.... you can use whatever will do the job.... the point is for me a little pressure is better than just gluing it if possible, for example on the headband...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 If you discover something better, give me the adress to order please ....thanks


----------



## soren_brix

richard51 said:


> i have use what i have and paper metal clip do the job for me.... you can use whatever will do the job.... the point is for me a little pressure is better than just gluing it if possible, for example on the headband...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 was actually referring to your many use of granit ... if clamping the amp you can control the pressure and maybe squeeze more sound improvement from  the amp - not sure a paper clip will do equally well though


----------



## richard51

soren_brix said:


> was actually referring to your many use of granit ... if clamping the amp you can control the pressure and maybe squeeze more sound improvement from  the amp - not sure a paper clip will do equally well though


 

 i use the plate of granite ( a little more than 4 pound) for stability and the result for my ear was better than the instable method of  putting  the sorb under the feet of the heavy sub and under the heavy amp.... For my dac , very light weigh , and stax amp, the battery of my dac also , they weigh nothing and it is better to compress a little the sorb with this granite plate....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the paper clip is not ideal, it is a way to tight it in place, and this is better than the glue alone...I will gladly put other means with adjustable pressurization clamp if i had one...For the moment the paper clip are very good to my ears on the headband, and on my little isolator and on my little optical convertor.......
  
 For the last 48 hours i had a realistic musical experience with all that for the first time  in my speakers and headphone, without any negative effect, and a total 3 d effect in the speakers and headphone with natural timbre for voice and instrument...It is no more about high frequencies, bass frequencies or mids separetely perceived and analyzed , it is only pure musical integrated bliss  for my ears  and for a ridiculous cost... The global and final effect is more than anything i have experience....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Before that i had only one thought  : to scrap my not so good system for an upgrade one (in the 5 or 6 thousand dollars figure) Now i dont say that this new system i dream of would not be better than my actual one but i dont have the desire to upgrade... The one i have +sorb. was so good that i can wait years to spend more.... When i will buy something new i will apply sorbothane  for sure on it....For example i will not use a tube amp without sorbothane now...


----------



## wink

Has anyone tried a Faraday cage...?


----------



## edstrelow

wink said:


> Has anyone tried a Faraday cage...?


 
 Is this better than a tinfoil hat?


----------



## edstrelow

I have spent a few days with blutack and can say that it definitely provides some damping of my Stax SRXIII pro.  However it is not as effective as the 1/4 inch 70 duro sorbothane. 
  
 As before, I took two 3-inch strips of bluetack, cut these into 8 sections/earcup  and trimmed these  to fit on the exposed metal portion of the cover of the SRXIII. I had to squeeze the bluetack a bit so that it did not end up on the plastic portion ( simply because I was not applying damping material to the plastic portion in the other comparisons.)  I would say I was using a greater volume of bluetack than the previous 1/0 inch sorbothane, but slightly less than the 1/4 inch sorb. 
  
 I was having some trouble deciding what it sounded like so I took the covers from my third SRXIII low bias for an additional comparison condition, of no damping material.
  
 The SRXIII pro sounded pretty good even with no damping, although possibly because they are very old, they seem to take a long time to properly warm up. . Probably the most striking effect of eliminating the sorb is that the soundfield collapses to the center, i.e. it does not seem to occupy as wide a region as when damped.  The bluetack did  improve the soundstage.  It also gave some of the increased dynamics and separation of instruments that you get with sorb although it was to a lesser degree than with the 1/4 inch 70 duro sorb. Nor did it give the same sparkle to the highs that sorbothane gives.  The SRXIII is a somewhat harsh sounding phone, but with the 1/4 inch 70 duro, I could virtually forget this.  For example triangles have  a beautiful ring to them.  The bluetack made the tenor and baritone duet from Verdi's Don Carlos sound harsh on the high notes whereas the sound was cleaner with the sorb. 
  
 Overall, I would say, if all you have is bluetack, then use it but you can do better. Of course bluetack is not designed as a damping material, rather it is an adhesive. It is also somewhat sticky and you would probably only apply it inside the earcups whereas sorbothane can be applied anywhere  without sticking to your fingers.  However I could imagine some special applications where sorb would not work, for example if you had a loose cable in the earcup,  you could use bluetack to hold it in place and get some damping at the same time.  Some years back Spritzer recommended bluetack to plug the vent in the SR007 to get better bass. If you used enough bluetack you would get some damping too. (BTW I did not find that plugging the port was good mod because the bass became unbearably boomy.)
  
  
 The phones and the extra covers are shown in the picture which I will post when the site is working properly.


----------



## richard51

Today i  have receive my first order of 70 duro, and i put 4 pieces  on the  powered subwoofer of my monsoon  press on with some load , and i put some under the feet of my amp (a flat square pieces and that is better than the hemispheric pieces for stability, hence i can put them directly under the feet and this is better for damping ), and i confirm the impressions of Ed , that makes a difference ,  to my ears *A BIG DIFFERENCE*,  immediately better all across the board  listening from my  speakers and from my headphone...I will  put some other pieces in a week  on the headband  of the Stax and directly on my  planars speakers.... I cannot wait to see the impact....thanks Ed  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
  
*Applying sorbothane is an experiment in progress*, the results were already  good in the beginning, but with the sharing of experience here, and with more experience, the results was always better for me once to another, and yesterday i was not expecting too big results after all that i have done already... Guess what ? today the results was  audibly way better than all past results... even more real 3-d sound, better impact of bass, better imaging, even more natural timbre  like in all my other posts... Why ? because sorbothane is so good damping product that it works all time, even in less optimal application (wrong duro, wrong or not so right thickness, not the right pressure etc ) but discovering and fine tuning  the optimal application requires many experiments...thanks to all here...


----------



## richard51

Today i receive my other pieces of sorb 1/4 inches duro 70 self adhesive.... Wow the 6 squares pieces  glued and clip in place with my paper metal clip on the headband are better that the other pieces of duro 30 and 40 1/8 inches, so much better that this was audible immediately ( you are right Ed!) .... I listen to them now... It is an" habitus" of mine to thanks Edstrelow, but you will understand that the total cost of this upgrade is 11 dollars, what is better than that ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So good out of the box, the sorb. gluing process takes sometime to set in place firmly and that will be better in the next days... it is already  much better though than the other duro  wow! the mids are organically fluid, bass more definite, the rendering the musical timbre more natural, the most important thing for me...
  
 After 2 hours i can say that the duro 70 change is startling and impressively better...
  
 Perhaps tomorrow i will switch to the 70 duro for my speakers, i had 30 duro now, i cannot wait!...
  
 I already think that when possible *duro 70 is the way to go*, my headphone , the subwoofer, the amp, are better sounding, tomorrow i  will do the planars speakers for sure!


----------



## scotsstax

hi mate , sorry for late reply computer was going wonky!!, yes i used the blu tak just like per you do sorb, as blu tak is cheaper, and is good at dampening, i put it on the baffles and pushed it in to the edge of where the driver is then i put more on the edge, where it says stax japsn and serial no, it added quite a lot of weight to the phones, but the difference was jawdropping...really i was not prepared for such a leap in quality, i had 404 signatures, which i liked better!! they were more natural i thought the 507 have bass lots of bass!!! adding thr b tak increased the definition and made bass notes stop and start more rapidly the mids smoothed out and treble tamed down and was more extended,..but i wont stop here11 i will get some sorb, think it may have better properties, thanks edstrelow for the idea,ps i also added b tak to the top of the drive units  i mean on the top edge not top as on top !!one question guys can anyone tell me the voltages that a stax srm3 transformer secondary puts out???as i have a srm3 with blown tranny and  the stax repair guy uk is an utter *******, he patronised me and said that unit is ancient and not worth fixing i disagree, i found it nice after a recap so can anyone help its the secondary voltages i need NOT primary thanks guys!! i mean the raw tranny out put not after rectification... cheers again!! ps i currentl use the new 353x its nice runs red hot though!! must be class a..


----------



## scotsstax

hi what staxes do you have mate???


----------



## scotsstax

richard51 said:


> Today i receive my other pieces of sorb 1/4 inches duro 70 self adhesive.... Wow the 6 squares pieces  glued and clip in place with my paper metal clip on the headband are better that the other pieces of duro 30 and 40 1/8 inches, so much better that this was audible immediately ( you are right Ed!) .... I listen to them now... It is an" habitus" of mine to thanks Edstrelow, but you will understand that the total cost of this upgrade is 11 dollars, what is better than that ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 hi rich did you get a new cable as i have a high bias 404 cable from my broken ones damm the 404s were lovely....  can u solder??? 15 quid and you pay post and u can have it mate...


----------



## richard51

i have a Stax lambda basic nova and a stax sr-5.... I want the cable and i will adapt it to the stax sr-5...i know someone who can solder...


----------



## richard51

scotsstax said:


> hi mate , sorry for late reply computer was going wonky!!, yes i used the blu tak just like per you do sorb, as blu tak is cheaper, and is good at dampening, i put it on the baffles and pushed it in to the edge of where the driver is then i put more on the edge, where it says stax japsn and serial no, it added quite a lot of weight to the phones, but the difference was jawdropping...really i was not prepared for such a leap in quality, i had 404 signatures, which i liked better!! they were more natural i thought the 507 have bass lots of bass!!! adding thr b tak increased the definition and made bass notes stop and start more rapidly the mids smoothed out and treble tamed down and was more extended,..but i wont stop here11 i will get some sorb, think it may have better properties, thanks edstrelow for the idea,ps i also added b tak to the top of the drive units  i mean on the top edge not top as on top !!one question guys can anyone tell me the voltages that a stax srm3 transformer secondary puts out???as i have a srm3 with blown tranny and  the stax repair guy uk is an utter *******, he patronised me and said that unit is ancient and not worth fixing i disagree, i found it nice after a recap so can anyone help its the secondary voltages i need NOT primary thanks guys!! i mean the raw tranny out put not after rectification... cheers again!! ps i currentl use the new 353x its nice runs red hot though!! must be class a..


 

 i think Ed will be competent to give you the information... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am sure that it will be good deal to fix it tough...


----------



## edstrelow

scotsstax said:


> hi mate , sorry for late reply computer was going wonky!!, yes i used the blu tak just like per you do sorb, as blu tak is cheaper, and is good at dampening, i put it on the baffles and pushed it in to the edge of where the driver is then i put more on the edge, where it says stax japsn and serial no, it added quite a lot of weight to the phones, but the difference was jawdropping...really i was not prepared for such a leap in quality, i had 404 signatures, which i liked better!! they were more natural i thought the 507 have bass lots of bass!!! adding thr b tak increased the definition and made bass notes stop and start more rapidly the mids smoothed out and treble tamed down and was more extended,..but i wont stop here11 i will get some sorb, think it may have better properties, thanks edstrelow for the idea,ps i also added b tak to the top of the drive units  i mean on the top edge not top as on top !!one question guys can anyone tell me the voltages that a stax srm3 transformer secondary puts out???as i have a srm3 with blown tranny and  the stax repair guy uk is an utter *******, he patronised me and said that unit is ancient and not worth fixing i disagree, i found it nice after a recap so can anyone help its the secondary voltages i need NOT primary thanks guys!! i mean the raw tranny out put not after rectification... cheers again!! ps i currentl use the new 353x its nice runs red hot though!! must be class a..




While I also have an SRM3 I don't know much about its transformer. However I did pull up a bunch of pictures of circuit diagrams just by googling "Stax srm3 circuit diagram."

It sounds as if you put quite a bit of blutack on your Lambdas if the phones seem heavier now. That is one phone where there is almost no place to put sorbothane unless you open them up. Whereas, you can jam blutack into a lot of different nooks and crannies.

 As you can see going back a few pages I have been doing comparisons on a set of SRXIII's where I can just stick sorb and blutack on the outer case. I found that with comparable amounts of blutack and 70 duro sorb, the sorb was a more effective damping material although the blutack still worked.

However just adding mass to the earcups is likely to improve their sound too because I suspect the extra mass dissipates the mechanical energy. Sorbothane is supposed to work by transforming mechanical energy into heat. I am curious about just adding lead slugs. The downside obviously is making the phones uncomfortably heavy. That said, I have an old set of Koss ESP 6 phones, that weigh 2 lb, and sound much less harsh than any Stax phone, some of which I think is due to their mass.

I have been very happy with the sound of my Stax404 and LNS putting small sorb pieces on the back of their baffle boards. Most recently I have used 30 duro 1/4 inch. Soon I will be trying 70 duro.

Also, following the suggestion of richard 51, I have been putting damping materials on the underside of the plastic headband of these Lambdas. This is not as striking as applying it to the baffles but it definitely adds sonic quality.


----------



## scotsstax

cheers ed maybe spritzer or chinasettawong know its sitting here doing nothing and i liked it,... could do with fixing it and selling my 353x which i also like but in diff areas 353x has way more power it properly drives them too high ouput, but, i kinda liked my srm3, with the 404 signatures it was smooth lovelt midband not great bass but very fat agie texturally i might sell my sr507s and go bk to the 404 srm3 combo but need a new cd player  currently using my laptop and it is dire.... anyway cheers ed all the bet..rr rob..


----------



## richard51

I put 8 pieces of  70 duro sorb.1/4 inches  on each of  the planar speakers.... Guess what?  more and more better .... I think duro 70 is the way to go ,if possible with audio application, my speakers has never sound so good!....thanks Edstrelow
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 By the way the time necessary to my evaluation was 5 seconds... I think that i have a good memory for sound music ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am joking! but it is very evident .... on my speakers now it is like my old jazz cd are new one with a greater clarity more natural timbre than before, and  more impact with less on the  volume pot ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And last but not least, the speakers now sound at the same level than my stax for the natural timbre...
  
 Frankly if i had not stumble on  this damn thread of edstrelow almost a year ago , i would have been obsess to upgrade with thousand dollars here and another one there, because my sound was not so great i think at this time  with my gear, the same gear is now so extraordinary that i will wait years before investing  big money  ....the sorb. mod was for me a true liberation and revelation ... By the way my gear was in truth at this time  really great, it is that there is really *a vibration plague on all audio* world and nobody are conscious of the real extension and effect of it... I know that many people put some damping product  under their speakers etc but the problem is way more extensive and negative than people imagine ( all pieces of gear are linked and all must be damped)... I know that because before i read this thread i had try to damp my sub and amp, but my method were not the right one, and i was happy with them all the same , because i has never realize *the real impact of a real  good damping method* before damping my headphone ... Sorbothane permit that...  edstrelow had not exagerated one bit when he say in the beginning  that sorb. transform  often some ordinary headphone in an extraordinary one, but you must learn to apply it rightly...thanks


----------



## scotsstax

lambda nova basic is a well underestimated electrostatic phone, imo, i had one and the same driver unit circa 98 and loved it!!!!, is the 5 good rich i am tempted too try and find one!!!


----------



## Jaab

Hi Richard,
I saw a sr5 headphone to sell here: 
http://yahoo.aleado.com/lot?auctionID=e183458459 
I saw it ending and nobody bid on it and has been relisted, because is a local auction (Japan)
You have to use the service of this cie: https://www.fromjapan.co.jp/ to be able to bid.
I used it 2 times and works fine


----------



## richard51

i just try to take off the 6 paper metal clip that press on the 1/4 inches duro 70 sorb. glued on  my headband... The sound was more muffled without them pressing the sorb.... Hence my impression that compression of the sorb. if possible is way better is verified anew...
  
  In another experiment, i put some 6 others pieces 1/10 70 duro on the other side of the headband under the paper metal clip, and the result was immediately better also , hence i have now 6 pieces of 70 duro 1/4 inches and  6 pieces 1/10 inches under compression  between the jaw of the paper metal clips, on each side of the headband, that act like a  better filter for resonance between the cups  ... The sound is  so full bodied and the imaging  so good that i will not dare to try to put more  sorb. near the driver for the  immediate future.... i am glad with my Stax  nova basic... For sure they dont sound like the top Stax model i have never hear, but i  still cannot think nevertheless that they are  not so far neither so less good and just that is an extraordinary feat to credit to the sorbothane mod.   ... salutations to all of you


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i just try to take off the 6 paper metal clip that press on the 1/4 inches duro 70 sorb. on  my headband... The sound was more muffled without them pressing the sorb.... Hence my impression that compression of the sorb. if possible is way better is verified anew...
> 
> In another experiment, i put some 6 others pieces 1/10 70 duro on the other side of the headband under the paper metal clip, and the result was immediately better also , hence i have now 6 pieces of 70 duro 1/4 inches and  6 pieces 1/10 inches under compression  between the jaw of the paper metal clips, on each side of the headband, that act like a  better filter for resonance between the cups  ... The sound is  so full bodied and so good that i will not dare to try to put more  sorb. near the driver for the  immediate future.... i am glad with my Stax  nova basic... salutations to all of you




I have been doing something similar with the SR007 by adjusting the clamping force on its headband. Similarly I am using 70 duro sorb. The increased pressure seems to clarify the bass/midbass which tends to be somewhat muddy on these phones. You can see the clamp in the picture. Pressure is adjusted by tightening a nut on a,bolt that holds the twi pieces of plastic together.


----------



## richard51

sckeptics beware! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 in my feverished quest to sorbothanize all my gear , i decide to put 6 pieces glued on my "plastic control puck" of the Monsoon hybrid powered speakers... It is no more stupid than putting some on the power conditioner after all... GUESS WHAT :  a subtle but nevertheless change for a better clarity....If someone say to me that i hallucinate, perhaps i will think that he is right, i will re-listen to all that , and i will not put off the sorb. it is my 13 th sorbothanization of all the pieces in the chain....Some change are spectacular, some are more subtle, all are cumulative, toward cleanliness in the end...


----------



## richard51

i definitively  give my favor and recommend  the method of complete covering with sorb.  (70 duro)of the headband of the stax lambda, 6 pieces on a side, six other pieces on the other side... All is better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...


----------



## edstrelow

A la richard51,  I tried  a simple trick on my Stax SRXIII pro to compress the pieces of 70 duro 1/4 inch sorbothane which I previously applied to these phones.   I have been applying different damping materials to  my extra covers for these phones, which I then can easily switch around for comparison.
  
 I was in the process of comparing the effectiveness of the self-stick adhesive, which comes with some sorbothane,  versus superglue. As I was holding the superglued pieces in place with an elastic band, I thought I should  use elastic  bands on the  set-up using 70 duro 1/4 inch sel-stick sorbothane.  So I did and quite liked the sound, it came across as  more refined, with possibly a cleaner bass line. 
  
 It seems to me that there are 2 factors here, 1)compression of the sorbothane and 2)forcing the sorb to make a tighter contact with the surface it is on. The latter I would think might make the sorb damping more effective.  But both are probably happening when you compress the sorb this way. Anyway, I may be able to test the contact hypothesis separately from compression tomorrow after the superglue sorb sets.


----------



## richard51

It seems that sorbothane mod. ask for experimentations....My last try was i  think so, the very last, but no, it was'nt... With the remnant of sorb. i have (30 duro, 40 duro 70 duro pieces But i plan to try only 70 duro when i have it) i decided to put the last  pieces glued under my amplifier Sansui , already sitting with his 4 feet on 4 pieces of sorb. and with granite plate with sorb between them ....It seems that the amplifier was asking to be mod.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 With these pieces ,about 12 pieces of varied duro, the result was in the same direction than before: better imaging, better tonality, better timbre, audible in the Monsoon  speakers, and in my Stax.... I know for sure now that all pieces , like amp and dac, must be directly sorb, non only under their feet, but directly *with more   amp-surface/sob.surface ratio*... I will experiment in the week to come with a method to compress the sorb under the amp for probably better results to come...


----------



## edstrelow

You probably don't want to use superglue to fasten sorbothane.  I have just finished 3 days of listening to the Stax SRXIII pro damped with pieces of 70 duro sorbothane on the covers, fastened by superglue.  On the other set of covers the sorb is fastened using the self-stick provided by Sorbothane.  I fastened  the sorb by applying superglue to the the side of the sorb that did not have the self-stick.
  
  I first listened with the superglued covers  about an hour after the gluing and immediately felt the sound was harsh and tinny  in the midrange.  After several days, the overall sound improved but the tinniness remained and the soundstage seemed narrower. On the plus side, the bass seemed more impactfull and possibly deeper. It should be noted that the SRX has a somewhat limited deep bass.
  
 On balance I am not planning on using superglue as a fastening agent. However it may be worth someone's while to experiment further, possibly if you need better bass.  
  
 I had expected better results from superglue, thinking that it would create a better fastening of the sorb to the metal covers and that this would translate to more effective damping.   However as with many things in the real world, intuitions can be wrong.   Does this mean that better grip of sorb to its underlying substance  is unimportant?  Not necessarily, since superglue forms a sort of crust and possibly this is acting as a barrier, preventing some energy getting to the sorb.   
  
 So for the moment at least I have no evidence that a strong glue like superglue is better than the self-stick often supplied by Sorbothane.  (Actually the self-stick turns out to be very thin double sided tape. )
  
 As regards the issue which has come up recently regarding the effect of compressing sorb, this evidence at least suggests that the reason compression may help is because of the compression itself, not because it pushes the sorb into better contact with the surface it is glued to.   However, I don't think this is a strong conclusion, given the "crust" issue.  In other words there may bet a better glue than the sorb self-stick and superglue which doesn't form a crust.  And this might still sound better.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> You probably don't want to use superglue to fasten sorbothane.  I have just finished 3 days of listening to the Stax SRXIII pro damped with pieces of 70 duro sorbothane on the covers, fastened by superglue.  On the other set of covers the sorb is fastened using the self-stick provided by Sorbothane.  I fastened  the sorb by applying superglue to the the side of the sorb that did not have the self-stick.
> 
> I first listened with the superglued covers  about an hour after the gluing and immediately felt the sound was harsh and tinny  in the midrange.  After several days, the overall sound improved but the tinniness remained and the soundstage seemed narrower. On the plus side, the bass seemed more impactfull and possibly deeper. It should be noted that the SRX has a somewhat limited deep bass.
> 
> ...


 

 Shoo Goo http://eclecticproducts.com/products/shoe-goo.html


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> Shoo Goo http://eclecticproducts.com/products/shoe-goo.html



Have you tried it?


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> Have you tried it?


 

 Yup. On a pair of earbuds. I have used it for years in other applications as well.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> As regards the issue which has come up recently regarding the effect of compressing sorb, this evidence at least suggests that the reason compression may help is because of the compression itself, not because it pushes the sorb into better contact with the surface it is glued to.


 
  Compression of the sorbothane ,if possible was for me the golden key that open the sorb. mod potential ... Sometimes the evidence is slowly assimilated in our spirit...* this morning* i put on top of my Sansui amplifier 2 bricks of 5 pound with 12 little pieces of sorb. under them , and on top of my dac,and stax amp, battery station and charger, that were all  on top of one another already with granite plate in between, and sorbothane in between also,  2 other bricks , and guest what? the sound impove a notch with this supplementary compression, the timbre and tonality more naturally so, the sound of  a string orchestra does not  lie, neither the round voice of a sax  ! And the astonishment , when you hear subtle sound that where unknown on an old cd of yours  ....And  all that was immediately audible in my speakers and now in my headphone also ... The conclusion was clear for me for sometime already, but now it is an evidence, sorbothane must be compressed if possible....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*Not enough  compression on the sorb. or too much compression , had the same destructive effect on the natural timbre of instrument and voice particularly in the mids frequencies ...*
  
 By the way it is difficult to convince someone who have a many thousand dollars  amplifier, for him the better in the world, or dac  with tube or not, to put 10 dollars sorb and 2 bricks on the top , and promise him that  this will be the upgrade of his life , better than a thousand dollars cable probably...Hence , experimenting with sorbothane is a promising exploration  if you have  begin to realize the plague that limit all audio gear :vibrations and destructive resonance...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I wait now to replace all my sorb or a great ratio of them by 70 duro  pieces only or  with a mixing of different duro to experiment , that will probably be a little better...I already have on my satellite speakers and headphone, 70 duro, with great satisfaction and improvement...thanks to Edstrelow  first experiment...
  
*UPDATE*: The 13 elements in my chain gear are sorbothanized, *the cumulative effect* is so great, that i can hear a modification like applying different sorb. duro or thickness on the  half  part of my amplifier and pre. Sansui very clearly...the effect is like changing a tube on my past amp. it is possible with the sorbothane to tweak the sound to your liking, but you must put sorb. on all your gear....
  
*SECOND UPDATE* : *this cumulative effect*, i experience it first hand this evening : i replace the sorb 70 duro 1/10 inches under the feet of my Sansui amp by 70 duro sorb. but 1/4 inches and in the same time put two paper clip to compress the  2 pieces  of sorb. 70 duro, on each side of the stax headband that, unlike the others pieces, were remaining only glued to this day...Guess what: i dont know what is the most important change between these two modifications but the 3-d effect and the better imaging comes surprizingly to my astonished ears... Why so little change were so astounding is clear: CUMULATIVE effect of sorbothane all along my chain gear, any change now is more precise and easy to judge.... My lambda and speakers are endgame now practically for me....what a journey! thanks to ed and all of you...


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> Yup. On a pair of earbuds. I have used it for years in other applications as well.




I must try this. The 3M 80 which was recommended for use with the non-self stick sorbothane is not holding well on some surfaces, notably my speakers. And of course I want to test its sound on the SRXIII.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I must try this. The 3M 80 which was recommended for use with the non-self stick sorbothane is not holding well on some surfaces, notably my speakers. And of course I want to test its sound on the SRXIII.


 

 Just make sure the sorbo is clean. This stuff will glue water together if you try it
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  A little goes a long way.


----------



## edstrelow

I have been enjoying the heck out of my newly modded Stax LNS. The experiments I did recently comparing different damping materials have paid off in spades. All I have done is replace 1/4 inch 30 duro sorbothane on the baffle plates and headband with 1/4 inch 70 duro and the improvement is amazing. The LNS have gone from being my fourth or fifth best phone to being number one. 

Probably the most striking improvement was the sheer amount of musical detail these phones give. I am hearing instruments I never knew were there and interperative inflections in performances that I had never heard. I am getting a wide spatial field with instruments precisely located in space. Just listening to.multiple simulattaneous passages is a trendous kick. Everything is detailed and dynamic across the frequency spectrum with no harshness in the treble, loss of bass or bass boominess. It is very hard to put them down and get onto working with my other phones.

Years ago I had noted that these phones, while very nice, had a somewhat nasal sound and a definite tizziness in the treble. That is no longer a problem. However it is still my impression that sorbing does not change the frequency response of a phone, but maybe that is not correct. 

Again damping the headband is having a big impact, not as much as damping the baffles but if you don't do it you will definitely miss a significant amount of performance. Again I thank richard51 for pointing out the importance of this aspect of damping. If anyone out there wants to try sorbing a Lambda and doesn't want to open them up to put sorb on the baffle, that may be a good place to start, but you are only going to get about 20% of the benefit of full damping including the baffles.







One caution I will mention is that it seemed that when I put the sorb right up against the edge of the drivers I was getting a short circuit. I ended up reinstalling the sorb keeping a mm or 2 of space and that stopped. My guess is that I was getting a leakage of the bias. While putting damping right next to the driver would seem like a good way to stop vibrations at the source, this is not such a good idea if it leads to a short.


----------



## bnsb

Truly baffling, to say the least


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I have been enjoying the heck out of my newly modded Stax LNS. The experiments I did recently comparing different damping materials have paid off in spades. All I have done is replace 1/4 inch 30 duro sorbothane on the baffle plates and headband with 1/4 inch 70 duro and the improvement is amazing. The LNS have gone from being my fourth or fifth best phone to being number one.
> 
> Probably the most striking improvement was the sheer amount of musical detail these phones give. I am hearing instruments I never knew were there and interperative inflections in performances that I had never heard. I am getting a wide spatial field with instruments precisely located in space. Just listening to.multiple simulattaneous passages is a trendous kick. Everything is detailed and dynamic across the frequency spectrum with no harshness in the treble, loss of bass or bass boominess. It is very hard to put them down and get onto working with my other phones.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks Ed .... very interesting like always....i think that  damping the headband is more effective if you compress the sorb....Perhaps for those like me that dont want to mess with the interior baffles my method is not so less effective than sorbing the interior  near the drivers... I had put 8 paper clips that press on 32 pieces of sorbothane duro 70 , 16 pieces 1/10 inches on top of the headband, 16  pieces1/4 inches under the headband, the result is astonishing, my stax are natural timbre sounding, so astonishing in fact that i dont want to open it, and perhaps i am wrong for that,
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.... 
  
 by the way i had bought a new power conditioner : *panamax* 4300 ex, and *sorbothane rightly compressed  with load on top of the panamax, *deliver astounding  results, (with each pieces of sorb securely stable under the feet ,and remember that  duro 70 is always better with compression than duro 50 even under the feet of the gear, less bassy and more crystal clarity even in the bass ), and like i already said, sorbothane in all pieces of gear is for me very impressive in the end, i feel that each link in the chain + sorb add something more, and if i suppress the sorb. on one link the repercussion in my ears are immediately sensible, hence sorb.clean all negative resonance, i dont understand why this is so effective, but it is... ....Thanks for your thread edstrelow....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  
 My lambda nova basic :
  

  
  
 NOTE :
  
 i wait for my Mission speakers Volare v 60, and i will sorbothanize them with 70 duro pieces around the 2 membranes and wish for great results... i have bought also a new Stax SR-5, the gold model this time with thin black cable, and will put 70 duro pieces on it... i will report here... thanks to all


----------



## richard51

The Mission volare v 60 speakers are here with me for the last 3 days.... in the beginning i was not very pleased by the sound even with sorbothane in comparison with my Monsoon ... But i have put too much sorbothane in the end that is the reason why...
  
 Putting the sorb. is a delicate operation, in general ,thanks to edstrelow, duro 70 is better for audio, but where should  i put it on a speakers and what  about the number of pieces?
  
 For the Mission speakers the solution is 2 pieces between the bass membrane and the tweeter membrane, the sorbothane intercept and absorb  the negative resonance and the sound is suddenly gorgeous with an imaging clarity on par with my Monsoon planars but with more body to the sound and more natural timbre and mids so musical they remember me of my Stax sr-5........ I am in love with them now...In the beginning i have put too much sorbothane (6 pieces near the 2 membranes)... Lesson are learn with experiment... The mission are now as good as my Stax headphone, with an equilibrium between bass,mids, and highs, the bass are not too much  less  in comparison with the sub  of the Monsoon and these Mission are only 2 way speakers... ...Now i prefer them to my beloved  Monsoon, but the sound of these 2 is so different, i will keep the 2 systems...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 incredible power of sorb. mod to optimize the sound of every piece of my gear...
  
*UPDATE* i have put a heavy load on top of the speakers (30 pounds on top of many pieces of sorb. and that make a great deal with the soundstage, *compression of the sorbothane  where it is possible always made a huge difference* ) and with 5 pieces of sorb duro 70 directly under the speakers...A great improvement is the 2 little pieces on this photo...i add another one 70 duro but only 1/10 inches thick  on the top of the bass membrane not visible on the photo, with great success...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> The Mission volare v 60 speakers are here with me for the last 3 days.... in the beginning i was not very pleased by the sound even with sorbothane in comparison with my Monsoon ... But i have put too much sorbothane in the end that is the reason why...
> 
> Putting the sorb. is a delicate operation, in general ,thanks to edstrelow, duro 70 is better for audio, but where should  i put it on a speakers and what  about the number of pieces?
> 
> ...



I have been sorbing my two main speaker set-ups for some time now and this gives a big boost in clarity even though the big Polks are spiked and the smaller Spicas are fastened directly to the wall. The ideal would be to sorb the insides of the speakers, but I have no intention of opening them up. I have had good luck with sorb on the speaker front but yours look too fancy to want to glue sorb to the woof veneer. Mine do not have that type of veneer and are then covered by grills so you would not know what I have done by looking. The main problem I have had sorbing speakers is finding the right glue. The 3M 80 does not always set properly and I have had some pieces come off. I must see how shoe-goo works. Are you using self-stick?

I went to the San Francisco area for the college graduation of my youngest daughter, which was quit nice but I had just modded my Stax Lambda 404 with 1/4 inch 70 duro sorb and was going through withdrawal symptoms. On coming back, the 404's are glorious. You really have to try sorbing the inside baffle of your lambdas.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I have been sorbing my two main speaker set-ups for some time now and this gives a big boost in clarity even though the big Polks are spiked and the smaller Spicas are fastened directly to the wall. The ideal would be to sorb the insides of the speakers, but I have no intention of opening them up. I have had good luck with sorb on the speaker front but yours look too fancy to want to glue sorb to the woof veneer. Mine do not have that type of veneer and are then covered by grills so you would not know what I have done by looking. The main problem I have had sorbing speakers is finding the right glue. The 3M 80 does not always set properly and I have had some pieces come off. I must see how shoe-goo works. Are you using self-stick?
> 
> I went to the San Francisco area for the college graduation of my youngest daughter, which was quit nice but I had just modded my Stax Lambda 404 with 1/4 inch 70 duro sorb and was going through withdrawal symptoms. On coming back, the 404's are glorious. You really have to try sorbing the inside baffle of your lambdas.


 

 yes Ed my sorb duro 70 are self stick....i dont give a damn for the veneer, i put sorb on it under some load of bricks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I trust you completely for your advise to sorb  the inside baffle of my lambda....BUT now with my headband completely sorb with 8 paper clips for compression and 32 pieces of sorb duro 70 half 1/10 inches, the other half, 1/4 inches, the sound and imaging, and soundstage are so good that.... i cannot imagine that this would be better...  I will  try  it after the sorbing of my new SR-5 gold coming in the next few days...congratulations for your daughter  graduation...thanks for all ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> yes Ed my sorb duro 70 are self stick....i dont give a damn for the veneer, i put sorb on it under some load of bricks :bigsmile_face:
> 
> I trust you completely for your advise to sorb  the inside baffle of my lambda....BUT now with my headband completely ...congratulations for your daughter  graduation...thanks for all ...




Thanks, you would probably appreciate the fact that she did a double major in philosophy and religious studies at Berkeley which most people don't realize is named after the philosopher and theologian, George Berkeley.

Getting back to Lambdas, the newly remodded 404 sounds very much like the remodded LNS. Tonally though the 404 is warmer with more upper midrange. Curiously while I preferred the 404 to the LNS, even with its previous mods, I have a slight prerence now for the LNS


----------



## richard51

I must say that this evening after 4 days of experimentation...The Mission volare v 60 reveal himself to me their essence... what a great deal ! BUT without sorbothane they are not equal to my Monsoon and they  lack clarity.... With 30 pounds of load on top of  each speakers with the sorbothane then compressed  they are world class speakers and crush my Monsoon...Imaging, clarity with body sound...They are on par with  my  Stax Lambda....Not bad for a 75 dollars purchase....Sorbothane is real panacea to poor audiophile...Not so poor audiophile hate to spoil a pricier gear with ugly sorbothane...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The day i read this thread is great day in my life, it  save me a ton of money and give me audiophile experience and ecstasy....thanks Ed


----------



## edstrelow

I agree that most speakers will benefit from damping with sorbothane almost as much as headphones. This thread started out rather specifically for Stax headphones, but over time it became clear that the problem of vibrations affecting sound was a more general.one affecting nearly all phones. Essentially the energy fed back into the phones or speakers has to go somewhere or be damped. I think we got moved here from the high end thread because we wandered off the topic of Stax phones. As well some Staxers didn't like being told that their expensive toys had a major flaw.

A second issue which has come up here is damping microphonics. These are the much smaller amplitude vibrations found in amplifiers and the like which degrade sound. Years ago this problem was well enough understood that tube systems used dampers. Sorbothane footers have been around for years to minimize these. What I have found is that small patches of sorbothane preferably 70 duro are generally more effective than footers. Richard51 contends that various techiques of compression also help..


----------



## richard51

The last  evening i was enjoying my new speakers less than normally, suddenly i verify the 32 foots of all my sorbothanize  8 pieces of gear , i discover that one piece of sorb. was no more in place under the dac, and another was no more in place under the battery charger, enough to made the sound more thin and  less appealing... This is a live experience of this cumulative effect of the sorbothane across all the chain, each effect refine the sound and you were accustomed with, hence without only one sorb. piece or two the ill resonance effect is manifest...By the way 70 duro is better not only  on the headphone for me, but anywhere if compressed a little...If not possible 50 duro is great also for exemple under my power conditioner the round patches of 50 duro are more stable and the sound results seems very good (*UPDATE* : the 70 duro pieces are better under my power conditioner than the 50 duro pieces by a great margin but must be compressed by a load )...... i think that applying sorb. is not like plug and play, we must learn and experiment, but the final results is higher than expectation, my mission speakers with or without sorb are not the same speakers...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 i think i need some glue that is compatible with the sorb. chemical composition...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> The last  evening i was enjoying my new speakers less than normally, suddenly i verify the 32 foots of all my sorbothanize  8 pieces of gear , i discover that one piece of sorb. was no more in place under the dac, and another was no more in place under the battery charger, enough to made the sound more thin and  less appealing... This is a live experience of this cumulative effect of the sorbothane across all the chain, each effect refine the sound and you were accustomed with, hence without only one sorb. piece or two the ill resonance effect is manifest...By the way 70 duro is better not only  on the headphone for me, but anywhere if compressed a little...If not possible 50 duro is great also for exemple under my power conditioner the round patches of 50 duro are more stable and the sound results seems very good...... i think that applying sorb. is not like plug and play, we must learn and experiment, but the final results is higher than expectation, my mission speakers with or without sorb are not the same speakers...:atsmile:
> 
> i think i need some glue that is compatible with the sorb. chemical composition...



I also noticed that if the sorb is not properly glued it doesn't work well and may even impair sound. So far my impression is that the self-stick sorb is pretty good at staying in place. On the other hand 3M80 which had been recommended by a seller of sorb, sometimes comes unglued. I experimented with superglue in an earlier post but felt that sonically it was not as good as self-stick. I must try the Shoe Goo on my SRXIII test rig. This does mean using up $5-6.00 of sorb for each test but needs to be done.


----------



## richard51

I have just sorbothanize my new Stax SR-5 gold, 7 pieces inside each cup 1/4 inches duro 70 self adhesive sorb, and 8 pieces on the headband on each side with 2 paper clip for compression, the result are astoundingly good and this gold model is better than the old sr-5 by a good margin, more nuance and clarity, probably because of the thin plastic  stax cable replacing the old textile rigid cable of the old SR-5 and the duro 70 is also better choice ... i am absolutely thrill by the Stax SR-5 gold, i drive them with the srd6 self bias with the Sansui AU 7700...The sound is perfect, bass is detailed and better than in the stax lambda and speakers, all the spectrum are more neutral  than anything i have ever heard, all is better  in truth... God bless sorbothane and Edstrelow


----------



## Quixote79

got some clueless sorb the other day unfortunately. dont understand the use for clueless.
 Do you guys do big globs when doing your thing? any advice highly appreciated. thanks


----------



## edstrelow

quixote79 said:


> got some clueless sorb the other day unfortunately. dont understand the use for clueless.
> Do you guys do big globs when doing your thing? any advice highly appreciated. thanks




I assume you are talking about sorbothane that does not have glue. You can try to glue it with whatever glue you can find. One of the sorb dealers recommended 3M80 which I have used. You need to follow the instruction about coating both surfaces and letting it partly dry before attaching it. I have still had the occasional problem with the sorb coming off. 

 I did some comparisons of the effect of different glues on sound earlier in this thread. Superglue holds
 well but it seemed to degrade the sound somewhat compared to the self-stick sorb. BTW self-stick is actually a very thin double-sided tape. I really need to compare 3M80 and another glue, Shoegoo, with the self-stick.

You can also try to hold sorb in place with a clamp, as I have done, or paper clips as richard51 has done.

At the moment I am only using 1/4 inch 70 duro self-stick sorb. You can get a 3 inch square sheet for about $6.00 on ebay. That is probably enough for most headphones although now that I am applying it to the headbands of my Stax Sigmas and Lambdas, I need about 1 1/2 of these sheets on each phone.

The picture shows the clamp I made for the SR007.


----------



## richard51

Amazingly, because i want to enhance the highs of my newly bought  Sr-5 gold, and with my last experimentation i was no more completely satisfied, i decided to add 4 pieces 1/10 inches duro 70 and 3 pieces 1/4 inches duro 70 around the exterior of each cup... After that no more harshness in the highs, better bass, and  mostly organic mids, i think that the mixing of 2 thickness of 70 duro sorbothane (1/4 inches and 1/10 inches) act like a better filter of the resonance of the cups, now my SR-5 crush really my lambda for their clarity and dynamic, for sure they are also driven not by the srm 252s but via the srd6 by the Sansui, perhaps it is part of the equation with the sorb. of this final crushing result...But mixing the different thickness is better  for sure...the difference between before and after speaks for that...
  
 I listen now to the amazing rendering of the art of the fugue by Delmé quartet,  made possible by the amazing transcription of Robert Simpson, and the tonality and  timbre of each string instrument is evidently more easily perceived immediately by the ears now... By the way this interpretation  and transcription of the art of the fugue is the most transcendental one for me and sound like a contemporary opus more than a baroque piece, really incarnated intemporality !...





 
  
 When we play with sorbothane, we can tweak the sound, like playing with a set of filters, but rightly put at the end, without threading  any gain and loss here or there, we have only  a better clarity and dynamic all across the board, and this is the sign that you have correctly put the right amount of sorb. with the right duro,and thickness...
  
 In a final note i cannot recommand enough to people who want a TOTL headphone this SR-5 gold, really the sheer musicality of this Stax magnum opus is an upgraditis kills... for a relatively small price...


----------



## richard51

I was not completely satisfied with my first  sorb. application under the speakers... That was 70 duro but only 1/8 inches thick... I remove them and replace it with 1/4 thick 70 duro, and for compression  what i put on top of it is now more than 10 pounds more than before, around  40 pounds in all.... The result was way better, no more dissatisfaction now.... Lesson learned, compression and the right duro, and right thickness....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I remind all here that all the piece of gear gain musicality if sorbothanized, even the power conditioner... Nobody here  know exactly why this is so, but reality dont wait for science or reason, experimenting is believing, science will meet us someday...
  
 When i listen now to my speakers i dont feel the urge to go on with my Stax SR-5, or when i listen to my Stax SR-5 i dont feel the same urge to reverse to the speakers... I guess that this means the two are different but interesting listening experience on their owns... Viva Sorbothane!
  
 Remember that like Ed has discovered 70 duro is better for audio damping, and my experience confirm the same ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Amazingly, because i want to enhance the highs of my newly bought  Sr-5 gold, and with my last experimentation i was no more completely satisfied, i decided to add 4 pieces 1/10 inches duro 70 and 3 pieces 1/4 inches duro 70 around the exterior of each cup... After that no more harshness in the highs, better bass, and  mostly organic mids, i think that the mixing of 2 thickness of 70 duro sorbothane (1/4 inches and 1/10 inches) act like a better filter of the resonance of the cups, now my SR-5 crush really my lambda for their clarity and dynamic, for sure they are also driven not by the srm 252s but via the srd6 by the Sansui, perhaps it is part of the equation with the sorb. of this final crushing result...But mixing the different thickness is better  for sure...the difference between before and after speaks for that...
> 
> I listen now to the amazing rendering of the art of the fugue by Delmé quartet,  made possible by the amazing transcription of Robert Simpson, and the tonality and  timbre of each string instrument is evidently more easily perceived immediately by the ears now... By the way this interpretation  and transcription of the art of the fugue is the most transcendental one for me and sound like a contemporary opus more than a baroque piece, really incarnated intemporality !...
> 
> ...


 
 I am glad you got such good results.  The SR-5 is a fine phone when sorbed up.  Good to hear that the SR5 Gold is even better. 
  


richard51 said:


> I was not completely satisfied with my first  sorb. application under the speakers... That was 70 duro but only 1/8 inches thick... I remove them and replace it with 1/4 thick 70 duro, and for compression  what i put on top of it is now more than 10 pounds more than before, around  40 pounds in all.... The result was way better, no more dissatisfaction now.... Lesson learned, compression and the right duro, and right thickness....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 There's a lot we don't know about how to most effectively damp vibrations in headphones, speakers and other gear.  Using my Stax SRXIII phones with interchangeable covers, i\I am able to make some comparisons but  we have only scratched the surface of the appropriate use of these types of material.  And I say "types," because we know that Sennheiser and Grado are working on similar lines with other materials.  You mentioned using different thicknesses of 70 duro. These may very well have different absorption characteristics. Similarly with different sizes.  I compared two sizes of sorb pieces and liked the smaller ones better. But would even smaller ones be better?   Would it pay to mix sizes?
  
 What is the effect of different types of glue and how about various clamping techniques instead of glue or self-stick?
  
 I am currently going from 30 to 70 duro in my main phones and improvements in sound are quite striking.  So far I have done my Stax Lambda 404 and LNS and Sigma/404 and Sigma pro and its like going back to the difference between sorbed and unsorbed phones.  You get big jumps in clarity, separation of instruments, reduction in harshness and better dynamics. When I did the Lambda LNS, 
 I put on an old analogue recording of Delius' Appalachia. At first I didn't recognize it, because whereas normally the recording is mediocre, now it sounded really good and I had to check the disc label to see what I was listening to.
  
 I tend to do the modifications fairly slowly.  Thus I have been starting out  first changing the sorb on the headbands ( the Sigma and Lambda have very similar bands) and then spending a couple of days to get familiar with the sonic changes before opening up the phones to change the sorb on the baffle plate. 
  
 One thing I notice is that the sound often changes over several days, probably due to the glue setting more firmly.  Previously when I sorbed the Sigmas, I  found that the bass started to sound boomy after a few days and I removed some of the 30 duro sorb.    However the 70 duro mods are not giving rise to bass boominess, quite the opposite they are taming the basic boominess of this phone.   Over the last few days, the Sigmas just seem to get better and better.  I would like to compare them with the new Sennheiser $50K super stat phone.   I am pretty sure the Senn is damped so the Sigma/404 may not have any advantage here.  However, The Senn cannot create the out-of-head experience of the Sigma,  because the Senn is still a conventional superaural phone whereas the Sigma drivers are ahead of the ears and flood the ear with sound in a totally different manner. 
  
 The pictures show the most recent mods:


----------



## richard51

For sure Ed  i cannot say in the absolute that the SR-5  versus the gold version is bad, because i cannot made a comparison now with the same sorb. duro etc, but the gold is more refine, the old version has beautiful mid, perhaps better natural sound, but the gold have a bit more details and bass ... Frankly i love the 2 and if i have money i will grab another SR-5 with the thick cable for comparison...The only one thing that is bad with the old version is the cable, but it is certainly one of the reason to his particular sound...All in All the gold version is the better one i think but i cannot be sure without the comparison...


----------



## DangerClose

edstrelow said:


> You get big jumps in clarity, separation of instruments, reduction in harshness and better dynamics


 
  
 Does the gain in clarity lose the "musical resonance?"  When I'm damping headphones, it's easy to go too far because the clarity and separation are so good, but it can sound more like an analytical tool than a musical headphone.  Basically fast decay vs. slow decay.  Though it's also easy to go even further than that and kill the dynamics with too much damping.


----------



## edstrelow

dangerclose said:


> Does the gain in clarity lose the "musical resonance?"  When I'm damping headphones, it's easy to go too far because the clarity and separation are so good, but it can sound more like an analytical tool than a musical headphone.  Basically fast decay vs. slow decay.  Though it's also easy to go even further than that and kill the dynamics with too much damping.




When damping is done right you should just be getting what is in the musical signal without the faux resonance provided by the headphone structure. If there has been any big discovery here, it is that vibrations in the headphone structures, whether you call them resonance, tuning or whatever, are not good and just distortion. 

However, getting it right can be tricky with some phones although I have never had the problem you describe which if I understand it is a dryness of sound. What I am able to get is more of the original resonance in the recording which is often quite different than what some phones and speakers give.

The main problem I have encountered in sorbing a few phones is bass boominess. The worst was a Stax SR003, but it was cured by using smaller sizes of sorbothane. 

Working with sorb is quite easy since you can add and subtract this material as you wish until you get the sound right. The mods are totally reversible and the sorb is inexpensive.

I don't post a mod for any particular phone until I am quite happy with it and I think others would agree. If i find a better mod, such as using the higher duro 70 sorb I am currently doing, I will post that as a suggested upgrade. 

There is a lot we don't know about this problem and I hope as more manufacturers get into it that it will be better discussed and understood. So far Sennheiser and Grado are doing no.more than briefly mentioning that they are working along these lines. Of course there are proprietary issues at play and money to be made from better designs, so I would not expect full disclosure.


----------



## richard51

This morning i have listened to my system , after  removing 20 pounds of load that were on top on the battery charger and the dac, without remembering to put it after my job with the battery charger was completed... After 30 minutes of listening, dissatisfied without being conscious of the absence of the load, i realize suddenly  that the load was not there and that  without the right compression the sorbothane duro 70 is not very effective... Lesson learned when i put back the load the sound was more good than ever...
  
 This evening i add another load to my speakers with another great result... Now i have an incredible load of 40 pounds minimum perhaps more and the sorb duro 70 is better compressed and the sound imaging , bass all is way  more detailed...Duro 70 is the way to go, but remember to compress it if possible ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 There is no doubt in my mind that many people will smile of this means to compress the sorb duro 70, but the result is so good that i smile more than anybody in the end ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I dont know of no other modification that give you so much improvement for a little cost! Some people pay thousand for a cable that were not much more good! i can say that the sorbothane give you many times more than any other product proportionaly to his cost...
  
  My battery charger+sorb compressed and under it a Stax Amp+sorb. and under it Dac bushmaster +sorb. compress duro 70 on top of each piece of gear and under their 4 legs.

  
  you can see my Stax lambda +sorb

  
  
 here my SR-5 gold +sorb. my Sansui+sorb. compressed

  
  
 Power condioner Panamax 4300 ex +sorb duro 70 compressed


----------



## soren_brix

richard51 said:


> I listen now to the amazing rendering of the art of the fugue by Delmé quartet,  made possible by the amazing transcription of Robert Simpson


 
 What's so amazing about the transcription?  has Robert done anything else than raising the score by a quarter ?


----------



## richard51

soren_brix said:


> What's so amazing about the transcription?  has Robert done anything else than raising the score by a quarter ?


 

 My remark was not intended to be a musicological remark, only an appreciative impression of my version of choice... I am no musician but i have ears nonetheless and this version is at least beautiful with this  powerful sobriety of the transcription ... For Simpson i have listen to some of his symphonies , and chamber music and he is an interesting and talented   composer...His book about Bruckner is also profound and i was admirative of his analysis of this great man music... His transcription  of the art of the fugue seems to me effectively in a spirit minimalistic and respectful, (sometimes less is more), hence the incredible modernity of this  bach magnum opus work  shine  way more with this transcription for me ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With or without sorbothane...
  
 The Scherchen transcription, is not  so minimalistic because of the choice to assign the voices to the wood and string of a small orchestra but this is another matter and my second choice for the art of the fugue....For sure i will listen your own transcription if you made one for the string quartet more sophisticated and better than "Robert" simpler one , waiting for that in the mean time the Simpson is for me the better one, you can thank him for me if he is one of your friend...


----------



## richard51

Ed i come back with my impression of the SR-5 gold....Now the gluing process  are  better settle in place, like  you know it takes some time, and Wow now i can say with confidence that the SR-5 gold is a marvel...i cannot compare directly with the cloth cable version but my impression is really that the gold are a more refine version, the cable is more pleasurable to use, and the sound are gorgeous...The point important is that the gluing process takes time...
  
 ed i have discover this interesting thread and post in particular that will interest all here, the mojoguy seems very interesting :
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/771234/microzotl2-tube-headphone-amp-and-preamp-a-breakthrough-device/1680#post_12620939


----------



## soren_brix

richard51 said:


> My remark was not intended to be a musicological remark, only an appreciative impression of my version of choice... I am no musician but i have ears nonetheless and this version is at least beautiful with this  powerful sobriety of the transcription ... For Simpson i have listen to some of his symphonies , and chamber music and he is an interesting and talented   composer...His book about Bruckner is also profound and i was admirative of his analysis of this great man music... His transcription  of the art of the fugue seems to me effectively in a spirit minimalistic and respectful, (sometimes less is more), hence the incredible modernity of this  bach magnum opus work  shine  way more with this transcription for me ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
OK, I was just curious since you noticed the “transcription” as being amazing itself, and as far as I understand from the cover notes it is merely a transposing rather than a transcription.
 I believe you are talking about Bach’s music when you refere to “His transcription seems to me effectively in a spirit minimalistic and respectful, hence the incredible modernity of this works  shine for me” rather than Robert Simpson.
 Scherchen transcription is for orchestra and as such a real transcription.
  
I guess Simpson is united with his creator some twenty years ago ...


----------



## richard51

soren_brix said:


> OK, I was just curious since you noticed the “transcription” as being amazing itself, and as far as I understand from the cover notes it is merely a transposing rather than a transcription.
> I believe you are talking about Bach’s music when you refere to “His transcription seems to me effectively in a spirit minimalistic and respectful, hence the incredible modernity of this works  shine for me” rather than Robert Simpson.
> Scherchen transcription is for orchestra and as such a real transcription.
> 
> I guess Simpson is united with his creator some twenty years ago ...


 

 i apologize... You are right, english is not my native language and the Simpson version is a transposition, not a transcription in a litteral sense of the word, and yes i was speaking about Bach music in the quatuor format...the quatuor format does not need the same effort than the orchestral form, it is more easy for sure to adapt to it the fugues and the result  is more "modern" to my ears... I was using in a loose manner the word transcription.... i thank you for your tolerance with my bad english...


----------



## richard51

People who knows about sorbothane,  often dont know that duro 70 is better, if they know that, they dont know  most of the time that this duro act better if compressed... For example If not compressed even with sorbothane my Mission speakers are not on par with the Monsoon, but if compressed with duro 70 they are better than the Monsoon (Alas! it is not possible to put a load on the Monsoon satellites)...result of my experiment...


----------



## edstrelow

I have completed my conversion to 1/4 inch 70 duro sorbothane on my Stax Lambdas (LNS and 404) and Sigmas (Pro and 404) with great results. The liveliness, musicality  and detail of the sound is superb.  Now it is time to go after the big guy, the Stax SR007.  I am starting with the headband damping, after all this is how I got started on this problem  (although it took richard51 to point out that that other phones needed headband damping too.)  
 
I have started by removing the leather covers on the 2 metal arcs, thinking that if these are between the sorb and the metal that these will interfere with the damping.  To get them off, i had to disassemble the arc system and pull the leather off. (These are saved in case I want to use them again.) 
 
I then replace the 1/8 and 1/4 inch sorb pads with 70 duro  and voila a big improvement already.   It will probably be several days before I open the earcups up to replace the much larger amount of sorb inside each cup.  I want to get thoroughly familiar with the new sound of these phones with the change in headband padding before I go full bore on these phones. 
 
It is very enjoyable work to upgrade what are already excellent phones, each new mod, when it works,  gives me a little boost. These phones sound excellent already with this preliminary mod, so why not enjoy them for a while.  The pic shows the newly- naked arcs.


----------



## edstrelow

Good news for anyone who wants to try a sorbothane mod without ripping your phone apart.  Damping on the headband may be sufficient for some phones.
 
By the time richard51 pointed out that merely applying sorbothane to the headband of the Stax SR5phones could give effective damping, I had already sorbed most of my phones, assuming that it would be most effective if the sorb was applied inside the earcups.   I neverthless went ahead and applied sorb to the bands of these various damped  Stax phones and noted an additional improvement.  But until today I was not able to really determine  how effective damping, applied solely on the headband, could be.  
 
I still have one good Stax phone which had not been damped, a low bias Sigma. I had already applied sorb to the bands of my 2 high bias models and was not about to remove this for a test  of the headband, so I used the low bias model,  swapping around the sorbed and unsorbed headbands on this phone.
 
 The result - damn good!  Rather like the SR5  which is also low bias phone, sorbothane damping pulls the dynamics up to where you are hardly aware that these are older discontinued models. 
 
When you go back to an undamped phone you become aware that there is a lot of "ambience" in the sound.  In fact I vaguely remember, years ago when I became a headphone afficionado, that there was so much more ambience in headphones.  I put it down to the fact that headphones must be able to reproduce ambience better than speakers.  Well, now I realize that is incorrect - a lot of that "ambience" is faux ambience, probably just the mechanical vibration of the earcups which without some form of damping does not properly dissipate. When you dampen the phones with something like sorb,  there is more air and space around the instruments and voices. Dynamics and tonality are better and the sound is less harsh.   And lo and behold, you start to hear more of the ambience in the recording which has been covered up by the faux ambience.  All pretty amazing for  a few bucks of sorb. 
 
In this comparison, the sorb is 1/4 inch 70 duro self-stick  The picture shows the old Sigma with the two headbands. I have pretty much filled in the underside of the headband, using about half  of a 3x3 inch square sheet.   
 
While this shows the old Sigma design, the headband of the Lambdas is very much the same.   There is quite a lot of room on the band to apply sorb, in fact there are not many other places to do this unless you open up the headphone.   So before you drop a few hundred (close to a grand for the current TOL Lambda) or get rid of your low bias Stax phones,  you might want to spend $6.00 on ebay for the aforesaid sheet and try this procedure.  BTW the sound is generally better after a few hours/days, probably because it takes a while for the self-stick to cure.  Whether this will work well with other types of headband, I can not say. 
 
Should we really be surprised about this.  Sennheiser has been using damping material in the headband of the HD 800 for a few years and I would imagine in its new $50K super stat too. I am sure this is a big factor in the performance of both phones.


----------



## richard51

thanks for all you dedication Ed...
  
 I had a discussion with a great guy and specialist ingeneer in audio, he said to me that at the end of his experiment in comparison,  wooden feet are the best... I trust his ears and method for sure in comparison with sorb. and many type of feet , but how would he know without investigating  only sorbothane seriously that sorbothane DURO 70 is better for audio, and  how would he know it is necessary to obtains optimal results to load heavily the sorb. to compress it ?...Wooden feet isolate but are they better  than sorb to absorb and dissipate vibration and reducing  negative resonance ? without hearing that i am pretty sure that the answer is no... With  money budget  for now i cannot afford to experiment and compare the wooden feet and sorb...For now... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 By the way Ed for the Lambda i am almost certain and it seems to me  that damping  only the headband is near  optimal result...The naturalness of the timbre to my ears is very good...
  
 For the Sr-5, i think that damping the exterior cup ( i dare not to open it) + the headband is necessary to obtain optimal results...i have put pieces of sorb duro 70  1/4 inches  glued at the exterior of the cup (only 3 pieces duro 70 1/4 inches,+ 3 other pieces of smaller duro and thickness ) and the results are very good on all count or almost, perhaps a bit more sorb. duro 70 instead would have been  be better , i will order some sorb. duro 70  for adding a bit more  and if necessary removing the other duro and thickness of the exterior cups...
  
*UPDATE*: the specialist does not answer to my precise point about  sorbothane... He say that there is no miracle solution for vibration for all gear in any room , and i am certain there is no miracle solution, but he mix the general vibration problem with the specific one i point to... Yes There is a general vibration for all speakers in a particular spot on earth and in a particular room that is the general problem... But the specific vibration problem is the internal vibration resonance of the speakers or other gear, the sorbothane duro 70 compressed is a solution for the internal vibration of a speakers system or for a headphone, or an amplifier, or a dac, etc because he absorb vibation and transform it in heat, and act optimally better if compressed,  wooden feet cannot do that and this is my point...The guy is interesting i dare not interrupt his thread no more with the sorbothane...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> thanks for all you dedication Ed...
> 
> I had a discussion with a great guy and specialist ingeneer in audio, he said to me that at the end of his experiment in comparison,  wooden feet are the best... I trust his ears and method for sure in comparison with sorb. and many type of feet , but how would he know without investigating  only sorbothane seriously that sorbothane DURO 70 is better for audio, and  how would he know it is necessary to obtains optimal results to load heavily the sorb. to compress it ?...Wooden feet isolate but are they better  than sorb to absorb and dissipate vibration and reducing  negative resonance ? without hearing that i am pretty sure that the answer is no... With  money budget  for now i cannot afford to experiment and compare the wooden feet and sorb...For now...
> 
> ...




Did he report his tests anywhere? It's obviously hard to assess claims when you don't know how they were arrived at.
 I would like to think that most of my claims are backed by at least a basic methodology of comparing 2 conditions that the reader can see and replicate if interested in doing so. I still rely on subjective assessments of sound, but let's not get into the blind testing issues. As a one-time experimental.psychologist, I can say that good experimenting in that area is difficult, time-consuming and not generally very sensitive.

One of the things that I think is needed to address damping issues is a means of measuring vibrations in headphone structures and other eqipment. That way we could tell just how much energy is floating around and what frequencies these might be. Then, presumably when you have found what material damps down as much vibration as possible, you will have the optimal sound from your phones, speakers or electronic equipment.

Surely there must be some kind if sensor to do this type of thing. I have not heard of one but then this seems more in the realm of mechanical engineering than traditional audio.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Did he report his tests anywhere? It's obviously hard to assess claims when you don't know how they were arrived at.
> I would like to think that most of my claims are backed by at least a basic methodology of comparing 2 conditions that the reader can see and replicate if interested in doing so. I still rely on subjective assessments of sound, but let's not get into the blind testing issues. As a one-time experimental.psychologist, I can say that good experimenting in that area is difficult, time-consuming and not generally very sensitive.
> 
> One of the things that I think is needed to address damping issues is a means of measuring vibrations in headphone structures and other eqipment. That way we could tell just how much energy is floating around and what frequencies these might be. Then, presumably when you have found what material damps down as much vibration as possible, you will have the optimal sound from your phones, speakers or electronic equipment.
> ...


 

 if you scroll down on one of my last post i had given the adress of the thread... It is very interesting read...
  
  you can begin to read here this is it :
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/771234/microzotl2-tube-headphone-amp-and-preamp-a-breakthrough-device/1680


----------



## richard51

Right now i have replace the load of  7 bricks on my speakers by 3  heaxagonal concrete slabs(31 pounds total) better esthetics and 3 pounds heavier ... i know that compressing the sorbothane is key to his use, but the load on it must be the optimal one, with these 3 slabs the sound is way  more accurate and i think i have now the right load.... My speakers are extraordinary good now...Way better than my beloved Monsoon... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 the first time i read edstrelow here i know that he was onto something... I am not an expert in audio but i have great intuition, I am very glad to have stumble onto him and his thread...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> if you scroll down on one of my last post i had given the adress of the thread... It is very interesting read...
> 
> you can begin to read here this is it :
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/771234/microzotl2-tube-headphone-amp-and-preamp-a-breakthrough-device/1680




Thanks for this.

He does make some interesting points, and I like his point about different components and possibly even different parts in a component having different problems with vibration. 

He is discussing "microphonics", i.e. the small voltages generated in circuits by mechanical vibrations rather than the related problem I am mostly concerned with, which I just call ,"mechanical vibrations " in headphones. It is a sort of microphonics issue too. I suspect (but do not actually know) that vibrations build up in the headphones when they are being played, because they take some time to.dissipate as heat (since energy is neither created nor destroyed.) These vibrations either feed back to the driver, causing distortion, or may create their own sound in the air spaces of the phones. 

 Reading his post it occurs to me that there may even be a third possibility, microphonics in the electrical cabling or other parts, caused by the vibrations.! 

With sorbothane is that it is not appropriate to talk about sorb doing this or that. You have to consider what duro of sorb, what size, how much and where it is placed. These are all factors with which I have done some modest experiments and found to be important. Also, I also use sorbothane footers on various items of equipment and have not found them as effective as small pieces stuck directly to equipment. 

Certainly there may be other materials to consider as well as as yet unknown issues.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> Thanks for this.
> 
> He does make some interesting points, and I like his point about different components and possibly even different parts in a component having different problems with vibration.
> 
> ...


 

 Ed before i compress the sorb. under my gear it was not so much  effective, and before i use 70 duro it was not also not so much  effective....The * key point is  for absorbing vibration and transforming them into heat* and cleaning resonance ,the sorb  70 duro compressed work better than others products , certainly more effectively than metal or wood feet...I have try different duro compressed  and uncompressed...
  
 and i am in the same opinion regarding microphonics...


----------



## richard51

Another confirmation of the optimal value of the duro 70 sorb for me : i replace many  sorbathane pieces  duro 50 and 40 that were under the  granite plate  that are on top of my speakers +3concrete slabs ( i have already  put some days ago 5 pieces of duro 70 under each  speakers with great results)
  
 The replacement made a superlative difference more clarity and definition....I have duro 70 pieces under and on top of my speakers now rightly compressed...The proof is hearing...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The result is so evident then my wife (who hate my audio obsession) hears it immediately, is there a need for better proof?
  
 Anywhere on all piece of gear where i put it  sorbothane duro 70 is better than the other duro he replace , the problem is that this 70  duro is more dense and it works really better compressed...But on an headphone 1/4 duro 70 correctly glued is better also than any other duro for me, even not compressed, but better if compressed.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 It is a pity that the message is going out very slowly, for all the  poor audiophile like me sorbothane is miraculous...More precisely  i will say now sorbothane duro 70 *rightly applied*  is miraculous.
 By the way all my gear now sound superlatively good and i cannot pick one of them et absolutely prefer it to the 2 others, each of  their own potential is optimally stage by the sorb.


----------



## Quixote79

richard51 said:


> Ed before i compress the sorb. under my gear it was not so much  effective, and before i use 70 duro it was not also not so much  effective....The * key point is  for absorbing vibration and transforming them into heat* and cleaning resonance ,the sorb  70 duro compressed work better than others products , certainly more effectively than metal or wood feet...I have try different duro compressed  and uncompressed...
> 
> and i am in the same opinion regarding microphonics...


 

 does this mean using duro70 and some bricks compressing the cables will reduce microsonics?


----------



## richard51

quixote79 said:


> does this mean using duro70 and some bricks compressing the cables will reduce microsonics?


 

 The problem, as i understand it, is that any audio apparatus, amp, dac, power conditioner, speakers, headphone, induce vibrations, and the summation of all these vibrations add in the end  in a specific pattern of resonance,( dependant of the particular interaction of the parts in the specific apparatus) and this  plague the resulting sound with negative resonance and noise ... Sorbothane duro 70, preferably optimally compressed, diminish the noise and  erase this negative resonance resulting of all the parts of the gear interacting and producing probably also  pertubating microvoltage,not only vibrations, weakening acoustics final results  ...The sorbothane is efficient not only for isolating the vibration but for dissipating  a substantial part of it into heat,hence reducing negative resonance and this is the manufacturer affirmation ,not mine, i only experiment the truth of that...
  
 The concrete slabs i put on the gear is for compressing optimally the sorbothane  duro 70 because it is the best  duro for audio but  it is a harder grade duro and if the piece of gear you use with it is too light, that will not do the job, because the duro 70 is a hard one, then using bricks or any load will do the  compressing job...
 About  your question i dont think, no, that to put sorb with brick on a cable will give better result, because there is NO PART vibrating  in a cable, like in a piece of gear....But your question is sarcasm indeed, or is it a serious question?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 By the way , all my gear is sorbothanized, and i feel less obliged to upgrate at all cost because of insatisfaction,or hype crowd influence, my headphone and speakers give now  to my astounded ears their real potential and that at a very low cost...This is not possible for me without sorbothane...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Try it and you will smile at your gear ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> The problem, as i understand it, is that any audio apparatus, amp, dac, power conditioner, speakers, headphone, induce vibrations, and the summation of all these vibrations add in the end  in a specific pattern of resonance,( dependant of the particular interaction of the parts in the specific apparatus) and this  plague the resulting sound with negative resonance and noise ... Sorbothane duro 70, preferably optimally compressed, diminish the noise and  erase this negative resonance resulting of all the parts of the gear interacting and producing probably also  pertubating microvoltage,not only vibrations, weakening acoustics final results  ...The sorbothane is efficient not only for isolating the vibration but for dissipating  a substantial part of it into heat,hence reducing negative resonance and this is the manufacturer affirmation ,not mine, i only experiment the truth of that...
> 
> The concrete slabs i put on the gear is for compressing optimally the sorbothane  duro 70 because it is the best  duro for audio but  it is a harder grade duro and if the piece of gear you use with it is too light, that will not do the job, because the duro 70 is a hard one, then using bricks or any load will do the  compressing job...
> About  your question i dont think, no, that to put sorb with brick on a cable will give better result, because there is NO PART vibrating  in a cable, like in a piece of gear....But your question is sarcasm indeed, or is it a serious question?
> ...




I am sure what you are doing helps the sound, but I wonder how much is due to the sheer mass of material rather than the compression of sorbothane. Adding mass to components has been around for a long time as a means of reducing microphonic vibrations. I just pulled up a bunch of proprietary brass weights http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/mobile/Hemispherical-Heavyhats/products/106/
Btw I am not endorsing these products, just pointing out that such things exist. I believe in England there was a fad for putting bricks on top of amplifiers. I assume that vibrational energy dissipates better with more mass in a system.
So it seems a question to.me as to whether you are getting an effect due to compression of sorbothane, increased mass, or possibly both. 
You could test this either by removing the sorb while leaving the weights in place, or by applying compression of the sorbwith some form of clamp. That would remove mass as a factor.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I am sure what you are doing helps the sound, but I wonder how much is due to the sheer mass of material rather than the compression of sorbothane. Adding mass to components has been around for a long time as a means of reducing microphonic vibrations. I just pulled up a bunch of proprietary brass weights http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/mobile/Hemispherical-Heavyhats/products/106/
> Btw I am not endorsing these products, just pointing out that such things exist. I believe in England there was a fad for putting bricks on top of amplifiers. I assume that vibrational energy dissipates better with more mass in a system.
> So it seems a question to.me as to whether you are getting an effect due to compression of sorbothane, increased mass, or possibly both.
> You could test this either by removing the sorb while leaving the weights in place, or by applying compression of the sorbwith some form of clamp. That would remove mass as a factor.Ed,


 
 Ed it is the two, the mass evidently diminish the destructive power of vibration;But for the optimal  compression of the duro 70, it is evident for me that adding mass is better because this duro is more dense and under a light gear,like amp or dac, his effect are  way less substantial without optimal load ...
  
 By accident i have forgotten one time the load on my gear and with only the sorb. duro 70  the sound was much less good without the load , another time i have put the load but 2 feet of sorb were no more under the dac(or the amp one time or under the power conditioner another time ) and the sound was bad also, i discover the fact in these case after 30 minutes of listening without the habitual pleasure...
  
 For the speakers it was evident because it takes more than a week of adjustment to put the right duro in the first time, after that the right load, i have made the  experiment, and without not only compression, but* without the right and optimal compression*, the sound was bad and this was evident for me... But Yes adding to the sheer mass is better BUT NOT enough to have a more pleasurable sound like adding 70 duro optimally compressed, it is very easy to verify that yourself...I would not have disconnect my Monsoon compared to the Mission without the sorb duro 70 rightly compressed , without the sorb duro 70 or with only sorb.duro 50 the mission are not superior to the Monsoon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 P.s. the vendor of the HeavyHats said this : «Even the heaviest gear such as behemoth amplifiers or subwoofers will rarely require more than 10 pounds total weight.» perhaps this is true for heavy gear yes, but the load they recommend (1 to 2 pounds) are not  enough for lighter gear, perhaps for diminishing the vibration but not enough  at all to always rightly compress the sorb, i have more than 20 pounds on each and  all my piece of gear, and this is  not so much  for adding to the mass but to compress the sorb. , this is my reason for putting 45 pounds on top of my speakers ...With more than great results...But for my amplifier sansui of 30 pounds , it was not necessary to put more than 10 pounds to compress the sorb and obtaining a clearer sound, putting more give bad results in  this case, around 20 (dac,  stax amp, energizer, battery charger,poer conditioner) to 45 pounds (speakers) in my experience is enough to compress it optimally...only the speakers demand 45 pounds, more than that the sound is less aery and less clear ...With duro 50 the load must be less, but anyway i dont use no more duro 50 ....
  
*UPDATE*: i have now 45 pounds(5 pounds more than previously) on top of my sorbothanized speakers (3 pieces 70 duro inside them around the membrane, 5 pieces 70 duro under them, 7 pieces on top of them under the granite and concrete slabs... the sound is better all across the board, bass and mids are more organic, better imaging because more body to all the spectrum ...I know that  some people will laugh, but the fact is the Mission volare speakers V60 plus sorb. are way better than without sorb.... they are so good that i am no more acrimonius about not being able to buy the magneplanar...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 The sorbothane is not  a one second instantaneous solution, you must experiment  for optimizing his sound effect, for example it takes me many days to discover the right amount of compression of the duro 70 under and on top of my speakers... The results are astounding in 3-d sound effect...The reason probably many people dont go on with the sorb. is that it is not properly implemented...For me from the beginning till today, the road was always for the better with a better effect each time with the same gear or with new gear...And i cannot thanks to much everybody here and Edstrelow particularly...


----------



## edstrelow

How good is sorbothane damping, you may ask. So good that my recently upgraded 30 year old Stax Lambda LNS is outperforming the current Stax SR007A, which is sorbed mostly with what I now know is the less effective 30 duro sorb. The LNS is clear and dynamic across the full frequency spectrum, the 007 less so. It still suffers from a somewhat muddy midbass. Certainly the previous sorb work gave it a big boost over its stock sound. But now with the realization that 1/4 inch, 70 duro, is the way to go, the stakes have been raised. 

Possibly this should come as no surprise. I have had big boosts in the sound quality of even cheap and nasty earbuds but adding bits of sorb.

I hope that when I complete the conversion of the 007 to 1/4 70, this phone will show a major uptick in performance. Untill I do the work I am just enjoying my super lambda sound.


----------



## Henery

I got my pad of 70 duro sorbothane about two weeks ago. I upgraded my DT 48 E 200 ohm with it. I have to listen some more so i can decide if i need to add more pieces. Also applied 70 duro sorbo to Portapro and again, no audible difference. Next i am going to upgrade HE-500 and then DT 480.
  

  
 I used rubberband to apply compression to sorbo piece. I sliced these diagonally in half.
  

  
 Each piece was cutted horizontally in four sections. If you look carefully, you can see those cut marks. I have to figure out how apply compression on those.


----------



## edstrelow

henery said:


> I got my pad of 70 duro sorbothane about two weeks ago. I upgraded my DT 48 E 200 ohm with it. I have to listen some more so i can decide if i need to add more pieces. Also applied 70 duro sorbo to Portapro and again, no audible difference. Next i am going to upgrade HE-500 and then DT 480.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I am curious about the portapro.  Where would you even add sorbothane?  Possibly you can post a picture?


----------



## richard51

henery said:


> I got my pad of 70 duro sorbothane about two weeks ago. I upgraded my DT 48 E 200 ohm with it. I have to listen some more so i can decide if i need to add more pieces. Also applied 70 duro sorbo to Portapro and again, no audible difference. Next i am going to upgrade HE-500 and then DT 480.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 My experiment with  cutting little piece of sorb were made with other duro than the 70 duro on my he 400... Now i will use ONLY 70 duro....Not too big piece, not too litttle....i compress the sorbothane duro 70 along the headband of the Stax lambda and at the end of the headband of the SR-5..On the he 400 i will not compress it.... No headphone is similar, you must experiment for yourself...The only absolute rule for me now is duro 70, and for my other gear(speakers, power conditioner, amplifier) compressing it give better results, but too much compressing will compress the sound also, hence the optimal compression is result of each of us  particular experiment...No 2 headphones benefit of the sorbothane at the same level , because no headphone is similar to other one...


----------



## Henery

> I am curious about the portapro.  Where would you even add sorbothane?  Possibly you can post a picture?


----------



## edstrelow

Quote:Looks like this might work.  I assume the sorb is self-stick?  I had good results some time back with a cheap set of earbuds.  


henery said:


>


----------



## richard51

i am always astounded to this day by the finetuning experiment going on with sorbothane in my system... I change the 1/10 sorbothane sheets under my dac with a 1/8 thick sheets (always duro 70) and the result with the optimall compression  give me another audio bliss...(finetuning the right amount of compression is not possible in one attempt, for example only 5 pounds more or less destruct the imaging, hence you must experiment).
  
 The reason that sorb is so efficient in audio , i think, is that the high quality audiophile of the duro 70 is probably the results of the right combination between the 3 factors of an equation:  *rate of* *absorption= transmission + dissipation of vibrations*...Sorbothane duro 70  do not isolate only from vibration like many other products but dissipate them at the right time and speed, isolating also from the room resonance and not only from the internal resonance of the gear, hence *decoupling the 2 set of vibrations,*hence erasing some negative resonance between the 2 ... We need an engineer ...But for now my ear need only music...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
*UPDATE-1*
 I have put 6 squares glued pieces of sorb duro 70 on the exterior cups of my SR-5 + 6 or 7 pieces pieces under the earpad i have already with the  4 on  each side of the headband compressed... I dont know what to say...So extraordinary headphone now....I am not very curious now to buy another headphone (thousand of dollars to beat perhaps the SR-5, the so natural sound of this phone eclipse my lambda sorbothanized, and i am amazed and grateful for this thread....
  
  
*Update-2*: this update is a violation of the subject matter of this thread, please read it with caution et dont throw me to the moderator  jaws because i am far from the headphone matter..._*I put  wrapping pieces of foam plates or cutted  wrapping  styrefoam  boxes from all the audio products i have bought within  the last 3 years on 2 of my  listening room walls,  in  small squares and 12  new bought cheap  foam pannels  disposed asymmetrically,2 directly behind the  ported speakers*_(in my first attempt i put only few panels of foam and that was good but not ideal hence i bought some new foam) _*the result was ACOUSTIC remedy of my room *_and the results are very surprizing for me and very audible and no less extraordinary than the right use of sorbothane...Conclusion: Vibrations and destructive resonance are the 2 plagues of the Audio world...And the remedies exist at NO COST or almost...
  
 Yes some companies sell very expansive product for isolating from vibrations, BUT what product is more  cheap and more efficient than sorbothane duro 70 for that ? Please tell me...
 There is some companies  that sell room treatment , very expansive products,the poor audiophile like me is supposed to wait for some money! NO I take this challenge in my own hand! I decide to experiment with cheap foam wrap box of my past  audio purchase, cutted in square,  asymmetrically putted together ,glued to  the walls of my room and behind the speakers .... Guess what?  i was very pleased, the metallic resonance of my room (height 7 feet 8 inches,widht11 feet,lenght 11 feet )is gone, the musical timbre of the sound more rich, the bass more present, the imaging better, at NO COST...I must say that this self-taught lesson in room treatment was an eye opening experiment at the level of understanding of my sorbothane journey... We must listen by ourselves to teach ourselves by ourselves, no amount of money will do that!
  

  
  
  
 P.S. The mission v60 speakers with the sorbothane but also with  this new essential  foam room treatment are so good that i almost regret to have ordered this morning  a Miller and Kreisel k-9 subwoofer... The bass of the Mission is now almost sufficient for music ... But it will certainly be better with a musical sub (100 dollars paid) +compressed sorb. under and on top of it...This will be my last expense for sometime with no regret now... When the sound is gorgeous why going on with the upgrading obsession... I am interested to buy better for sure but what will be the price to my next upgrade ? Certainly 6 thousand dollars( i have calculated that !) to really beat my actual used system with really better gear....except for the headphone SR-5. i cannot think that it will be possible to beat his natural timbre sounding organic and fluid  ethereal mids under one thousand dollars... Perhaps the Stax L700 will do the job ,for the soundstage i trust the reviewer because my lambda have a better soundstage already but for the naturality of the sound i have doubts...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Ok we come back to the headphone  sorbothane thread and i apologize for my rant...


----------



## saidentary

Richard51: I still have the Fostex TH-7BB headphones and haven't forgotten about this.  But so far there hasn't been any time even to listen to music at all.  At some point I hope to do it.


----------



## richard51

saidentary said:


> Richard51: I still have the Fostex TH-7BB headphones and haven't forgotten about this.  But so far there hasn't been any time even to listen to music at all.  At some point I hope to do it.


 
 My salutations to you....i hope you enjoy it, for the price it is a very good headphone... It is the one of my headphone that upgrade the less  though with the sorb. but i have not try the sorbothane duro 70 on it....


----------



## Jaab

I bought the Koss ESP950, few days ago and checking in its head-fi thread I saw your id
Do you always have the headphone? And have you tried to use sorb in it?


----------



## edstrelow

I had the KOSS 950 for many years. They are pretty good stat phones, generally cheaper than Stax and can be run off a Stax amp. I sold mine before I started using sorbothane. I would think that they would have the same issues of mechanical resonance as the Stax and could benefit from the application of sorbothane. I would be quite interested to find out.


----------



## edstrelow

My newly re-damped Stax SR007A is certainly the best 007 available. Even with the less effective damping sysem I used last year, it outperformed the SR009 that I had an opportunity to compare at Canjam in SoCal although I suspect the basic 009 is a better phone than any undamped 007.  It seemed to have a more even frequency response and more extension in the treble and bass. However I do see some people who don't like it  because of a perceived excess of treble.  My feeling is that if I had one myself and I could improve it by damping to where it would outperform the 007A.  
  
 So the remodded 007a uses  1/4 inch 70 duro sorb in place of the 30 duro I had previously used.  I have also added sorb pieces to the underside of the headbands (after removing the pleather covers).  I will probably recover these bands at some point.
  
 Adding sorb to the bands did give some additional clarity to the bass and I hope that I could remove the clamping system that I have used from my initial efforts.  However, I found that taking the clamps off mddied up the bass again, so both forms of damping seem to be needed for these phones at least.    
  
 So the total current damping package is a series of small pieces of sorb in a ring around the inside metal plate (the photo shows a previous version with fewer but larger pieces,) plus headband damping, plus the original clamping system.
  
 This shows the sorb on the headband:

  
 This is a closeup of the clamp, basically 2 stiff pieces if plastic with sorb pieces and held together by a bolt and nut arrangement,
  

  
 As I noted above, i was thinking of eliminating the clamps, but they contribute a good bit to the sound quality. In this application only a very small amount of tightening of the screw was best.  If tightened too much, the bass seemed to get bloated again.  So this is a real puzzle. Richard51 notes that when he uses sorb on the base of electronics  clamping is good but he gets the best results with a lot of pressure.  So this is a puzzle.  
  
 What I need to do here is go back to my SRXIII pro system, which I have found useful for making comparisons and just playing with clamping and pressure to get some more data points to add to this complicated problem.

  
 To get to the bottom of the issue of mechanical damping you would need a system capable of measuring the vibrations generated in the earcup assembly by the drivers and then seeing how various damping techniques get rid of these vibrations.  However, I am unaware of any such system commercially available.  So for the moment, at least, I fiddle with sorb and listen to the results.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> As I noted above, i was thinking of eliminating the clamps, but they contribute a good bit to the sound quality. In this application only a very small amount of tightening of the screw was best.  If tightened too much, the bass seemed to get bloated again.  So this is a real puzzle. Richard51 notes that when he uses sorb on the base of electronics  clamping is good but he gets the best results with a lot of pressure.  So this is a puzzle.


 
  Very interesting Ed...
  
 I will say that on the headphone we need OPTIMAL pressure , not too much, not to light, adjusting that with our listening ears is the only possibility... For the speakers, i have experience that pressure need to be also optimal, but for speakers, the pressure need to be much more than the pressure applied on  headband of the headphone ...If for example i take off 10 pounds of pressure less of my approx. 40 or 38 pounds of load on the speakers, the imaging is less precise...The membrane of a speaker does not vibrate like the membrane of a headphone, nor the inside resonance of the earcups compare to the inside resonance of a speakers, hence the amount of pressurizing sorb need to be different... But i observe that in any case the duro 70 is the best of all  with speakers and headphone...I recommend to all of you with speakers not only sorbothane but room treatment(total cost of mine is 30 dollars )...This 2 mods. definitively kill much upgraditis for me....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 I think like ed that this is a puzzle yes, but it is logical that each frequencies band must be affect differently by different  pressure of the  sorb.duro 70, and i observe the samething about the headband and the bloating of the bass if i dont pressurize the sorb or if i press  it to much...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I think that each speakers, or each headphone has inside the case or the cup their particular frequency  destructive  dominant resonance, and varying the pressure kill much of that negative resonance...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 p.s.  I have my miller and kreisel k-9 subwoofer, and i will put sorbothane duro 70 on it and under it,with or without load, i will report here the results in a week or so...


----------



## richard51

I push myself to resorbothanize the hifiman he 400, this time with duro 70, and  opening the cups i put the sorb. inside the cups not around the exterior of the cups...I put only one piece at the exterior of the cups on the headband  plastic round case of each cup, the result was very impressive and i am in love anew   with my he 400... They have not  an interesting   soundstage like my lambda nova basic nor the refinement of my Stax SR-5,(ideal for classical music) but they are very exciting with a passionate personnality to listen with,  now  with a better mids frequencies,and  more details, less neutral than the Staxes but ideal for jazz...
  
 I must say that i like my 3 headphones, the first choice is for sure the SR-5, but the other 2 have their interesting individuality, all that is for sure resulting of the use of sorbothane duro 70, that make the best of each headphone...Thanks to this great thread of Edstrelow...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 p.s. the solid state Sansui AU-7700 drive them from the headphone output with authority to another level.( no comparison with the excellent Ember headphone amp i had before) It drive also  the SR-5 with the Stax energizer outstandingly... Its pre-amp do marvel  for the lambda with  the Stax srm 252s...  If you dont have money, look for a vintage sansui of the au series, the sansui is the best purchase i had the joy to make...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 p.s. By the way with the Ember , it is impossible to use efficiently the sorbothane, this amp is too light and with his protuding tube i cannot put a load on it  for compressing the duro 70... Now thanks to sorbothane experiments, i know that ALL gear needs damping, and the Ember would have been better if i had been in the position and capacity to use sorb. with him...
  
 UPDATE:
  
 Really i am in love with my newly sorbothanized HE-400 (  i have some chill along my spine when i think of the moment i was near to sell them after the purchase of the SR-5). The sound is more livingly, holographically real than my SR-5, they are more transparent than ever, and more speakerlike for my ear,...I think that is because at the interior of the cup there is a little circular groove around the cup where the 1/4 inches sorb. duro 70 fit perfectly slightly compressed and glued perfectly ...The grill mod. was also spectacular for my HE 400, after the sorbothane mod. the grill mod was very EVIDENTLY  at the first second of listening a  vastly more refinement  on all count than with the standard grill...But BEWARE, without the sorb mod, the grill mod is way less spectacular...
  

  
  
 I know think that the He-6 would be for me in the future a great upgrade, but the interior is  not exactly  similar to the HE-400 hence not so  easily perfectly sorbothanized...
  
 It takes some days for the headphone to adjust to the sorb, adhesive process, but what a headphone for the price!...Remember that i have purchase this headphone 3 years ago, and it is the first time that i really listen to their true potential, after the SR-5 that i love dearly, this is a big surprize...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 SECOND UPDATE:
  
 I must say that using sorbothane to damp speakers was an audiophile transcendental experience for me.... the difference between no sorb. or sorb. with the Mission V60 speakers was night and day,mostly when i add 12 pieces of sorb.  duro 70 around the 5 inches driver and around the tweeter yesterday ... the improvement with sorb. compressed under and on top of the speakers  were great BUT glued near the two membranes, it was a complete transformation.... The sound is better in bass extension and depth, so much that i will sell my miller and kreisel subwoofer, no more need for it....The higher frequencies are more organic, the mids to die for....The Sorbothane is the most underestimated product in audio....


----------



## Jaab

Hi richard51,
I read about the grille mode in the He400i thread, but what's this red plastique? looks very different
about what I read, i’m very curious and interested to know more about it!
i’m moding my he6 (adding mini xlr connectors) i will also add sorbotane but i will use 30 duro 
(when i bought it, the forum was just using the softer sorb!).

i will report the results...


----------



## richard51

jaab said:


> Hi richard51,
> I read about the grille mode in the He400i thread, but what's this red plastique? looks very different
> about what I read, i’m very curious and interested to know more about it!
> i’m moding my he6 (adding mini xlr connectors) i will also add sorbotane but i will use 30 duro
> ...


 
 70 duro will be way better than 30....choose 1/4 inches glued sorb. if possible....this red plastic grid was cutted from a plastic mesh  plate who was made for protecting table, it is not very  rigid plastic... This was way better than  classic grid mesh i try before that...The hole in the center was covered by glued punctured silk paper.... astounding results compared to classic grill mod for me...By the way my hifiman is the he 400 not the he 400i...thanks for your interest, we will all wait for your experiment, i dream about a he 6 one day...But my he 400 now exceed my Stax for my ears, and inserting the sorbothane 1/4 inches in the groove near the driver is easy, they are made for that......


----------



## richard51

Silent thread here !
 And in my room astonishing music coming from my Mission V60 speakers,  this time i completely circle the membrane of the tweeter and the woofer with  self glued sorbothane duro 70 1/4 inches, the imaging now is insane compare to these speakers bare nude from the factory.... Nobody seems interested by an upgrade so marvelous for pennies...Nobody has try with  his own speakers? the results with my speakers  are no less extraordinary than with the headphone i have tried with sorb.... Frankly Edstrelow was right and nobody seems listening...For me it is the end of the road, the price paid for all this sorb is nothing and exceed any of my expectations, and i dont know how  thousands dollars speakers sound, i dont give a damn! i have my owns now... Thanks God i ever read this thread in the first place...If i have not, i will have been insatisfied perpetuously and devored by the monster of upgraditis....
  
 Plenty of thread here were about minute differences between costly upgrade,here we speak about,  a complete transformation of many headphone and speakers, where is the crowd? All, i say all, pieces of gear VIBRATES (from the power conditioner to the headphone) and from their enclosure and internal topology emits plenty of negative resonance, is it not of the first importance to eliminate them if possible? Trust me it is very audible without blind test...


----------



## Henery

I can help at breaking this silence. I modded my Nighthawks yesterday with 70D sorbo patches. Placed them arounf driver baffle plate (ABS plastic). Improvements are typical to sorbo: noticeably tighter bass + subbass, improved imaging, smoother sound, improved dynamics etc. Treble etch was my biggest gripe with NH. Now i can listen to it much longer. I really hope that sorbothane gets much more exposure.


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Silent thread here !
> And in my room astonishing music coming from my Mission V60 speakers,  this time i completely circle the membrane of the tweeter and the woofer with  self glued sorbothane duro 70 1/4 inches, the imaging now is insane compare to these speakers bare nude from the factory.... Nobody seems interested by an upgrade so marvelous for pennies...Nobody has try with  his own speakers? the results with my speakers  are no less extraordinary than with the headphone i have tried with sorb.... Frankly Edstrelow was right and nobody seems listening...For me it is the end of the road, the price paid for all this sorb is nothing and exceed any of my expectations, and i dont know how  thousands dollars speakers sound, i dont give a damn! i have my owns now... Thanks God i ever read this thread in the first place...If i have not, i will have been insatisfied perpetuously and devored by the monster of upgraditis....
> 
> Plenty of thread here were about minute differences between costly upgrade,here we speak about,  a complete transformation of many headphone and speakers, where is the crowd? All, i say all, pieces of gear VIBRATES (from the power conditioner to the headphone) and from their enclosure and internal topology emits plenty of negative resonance, is it not of the first importance to eliminate them if possible? Trust me it is very audible without blind test...


 
  
  


henery said:


> I can help at breaking this silence. I modded my Nighthawks yesterday with 70D sorbo patches. Placed them arounf driver baffle plate (ABS plastic). Improvements are typical to sorbo: noticeably tighter bass + subbass, improved imaging, smoother sound, improved dynamics etc. Treble etch was my biggest gripe with NH. Now i can listen to it much longer. I really hope that sorbothane gets much more exposure.


 
 It's like people don't want to believe that you can get so much improvement for so little money.
  
 Of course there are so many rip-offs in high fi, but here you are only gambling a few dollars. 
  
 Part of the problem is that there is little general understanding bu audiophiles  of the mechanical/acoustic problem that sorbothane resolves. It is only when I found out that sorb damping cleared up so much of the sound that it dawned on me that there had to be a lot of vibrational energy running around the earcups of headphones.   But then I wondered why has there been almost no discussion of this among audiophiles.   At any rate the cat is out of the bag,  Grado is now using earcup damping,  Sennheisser has been damping the HD800 and I suspect also their new super phone. 
  
 Anyway, having come up with a good damping system for the Stax SR007  I have largely completed my explorations in this field. I any case I have run out of sorb and my main supplier of 1/4 in 70 duro sorb is on vacation.
  
 I should mention that I have also been damping my speakers for some time to good effect. I haven't posted pictures because I have been using all manner of left-over sorb and it looks messy. Fortunately the grill covers this


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> It's like people don't want to believe that you can get so much improvement for so little money.
> 
> Of course there are so many rip-offs in high fi, but here you are only gambling a few dollars.
> 
> ...


 
 I totally partake your view about  the silence in the audiophile debate about vibrations....  People here kills one another about minute difference on very high costly gear, and dont want to hear  about someting so cheap you must add to a costly, or not so costly gear with great results ; and with insatisfaction in perpetual search, they go from one product to another without never hearing the true potential of their piece of audio, be it an amp, a dac, or an headphone or speakers ...
  
 By the way my supplier(the same?) is in vacation too... thanks for all Ed...


----------



## edstrelow

I am still in awe of what the last sorbothane upgrade did to the Stax 404 and LNS Lambdas. I damped the baffle board as well as the headband with 1/4 in 70 duro. On listening to some old classical and baroque music, the sound was much more dynamic, especially the treble peaks. One recording, a set of trumpet concertos had always seemed bland but now seemed like the players were in the same room with you. The biggest surprise was of all things a set of recorder concertos. I always thought of this as just cute, but now the recorder just jumped out of the headphones.

And this is without using any particularly fancy equipment backing it up. The amp is a 30 year old STAX SRM1 mk 2, the dac, a 15 year old Musical Fidelity and only the Woo cd transport, being of current vintage.

As you say richard51, it puts an end to upgraditis.


----------



## richard51

There is a  perpetual insatisfaction observed here by me in  others, and  also in me, because of the deception with some piece of audio apparatus that where never at their optimal potential capacity,  that insatisfaction , now i know it, result from this plague of vibrations in all  our audio units.... When you never hear the true instrumental timbre of instrument, your satisfaction by music is always impeded, and you dream to pay more for this never completely audible and out of reach dreamed naturality of musicality, because the desequelibrium caused by negative resonance in the enclosure of headphone and speakers....
  
 All people here speaks the language of engineering to factualy describe their apparatus, the highs there, the mids here, the lack of emphasis of bass... For our ears, satisfaction is not a change only in frequencies but a change in the perceived  timbre of instrument, hence an erasing of the negative resonance that destroyed the positive resonance  that build the musical timbre with  all frequencies... Sorbothane, even if i dont understand his exact  effects, evidently for ou ears make that happen...Viva Sorbothane!
  
 I am now very afraid to upgrade, a real upgrade will cost me high cost now, the illusion of a change interest me no more, because all my gear sound really natural, and a violin is a violin, a voice is a voice, the highs,mids, low of the  language of frequencies is no more the way to describe the felt audible depth of the musical timbre and the imaging  resulting from all my audio unit sorbothanized, hence upgrading is no more an urge, because there is no more desequilibrium in the sound, only the specific optimal personality of each one piece of gear in a natural rendering of music and not  only sound....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 P.s. I have try bi-wiring  with my Mission V60 speakers and they are made by their creator to be this way, but without sorbothane the effect i listen to now  would have been very small and for many people not audible, but with sorbothane in all my audio units, the felt change was evident, all cues in space are better, imaging improve audibly....Morality of this story: debate about cable and stuff like bi-wiring are dependant heavily of audible effects not always felt, if they are there, because vibrations and negative resonance of the audio units(be it headphone, amp, dac, speakers,power conditioner etc) make that impossible to hears, subtle changes in spatial cues for example in a ocean of noise is inaudible ... Viva Sorbothane! and bi-wiring !


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> There is a  perpetual insatisfaction observed here by me in  others, and  also in me, because of the deception with some piece of audio apparatus that where never at their optimal potential capacity,  that insatisfaction , now i know it, result from this plague of vibrations in all  our audio units.... When you never hear the true instrumental timbre of instrument, your satisfaction by music is always impeded, and you dream to pay more for this never completely audible and out of reach dreamed naturality of musicality, because the desequelibrium caused by negative resonance in the enclosure of headphone and speakers....
> 
> All people here speaks the language of engineering to factualy describe their apparatus, the highs there, the mids here, the lack of emphasis of bass... For our ears, satisfaction is not a change only in frequencies but a change in the perceived  timbre of instrument, hence an erasing of the negative resonance that destroyed the positive resonance  that build the musical timbre with  all frequencies... Sorbothane, even if i dont understand his exact  effects, evidently for ou ears make that happen...Viva Sorbothane!
> 
> ...




People talk about the law of diminishing returns in audio, i.e that it costs more and more to get improvements that are less and less. Of course we know this is not true of sorbothane damping where a very small outlay of money produces a large benefit. You seem to be suggesting that on a sorb-damped system this "law" is less in evidence and when other improvements are tried they may be more noticeable. Essentially the distortion present in undamped systems is a barrier to hearing other aspects of a system.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> People talk about the law of diminishing returns in audio, i.e that it costs more and more to get improvements that are less and less. Of course we know this is not true of sorbothane damping where a very small outlay of money produces a large benefit. You seem to be suggesting that on a sorb-damped system this "law" is less in evidence and when other improvements are tried they may be more noticeable. Essentially the distortion present in undamped systems is a barrier to hearing other aspects of a system.


 
 It is exactly what i want to say, thank you very much Ed....I apologize to all for my bad english.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 and yes it is near impossible to hear certain small change of great impact with undamped gear.... Perhaps this law of diminushing return applied  at the end but the sorbothane give great quality results at the beginning with all gear  ... Damping is for me with room treatment necessary enterprise if someone want to hear music from his pieces of audio...For the first time in years i dream about newer stuff like all others, stuff i cannot afford, but for the first time i have no frustation. and no real urge, desire, to upgrade at all costs, in the contrary, i am afraid to pay very big money to a not so high upgrade... After all the sound of piano is the sound of piano... i can wait and enjoy music...i miss really nothing... thank to  this thread and the perseverance of Edstrelow....
  
 P.s. Some people here on certain thread advertise for great power supply near one thousand dollars... I am convinced that this is great effectively, but implementing that before sorbothane is not a so great idea i think....People beware! the greatest upgrade is not a power supply in the first place but sorbothane if you want  to hear the most optimal sound from your amp, speakers, dac, headphone, and even your power conditioner....After that i think it is a good idea to buy a better power supply and put a load on him with sorbothane under it....


----------



## edstrelow

Thin sorbothane is also sold to be used as a mat to be placed on the platter of a turntable. The photo shows how I used it with my B&O tangential tracker.  The sorb in question is 1mm thick and I am not sure about the duro but I think it may be 70. You can buy sheets large enough to cover the entire platter.  I used only segments because the B&O has small ridges on the platter to hold the lp.  I placed the sorb between the ridges so as not to change the height of the record and thus the angle of the stylus. In this configuration, the sorb sticks out maybe  a bit over 1/2 mm above the ridges.
  
 I also have used a sorbothane puck over the middle of spindle to hold the records down. I can't say I was ever much impressed by its benefits.  I would like to try a heavy metal puck, but I have not been able to find one that isn't too tall to prevent lowering the lid.
  
 The sound is definitely cleaned up, treble is less etched, there is more air and better dynamics to the sound. Some of this may be due to the fact that the sorb holds the record in place better than the ridges on the platter.  So in that sense it may be acting like a clamp or the fancy vacuum systems which hold  lp's tightly to the platter. In fact my only complaint is that when freshly placed on the platter it tended to hold the disc making it hard to remove.  BTW I dd not need to use any glue or fastening to keep the sorb in place on the platter.
  
 Finally I added about  a dozen 3/4 inch squares of self-stick 1/4 inch thick 70 duro in various places around the turntable based both inside and on the bottom. Again these pulled up the sound quality.
  
 A question is what energy is being damped here?  Certainly there will be some vibrations from the motor and the platter bearing.  The big bucks turntables overengineer these components so as to minimize such effects.  Or you can use sorb at much less cost. Also, the turntable is primarily used with my speaker system so there is probably air-borne energy coming from the speakers of which at least some gets into the turntable and/or lp. 
  
 Again a few bucks for significant sound improvement and if you don't like it you just take the sorb off.


----------



## richard51

very interesting indeed....


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> Thin sorbothane is also sold to be used as a mat to be placed on the platter of a turntable. The photo shows how I used it with my B&O tangential tracker.  The sorb in question is 1mm thick and I am not sure about the duro but I think it may be 70. You can buy sheets large enough to cover the entire platter.  I used only segments because the B&O has small ridges on the platter to hold the lp.  I placed the sorb between the ridges so as not to change the height of the record and thus the angle of the stylus. In this configuration, the sorb sticks out maybe  a bit over 1/2 mm above the ridges.
> 
> I also have used a sorbothane puck over the middle of spindle to hold the records down. I can't say I was ever much impressed by its benefits.  I would like to try a heavy metal puck, but I have not been able to find one that isn't too tall to prevent lowering the lid.
> 
> ...


 
 Improvement? having a lp rattling on top of some pieces of plastic isn't remotely an improvement, but rather a degradation ... go put the sorb on the underside, before talking about over engineering.


----------



## edstrelow

What? I know you are familiar with sorbothane so you know that it is not plastic.  It is fairly soft and rubbery and it grips the lp so it does not rattle. That was the point of saying it acts rather like a clamp as well as probably damping vibrations. 


soren_brix said:


> Improvement? having a lp rattling on top of some pieces of plastic isn't remotely an improvement, but rather a degradation ... go put the sorb on the underside, before talking about over engineering.


 
 I assume your comment refers to the original configuration of the B&O turntable and platter. While B&O did a nice job with the tangential tracking arm, I agree that the platter is bad. Both it and its predecessor, which I also had,  have stiff plastic ribs which give no damping whatsoever. Rattling is indeed an issue  and that is why I previously used a sorbothane clamp even before I tried adding sorb to the platter.
  
 I wonder how a sorb mat would work as a replacement on other turntables which may not be as much in need of one as this one was? I know you are familiar with sorbothane..  Sorb is fairly soft and rubbery and grips the lp.  This is why I compared it to  a clamp. It seems more effective than the clamp.


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> What? I know you are familiar with sorbothane so you know that it is not plastic.  It is fairly soft and rubbery and it grips the lp so it does not rattle. That was the point of saying it acts rather like a clamp as well as probably damping vibrations.
> I assume your comment refers to the original configuration of the B&O turntable and platter. While B&O did a nice job with the tangential tracking arm, I agree that the platter is bad. Both it and its predecessor, which I also had,  have stiff plastic ribs which give no damping whatsoever. Rattling is indeed an issue  and that is why I previously used a sorbothane clamp even before I tried adding sorb to the platter.
> 
> I wonder how a sorb mat would work as a replacement on other turntables which may not be as much in need of one as this one was? I know you are familiar with sorbothane..  Sorb is fairly soft and rubbery and grips the lp.  This is why I compared it to  a clamp. It seems more effective than the clamp.


 
 Yes I am familiar with sorbothane, and appreciate you brought it to my attention. I use it with my headphones, although not to the extent this thread suggest ...
  
 As you mention yourself, the original Beogram platter like 400x, and 8000 all had ribbons of plastic on top as well as underneath ... a really bad idea. the 600x, 8002 introduced a flat platter with the well recognizable ribbons printed to the platter rather, a better idea.
 Now, I don't have any particular knowledge in regards to the TX you have, but I do have a 8000 and a 8002. The latter, I use from time to time, I have dampned from the underneath rather. Mostly because I didn't wanted to spoil the visual appearance of the TT. Either way you end up changing the VTA, and thus how the pick-up will track higher frequencies.
 I did sort of the same with a Thorens back then. The TT was easily improved as it was not particular dead before hand. 
 I don't believe sorbothane on my Oracle Delphi will improve anything it seems rather well constructed.


----------



## edstrelow

The photo shows my current B&O which is one of the last tangential trackers they made.  The arm seems very good but the rest of the turntable is several notches down in quality from their first model, which I originally had bought second hand and kept it for many years until the arm mechanism needed repairs. The later model is very light by comparison and suffered from acoustic feedback until I added additional feet, eventually sorbothane.  Additional sorb on the base of the table helped even more. 
  
 BTW. the change in tracking angle is minimal with the 1 mm sorb I have used on the platter which only stands out about 1/2 mm from the ribs. So it really doesn't change the heiight of the LP much and LP's are of varying thicknesses anyway.
  
  I first started on the sorbothane topic when I noticed that the sound of my Stax SR007's changed slightly when I touched the headband.  I tried various clamps and finally added sorb between the clamp and the headband and heard a notable improvement in sound.  Initially I had no idea whether I was dealing with a specific problem with the 007 or electrostatics in general or whatever.  Finally it dawned on me that there is a general problem with headphones (speakers too but worse with headphones) of getting rid of the mechanical energy which feeds back into the earcups from the drivers. It seems to build up faster than it can dissipate and messes up the sound, quite a bit.
  
 People seem to have forgotten Newton's laws about equal and opposite energy and that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Sorb claims to convert mechanical energy to heat so that's what gets it out of the headphone. Now of course we know that Sennheisser was working on this problem for some time and Grado has released a line of headphones made with a polycarbonate which it claims is able to dampen this energy.
  
 So sorb should be seen as an aftermarket tweak which assists a problem which may very well be resolved over the next several years as manufacturers develop ways of dealing with the problem, or possibly add their own sorb to their phones.  Still there will be a lot of older phones which could be improved with something like sorb.
  
 I still have a few experiments to do with my Stax SRXIII's comparison set-up. At the moment my results show that the 3M self-stick tape which is sold with some sorb materials gives the best sound compared to superglue and  3M 80 glue.   (It is actually a very thin, double-sided tape.)  I want to listen to  at a few more adhesives if only because the self-stick sorb comes with a premium price.  I finally managed to locate some more 1/4 inch self-stick 70 duro on Amazon.
  
 Then I may look into the problems of microphonics,  that is low level vibrations that affect the performance of equipment. This has been known for many years. I recall reading about Naim adding damping material to its circuit boards 30 years ago. And one of the engineers from Schitt told me about  a year ago that they have a special  sorb that they use.  The effects of damping for microphonics are not I think as audible as damping of the headphone cases but still significant.


----------



## DangerClose

Is there a consensus on whether sorbothane applied on the headphone baffle (whether internally in the cup or externally) should be put closer to the driver, or more at the edge of the baffle?


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> The photo shows my current B&O which is one of the last tangential trackers they made.  The arm seems very good but the rest of the turntable is several notches down in quality from their first model, which I originally had bought second hand and kept it for many years until the arm mechanism needed repairs. The later model is very light by comparison and suffered from acoustic feedback until I added additional feet, eventually sorbothane.  Additional sorb on the base of the table helped even more.
> 
> BTW. the change in tracking angle is minimal with the 1 mm sorb I have used on the platter which only stands out about 1/2 mm from the ribs. So it really doesn't change the heiight of the LP much and LP's are of varying thicknesses anyway.


 
 B&O are no different than other companies ... the bean counters do have jobs there as well ... the TT you have is not even close to be as good as 400x to 600x/800x more or less build like tanks.
 in terms of VTA, people are debating much less actually ... and the the angle change will be greater due to the shorter tone arm ...5" ...most radials are 9"-12". Probably the change is down to the stylus design, and if you are using mmc3-5 it probably don't change much anyways.
 Apart from changing the VTA, you also change the interface quite a lot. I assume your platter is flat (mine is anyways) putting sorb on top will minimize the contact surface.
 No doubt you hear some difference ... but I don't expect it to be any better. As far as I remember the PlatterMat was made of something similar to Sorbothane ... but has been rejected by most (from memory, can be wrong)

 Having read this thread from time to time, I get the impression that sorb can be applied to just about anything with great result - more sorb even better. 
 Have you ever applied sorb and found it to be a degradation? or just no change?


----------



## richard51

I dont know for ED , for sure  in my experience that was never catastrophic, but with the wrong duro, with some not so optimal thickness,  the effect on some frequencies resonance can make an illusion  that this was better, and that were not in reality, only a change and attenuation of some frequencies resonance and emphasis on others... But with the right application, in ALL my piece of gear, power conditioner, dac, amplifiers, energizer, headphones, speakers, that  was, with the duro 70 especially, always better...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 For me this thread in nearly 4 years i come here, give me the most useful information for upgrading my gear without expansive costs, thanks to Ed ... My speakers Mission for example, sorbothanized,sound nowhere near like nude... I cannot go back before the sorb....The second most useful information was my own experiment on low costs  room treatment for speakers...The third and last information was buy vintage used if possible...


----------



## edstrelow

[quote name="soren_brix" url="/t/744839/damping-mechanical-energy-distortion-of-stax-and-other-phones-with-sorbothane-and-other-materials/630#post_12835951"


Having read this thread from time to time, I get the impression that sorb can be applied to just about anything with great result - more sorb even better. 

Have you ever applied sorb and found it to be a degradation? or just no change?
[/quote]

Yes, I have had some anomalous results, which I have generally mentioned. I initially had problems with the Stax Sigmas which gave somewhat of a bass boom in my initial attempt with these phones as well as in a later effort , when I ended up removing some sorb, which solved the problem. This problem was more pronounced with the little Stax Sr-003. Most of the sound was improved by adding sorb, but the bass became unbearably loud. There the problem was solved, not by removing sorb, but by cutting it into smaller pieces. I had a similar issue with a Sennheiser IEM, which became an unpleasant bass monster. I didn't experiment further because it is really hard working with such small phones. 

With others, like the Stax Lambdas, I got a good result on my first attempt and the only real change over time has been the use of the thicker, denser sorb (1/4 inch 70 duro) versus the thinner, 30-40 duro sorb I started with. 

Howver I have never had neutral result where I couldn't hear any change in the sound by adding sorb whether good or bad. Others may have, and I recall one guy stating that he could not get it to work on some small Koss dynamics. 

Even the bad bass results tell you something about the damping problem in headphones, because if there was nothing going on vibration wise in the ear cups there should be no change of any sort, good or bad. 

As to the occasional bass problems, some may be due to loose sorb, where the glue hasn't curred properly. 3M80 which was recommended by one seller sometimes comes loose. The self-stick sorb seems better and I noted that it sounded better in comparisons.. Holding it in place with clamps can be effective but it is hard to find a,way of doing it on most phones. They would virtually have to be built with clamping systems in place.

So sorbothane damping is not a magic solution but it improves sound more often than not. But you may need to experiment. The problem it solves is complicated and like anything in engineering ( and I did 5 years as a post-doctoral fellow in an EE department) there will be better and worse ways of handling it.


----------



## richard51

I want to add a remark to Ed interesting and like always very clear statement about sorb..... I have use  sorbothane under or inside, or both ,with every piece of my audio gear, and by accident, i have sometimes experiment something interesting : each time one piece of sorbothane  or 2  under the feet of the gear( one time with the power conditioner, one time with the dac, one time with the battery charger) were  by accident displaced, or misplaced, or  were not the right thickness, or duro, each time i semi-consciously detected a deterioration of the sound, imaging, etc and when i had realized that, i have try to rectify the problem... this subtle and audible effect would have been very more difficult to detect if each and every one of the link in all my audio system has not been   sorbothanized( my gear's feet only amount to 24 pieces of sorb.) ... With speakers it was way more easy to detect than with my headphones...Sorbothane rightly used made a better rendering of the musical timbre of instrument in the first moment, after that  in a second improving  moment, in the course of my experiments and more rightly application, sorbothane greatly enhance  the imaging and this is more easy to detect with speakers....
  
 The interesting fact i have observed, because each link of my audio chain is now sorbothanized, is that the effects of cleaning of vibrations, and bad  internal  and external resonnance, added themselves  for the final listening  results,  hence *sorbothane is the more useful  if used at all level of my system*....
  
 For example recently i try bi-wiring the Mission speakers,because they are engineer to be so in the first place, and the effect was there, an improvement  in cleaning some  residual haze around the music, but  without sorb. at all level, i think that perhaps this very subtle but very real  effect,without the sorb. would have been more , way more difficult to detect.... I read on the net the impressions of people are very polarized around bi-wiring, now i know why...If some system produce in each of his link  too much vibrations and resonances the detection of any improvement is not always easy... I think that the sorb. effect is cumulative in cleaning the negative resonances, and in damping the system, isolating  each one link   from the room and from  the other gear and the final results and improvement are at the end  very easy to spot particularly with speakers ....
  
 For speakers , like for  headphone, the rendering  and perception  of the imaging cues are very dependent  of all and each link of the system, but  this imaging construction and production  of the sound space was way more perceptible  with speakers than with headphone in general,because the space sound of speakers are  potentially more spacious and  with  a more natural and easy possible translation in 3-d effects for the ears, hence very sensible to negative resonance and vibrations  in all and each one link  ... I can say now that the effect of sorbothane   rightly applied in headphone is very remarkable for me indeed, but for the speakers it is for me  even more  audible, and remarkable, and with speakers, you cannot miss the difference sorb. make in each link of your audio piece
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...
  
 For sure  sorbothane is evidently not a miraculous solution after the first try,  especially applied on only one link, (an headphone for example) , but for the cost/ratio/ improvement, sorbothane is great after this first try, if rightly used... Having said that, after this one year of experimentation,following Edstrelow trail, and looking for the better results, yes for me it is near miraculous if i compare the money invest versus the upgrading results and effects... Sorbothane do not transform a bad audio link in a good one, sorbothane  only push  all the audio link  in the direction of their own true potential maximum quality sound ...If someone say the contrary he has not complete the task... _The single most important discovery of this thread for me is that all audio products are plague by vibrations and negative resonances._...Sorbothane absorb vibration like many other products, but unlike the others sorbothane *transform a great part of these vibrations into heat*, hence diminishing the negative internal  resonance, sorb. not only isolate a link, but clean it  partly from the effect of these locally interacting in the enclosure internal and external  vibrations and resonances... *that is the point; rubber, wood, blutak, stands, spikes,other plastic feet,  etc, does not act like that...*
  
 This a photo of My mission sorbothanized... i add to the mission 2 granite plate with sorb. in between for a second order isolation from the desk at the bottom of the speakers and on  the top  i also   added sorbothane under a  granite plate  with a heavy load on top of it to compress it all ( the amount of compression needed is to be determined by ears and experiment, i assure you that between to much load and not enough, you will hear the difference with all the links sorbothanized)....The sorbothane  pieces around the tweeter and woofer were the greatest and final  improvement... Their finality is to isolate the membrane-cone from the basket and the enclosure, preventing  some bad internal resonances ... This  final sorb. add-ons  are now invisible behind the protective  mesh... By the way, some fine observation made here by edstrelow are very true, the gluing process stabilize after a week, it is the only explanation i have for  this improvement with time of the speakers...The sound is so gorgeous now  from these speakers sorbothanized, that my most listening hours are with the speakers and no more with the lambda, or beloved HE-400 and SR-5...1 hour at night with headphones/versus 5 evenings  hours approx.with speakers .
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 In a final note for newcomers i must say that my  low cost homemade room treatment  for speakers was a different  upgrade for the speakers almost on par with the  sorbothane mods.


----------



## chrismini

Where exactly do you obtain this "sorbothane and other materials". I have a pair of HiFiMAN HE-400's and have no clue how to disassemble them short of taking off the ear pads. There's no screws or fasteners and my fear is not being able to put them back together.


----------



## edstrelow

dangerclose said:


> Is there a consensus on whether sorbothane applied on the headphone baffle (whether internally in the cup or externally) should be put closer to the driver, or more at the edge of the baffle?


 
 No really.  I would think the closer the better but have been wrong on too many issues to so definitely.


----------



## edstrelow

chrismini said:


> Where exactly do you obtain this "sorbothane and other materials". I have a pair of HiFiMAN HE-400's and have no clue how to disassemble them short of taking off the ear pads. There's no screws or fasteners and my fear is not being able to put them back together.


 
 Ebay and amazon are the best places for sorbothane.   The audi shops charge too much.  I though someone here had worked on the HiFiMan phones.


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Where exactly do you obtain this "sorbothane and other materials". I have a pair of HiFiMAN HE-400's and have no clue how to disassemble them short of taking off the ear pads. There's no screws or fasteners and my fear is not being able to put them back together.


 
  
 I was like you some months ago... take it easy, read on the he 400  ( the link is at the end of my post ), somewhere  in the beginning of the thread someone explain the way to open the grill...you must use a little pocket knive and "DELICATELY " use it to displace the ring that hold  the grill... The grill is in place with very little 4  square protuberance at 90 degree angle , that snap the grill  in there... Look  at the adress i give to you at the end of my post ...All explication is there...After that insert the self adhesive sorbothane duro 70 1/4 inches in the grrove that circle  around the driver... and all is done... be delicate when playing with the ring that hold the grill.. when snapping it  back in place , mark slightly the place with ink  where the hole of the insert little protuberance is and align the little square protuberance  with this hole, work with your fingers delicately 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it is easy if you take your time...
  
 ok this is the thread i read in the first place :
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/619447/hifiman-regrilling-mod


----------



## chrismini

Has anyone tried the damping sheets like Dynamax you can get from car stereo shops they use to stop the vibrations on quarter panels? They make all kinds with different thickness and materials.


----------



## Hutnicks

chrismini said:


> Has anyone tried the damping sheets like Dynamax you can get from car stereo shops they use to stop the vibrations on quarter panels? They make all kinds with different thickness and materials.


 

 Yes. If you go over to the T50 mods thread or the ortho thread you will find myriad instances of Dynamat and a whole lot of info on why it is largely abandoned for all uses except sealing baffles to cups.
  
  Sorbothane and a few other options offer immeasurably cleaner and better solutions to the same issues.


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Has anyone tried the damping sheets like Dynamax you can get from car stereo shops they use to stop the vibrations on quarter panels? They make all kinds with different thickness and materials.


 
 sorbothane transform vibration into heat... dynamat only  absorb vibration (isolate)


----------



## chrismini

gotcha.


----------



## chrismini

You said after removing the grills of the HE-400's one should fill the grove around the driver with sorbathane. Could go into more detail on performing that mod? Do you use seperate pieces and if so, how many? Should the pieces make contact making a complete ring or add the pieces with spaces in between and if so, how many and what shape should the pieces be. I hate to split hairs, but this seems like this would be important.


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> You said after removing the grills of the HE-400's one should fill the grove around the driver with sorbathane. Could go into more detail on performing that mod? Do you use seperate pieces and if so, how many? Should the pieces make contact making a complete ring or add the pieces with spaces in between and if so, how many and what shape should the pieces be. I hate to split hairs, but this seems like this would be important.




8 pieces or 10 pieces (according to the lenght of the cutted pieces) 1/4 inches thick self adhesive sorbothane duro 70...i let some spaces between each pieces...i insert them delicately pushing them with a very small screwdriver for electronics... the 1/4 inches pieces fit perfectly, slightly compressed between the wall of the groove, the glued part on the external side of the groove ( i push each one pieces to make sure that they are insert perfectly to the bottom of the groove between the walls)....it is very simple and very effective mod.


----------



## richard51

Indeed  we must all learn by experiment the art of rightly applying  Sorbothane ... I thought that my sansui amplifier with his 28 pounds would adequately compress the sorb under it, and who want to put a heavy load on top of his amplifier in the first place ?... It was an error, it must be with the amp.  like  it was already with my speakers and  with my  other gear, i estimate now that *it need around (+or- 5 pounds) 40 pound of load to compress adequately the sorb. duro 70 under any gear* ... i put  approx.15  pound of load more on top of the amp. to obtain the same rate of compression i have already with my speakers and  other piece of gear, like my dac, and, By god! the sound coming from  the sansui now  trough the  speakers or trough the headphone out is now way better, imaging also, more lush and airy sound and voice... i am amaze by the potency of sorb. to upgrade  my system...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 People can mock me, if they prefer to pay thousand dollars for an external sidegrade, they can pay it, i cannot ...Sorbothane is very true  internal upgrade, reversible, for peanuts...My sansui amplifier + sorb.  is a marvel .....
  
 By the way no  audio cie. will say in his marketing rant  : «_all audio gear vibrate, our product are the best but you must put 40 pounds of load on top and sorb. duro 70 under it after that, and only after that  you will have the best audio in the world_»...No way...Vibrations and negative resonance are universal plague in audio, no gear can touch his potential better sound if his enclosure produce polluting resonance that destroy imaging and timbre's cues in the sound space, and it seems that not one cie. in audio world face it truly, but after all  they cannot sell load of granite with sorb.duro 70 to remedy that, this would be ridiculous, for sure they can sell you 4 feet of sorb. with a lighter duro, but it will not do the job adequately, i have been there...Hence only in this thread the problem was pointed to by Edstrelow  , and the beginning of a solution emerge...
  
 In almost all forums, there is subjective impressions about folk's new gear,  an often durable and  permanent insatisfaction and the necessity to pay more for better gear, i think perhaps if we have already good piece of audio gear, (for me  for example Sansui au 7700 is one of the best amp in  1975 and is certainly not obsolete by any means now, stax are good headphone, he 400 good can also, Mission v60 good speakers ) perhaps if we eliminate vibrations and  bad resonance, this good gear will improve to his true own's higher level, and truely that is my experience indeed... When someone is satisfied it is more easy to wait some years before  an external expansive upgrade...I say to all of you, try it before buying the new hype product....
  
 (the new hype for headphone is now the Utopia, it is the headphone to buy,but at this price it is impossible for me..The good news is i am no more frustrated, because my headphone is now so good that , (yes Utopia will be better but i will not kill myself eaten by envy before buying it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), my he 400 or Stax  are on par with my speakers system, and it is already audiophile sound, hence i can wait couple of years
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  
 P.S. you can use duro 30 or 40 or 50 ,  and perhaps you will not feel the  need to put some heavy load on top of your gear, but in my experience duro 70 is better for absorbing  audio resonance,but it must be compressed, the result are way more evident... ...


----------



## chrismini

Do you have spikes under your speakers? I hope so as that's a must.


----------



## chrismini

Hey is that a B&O turntable from the 70's?


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Do you have spikes under your speakers? I hope so as that's a must.


 
 no spikes...not necessary at all for me on my desk, spikes isolate ONLY the speakers from the desk or the floor, they dont absorb vibration and cannot transform vibrations into heat, sorbothane are under my speakers because sorb dont only isolate,but diminishes also  the negative resonance....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 My spikes are the 2 granite plates with sorb. in between them, hence no need of spikes...My speakers are completely isolate from the desk....


----------



## edstrelow

chrismini said:


> Hey is that a B&O turntable from the 70's?


 
 Yes that's about when I bought it.  I had the original model ( a rather more solid table)  but when it's arm stopped working I got the one you see which was just about the last one they made. It's good if you give it proper feet  (and add sorb as noted)


----------



## wuwhere

I need some of this to dampen the transformer vibration of my vacuum tube amp. And my Oppo BDP-95, it has a fan.


----------



## richard51

wuwhere said:


> I need some of this to dampen the transformer vibration of my vacuum tube amp. And my Oppo BDP-95, it has a fan.


 
  Be sure to use duro 70 sorbothane 1/8 inches under the feet , cut some large squares to not impede the stability of the transformer and if you put some heavy load on top of your transformer it will be way better...


----------



## wuwhere

richard51 said:


> Be sure to use duro 70 sorbothane 1/8 inches under the feet , cut some large squares to not impede the stability of the transformer and if you put some heavy load on top of your transformer it will be way better...


 
  
 I used to put lead shots in small wooden boxes for weight on top of amps. Looks better and heavier than concrete blocks.


----------



## richard51

wuwhere said:


> I used to put lead shots in small wooden boxes for weight on top of amps. Looks better and heavier than concrete blocks.


 
 Very good idea! Congratulations! better than my concrete yes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 
  
 P.S.  remember that the  optimal weight of this load must first be determinated by the ears experience and by trials and errors, the sound in my experience is modified negatively with too much weight or not at his potential with  not enough load... hence you must perhaps substract or add some lead shots...


----------



## chrismini

My amp and DAC are so small they have external power supplies.(HeadRoom Micro m and and DAC) But they absolutely kick ass and the amp will drive any headphone made with the exception of electrostatic 'phones that need special amps and a lot of money.


----------



## chrismini

I've always wanted to go with tubes. Problem is my amp has a crossfeed circuit using op-amps that really makes a huge difference with heavily panned recordings. I've tried DSP from Foobar, J River and iTunes and they just don't "work" as well as my HeadRoom Micro which was discontinued years ago.


----------



## edstrelow

I wanted to check again the effectiveness of blutak as a damping marerial and the use of superglue as a fastener. I still had the alternate covers for my Stax SRXIII Pro which I had used some months back. My comparison is 1/4 inch 70 duro self-stick (sometimes called 3M) I had previouly reported on these and wanted to see if the passage of a few months might change the physical properties, eg the blutak might harden, the suprrglue might set better. Or just that my mind might change.

I didn't find any difference with the blutak over what I reported before. It provides a small amount of damping but the sound is not impressive. The treble seemed very scratchy and undamped.

As regards superglue, the sets of covers have identical pieces of sorb, but one set are fastened using the self-stick while the other use superglue on the non-stick side of the sorb. Here, as I reported before, the overall sound was much better than with blutak. And using superglue, some of the frequency range seemed a bit better damped and thus better defined than with the self-stick. However the treble was still somewhat rough sounding. This was more significant to me than the other possible benefits of superglue so I will be staying with the self-stick.

Next I will probably check shoeglue as a fastener.

. I would also.like to study the use of clamps to hold sorb in place. I have used clamps before and found that the sound characteristics changed with the amount of pressure applied, rather as richard51 notes about increasing weight. But I have yet to come up with a good rig for experimenting.


----------



## richard51

Thanks Ed for this very interesting experiments and conclusion...
  
 I want to add a last note about mine.... The last part of my rig where the sorb. were not adequately compressed was the Sansui amplifier, i had only put the sorb. under the feet in the beginning with no load on top,thinking that the 28 pounds of the amp would sufficiently compress it but it was not enough indeed, now with the load on top adequately placed with the right weight, i confirm after more than a week, that it was a spectacular transformation in my imaging sound, the sound were way more natural and no more related to the speakers themselves but floating completely in space with 3-d spatialization... My conclusion is any piece of rig adequately sorbothanized with the right compression  play more near his  final optimal potential  trough headphone or speakers than otherwise...I must say that the modest Mission speakers are so  good that i listen more with them, they are on par with the Stax SR-5, or lambda and the he 400 for details and superior for the imaging and soundstage part...
  
 I think that sorbothanizing adequately any link in the chain of gear will do very audible results, like the results i had with only my headphone damped in the beginning, but the results of damping adequately all links repercute on the final results through the headphone or speakers so much that there is no relation at all between   my system damped  and the same not damped... I dont think that paying money for upgrading one  link compare to the sorbothane effect in all the chain,especially if you already have a good  hi-fi system ; perhaps yes, if you pay some very  big money for the best of the best  headphone or speakers...I dont have this money now, and now, this is not so important for me...
 I am truly happy that i am no more frustrated by the always costlier better new  gear that all people talk about in the other threads and  that i cannot afford...This speaks volume about the importance of this thread for me...Thanks Ed


----------



## chrismini

Just let us know.


----------



## DangerClose

I put some sorbo on a headphone today.  After letting the glue dry for a few hours and then trying them, I don't think they sounded like this before.  I had been listening to a few songs over and over the last couple days, and suddenly drums are firmer, and a part with overlapping, distortion guitars has more separation, and I can hear an extra note in it I don't remember hearing before due to them overlapping so much and sounding somewhat of a mess.  
  
 It's possible it's all in my head, but I don't think so.  People accomplish similar with other sound damping methods.  I'll try another headphone I use a lot and see how that goes.


----------



## richard51

dangerclose said:


> I put some sorbo on a headphone today.  After letting the glue dry for a few hours and then trying them, I don't think they sounded like this before.  I had been listening to a few songs over and over the last couple days, and suddenly drums are firmer, and a part with overlapping, distortion guitars has more separation, and I can hear an extra note in it I don't remember hearing before due to them overlapping so much and sounding somewhat of a mess.
> 
> It's possible it's all in my head, but I don't think so.  People accomplish similar with other sound damping methods.  I'll try another headphone I use a lot and see how that goes.


 
 this is exactly our experience... Thanks for your confimation.... what grade of sorbothane do you use?
  
 What headphone?  Where do you put the sorb. ?


----------



## DangerClose

richard51 said:


> this is exactly our experience... Thanks for your confimation.... what grade of sorbothane do you use?
> 
> What headphone?  Where do you put the sorb. ?


 
  
 3/16" 70. I bought a big sheet of it.  Too big.
  
 I've always tried to mod my JVC RX700 to remove the boominess and diffusion, and I already modded away a good bit of it. (Some people like boomy and diffusion, of course.  As do I, sometimes.)  I hadn't used them too often lately before yesterday, so I couldn't be sure of the sorb yesterday. I already had them sounding cleaner than stock before the sorb.  
  
 As I said, after adding the sorb yesterday and letting them sit a few hours, I didn't think they sounded that clean before the sorb.  And now I removed the sorb and listened to them again almost immediately, and now they sound like a mess. lol.  
  
 So either I accidentally altered something else in the short time it took me to remove the sorb, or the difference is the sorb.
  
 There's been examples in this thread of using too much sorb and killing the sound energy.  I understand how that happens using other damping mods, though I'm still wondering how too much sorb would do that if sorb basically removes vibration, not cup sound wave resonance and things like that.
  
 I put some on the inside of each baffle. I'll try more this time and see what happens.  Since these headphones are mostly closed, I'm wondering if putting the sorb on the outside of the baffle would work as well since that would allow more air space inside the cup since the sorb wouldn't be taking up air space in there.  Though since the cups aren't fully closed, maybe it doesn't matter.  Guess I'll try it and find out.


----------



## richard51

very interesting!  Thanks for sharing....
  
  I  think that it is important that the sorb. was tightly glued to have optimal effect, Ed was the first to experiment with that effect of the gluing process ....On the exterior of the headphone, in my experience the sorb. mod will be good also....But the problem is in the round surface of the exterior cups, it is not always so easy to have it tightly glued.... By the way if you can compressed it , the sorb duro 70 will  give you  more efficient  results, if possible to apply the pressure....And sorb. is not like other damping products, if tightly glued, there will be no problem to put more of it...Sorb. transform vibration into heat and so more of it rightly applied is not bad...


----------



## edstrelow

dangerclose said:


> 3/16" 70. I bought a big sheet of it.  Too big.


 
   You can apply it on other things such as speakers and components such as amps and cd players, even power strips to get rid of microphonics. Sorb has been used as footers for many years and you can buy lots of different makes.  However, I find I get better results with smaller pieces ( eg. less than 1 inch dimensions) glued directly to the case.  Again the 70 duro is good. 
  
  Also have a look at applying sorb to the headband if that is possible with your phones. I first got started applying sorb to the Stax SR007 but Richard51 got me applying it to several other phones.  Sennheiser uses  damping material in the headband of the HD 800.  I would imagine it would also use this in its new $K50 super electrostatic.


----------



## DangerClose

richard51 said:


> And sorb. is not like other damping products, if tightly glued, there will be no problem to put more of it...Sorb. transform vibration into heat and so more of it rightly applied is not bad...


 
  
 But what about the following?
  


richard51 said:


> I got an extraordinary result this evening... The sorb mod had great effect... but i was not completey satisfied....my last modification was  yesterday the discovery that *too much is worser than too little*....then i remove   4 patches off my HE400 and that was way better for them...


 


edstrelow said:


> Among the many things we don't understand about damping headphones is how you can use too much damping material such as sorbothane. You would think that when you have damped the hell out of a phone then additional damping material would have no further effect. Yet we consistently find that you can overdo it with the  damping. I recall that with both my Stax Sigmas and SR003's I got unpleasant bass boosts with too.much sorb.


----------



## edstrelow

dangerclose said:


> But what about the following?


 
 I think the physics of damping is complicated. If we  understood it better we would do a better job of knowing what damping material to use, where it is best to apply it and how much to use. We only have a few data points, such as that 70 duro is better than 30, but maybe not in all circumstances. The bass boom I  have sometimes got is a mystery.  Instead we have to check every effort by ear to be sure that it is good.


----------



## richard51

dangerclose said:


> But what about the following ?


 
  
 At the time of these post  of mine i was not aware about the time it takes to obtain good results with the gluing process, and more importantly i was not using the right duro.... The informations in this thread must be read like an experiment in process, hence read toward the end of the thread to correct some experiments....With duro 70 like any other duro it is better to not cover all  the surface to damp ,but unlike the other duro i has not encountered  the same problem with quantity, unless you cover  all the surface it is good....  generally 10 % of the surface covered by sorb will give some good results, 25 % better one, 50 % better one , 75 % equal  results or better one, *it depend foremost of the specific headphone* for the quantity , but  i dont advise to make a 100 % covering, except the 100 % case, more sorb, is never  less  good but in my experience better, more little pieces than big one is better also and a good advise...And using 70 duro give better results if you can compress it.... By the way it is not so much the quantity of the sorb used that is the problem than the right adhesive process, if the sorb is not correctly used, the results will not be good... My observation is more than 50 % or around 75 % the difference will be less audible in improvement, hence too much rightly applied will not be bad...But not always
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 better...
  
 There are 4 rules: the right duro (70), compression on it if possible, little pieces around 50 to 75 % of the surface covered, and finally a right adhesive process ...
  
 By the way so spectacular has been  the results with some headphone like my Stax and hifiman, the results of using sorb, with all my other gear has not been a  little  improvement.... The final accumulative results of damping all my units of audio is the greatest upgrade by far i had experience... I dont have upgraditis now... 
  
 The use of sorb. with my speakers ( around the 2 drivers and on top and at the basis of the speakers with a load for compression ) was no short of extraordinary... the imaging and naturalness of the timbre were a huge improvement...


----------



## Henery

We can add Audioquest Nighthawk and B&W P9 to list of headphones with vibration damping in mind.
  
 Audioquest says this:
 "NightHawk’s patent-pending suspension system takes a cue from shock-mounted microphones, employing elastomer bands (four per side, symmetrically located around the sound-diffusing grilles) to join NightHawk’s headband with its earcups. This elegant design allows the earcups to move freely, accommodating heads of nearly any shape or size, *while effectively decoupling the earcups to counteract intrusive mechanical crosstalk—which, for a lot of listeners, can be a real deal-breaker of a distortion*."
  
 Audioquest actually sells sorbothane: http://www.audioquest.com/audio-enhancements/sorbothane-self-stick-sheet
  
 NH: http://personal.audioquest.com/nighthawk-ergonomics
  
 P9: http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Headphones/Wired-Headphones/Wired-Headphones/P9.html


----------



## edstrelow

henery said:


> We can add Audioquest Nighthawk and B&W P9 to list of headphones with vibration damping in mind.
> 
> Audioquest says this:
> "NightHawk’s patent-pending suspension system takes a cue from shock-mounted microphones, employing elastomer bands (four per side, symmetrically located around the sound-diffusing grilles) to join NightHawk’s headband with its earcups. This elegant design allows the earcups to move freely, accommodating heads of nearly any shape or size, *while effectively decoupling the earcups to counteract intrusive mechanical crosstalk—which, for a lot of listeners, can be a real deal-breaker of a distortion*."
> ...




It certainly looks like these phones are using mechanical damping. It is interesting that the designers seem more concerned about crosstalk, i.e. the transmission of vibrations from one earcup to the other through the headband. That is certainly part of the problem. I was not surprised that the headband of the Stax SR 007 needed damping since it is metal and screwed directly to the metal earcups. But I was not expecting to find that even the headbands of the Stax SRX MkIII and the Lambdas would show similar problems because they are much less tightly fastened to the earcups. And yet they do and this appears also to be the realization of the designers of the Audioquest and B&W phones. 

Certainly in my listening I have been struck by an increase in soundstage after damping was applied to headphones, something which I believe has been reported with the Sennhesier HD 800, which uses headband damping. The elimination of crosstalk, should create a greater stereo effect and wider soundstage. 

However, I think that crosstalk is only part of the problem and that each driver creates distortion which feeds back to that same driver. But, as I have said before, there is a lot we don't understand about this problem.


----------



## edstrelow

I have been trying a simple experiment to get rid of the crosstalk that the B&W and and the Audioquest phones, which were brought to our attention by Henery,  attempt to do.   Here it is:
  

  
 Just listen without the headband!
  
 I simply hold the earcups in place both when the headband is used and when it is not used, so as not to introduce any change by the holding. I have tried this with both my Stax  Lambda LNS, Lambda 404 and SRXIII Mk2 pro.  In all of these phones it is real easy to snap the earcups off and on, not really feasible with the SR007 though.   I think I am hearing something but it would be nice if other people would try this to.  There must be other phones where the headbands can be removed.


----------



## Henery

> There must be other phones where the headbands can be removed.


 
 Vintage DT 770, 880, 990 and Koss Portapro to name few. IEM`s dont have this problem, because there´s no headband at all


----------



## edstrelow

henery said:


> Vintage DT 770, 880, 990 and Koss Portapro to name few. IEM`s dont have this problem, because there´s no headband at all



 Maybe that's why IEM'S are the only dynamics I have bought in recent years.   Anyway I think we need some opinions from other listeners about whether they think the headband is causing problems.


----------



## richard51

i dont know if i am fooled by my ears, in fact i trust them, but the gluing process of the sorbothane take more than a month to deliver the best of results.... I detect 2 stages : one were the sound is more greatly improve after a week, and the surprizing second  improvement after a month or so ....Wait and enjoy!
  
 The sorbothane i have put more than a month ago around the drivers of my speakers seems to gluing more  thightly now in place.... I am amazed by my imaging...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> i dont know if i am fooled by my ears, in fact i trust them, but the gluing process of the sorbothane take more than a month to deliver the best of results.... I detect 2 stages : one were the sound is more greatly improve after a week, and the surprizing second  improvement after a month or so ....Wait and enjoy!
> 
> The sorbothane i have put more than a month ago around the drivers of my speakers seems to gluing more  thightly now in place.... I am amazed by my imaging...:atsmile:



I agree., but it may depend on what glue you are using. I think superglue works fastest, but as I have noted previously, it does not seem to work well with high frequencies. 
The other adhesives I use are the self-stick and 3M 80. Both seem to need several hours before they start to improve sound and the benefits seem to get better over weeks. My reservation about 3M80 is that it doesn't always hold, this is especially a problem with pieces I have glued to speakers. I also note that if the glue works well, i.e. it actually holds, it holds much more firmly over time and is harder to remove.
But overall I agree with you, the sound seems to.improve over time as the adhesive sets.
.


----------



## richard51

it is very surprizing, because it is so better in the beginning, and  after sometime suddenly  a subtle but clear improvement....i think that the sorb. is the most useful audio product ...I have never think that all my gear would sound so good...At this point enjoying music is all....when something sound right it is no more painfull if you dont have the money to upgrade anything... thank to your thread, and thank to you i am very happy....


----------



## Henery

1) I found this DIY hifi web site which has few useful pages about vibration damping.
  
 Vibrations in hifi gear:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/august01.html
  
 Car vibration damping sheets:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/dampere.html
  
 Bluetack as damping material:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/bluetac_e.html
  
 Noise Killer: ProDamping compound:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/noise.html
  
 Using stethoscope to detect problematic vibrations:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/stetoe.html
  
 2) All vibration damping methods in Audioquest Nighthawk uses:
 - Liquidwood earcups which have elastomer coating applied on innerside
 - Earcups and headband arc mechanically separated by four elastomer strings
 - Drivers have urethane rubber surrounds that absorbs vibrations
 - Biocellulose is self damping diaphragm material
  
 3) My idea for loudspeaker vibration damping. Metal stick could be screw adjustable to compress sorbo patches against drivers and back wall. This could be done to cabinets floor and ceiling panels too. Can be modified to dynamic headphone drivers at least. Not so sure about electrostats.


----------



## richard51

i dont know for your idea Henery, i am no engineer, but it seems very interesting  and promising for the least .... Some designer must read that and thinking about it, for me i cannot implemented it and test it alas!( a bit complex to implement for the unpractical dreamer that i am, i dare not to open my speakers, if you take the task i will be waiting for your impressions) It is my experience that the damping of all gear is NECESSARY, and the damping of the speakers i have were spectacular , in terms of all the spectrum of sound....Your first adress about tnt-audio articles is interesting and says all...Thanks for your interesting discoveries....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 In some articles they mention the use of stethoscope for detecting vibrations, original idea! I know that ALL pieces of gear vibrates for a fact, in the basis if this fact i simply recommend to all to apply sorb. on all pieces....
  
  
 In a general mood i must say that behind the upgraditis virus, there is the problem of generalized vibrations in the gear pieces, hence no product works at his optimal high quality  level, because vibrations act and cause  negative resonances, some parts of the spectrum of sound is more affected than others, sometimes it is subtle but it is there, and the results cause with time passing  some severe insatisfaction in the customers, and he think about an upgrade like about the only solution....The Solution is buying good products in the first place yes! but damping them with sorb.  is an imperative... When you listen to a relatively good sound spectrum , you dont think to upgrade on the next week...After all the sound of a trumpet is the sound of a trumpet, isn't it?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Before using sorb. on all my gear i have never listen to the true  natural sound of an instrument  with my different pieces of gear,  in the last 3 years i sold some, bought anothers, without true satisfaction, my inconscious were never truly  satisfied by the sound because the sound were never natural,the musical timbre were bad, the imaging not very good, for example i almost dump my headphones he 400 before applying the sorb. on them...After the sorb. i love all my gear Stax, hifiman, amp, dac, speakers etc....i can wait for the next  upgrade,without any frustration or without the anguish of knowing  that what i have is bad, i will upgrade in the future for the better and not because what i have sound bad.   A piano now  is a piano....


----------



## edstrelow

henery said:


> 1) I found this DIY hifi web site which has few useful pages about vibration damping.
> 
> Vibrations in hifi gear:
> http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/august01.html
> ...




Good to see these links. I wonder about the liquid earpads. Old Koss Esp 6 and 9 electrostatics, both of which I owned, and still own, had such things and these phones showed less harshness than the Stax line. Koss stopped using them because they tended to puff up and then leak, so my current ones have conventional replacements. 

I compared blutac with sorb some posts back and noted that it does not damp well, but you may want to use it to hold loose parts in place, such as wires. 

I like your idea of adjustable pressure on sorb in or inside speakers. I have fiddled with a few small clamps on headphones. You can do certain amount of tuning by adjusting the pressure. Richard51 uses heavy weights in some applications to compress sorb but this will not work with phones and it is hard to find good spots to fit a clamp on most headphones. Your adjustable inside brace, as I call it, looks promising.


----------



## edstrelow

I am still curious about the Audioquest and B&W headphones reported by Henery  and that both manufacturers emphasize that damping eliminates crosstalk between the earcups. I had originally damped my Stax SR007 on the headband and found notable improvements. However I finally decided, and still feel, that if you can minimize vibrations at the earcup, you will not have to worry about blocking these between the two earcups, because there won't be any there. 
  
 Subsequently,richard51 pointed out that there were benefits to be obtained from applying sorbothane to the headband of the Stax SR-5.  I tried this on mine and agreed that it worked. In fact I started adding a fair bit of sorb onto the headbands of the Stax Lambdas, Sigmas and SR007. 
  
 After seeing the emphasis on crosstalk in the Audioquest and B&W  it occurred to me to check if there might still be residual cross-talk in these phones even with sorb damping on the headbands. This I checked simply by comparing the sound with and without headbands, just holding the earcups in place by hand. In fact there was still a noticeable improvement in sound by eliminating the headbands on these as well as on the Stax SRXIII Mk2 pro. 
  
 So it appears that it is hard to get rid of all the vibrational crosstalk just by applying self-stick sorb to the headbands. Previously I had also tried compressing sorb using small clamps to attach the sorb to the earcups.  This seemed somewhat effective on the SR007 but the basic problem about using them is that it is very hard to find a place to clamp anything on most earcups. However this is much less of a problem with a flat headband.  So it seemed worth a try again.  
  
 The photos show two clamps used to compress sorb on the headbands.  There is also a small slightly curved piece of steel over some of the sorb.  I am still looking for a bigger piece of metal to compress the sorb.
  
 The results seem pretty good, close to removing the headband itself.


----------



## richard51

thanks Ed, i will buy  the same clamp as yours i think, it would be better trhan my paper clamp....Sorbothane made a difference in any duro and not compressed, but it is way better with 70 duro , as you already said  and as i experience after, the compression is mandatory if possible with duro 70, because the sticking procees is optimalized, and the absorbtion  of resonance and vibrations also....


----------



## Henery

My "inside brace" idea is not new. Vivid Audio uses it on their Giya G series speakers. They also have two woofers opposing eachother to cancel resonances. These speakers were designed by Laurence Dickie who also designed the legendary B&W Nautilus.


----------



## edstrelow

henery said:


> My "inside brace" idea is not new. Vivid Audio uses it on their Giya G series speakers. They also have two woofers opposing eachother to cancel resonances. These speakers were designed by Laurence Dickie who also designed the legendary B&W Nautilus.



Well it would be new if combined with the use of sorb or some other material for damping, which I am not sure is being done with these speakers. 

I am interested to see if clamping sorb adds to its effectiveness versus just using adhesives. I have to add just how good the clamping is on the Stax Sigmas and Lambdas. While I still feel that you need damping in the earcups as your first line of defence, adding the clamps, adds a notable improvement. The soundstage is wider and the individual instruments are better localized. There is a reduction in upper frequency harshness and even the bass is cleaner.
I am listening with the Sigmas to Frank Sinatra/Count Basie live at the old Sands casino in Las Vegas, It just sounds perfect.


----------



## richard51

If some people  still doubted that it is more than desirable to compress the duro 70 sorb. i have some new  experience  today to confirm it.... After applying some filter grills on the port of my speakers( the port is now neither open nor close) that makes, a few days ago, a great improvement in the imaging, i decide  today to add  15 pounds more  on top of my more than 40 pounds granite slabs that perch on top  my Mission speakers(for a total around 60 pounds)... Guest what?  It seems that the compression of the duro 70 sorb. were not enough last time, this time it is better and the result are no short of extraordinary (after all my experiment i think that between 50 to 60 pounds is the best compression pressure for duro 70  on my speakers , amp, an other gear ).... I cannot go back to my headphones often like before...The sound of my speakers is so natural, the imaging so precise, the organical natural sound is now addictive  ....The lesson is : *compressing the sorb. made wonderful effect*...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Right after putting a load to compress the sorb under my amp Sansui i think that was the last final  improvement, and  there was nearly nothing more to improve...I was wrong and i am in shock at this moment, a so little mod. with a so great change... But now it is the same thing, amazing change with the right placement (inside 2 inches variation from the optimal distance of the wall make a difference) and adding these 15 pounds on top of the speakers, with before it the filter grills  applied to the 2  ports of the speakers ...It is like  buying another better pair of speakers, i know for sure after this year of mods. and experiments, that you will not hear the true potential of headphone or speakers  without this experimenting with load, sorb, etc, on all your pieces of  gear....
  
 What a wonderful world! An a wonderful thread! thanks to all of you...
  
  
 P.S. placing speakers at the optimal distance from the wall made some big difference, only 2 inches+ or - from this optimal distance will make a great difference trust me, hence if you have speakers, experiment with your ears open...
  
*Final update* : After few days of listening with my gear, dac+amp+speakers with more than 50 pounds on all of  them for the compression of the sorb. duro 70, i must say that there is simply NO comparison with before and after this, the imaging is simply there completely... My experiment reveal the point in case : sorb. duro 70 is extraordinary for audio use especially if compressed , optimally with between 50 to 60 pounds...I must say that my mid-fi speakers mission volare 60 are so good that i enjoy less to listening with my Staxes or he 400...


----------



## edstrelow

I am also very happy with the latest bit of compression of sorbothane on my Stax Lambdas and Sigmas. Following Henery's report of 2 new headphones that seek to use dampingeliminate mechanical crossfeed between the earcups I went back to see if I could get better damping on the two Staxen.  
  
 I am now up to 4 clips, compressing sorbothane on the headband.

 This adds some additional clarity and channel separation to merely adding sorbothane.  As regards how much pressure, I find that I prefer a minimal amount of tightening on the Lambdas, i.e. just enough to hold them in place.  With the Sigmas, I prefer tighter fastening as this seems to reduce its bass hump. I am surethat there are better ways of clamping the sorb, but as has often happened in the past, I am enjoying the sound so much, all I feel like doing is listening to both phones. 
  
 My next project is not really sorb-related but involves replacing the cable on a Stax SR007A which has been barely hanging on for some years. 
  
 Someone may be interested in these little clips.  I was able to order then on Amazon for a few bucks. for a package of  12.


----------



## Hutnicks

If you simply used sorbothane grommets where the pivots attached to the cups you would have no need for the Jocelyn Lovell type apparatus on the headband.


----------



## edstrelow

hutnicks said:


> If you simply used sorbothane grommets where the pivots attached to the cups you would have no need for the Jocelyn Lovell type apparatus on the headband.


 
 I can see the point that if some portion of the headband like a grommet is soft enough, energy won't get past it to the other side. But if the vibrations don't get past the grommet the energy would still be floating around in the earcup and presumably still messing up the sound in the originating earcup. But at least you wouldn't have crossfeed distortion.  Energy does not just die, it transforms into some other form.  Sorbothane claims to turn the mechanical energy into heat. I assume that eventually the earcup vibrations turn to heat in the earcups whether sorb is applied or not. Otherwise your earcups would be ringing forever. But the sorb is more effective and does it faster. 
  
 However,  if enough pressure is applied by the pivot to the grommet it might compress it  so that it acts more like solid material and passes vibrations anyway.   Nevertheless,  something like this could be tried and might be effective.
  
 I first got on to the damping problem when I realized that the headband of my Stax SR007 was vibrating .  http://www.head-fi.org/t/671314/stax-sr007-resonance-problems .I felt that the rather than working on the headband, the better  solution was to dampen the earcups so much that there wouldn't be anything to go to the headband. Apparently I have not succeeded and crossfeed is going on even on my heavily damped phones. And that is why I am trying these clips as an experiment to see if compressed sorbothane works better and that seems to be so. This is really a separate issue from the crossfeed reduction.   At some point I would hope to find another way of doing this that is less ugly. 
  
 Anyway I found the discussions of the audioquest and B&W phones interesting inasmuch as they emphasized crossfeed as the source of distortion.  Grado doesn't discuss this in their e series but talks about improving transient response.  Sennheisser doesn't explain the rational of their damping in the headbands much at all and I see little discussion of this topic  in the reader forums. So I don't think we have really figured it out.  All I know is that I can generally get much better sound to my phones. using sorbothane damping.  Exactly why and what is the best way to do this is still unclear.


----------



## richard51

I suddenly lost a channel in my Sansui Amplifier, i remove my near 40 pound of load on top of it, to clean some controls button,  and the channel come back to life.... This load of near 40 pounds +the mass of the amplifier itself is equal to* the optimal 60 pounds necessary to optimally compress the sorbothane duro 70*...I listened then the Sansui amp.  for the first time without this optimal load on top of the amplifier and the sound was no more  3-d, way less  clean, less refine  even if all the other pieces of gear were optimally compressed except the amplifier...The lesson is finally that for me : it is necessary to compress the sorb. duro 70 in ALL parts and piece of the gear chain, the cleaning process of all this negative resonance added up at the end... One piece of gear without sorb. or without compressing load, and the results were way less clear...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It is so precise  final result that it is possible to hear the difference between 5 pounds more or less on top of  the load on any piece of gear:  dac, or power conditioner, speakers or amp ....
  
 P.s. Some of you must think that it would be more easy to put sorb. duro 30 or 40 under the gear, hence it would be not necessary to use such heavy load to compress it...the problem is that for an optimal audio result , sorb. duro 70 is more denser stuff than the other grade of sorb. and for a reason that i dont understand the elimination of internal vibration-resonance is way more effective to my ears with this precisely graded duro and it work better compressed ...i will wait for a scientific explanation...For now my results a so astounding that my mid-fi  Mission V60 speakers sound really now like some hi-fi one with a lot of  clearer bass from the 5 inches woofer(no sub-bass for sure!) and it is not necessary at all to use a sub for music listening ...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I suddenly lost a channel in my Sansui Amplifier, i remove my near 40 pound of load on top of it, to clean some controls button,  and the channel come back to life.... This load of near 40 pounds +the mass of the amplifier itself is equal to* the optimal 60 pounds necessary to optimally compress the sorbothane duro 70*...I listened then the Sansui amp.  for the first time without this optimal load on top of the amplifier and the sound was no more  3-d, way less  clean, less refine  even if all the other pieces of gear were optimally compressed except the amplifier...The lesson is finally that for me : it is necessary to compress the sorb. duro 70 in ALL parts and piece of the gear chain, the cleaning process of all this negative resonance added up at the end... One piece of gear without sorb. or without compressing load, and the results were way less clear...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I have no doubt that you correctly report what you are hearing. But I  still wonder how much of what you are hearing is solely due to sorbothane compression.  I would expect the  mass you using on top of equipment to itself give better sound. There was a fad some years back for putting bricks on top of equipment and I am sure it helped dampen vibrations even without sorbothane.  
  
 I see that Mapleshade Audio sells brass "heavyhats" to put on top of equipment along with the use of footers and wooden bases. They seem to working along the same line as you except that they use metal feet rather than sorb under equipment.  In my experience both can work. 
  
 http://mapleshadestore.com/feedback_heavyhats.php


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I have no doubt that you correctly report what you are hearing. But I  still wonder how much of what you are hearing is solely due to sorbothane compression.  I would expect the  mass you using on top of equipment to itself give better sound. There was a fad some years back for putting bricks on top of equipment and I am sure it helped dampen vibrations even without sorbothane.
> 
> I see that Mapleshade Audio sells brass "heavyhats" to put on top of equipment along with the use of footers and wooden bases. They seem to working along the same line as you except that they use metal feet rather than sorb under equipment.  In my experience both can work.
> 
> http://mapleshadestore.com/feedback_heavyhats.php


 
 For sure you are right , the mass act itself without the sorb. to damp the vibration  ... But just putting mass cannot transform totally the spectrum of frequencies with a 3-d effects in spatialization of the sound.....It is very simple to verify that.... Try brick only experiment, try brick +sorb experiment, try  sorb. only experiment with different duro....The best results for me  (sorb.70  compressed) are spectacular, the other two possibilities are not...i also discovered that between 50 to sixty pounds  of compression on all 4 pieces of gear  are necessary; more is not so good , nor less.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 there is no comparison between my system with sorb and without it....no comparison at all.... But the sorb duro 70 must be compressed by a load of  around 55 pounds the mass of the gear included...try it... 
  
 Before i stumble on this site, and this particular thread, and before your gracious first offer to me for my headphone, i was already using sorb under my other gear, without very  truely good results, with no compression, and without the right duro... after i discovered the true potential of sorb. on my headphones i begin experimenting with compression and your own suggestion of the duro 70.... For me the discovery truely begins with that, after that i transform really my system, with duro 70 and compression, the results is even my Stax does not compete with my mid-fi speakers, nor my he -400, in all counts, be definition,imaging,etc...
  
 Sorbothane is for me the most underestimated audio product, and when used by some people, most of the time not optimally used...thanks to you
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 my audio life is now never tortured by envious temptation to buy that or that, because my sound is already, musical, organic, natural, and there is absolutely no relation with what i  have before  sorbothanization with the same  and every piece of gear...Remember in my past posts that i have speaks about my inconscious experience when 2 pieces of sorb. drop  accidentally off  the feet of my dac and at other time off  the feet of the power conditioner...even with the same load on top of these pieces of  gear, the audio result without the 2 missing piece were immediately consciously perceived.... At the End the load help yes, but it is the sorb.70 that play the major role...You know what sorb. do to headphones, for me the results if possible are no less extraordinary with every one and each piece of gear....Sorb. do the same miraculous deed rightly applied...


----------



## edstrelow

In a related vein to richard51's musings about compression, I am starting to think that the sorbothane applied to headphones also works best when some pressure is applied. This has been difficult to experiment with because most phones give you few places to apply sorb and then compress it.  However at least some of the Stax phones have headbands where you can apply both sorb and a clamping device.   
  
 This week I finally repaired/replaced the broken cable in my Stax SR007A where I had previously applied sorb to the metal bands that hold the earcups.  I started with four clamps and was quite pleased with the result so I moved on to eight.
  
 Four seemed to help a lot but the eight clamps gave additional boost although I think diminishing returns are setting in.
  
 So what are the benefits?  More of what you generally get from sorbothane damping, better clarity, better dynamics and a reduction in harshness.  I found myself involuntarily moving in time to the music, always a good sign of good reproduction. However there also appears to be better channel separation so that the soundstage is wider and individual instruments or voices more precisely localized.This is consistent with the reports earlier of Audioquest and B&W claiming that their damping reduces crosstalk. 
  
 As an example, I was listening to an old (1969) EMI analog recording of Peer Gynt. It is a fine recording by Barbirolli but with mediocre, murky  sound.   Now most of the murk is gone, and it sounds more like my better and more recent digital recordings, such as one of my personal favorites, a 1991 Argo recording by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir of American songs.   The Argo now sounds even clearer, you are starting to be aware of individual singers in the choir for example.
  
 By taking the clips off and on I can hear that a surprising amount of the improvement is due just to the clips. 
  
 What I will probably do in the future is locate some metal or plastic strips that I can place under the sorb and then compress them to the sorb by a simple clamp.  Then the headband will be covered with a  knitted cover that  was designed for them and which I got on Ebay for a few bucks.
  
 The Stax Lambdas are also amenable to this sort of modification.


----------



## richard51

Thanks Ed for this interesting post....I am not surprized....what you have found about the compression of the sorb.duro 70 on your Stax, apply to the same extent to ANY piece of gear with the sorb. duro 70 under it or on top of it....the same qualities about the improvement would  manifest  with any of them , even with the power conditioner or the speakers, dac, or amp...All and each one of the piece of the chain gain and improve with the compression of the sorb.duro 70...
  
  When i come to Headfi forums  some years ago, it was because i was in search of some headphone , because i dont wanted to invest in a costly speakers system, and because headphone take little space on a desk than speakers....But i learn with my money  that  very good headphone amp cost the same that a good speakers amp will cost , and very good headphone these days  cost more than very good speakers....Now with the sorbothanization of ALL my system, i listen mostly with the  mid-fi level speakers Mission V60, they are so good with all the sorb.  that even my other 3 headphone does not compete, thanks to the sorb. duro 70 compressed...
  
 No audio company , if they know it in the first place,will dare to say that their sometimes many thousand dollars system,  is internally  plague by vibrations, and because of that will  deliver an  indesirable  spectrum of resonance, and that it is necessary to put sorb. duro 70 under it and on top of it with around 60 pounds of load.... No audio cpmpany will say that...It is my experience that it is so with ANY piece of gear new or vintage! Be it a power conditioner or an amp etc.... thanks to your experiment with sorb. in the first place, i know that now...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 The other thread here  are mostly impressions about new products,  but your thread is an experiment in the making...for cheap money  it is possible to have a modest but truly audiophile system, it is my experience with the sorbothane experimentation of this thread .....  the most underestimated solution to vibrations in audio experience.... Sorbothane does not only isolate the gear from the vibration like spikes,  but absorb and eliminate them, transforming them  into  heat,  but better if compressed optimally....   thanks Ed


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Thanks Ed for this interesting post....I am not surprized....what you have found about the compression of the sorb.duro 70 on your Stax, apply to the same extent to ANY piece of gear with the sorb. duro 70 under it or on top of it....the same qualities about the improvement would  manifest  with any of them , even with the power conditioner or the speakers, dac, or amp...All and each one of the piece of the chain gain and improve with the compression of the sorb.duro 70...
> 
> When i come to Headfi forums  some years ago, it was because i was in search of some headphone , because i dont wanted to invest in a costly speakers system, and because headphone take little space on a desk than speakers....But i learn with my money  that  very good headphone amp cost the same that a good speakers amp will cost , and very good headphone these days  cost more than very good speakers....Now with the sorbothanization of ALL my system, i listen mostly with the  mid-fi level speakers Mission V60, they are so good with all the sorb.  that even my other 3 headphone does not compete, thanks to the sorb. duro 70 compressed...
> 
> ...



Yes, most of the postings in Head-fi are very consumerist,  just  take whatever the manufacturers want to produce.  It seems to be more about spending big bucks on esoterica and getting praise from other big spenders for your supposed astuteness. 
 
 Here, we are dealing with a fundamental problem of the effects of mechanical vibrations on sound systems which the manufacturers have largely ignored.    In part this is because we have not had good means for damping sound systems until fairly recently.  I note for example that the Stax Lambda headphone design was first released before sorbothane was even patented.  So you couldn't do much. With speakers, we use heavy stands,  spikes under the stands, sand in the boxes and other techniques which are just not workable with headphones. So using sorb and similar materials is a game-changer. 
 
I am also surprised at the reluctance of many Headfiers to even consider the damping problem which you may be able resolve for very little money a few bucks worth of sorbothane. Many of them seem far more willing  to plunk thousands into things like amps .  I recall listening to the $5-6,000.00 BHSE amp for Stax phones at a Canjam in LA some years back, and thinking that it was the best I had heard  by about 15%.  Now I have exceeded that 15% by a large margin on most of my Stax phones by adding a few bucks of sorb.  At the next Canjam in Southern California I demonstrated some of my early efforts with sorb, and a few people told me I had the best sound in the show, and that was using a fairly cheap old Stax 717 amp.  And there was full participation there from Sennheiser, Sony, BHSE and the like. 
 
I am also impressed with how good some dirt-cheap systems like $2.00 earbuds sounded with bits of sorb added, as I reported some while back, although now I know that they also have the advantage of having no headband to transmit crossfeed. 
 
Anyway for me this is about getting the best performance from what I already have. It does require experimentation though. We are in here pretty much in on the ground floor here and it gives me some satisfaction as I see more headphone manufacturers starting to examine this problem.


----------



## richard51

Dear Ed imagine now that every piece of your  audio gear chain , not only headphones, are sorbothanized with the optimal compression : power conditioner, battery charger, dac, amp, energizer, speakers, headphones, the cumulative effect  of the cleaning of vibrations and of the negative resonance in every and each one of these links added up to : *HI-fi for cheap (* _i dont pretend for example that there is no quality difference between my vintage sansui and a far more refine modern gear, only that with sorb. any product is up to his own optimal potential_*)*....This is my experience...Thanks to your first post to me and  your gracious  first offer....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Before i encounter your thread i was desesperate to have _a good  approximation_ of an hi-fi system at low cost,  all my upgrading were never totally satisfying...The only  remaining possibilities were, at these times before i read your thread,  to upgrade all piece of my gear at many thousands dollars level up ... Now upgrading is for me a not so necessary and appealling gesture...The diminushing returns law is for me now a real experience, thanks to your sorb. experiment...Each of my piece of gear works now  at his optimal potential, and a good dac and a good amp is a way better  dac and a way better amp with sorbothanization, hence upgrading lacks sex appeal now for me and i can wait few years before dreaming about it, and i can now  listen to music for the first time with an audiophile feeling without be bother by the idea and sensation that my system lacks badly  in a particular _something _or a particular_ area_...I dont have much money , hence i have thought hard to install your sorb. solution not only in my 3 headphones but in ALL my system with a success that with time and experiment far surpass my own expectations 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...
  
 For your remarks about the newly renewed interest about damping by some companies, I am a bit dubitative of the final results because the problem  for me at the end is : _how to install the sorb. and compress it on all piece of gear, headphone included?_ Each company have his own particular product and agenda for his own  particular product and cannot do an open marketting campaign   with his ( sometimes costly) product, saying  that it is necessary after buying it to  install sorb.+ the right and relatively heavy  compression....But you said :«There was full participation there from Sennheiser, Sony, BHSE and the like.» hence i am perhaps too pessimistic...Your experimentation is probably the beginning of something, not only here but somewhere....



 
  
  My best results were only finally  there after the use of the right duro rightly compressed with all and each piece of gear, not only headphone... i fully trust all your sayings about the best sound impressions at the show with your stax, i know, thanks to you, perfectly well that sorbothane made a wonderful job  in headphone  for cheap....People when they  pay, want to think they have bought the best, but there is_ no absolute best_ around few thousand dollars in audio...For the really best results with any product, i now know for sure that sorbothane is necessary, it does not matter which product , it does not matter his cost, because EVERYTHING vibrate badly inside  and internally create cumulative negative  resonance along the line... EVERYTHING...And installing a one thousand dollars metal  spike (yes that product exist)  or  for a few bucks  some wood spike will not work like the sorb. and in each case, the one thousand dollars spike or the wooden cheap one, will only isolate _not dissipate_ the internal resonance  and vibrations  into heat like the compressed sorb.  ....


----------



## soren_brix

edstrelow said:


> by about 15%.  Now I have exceeded that 15% by a large margin on most of my Stax phones by adding a few bucks of sorb.


 
 15%? how did you come to that figur?


----------



## edstrelow

soren_brix said:


> 15%? how did you come to that figur?




A subjective estimate. Called "magnitude estimation" in psychophysics. 

Another way of saying, noticeable but not overwhelming.


----------



## richard51

Quote:Originally Posted by *edstrelow* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
  
  
  
  
  
  
 «As an example, I was listening to an old (1969) EMI analog recording of Peer Gynt. It is a fine recording by Barbirolli but with mediocre, murky  sound.   Now most of the murk is gone, and it sounds more like my better and more recent digital recordings, such as one of my personal favorites, a 1991 Argo recording by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir of American songs.   The Argo now sounds even clearer, you are starting to be aware of individual singers in the choir for example.»
  
  
  
  
  
  
 This is interesting...That is my exact experience with some of my old cd particularly but for a few newer one also ....the sorb.clean all the negative resonance, and after that the murky sound of some cd is like  other good one....Particularly true after i had sorbothanized all my links...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 By the way my own subjective comparison with my links not sobothanized and after sorbothanization is 100% improvement...No comparison between before and after ( 3-d imaging in speakers and headphone is now there with a naturalness of the musical timbre that were not there before with  all  these audio links minus the sorb. Better bass, and highs is only a manifestation of these more fundamental attributes of the cleaning properties of the compressed sorb. at the mids  frequencies center of the music ) ....Not a single change in one of my links is comparable  to the introduction of the sorb.,except the exchange of my cheap headphone for a Stax one perhaps...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not one of my cd is not  now completely transformed if i recall my listening of some 2 years ago....By the way i have listened to some of these cd for 40 years in their vinyl format in the first place and listening them for the first time  only now  thanks to the sorb. For exemple i detect the real sound of a celesta in one cd i know for 40 years that were barely not audible before or sometimes audible non musically like a light  "clac" ....Hence i know what my ears listen to....


----------



## richard51

I make a new experiment with my  Panamax power conditioner... I have already put many months ago  under his feet and on top of it  some sorb. duro 70 under a heavy load(around 50 pounds), today i tried with the Panamax 4300 *my 3 levels  sandwich sorb. solution*:  i have put ,under a first granite plate where the panamax  were already standing , a second  granite plate with some *new* pieces of sorb in between these 2 plates ( there is already sheet of sorb. on top of the Panamax  and under his 4 feet compressed by the concrete slabs)....  Frankly I have not anticipate such  final improving result, but there is  now some further very audible  improvement in clarity and imaging with the speakers, but with the he 400 hifiman headphone the refinement of the sound, the airy spatial feeling between the instrument is, if possible, more  evident ...I have already put sometime ago  this sandwich solution +heavy load for compression, under all my gear, the power conditioner were the last without this  double plate sandwich...
  
  By the way only my Sansui Amp. is connected to the Panamax, my dac is battery powered .... The improvement is incredibly there, i am surprized because why so great change with the power conditioner which have already the feet sorbed ? 
  
 The 2 level of sorb between the 2 plates not only _damp better_, and _isolate better_ with this sandwich of sorb, but i think that more internal  negative resonance in the panamax  and  transfered along the line  are eliminated because of the different density level of the sandwich...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 The nail of my argument is now in his hole:  ANY audio link vibrate and create negative resonance along the line, without distinction of price or quality.... The ONLY cheap and very effective solution is the sorb. duro 70  sandwich compressed.... Which other one there is  ?
  
 I think that this problem of internal resonance and vibrations  is not clearly understood, even by most specialist in Audio... i spoke one time  with a very skilled engineer in high-end  Audio and he recommmend to me, better than sorb., some wood spikes ! He dont listen to my experimentation with  duro, compression etc...Under his product (expensive one) only wooden spikes would be necessary.... 
  





 
  
  
  In this photo taking one year ago,my Sansui+ 2 plates has a  sandwich sorb. but without the 35 pounds load necessary to compress the sorb.optimally, hence isolating and damping,  and absorbing vibrations and resonance  less effectively... 
  

  
 speakers with 2 plate sandwich sorb. and some load :
  

  
 there is sorb. directly under the first plate on top of the speakers, and also directly under the speakers, and finally between the 2 plates where all, speakers +load, stand...*3 levels sandwich sorb. *


----------



## edstrelow

I think we need to see a photo of your "sandwich" to fully uderstand it.

Re wood as a damping material. I would not be surprised if some woods have damping characteristics. But I would want to see them compared with sorbothane. With my Stax SRX II Mk3 pro phones with detachable fronts, I am able to make direct comparisons of some materials as I have shown in earlier posts. Wood could be harder to set up.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I think we need to see a photo of your "sandwich" to fully uderstand it.
> 
> Re wood as a damping material. I would not be surprised if some woods have damping characteristics. But I would want to see them compared with sorbothane. With my Stax SRX II Mk3 pro phones with detachable fronts, I am able to make direct comparisons of some materials as I have shown in earlier posts. Wood could be harder to set up.


 
 Indeed Ed  i will wait for your impression.... I dont doubt a second about the damping properties of wood for decoupling and isolating the vibrations of the room or the floor from the speakers or from another gear ....Some company sells them, after some experimentation, i bet on that.... But is wood will absorb vibrations, transforming them rapidly into heat if compressed, hence eliminating  some internal negative resonance polluting the line, like the sorb. ?  I bet no.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Rightly implemented the sorb. solution is in the same order of magnitude upgrading change in my audio system  than my passage from the little pocket amp Pa2v2 amp to the Sansui Au 7700, i doubt that wooden spikes would do the same...


----------



## richard51

It seems that I had forgotten another place where to put a sorb. sandwich, the space between the dac and his  battery charger under their compressed tower with slab of concrete... I put some sorb. in between 2 granite plate and the magic goes on : _more vinyl like sound_, more subtle than yesterday effect but definitively there...I am amazed...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (*update after an hour*; the effect is almost  good as with  my other last experiment but give me this time more organic and  fluid  mid-frequencies, the sound has now no more harshness  definitively an upgrade on the same order than the last  sandwich experiment with the Panamax but not the same effect on  my perception of the  sound... *Update after 2 hours*: i dont know why i say that this  is a more subtle upgrade ,it is freakin smooth sound and truly a great improvement  )
  
  

  
 The first sorb. sandwich on my desk and on top of it the Beresford Bushmaster dac at the first level, at the second level  the Stax amp, and the new sorb. sandwich below the battery charger at the third level ...
  
 I could never has known that a battery charger introduce his internal noise in the chain gear without sorb. experimentation...( i know also that it would be the same noise problem with any power supply, hence sorbothanization will be mandatory rule here)
 It seems that the sorb. sandwich isolate perfectly well each component from the desk and of one another....... The sorb. must always be compressed, the effect of sorb. is multiplied with this compression by the slabs of concrete(by the way on top of the speakers sit around approx. 60 pounds of concrete and i can hear a difference between the optimal loading and the not so optimal loading adding or substacting around 2 pounds of difference ) ...I know for sure that they are better gear than my vintage or mid fi gear, but the sound i listen to now made me  no more  interested in an upgrade... I know for sure that this  future upgrade would cost me ,if it is a real one in the many thousands...Think about it, what is the total cost of concrete slab, granite plate and some sorb. ? Not one of my  nude link sounded like  they sound now dressed  with the sorb......  I guess that the last step would be another sandwich between the stax amp and the dac ....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Lesson learned!
  
 When i came on headfi some years ago my perplexing and frustrating question was when will i buy the desire something? And what should i buy? A thousand dollars amp perhaps , with a thousand dollars headphone, with a thousand dollars dac? Or better why not the best multithousand dollars gear? i dont have this money, many also dont... Then the first upgrades i took after some reading were unsatisfying...Then i begin to read  more for solutions, and the solution i stumble to was Edstrelow Stax sorbothane thread...That start all my quest for an affordable sonic paradise at low cost...I bought mostly used and vintage after that , this is the other part of my solution...
  
 Now i know that one must buy some good gear in the first place , but not necessarily thousands dollars pick, but mostly one must eliminates vibrations and the building up of negative resonance along the line, hence buy some good gear and with the sorb. it will begin to be a very good gear, trust me!...That is my discovery :The best upgrade is not selling your gear and buying some other so call upgrading one, first and foremost it is cleaning and  eliminating the noise  in all links of your actual gear chain (if you have speakers room treatment make wonders)(  .... I must say that to all the newcomers, i apologize for the others old threadmen  here for my rant...in a not so good English...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  
 P.s.
  
 The last 2 experiments with the sorb. sandwiches were perhaps the most satisfiying one experiments, because of the cumulative cleaning already made  all along the chain , hence the effects were a very sensible refinement of all the past experiments, now  the harshness  that i have not detect before has faded away, the music is only that, music from speakers or headphones, and no more very  good sound only...I dont know what to make for a better results, because now, for the first time after  my wife has broken my headphone 3 years ago,i started this odyssey to replace them and my computer music card, since that it is the first time today that i feel i listen really some music and not only a partial decoding of my cd...  
 No i dont know now  what to make for a better result!.... Discovering another tweak spectacular like sorbothane  or perhaps upgrading the gear? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No joke! the most important upgrade, if you have an already relatively good system, is cleaning all the cumulative noise flowing along all links,  beginning with power supply, power conditioner, battery charger etc and all other  audio device before giving big money anywhere else...it is only my opinion and experience...   
  
 But i think i must kill my wife before making  a substantial and costly upgrade now, she already think that i am completely nut after the many first upgrading, the room treatment, the concrete, the granite and the sorbothane all over the place... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (But even her admit now  that my improving methods give a better sound ! Perhaps i will not kill her after all...)


----------



## edstrelow

I have been experimenting with  sorbothane and clamps on the Stax SR003 headband,  and as with the other Stax phones I am quite impressed with the results.  You get a  wider sound field,  cleaner overal sound and especially cleaner bass.  I applied two thin strips of 1/4 in 70 duro sorb on the metal bands.  This alone helps  Adding the clamps helps even more. 
  
 At the same time you can see where sorb is added to the earcups.  You just pop the earcups out of their plastic holder and stick on some sorb and then pop them back.  I am using either 1 or 2 mm thick 70 duro sorb.  The 2 mm seems to give better sound but it makes the earcups stick out a wee bit from the holder. However they still seem to be quite solidly in place.


----------



## richard51

The damping-isolation-absorption potential of  compressed sorbothane is there and very affordable at low cost.... i have experiment these possibilities a bit, after edstrelow guidance...
  
 My next question is : is there other extraordinary method to obtain the same results or better one without the cumbersome mandatory  compressing concrete  load on all my chain gear system? My sound is so good i cannot listen to my system without that cumbersome load now... 
  
 It seems yes, for example :
  
 https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/underboard/tb-38h.html
  
 This company from japan, Acoustic Revive, propose some device, the least costly one  is  slightly under 500 dollars (way too much for me but...)...But the many  critical appraisal reviews  are  very interesting.... Is the sandwich sorbothane, under or on top of my gear, better at a lowest price? i dont know the answer now but i am intererested to try some experiment  of my own with quartz crystals pieces, sand or peebles....
  
 I have already bought a Bybee highly controversial signal enhancer(not too costly) and to my astonishment this crystal plastic sheet works wonderfully, with an improving holographic sound, on top of the Sansui transformer... The fact is Crystals embedded in plastic or in a box absorb vibrations and dissipate them into heat  without inducing some negative resonance perturbing the natural timbre,hence acting  like sorb., because crystals vibrate over the hearing possibilities of human, these so-call effects without negative feed-back resonance  are promising ....Then i am very curious of this because i know now that all audio apparatus is plagued by vibrations and produce  negative perturbative resonance that destruct the natural timbre and imaging  of the sound, the cost of the apparatus is no factor, all audio gear are at risk here, their cost does not matter, they all vibrate... 
  
 I have order some piece of crystals already for some experiments and  next to come,crystals quartz sand in a wooden box is not too costly to experiment with, if i make it myself, i dont think that costly birchwood of the wooden box of the Revive product is the main damping factor, hence any hard  wood will be ok and quartz peebles or sand is low cost products ( no way i will pay for that this amount of money for cheap quartz and some wood) ....   If someone know something i will listen to ....


----------



## richard51

Update  : Sorbothanizing the forgotten external drive, source of all my musical file...
  
  I thought I was done with the sorbothanization of all my gear... But i was wrong, the sorbothanization of the external hard drive is surprizingly  efficient, essentially clearing a veil in the highs frequencies, amazingly clear top highs opening the soundstage..... Perhaps if it was the first place i had put the sorb. the effect would not have been so immediately audible, but after all the damping i have put in all links, the effect  was  very clear...
  
 I will repeat myself :  ALL  audio links benefit from sorbothane.... The proof is in the experiment, and it is fun really to upgrade each time without throwing much money, though with great effects, so rewarding, it was my day of luck when i stumble  on this thread really ...


----------



## richard51

sorry doublepost !


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> The damping-isolation-absorption potential of  compressed sorbothane is there and very affordable at low cost.... i have experiment these possibilities a bit, after edstrelow guidance...
> 
> My next question is : is there other extraordinary method to obtain the same results or better one without the cumbersome mandatory  compressing concrete  load on all my chain gear system? My sound is so good i cannot listen to my system without that cumbersome load now...
> 
> ...


 
  
  


richard51 said:


> Update  : Sorbothanizing the forgotten external drive, source of all my musical file...
> 
> I thought I was done with the sorbothanization of all my gear... But i was wrong, the sorbothanization of the external hard drive is surprizingly  efficient, essentially clearing a veil in the highs frequencies, amazingly clear top highs opening the soundstage..... Perhaps if it was the first place i had put the sorb. the effect would not have been so immediately audible, but after all the damping i have put in all links, the effect  was  very clear...
> 
> I will repeat myself :  ALL  audio links benefit from sorbothane.... The proof is in the experiment, and it is fun really to upgrade each time without throwing much money, though with great effects, so rewarding, it was my day of luck when i stumble  on this thread really ...


 
  
 The issue of mechanical damping has only come about because of the emergence of new materials with better energy dissipation characteristics  than the metals and plastics used in headphones to date.  Sorbothane itself was only patented in 1982 which was after Stax released its first Lambda phone, so of course it was not damped. (Unfortuantely it is still not.) I am sure there are and/or will be other materials which will dampen vibrations as well or better than sorbothane. That just happens to be what i have readily available at low cost.  There is so much that is not understood about this topic that I am sure we will eventually find other ways of doing this.


----------



## richard51

For the immediate future, i think sorb. is without  competition.... i doubt that the crystal would do all the job that the sorb. do, but if it does the same job without the necessary  load to compress it , i will be more than pleased...
  
 My last sorb. experiment with the external hard drive where  there is all my music files. is by far one of the most extraordinary upgrade , essentially a clearing of the high frequencies, and the revelation of a ton of new details....without sorb. my system would be so bad, that i will  divorce  my wife (  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )to buy another one with several thousands dollars at the key  for a real  upgrade.... Now this is too good to upgrade it, because the price to upgrade really  would cost way too much, and now i can live with what l listen to ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks to the sorb. you send to me in the first place and thanks to you...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> For the immediate future, i think sorb. is without  competition.... i doubt that the crystal would do all the job that the sorb. do, but if it does the same job without the necessary  load to compress it , i will be more than pleased...
> 
> My last sorb. experiment with the external hard drive where  there is all my music files. is by far one of the most extraordinary upgrade , essentially a clearing of the high frequencies, and the revelation of a ton of new details....without sorb. my system would be so bad, that i will  divorce  my wife (  :wink_face:  )to buy another one with several thousands dollars at the key  for a real  upgrade.... Now this is too good to upgrade it, because the price to upgrade really  would cost way too much, and now i can live with what l listen to ...:atsmile:  Thanks to the sorb. you send to me in the first place and thanks to you...




The divorce laws must be different where you live. Here when you divorce you end up being too poor to upgrade your system
.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> The divorce laws must be different where you live. Here when you divorce you end up being too poor to upgrade your system
> .


 
 i bet it is to be an advantage to be canuck  here ....But the only one ,I am already ruined by the obligation  sometimes to import from the States my audio products ...


----------



## edstrelow

One of the most interesting things about applying pressure to sorbothane is that this alone changes the sound quality, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.  I am spending a lot of time now with the Stax SR007A and simply adjusting the bolt on the side (see picture) has a notable effect, pretty much as follows.  If the bolt is only slightly tightened you get more deep bass.  As you tighten the bolt, the deep bass declines and eventually so does the treble.  Last night I loosened the bolt and got just the right balance between cutting the bass boom that these phones tend to have and yet not restricting the treble. 
  
 What is going on here, I don't understand.  I keep saying, one day I hope that some real science gets done to give us a better means of predicting outcomes.
  
 In the meantime,  having some kind of adjustable compression on the sorb which is applied to headphones is good if you can figure out a way of doing this. Most phones do not lend themselves to this and with some it is quite a chore to even figure out where to apply it in the first place.   The alternative to compression  is applying sorb until you stop getting additional benefits.


----------



## richard51

Ed it is the same phenomenon with the speakers, too much concrete load  and the imaging decline, the bass too, it takes the optimal pressure ....


----------



## edstrelow

I have found that I seem to get as good results compressing sorbothane on headbands with electrical tape as with metal clips. I am currently spending Christmas with my wife's family in Vegas and brought along my old Stax portable set-up. It has pieces of 2mm 70 duro sorbothane behind the earcups, as shown earlier, and two pieces of 1/4 inch 70 duro on the headband. But not wanting to use the adjustable metal clip to compress the sorb on the headband, I simply wrapped them with electrical tape. The sound seemed as good as with the clamps. Also as with the clamps, you do not want to wrap the sorb too tightly. After my initial listening, it seemed as if the sound was somewhat compressed in the extreme bass and treble. So I unwrapped the sorb and rewrapped it very loosely and the sound improved a lot. 

Now, I am waiting to get back home to try this wrapping with tape on the Stax Lambdas and the SR007A, where I have employed substantial amounts of sorb on the headbands, but only used a few clamps. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be of compressing all of the sorb.


----------



## richard51

My own experiment confirm yours....The compression of the sorb. must be optimal, hence not too much, not too light...the mystery for me is that the sorb. duro 70 improve headphone and speakers alike, but the compression  of the sorb. with speakers or audio gear must be, for being more effective, much more pressing  than with the can... But if you compress it too much. it is the  same bad results like the one observed using headphones, with the speakers, the amp. etc... Optimality of compression in headphones and in other audio gear is not the same... Probably the vibration rate frequencies inducing negative resonances between audio gear, speakers and headphone are not in the same range ...
  
 An aside  with seemingly  no relation with the sorb. thread, but in direct relation for me : I have experiment with FIVE Quartz crystals distributed from the in and out of the power conditioner to the  wall breakers,passing by the wall  outlet also,they clean the line and produce *a spectacular imaging-stage*, the sorb. clean the resonance inducing *a better musical timbre*, but the quartz impart the line with less noise, inducing a better imaging... The final impact of the crystals are no less spectacular than the sorbothane effect....By their matching final effects in my system these two  *complementary* tweaks are now  the greatest discoveries of my audio life... It is no more the same  sound system i purchase since i was using  sorbothane and  crystals, it is a transformed system truly audiophile now.....I apologize for interrupting this sorb. thread with this, but these 2  tweaks are precisely  more than  just tweaks, rightly implemented, they reveal the "problem" of audiophile experience that manifest here and in other forums with the obsessed purchasing of new gear by many people , because  sometimes of the  rampant insatisfaction that is  produce, less by the  bought products in themselves, than by bad implementation and installation of these products... For me sorbothane and crystals solved all that insatisfaction definitively...Buying a new product because of  the desire to experiment and change, is not the same that feeling the urge to buy  a new one because you are very much insatisfied by your audio listenings...Right installation and right implementation of any audio product is the key to heaven, more than the product by himself...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I wish the best Christmas  for all....Thanks to you all


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard,
 Could be describe and elaborate on the quartz crystals? I have a PS Audio Duet Power Center which uses balun coils for eliminating RF and EMI and a large ferrite core on the cables coming from the external powers supplies to my amp and DAC. (HeadRoom Micros I've had for years. Long since discontinued.) The Duet also has first class surge and spike protection. I also have 2 PS Audio Noise Harvesters and ferrite on the USB cable from my laptop to my DAC. But these quartz crystals have me intrigued. What exactly are they and where would one obtain them? Your sorb tweak worked out so well which has peaked my interest.
 Thanks,
 Chris


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard,
> Could be describe and elaborate on the quartz crystals? I have a PS Audio Duet Power Center which uses balun coils for eliminating RF and EMI and a large ferrite core on the cables coming from the external powers supplies to my amp and DAC. (HeadRoom Micros I've had for years. Long since discontinued.) The Duet also has first class surge and spike protection. I also have 2 PS Audio Noise Harvesters and ferrite on the USB cable from my laptop to my DAC. But these quartz crystals have me intrigued. What exactly are they and where would one obtain them? Your sorb tweak worked out so well which has peaked my interest.
> Thanks,
> Chris


 
 Sorbothane eliminate vibrations by absorbing part of them and dissipating them into heat...The first and foremost impact is finally on the more naturalness of timbre, for sure sorb. also give me more imaging and 3-D separation, but less than the quartz....With sorb. on all part of the gear chain i was then ready for the second mod. : the crystals ( for the moment i speak about quartz but they are other crystals varieties valuable to try and experiment with, and i will).
  
 The impact of crystal quartz (6  short sticks less then 2 inches) complement the sorb. mod and act less on the timbre( they dont give me the naturalness of the timbre at the same level than the sorb.) rather they act more on the  detailed imaging, and it was in my sorbothanized system another spectacular improvement...
  
 <One  crystal stick put directly  in a plastic bag which is taped on the  main breaker in the room next to my desk and audio place, one on the wall outlet use by my audio system , one were on the  main "in" line  and  another under the main "out" line of the Panamax power conditioner, the other 2 are, one  on the "out" of the dac, and the last one ,but not the least, topping at the same time  the headphone "out" of the Sansui and the on-off switch of the amp. that is near, see my photo in the bottom of the post>.
  
 I know for a fact after my  first experiments that crystals and sorb. complement totally one another... I read  today on another forum of the audio web, some post, that indirectly confirm what i already thought about the 2 mods, it was a guy who have try crystals without taking,first and foremost,  the necessary means of  controlling the vibrations in his system with the sorbothane, and he said that crystals primarily expand soundstage and imaging but at some point were not so better for the naturalness of timbre, and he decide after sometime to remove crystals to keep a more natural timbre and prefer then loosing some soundstage... It is a very interesting observation partially confirmed by my initial experiments.But for me, the sorb. mods is  now completely properly  installed, the use of crystals rightly placed does not degrade the timbre really (except for bad placement or not the right choice of crystals, remember that the  sheer mass, the form  also play a great role in the  final results ). Because in my system  the sorb. act  since the beginning  on that natural aspect of the musical timbre and  even with crystals he goes on to sustain it in eliminating the negative resonance that degrade it. Hence for me there is NOT this DOWNSIDE to the use of crystals, only their advantage, removing some EMI, without downside, modulo for sure some experiments looking for the right choice of crystals and placement ... The necessary  experimentation by trials and errors with these 2 mods. results in a complementarity of action in my systems; these 2 mods conspire together at the end  to maintain the 2 audio factors  optimally right at the same time: naturalness of  musical timbre and soundstage and imaging. 
  
 Now i know that with these 2 mods. you truly hear and listen the truest potential of your gear system. For me there is clearly a"before" and an "after" the implementation of these 2 mods. Without these 2 mods. i know for sure that you dont know the true sounding possibilities of your system, it does not matter the price, because *on the one hand* *vibrations and negative resonance, or on the other hand EMI, does not segregate  different gear, function of their price, they PLAGUE everything,whatever the price paid*... Hence  perhaps  some of you may be like i was one year ago,  dreaming and thinking to buy some more costly gear to compensate some  dissatisfaction and to cope with the perceived deficiencies of the actual  gear in your posession, in my case already some good products were bought but not delivering at their true potential level,and  some of you  perhaps has been  desesperately hoping for a better satisfaction, if like me you are a newby in audio world...On all forums the principal subject are  the urge of new products, the so-call necessary  upgrading process to obtain  audio heaven nirvana is'n it?...
  
  
 The important point is to take the road of the sorbothane mods. in the first place, because for hearing the real impact of crystals quartz, i think  it is more easy and more evident after that... I am pretty sure that without sorb. installed all along the line of my system, i would have not been so "flabbergasted" by the installation of quartz,like  the guy  whose post i speak of above, but after the sorb. the effect of these 6 quartz pieces(probably erasing some EMI i dont know how) were more impactful than anything i have try in the past and on par with sorb. mod., however acting  very differently indeed !...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  My Sansui Au-7700 and my he 400 can, and Mission V60 speakers, nudes, without mods. does not sound satisfyingly good to me and remember that, however, they are good products on their owns to begins with in the first place ... It takes the sorb. mod to put them on par with my Stax system...With the Crystals they go  way better on another level ( mainly imaging). I dont have experience  with 10,000 dollars system, but i dont feel frustrated because i dont have that now...For sure i dont say that my actual system with these 2 mods. sound like a 10,000 system, no way!, but music is music, and when there is no more on your face so much  ugly deficiencies, a modest system+sorb.+ crystals is more than  you think near a  costlier better one  which is nude and without  any of these 2 mods.... When piano sound like piano and orchestra are 3-d and the note are there in a  very lifelike manner, the end is near (alleluiah!) and the audio paradise also is  near the corner...And this is my point for you or for some newby guy in Audio like i am, buy some used good products in the first place, not too costly but with a good pedigree, after that dont take too much time, read this forum here, install sorb. mods if possible at all level of your system, beginning with headphones and after that speakers, amp etc... After that only  think about crystals...In the end you will be happy ... like i am...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  

  
  
 This is sorb. thread. i will not give  too much details about crystals,  firstly i am only a beginner with that mod. and secondly there is other forum  on the net about that and  thirdly i dont want to argue with  people who will not try these experiments before speaking...I apologize for this rant about crystals but this is a complementary adventure with the sorb. Thanks for your interest or your patience...


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard and everyone. Actually I've been an audiophile for about 40 years. I used to own a 2 channel stereo system that was worth $38,500. B&W Nautilus loudspeakers, All Nelson Pass Aleph amps.(2 power, 1 pre., and a phono stage) I was big into analog as my VPI turntable(HW19, Graham 2.2 tonearm, Benz Micro Ruby cartridge, custom Graham cables, heavily modified stand) cost almost $15,000 and my digital front end cost $3500. And I had a record collection worth $30,000.
  
 However I lost my job and fell on hard times. I ended up selling everything to keep food and a roof over my head. It was then I realized that a high end headphone system was my only option. I'm not going to go into my gear, but the whole deal cost about $3000.
  
 As far as pollution in the form of RF and EMI I have a PS Audio Duet Power Station much like your Panamax. I also have 3 PS Audio Noise Harvesters. They are about the size of a pack of cigarettes and you plug the into AC outlets that your system is plugged into. They remove noise fro your AC and convert it into light. They change noise energy into light. They have big blue LED's that flash when they are doing their job. And I have ferrite cores and clamps on all my cables. Ferrite absorbs RF. 
  
 People don't realize how much garbage is flowing all around us and how much is absorbed by the very AC power they use to run their systems. Cell phones, routers, digital clocks, light dimmers, etc. I believe this is why the quartz you use works. Quartz oscillates. Just look at any watch. I believe the crystals absorb and eliminate the enemy. Radio Frequency Interference and Electromagnetic Induction. All my music is AIFF files on my computer. And computers cause a ton of RF. I'm not going to go into the science of it all. I've already typed too much. 
  
 But the bottom line is even thought I've been around the audio block a few times doesn't mean I can't continue to learn.
  
 "I am still learning" -Albert Einstein


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard and everyone. Actually I've been an audiophile for about 40 years. I used to own a 2 channel stereo system that was worth $38,500. B&W Nautilus loudspeakers, All Nelson Pass Aleph amps.(2 power, 1 pre., and a phono stage) I was big into analog as my VPI turntable(HW19, Graham 2.2 tonearm, Benz Micro Ruby cartridge, custom Graham cables, heavily modified stand) cost almost $15,000 and my digital front end cost $3500. And I had a record collection worth $30,000.
> 
> However I lost my job and fell on hard times. I ended up selling everything to keep food and a roof over my head. It was then I realized that a high end headphone system was my only option. I'm not going to go into my gear, but the whole deal cost about $3000.
> 
> ...


 
  Oups! i dont think  now you are an audio beginner like me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 Happy new year!


----------



## chrismini

Hello Ed and everyone.
 I can report that my HiFiMAN HE-400's have been transformed into Hi-End phones due to sorbothane damping due to the experimentation of my friend Richard51.


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Ed and everyone.
> I can report that my HiFiMAN HE-400's have been transformed into Hi-End phones due to sorbothane damping due to the experimentation of my friend Richard51.


 
 thanks my friend, and we are all indebted to Edstrelow....


----------



## edstrelow

chrismini said:


> Hello Ed and everyone.
> I can report that my HiFiMAN HE-400's have been transformed into Hi-End phones due to sorbothane damping due to the experimentation of my friend Richard51.


 
 Good to hear another success story. Audiophiles have  believed for a long time that the only meaningful improvements to sound come about from high tech, mega-buck designs. And all the while the mechanical vibration problem has been sitting out there waiting to be solved. Admittedly sorbothane and some of the other materials now being tried are high tech,  Sennheiser talks about "space age material,"  Grado about "proprietary polycarbonate" and even sorb was only patented in 1982. But certainly sorb isn't expensive.  A few bucks worth will treat most phones. I have been staggered at how good even $2.00 earbuds ended up sounding after adding some sorb. ( see earlier posts)


----------



## saidentary

chrismini said:


> Hello Ed and everyone.
> I can report that my HiFiMAN HE-400's have been transformed into Hi-End phones due to sorbothane damping due to the experimentation of my friend Richard51.


 

 Richard51 is one of the coolest people on head-fi, in my opinion. Very smart, wise, and adept, yet also humble and kind.


----------



## richard51

saidentary said:


> Richard51 is one of the coolest people on head-fi, in my opinion. Very smart, wise, and adept, yet also humble and kind.


 
 thanks saidentary , youre too generous....I hope my wife would  stumble on that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Happy new years !


----------



## chrismini

I agree. Richard51 is the best.


----------



## chrismini

My He-400's have been transformed from cheep planar into top dollar headphones. All for $10 worth of duro70 sorbothane and some careful application of said product. This next statement is for owners of HE-400 'phones. Not HE-400S or 400I. I have no experience with those models. However it's reasonable to assume the sorb upgrade would worth as well. But you have to have some stones to disassemble these headphones and make the modifications. Keep in mind this is all reversalable if you don't like the sound. And according to HiFiMAN any modifications will violate the warranty. 
  
 Also a shout out to edstrelow who got the whole thing happening!!
 Peace for 2017


----------



## richard51

20  minutes ago i have the flash-idea to put 6 pieces of self adhesive sorb. duro 70 around the inside surface of each of the rear port hole of my Mission speakers, because if i put my finger on them they vibrate badly...The gluing process just start,  and already i listen to  a more stabilized  imaging sound....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i have now pieces around each  front driving membrane, pieces under the speakers, on top of it, and now inside the port hole....Greater results each time.... I plan to put some more inside my he 400 ...
  
 update: in fact it is more than this stabilizing effect, it is easy to listen now more high clarification and bass clarification, hence this stabilization of the imaging...Sorb is wonderful. not less necessary to implement than the crystals...
  
 (On a lesser note: After one year, it seems that if the sorb. is under stress it is necessary to change it....under speakers and amp.  very compressed the pressure fatigue it ....)


----------



## Jaab

Hi,
 I would like to report the result of my moded He-6, I started last year and I postponed many times
 many things unexpected happening!  I wanted to finish before year end and I finally did!
 English not being my mother language...if something is not clear let me know! I took many photos  and the saying "one image worth 1000 words" will help me!
 At first my motivation was to replace the SMC connectors by mini-xlr (I never have done any mod before of this amplitude).
 At one point I thought why not to add sorbothane inside? with the possibility to add compression
 (having read this thread from the beginning I tried to apply what Edstrelow and Richard51 have found)
 in fact the mini-XLR exceed ~1mm the hedge where the driver stand, from where the idea to cover the edge with a ~2mm thick of sorbothane.
 When I bought the He6 the only source I had was the dap Cowon P1 and a Schiit Lyr1, any of them were appropriate to drive the He6. The Cowon being the less capable (I was not surprise by the result! it was dull and lifeless). 
 At the time I finished the mod,  the only source availabe was my dap Cowon P1 and a beta22 I purchased few months earlier, I was not able to use the beta22 in balanced mode because I needed  a cable 2 xlr 3 pin to jack 3.5mm to connect the source.
 I plug the He6 to my dap and I was astonished by the sound I got! of course the volume was setted at 120 (I think the maximum it's 140). The clarity, dynamic, the bass it was enjoyable!  I was in shock! 
 I waited to got the cable to use my b22 and see how it will sound! ...for sure I found a better soundstage but the sound looks like out of my head (I'm using the original velour pads, not an angled one!). I can imagine what will be the result with a high end amp!.
  
 I didn't expect this result ! and I don't have any explanation ! I'm a little reticent to report this in the He6 thread because people will laugf at me! myself with my precedent experience with the Cowon I will not believe such statement! 
  
 I wish in Vancouver we had some meetup to show the result and to have some feedback.
 I think the mode can be done without changing the connector but protect the driver with some tape!
  
 I used sorbothane duro 70
  
 I have some advises:
 My He6 is a 4 screws model and I thinks would had been better to put just 4 pieces of sorbothane and not 6 as I did, the 4 screws are not evenly placed and the presure is not even
  
 I didn't use any glue for the biggest pieces of sorbothanes they were inserted by a little presure
 and I use a micro drop of super glue (gel form, more easy to control the quantity and the flow) at each extremity of the strip of sorbothne.
  
 I used also a very sharp chef knif to cut ~2 or 3mm thin strip (between the big block) otherwise perhaps frozen sorbothane are more easy to cut (?) I didn't try! 
  
 I replace the plastic ring by the aluminium one, but I had to use an hammer to remove the protuberance before to install the ring (can someone explain me how we are supposed to use the aluminium ring with those f_____g  protuberance ? ) and they sell that 10$ ?
  
 I bought new screw a little longer that the original (+ 1/4 inch)
  
 Avoid to put and remove the screw too often!  you will not be able to tight as well the next time
 is not a mod we can redo often
  
 Thanks you, Edstrelow and Richard51 for your dedication and this thread! it's unbelievable 
 sorbo is not more use!
 I had the chance to got a Denon 5000 (I think is not moded!)  I will use sorbothane but I will take inspiration on the Lawton mod.
  
 Sincerely the he6 with the dap sound incredible!


----------



## richard51

All piece of audio gear, be it a HE-400, or a HE-6, be it an amp. of entry level, or another one at top hi-fi level, all piece of gear( power conditioner, power supply at any price, speakers,dac etc) are plague by vibrations that induce  generalized negative internal resonance, and plague also with internal and external EMI at all level of interaction, hence blurring some imaging or timbre,it is only a question of degree with the best product
 (at the top of our own product history life where we all are at some point of the entire course, we have no comparison point, except the last one, if we make some expanse to upgrade)  ... Nobody that pay much ,much, money want to hear that the product he was buying,  is not up to his optimal level right  out of the box, and nobody who sell products want to say that a much less pricier product dont sound so much less than the costlier one if you treat it with sorb. and crystals...It is the reason why people chase their tail to upgrade, like i was doing myself,for the first 2 years of my audio journey without satisfaction. (before i take an offer to experiment freely, giving to me by generous *Edstrelow*,  with the good luck of stumbling  on this thread at one point of my journey where nobody sells nothing, except low cost solutions) And if we can pay for top of the line product we live with the illusion that our system already play at his optimal level in the first place without any obligation to doing nothing for that, we all want to pay for some finished product ....
  
 For myself i dont have Alas! this kind of  money like many people here, and cannot completely buy this illusion, and i cannot go to meeting to listen by comparison, hence i only want to have my modest and good system now  playing at his optimum , and i only want to say to people who dont want to spend too much money that there is cheap solutions to experience *some* *hi-fi , *not the top hi-fi for sure ,but  not the worst hi-fi either ,without investing thousands of dollars...  Simply it is absolutely necessary to erase some vibrations, diminushing the level of negative resonance in your system, and  sorb. is a cheap solution but very efficient for that... It is also necessary to absorb and dissipate some EMI from your system, the piezo-electrical effect of crystals is a cheap but very efficient solution for that ....Some high end audio company uses crystals, it is not necessary to pay so  much, buy some  rough crystals, they are  equivalent low cost solutions... With this 2 solutions in my system, i dont recognise anything i play now,compare to the same system without sorb. or crystals.....  
  
 After all music is music when we hear it at last,and the price has less to do with that, than the sorb. and the crystals mods, simply because with this "law" of diminushing returns, *the most important steps to make, in the beginning and in the end of our audio journey, is not so much caculated in dollars but in small modifications...*
  
   
  
_Crystals update_ :
  
 i just receive by the postal service 2 sodalite crystals, i place them on the in and out of the panamax, and place one of the displaced quartz  on the central electrical panel of the house, in my basement,( i have 2 quartz now there) and the other  displaced quartz is now  on the power strip where all my computer and external drive are connected ( i had nothing there before)....Wow immediately audible change for the better.... I try some  other placement to discover  the best before but this is the best  ...Guess what: i never have a so good sound !
  
 My conclusion is a  _combinatorial problem_ to you : calculate all possiblities of 5 or 6 species of different crystals (they are way more species but i have order 5 or 6 different species )distributed on 15 possible distribution spots....Dont waste your brain the possibilities are in the billions... my real  provisional  conclusion is no crystals sound  exactly the same at any place in any order,because of his shape, weight, density,internal  chemical composition, and species, and the change is no less evident than with different tubes, the impact change is in  fact more potent than with tubes( i know that, i have bought 400 dollars of tube for the Ember that i listen no more) and the tweaking to your liking is potentially without limits for a cost much, much lower than tubes and a more spectacular results... I wait for my best crystals to arrive in the next weeks... 
  
_Sorbothane update:_
  
 After 24 hours of the gluing process that has begun, the sorb., i has place yesterday in the tubular port hole of my speakers that were badly vibrating without my knowing it the  least before that, is a total success, this modification has change completely the details of the imaging...I have listen for some hour this morning before placing the sodalite crystals that adds more to that...My system is now better than yesterday and better than ever with a NATURALNESS unknown to me at this point... Think that many people pay for changes less spectacular a great deal of money,all in all  that cost me a few bucks...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I now not only think but really feels that my Mission and Sansui are stuff of, at the least, entry level high-end audio, but nothing like that without sorb. nor crystals....
  
  
  
 I wish  to all of you happy music...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 thanks very much Jaab for this experimentation with the HE-6, i am dreaming to buy a used one someday...





 
  
 P.S. I feel so much differences between crystals ONLY because the sorbothanization of my system is so successful that tiny differences are magnified and are no more tiny....For example the last introduction of sorb. in the rear port hole of my speakers  were stupendous and makes possible to hear more delicate change after that... All modification for the better adds toward the final bliss...You must experiment yourself and you will not obtain the best in one trying action....


----------



## edstrelow

jaab said:


> Hi,
> I would like to report the result of my moded He-6, I started last year and I postponed many times
> many things unexpected happening!  I wanted to finish before year end and I finally did!
> English not being my mother language...if something is not clear let me know! I took many photos  and the saying "one image worth 1000 words" will help me!
> ...


 
 Looks like a good way to modify these.  Glad to hear that it worked.


----------



## edstrelow

Have a look at p26 of HiFi News and Record Review  http://www.politicalavenue.com/108642/US-MAGAZINES/Hi-Fi%20News%20-%20July%202016.pdf  for both measurements and a discussion of mechanical crossfeed between earcups which is very much a part of what we are considering in this thread.   There is some very good measurement here, the author, Keith Howard,  has even gone to the trouble of eliminating *electrical crossfeed*   between the earcups due to use of a common ground. That is probably not an issue with most Stax phones which use separate grounds. 
  
 Of course the reason for the cross talk is the mechanical vibrations building up in the earcups.  If these were totally damped in the originating earcup there would not be crossfeed.   As I have noted  in the last pages, I am finding that there is still significant distortion to be eliminated by adding more damping to the headbands.  So I am very much in agreement with what this author is doing.


----------



## Jaab

is not the kind of mod you can redo often,  to optimize it, but the result it's outstanding! 
 I understand what Richard say about vibrations etc but the supposed power hungry (it is somewhere) of the He6 is due mainly by the lack of dampening of the driver! it's what show me the mod. what I don't understand is why a more powerful amp is able to compensate this lack of dampening? and bring clarity! 
 the improvement is not a question of 10-20% but several hundred percent! (for the dap)
 I think all the Hifiman can improve by this mod and of course any undampened driver!
  
 I think we have to put the sorbothane at the source of the vibration and not around (speaker drivers and headphones drivers, perhaps underneath the tranformers too)


----------



## richard51

In my case i have put sorb. everywhere with great improvement..._Sorb. not only damp but absorb and transform into heat some vibrations_ that otherwise would add to the  power of negative resonance that destruct the naturalness of the musical timbre,  and destruct the fine information to construct the imaging...The sound we listen to is the result of a  fine equilibrium constructed by the battle between positive and negative resonance, between the reactive interacting parts of the gear,and the vibrating membrane or driver of the speakers or headphone...It is my explanation but i am only an ignorant audiophile with no science background for sure...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I think that perhaps the power of the amp compensate for the power of the interacting parts creating the negative resonance, empowering more the drivers or membrane . But if you put some sorb., hence diminishing the resulting interactive negative resonance of all the parts, you need no more the same  power to drive them adequately and compensate for the noise... There is a plateau, a limit to the possible quantity of  interactive noise that is under the  possible plateau or limit of the potential of the excited drivers or membrane, hence a powerful amp compensate.... It is only my speculation for sure...i apologize for that if it seems non-sense for a scientific brain...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 It is very instructive to know that your experience with the dap and the HE-6 is proof that this headphone need less a costly or powerful amp than a good treatment like sorb.... thanks vey much Jaab ...


----------



## Jaab

The important being the result!


----------



## edstrelow

Some advances in the war against mechanical vibration distortion. First, my portable Stax system and cd player. The phones, (the same as the SR003)  show the latest bit of sorbothane damping on the headband, strips of 1/4 inch 70 duro self-stick on top and below the band and loosely wrapped with electrical tape.  There are also 2mm thick pieces mounted between each  driver unit and the headband,
 

 
Also note the same make of sorb pieces under the cd player. The machine sits on the outer three pieces, the inner pieces are for additional benefit.  If you have a portable cd player you may notice that they tend to vibrate when playing, rather like off-balance car tires, getting especially bad at some rates of revolution.  The problem is that the discs are not entirely true and round or possibly unbalanced in thickness.  Anyway a cd player is an ideal candidate for damping.  The total package is awesome, I hardly missed my main set-ups while I was travelling.   Regular cd players have the same problem with vibrations, but you probably won't notice it because the mechanism is mounted inside. One day I will rip open a couple of my old players to see what I can do in the way of internal damping.
 
The second advance is that I have found that loose wrapping of sorb on headbands with electrical tape is as effective or more than the little clamps I had been using for experimentation. Since I had found that the clamps sounded best only lightly tightened, I thought that taping might be just as good. Now you can see that there are sorb pieces on the covering the underside as well as some on top.  I will probably end up covering the entire top but for the moment I am just enjoying the superb sound of these Stax Sigma/404's. http://www.head-fi.org/t/175556/the-sigma-404-a-new-stax-headphone


----------



## edstrelow

Taking my own advice about damping a cd player I opened up my mid-low end Sherwood today and placed a bunch of small pieces of 1/4 inch. 70 duro self-stick sorbothane in various locations. The result,a  big sonic improvement, reduction in harshness, better timbre and spatial imaging.
  
 I am not the first person to relaize this and I am sure more than a few companies are doing similar things in amps and the like. Some years ago I first read that the English company Naim was putting sorb on circuit boards.  A few years ago I was at the CanJam in Orange County and was sitting around talking with people the night before the show opened. I was talking with one of the engineers from Schitt and after telling him that I was putting on a demonstration of sorb in headphones, he told me that Schitt used a custom order of sorb.  I wish now that I asked him for more information.
  
 Getting back to cd players, I suggest running it for a while before before using sorb so that you can find where it gets hot. You don't want to install sorb near hot spots.  And obviously check to make sure you are not obstructing any moving parts.  
  
 If you look up ultra high end cd players you are generally going to find that they are very heavy so as to control the vibrations. I see a current Naim player which weighs in at 45 lb. I am sure this helps, but sorb can turn a light-weight into something sounding more like a heavy.


----------



## Benny-x

jaab said:


> The supposed power hungry (it is somewhere) of the He6 is due mainly by the lack of dampening of the driver! it's what show me the mod. what I don't understand is why a more powerful amp is able to compensate this lack of dampening? and bring clarity!
> the improvement is not a question of 10-20% but several hundred percent! (for the dap)
> I think all the Hifiman can improve by this mod and of course any undampened driver!




The HE-6 is know as "power hungry" because it has 84db/1W efficiency vs. like 108db/1W like the Denon/Audio-Technica/JVC and every other mainstream lineups. It's true and a good speaker amp does both commit power to them and gives control over it. I've heard my 4-pin HE-6 off of both speaker amp and regular head-amp and there's no contest.

However, I'm also all about modding them to bring whatever I can out of them and I have always wondered about doing the 2 things you said: stupid SMC->mini-XLRs swap, then Sorbothane damping.

I'll follow up most on this via PM as I'm very excited about the potential now given your feedback.

Just for confirmation, was the "blue ring" in your pic blue-tac or something like it? I couldn't understand that, but previously the blue-tac mod was for driver damping.


----------



## chrismini

My HE-400's(Not 400s) have undergone a incredible transformation for $20 worth of sorb. I did add 4 pieces to each outer cup which has also contributed to the sonic improvements. I find this to be well worth the trouble and the lack of ascetics. Not as much as installing them inside the cup surrounding the driver, but worth it nonetheless.
  
 Please keep in mind this mod is totally reversible. In fact it's a lot easier to remove the sorb if you so desire. I don't think any anyone would, but the option is there. So what does anyone one have to lose, $20?


----------



## chrismini

Just to keep things in perspective, I purchased custom made hi-end cable for $160 and the sorb mod had a more dramatic improvement for $20 and a little elbow grease.


----------



## richard51

I have put *(*suggestion of *ilmothedude *of the he-400 thread, thanks to him * ) *9 pieces of self-gluing sorb duro 70  on the white plastic grid inside  the he-400, in surplus of the pieces put there already around the driver.... I must say that the improvement  was immediate , more soundstage, and more naturalness of the timbre...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Sorb. is an audio success story...


----------



## Jaab

in fact I did the 2 modes at the same times, the pieces of sorbotanes are separated by a little spaces, the bluetack will feel the spaces remaining between the sorb. I did a spaghetti with the bluetack because it was the easiest way to apply it (it was certainly a copy because I bought in a dollar store). The last vesrsion of pieces of sorb was a little shorter.
 I replaced the original plastic ring by the aluminium one to be able to tighten more evenly. 
  
 I had a  lot of difficulties to remove the plastic ring because in my headphone (~2011 ?, 4 screws) the plactic ring was strongly glued to the driver! in 2 points (north and south). I used a round strong knife and I insert under the ring and broke the point of glue! (be careful you can broke the plastic ring! but anyway the goal was to replace it after all!)
  
 I'm pleased you try because you will not believe the result!


----------



## Jaab

It's a shame they have neglected the dampening aspect of the headphones, the improvement are so huge! 
 My next project will be to replace the plastic cup by a nice wood cup but thinking about it. I will not reproduce the original cup (to fragil in wood) I will take inspiration from the Kennerton Odin
 wood cup!


----------



## edstrelow

I found out something that markedly improves the benefits of sorbothane damping today and it costs almost nothing to do. What is it? Adding 2 layers of electrical tape as backing to the sorb.  I tried this with the  SRXIII pro,  with interchangeable fronts, which  I use as a test bed to compare the sound of a front with regular 70 duro 1/4 inch self stick sorb, with the same sorb backed with tape.
  
 To backtrack a bit, I have been in touch with Keith Howard who did the measurements of mechanical cross-talk between earcups through headbands which I noted previously.      See p26 of this http://www.politicalavenue.com/108642/US-MAGAZINES/Hi-Fi%20News%20-%20July%202016.pdf  in HiFi News and Record Review.
  
  He pointed out to me that my procedure of simply applying sorb to a surface has a name "extensional" damping.  However "constrained layer damping" i.e. backing the sorb up with other materials, is generally more effective. 
  
  I have done experiments previously clamping sorb to the headband surfaces, something which is similar  to constrained layer damping. There I noted that I did not need to apply much clamping pressure.  In the end I used very little pressure and in fact replaced the clamps with electrical tape wrapped loosely around the sorb and headband and found I was getting as good, if not better results as with clamping. 
  
 However now I am getting great results with no pressure at all, merely adding a backing of electrical to the sorb. This is pretty easy to do and dirt cheap.   l I keep finding that you have to let the modified phones sit for hours, if not overnight to really hear the differences properly.  I suspect it is a combination of the glue having to cure and the fact that you have messed up the mechanical properties of the sorbothane by compressing it while you are working..
  
 Is it possible that other backings may be better, eg. more layers of tape, plastic or metal?  I may get around to looking at that. However, the SRXIII surface is curved so putting a solid material would be tricky.  In any case, I have previously found that wrapping the sorb with tape was as effective as using  clamps which were of course solid.
  
  Mostly I just want to open up some  phones that I have already sorbed, and add some backing.  Next, on to Amazon to buy more tape!


----------



## Benny-x

edstrelow said:


> I found out something that markedly improves the benefits of sorbothane damping today and it costs almost nothing to do. What is it? Adding 2 layers of electrical tape as backing to the sorb.  I tried this with the  SRXIII pro,  with interchangeable fronts, which  I use as a test bed to compare the sound of a front with regular 70 duro 1/4 inch self stick sorb, with the same sorb backed with tape.
> 
> To backtrack a bit, I have been in touch with Keith Howard who did the measurements of mechanical cross-talk between earcups through headbands which I noted previously.      See p26 of this http://www.politicalavenue.com/108642/US-MAGAZINES/Hi-Fi%20News%20-%20July%202016.pdf  in HiFi News and Record Review.
> 
> ...


 
 This is super, fcukking interesting! I've been looking at applying some constrained layer damping on my PC source and DAC using some kind of treated/coated sheet steel glued to the duro70 Sorb, with the self-stick backing of the Sorb connecting to the metal chassis of the PC and DAC. I haven't gotten to it yet, but the feedback and resources showing the benefits of constrained layer damping are many. From what I've gathered, having another stiff material like sheet steel or PCB makes it most effective. I can see how electrical tape would work, but from reading what I have, I'd say optimally the outer layer should be stiffer and heavier material; just like sheet steel. I'm no scientist, though, so maybe it's not too critical as long as your constraining both surfaces of the damping material (the Sorb).
  
 If you're dealing with a curved surface, this should work fine as long as the glue/compound you're attaching the formed sheet metal to the Sorb with was high quality/bond. It should in fact help keep the self-stick side of the Sorb curved and stuck to the headphones. 
  
 Man, if this pans out and is the case for Sorb on headphones as well as metal chassis, I'm SUPER PUMPED!


----------



## edstrelow

benny-x said:


> This is super, fcukking interesting! I've been looking at applying some constrained layer damping on my PC source and DAC using some kind of treated/coated sheet steel glued to the duro70 Sorb, with the self-stick backing of the Sorb connecting to the metal chassis of the PC and DAC. I haven't gotten to it yet, but the feedback and resources showing the benefits of constrained layer damping are many. From what I've gathered, having another stiff material like sheet steel or PCB makes it most effective. I can see how electrical tape would work, but from reading what I have, I'd say optimally the outer layer should be stiffer and heavier material; just like sheet steel. I'm no scientist, though, so maybe it's not too critical as long as your constraining both surfaces of the damping material (the Sorb).
> 
> If you're dealing with a curved surface, this should work fine as long as the glue/compound you're attaching the formed sheet metal to the Sorb with was high quality/bond. It should in fact help keep the self-stick side of the Sorb curved and stuck to the headphones.
> 
> Man, if this pans out and is the case for Sorb on headphones as well as metal chassis, I'm SUPER PUMPED!


 
 It is possible that other backing could be more effective, particularly in a different application. I mean, it could be that 10 layers of tape is better than 2.  But part of the reason I don't think a solid surface matters here is that, as you will see in other posts, I originally started out using plastic and metal clamps.  So these put a solid plastic or metal surface to the back of the sorbothane.  What I found, fairly consistently, was that I got best results with only minimal pressure.  Then I tried replacing metal clamps with tape, loosely wrapped and still got as good results.
  
 But there is a lot we don't understand about this,  and I have only added  a few data points to what is probably  a complicated multi-dimensional problem. 
  
 Let us know what you find.


----------



## Benny-x

edstrelow said:


> It is possible that other backing could be more effective, particularly in a different application. I mean, it could be that 10 layers of tape is better than 2.  But part of the reason I don't think a solid surface matters here is that, as you will see in other posts, I originally started out using plastic and metal clamps.  So these put a solid plastic or metal surface to the back of the sorbothane.  What I found, fairly consistently, was that I got best results with only minimal pressure.  Then I tried replacing metal clamps with tape, loosely wrapped and still got as good results.
> 
> But there is a lot we don't understand about this,  and I have only added  a few data points to what is probably  a complicated multi-dimensional problem.
> 
> Let us know what you find.




I think a metal clamp, which equals = a metal surface + pressure - no self-adhearing glue, is not comparable to a freestanding metal surface without pressure + self-adhearing glue. I'm not trying to be a dink, I just don't think your original clamp is automatically comparable to a glued on, correctly sized piece of sheet steel. 

But besides that, yes, it's totally possible that several layers of continuous electrical tape, fastened beyond the extremities of the Sorb, is better than the cut to size sheet steel. 

I'm filling in what I read about constrained layer damping before this and saying there isn't a direct item that should point us to think otherwise, though otherwise isn't an issue to look into.


----------



## richard51

i have always compress SELF-adhesive sorb. only  on the headphone with paper metal clamp, but my preliminary results with he 400  with 2 pieces of sorb. between the 2 cups wich are taped now there seems to confirm Ed experience with the tape, i think paper metal clamp are no more  needed (hurrah!) , tape will do the job....
  
 the mystery is : for the other pieces of gear, speakers for example, if i substract the load or a great part of it compressing the  sorb. wich are on top of the speakers and  under them, the result is negative, the imaging is less, and with less sparkle sound...
  
 WHY ? 
  
  
 A beginning of answer perhaps is linked to the fact that the level of compression that would be necessary to apply is  different for different level or vibrations frequencies, function of the mass and volume, shape and origin of the vibrations , of the vibrating gear...   
 Though i have also with great effect many pieces of sorb around the woofer and tweeter of the speakers that are not taped nor clamped, only glued in place, and this sorb. also clean without compression some negative resonance of the  speakers membrane...I will wait for some scientific explanations, because sorb. work more or less optimally, compressed or not, depending of  these different factors: mass,origins of negative resonance from the gear, shape, etc .....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
  
  
  
  
 P.S.  By the way my experience with crystals are no more in the beginning and the results with a fully sorbothanized sound system is ASTOUNDING! Each crystals species have audible diffferent results, hence experimenting is key, but the effect is the most extraordinairy upgrading one i have experience, but remember that it is necessary to use sorb. before to clean negative resonance and vibrations otherwise the results would not be audible on the same level....THEY ARE  2 PLAGUES IN ANY AUDIO SYSTEM : VIBRATIONS and EMI ....


----------



## edstrelow

There are so many variables at work here and so many permutations and combinations of materials to try. I would not make the mistake of assuming that any of my direct comparisons using the SRXIII phones give ultimate results of what is the best technique for damping, any more than I assume that sorbothane is the best material. All I can say is that it gives good sounding results and in a direct comparison works better than blutack. My comparisons are just that, x is bettervthan y in this specific situation. Change the situation and you mat get different results.

What we really need is some way of measuring vibrations in the earcups and headbands. I liked what I saw being done in Keith Howard's measurements referred to above. The waterfall graphs look especially interesting for showing how energy decays in a headphone. My only quibble with that is that you need to measure vibrational energy in the headphone structures as well as acoutical effects. His measurements are, I believe of airborn sound.


----------



## chrismini

Don't mean to disagree by I find electronic crossfeed indispensable especially with hard-panned music from the early days of stereo when engineers and producers were "pan-happy" putting instruments hard left and right like most Beatles recordings. In fact I leave my switch on 80% of the time. Yeah it makes center instruments including vocals a bit bass heavy. In fact I'm hanging onto my HeadRoom Micro amp just for that option. I always A-B any stereo music I listen to and most of the time I prefer crossfeed. But that's just me. 
  
 My sorb modified HE-400's still continue to amaze. My warranty expired long ago anyway. For all you HiFiMAN owners I seriously recommend you give this a try. I can' imagine anyone regretting it. And invest in some AC conditioning, especially if you live in a multi-unit complex where your neighbors microwave, etc. is probably polluting your AC power. Light dimmer are horrible offenders as is every computer your neighbors use which is all of them.    
 Peace


----------



## Benny-x

In the HiFiMAN HE-6 thread changing earpads is a common way of tuning the headphones for people. A lot of people like the added bass and impact of using leather earpads there, but most people need to apply some felt or something to the inside, cylindrical ring of the earpads to help attentuate some of the high frequencies/reflections the leather creates vs. the stock velour earpads. 
  
 Recently, though, an owner used 2mm strips of self adhesive Sorb. in place of felt and claimed the results were astoundingly great. He went back to compare with felt after all the other owners said it was their material of choice for this application, but he found the sound not to be as good as the with the Sorb. 
  
 I haven't tried either yet on mine, but it was a very interesting nod for Sorb. and another potentially great use for it. This also makes me think that Sorb. doesn't only help dissipate vibrational energy, but also sound frequencies and reflections.


----------



## edstrelow

I have been applying the double thickness of electrical tape to the back of sorbothane to turn it into "constrained damping" operation on my Polk SDA1 loudspeakers.  This is my first target after checking this technique out with the SRXIII pro test phones.. They are large speakers, about 4 ft tall and 1 1/2 ft wide so there is a lot of space to cover with sorb. Still I have put a fair number of sorb pieces on the front under the grill.  Adding the tape to the back of the sorb acts like a force multiplier.  Whatever the sorb was doing, taping the back just makes it do more. 
  
 For example I found the thin sound of an old ABBA recording ( a friend once said the girls sounded like crickets) to be much less thin and more dynamic with individual instruments jumping out more clearly and air between the singers and or instruments,  an improvement I have generally found with sorbed headphones.  
  
 Also Sprach Tharathustra sounded very clean, detailed  and impressive in the loud passages which are often just a loud mashup of sound, and for the first time I felt the room shake in the climax of the introduction. This is pretty hard to do because the  room is fairly large, open to the rest of the house and on a concrete slab.  It was actually a bit frightening since I live about 1/2 mile from the San Andreas earthquake fault and any shaking of the house makes you nervous.  I suspect that what happens is that the sorb dampens mid and high frequencies more than deep bass so I was probably turning up the volume and getting more bass that way.
  
 I read on the Sorbothane site that  you may need to go to 1 inch thick sorb to dampen down to 10 Hz.  It might be worth a try to get super clean bass.  Not so practical on headphones though.


----------



## richard51

very interesting, but if possible Ed i would like to see  if possible a photo of your loudspeakers with the tape....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I would be pleased if the same results were given with the tape, and taken off my load of concrete


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> very interesting, but if possible Ed i would like to see  if possible a photo of your loudspeakers with the tape....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hard to say how it would compare with your set-up unless you try both.  You have, as I understand it, not only used a damping base under the speakers, but you have  added lots of additional mass.  Adding mass is an old-school technique for achieving the same results.  People have used sand in their speaker boxes and I have even heard of speakers mounted in concrete pipes, filled with sand.  My personal guess is that each would produce slightly different results. 
  
 I use spikes under these speakers and fastened them rigidly to the wall to get rid of vibrational energy (well the fastening was originally done to stop them falling over in earthquakes.)   And the sorb still gives marked benefits and the taped sorb even more.
  
 I have just obtained some 70 duro 1/2 inch thick sorb which I intend to apply to the speakers to see if these will provide and additional clean-up of the bass.  I would have bought 1 inch but couldn't find any. I will let you know how this works out. 
  
 There is nothing particularly special about my application of taped sorb to the speakers.  I have j used self-stick sorb and/or 3M80 glue to stick pieces all over the front.  I would have preferred to do this inside the speakers but I am not about to open them up.


----------



## richard51

thanks Ed i understand... I will wait for your impression of this 1/2 inche sorb....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 p.s. the sorb. under my speakers and on top of it act clearly better with the load.... If i take off some part the sound is less spectacular, and less presence...I also have put  around the tweeter and the woofer self-stick sorb but i dont know how to apply tape without  inesthetic effect....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Samething for the amplifier or the dac, if i take off the load  the sound is worse....


----------



## edstrelow

I continue to be impressed by the advantage gained by backing sorbothane with 2 strips of electrical tape. So far I have done it with the Stax SR007 and Lambda LNS and both are now at the very top of performance.  
  
 I have been waiting to apply the 1/2 inch sorb to my speakers and possibly some headphones. However since this material is not self-stick I wanted to investigate what adhesive to use.  I have been using 3M80, with generally good results on phones, but it had some problem adhering to wood. So  I wanted to try something else and have been trying Shoe-goo, something recommended by another contributor.
  
 The results were not too good because it just didn't hold to the sorb although it held well to the aluminum covers on my Stax SRXIII test phones. Upon checking with Sorbothane  http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/data-sheets/103-Sorbothane-adhesive-recommendations.pdf    I saw that they recommended cleaning  sorb with alcohol before applying adhesives, so I did this but it made no difference.  In the photo you can see that some pieces of sorb came cleanly off the phones, with no sign of adhesive on the sorb.
  
 So I am going back to 3M80.. It may be that it was my failure to clean the sorb that caused some of it to fail.  Sorbothane has a number of other recommended adhesives, such as Lord 7650.  This is quite expensive at $35/ 1/2 pint.


----------



## Jaab

I had used a silicone glue for my sorbothane, the brand is Permatex, can handle  -59°c to 204°c 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 if you want to remove it just peel it!


----------



## edstrelow

I am currently enjoying the sound of my main speakers with about 15 square inches of 1/2 inch 70 duro sorbothane mounted on each front panel. There is a big increase in the clarity and dynamics and the bass is far less muddy. I am using 3M 80 adhesive which is holding the sorb to the speakers well, so far.

1/2 in thick sorbothane is the thickest I can find online and I am trying it after reading, on the Sorbothane site, that 1" thick sorb will dampen down to 10 Hz. I guess you could request a custom order of 1" from Sorbothane, but I suspect it would be expensive.

I have applied a variety of thicknesses of sorb to these speakers, but with this last lot I feel I am starting to get benefits similar to what I have been getting on my most successfully damped headphones. More accurate timbre, better transients and dynamics and now much increased clarity in the lower frequencies.

At one point I removed a piece of triangular 3x1 1/2. 1/4 inch thick sorb and you could clearly hear that removing the sorb made the sound go muddy. It is not always possible to determine immediately the effect of adding sorb, since the,adhesive may take many hours or even days to fully cure. However, removing sorb gives you an almost instantaneous means of comparison.

It may not be possible to compare 1/2 with other thicknesses as I have been able to do with my Stax SRX III phones, (by swapping over the front covers with different test materials) because 1/2 sorb will not easily bend around the curvature of these covers. But such direct comparisons are the best way to get accurate information.


----------



## richard51

Very interesting.... I have the same experience with the sorb. duro 70 on top, under, around the tweeter and woofer and inside the porthole, for some months already... Our experience are the same and also conclusions... I will add that putting sorbothane anywhere  on any and under any gear will enhance the sound... Powerstrip, amp,dac,battery, ANY gear, particularly headphone, and speakers....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 I will say something else about my second experiment mods. : CRYSTALS.... I have now put colored quartz,amethyst, topaz, tourmaline,jade, agathe etc on all the possible location, from the  central breakers panel, to the secondary breakers of my audio room, the panamax, the wall outlet, the amp, speakers, dac, etc the effect was so astounding, then it  complete the sorb. effect with a stupendous sparkle  natural 3-d sound .... *I can assure you that EMI is no secondary problem compare to vibrations and negative resonance in the gear...*
  
 I will only say one thing for the beginners here : buy a mid-fi very good systems , or a  used  hi-fi old one, place sorb. anywhere, and place the crystals species i had already named, at all possible location, listen and experiment, after that i promise you  will FORGET any pricey possible upgrade  for a long time (diminishing returns law)... It takes me finally 6 years to touch this goal, Edstrelow give me the first hint 4 years ago  with his sorb mod of Stax, the second solution i discover  accidentally with only one crystal quartz on the breakers in the beginning,5 months ago, and this was the final small step to heaven .... It is all i can say on this thread dedicated to sorb.   Best regards to all of you ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 P.S. One of my customer at my work place, advise by me, bought for 6 dollars all in all , one pink quartz crystal, one amethyst, one little chunk of tourmaline, and put  one  of them on the central  breaker, the other 2 around the out of the power strip for the amp. and dac,  After that he phone me excited and happy ....End of story..
 i think that he will trust me now for the more " complicated" Sorb. mod.


----------



## edstrelow

It does say "other materials' in the heading to this thread.   I am curious about crystals.  Can you give us a link or two to the material you are using.
  
 As regards the 1/2 sorbothane, basically I am saying it is quite effective on my speakers.   It may be an reasonable alternative to the concrete blocs you have been using on your speakers.  Without trying it I wouldn't want to say.   Of course while I did remove some thinner sorb, I am adding it to speakers that already have sorb on them so I am may be getting somewhat of a cumulative effect of all the the sorb combined.   I just don't see myself doing the sorb of specific comparisons with speakers that I am able to do with headphones, using the interchangeable covers on the Stax SRXIII.


----------



## richard51

Thanks Ed, i dont want to cause annoyance with this  controversial subject in dogmatic crowd but if you are interested with it, it is  Ok...
  
 I have been in the situation to try and order many specimens  to experiment with without  previous experience about crystals....
  
 Here are some  preliminary rules i have etasblished with my experiments:
  
  
Firstly : you can put the  crystals peebles in some plastic bag, or wrap them with saran wrap and scotch tape them in place....
  
Secondly : For  the  crystals in one  bigger piece,  the pieces must not be too big (  you can use quartz crystals between 1 inches and 2 inches (+or -) but they are very effective also in small  peebles bags in place of one piece of rocks...
  
  
 Thirdly :
 For the green , or red  tourmaline,(black tourmaline is good but less musical than the others colored tourmaline) topaz or amethyst,citrin,  you can use small peebles mixed, or not mixed ( you decide by experiment) in a small plasctic bag. *Mixing 2 species of crystals make some sort of equilibrium and compensation*, and i now mix 2 species often or buy them naturally bond...Quartz can be chemically bond with a chemical element like fluor for exemple : fluorite, or  fuse with another stone: amethyst quartz crystal, and it is always good....Only pure one kind of rock stone  amethyst ,topaz,etc will be good or some pack of little peebles  mixed or not mixed is also good...
  
  the colored or phantom quartz crystals or any quartz fused with other chemicals element is very good and better than only white quartz...White quartz are very powerful and can be too much harsh sound if use  downstream in your system... I will  divide the use of crystals in 2 location  classes  
  
  
  
* UPSTREAM* *:  White quartz crystal or better any colored*  *quartz mixed with tourmaline* or any other species you want to experiment with(very powerful, perfect for cleaning the electrical line)
  
*--*  On the  central electrical panel of your house on the breaker implicated with your audiophile room..
*--* on other breakers in the audio room or before it...
*--* on the power cord of the power conditioner...Or on top of the power conditioner also...
*--* ..................................of the amplifier.
*--* ................................ of the dac 
*--* on the power supply in and out.
*-- *on the wall outlet in your audio room where all audio is connected.
  
  
*DIVIDING LINE* :  power conditioner or power strip
  
  
*  DOWNSTREAM :  phantom or ghost quartz green or red Tourmaline, topaz or amethysts, ruby, even jade, or agathe  * (these crystals are more subtle and more musical than the white  quartz, because of that better place in downstream with interconnect etc)
  
*--*  Principally all interconnect between all pieces of gear,in and out. 
  
 -- on top of the transformer of the amplifier, or on top of any transformer...
 -- on the in and out of the battery of my dac...
*--* On the power switch of the amplifier or pre-amp or of the dac etc, one little peeble  ( i use blutak for that)
*-- *in the rear port hole of my speakers, or inside it if no port hole, or on the speakers cable...
*--* on the headphone out or in the cable, or inside the headphone ( i will try that with some peebles)
  
  
 In general white quartz is better upstream....It is cheap and easy to buy... try only one on the breaker and enjoy...In the first day i try that...After that i dont hesitate to order all other specimens...The list of rocks i give here is not exhaustive, but you are more safe to try that  for a beginning... I have order lava rocks to try and mix with some other rocks, but i cannot recommand that because i have not listen to that actually.... All others name of rocks i speak about here are good choice to experiment with...I dont know for all the other possibilities ...
  
 Imagine the number of locations possiblities in your system, (15, i think in mine), multiply that by 6, 7, or 8  different specimens of rocks at different possible places, the combinatorials  results are very big numbers , hence i dont know the  final optimal disposition... Plenty hours to play with these possiblities...
  
 And i will say that,(at the risk of opinionated people mocking me) NO one rocks sound exactly the same in my systems, like no tubes sound the same, and act differently in different place, often this is subtle, often this is not subtle and very audible...the upgrading effect is not small, but remember that my system is sorbothanized , the listening of the many  experiments is easy with this sorbothanized. system...At the end the effect is 3-d imaging on a superior scale than with only the sorb.and a better dynamic all across the frequencies board...To obtain that each stone will act on his own, and complement the others stones, at the end of the road  an optimal equilibrium,   without coloration of the sound like with some tube,  but with  only a more natural timbre and soundstage... 
  
  
 These are ONLY my temporary conclusions, BUT the change in sound were so evident and when rightly place so great in the speakers or headphones that this is not even comparable to the change of tubes in my Ember amplifier,( i dont use it now, i prefer my Sansui by a long margin) hence no small upgrade...You must experiment to discover the right materials at the right place in your system...If you dont use sorb. in all your gear the change will be less spectacular because sorb clean vibrations and make easy to listen  the sound effect resulting from the cleaning of EMI ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
*Without consideration of price ALL audio products are plague by vibrations and EMI, i know now that mid-fi system can sound like, or almost like,  hi-fi system modulo sorb. and crystals... *
  
 P.S. to answer the question where to buy? Simple Ebay auction  or  aliexpress, i bought all from china because it is inexpansive,and i choose the company that charge zero postal fees... There is good deals on the auction system...


----------



## oopeteroo

I'm new to this but I heard the sorb mod is good on Mt220. So i want to try it out.
Which sorbothane to buy ? I'm guessing the size and thickness would affect the sound ? Would be cool if anyone could link me to one in amazon.Co.UK


----------



## edstrelow

oopeteroo said:


> I'm new to this but I heard the sorb mod is good on Mt220. So i want to try it out.
> Which sorbothane to buy ? I'm guessing the size and thickness would affect the sound ? Would be cool if anyone could link me to one in amazon.Co.UK




I have not seen any report of using sorbothane on these phones, but my take on this topic is that most phones have problems getting rid of vibrational energy which degrades sound. The problem is only now being addressed by the use of new materials with better capability of changing mechanical energy to heat. Sorbothane, patented in 1982 is one of these, but there are others being tried. Sennheiser talks about a 'space age' material in its HD 800 headband ( and presumably in its new stat phone), Grado has a proprietary poycarbonate, and I am uncertain as to what B&W and Audioquest are using. 

If you look over the last several pages of this thread you will see that I have tried to do systematic comparisons of various materials, size, shap, adhesive and the like. For the moment I am recommending 1/4 inch thick, self- stick, 70 duro ( a measurement of density) sorb cut into small pieces, say 1/2 to 1 inch dimensions. I have been getting it from the US on Ebay, but Amazon US may have some. I don't think Amazon UK has had any. Ebay and Amazon are generally much cheaper than audio shops, and some of the shops don't even know what duro they are selling. I was able to get a 4x4 inch sheet of 70 duro, self-stick ,1/4 inch for about $12.00 US.

More recently I have also been applying backing to the sorb, consisting of two thickness of electrical tape.

As to where to place it, I think you want to stick it inside the earcups, adjacent to the drivers,. This has the,advantage of keeping it out of sight. You can also try the outside surfaces and even rigid sections of the headband. All the damping in the,Sennheiser HD800 is apparently in the headband.

The self-stick sorb holds better over time and you may not hear properly what it is doing until an hour has passed from the time of application. But can be peeled off if you want to change or remove it. 

I found this on US Amazon. Sorbothane Acoustic & Vibration Damping Film 70 Duro with 3M Adhesive Backing (0.25 x 6 x 12in)

Be the first to review this item Price: $43.95. This is a lot more than you need for one phone but you will find you can apply pieces all over the audio chain.

Hope this helps.


----------



## richard51

UPDATE:
  
 Not only crystals of various kind ( especially amethyst, topaz,tourmaline,colored quartz or phantom quartz,or rutilated quartz, agathe, aventurine,citrine,ruby, etc) are one astounding upgrade in an  audio system, like all my experiment with a variety of them demonstrate to my ears, and not a light upgrade but a very great one indeed, (trust me!) but now i must say that my experiment with* stones*, 4 bags of them i purchase in a one dollar shop (aquarium section), stones from a river bed of various shapes and colors, and they made a surprizing upgrade in top of my many crystals... I put one bag of them on top of the Panamax power conditioner  (with the tourmaline crystals already there) where my amp is connected, and 2 bags of these stones under the bi-wiring posts of my cable's speakers (already crystallized with 2 species of crystals and sorbothanized) WOW i sense an immediate upgrade in 3-d clarity, without diminution of highs and bass....ALL THAT WITH A FOUR DOLLARS for 4 bags  of  various *stones river bed *( i have put one last bag on top of the  central  electrical panel with the already there tourmaline and  white quartz)...It seems to me that the action of these stones are subtle all across the frequencies but no less discernible at the end than the crystals for cleaning EMI, hence at the end,contrary to tubes rolling for example, there is no more trade-off, only a total cleaning up of the image and sound (the imaging go to another level in my speakers but is also sensibly better in my He 400)... ...
  
 You must remember that the location of crystals,and stones, and also their combination and mixing in your system is of prime importance for the final optimal results; so listen to, and make change, but listen to for some time between experiments... The combinatorial possibilities is way too much to wrote a ready made formula for all, so experimenting is your key...It is easy and for me it is like rolling tubes for a better satisfaction, but without the trade in and trade off in the frequencies and soundstage or imaging possiblities....Crystals and stones pilot your systems to his ultimate potential easily and better than tubes in a tube amp...It is an interesting fact to report that if your system is already hi-fi, without too much plaguing vibrations after the application of sorb., you will sense clearly the qualitative differential  effect of moving crystals to one place or another in your system...For  the dogmatic sceptic, who read my words, who have only  absolute opinions and zero experiment, for the one that would say to me : all your fuss  description is the result of some placebo effect, i only  dare to say clearly, viva placebo!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
  





 Now my question is what price i must pay to upgrade my actual speakers, or Sansui amplifier to obtain the  same level of upgrade with a new better gear? With sorb. stones and crystals all that cost me is  some few bucks...But  without the sorbothane nor crystals nor stones solutions,perhaps thousands of dollars of new gear will do the upgrading job, i think so? Never mind! remember here the law of diminishing returns....
  
 What is the better solution for most of us?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the answer is simple: Often it is not necessary to buy  new gear, except if you hate the one you  already have, it is necessary to buy sorb. crystals and stones first, to truly hears what you have already  perhaps like me for the first time... After that you will listen to music, and not to the sound ...This is my experience here, thanks to the initiator of this thread, contacting him was one of the great act of my lifetime, and after the meeting of my wife, and the discovery of great books,music is for me the  third part of my life... 
  
  
 A word of caution:
  
 I cannot assure to you that the results with these cheap stones will be for you what i describe them to be in my system, especially  if you dont have any sorb.,nor crystals already on your system,but i cannot imagine that you will not perceive some difference with only these stones...You can thank me after that experiment, because if crystals are less costly than sorbothane,for one canadian dollars each bag of stones, this upgrade is way across the roof in term of the ratio sound quality/money...
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
 On top of the cable binding posts i have a sodalite quartz crystal+a chunk of  black tourmaline (glued there with some blutak) that greatly enhance it, touching the 4 cables there are the  stones river bed....


----------



## oopeteroo

nabwong said:


> .
> 
> *lined the inside of the he-400 and then closed the grill. Used 1/10" thick, 50 duro ....
> 
> *also did the inside of my yamaha mt220. Significantly "cleaner" but also heftier sound.







edstrelow said:


> ....If you look over the last several pages of this thread you will see that I have tried to do systematic comparisons of various materials, size, shap, adhesive and the like. For the moment I am recommending 1/4 inch thick, self- stick, 70 duro ( a measurement of density) sorb cut into small pieces, say 1/2 to 1 inch dimensions. ...



I'm thinking to do it like nabwong on the Yamaha Mt220. He used 1/10" and 50 duro. 

But 1/4" 70 duro is the one to get ?


----------



## nabwong

oopeteroo said:


> I'm thinking to do it like nabwong on the Yamaha Mt220. He used 1/10" and 50 duro.
> 
> But 1/4" 70 duro is the one to get ?




It would be nice to be able to compare. I suppose it's cheap enough to get both sorbs.


----------



## oopeteroo

waynes world said:


> Interesting points. I had done the below to my yamaha mt220's:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I'm at it.....i Will ask Wayne what sorb u used ? Thickness and duro?


----------



## jimbop54

Where do you folks purchase self-stick sorbothane in various thickness and duro?


----------



## oopeteroo

jimbop54 said:


> Where do you folks purchase self-stick sorbothane in various thickness and duro?


 amazon.com got some....sadly Amazon.Co.UK don't have many sticky one :/ found sticky 1/4" 70 duro on ebay but it's not isolateit


----------



## richard51

oopeteroo said:


> amazon.com got some....sadly Amazon.Co.UK don't have many sticky one :/ found sticky 1/4" 70 duro on ebay but it's not isolateit


 
 This provider is ok....i have order from him many times...
  
 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/251837579387?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/371258034855?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


----------



## oopeteroo

richard51 said:


> This provider is ok....i have order from him many times...
> 
> http://www.ebay.ca/itm/251837579387?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> 
> http://www.ebay.ca/itm/371258034855?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


 yeah that's the seller I was looking at. So he quality is good as isolateIT ?


----------



## jimbop54

My impression is the the products from IsolateIt do not have the self-adhesive backing.


----------



## richard51

jimbop54 said:


> My impression is the the products from IsolateIt do not have the self-adhesive backing.


 
 youre right, it is very important to read carefully, if the self-adhesive is included or not...


----------



## richard51

oopeteroo said:


> yeah that's the seller I was looking at. So he quality is good as isolateIT ?


 
 yes the quality is the same...i have bought from him for the last years...


----------



## richard51

CRYSTALS+ROCKS UPDATE:
  
 Yesterday i have put _inside_ each cups of the HE-400, near the  little copper tube where come from the mini cables that go to the  drivers, 2 agathes small peebles around the mini tube and one topaz small peeble on top of it with a bit of blutak to bind them there ( *crystals mixing* is often the best for an optimal results or hybrid crystals) The result were a refinement evident of the soundstage and not only imaging, with more refine bass and highs....The upgrading effect versus cost is extraordinary....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 After 5 years with my HE-400 it takes me 4 years to truly love them without thinking to replace them, i have try  to replace them with my 2 staxes, but tweaking the staxes is more complicated, because there is an independent amp.for my lambda and an energizer for the SR-5,  hence more cable and more links to tweaks between my ears and my dac, and the sound of the he 400 coming directly from the sansui amp, being different however is  certainly on par  with the staxes after the mods, especially for the natural presence of voice and instrument, perhaps a bit  less soundstage though than the Lambda but more natural timbre for me...He-400 is an extraordinary headphone, quality/price ratio, but few people  had listen truly  to them, because almost nobody have try sorb.mods+crystals mod. on all piece of gear,dac and amp. included and not only headphones, because the final resulting sound and image depend on all that at the end....To beat them, with a real upgrade headphone, now i know would cost me too much, probably the total sum cost of all the gear i have already bought... 
  
  
 For all of those who read that and  would want *a simple experiment verification of what i am saying*, buy colored crystals(pink quartz for exemple) or hybrid quartz, there is also innumerable species of crystal minerals other than quartz to try and often better than the white quartz, amethyst or  green or red tourmaline for example, (black tourmaline will do, is cheaper but a little bit less musical than red or yellow one)  between 1 inch and 2 inches chunks, put them on the power strip and on the breaker in a bag taped on it (mix 2 species of crystal for a better result)... The cost will be few bucks, call it a day, and dont thank me but more importantly   write here your impression and thanks the initiator of this thread...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am amazed that people sometimes would pay thousand dollars for good cable without thinking, but will not try a more upgrading tweak that cost few buck...I have bought  very  good cable i like  in the past (250 dollars value) but crystals mod. + sorb. mod are first and foremost better and more spectacular upgrading methods than that....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
*Addendum* :
  
_2 experiential rules with the crystals use, to  ponder_ :
  
*A*: Mixing different kind of crystals and rocks, 2 species or many in the same place is often better than only one kind
  
*B*: No crystals or rocks act the same in different place, and will produce different effects at different link with different mix....At the end for your ears the final differences will be subtle but they will be clearly there...
  
 the use of rocks minerals and crystals are not a light upgrade, but the optimum last results are obtained after many test placement, and mixing experience, in a set of combinatorial possiblities very great indeed, and for me is more fun  and more spectacular than tube rolling... 
  
  
*Some last remark* :
  
 One of the most sensible point location to put rocks and crystals is on top of the inside transformer of your amp... This evening i put some little bags of black tourmaline peebles, red agathe,lemurian smoked quartz,fluorite crystal, and kyanite peebles,on top of the transformer of my Sansui(the effect of the kyanite peebles rocks can be a little harsh but with some others crystals to compensate it the 3-d effect of this minerals is very effective on top of my Sansui) I also added to the tourmaline peebles and to the one chunk of tourmaline that were on top of my panamax power conditioner a ghost quartz crystal .... The effect of all this mix were an incredible new 3-d  soundstage from my speakers and He-400...i listen to it now, and it is there an upgrade beyond what i dream possible with my gear...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And  yesterday I thought that I had already reached the limit...  Indeed experimenting hold the key to sonic heaven...
  
*A practical note*:
  
 I made all my mixing without mixing the crystals and minerals in the same bag, i use diferent bag for each rocks and crystals, hence it is more easy to change and experiment with different location, the effect is very audible when each bag is put on top of one another... For example  adding only 1 bag of kyanite peebles on top of 4 other bags of tourmaline,  agate, lemurian crystals, made an immediate difference in the speakers like in the headphone ....


----------



## edstrelow

I may have missed it but what is the theoretical explanation for crystals?  I.e. what is it supposed to be doing.  Is it damping, like sortbothane?


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I may have missed it but what is the theoretical explanation for crystals?  I.e. what is it supposed to be doing.  Is it damping, like sortbothane?


 
 I dont know and i am truly not a physicist !....I only think, because it is my impression that, one way or another, by some way, crystals, or rocks minerals, act on the electrical magnetic fields around all gear, and clean it in some way, each rocks or crystals acting on their  corresponding resonant frequencies, hence it is better to mix them ( i put each one of them in a separate bag and place them _together_ on the choosen location)...
  
_ _To answer your second question,_ the crystals and rocks can also act like damping products_, i see some  company from japan with a great reputation and many positive reviews  that sell them with a big price for damping speakers or an  amp,  sitting them  on a box filled with crystals...For now i use them not  for damping but for these mysterious capacity to clean the field from EMI... The results are there and complementary on par with the sorb. effect,for the audiophile pleasure of my ears... With these 2 mods. i enjoy my system truly without thinking with no more insatisfaction and no more the urge to upgrade it with a massive investment of money...
  
 For the moment i am more interest to the possiblities given by crystals and rocks to clean EMI and transforming the listening space itself than by the damping possibilities in each audio gear(sorb. sandwich are great for that now) but i give to you this link about _crystals damping_  to read and some "explanation"... I dont want to pay this price for a wood box with crystals, hence i prefer to develop that myself in the future and compare them to  my sorb. sandwich ( this future is in the next 2 months i have ordered today pure natural quartz disc much less costly than the revive acoustic one and i will test damping capacity of quartz at this moment)       :
  
  https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rst38/rst38_01.html
  
https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/underboard/tb-38h.html
  
https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pdf/afaRIQ-5010.pdf
  
 My  conviction is all audio gear vibrate, creating indesirable resonance effect that pollute the sound, but now i know that  electromagnetical interferences pollutes also the sound and the listening space room,  interferences coming from everywhere in the house and not only from all your audio gear, and the crystals and some rocks help greatly to clean that...*Experimenting is the crux of the matter*... I think that the truly scientific explanation is not for me to say, i am no scientist...I only touch the subject here to help with a mods, that save people money, or make people more happy with their products like you do for me with this thread in the first place, if i had not stumble here, i am certain i will have spend  too much more money to correct my insatisfaction with my  actual audio gear...Now i listen music and bought some rocks but it is not thousands of dollars cost so-call upgrade ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 In one word sorbothane and crystals help me to realize that the audio gear i  have, are  already very good product if not HI-FI almost HI-FI, and it is absolutely not necessary to upgrade them at all cost...Music when it is there is music...(diminushing returns law)... The fact is, almost all people have never listen to the optimal potential  sound quality level of their own  gear, because some other factors inhibit this potential audiophile sound and these factors are essentially vibrations and EMI... It is all i can say...
  
*By the way the method for verification of these affirmation of mine, is  the simple purchase for a few bucks of 3 different crystals specimens to begins with*(_colored quartz_, _amethyst_ and _tourmaline_ for example) and more simply than with sorb,(because they are no duro choosing,no thickness choosing, no gluing process  of which one must be concerned with,  and the cost is lighter for 3 samples than for a sheet of sorb) placing them with a tape on the breaker corresponding to your audio room on the central electrical panel of your house, on the head of the electrical cable coming from your amp to the wall, and on the electrical strip that connect your system, at the end, simple, easy, and great upgrade! After that experiment, studying many physical science books will help for the explanations and who knows, a Nobel prize  together...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I remember when i bought my first quality headphone, my first dac and amp, in the beginning i was happy, but in a short time i was critical of my own gear because, they were defect in the imaging, in the artificial sounding, harshness, etc, the timbre of the instrument was not natural; and many other people, experiencing that like me solved this problem by more money purchase of a new hype product, in a series of expense  spiralling without end... If you have the money that is not a problem...But for me it was necessary to explore other way to upgrade my system than buying without end  the new hype fad toward the ultimate system...Sorb. and crystals  complementary mods.are the key for me, they make a difference, and i now hear music, not  resonant negative frequencies that i must correct at all cost...I thank you Ed for your helping thread and i apologize because i cannot give answer to the scientific aspect of your question...Perhaps someone will...
  
*last experimental note*:
  
 i just experiment something truly marvellous with crystals that transform the sound in a way that the sound _float_ around me or toward me and does not come only from the speakers now... This is testimony to the power of using crystals and minerals to elevate the audio level...I will communicate that only after someone here at least confirm my experience by trying himself the little experiment with the 3 specimens i described in the middle part of my post ... After  this first external confirmation by one of you,  i will describe my last experiment with sound room, without risking then too much sarcasm...


----------



## waynes world

oopeteroo said:


> While I'm at it.....i Will ask Wayne what sorb u used ? Thickness and duro?


 
  
 Sorry for the delay buddy! Here it is:
  
SORBOTHANE SHEET 6X6X1/10" VIBRATION ISO RUBBER PAD SOFT 30D WITH 3M ADHESIVE


----------



## edstrelow (Jun 24, 2017)

Acoustic Revive does in fact say that its crystals dampen mechanical vibrations, converting the energy to heat. This is the same explanation offered for sorbothane. Also their general explanation of the problem caused by mechanical vibration of the speaker box is basically the same as what I would make for speakers and headphones. My main point of difference would be that you should also be able to stop the box vibrations at the box, but AR stresses the floor because their damping system fits between the floor and the speaker box. If the box was sufficiently damped you wouldn't have vibrations passing to the floor.

Not having tried crystals and not having seen any product reviews, I can't say how well they work compared to sorb but  they cite several awards for their product. I have always understood that there were other materials which could achieve the same result. We need only consider that Grado claims to do this by means of a proprietary polycarbonate. About the only criticism I can make is that AR's products seem fairly expensive compared to sorbothane. Of course if they were a lot better that might not matter to some people looking for the best sound.

I took this quote from your first cited reference and added my own bold to the text:
"Achieved an ideal vibration control of the speakers
An ideal structure of a speaker platform is to stop the vibration generated by the speaker being conveyed to the floor and the reversed vibration back from the floor. Regardless of the material and structure used inside of the board, the vibrations are still conveyed on the surface of the board and this pollutes the reproduced sound from the speaker reducing the overall quality of the sound.
When using the RST-38H, with its top board floating on natural crystal particles, all of the vibrations from the speaker are absorbed by these particles, thus having a major impact on the sound.
*The crystal particles absorb and eliminate the vibration by changing it into thermal energy.*
Consequently, there is no vibration to the floor and it also avoids the reversed vibration to the speaker. The result is a much improved, clearer sound, giving a higher level of musical enjoyment."


----------



## richard51

I also think that their product are fairly expansive, but acoustic revive are not the only one company using crystals , the most costly one are Bybee products...By the way i test some Bybee product i bought used, and essentially my results with my own formula,  mixing  many varieties of crystals in separate bags that you can order and place in many combinatorial possibilities, are better then  one or 2 crystals species in peebles or dust, embedded in thin  plastic sheet, because more flexible, and at a fraction of the cost ...
  
 I dont doubt that crystals are useful in audio now, but the results that i already achieved for a fraction of the cost of these companies products indicate to me that crystals is the way to go ... Sorbothane does not act exactly in  the same manner, even if sorb. like crystals transform the vibrations into heat, they dont play well in  exactly  the same spectrum absorbing frequencies and i think that the 2 : sorb. and crystals, are complementary opportunities to upgrade any system at low cost...My next experiment will go with room tratment with crystals and damping  speakers and amp. with them,crystals+sorb. at the same time...


----------



## edstrelow (Jun 24, 2017)

I don't like to say 'sorbothane does this that or the other' because the implementation makes a big difference. Thus you have to consider what density (duro) to use, what thickness, what adhesive, what backing, and God knows what else. Too bad no one is reporting measurements of the vibrations in the earcups, speaker boxes, etc. I think it would it a lot easier to tell what is going on if we had such data. Of course you would still have to back this up with listening tests.


----------



## richard51

edstrelow said:


> I don't like to say 'sorbothane does this that or the other' because the implementation makes a big difference. Thus you have to consider what denisty (duro) to use, what thickness, what adhesive, what backing, and God knows what else. Too bad no one is reporting measurements of the vibrations in the earcups, speaker boxes, etc. I think it would it a lot easier to tell what is going on if we had such data. Of course you would still have to back this up with listening tests.


 
 You are perfectly right for sure!
 I cannot scientifically measure anything, i must evaluate my results by listening only, but my goal is simply to use sorb. and crystals  in the better way one experiment at the time...I think we can say that sorbothane , even without the best implementation give some results ...I remember when i used it, in the beginning, i was listening some good results in the right direction nevertheless...But like you i hope some engineer will do some research in this field, truly  hope so, because it is one of the perhaps small but true  audiophile revolution for me...


----------



## edstrelow

I have been playing with 1/2 inch thick sorbothane on my Stax SR007A and Polk and Spica speaker systems and quite like what I am hearing: notable  improvements in clarity and  dynamics particularly in the bass which was not taken care of by the thinner sorb I have been using previously (all these are 70 duro) The Stax have a slight bass boom which makes theme a bit murky sounding.  Now I am hearing much cleaner sound from the drums and double bass.
 
 I was unable to find self-stick 1/2 inch so I  had to use 3M80 adhesive  which is not as good but still works.  I recommend some way of holding the sorb in place on the speakers for a week or more, in order to get a good bond. 
 
I used double layers of electrical tape as backing on the phones and speakers and loosely wrapped the sorb to the Stax with electrical tape.  In the first picture you can see that 2 pieces about 1" x  3/4" are attached to the flange just above the earcups, on the outside.  I didn't have room for it that thickness on the inside, so I used 1/4 in sorb there.  These replaced a set of plastic clamps I had previously used.  
 
Clamping seems to help the sorbothane work but after I found that I got the best sound with loose clamping I though why not just try tape, and it seems as good and gives a less bulky set-up.
 
I also bought a knitted cover  for about $6.00) designed to go over the bands connecting the 2 earscups (Stax calls this the 'arc assembly.")  I thought this might look better since I have removed the leatherette covers of the two bands.  I am not sure I will use it though.
 
This thickness of sorb is much more expensive and I am using about $20 worth on each Polk speaker and about $2.00 on the much smaller Spicas and I suspect more would be better.  So the price of this mod is going up but still within reason.


----------



## chrismini

Hello Ed,
 Do you think that these crystals may have a positive effect by absorbing the electromagnetic field that surrounds all conductors passing current? Unless, of course, they are well shielded.


----------



## chrismini

BTW, hello Richard. Long time, no contact!


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> BTW, hello Richard. Long time, no contact!


 
 Hello Chrismini...I am always here and give to you my salutations...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 By the way  it seems that nobody in the audio industry knows with certainty how crystals works... Some think that they absorb some EMI, for me i dont know but i imagine that this is true in some way, some think that the crystals absorb mechanical vibrations, for me i dont know,but i imagine that this  is also true in some way...
  
 The " crux of the matter" for us audiophile and lovers of music is that: the use of crystals is so stupendous in my experience that waiting to use them,  but only after a scientific explanation is given, is out of the equation for me... *It is simple, buy 10 bucks of pink quartz, some chunks of black tourmaline put them on the breaker of your room and on the power strip , call it a day!*
  
 If there is "_snake oil_" around crystals marketing, i know now that it is not so much  the  final upgrading results that are questionable, rather than  the  high price they ask for their crystals tweaks...For me,  buying them at a low cost i have proved to myself that crystals is one of the most rewarding installation i have ever made at a ridiculous  ratio quality/price... I have made some experience to implement crystals with headphone, cables, and not only  with each  piece of my  gear,but _with the room also.U_nlike crystals,you cannot tweak the room with sorb...
  
 I will wait, before saying more, for some others to say their opinions after experimenting  the first simple experiment i describe  a few sentence upward... Very simple experiment, more simpler than the sorb installation... After that i will communicate my other experiences without risking too much  scepticism, i am lucky, people here are very curious, gentle and polite ....


----------



## edstrelow

chrismini said:


> Hello Ed,
> Do you think that these crystals may have a positive effect by absorbing the electromagnetic field that surrounds all conductors passing current? Unless, of course, they are well shielded.


 
 I don't know.  Acoustic Revive discusses them in the quote, I provided earlier as damping mechanical energy, rather like sorbothane. I have not tried crystals but probably should find some of the cheap ones that richard51  uses and give them a go. Each time he has recommended something to me I felt he was right!
  
 On other matters I am very impressed with the effects of 1/2 inch, 70 duro sorb, especially on my big Polk speakers. I was listening to some very old lp's and it was just like  the instruments had jumped out of the speakers and were in the room with me. Amazing nuances, tonal accuracy and dynamics.
  
 I think I will add some more sorb, possibly 1 inch if I can find it.  But I want to get the Lord adhesive recommended by the Sorbothane company.  However it is rather expensive. about $35 for a half pint.


----------



## richard51

i will certainly try 1/2 inch sorb. under my speakers and amp... Perhaps 1 inch would be better.... i will eagerly wait your impression ... thanks Ed...


----------



## oopeteroo

Just to be sure before ordering today.
I'm going to sorb my Yamaha mt220 like the pic above. I should choose 1/4" thickness ? It wont be to much on the headphone this way ?


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard, Is any of your gear resting on spikes? Especially your speakers?


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard, Is any of your gear resting on spikes? Especially your speakers?


 
 No my speakers are resting  directly on pieces of sorbothane duro 70 and  under that on two granite plates with in between sorb. duro 70 1/4 inches (i call that a sorb. sandwich
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) on my desk between the computer screen and with  amp and dac etc, but all gear is isolated like the speakers, but i want to try 1/2 inches  in the future...No need for spikes with that i think ..  I have order crystal discs to compare with the sorb. and to use it with sorb. for maximal damping isolation installation... In my experience using sorb. with crystals is an improvement, because the 2 complement each other...


----------



## richard51

*But sorbothane cannot transform and treat a room but crystals can*, it seems incredible in my beginner experience with them that crystals can do that, It appears to me_ like  going from an only cleaner and  clearer  sound around the speakers _(it was that that sorbothane first and crystals after that together first and foremost did for me when used in any link of my system and cable and that was a revelation already to me at the time) _to a sound that  was  suddenly resurrected to be a living  more natural sound on another plane this time flowing toward and around me!_ (that was the effect of  crystals room treatment) is it incredible enough? But it is true ....
  
 By the way it is possible to make the analogical same  treatment than the room treatment for the headphone...It is my room crystals treatment that give me the idea to transfer that principle to the headphone with success...I think that crystals in some way_ worked linked together_ and works  way more than just a damping tools ( but i will test their damping potential with quartz disc under my speakers and amp with sorb.or versus sorb.)...
  
 I will say more  about that another time... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 After some of you dare to try my first experiment with the breaker of your  audio room and your power strip with pink quartz,black tourmaline, or amethyst or agathe ( better to mix at least 2 or 3 of them in  separate plastic bag, putting the bags together at one location is the better way to mix them for experimenting at will without separing them one by one  from one only bag at each future trying session )


----------



## chrismini

I had an "Ah Hah" moment. When I installed the sorb70 around the edge of the inner cup of the HE-400's the grills were kind of barely staying in place. Yesterday both grills popped off leaving the drivers exposed. I figured "what the hell" and gave them a listen. I've never heard my HE-400's sound so fantastic! The openness of the high end never sounded so crisp and accurate. The bass thumped away like I was listening to a live performance. The mid's(vocals) were like I've never heard before. Now I know the danger of headphone drivers with no rear protection. They can be destroyed by mere carelessness. Any sharp object can penetrate and destroy the diaphragm. But the sound was nothing short of amazing!!  I've been listening to Steely Dan-Aja which is my go to recording when I audition any speaker or headphone. Now I switched to Lucinda Williams-Car Wheels on a Gravel Road. Same thing. 
  
 So what I've been doing is placing these headphones in a protective cardboard box very carefully. I just can't see myself placing grills back on these headphones. It would be like switching a high-end low output moving coil cartridge for a high output moving magnet. Once you hear the MC, there's no going back. What I'd like to do is install a protective mesh to prevent inadvertent damage. Anyone got any ideas?


----------



## jimbop54

http://www.head-fi.org/t/619447/hifiman-regrilling-mod


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> I had an "Ah Hah" moment. When I installed the sorb70 around the edge of the inner cup of the HE-400's the grills were kind of barely staying in place. Yesterday both grills popped off leaving the drivers exposed. I figured "what the hell" and gave them a listen. I've never heard my HE-400's sound so fantastic! The openness of the high end never sounded so crisp and accurate. The bass thumped away like I was listening to a live performance. The mid's(vocals) were like I've never heard before. Now I know the danger of headphone drivers with no rear protection. They can be destroyed by mere carelessness. Any sharp object can penetrate and destroy the diaphragm. But the sound was nothing short of amazing!!  I've been listening to Steely Dan-Aja which is my go to recording when I audition any speaker or headphone. Now I switched to Lucinda Williams-Car Wheels on a Gravel Road. Same thing.
> 
> So what I've been doing is placing these headphones in a protective cardboard box very carefully. I just can't see myself placing grills back on these headphones. It would be like switching a high-end low output moving coil cartridge for a high output moving magnet. Once you hear the MC, there's no going back. What I'd like to do is install a protective mesh to prevent inadvertent damage. Anyone got any ideas?


 
 I cut mine from a pizza mesh plate i bought from a one dollar shop ( using before that a plastic grid mesh).... any grid, plastic or metal, easy to cut with not a too small square grid will do...


----------



## edstrelow

I added some more 1/2 in 70 duro sorb to the 007a  and the sound again went up a couple of notches in performance, especially in the clarity of bass. The drums were tighter and the double basses growled.
  
 I am doing the same now with my two Lambdas. The problem they pose, like many other phones, is that there are few if any places to mount sorbothane inside the ear cups. With the lambdas, I was able to place some 1/4
 inch sorb on the back plates as shown here but 1/2 inch is too bulky and would extend beyond the top of the drivers, thus possible creating some reflections.
  
 Fortunately we now know that damping can be applied to headbands so I added three pieces to the top of my Lambda LNS.  You can see three big lumps.  These have a double layer of electrical tape on their tops as well as being glued (3M80) and loosely taped to the band. This does an enormous amount to improve the sound, again as noted above in the bass.  There is a further jump in  clarity there now and I am hearing more bass instrumentation.  But the sound is not bassy, just clear sounding throughout the frequency range.
  

  
    Why is the thicker sorb better? Because it it works better at lower frequencies, according to the Sorbothane site. http://www.sorbothane.com/   
  
 The way I conceptualize damping now is that the undamped phone is essentially buzzing with the Newtonian, equal and opposite energy from the driver. The buzzing gets back to the drivers both on the original ear and on the opposite ear through the headband.  Damping cuts the buzzing.  Thicker, denser sorb cuts more buzzing. 
  
  The problem is finding places where you can install  1/2 inch thick material. I would prefer to have these in the earcups because I suspect they would dampen more but as _ _note above, there is no real place to do this_. As _an alternate,  the headbands work well too.


----------



## edstrelow (Jun 24, 2017)

I  measured the effects of sorbothane damping on the frequency response of my Polk SDA speakers using the real-time analyzer portion of my old dBx 10/20 equalizer/analyzer and calibrated microphone. Basically it showed that the bass response had gone up considerably after I applied about $10.00 worth of 1/2 inch 70 duro sorbothane to each speaker. The deepest bass was up about 5-6 dB at 30Hz which is the lowest region the 10/20 analyzes.

 Now I don't think that the sorb is actually increasing the bass but rather it is damping the higher frequencies, more than the bottom frequencies which are more or less untouched.  It has been clear for a long time that the sorb lowers the volume output from phones and speakers, which is more or less what you expect if it is absorbing vibrational noise. Many pages back, I had checked this volume reduction out by ripping off some sorb strips off a set of Sigma pros.    The volume went up after the sorb was removed and what you heard was a marked increase in something which sounded somewhat like ambience but was presumably the vibrations of the earcups coming back and messing up the sound.  In effect the sorbothane  is increasing bass by absorbing mid and upper frequency distortion. Also the website for the Sorbothane website states that you need very thick sorb to dampen the very low frequencies although it doesn't give much detail.

 Increasing bass is not a problem for most folk, where increasing bass is  like a search for the holy grail.  However the Polks are big speakers with a very wide frequency response.  With no equalizing they measure +/- 5bd from 30Hz to 16 khz, which is the range the 10/20 measures. So they are quite remarkable in that regard, but better if equalized.  Once I saw the new measurements I had to reduce the deep bass peak  by a combination of reducing the bottom slider of the amplifier's equalizer and raising some of the mid range.  They now sound amazingly detailed, balanced and dynamic.

 Nevertheless I intend to add more 1/2 inch or even 1 sorb if I can get it, based on the aforesaid report on  Sorbothane  website that you need to go thick to dampen the very low frequencies.


----------



## Henery

Just read this interesting article about loudspeaker baffle vibrations. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Links/Baffle%20Vibrations%20in%20Open%20Baffle%20Dipole%20Loudspeakers%20Kopie.pdf
 Check page 4 and forward. So it´s basically like that AQ Nighthawk earcup viscoelastic strings system, but for individual speakerdrivers. It seems to work very well. Now if only some manufacturer would apply that to headphone drivers.....


----------



## Jaab

Hi,
 I have just saw this thread!
 https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/sorbathane-under-granite-slabs-for-speaker-bases
  
 Some comments make me smile!


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard and Ed. Very inventive and cost conscious. It appears you have crystals installed in the grill. Could you elaborate? Right now I'm just being VERY careful with my 400s. I was listening to Bob Dylan Highway 61 and Free Wheeling and it sounded like he was 4 feet away from me. Same with Steve Earle The Low Highway.


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard and Ed. Very inventive and cost conscious. It appears you have crystals installed in the grill. Could you elaborate? Right now I'm just being VERY careful with my 400s. I was listening to Bob Dylan Highway 61 and Free Wheeling and it sounded like he was 4 feet away from me. Same with Steve Earle The Low Highway.


 
 Chrismini, dont begin with crystals in your he-400 grill... Put agate, and amethyst quartz on top of the power transformer of your amp, only that will give you a great impact for almost no money, and no installation problem...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The most impactful results on the headphone will be with crystals and minerals placement on the  electrical breaker, amp, dac. interconnect etc, hence no need to begin with the crystals grill mod. where the impact is less...only go with the grill at the end...  
  
 i listen my speakers now and the agate minerals (banded madagascar one) i have bought  on Ebay are on top of my speakers, on my speakers cable, on top of my dac, with some other crystals and minerals, but the impact of the agate was spectacular...*The greatest transformation imaginable of my speakers now...I dont recognize any of my musical cd...*What i can say more? it seems  no one dare to try a few bucks trick that some company sells for thousand dollars... The snake oil is not so much with  the crystals or minerals use  but with the price asked by some sellers and with the pseudo-scientific  explanations they give to justify the product... trust me with a few bucks the results are amazing...It is not necessary to pay much...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Best regards to you Chris...
  
  
  
 P.S. 
  
 experimenting is the key
  
 no crystals or minerals act  the same...the placement for example  play a great role, if you put some crystals  in the rear or in the front of your speakers for example, that would not give the same result, even few inches of displacement gives difference...Same on top or at the base..It is mandatory to try many locations...
  
 Any placement or change is immediately audible for the better or the worse but it takes  approx.12 hours to settle correctly for your adapting brain and ears ...
  
 all crystals and minerals correct themselves if added together... but you must experiment to discover the right mix and synergy...Your ears will guide you by trials and errors...After 2 month of experiment, i have reach an optimal peak of natural unbelievable  natural musicality with my system... 
  
 I now use agate, topaz, amethyst, tourmaline different species of quartz,fluorite octahedral crystals,kyanite minerals (but dont buy these last 2 for beginning i use them mostly to equilibrate the imaging) etc (Banded agate are my favorite minerals but it is necessary to place some other crystals to equilibrate them and for optimal results)
  
 all that reach at the end a new level for the most extraordinary upgrade in my system i have ever experimented...If you have already a _*good*_ dac, a _*good*_ amp, a _*good*_  set of speakers, and a _*good  *_ headphone, forget any upgrade tentation to spend on a so call  newer better gear, rather crystals and minerals will transform your actual  good gear to a new level...You will discover that you had never listen before to your system at his optimal maximum quality level... Totl for a few bucks, and if not totl, very good upgrading effect, law of diminushing returns will apply...
  
  
 A last remark : like my experiment with sorbothane have teach me already, remember to damp your gear before buying other product for the so-call upgrading urge...After sorbothane and crystals, upgrading really will cost me above 5 thousands...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The miracle is: i dont fell that necessary anymore...
  
 This is  only one of my big agate on top of my speakers ( i have others smaller one for other locations and also agate peebles  mix in  bags)
  

  
  
  
 this is the other big one on top of the other speaker...


----------



## chrismini

Those stones or minerals in the photographs beautiful! How much are they?


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Those stones or minerals in the photographs beautiful! How much are they?


 
 You prey on them on ebay when the price is under 7 dollars...You wait and with time you will have them for a cheap price...the price is relative also to the beauty of the stone, and his weigth...But remember that it is better if you buy different kind of  stones and crystals not only one species...But the  banded madagascar agate are not only beautiful but very transformative of the sound in a spectacular way( more positive change than any tube i bought for my last tube amplifier), and it is my favorite one, love at first sight!...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Best regards Chris


----------



## chrismini

I have always wanted a tube amp but the good ones are out of reach financially. Plus my little HeadRoom Micro amp sounds very good and has the best crossfeed circuit/software I've ever heard. I know a lot of purist thumb their noses at crossfeed effects, but, if done well, it rids the hard left and right panning that's used/overused on a lot of rock recordings especially from the late 60's and entire 70's. For a 2 channel stereo loudspeaker setup, panning works great, but for headphones, not so much.


----------



## edstrelow (Jun 24, 2017)

henery said:


> Just read this interesting article about loudspeaker baffle vibrations. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Links/Baffle%20Vibrations%20in%20Open%20Baffle%20Dipole%20Loudspeakers%20Kopie.pdf
> Check page 4 and forward. So it´s basically like that AQ Nighthawk earcup viscoelastic strings system, but for individual speakerdrivers. It seems to work very well. Now if only some manufacturer would apply that to headphone drivers.....


 
 I tend to agree with much here.  Of course open back speakers will have a lousy frequency response.  I am personally adding sorbothane to my speakers.  However given the size of speakers and the amounts of sorb needed  it does get more expensive.  Still the results are remarkable.



jaab said:


> Hi,
> I have just saw this thread!
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/sorbathane-under-granite-slabs-for-speaker-bases
> 
> Some comments make me smile!


 
 The claim that sorb stores energy seems false.  The originators claim that it transforms it to heat. I have no idea what Herbies stuff does.  I have seen many reports of people putting speakers on top of sorb footers with apparently good results. I would rather have  a rigid mount myself, and use the sorb for damping.  Most people seems to have assumed that it needs to be clamped or held firmly to whatever you are trying to damp. However, you still get good results just attaching it to the speakers, headphones or whatever.    However the adhesive must be good,  the self-stick seems pretty good and i have recent bought a very expensive adhesive by Lord to hold the thick sorb which is not available with self-stick.  Adding  a backing to the sorb also helps, I have been using double thicknesses of electrical tape. As regards clamping, it does seem to be  a better solution but you don't need to use much pressure.


----------



## edstrelow

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard and Ed. Very inventive and cost conscious. It appears you have crystals installed in the grill. Could you elaborate? Right now I'm just being VERY careful with my 400s. I was listening to Bob Dylan Highway 61 and Free Wheeling and it sounded like he was 4 feet away from me. Same with Steve Earle The Low Highway.





chrismini said:


> Hello Richard and Ed. Very inventive and cost conscious. It appears you have crystals installed in the grill. Could you elaborate? Right now I'm just being VERY careful with my 400s. I was listening to Bob Dylan Highway 61 and Free Wheeling and it sounded like he was 4 feet away from me. Same with Steve Earle The Low Highway.



I find  the sound can be so much more realistic when the phones are damped. My thinking is that the upper harmonics are less obscured by the residual vibrations in the earcups and also that you get better dynamics (although why I am not so sure.) 

I find that so much of my music just sounds better, including really bad recordings.  I was listening this morning to a real cheap set of 50/60's re-issues, probably unlicensed, and some sounding like they were copied off lp's. Yet they were all sounding very good through my Stax SR007A.  These phones, and most stats tend to show harshness with such material, but a lot of that is now gone.


----------



## edstrelow

I am getting some good results with 1/2 in 70 duro sorbothane both on speakers and headphones such as the Stax SR007A.   The essential problem with the 007A is a certain bass boominess.  It's always had this but to some extent it got worse after the thinner sorbothane was applied. 

Sorbothane's website noted that you need fairly thick sorb to dampen low frequencies.  The thinner sorbs, i.e. 1/8 - 1/4 seem to do a great job clarifying mid and upper frequencies, but sometime seem to add to the bass. My explanation is that if you are getting rid of a lot of mid and upper frequency sounds (and  sorbed phones reduce volume and need to have amplifiers turned up to compensate)  then you are left with more bass especially after the amplifier is turned up.

I have recently added 1/2 in 70 duro directly to the 007A and am pleased to say that it seems to finally take care of the boominess of these phones.   The first problem I encountered was where to put the sorb,  because at this thickness it just doesn't bend to fasten to a curved earcup surface.  So I found a smallish bit of flat area below the headband.  

How to fasten it was the next problem.  Self-stick was not available for 1/2 inch, and I have been getting less satisfied with 3M 80 since it wasn't always keeping the sorb from falling off my speakers.  

Sorbothane Inc. recommended Lord 7650, an industrial adhesive  not generally available.  I finally bought the bullet, $35 for a 1/2 pint can, minimum order of 2 cans and I am pleased to say that it really does  good job. I wonder if it may be hard to remove.

I initially put on a piece about 1 1/2 inch long. This took care of the bass problem with th 007A but also seemed to muffle the treble and midrange.  Then I remembered my own advice, "no dimension more than 1 inch" and cut the middle out.  The sound was now much better in treble and mids.  Two layers of electrical tape reduced a bit of too much edginess in fact.

A lot of this work with sorbothane makes sense  to me: 
1) basic Newtonian mechanical principles mean that that any driver will direct  energy equal to what it is blasting into your ear,  into the earcup housing.  This energy is probably the source of the sonic problem.
2) sorbothane transforms that energy into heat thus removing it from the headphones. 

  But I still have no explanation for why small pieces of sorb work better than large ones. 

I was hoping to post pictures here, but the new set-up doesn't seem to let me upload these from my sd card.


----------



## Hutnicks

Small pieces are easier to excite due to their lower mass.
Locktite 454 is a good adhesive choice as well but pricey. Shoo Goo will do it cheaper and has its own damping abilities as well.
I have yet to try bicycle tyre tape. It is fairly expensive as well.


----------



## edstrelow

The low mass argument makes some sense, although I wonder how this plays out with the fact that denser (70 duro) and thicker (1/2 inch) sorb is more effective. You would think those two factors increase mass and would impede sorbothane excitation. 

Along these lines, I wonder if a smaller footprint allows vibrational energy to pass more easily into the sorb? I am sure a mechanical engineer could explain this, but this site tends towards the EE types.

What is really needed to inform these problems is measurement of vibrations in headphone assemblies, but even the Mitchell article I referenced didn't do this. He seemed to be saying that one needed a strain guage to provide such measurements, which he did not have.


----------



## Hutnicks (May 8, 2017)

That is exactly it. It is the contact area that is the culprit. Think of it like a car antenna in the old days where they were telescopic. When at the non extended short length it was really ridgid. Extended all the way which effectively made the base less stiff it whipped all around just by tapping on a fender. Same principle here really less adhesive contact area makes the block of sorb less ridgid..

I doubt a strain guage is necessary. You can get there with a cheap mic and some recording software on the pc. The mic will pic up vibes from wherever you touch it to the outside cup, headband or wherever. The software can show you the waveform and frequency of the vibration.

 This is by no means an engineering test as the results are going to be subjective to your set up. It will however tell you where the vibrations are and give a more than adequate guide for damping them out. For this purpose even a cheap capsule mic from an old headset would do.


----------



## edstrelow

Hutnicks said:


> That is exactly it. It is the contact area that is the culprit. Think of it like a car antenna in the old days where they were telescopic. When at the non extended short length it was really ridgid. Extended all the way which effectively made the base less stiff it whipped all around just by tapping on a fender. Same principle here really less adhesive contact area makes the block of sorb less ridgid..
> 
> I doubt a strain guage is necessary. You can get there with a cheap mic and some recording software on the pc. The mic will pic up vibes from wherever you touch it to the outside cup, headband or wherever. The software can show you the waveform and frequency of the vibration.
> 
> This is by no means an engineering test as the results are going to be subjective to your set up. It will however tell you where the vibrations are and give a more than adequate guide for damping them out. For this purpose even a cheap capsule mic from an old headset would do.


 

I like the antenna analogy.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I like the antenna analogy.


Thanks.
There has been lots of work done with vibration damping over the years. Jackie Stewart, when he was consulting with Ford implemented the fist test. He would go around the car and pound on various parts to see what shook. Not high tech, but effective enough that the engineers spent untold hours using putty and various materials to keep mirrors and dash components from vibrating. A million dollar test rig is not always essential

 In other disciplines Matthews Archery used medallions of sorbothane with a tungsten insert to reduce the brutal vibration of compound bows. There is a patent out there that describes it quite well.

True temper used a plastic rod with a spiral of foam about 4mm wide wound around it inside golf shafts to reduce the hand shock. This same system was used for bicycle handlebars to reduce hand shock from road defects.

They all share a common issue in that the damping material is in minimal contact with the item to be damped and transmits the vibration to another more dense material .

As headphones inevitably (or so it seems to me) become more bass oriented, being able to tune for a frequency by the size and material choice of the resonator in contact with the damping medium becomes of more and more interest to me. Bass is high energy so the Matthews system (Compound Bows generally get reviewed specifically mentioning hand shock) may be a way to wick out the evil "Beats Sound" that seems to be permeating the trade. BW uses tungsten in their C5 IEM's as well for that purpose although not in the same implementation.


----------



## edstrelow (May 9, 2017)

I have a large 12x 12 inch sheet of 1/2 inch 70 duro and would be prepared to send some samples if someone sends me an SSA package. The problem is fastening it.  I cannot find this thickness with self-stick. Superglue will hold and gave good bass but poor treble. 3M 80 seems to sometimes fail. BTW I did try shoe goo, see post 757, but it did not hold to the metal of my SRXIII test phones. Lord 7650 is good, but expensive and I had to buy 2 cans at $35 each.
Why 1/2 inch, well it does seem to go down into the bass region more than the thinner sorb.  However it is so bulky there are few places to.put it on many phones.


----------



## Hutnicks (May 9, 2017)

edstrelow said:


> I have a large 12x 12 inch sheet of 1/2 inch 70 duro and would be prepared to send some samples if someone sends me an SSA package. The problem is fastening it.  I cannot find this thickness with self-stick. Superglue will hold and gave good bass but poor treble. 3M 80 seems to sometimes fail. BTW I did try shoe goo, see post 757, but it did not hold to the metal of my SRXIII test phones. Lord 7650 is good, but expensive and I had to buy 2 cans at $35 each.
> Why 1/2 inch, well it does seem to go down into the bass region more than the thinner sorb.  However it is so bulky there are few places to.put it on many phones.


Please try the Shoo Goo. Honestly it is one of the best adhesives available. Scuff the material you want to bond with some wet or dry sandpaper first. The other trick to it is to let is pre set a bit on a piece of waxed paper or a coffee tin lid until it is almost rubbery then press the materials on it.


----------



## edstrelow

As I say, I did try the Shoe Goo.  See post 757.  I even posted a picture of the tube.  It didn't stick to the aluminum at all.


----------



## Hutnicks

yes I got that. And in fact I have bonded it with Alu with good results. Give it a try with the suggestions I made re scuffing and or letting it pre set. As an aside the Goo itself has some remarkable damping properties so may be worth a go in areas where sorbo cannot be used.


----------



## edstrelow

Hutnicks said:


> yes I got that. And in fact I have bonded it with Alu with good results. Give it a try with the suggestions I made re scuffing and or letting it pre set. As an aside the Goo itself has some remarkable damping properties so may be worth a go in areas where sorbo cannot be used.


I was mostly interested in using it on my wooden speakers so I wouldn't have to try the Lord 7650 and after it didn't stick to the aluminum I went for the Lord which seems to have no vices except that it contains carcinogens.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I was mostly interested in using it on my wooden speakers so I wouldn't have to try the Lord 7650 and after it didn't stick to the aluminum I went for the Lord which seems to have no vices except that it contains carcinogens.



If you can find it Loctite 454 is the bomb. We used it on laptop repairs ages ago and one stalward guy decided he was stronger than it an pulled off the rubber feet we had used it to glue to the chassis. He pulled it off all right, it came off with the enamel paint the chassis had baked on. The loctite was stronger than the baked on bond!


----------



## richard51 (Jun 17, 2017)

Only a short briefing about my experiment with more than 25 five species of crystals and minerals....*  Madagascar banded agate,  green and red tourmaline*,(they are not cheap alas!) were among the better to improve my systems, any kind of  *impure quartz and  pink quartz( thin disc on each of the four binding posts of my speakers did stupendous  thing for the clarity of the imaging)  and amethysts, also very small lava beads that makes miracles on any link of my system and in the last experiment only: Shungite, (top-grade elite variety only for the dac or  the headphone), *....(remember that all crystals and stones are linked and works in mutual optimal complementary compensation)  I will not go into more details at the risk to annoy anyone, because nobody up to now did not dare to try my  crystals suggestion....But i can assure you that there is absolutely no comparison between my systems before and after.....The price i have paid  for these experiments is  more than entirely justified....I know now that the few companies that sell that audiophile  tweak dont sell snake oil, but their price is matter to discuss to say the least! In some case way too much pricer...like many audiophile products for sure....For me the price i have paid is gladly paid, the upgrade is  outstanding, trust me, nothing i know of compare for price/quality ratio....I cannot say more to make you curious and compel you to try....best regards to all the good folks on this thread...

*A word of caution*: Use these 5 species of crystals and minerals together not necessarily at the same spot, but on many links of your system... it seems that these stones act synergetically together in the systems like some filtering device...

*update* 29 may : The shungite is one of the most subtle and musical stone i put in my system, elite shungite and 2 pyramids of regular shungite stone, respectively on or near the dac, on the computer, and on my amplifier...And last but not least 9 little chunks of elite and regular shungite at the exterioir of the headphone glued with blutak, replacing some other crystals....The results are astounding for my He-400...After all the crystals i have put in all links of my system, i believe that the final goal was already realized, i was wrong! The shungite, on top of all that, makes my mix of elements so musical that it is unbelievable, this last of all improving change with shungite stones, is the more delicate,the more organic, producing one of the greatest effect in the details of the sound in space, the more musical one  and all this without the trading off coming with some crystals or  other stones; i cannot imagine greater improvement with  anything now ... This is the crowning gem ... test yourself...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> Only a short briefing about my experiment with more than 25 five species of crystals and minerals....*Shungite,  madagascar banded agate,  green and red tourmaline*,(they are not cheap alas!) in that order were among the better to improve my systems, in fourth position many kind of  impure quartz and amethysts....(remember that all crystals are linked and works in mutual optimal compensation)  I will not go into more details at the risk to annoy somebody, because nobody up to now did not dare to try my  crystals suggestion....But i can assure you that there is absolutely no comparison between my systems before and after.....The price i have paid  for these experiments is  more than entirely justified....I know now that the few companies that sell that audiophile  tweak dont sell snake oil, but their price is matter to discuss to say the least! In some case way too much pricer...like many audiophile products for sure....For me the price i have paid is gladly paid, the upgrade is  outstanding, trust me, nothing i am sur compare....I cannot say more to make you curious and compel you to try....best regards to all the good folks on this thread...


----------



## edstrelow

You seem a bit defensive  about the topic of crystals, mon ami. I have not tried them, but  I have found your ear to be good guide previously. Possibly they also have damping properties.  I did some googling and it seems there is an area of academic research on this topic.    https://books.google.com/books?id=8...RTAH#v=onepage&q=crystals for damping&f=false


----------



## richard51 (May 16, 2017)

Not defensive ....But anxious and impatient to listen  from others about that....I must say than i am flabbergast by the impact of this mod.... and you know first hand that it needs much words to shake people's inertia... The problem is this mod takes, like sorb. mods, some experiment and more than sorb. mods  many trying seance of listenings...But the results kill all doubts and  other costly upgrading desire....

Sorb. mod + crystals is the way to go toward TOTL audio for the poor, and i dont speak about some small improvement, but about a complete  blooming of your system, for example, in the last few days i added shungite(on the computer,cd player, and dac) to all my many others crystals and minerals, and the added effect (silkier and way more natural sound and more detailed sound across the board) is so extraordinary that i listen my cd _again for the first time_. ( i know, yes, my wife said to me that i already said that many times in the last moths, but there it is because crystals improve one by one my system, when place at the right spot)...But dont begin with only shungite, it is costly compare to other crystals and minerals, and i think the effect will be better as a  last experiment not in the  first one with stones......

My best regards Ed, because without you and this thread i would never had walk this blazing  trail  and thanks very much for the reference...

Only one last word, crystals act in damping yes for sure, but are effective also without damping function, they seems to "intercept" or " filter" some EMI, not only damp....I am not an engineer, i speak metaphorically for sure about my impressions...I have not begin experiment  to compare for damping speakers and amplifier and dac, the crystals versus sorb....i will in the future...


----------



## Henery

http://www.aluminousaudio.com/
Aluminous Audio makes loudspeakers with patent pending mechanism to completely isolate them from floor. It is always a delight to see manufacturers paying extra attention to vibration damping. Maybe that gives you some ideas to try on your speakers.


----------



## richard51 (Jun 5, 2017)

Henery said:


> http://www.aluminousaudio.com/
> Aluminous Audio makes loudspeakers with patent pending mechanism to completely isolate them from floor. It is always a delight to see manufacturers paying extra attention to vibration damping. Maybe that gives you some ideas to try on your speakers.




Very Interesting Henery thanks...

i myself rediscovered the imperative necessity to damp anything and after my sorbothane sand wich, i have learned that mixing  different  composite  materials with  their own damping property may be beneficial.... I added cork to all  my sorb. sandwiches ( under my speakers, dac and amplifier)... The results are very convincing and better than without cork....Damping and isolation are very important and first and foremost the most important things to experiment with if you want to optimize your systems, with at the same time some  room treatment....Crystals and stone after that....

http://www.ccm.udel.edu/research_su...tures-noise-mitigation-and-energy-absorption/

_Sorbothane sandwiche_: at the bottom 4 very small pieces of  rose quartz on my wooden desk, second layer is a granite plate with pieces of sorb. in between another granite plate, on top of this second granite plate some cork plates, on top of the cork plates a bamboo plate, on top of the bamboo plate some pieces of sorb. and  finally the speakers ... ...The principle is to etablish some balance ratio between , coupling and decoupling, isolating and damping, hence cleaning all frequencies ideally  with minimal loss, erasing the negative resonance with the mix of different materials, different volumes, different surfaces with a different resonant value...I am no engineer then i experiment to obtain this balance with this mixing of  materials....It is now indeed more than very good...Each instrument never sound so good  with my speakers, particularly piano and piano is one of the most difficult music instrument to register and reproduce correctly...


----------



## edstrelow

Henery said:


> http://www.aluminousaudio.com/
> Aluminous Audio makes loudspeakers with patent pending mechanism to completely isolate them from floor. It is always a delight to see manufacturers paying extra attention to vibration damping. Maybe that gives you some ideas to try on your speakers.



I have seen reports from people with wooden floors that spikes make the sound worse, presumably by causing the floor itself to vibrate.   These reports touted the benefits of sorbothane footers instead.  I use spikes on my main speakers but the floor is concrete. Plus I add a lot of sorbothane glued to the front face of the speakers.  The 1/2 inch 70 duro really brings out the clarity and attack.


----------



## edstrelow (Jun 25, 2017)

I was interested to see some discussion of damping vibrations  in turntables from the old and distinguished SME company.

" A turntable should address the problems of extraneous vibrations. These emanate from numerous sources including air and structural vibration from loudspeakers, groove modulation, stray electrical fields and mechanical imperfections in moving parts. In the Model 20/12, superb instrument quality machining is allied with fundamental physics. The higher the mass and stiffness of a body the less it will flex and vibrate; *the duration of a vibration can be shortened by suitable damping*.......*This control of vibration is fundamental to the design of the player and goes much of the way to explaining the stunning tonal and dynamic neutrality that it exhibits*."    (bold added)    http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/94863/SME-Model_2012A_Turntable_with_312S_Tonearm-Turntables


This by the way is for their   SME-Model 20/12A turntable and arm, selling for $19,575.00. (that's not a typo)  I see that it also weighs 73.7 lb. That must be the record for turntable weights.

I am curious as to why they think that "stray electrical fields" can cause vibration. I am not saying they don't but I don't understand how it can. Otherwise I am in agreement with what this ad states.  They appear to be on the same wave length with some of the people here.

I should add that a few bucks worth (rather than $19,575)  of small pieces of 1/4 inch sorbothane inside the base and  1mm thick sorb pieces on the platter have done wonders to the tonal and dynamic accuracy my old B&O TX2 tangential tracking turntable.  

I am sure that this turntable sounds good, but the question I would ask is whether it is over-engineered and expensively so.  Yes, I am sure you can dampen/control vibrations with this much mass, but sorbothane is a damn sight cheaper.


----------



## edstrelow (Jul 11, 2017)

Getting away from headphones, I came across a very interesting way of damping cd vibrations on both a transport and a conventional cheap cd player. I own two Woo Audio transports which are quite good, but still there is that vibration issue. These are top-loading and have a lift-off puck on top of the cd. For the Woo's I removed the felt-like material that Woo used on the underside of the puck. Instead I place 1mm 70 duro pieces of sorbothane. These came with self-stick and that was useful to try out different sizes of sorb. I originally used pieces twice this size, was not too impressed and then cut them in half to what you see in the picture. That was a lot better. The self-stick was not holding by this stage and I used some Lord 7650 to glue the pieces in place. I suspect superglue could be used here since you are not trying to pass cd vibrations through the glue. Some pages back I noted that using superglue on headphones gave good results with bass, but seemed to mess up the treble.

The puck is held on by magnetic force, as I later discovered are the top pieces of my conventional players. This is why I stayed with the thinnest sorb which probably ended up lifting the puck 1/2 mm or less than the previous material.

The sound was strikingly better than before, very crisp and with solid localization.

After a while I thought I should see what could be done with a conventional drive. To my surprise you could lift the clamping mechanism off the top of my old $200.00 Sherwood players and do the same thing. Their clamp was also magnetic. Again a big boost in sound quality similar to the improvements on the Woo. The only problem with this type of unit was that the sorb still sticks to the disc and would not drop the disc quickly enough when the drawer opened. To solve this I glued small pieces of the plastic wrap that came with the sorb to the underside, again with Lord. This solved the sticking problem.

https://www.head-fi.org/f/gallery/photo/1871186/



Finally I thought - what about adding damping to the top piece of the Sherwood drive? I tried it using 2 mm self-stick and again liked the result. At one point I removed it thinking that the top piece is not well engineered and has some wobble. By adding mass here I was possibly adding vibrations. However when I removed the pieces the sound seemed degraded so I went back to using them. Evidently the wobble creates less sonic problem, than the added sorb cures.

https://www.head-fi.org/f/gallery/photo/1871187/



As in the preceding post, there are some very expensive tactics being employed to solve vibrational problems with turntables and I have seem similar approaches with cd players. For example I once had a 22 lb top-loading cd player with a large and heavy puck placed on the cd's. Sorbothane seems to be an effective and much cheaper alternative. Sorbothane footers have been around for decades and are still being sold . Frankly I have never found them to be that impressive. the addition of small pieces to the body of turntables, amps and cd players has got me better results, although you do have to experiment some as I noted above in settling on the size of the pieces I used.

BTW I am having trouble posting pictures but these seemed to show up after posting to Facebook as private photos.


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> I have seen reports from people with wooden floors that spikes make the sound worse, presumably by causing the floor itself to vibrate.   These reports touted the benefits of sorbothane footers instead.  I use spikes on my main speakers but the floor is concrete. Plus I add a lot of sorbothane glued to the front face of the speakers.  The 1/2 inch 70 duro really brings out the clarity and attack.



The trick to that is if you have a floor that is soft use a penny or other metal piece of the same size under the spike.


----------



## Mogimu

Hi and thanks to everyone who has posted in this topic. My name is Mark and this is my first post on Head-Fi. I'm interested in this topic because I have some non-professional experience with vibration control in audio equipment in general and lately with headphones in particular. I own Stax, Audeze and Focal models. I have not tried Sorbothane but I'm very interested in the results you have obtained. I have tried other materials specifically polymer nanocomposites with very positive results. I have researched the principles behind the operation of polymer nanocomposites and I now understand how they are manufactured and how they work, and why they are superior to pure polymer compounds for vibration control. As an aside I have also tried Richard's crystal challenge, and found it to be true and quite amazing. Before reading about it here and trying it myself, I was not remotely open to such an idea, but now I wouldn't be satsfied using my headphones without crystals on the power outlets. Sorry if this makes anyone think I may be a bit unhinged. If anyone is still interested in discussing damping of headphones using existing technology or finding out about nanocomposites and hopefully the future of headphones, please reply.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 18, 2017)

Welcome here! thanks Mogimu for your report about crystals... Remember that you must experiment with different crystals and stones, no stone, no crystals act the same at different spot, not one interact the same with the others... The treatment of the  electrical central panel is the beginning only... Myself i use at least  20 kind of stones and crystals, for example the best experiment i achieve with my _central electrical panel_ was with a giant madagascar banded agate (240 grams)+2 kambaba jasper stones on top of the _C.E.P._ +  6 red jasper stones and  pieces of quartz around the big cable that go from the _C.E.P._ to my listening room (But _in general red jasper is not very  good in audio_,i must replace  it in the near future)...It takes me many trying and errors to get the good recipe...I have treat with crystal and stones all piece of my gear, headphone included...Sorbothane+ crystals = TOTL at low cost... I know now why if you buy an audiophile amplifier or any totl product without a good power supply, the noise will destruct the sound potential of your gear, many know that also, but few people, me included, can afford a one thousand dollars power  supply, and few people know that EMI, and Noise caused by vibrations and negative resonance interaction pollute every piece of  all the chain... Crystals and stones are relatively cheap solution but very efficient one...For me....There is no comparison between sound with crystals  and stones and sound without... I have very good gear but without these solution  , i would have been insatisfied....

Next weeks i will treated with sorbothane and stones or crystals the Beyerdynamic DT-150 headphone i bought for less than 100 dollars and apparently a very good can....I will report here...

Best regards to Mogimu... And all of you...


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 18, 2017)

Hi Richard. You may be pleased to know there is plenty of scientific backing to support your crystal observations. The mechanical dampening properties of the piezolelectric effect (including quartz crystals) have been the subject of patents since at least 1948

https://www.google.com/patents/US2443471

The mainstream audio industry is also convinced of the benefits of crystal technology, especially as a power line filter. Please scroll down to the MJ Technology of the Year award recently presented to Furutech Japan for their Flux-50 Nano-Crystal Formula, which incorporates the photoelectric effect of crystals to purify the power at the wall socket by converting thermal vibrations into infared radiation.

http://www.furutech.com
http://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=23836

It's also feasible to harvest electricity for industrial use, by using mechanical vibrations to deform quartz and other crystals, via the piezoelectric effect


----------



## richard51 (Jul 26, 2017)

These damned Dt-150 grows more in me.... i dont know, because they are used one,if the 300 hours limits for their mandatory blossooming burn-in, indicated by Arttt review, were near completion, when i bought them, or not,but for the last 2 days my love for them is growing more, and, this is what i dont understand,the sound completely change for the better at each listening, hour after hour; the only explanation is *the sorbothane slowly gluing process *that takes many days to takes all effect and must be way more manifest with them than with my HE-400 or Stax lambda .... ...I dont want to listen now to my he 400 nor my Stax lambda,they lack naturalness,3-d holographic reproduction, Stax has more artificial finesse yes,hifiman more shouting dynamic, and they are more fatiguing(he-400) or boring(stax lambda)... With the DT-150 all details are communicated organically linked with complete balance without any artificial analytical effects...I think they are on the same level of excellency than the Stax SR-5,one of the best tuned Stax by the opinions of more educated audiophile than me (By the way my remarks are only my listening subjective impressions, and not a critical assessment of the He-400 or of the Stax per se, my remarks are only a way to describe the extraordinary audio qualities of the DT-150 +sorb.+crystals for me)... I thanks God and many reviewers that convince me to buy these under the score cans...

The thing is that i love them so much, i decide to buy another Sansui amplifier that i dream of already, for sure at a bargain price... My Sansui AU-7700 already drive them from the headphone out without perceptible defect,silky mids like my SR-5 but with less honey flavor, punchy but not exagerated bass like my HE-400, unique imaging holographic, but mostly speaker-like restitution absent from Stax or HE-400, with absolutely no fatigue whatsoever....

I have bought 2 days ago the Sansui AU-X701 Alpha and i think this more modern audiophile sound will reveal the scaling potential of the DT-150 and takes them to other limit...The Alpha series amplifier apparently touch another level and were the culmination of all the audiophile research of the Sansui team... The 1976 Sansui AU-700 is tube like sound, a marvel to my ears with only superlative reviews all over the net.... Only to be , it seems, superseded by the 1986 Alpha for more realism...I cannot imagine how the DT-150 will sound from the headphone out ....I will verify what some here says when they ascertain the upscaling potential of the DT-150...Akg 701, Ath-m50, Stax SR-5, Stax lambda nova,He-400, are the headphone i know , none touch the realism and naturalness, and the musicality of the DT-150 for me... And if another headphone is better, and i dont doubt that there is some, at stratospheric price,then, is this so-called more audiophile headphone sound will be speaker-like also like the Beyer? My Stax are one of these audiophile cans and they are not speakerlike at all...More transparent, more refine,more airy, yes, not speakerlike,nor holographic 3-d image, nor natural either to my ears...Me i will never exhange realism and naturalness for any other audiophile characteristics whatsoever and never...

If you dont like this Beyer, blame your dac,amp,or the synergy between them, the DT-150 sorbothanized+some crystals are for me TOTL at ridiculous price used...thanks to all of you ....I will report here for the new amp experience and the presumed scaling potential of the Dt-150...

P.S. Except the slow gluing process of the sorbothane, inside each cup of the DT-150, there is another explanation from the transformation of my listening experience of the DT-150... Yesterday i put , in a new experiment, 4 or 5 little quartz crystals square chunks , in the 2 opposite walls of each one of my piece of gear enclosure ,speakers,dac,amp,computer,power conditioner... (50 pieces in all)... The effect on the sound was way more clarity and transparency in my Mission ....I listen to my speakers at this time... When i turn my ears to the DT-150 in the evening the same effect have taken place ...But the effect on the DT-150 was in my system more astounding than with my speakers,more spectacular, and not in full fledge immediately ... Some may make sarcastic remarks about that, but without stones and crystals i know that no audio system is true to his potential and i say that after almost a year of experiments...

*Important remark*: Perhaps the astounding effect of my new installment of pink quartz crystals in my system, on my speakers listening first,and on my Dt-150, would have been spectacular also on the Stax lambda and the SR-5; i will not know because i have disconnected them from my system because of place restriction... Then my impression of the DT-150 are in no way an objective critical assessment about the Stax...Only an enthusiastic review impression of the DT-150 qualities compare in memory with my Stax past impressions ...


----------



## edstrelow (Jul 25, 2017)

Mogimu said:


> Hi Richard. You may be pleased to know there is plenty of scientific backing to support your crystal observations. The mechanical dampening properties of the piezolelectric effect (including quartz crystals) have been the subject of patents since at least 1948
> 
> https://www.google.com/patents/US2443471
> 
> ...




Good to see an explanation for crystals. 



richard51 said:


> I take my Beyerdynamic Dt-150 from the post office today.... At first listen i begin to understand those that were horrified by their sound, infamously so called «cavernous sound»... After this first impression i put 8 little pieces of sorbothane 1/4 inches duro 70 +self adhesive in the inside of each cup; i took off the central piece of foam,and i put some cotton wool to angle the faux-leather earpads,(thanks for that to Lorspeaker) and last but not least, i put some very little stick of quartz+ a stick of amethyst crystal around the exterior cable .... That forever kill the «cavernous sound» and the«muddy sound»...
> 
> Now i begin to slowly understand the love for this headphone... I am very happy with this purchase, i can listen to them without fatigue, they sound less refine than my electrostatic stax for sure, they are less polite but with more realism... They seems slightly bit more veiled at first than my HE-400 but perhaps the HE-400 is more highs agressive,and i prefer their just more exterior,less in the ears, soundstage,hence i find them way _more relax_ to listen to than the HE-400, because the frequencies distribution are _more equilibrated_, least but not last, they are close cans and they isolate you correctly...
> 
> ...




I am currently travelling in the UK and showed a friend what sorb could do to  a Bose noise cancelling phone. Just sticking some on the back of the phones and top  of the headband took a  boomy phone and made it crisp and clear.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 27, 2017)

These damned Dt-150 grows more in me.... i dont know, because they are used one,if the 300 hours limits for their mandatory blossooming burn-in, indicated by Arttt review, were near completion, when i bought them, or not,but for the last 2 days my love for them is growing more, and, this is what i dont understand,the sound completely change for the better at each listening, hour after hour; the only explanation is *the sorbothane slowly gluing process *that takes many days to takes all effect and must be way less immediately manifest with them than with my HE-400 or Stax lambda .... ...I dont want to listen now to my he 400 nor my Stax lambda,they lack naturalness,3-d holographic reproduction, Stax has more artificial finesse yes,hifiman more shouting dynamic, and they are more fatiguing(he-400) or boring(stax lambda)... With the DT-150 all details are communicated organically linked with complete balance without any artificial analytical effects...I think they are on the same level of excellency than the Stax SR-5,one of the best tuned Stax by the opinions of more educated audiophile than me (By the way my remarks are only my listening subjective impressions, and not a critical assessment of the He-400 or of the Stax per se, my remarks are only a way to describe the extraordinary audio qualities of the DT-150 +sorb.+crystals for me)... I thanks God and many reviewers that convince me to buy these under the score cans...

The thing is that i love them so much, i decide to buy another Sansui amplifier that i dream of already, for sure at a bargain price... My Sansui AU-7700 already drive them from the headphone out without perceptible defect,silky mids like my SR-5 but with less honey flavor, punchy but not exagerated bass like my HE-400, unique imaging holographic, but mostly speaker-like restitution absent from Stax or HE-400, with absolutely no fatigue whatsoever...

I have bought 2 days ago the Sansui AU-X701 Alpha and i think this more modern audiophile sound will reveal the scaling potential of the DT-150 and takes them to other limit...The Alpha series amplifier apparently touch another level and were the culmination of all the audiophile research of the Sansui team... The 1976 Sansui AU-700 is tube like sound, a marvel to my ears with only superlative reviews all over the net.... Only to be , it seems, superseded by the 1986 Alpha for more realism...I cannot imagine how the DT-150 will sound from the headphone out ....I will verify what some here says when they ascertain the upscaling potential of the DT-150...Akg 701, Ath-m50, Stax SR-5, Stax lambda nova,He-400, are the headphone i know , none touch the realism and naturalness, and the musicality of the DT-150 for me... And if another headphone is better, and i dont doubt that there is some, at stratospheric price,then, is this so-called more audiophile headphone sound will be speaker-like also like the Beyer? My Stax are one of these audiophile cans and they are not speakerlike at all...More transparent, more refine,more airy, yes, not speakerlike,nor holographic 3-d image, nor natural either to my ears...Me i will never exhange realism and naturalness for any other audiophile characteristics whatsoever,i listen to music not to beautiful sounds....

If you dont like this Beyer, blame your dac,amp,or the synergy between them, the DT-150 sorbothanized+some crystals are for me TOTL at ridiculous price used...thanks to all of you ....I will report here for the new amp experience and the presumed scaling potential of the Dt-150...

P.S. Except the slow gluing process of the sorbothane, inside each cup of the DT-150, there is another explanation from the transformation of my listening experience of the DT-150... Yesterday i put , in a new experiment, 4 or 5 little quartz crystals square chunks , in the 2 opposite walls of each one of my piece of gear enclosure ,speakers,dac,amp,computer,power conditioner... (50 pieces in all)... The effect on the sound was way more clarity and transparency in my Mission ....I listen to my speakers at this time... When i turn my ears to the DT-150 in the evening the same effect have taken place ...But the effect on the DT-150 was in my system more astounding than with my speakers,more spectacular, and not in full fledge immediately ... Some may make sarcastic remarks about that, but without stones and crystals i know that no audio system is true to his potential and i say that after almost a year of experiments...

*Important remark*: Perhaps the astounding effect of my new installment of pink quartz crystals in my system, on my speakers listening first,and on my Dt-150, would have been spectacular also on the Stax lambda and the SR-5; i will not know because i have disconnected them from my system because of place restriction... Then my impression of the DT-150 are in no way an objective critical assessment about the Stax...Only an enthusiastic review impression of the DT-150 qualities compare in memory with my Stax past impressions ...

*LAST IMPRESSIONS*: It is now like the real first time that i hear natural shades of sound,very realistic musical timbre that are not given with my other headphone in all types of music and in all my cd... I have NO desire to go back with my other headphones, even if they give more clarity to the sound than the DT-150 and they give that, they dont give a natural shading and realistic sound for me,.... Listening to piano is very revelatory.... And remember that the DT-150 give ABSOLUTELY NO FATIGUE ...This speak volume about this cheap, completely under-dog headphone... Think about that :Tyll Hertsens has listen professionally to all headphone there is that are known, but not these one that exist for 50 years in all studios of the world and apparently he like them a lot....All the hype to sell costly headphone would not survive to this marvellous machine,if it was known, at her cost, that would kill upgraditis...I am afraid, very afraid to buy an another headphone under one thousand dollars now after hearing for the first time a realistic rendering of live musical experience... Without listen to them, absolutely not, and from the fact of diminushing returns, i dont want to go beyond DT-150...For a long time to come... I will wait graphene revolution....


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 26, 2017)

I received a large 5-inch 1.5lb quartz crystal from China today, and I have been experimenting with placing it on the back of my Burson headphone amplifier. Previously I only had a couple of 2-inch chunks of semi-clear rose quartz to play with. The rose quartz increases apparent volume and power. The larger crystal is amazing in its effect. It works on top of the amp, or hovering above it, up to 12 inches. Higher than that, and the effect disappears. The "effect' is deeper more extended bass, subjecively higher overall volume and increased clarity. When the crystal is removed, the sound becomes dull and flat by comparison. It also works very well when placed on the plugs coming out of the wall power outlet. I have blind-tested lots of people with 100% positive results for everyone who has tried. They are amazed, as I am. Like Richard says, the effect is so powerful anyone should be able to hear it.
On the subject of Sorbothane, has anyone tried any of the new materials made from nanocomposites of organic Montmorillonite clay and copolymers? The advantage of these materials is they are far more powerful vibration dampers due to the intercalation of the polymer into the clay galleries (spaces) found in the nanoparticles of OMMT clay. The net effect is more far more damping at molecular level, with far less thickness than Sorbothane. This means you can use a lot more of the material without over-damping effects, or resonances due to the mass of the compound itself. They are also much more attractive visually. They are more expensive, though.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 26, 2017)

Mogimu said:


> I received a large 5-inch 1.5lb quartz crystal from China today, and I have been experimenting with placing it on the back of my Burson headphone amplifier. Previously I only had a couple of 2-inch chunks of semi-clear rose quartz to play with. The rose quartz increases apparent volume and power. The larger crystal is amazing in its effect. It works on top of the amp, or hovering above it, up to 12 inches. Higher than that, and the effect disappears. The "effect' is deeper more extended bass, subjecively higher overall volume and increased clarity. When the crystal is removed, the sound becomes dull and flat by comparison. It also works very well when placed on the plugs coming out of the wall power outlet.  *for everyI have blind-tested lots of people with 100% positive resultsone who has tried*. They are amazed, as I am. Like Richard says, the effect is so powerful anyone should be able to hear it.
> On the subject of Sorbothane, has anyone tried any of the new materials made from nanocomposites of organic Montmorillonite clay and copolymers? The advantage of these materials is they are far more powerful vibration dampers due to the intercalation of the polymer into the clay galleries (spaces) found in the nanoparticles of OMMT clay. The net effect is more far more damping at molecular level, with far less thickness than Sorbothane. This means you can use a lot of the material without over-damping effects, or resonances due to the mass of the compound itself. They are also much more attractive visually. They are more expensive, though.



I am very impressed by your results....I will go with that nanocomposite  also....Not now because after purchasing the DT-150 and a new SAnsui alpha  Amplifier, my wife will kill me if i purchase anything this month .... I am glad that your experiment reproduce mine....

Remember that others stones and crystals act negatively or positively together, on all characteristics of the sound, imaging, soundstage, frequencies... the difficulty is to discover the right kind of materials in _the optimal location and synergy_ to obtain astounding results... Crystals are sometimes acting spectacularly, sometimes very subtle, its comes from the particular mass, shape, position of the crystals and the precise synergy with others stones at proximity...It is like changing a tube from a tube amplifier...but more complicate...Same  very audible effects...

Now  i suggest to you to try *Madagascar  banded agate* to compensate for the effect of the pink quartz, resulting in a more musical result...

By the way i dont have anybody to blindtest here, only my wife who mock my hobby, but  has  admitted however that all sound extraordinary better, and this speak more to me that blindtesting somebody , if you understand what i means! loll

 Mogimu what products do you recommend to try made from  nanocomposites of organic Montmorillonite clay and copolymers ?


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 26, 2017)

richard51 said:


> Mogimu what products do you recommend to try made from  nanocomposites of organic Montmorillonite clay and copolymers ?



Fo.Q tape model TA-32 which you can get on eBay from Japan for about $35, easily enough for 2 or 3 large pairs of headphones. It is thin, removable, pliable, attractive when applied and most of all, very powerful due to its nanocomposite molecular structure. There is another even more powerful material which I would only recommend to die-hards because it is non-removable. You can combine the two for spectacular results. More on that later.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 27, 2017)

Mogimu said:


> Fo.Q tape model TA-32 which you can get on eBay from Japan for about $35, easily enough for 2 or 3 large pairs of headphones. It is thin, removable, pliable, attractive when applied and most of all, very powerful due to its nanocomposite molecular structure. There is another even more powerful material which I would only recommend to die-hards because it is non-removable. You can combine the two for spectacular results. More on that later.


 Very interesting....I hope that you will come back here to report indeed....I want to read the rest of your story.... How is these 2 products you speak of different  compare to sorb.?

Here there is in spanish a comment of a very satisfied consumer of the F.O.Q product upgrade number TA-102
http://www.playstereo.com/en/altri-...ing-tape-for-tuning-ta-102-4582139490199.html

By the way i has never use so large chunks of pink quartz or other stones, i think it is better to mix 2 or 3 species of stones and crystals, hence better to have not too muck big pieces, the impact of my 50 pieces of pink quartz distributed all over my system was spectacular, and totalized around 1/2 lbs in all... My biggest pieces is the 240 gram banded agate of madagascar that i have place on top of the electrical panel.... I perhaps have around 15 pieces of agate distribuded , little pieces of variable size, the better for me is around 50 or 80 grams...Madagascar agate are  better for me than other agate kind...


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 27, 2017)

Thanks Richard for your detailed descriptions of your crystal experiments. I have not tried many combinations at all, compared to you. The good thing about the large crystal is really for experiment and research, and to confirm for myself that the effect is real, rather than the final sound quality. It is very, very obvious when the crystal is in place, and when it is not. It does improve the sound a lot already, but I'm very open to your ideas and I will try smaller pieces, Madagascar agate and tourmaline as soon as I can. Also on the power supply of the house, however I have modern panels which completely hide all the wiring which can not be accessed. Downstairs in the basement there is a huge power box, and I will try placing some crystals there as well.

Just in case anyone has viewed your link to the Spanish Fo.Q review, I would like to point out that the link shows TA-102 tape which is generally too thick for headphones except perhaps for use internally. The thin tape TA-32 is much better all-round and it is the one to get. Also as I said, if you buy from some Japanese sellers on eBay, you should be able to get some TA-32 for around $35 and very low postage. I have purchased about 10 packs already, for various uses. I'm still waiting for some of the packs to arrive.

i have found that the tape works well on all the headphones I have tested, particularly Audeze LCD-3. They were the first high-end phones I purchased, but I was very disappointed with their dark, almost muffled top-end. After I bought 2 other high quality phones, I decided to use some techniques which I have used on other audio gear such as amps and speakers, to see if the LCD-3s could be improved. After all, I was not using them at all any more. One of the techniques was to apply fo.Q tape internally and externally. I can report that LCD-3s can be vastly improved with the application of fo.Q tape, and completely transformed by using another technique which I don't want to suggest just yet. The reason I won't suggest it now is because it could result in damage to your headphones if you are not extremely careful. I will keep that suggestion until readers are ready to try something even more amazing than fo.Q. I don't want to be blamed for any disasters after only a few posts on Head-fi, haha.

With the fo.Q tape, it works amazingly well on the arms which join the headphone cups to the headband. Also all around the inside of the front baffle underneath the foam pads. Also all around the back of the headphones, underneath the back plate. You don't even see it in those locations, but you sure can hear it! I can't compare it to Sorbothane because I have not tried it. It's fair to say that Sorbothane is optimised for shock reduction, whereas fo.Q is optimised for molecular level vibration reduction.


----------



## richard51

Mogimu said:


> Just in case anyone has viewed your link to the Spanish Fo.Q review, I would like to point out that the link shows TA-102 tape which is generally too thick for headphones except perhaps for use internally. The thin tape TA-32 is much better all-round and it is the one to get. Also as I said, if you buy from some Japanese sellers on eBay, you should be able to get some TA-32 for around $35 and very low postage. I have purchased about 10 packs already, for various uses. I'm still waiting for some of the packs to arrive.
> 
> i have found that the tape works well on all the headphones I have tested, particularly Audeze LCD-3. They were the first high-end phones I purchased, but I was very disappointed with their dark, almost muffled top-end. After I bought 2 other high quality phones, I decided to use some techniques which I have used on other audio gear such as amps and speakers, to see if the LCD-3s could be improved. After all, I was not using them at all any more. One of the techniques was to apply fo.Q tape internally and externally. I can report that LCD-3s can be vastly improved with the application of fo.Q tape, and completely transformed by using another technique which I don't want to suggest just yet. The reason I won't suggest it now is because it could result in damage to your headphones if you are not extremely careful. I will keep that suggestion until readers are ready to try something even more amazing than fo.Q. I don't want to be blamed for any disasters after only a few posts on Head-fi, haha.
> 
> With the fo.Q tape, it works amazingly well on the arms which join the headphone cups to the headband. Also all around the inside of the front baffle underneath the foam pads. Also all around the back of the headphones, underneath the back plate. You don't even see it in those locations, but you sure can hear it! I can't compare it to Sorbothane because I have not tried it. It's fair to say that Sorbothane is optimised for shock reduction, whereas fo.Q is optimised for molecular level vibration reduction.



I must wait to buy them before a month(budget limitations) but i plan to try the Ta-102  glued on the exterior cups of my beyerdynamic DT-150,rather than inside where is the sorbothane, i think the 2 will complement one another, on the exterior the thickness will not cause problem...  Perhaps the  thin TA-32 woul be better? I want to buy the TA-102 because i plan to use the rest on an amplifier and thicker is surely better there than thinner....what do you think?


----------



## richard51 (Jul 27, 2017)

For all beginners that read this thread i recommend this* basic recipe* to experiment with:

* FIRST* :
Buy some *pink rose quartz *(some not too large chunks between 80 and 100 gram, 2 will do the job there+ 2 *polished banded madagascar agate *of the same size to complement the quartz, put them  all on top of the central electrical panel or some other pieces in a bag taped on the breaker of your audio room, or tape some crystals around the big electrical cable that go from the central electrical panel to your room....

*SECOND*:
If you want to treat your gear (dac, amplifier, power conditioner, speakers)

Buy 50 pieces of pink quartz crystals, glue them with blutak, 4 or 5 , one on each corner of the 2 side  panel  or on each front and rear panel, one in each corner and if you can, one in the center, like the figure of the  number five  on the face of a dice....

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Qua...32735208530.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.uqxAYI

To compensate and complement buy Banded agate madagascar, pieces around 80 grams +or-,put them on top of the transformer of the amplifier, or on the interconnect, etc on top of the dac etc to give a more musical results...



Experiment which your gear and REPORT here the results...

Best regards, thanks to all of you...

P.s. there is many more  and more delicate possibilitie but the basic i suggest will give immediate good results at low cost...

*Added remark*:
The use of crystals and stone can treat, modify, deplace the form of the soundstage, and can fine tunine the imaging of the speakers ...I will go with that when people after these basic will be ready to more...


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 27, 2017)

richard51 said:


> I must wait to buy them before a month(budget limitations) but i plan to try the Ta-102  glued on the exterior cups of my beyerdynamic DT-150,rather than inside where is the sorbothane, i think the 2 will complement one another, on the exterior the thickness will not cause problem...  Perhaps the  thin TA-32 woul be better? I want to buy the TA-102 because i plan to use the rest on an amplifier and thicker is surely better there than thinner....what do you think?


They both work well so it's your choice. I have not found that thicker is better on headphones. On amps or speakers the thicker version may be slightly better, but it is marginal. The thin version has a very good advantage because it can be wrapped around cables, power plugs and connectors where it really works well. The thick version tends to spring open if you try to wrap it around cables and connectors, but it still can be used. I suspect the thick version has more rubber content for shock absorbing but not necessarily more of the active nanocomposite. Vibration damping for audio devices is not the same as shock absorbing. Some amplifiers, turntables and speakers may need to be isolated from external shocks and vibrations, which is where Sorbothane should work extremely well. For low level mechanical vibration, resonance, thermal vibration or EMI/RFI induced vibration, you don't really need shock absorbing capability, or thick materials which will themselves resonate. For that you need extremely powerful vibration damping at molecular level, which is where thin nanocomposites come into play. If the polymer/clay nanocomposite has been prepared properly, the polymer chains penetrate into spaces (galleries) in the clay nanoparticles. The OMMT clay content drastically reduces the free movement of the long-chain polymer macromolecules which are trapped in the clay galleries. This causes friction and the vibration is turned into heat.


----------



## richard51

Mogimu said:


> They both work well so it's your choice. I have not found that thicker is better on headphones. On amps or speakers the thicker version may be slightly better, but it is marginal. The thin version has a very good advantage because it can be wrapped around cables, power plugs and connectors where it really works well. The thick version tends to spring open if you try to wrap it around cables and connectors, but it still can be used. I suspect the thick version has more rubber content for shock absorbing but not necessarily more of the active nanocomposite. Vibration damping for audio devices is not the same as shock absorbing. Some amplifiers, turntables and speakers may need to be isolated from external shocks and vibrations, which is where Sorbothane should work extremely well. For low level mechanical vibration, resonance, thermal vibration or EMI/RFI induced vibration, you don't really need shock absorbing capability, or thick materials which will themselves resonate. For that you need extremely powerful vibration damping at molecular level, which is where thin nanocomposites come into play. If the polymer/clay nanocomposite has been prepared properly, the polymer chains penetrate into spaces (galleries) in the clay nanoparticles. The OMMT clay content drastically reduces the free movement of the long-chain polymer macromolecules which are trapped in the clay galleries. This causes friction and the vibration is turned into heat.


 
Very very interesting.... i thank you very much for all this information... I will order the thin variety, in the weeks to come.....


----------



## Mogimu

It's incredibly important to treat the headband of the LCD-3, especially where it touches your head. Obviously without treatment vibrations transfer through the headband and into the skull, manifesting as the worst kind of cross-talk distortion. Fo.Q tape fixes the problem brilliantly (and makes the LCD-3 far more comfortable as a bonus), but be careful because upon removal it could easily strip the polish off the leather headband.


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 29, 2017)

Having read some of the technical data available for fo.Q products including their TA-32 tape, I have discovered that this particular material does not appear to use OMMT clay to achieve its effect. Here's the quote:
_This is a composite material grounded in a new technology in which a particulate piezoelectric material and a dielectric with a high permittivity are dispersed and mixed in a polymeric material._

In other words, it uses very tiny crystal particles to convert vibrations to electric current and heat. Another material that I may discuss at a later date (if there is any interest) does use OMMT clay.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 30, 2017)

Very interesting.... By the way ALL participant in here are VERY interested by discovering new way, and new products, i dare to speak in the name of all fellows here to say to you: GO on with us  here and  dont hesitate to speak about all  your experiment please....thanks more than very much...

I think that japan people are very audiophile people and very innovative... They use crystals in audio for a long time already (acoustic revive ) One exemple : _Sansui go on for almost 50 years in audio and the goal for their last  30 years  was reproducing their best  tube amplifier  sound (1966) in a  solid state version, they accomplish that after 30 years of continuous research_... Name one company in audio that have the same goal for 30 years ? Not an indefinite improvement goal, nor a general one, but a very difficult task  and precise one, finally accomplished before bankrupcy.....Read that review... this is astounding...

http://www.sansui.us/issues_AU111vsAL907MR.htm

Sansui Tube amplifier versus solid state amplifier


----------



## edstrelow

Mogimu said:


> It's incredibly important to treat the headband of the LCD-3, especially where it touches your head. Obviously without treatment vibrations transfer through the headband and into the skull, manifesting as the worst kind of cross-talk distortion. Fo.Q tape fixes the problem brilliantly (and makes the LCD-3 far more comfortable as a bonus), but be careful because upon removal it could easily strip the polish off the leather headband.



Cross-talk between the earcup drivers is being recognized  as an important issue for headphones.  Going back a few pages, I referred to Mitchell's measurements of this. He also noted that with some wiring setups you can get electrical cross talk as well.  See p26 of  http://www.politicalavenue.com/108642/US-MAGAZINES/Hi-Fi News - July 2016.pdf  in HiFi News and Record Review.  I assume that electrical crossfeed is worst with common ground wiring found in most dynamic phones, but not Stax electrostatics, which use separate grounds for each channel.  Sennheisser uses its mechanical damping material solely in the headband of the HD 800, according to their advertising. I see that their new and hyper expensive H1 uses a large swath of padding under its headband, which I assume also mechanically dampens the headband to prevent mechanical crosstalk.  Similarly there is one set of B& W and Audioquest phones that specify that their use of damping in the earcups addresses the crosstalk problem. I think they are missing part of the issue though which is that mechanical vibrations will affect the same side earcup even if there is no headband.  Thus I have found very large improvements of the sound of earbuds and IEMs by adding sorbothane damping and these of course have no headband at all   

You raise the question about crosstalk through bone conduction in the skull.  Certainly hearing can take place, skipping the ear and directly stimulating the the skull .or jawbone There are hearing aids designed to be used by bone conduction for people who get limited benefit from conventional hearing aids.  There are also a number of sports headphones which some people like because they keep drivers from blocking the ear.  

 I would think that if  the hard surface of the headband touches the skull you could indeed get bone conducted crossfeed.  However padding should stop most transmission to the skull.  But as I noted in this thread only some kinds of padding will reduce mechanical vibrations to the same-side earcup or create crossfeed to the opposite earcup through the headband.  So far my experiments say high density (i.e. 70 duro) thick ( 1/4 to 1/2 inch) sorbothane applied with self-stick tape or better glues such as the Lord line are the most effective.


----------



## Mogimu (Jul 31, 2017)

Thanks Ed for starting this discussion and for your regular contributions. It's only in the past week or two that I have become aware of the negative effects of cross-talk in headphones and the need to eliminate it. I'm planning an experiment tonight where I will apply fo.Q tape to my forehead and to my head near the back of my ears. If only I was bald I could take the experiment even further!


----------



## Mogimu (Aug 1, 2017)

Results are in for the promised fo.Q skull test. It works very well, but not well enough to balance the inconvenience of applying the tape. I found the best results to be applying a long strip just above the eyebrows, and on the exposed bone behind the ears. In fact anywhere where the skin is thin. It was no good at all on the backs of the ears themselves, in fact it detracted if placed there. A special ergonomically designed fo.Q head-cap without adhesive would be something I would like to try, if it existed.
While not practical, it does provide empirical evidence that a headband pressing down on the top of the head or around the ears could in practice transfer crosstalk distortion through the skull bones, and therefore may require damping treatment.


----------



## richard51 (Aug 14, 2017)

Putting one thin quartz stick alongside of each end of the interconnect between dac and amplifier and at the same time a circular madagascar agate ring under them, at each end, and 2 other madagascar agate ring on each speakers cable+a quartz stick under each of them  them push the sound  in my headphone to another level, and the DT-150 to a new  more precise imaging...  remember that all my system is crystallized...

Before that, at this same spots i has some other crystals that  precisely there restrict the dynamic, and give less clarity.... Madagascar agate and some quartz make wonders together....Remember that many stones does not act the same at each spot....I put these other stones at another place where they play more positive function.... Some stones makes thing  bad everywhere, for example turquoise is out  and impossible for me to use  in my audio system.... I must say that i am in love with Madagascar agate they always refine the sound and compliment the  pink quartz or the lemurian quartz... Certain stones are difficult to use correctly but are interesting, like Kyanite, or elite shungite, but DO NOT  begin with these stones, use them at the end of your crystals journey, before that you can  try some amethyst, or tourmaline with good results ... *If you buy only 4 kinds or varieties* it must be pink quartz or lemurian or tibetan *quartz , amethysts,varied pieces of black tourmaline and Madagascar  banded agate*, other kind  of agate will be good (brazil agate) but not good like Madagascar one. and the red agate was not very good at all  for example...


----------



## edstrelow

Mogimu said:


> Results are in for the promised fo.Q skull test. It works very well, but not well enough to balance the inconvenience of applying the tape. I found the best results to be applying a long strip just above the eyebrows, and on the exposed bone behind the ears. In fact anywhere where the skin is thin. It was no good at all on the backs of the ears themselves, in fact it detracted if placed there. A special ergonomically designed fo.Q head-cap without adhesive would be something I would like to try, if it existed.
> While not practical, it does provide empirical evidence that a headband pressing down on the top of the head or around the ears could in practice transfer crosstalk distortion through the skull bones, and therefore may require damping treatment.



I really can't follow what you are doing here.  I realize it is hard to present photos with the new Head-fi set-up, but these might make it clearer.  As regard the problem of transfer of mechanical energy from a headband to the skull, why not just put the tape on the headband or other part of the phones that comes in contact with the skull. This would seem a lot easier to do.  In practice I would have thought that just about any foam padding would be enough to block transmission to the skull.

I should compare the Ta 102 tape with sorbothane using my Stax SRXIII set-up. This has previously allowed me to determine what thickness and duro to use as well as the effects of different glues. I have several outer covers for these phones and can compare different damping materials by swapping the outer covers around a process which takes about 90 seconds. The Ta 102 seems rather expensive compared to similar sorbothane. Anyone care to send me 2 strips about 4" by 1/2"?


----------



## richard51 (Aug 2, 2017)

It will be very interesting.... i wait for that experiment....  Alas! i cannot afford  to spend money right now to experiment myself.... Thanks Ed...

P.s. I have already put 2 pieces of foam under the headband of the DT-150,+sorb. taped along the metal part of the headband... I dont think that i have much crosstalk...


----------



## Henery

I´m sorry but i don´t understand the reasoning behind putting that fo.Q tape on your skull. Resonances transmitted via structure are more problematic than ones transmitted through air. If you have succesfully damped all resonances on headphone structure, then i don´t see how headphone drivers emitted soundwaves hitting your skull could vibrate it so much for it to be audible problem.


----------



## Hutnicks

Henery said:


> I´m sorry but i don´t understand the reasoning behind putting that fo.Q tape on your skull. Resonances transmitted via structure are more problematic than ones transmitted through air. If you have succesfully damped all resonances on headphone structure, then i don´t see how headphone drivers emitted soundwaves hitting your skull could vibrate it so much for it to be audible problem.



Truthfully, if one takes care to acoustically decouple the cups from the headband the problem becomes a non issue at the source.


----------



## richard51

Hutnicks said:


> Truthfully, if one takes care to acoustically decouple the cups from the headband the problem becomes a non issue at the source.




i think that you are right.... sorb. taped on the headband will reduce crosstalk greatly.... But i think that the point of our new  creative friend Mogimu  is precisely demonstrate  the great extent  at which crosstalk affect the perception of music... and i think that his experiment is very interesting....


----------



## castleofargh

edstrelow said:


> Cross-talk between the earcup drivers is being recognized  as an important issue for headphones.  Going back a few pages, I referred to Mitchell's measurements of this. He also noted that with some wiring setups you can get electrical cross talk as well.  See p26 of  http://www.politicalavenue.com/108642/US-MAGAZINES/Hi-Fi News - July 2016.pdf  in HiFi News and Record Review.  I assume that electrical crossfeed is worst with common ground wiring found in most dynamic phones, but not Stax electrostatics, which use separate grounds for each channel.  Sennheisser uses its mechanical damping material solely in the headband of the HD 800, according to their advertising. I see that their new and hyper expensive H1 uses a large swath of padding under its headband, which I assume also mechanically dampens the headband to prevent mechanical crosstalk.  Similarly there is one set of B& W and Audioquest phones that specify that their use of damping in the earcups addresses the crosstalk problem. I think they are missing part of the issue though which is that mechanical vibrations will affect the same side earcup even if there is no headband.  Thus I have found very large improvements of the sound of earbuds and IEMs by adding sorbothane damping and these of course have no headband at all
> 
> You raise the question about crosstalk through bone conduction in the skull.  Certainly hearing can take place, skipping the ear and directly stimulating the the skull .or jawbone There are hearing aids designed to be used by bone conduction for people who get limited benefit from conventional hearing aids.  There are also a number of sports headphones which some people like because they keep drivers from blocking the ear.
> 
> I would think that if  the hard surface of the headband touches the skull you could indeed get bone conducted crossfeed.  However padding should stop most transmission to the skull.  But as I noted in this thread only some kinds of padding will reduce mechanical vibrations to the same-side earcup or create crossfeed to the opposite earcup through the headband.  So far my experiments say high density (i.e. 70 duro) thick ( 1/4 to 1/2 inch) sorbothane applied with self-stick tape or better glues such as the Lord line are the most effective.


thanks for the link, I found the thinking and process even more interesting than the test itself. I started reading this and looking at the measurements thinking the dude was on drug. I've never come remotely close to measure that sort of electrical crosstalk in my headphone even trying some really weird IEM cables on it. but then I turned on my second brain cell for a change and noticed how he went for a series of low impedance headphones(why?). that of course changes everything. the amp used here has a 100% chance of outputting worst crosstalk when plugged into a low impedance load. and same for the cable with relatively significant current flow in the circuit.

still if there is no big flaw in his testing, the vibrations do seem to be high enough to kind of matter (I tend to disregard crosstalk below -40dB because that's where I start to fail noticing it in an ABX). I expected this to happen but not to reach such magnitudes TBH. so now I admit I'm curious. and as I always end up picking comfy and light over good sound, it should greatly increases my chances of having vibration issues, I will add fooling around on this matter to my to-dio list.


----------



## Mogimu

edstrelow said:


> I really can't follow what you are doing here.  I realize it is hard to present photos with the new Head-fi set-up, but these might make it clearer.  As regard the problem of transfer of mechanical energy from a headband to the skull, why not just put the tape on the headband or other part of the phones that comes in contact with the skull. This would seem a lot easier to do.  In practice I would have thought that just about any foam padding would be enough to block transmission to the skull.
> 
> I should compare the Ta 102 tape with sorbothane using my Stax SRXIII set-up. This has previously allowed me to determine what thickness and duro to use as well as the effects of different glues. I have several outer covers for these phones and can compare different damping materials by swapping the outer covers around a process which takes about 90 seconds. The Ta 102 seems rather expensive compared to similar sorbothane. Anyone care to send me 2 strips about 4" by 1/2"?



Hi Ed - I will tke a look at the process involved in posting photos here in the near future. Meanwhile, in answer to your question about the point of my skull experiment : it is just an experiment, not a solution. I wanted to see if any significant vibrational energy is being transferred to the skull via the headband, even though the headband is already completely treated with fo.Q tape. My results suggest that it is, and that the sound is audibly improved by any measures taken to absorb vibrational energy between phones and skull, and even in the skull itself. Headphones are a special category of listening device because they make contact with your head, unlike speakers. They may require a new approach to vibration control.
I chose to use fo.Q tape rather than foam padding because of its ability to convert vibrational energy into heat. Foam would merely reflect the unwanted vibrations back into the headband, making the smearing and crosstalk worse throughout the entire headphone structure.
If you send me your mailing address via PM, I will send you the fo.Q tape samples you requested. I notice that you have been generous enough to have done the same for others earlier in this topic.


----------



## Mogimu (Aug 7, 2017)

Hutnicks said:


> Truthfully, if one takes care to acoustically decouple the cups from the headband the problem becomes a non issue at the source.


It may be very difficult to achieve complete acoustic decoupling of the headphones and headband. For example, Audeze LCD-3 phones appear to be reasonably adequately decoupled, with the use of a single screw to attach each earcup to the headband. However the headband still transfers significant vibrational energy into the skull resulting in audible distorion, which can be controlled to some extent with the use of specialized damping materials.
It's also important to remember that headphones and head are acoustically and mechanically coupled, and that vibrational energy transfer is a two-way process.


----------



## Hutnicks

Mogimu said:


> It may be very difficult to achieve complete acoustic decoupling of the headphones and headband. For example, Audeze LCD-3 phones appear to be reasonably adequately decoupled, with the use of a single screw to attach each earcup to the headband. However the headband still transfers significant vibrational energy into the skull resulting in audible distorion, which can be controlled to some extent with the use of specialized damping materials.
> It's also important to remember that headphones and head are acoustically and mechanically coupled, and that vibrational energy transfer is a two-way process.



Not the case. I have yet to see any phone that actually takes reasonable care to decouple the cups from the headband. Pet peeve of mine. Single screw or whatever if you take a few SECONDS of your time and a piece of metal tubing to make sorbo grommets for the cup attachments on any phone you will see a vast improvement. It is not much different from motor mounts in an automobile. Yet even the mightiest of manu's with their 5K a pop phones do not condecend to do this for the end user.

  This aint rocket science it is simple vibration decoupling which has been around since the middle ages. We have better materials now and yet we accept less than medieval technology for outrageous prices.

Putting damping materials on a headband itself is nothing more than putting on a condom after you have had sex.


----------



## Mogimu

Hutnicks said:


> Not the case. I have yet to see any phone that actually takes reasonable care to decouple the cups from the headband. Pet peeve of mine. Single screw or whatever if you take a few SECONDS of your time and a piece of metal tubing to make sorbo grommets for the cup attachments on any phone you will see a vast improvement. It is not much different from motor mounts in an automobile. Yet even the mightiest of manu's with their 5K a pop phones do not condecend to do this for the end user.
> 
> This aint rocket science it is simple vibration decoupling which has been around since the middle ages. We have better materials now and yet we accept less than medieval technology for outrageous prices.
> 
> Putting damping materials on a headband itself is nothing more than putting on a condom after you have had sex.


That's a great idea and I will try it. As I said in an earlier post, I have only become aware of the importance of the headband issue over the past couple of weeks. I don't see the point of your condom analogy though, since fo.Q tape on the headband actually works.


----------



## edstrelow (Aug 10, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> thanks for the link, I found the thinking and process even more interesting than the test itself. I started reading this and looking at the measurements thinking the dude was on drug. I've never come remotely close to measure that sort of electrical crosstalk in my headphone even trying some really weird IEM cables on it. but then I turned on my second brain cell for a change and noticed how he went for a series of low impedance headphones(why?). that of course changes everything. the amp used here has a 100% chance of outputting worst crosstalk when plugged into a low impedance load. and same for the cable with relatively significant current flow in the circuit.
> 
> still if there is no big flaw in his testing, the vibrations do seem to be high enough to kind of matter (I tend to disregard crosstalk below -40dB because that's where I start to fail noticing it in an ABX). I expected this to happen but not to reach such magnitudes TBH. so now I admit I'm curious. and as I always end up picking comfy and light over good sound, it should greatly increases my chances of having vibration issues, I will add fooling around on this matter to my to-dio list.


 I.i.


As I recall Mitchell's article ( the link has died) he was responding to a criticism of an earlier report that electrical crosstalk may have contaminated his measurements. I have emailed him a few times and he has been very helpful. Among other things he advised me to try constrained damping, i.e. backing the damping material with something, in my case a two layers of electrical tape. It improves the effectiveness of the damping material.


----------



## edstrelow

[QUOT


Hutnicks said:


> Not the case. I have yet to see any phone that actually takes reasonable care to decouple the cups from the headband. Pet peeve of mine. Single screw or whatever if you take a few SECONDS of your time and a piece of metal tubing to make sorbo grommets for the cup attachments on any phone you will see a vast improvement. It is not much different from motor mounts in an automobile. Yet even the mightiest of manu's with their 5K a pop phones do not condecend to do this for the end user.
> 
> This aint rocket science it is simple vibration decoupling which has been around since the middle ages. We have better materials now and yet we accept less than medieval technology for outrageous prices.
> 
> Putting damping materials on a headband itself is nothing more than putting on a condom after you have had sex.



I would suspect that if you put enough force on a sorbothane gromet to give you effective clamping of the earcups to the ear, the gromet would become compressed enough to act  like a solid object and still transmit vibrations.  I am not stating this as a fact but it would seem to be one of those things that you try and see how it works. 

Certainly Stax blew it with their SR007 by creating a headband of two metal strips and screwing them directly to the metal earcups.  

Even if you get rid of mechanical crosstalk, this is only part of the problem as you still have the degrading effect of the vibrations in the same-side earcup. One of my more interesting experiments was damping cheap earbuds which of course have no headband and yet still improved greatly with added sorbothane.


----------



## Mogimu

edstrelow said:


> [QUOT
> 
> 
> I would suspect that if you put enough force on a sorbothane gromet to give you effective clamping of the earcups to the ear, the gromet would become compressed enough to act  like a solid object and still transmit vibrations.  I am not stating this as a fact but it would seem to be one of those things that you try and see how it works.



My initial thoughts exactly. My experiments with a rudimentary grommet for the LCD-3 seem to confirm it. The fo.Q tape on the headband works much, much better, and is still effective with or without the grommet.


----------



## edstrelow (Aug 23, 2017)

I picked up a catalog and saw,"constrained layer damping" being advertised in a new Mobile Fidelity. turntable.  You may recall that Keith Mitchell advised me to do that with sorbothane.  What is it?


"Constrained-layer damping is a mechanical engineering technique for suppression of vibration. Typically a viscoelastic or other damping material, is sandwiched between two sheets of stiff materials that lack sufficient damping by themselves.
Constrained-layer damping - Wikipedia

Recall that sorbothane is a viscoelastic.
 For me constrained layer damping  meant backing the sorb with two layers of electrical tape.

Upon Googling the term further I see two speaker companies adding this to their speakers, ATC and KEF.

This is big news, speaker manufacturers are adding constrained layer  damping materials to their speakers, i.e. sorbothane or similar materials. I have been doing this for a while, I especially like 1/2 inch sorbothane on the front panel.  Here is a KEF advert. https://microwire.info/kef-ls50-wireless-complete-fully-active-system-singapore/


----------



## Henery

Italian loudspeaker manufacturer Sonus Faber uses viscoelastic driver de-coupling in some of their models. http://www.sonusfaber.com/en-us/products/the-sonus-faber . Some models, such as Lilium, use infra-woofer in separate mechanically de-coupled sub-chamber. Interesting vibration isolation ideas indeed.


----------



## edstrelow (Aug 28, 2017)

Double post.


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 3, 2017)

Re: Sonus Faber:  "The suspension system permits inhibiting the mechanical transmission of vibrations to the environment and consequently eliminates the creation of spurious resonance and sound feedback."

However it also uses vico-elastic (i.e. sorbothane or similar materials) in the cabinet.                        
"The double walls in okoume plywood with dual curvature are uncoupled by a “constriction damped” visco-insulating layer. The dual curvature increases rigidity compared to techniques used in the past, while the dampening eliminates the last traces of resonance."

So they are using a double dose of damping techniques. " Constriction damped"  sounds like "constrained layer damping."


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 8, 2017)

I came across another speaker manufacturer using " constrained layer damping." This is Epos and the discussion relates to their ST 15 speaker.

http://www.epos-loudspeakers.com/support/what-is-constrained-layer-damping/

Like most such reports they don't identify the damping material itself although they state that it is not specifically designed for this use. Probably they want to keep this information as a proprietary secret to give an advantage over competitors. Unlike most such reports they actually give some measurements of the vibrational damping they achieve. Unfortunately I can't open their pictures.

Quite some pages back I reported that putting backing onto sorbothane gave better results than unbacked sorb and I use backing on all my systems now. However I am simply using a double layer of electrical tape for backing. I compared tape vs metal clips on the headbands of Stax Lambdas and heard no advantage for the metal.  However I would not say that is definitive rather it is merely some data points on a complex problem.

If you google this issue you will come across various mechanical engineering studies. This pdf looked helpful.

https://factorydaily.com/fdattachs/fdattachs6/112616243210798.pdf


----------



## DangerClose

ok, I'm tired of searching, and I think the answer is actually in a T50rp thread, and was never asked or answered in this thread.

For sorbothane that doesn't come with self-adhesive, which side goes down?  Shiny side?  Or dull side?


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 11, 2017)

DangerClose said:


> ok, I'm tired of searching, and I think the answer is actually in a T50rp thread, and was never asked or answered in this thread.
> 
> For sorbothane that doesn't come with self-adhesive, which side goes down?  Shiny side?  Or dull side?


I never noticed this. My nonself-stick 1/2 inch has plastic film on both sides. Yours may have not had it on both sides, which is why one side is dull. I don't think it matters which side you glue.


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 10, 2017)

The Sorbothane site suggests cleaning whatever side you intend to glue with dish soap or alcohol first. Obviously it needs to be dry before you glue it.


----------



## DangerClose

edstrelow said:


> My nonself-stick 1/2 inch has plastic film on both sides. Yours may have not had it on both sides, which is why one dide is dull.


My non-stick sheet has plastic on both sides.

I assume the dull side would stick better, though maybe the shiny side would transfer the vibrations better.  Since the most annoying part of Sorbothane has been keeping it stuck on, I'll go with the dull side and will clean it good with the alcohol while trying a different adhesive.  I didn't alcohol it before since the pieces were fresh from the peeled plastic.  They seemed solid on there, but only lasted a few months if that.  

Apparently, most glues and adhesives can be very particular about working on hard plastics of various kinds, such as what headphone baffles are usually made out of, so that makes this twice as difficult since the glue/adhesive used has to work on both kinds of materials.  And then there's people on here who say don't use Super/Krazy Glue because it doesn't transfer the vibrations well, so I'm avoiding using that, for now.


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 11, 2017)

Sorbothane recommends an industrial glue, Lord 7650 which I have found to be very good  on 1/2 inch sorb which I cannot find in self-stick.  http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/data-sheets/103-Sorbothane-adhesive-recommendations.pdf     However you have to buy a minimum$75.00 order.  I have otherwise found self-stick very good. It uses an exceedingly thin double sided tape. I have wondered about buying some of this tape and applying it.

As I recall my observations about superglue, it was somewhat better on on bass but seemed to mess up the treble compared to self-stick. Sorbothane referred to using a flexible superglue, which I have never encountered.  Googling brings up this.     https://www.getfpv.com/insta-flex-f...MIqZ3UoMOc1gIVHLXACh0qvQFFEAQYAiABEgLxsvD_BwE


----------



## Hutnicks

edstrelow said:


> Sorbothane recommends an industrial glue, Lord 7650 which I have found to be very good  on 1/2 inch sorb which I cannot find in self-stick.  http://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/data-sheets/103-Sorbothane-adhesive-recommendations.pdf     However you have to buy a minimum$75.00 order.  I have otherwise found self-stick very good. It uses an exceedingly thin double sided tape. I have wondered about buying some of this tape and applying it.
> 
> As I recall my observations about superglue, it was somewhat better on on bass but seemed to mess up the treble compared to self-stick. Sorbothane referred to using a flexible superglue, which I have never encountered.  Googling brings up this.     https://www.getfpv.com/insta-flex-f...MIqZ3UoMOc1gIVHLXACh0qvQFFEAQYAiABEgLxsvD_BwE



Ahother possibility is Bicycle tyre tape used to hold tubular tyres on to aluminum or carbon rims. Fairly pricey but if you have a local bike shop they may have odds n sods left over from mounting tyres.


----------



## Jaab

I don't know if this can help, I used in my last mode Aleene's tack-it over & over, I was not very tempted to try (I read about it) but I have been surprise by his strench, it stick well to sorbo and stay always soft
just apply the glue (white color) wait it become transparent and place your sorbo (you can wait all night or even more before  you place your sorbo piece). It's ideal to stick pads on headphones.
(My last advice about silicone glue resulted awful,  sorry!)


----------



## chrismini

richard51 said:


> You prey on them on ebay when the price is under 7 dollars...You wait and with time you will have them for a cheap price...the price is relative also to the beauty of the stone, and his weigth...But remember that it is better if you buy different kind of  stones and crystals not only one species...But the  banded madagascar agate are not only beautiful but very transformative of the sound in a spectacular way( more positive change than any tube i bought for my last tube amplifier), and it is my favorite one, love at first sight!...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard my friend. Are you still out there?


----------



## richard51

chrismini said:


> Hello Richard my friend. Are you still out there?


Yes Chrismini.... i hope that all is right for you...

Have you try the agate?


----------



## richard51 (Sep 20, 2017)

I want to thank you Mogimu .... This F.oq tape works marvel with my headphone Beyerdynamic Dt 150,( i will later treat my stax and he-400) works marvel with all  my cables, even the battery cable of my dac,and the Panamax power station, it works also good with the amplifier, but not so if directly glued on  the speakers because they are already heavily damped with a sandwich of  sorbothane, bamboo,cork,and  granite plate, with on top a heavy load of concrete ,hence using the tape glued on the speakers with all that kills some dynamic .... I think that damping is optimalized if not applied too much... Next i will try my new dac(french 2-r2 dac for 20 bucks on ebay,lucky i am) in the next week...With the dac i think this tape would do marvel also.... I now use with great success, sorbothane, and stones and crystals, and F.oq tape.... The tape seems to clean  equally all frequencies,but especially higher frequencies,greatly enhancing imaging and the aura of each sound....  Anyway if your speakers are not damped like mine i suggest you  try it with them ... This tape makes miraculous cure and complement greatly  the sorb. and the crystals and stones... I recommend it to all people.... I am very pleased to have cross your road, Mogimu, thanks thousand times for your suggestion and ideas...  Without this Edstrelow thread of new ideas and experimental motivation i know that my audio system would never have satisfied me like it did now...Thanks to all of you...

*P.s.* Experiment gradually with some pieces one at a time, with small bands more than with bigger one in one swoop...This will optimalize cumulatively the damping effect exactly for your systems...However  the action of the tape is clearly there, especially on the cables and interconnects, the action is cumulative, like a cleaning across all frequencies, but the tape is not a replacement for the sorbothane in the headphone or in the speakers, they dont act the same, nor a replacement for my  powerful stones and crystals, sorb. and crystals are more powerful but more difficult to use, because stones and crystals act synergetically and if not choosen rightly can degrade the sound....But i cannot go on without this tape now, particularly on all my cables, that give me a clarity in the depth imaging that i dont have with other means...If you apply it  on one cable at a time, you will hear a cumulative resulting  effect...The greatest effect of this tape are on the cables of each element from the computer to the dac: the usb isolator and the spdif/usb convertor and the cable connection to the dac and the speakers cable...Astounding better atmospherical sound...i cannot put sorb. at these  cables spots nor stones or crystals that produce this level of atmospherical cleanliness and definition...But for example deplacing only one stone around each of my speakers transform the _ global form of my soundstage in a totally new immersive one_, the tape does not do that by himself, but trust me, help greatly for that surprising final result... At the end for the amplifier or the central electrical panel the tape cannot tame all  the flow of electrical and mechanical noise and vibrations, stones and crystals does already  that and putting the tape directly on the amplifier is only a subtle plus,  because it act way better on the many cables of the amplifier ...
_
In one simplistic word, the stones affect more the timbre and the soundstage, than the global cleanliness and clarity; the tape affect more the global clarity of the sound than the materiality of the timbre and the form of the  soundstage_...

For note my system use around 25 different species and varietes of crystals and stones, 3 are particularly extraordinary, the  banded agate of madagascar, the tourmaline, and the shungite, but the shungite dont touch almost none of the elements of my system and act by his  own field only, is very potent and difficult to use in the right manner...I know some will laugh but i dont give a damn.... I must say here what i experiment about....

*Update*:
Incredibly i just put at last  3 separated  large bands of tape on the big  electrical one inch cable(already treated by jasper stones) that goes from the central electrical panel (already treated with agate and crystals) in my basement to the second floor of my house, hence completely upstream of my system, and the results were way more cleanliness on top of the already very spectacular effect of the stones.... This is the most spectacular effect of this tape and the last application i implement... Lesson i learn already with the crystals and stones: *the more you act upstream the less noise there is* ...Wow...

*Second update* :
 To the one band of tape  already there i added  2 more  thin bands of tape around the isolator cable between the computer and the rest of my gear and that  made  large audible differences, a sort of 3-d liveliness that was not completely there before... This is my last application and seems to be, with the previous  application on the big electrical cable of the central panel, the two best ones, like i have said it seems  the more upstream app. has the more potent effect on the sound ...All my cables and interconnect are now with 2 or 3 bands of tape at either side....

*Third Update*:
If your headphone or speakers are already damped with sorbothane, go on very slowly with the F.oq tape... There can be too much damping and negative interaction if you use the tape to stick it directly on the headphone or the speakers already damped by the sorb.   It is very remarkable that with ALL CABLES the tape do a very good job.... I cannot live without it now.... But if your headphones or speakers are already adequately damped use the tape only on cables...On my amplifier wich is already damped the effect was not particularly noticeable or even positive, without being negative for sure, hence this is my only reserve precaution about this tape....On *ALL cables* this tape is remarkably efficient.... Things with enclosure and complex electronic content: headphone,speakers, amplifiers,etc, are prone to electro-magnetic interferences and  mechanical resonant vibrations but all these  mechanical vibrations of the enclosure  are best deal  first with sorbothane or other damping method combined  and EMI by stones and crystals; but cables have no big  enclosure containing many electronic source of electro-magnetic and mechanical noises like speakers or headphones cups, hence less  negative resonance problems, but cable vibrates because of EMI also and for this  adverse electrical noise _on cable location_ the tape do a job which is astounding,better there than stones and crystals, be it:  electrical cable, audio cables, interconnect, speakers cables, headphone cables etc...* Buy it*...

*A final remark*:
I think now that the astounding effect of stones and crystals is not only a damping effect but also a kind of _filtering effect_, on a designed spot where they are put in place, of the global electro-magnetic interaction field of all  pieces of interacting audio components...It is like my different stones, like  tourmaline, lava beads,kyanite,jasper,labradorite, varieties of quartz,amethysts,agate,shungite etc acted like many complementary filters on a blended and mixed interactive fields,composed of all my gear system+  many interacting external fields...  For this useful cleanliness function-job, nor sorb. neither the tape replace them in my experience....I must say in a final cautionary word that i am no scientist and my explanation are only words and metaphors that try to grasp my lived experience  and experiments with no pretense whatsoever...Perhaps and certainly my so called "explanations" here are very "naive" but without using them it will not  be possible for me to convey to you my experience at all, hence i apologize to any  real scientist for my rant...Explanations or not, crystals and stones interact  negatively or positively with the audio gear, _*this is a fact waiting for a true and more thorough explanation*_,the rest is speculation indeed...

*Conclusion*:
I dont recognize any of my cd anymore, they sound suddenly so organically musical, and finally after all these  years of search i know it is possible to have high level audio experience with a not too high cost system.Some company promise exactly that with for example a power supply in the thousand dollars level;  it is possible to mimic that with stones and crystals and tape, finally for less, i cannot afford one thousand dollars power supply for a 100 bucks vintage amp after all, so good it is, and my Sansui is goddam good... This tape was the _missing element_ necessary for that experience because *cables are not so easy to be rightly damped* with sorb. or stones or crystals,unlike amp. or dac or power station or electrical panel or speakers or headphones which are themselves easily damped with sorb. + crystals and stones and with others complementary damping materials i also use, like cork,granite, bamboo,concrete, etc...The effect of the tape is finally an enhancement of all my stones and crystals tweaks that are now  more audible in their  stupendous action...

Remember that in the audio journey the more spectacular changes are paradoxically  the more subtle ones because they occur at the end of the trials and give to you at last, after all that cumulative action, the most organic musicality...

*Remarks about another subject* :
 I read on some other forum a thread about a new dac, it was no surprise to me that nobody experiment exactly the same impressions with the same dac....What surprise me  is that people seems  not to understand, and sometimes does not want to understand, that  *room treatment,elimination of vibrations, and  controls of EMI are more important for their system than buying a  more expansive dac... *(But i must remember that it was the same for me before i stumble on this thread and begin to experiment  ). They have expansive and probably very good gear already but  without  adequate room treatment, and  they are not using adequate damping method, they are not conscious about EMI interference, and they put all their  audio hopes in the desesperate move to buy without end the newer plug-in and listen solution...I was like that, exactly like that in the beginning of my journey, before the new counciousness installed in me by the lecture of the Edstrelow experiments thread ... Now i know that hype and the price of gear are not the warrent of a satisfying audiophile experience...Thinking and experimenting after  studying the ideas of others is the key to audio heaven.... I dont have much money to begins with,  hence this road was my only possible road...And after all i only want to listen to music but with a good sound-carrier system ,and i have it now...


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I want to thank you Mogimu .... This F.oq tape works marvel with my headphone Beyerdynamic Dt 150,( i will later treat my stax and he-400) works marvel with all  my cables, even the battery cable of my dac,and the Panamax power station, it works also good with the amplifier, but not so if directly glued on  the speakers because they are already heavily damped with a sandwich of  sorbothane, bamboo,cork,and  granite plate, with on top a heavy load of concrete ,hence using the tape glued on the speakers with all that kills some dynamic .... I think that damping is optimalized if not applied too much... Next i will try my new dac(french 2-r2 dac for 20 bucks on ebay,lucky i am) in the next week...With the dac i think this tape would do marvel also.... I now use with great success, sorbothane, and stones and crystals, and F.oq tape.... The tape seems to clean  equally all frequencies,but especially higher frequencies,greatly enhancing imaging and the aura of each sound....  Anyway if your speakers are not damped like mine i suggest you  try it with them ... This tape makes miraculous cure and complement greatly  the sorb. and the crystals and stones... I recommend it to all people.... I am very pleased to have cross your road, Mogimu, thanks thousand times for your suggestion and ideas...  Without this Edstrelow thread of new ideas and experimental motivation i know that my audio system would never have satisfied me like it did now...Thanks to all of you...
> 
> *P.s.* Experiment gradually with some pieces one at a time, with small bands more than with bigger one in one swoop...This will optimalize cumulatively the damping effect exactly for your systems...However  the action of the tape is clearly there, especially on the cables and interconnects, the action is cumulative, like a cleaning across all frequencies, but the tape is not a replacement for the sorbothane in the headphone or in the speakers, they dont act the same, nor a replacement for my  powerful stones and crystals, sorb. and crystals are more powerful but more difficult to use, because stones and crystals act synergetically and if not choosen rightly can degrade the sound....But i cannot go on without this tape now, particularly on all my cables, that give me a clarity in the depth imaging that i dont have with other means...If you apply it  on one cable at a time, you will hear a cumulative resulting  effect...The greatest effect of this tape are on the cables of each element from the computer to the dac: the usb isolator and the spdif/usb convertor and the cable connection to the dac and the speakers cable...Astounding better atmospherical sound...i cannot put sorb. at these  cables spots nor stones or crystals that produce this level of atmospherical cleanliness and definition...But for example deplacing only one stone around each of my speakers transform the _ global form of my soundstage in a totally new immersive one_, the tape does not do that by himself, but trust me, help greatly for that surprising final result... At the end for the amplifier or the central electrical panel the tape cannot tame all  the flow of electrical and mechanical noise and vibrations, stones and crystals does already  that and putting the tape directly on the amplifier is only a subtle plus,  because it act way better on the many cables of the amplifier ...
> _
> ...


----------



## edstrelow (Sep 23, 2017)

I take your point Richard51 about the degree of sonic improvement you can get from some of these comparatively inexpensive modifications. I was listening to an old recording of Bryn Terfel doing English songs on my heavily damped Stax Lambdas both 404 and LNS.  I had liked some of this but as with many opera signers, the voice doesn't play back well and I hadn't listened to this recording in some years. Now I realized that this is very good recording, his voice is beautiful, his technique immaculate and some of the songs brought me to tears.   The DACs were older Musical Fidelity, the CD players a cheap Sherwood however with sorb damping on the circuit boards and on the cd clamp as I have noted  previously,a few pages back.


----------



## richard51 (Sep 24, 2017)

edstrelow said:


> I take your point Richard51 about the degree of sonic improvement you can get from some of these comparatively inexpensive modifications. I was listening to an old recording of Bryn Terfel doing English songs on my heavily damped Stax Lambdas both 404 and LNS.  I had liked some of this but as with many opera signers, the voice doesn't play back well and I hadn't listened to this recording in some years. Now I realized that this is very good recording, his voice is beautiful, his technique immaculate and some of the songs brought me to tears.   The DACs were older Musical Fidelity, the CD players a cheap Sherwood however with sorb damping on the circuit boards and on the cd clamp as I have noted  previously,a few pages back.




Exactly my experience....Some cd i have not appreciated much because they seems to sound worse than average  often  has only reflected  the bad shape of my non-damped system at this time.... What i discover now is that an old stax system that were TOTL 30 years ago or more, a  vintage amplifier or  vintage headphone is always TOTL today, in his relatively similar  bracket price, if it is rightly damped...Thanks Ed


----------



## richard51 (Oct 2, 2017)

I have received my little NOS(non oversampling) *french mini Dac TDA 1543 of designer Christophe Mariac*... I have bidded and won it on ebay,lucky me , for 20 bucks, it is the dac2,or version 2 without the usb... I connect it from a 12 volt lithium battery and by optical to an Hifimediy convertor and isolator from my computer(all damped by sorb. Fo.Q tape and stones).... The Beresford Bushmaster mkII dac i own already was good but is a bit less natural in the musical timbre and a bit less holographic in the imaging relatively to this dac in my system... In one word i am very pleased by this extraordinary purchase.... I must say that my system, like  mostly all of you readers  here already know, (aka _all my pieces of gear_) are rightly and totally damped with Fo.Q tape for all cables, with sorbothane and other materials and concrete load, and also treated with stones and crystals of my own design that modify also the sound of each one of my piece of audio according to their synergy and according to my taste....I must say and repeat myself that almost all people alas! buy costly so-called upgrade products before thinking to damp adequately their system and without treating their room if they have speakers, hence all reviews of any product is in general plague by ignorance of the unique synergetic links of all system parts,plague also by ignorance of the destructive impact of all vibrations and EMI, hence _all reviews are at best highly relative impressions_... After saying that with caution, my review of this dac is that it sound _*in my system*_ without any defective or negative trait at all and is indeed  more than a very good product by virtue of _his minimal  design_ and cost...But maybe it will not be exactly this way in your system, or so astounding,certainly not if your system is not damped nor treated for EMI...

I cannot dream to upgrade and exhange this dac for a costlier one, first  because _a real upgrade_ to this dac must be very, very costlier indeed and secondly because the price will not be commensurate with my own vintage amplifier and vintage speakers, that are astoundingly good for a ridiculous price (buying vintage is the solution for the poor audiophile because one of the best amplifier in 1978 is also an extraordinary product today).... Then at the  end this remarkable product will be one of my favorite dac for years to come....

*UPDATE*:
After some break-in hours at first,  it seems impossible to go back to my excellent Bushmaster....Nos dac are way more natural sounding, this dac is the less costlier of all 2-r2 nos dac  and is truly marvellous in a damped system...More lows, better musical highs,more natural musical timbre,seems a  little bit more holographic in imaging because of the more musically contrasted timbre of each instrument compared to one another,each one better located in their own space... How lucky i am !  Finally if you want a microscope to see  sounds "plankton" more than hearing the organic flow of music, this dac is not for you,_ this dac convey plenty of details but never at the price of organic musicality...._

*UPDATE 2* : It takes more than 30 hours of break-in to lift the slight compression in the mids frequencies, the sound now is absolutely  without fault to my ears and in my system and better than my other dac in the sense of being more natural with the same level of details and a better imaging,  each instrument sound more in his own space, the timbre are more realistic with no artificial digital compression i easily detect now that i can listen  and compare with  another  kind of dac, there is no fatigue at all at any volume  .... *incredible bargain  *even at his normal 100 bucks bidding  price on ebay  .... There will be no going back to oversampling dac for me...

*UPDATE 3* : The break-in process stabilize only after approximatively 100 hours... Before that any review will not be totally a good testimony to this "over the roof cost/quality" dac... It is the best bargain that i have ever stumble to....There will never be another oversampling dac for me.... With this non-oversampling  dac you listen to music not to sound....The experience must be lived to be understood... 
*

A* *remark*:
The most synergetical pairing with this Nos dac would be indeed  with a very analytical amplifier( i think for example that my Sansui AU-x701 will  be a  better pairing with it  than my now  connected AU 7700) and some not too dark headphone, _if your system is only a little bit muddy this dac will not make thing better "per se"_, hence it is necessary to damp your system to appreciate his strongest musical points...In the future i will connect it to my most analitycal Sansui, and put back the Bushmaster with the 7700 with which there is a good match or perhaps buy another mini battery dac i think ( i want 2  complementary functional audio systems one for Staxes and one for orthos or dynamic cans)... _In audio, synergy is half the solution, damping and cleaning EMI, the other half;_ the rest, if there is one, , is some TOTL products  only real money can buy, and sometimes totl product at low cost like this dac....

 I put sorbothane sandwich under the feet and on top of it, some sorb. with a heavy load, i put a little bit of Fo.Q tape bands  on the dac, with bands of tape around the cables,with some agate stones near it and kambaba jasper stones, i connect it to my lithium battery itself damped,"et voila" ...


For the sake of all, a photo of this little marvel in the nude state of his creation:


----------



## edstrelow (Oct 7, 2017)

Following up some of the comments about fo.q, I found this review of several of their products.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0109/fo_q_audio_dampening.htm

They appear to be using sorbothane type materials, I see the reference to polymers, which is what sorb is.  However they add other materials in their products such as wood and ceramics, claiming that these add to the performance.

The prices seem very high, $230.00 for a record stabilizer, essentially a small puck to place on an lp while it is playing.  And even though the reviewer is enthusiastic about these products, he distinctly downplays their effectiveness i.e. "two percent differences."  Now in my experience a good sorbothane based mod gives a damn sight more than a 2% difference and you are only spending a few dollars. 

So while these products may be useful, I wonder about cost-effectiveness.

Part of what I like about my own sorb experiments, is that you can play with properties like density (called duro) and thickness, my own recommendations being to go with the thickest and densest sorb you can install.  I wonder if all the fos.q people did with their addition of ceramics and wood to the polymers could have been achieved more easily by using denser polymer.

The bottom line here is that this seems like an expensive set of products to achieve what may be done more effectively with properly chosen sorbothane. Still, I am glad to see such products coming out since they draw attention to the importance of vibration control in audio.

Here is another review. http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php...ts-and-ab-4045-audio-board-isolation-platform.  

This is somewhat more enthusiastic but still the cost issues remain. Interestingly I note that he finds no benefits as applied to speakers, while I find that sorbothane,  especially 1/2 70 duro is quite effective.


----------



## richard51 (Oct 8, 2017)

I am perfectly in the same boat than you about the low cost effectiveness of sorbothane and the Fo.Q tape does not replace it by any means in my own experience.... But it is impossible to wrap sorbothane around cable, and for that the Fo.Q tape itself  is not too pricey for what it gives, a way to damp the cable, i have  great satisfaction with it , and damped all my cable for 45 bucks.... But Ed you are right for their costly  plate for example , sorb. sandwich do the job at a better cost for me.... The tape is  truly useful ONLY for the cable in my experiments....

For speakers for example the tape is of no use compare to the sorbothane, and i tried it....But around  audio cables, interconnects,electrical cables, sorb. is of no use.... Me i use sorbothane + other materials , Fo.Q tape, crystals and many stones to damp and to clean my system, and *this all 3 methods are complementary*,_none make all  by itself and can replace the others..._


----------



## edstrelow

richard51 said:


> I am perfectly in the same boat than you about the low cost effectiveness of sorbothane and the Fo.Q tape does not replace it by any means in my own experience.... But it is impossible to wrap sorbothane around cable, and for that the Fo.Q tape itself  is not too pricey for what it gives, a way to damp the cable, i have  great satisfaction with it , and damped all my cable for 45 bucks.... But Ed you are right for their costly  plate for example , sorb. sandwich do the job at a better cost for me.... The tape is  truly useful ONLY for the cable in my experiments....
> 
> For speakers for example the tape is of no use compare to the sorbothane, and i tried it....But around  audio cables, interconnects,electrical cables, sorb. is of no use.... Me i use sorbothane + other materials , Fo.Q tape, crystals and many stones to damp and to clean my system, and *this all 3 methods are complementary*,_none make all  by itself and can replace the others..._




Funny you should say that about wrapping sorb around cables. Here is what I started doing a week or so back.   


 Just putting  4 little strips of 1/10 inch 70 duro sorb on the plugs of my interconnects including the optical ones.   This works really well.  The usual wait for a day or so for the glue to adhere properly, but by 2-3 days there is a big increase in clarity.   

The other day I was listening to my bedroom set-up tweaked this way and a jazz vocal was so realistic I thought someone was in the room with me. The hair rose on my head like there was a ghost in the room.  I have never had this happen before although I have certainly had some very realistic  soundstaging with speakers, especially with my big Polk SDA speakers downstairs which eliminate the phantom channels created by speakers when the left channel feed the right ear and the right feeds the left.   These can give a very realistic sense of being in concert hall or studio, but the phenomenon above was that the woman was in my bedroom with me!


----------



## richard51 (Oct 9, 2017)

wow! Very interesting idea... thanks ed, i will try that and perhaps some electrical tape around to compress it and keep it firmly in place.... i just ordered the 1/10 inches duro 70 sorb....


----------



## richard51 (Oct 9, 2017)

And Ed if you allow me to outbid you....Standing before my speakers (near-listening position) now and listening, my head is in between the jazz insturmentists, and the sound is absolutely not between the 2 speakers but flow encompassing my head and each and every one instrument perfectly living in his own space and my body living with them ....

These 3 methods  of eliminating mechanical, and electromagnetical noise, by damping and filterering it, pay much, and this Starting Point Systems NOS battery dac2 is  one of the more upgrading thing i have experience, then no more sampling dac for me.... Buy one...


----------



## castleofargh

edstrelow said:


> Funny you should say that about wrapping sorb around cables. Here is what I started doing a week or so back.    Just putting  4 little strips of 1/10 inch 70 duro sorb on the plugs of my interconnects including the optical ones.   This works really well.  The usual wait for a day or so for the glue to adhere properly, but by 2-3 days there is a big increase in clarity.
> 
> The other day I was listening to my bedroom set-up tweaked this way and a jazz vocal was so realistic I thought someone was in the room with me. The hair rose on my head like there was a ghost in the room.  I have never had this happen before although I have certainly had some very realistic  soundstaging with speakers, especially with my big Polk SDA speakers downstairs which eliminate the phantom channels created by speakers when the left channel feed the right ear and the right feeds the left.   These can give a very realistic sense of being in concert hall or studio, but the phenomenon above was that the woman was in my bedroom with me!


are you jumping around like crazy in your house that you feel the need to mechanically dampen even a plug?


----------



## richard51 (Oct 9, 2017)

Here we experiment with different  low cost methods for damping.....nobody jump around like crazy....Is it scientifically unsound to damp something?




castleofargh said:


> are you jumping around like crazy in your house that you feel the need to mechanically dampen even a plug?


----------



## castleofargh

well, trying to mechanically dampen a non moving part does make me wonder about the intent.


----------



## richard51

Perhaps your concept of " non moving part" are too restricted....


----------



## richard51 (Oct 21, 2017)

I bought for less than 2 hundred bucks the AKG k 340.... When i listen to them stock form i was very attentive to their potential, but i detect some boomy resonance then i immediately damp them with some Fo.Q tape , around the cups and on the cable....the effect was more clarity, less boomy...But it was not enough, the sound lack natural,*You must also damp them with self-gluing pieces of sorbothane duro 70*, tighten with electrical tape around each 2 pieces, put around each plastic square on top of the cups, the change for the better is amazing....I drill a hole in the plastic grids and glued some piece of feminine silk socks on them. I put off all the old wool inside the cups....After that i plug them in my Sansui AU-7700....

Wow! they trounce in sheer_ relaxing_ musicality all my other headphones,and are on par with my Stax Sr-5, and beyer dt150, ...They have good bass, vocal perfect reproduction(not for basshead tough)but more than that they are the more relaxing sounding headphone i have heard....I dont want to buy more than 1000 dollars headphone.... I thought that i almost have one now...If not, nevermind! why more expansive one if you have true music finally....


----------



## edstrelow (Oct 21, 2017)

castleofargh said:


> well, trying to mechanically dampen a non moving part does make me wonder about the intent.


A number of companies have been applying sorbothane on what you consider non-moving parts including Naim and Schitt. The last was told me in person by one of their engineers at a Canjam a few years back who told me that they had a custom order with Sorbothane. The issue as far as I can tell is microphonics, 

" Microphonics or microphony describes the phenomenon wherein certain components in electronic devices transform mechanical vibrations into an undesired electrical signal (noise). The term comes from analogy with a microphone, which is intentionally designed to convert vibrations to electrical signals."    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics

The vibrations would come from the spinning disc of a cd player. I still have  portable cd players and you can easily feel the vibrations when playing, even though there is no obvious defect of the mechanism. I am sure the same happens with large scale players, their added mass keeps some but not all of the vibration under control.  There is also the issue of  hum of a transformer. This was one of the reasons many designers went toroidal transformers.  Additionally when speakers are used there is vibration in the air.  I would suggest that connectors are especially prone to even small vibrations because they make only a physical contact with sockets and could wobble. If connectors were soldered and hard-wired in placed, I would not expect there to be an issue.

As I noted previously, the super high end  SME turntable uses both high mass and talks in some detail about the need for damping.  Mobile Fidelity references viscoelastic damping. Of the two, sorbothane, which is a viscoelastic is much cheaper than adding mass.

At any rate the only real test is to try it and see or hear. It cost about ten cents in sorbothane so why not?


----------



## richard51 (Oct 23, 2017)

Ed i have tried the sorbothane on all my connectors headphone with evident and very surprizing  results that confirm your owns.... Thanks infinitely...

The effect of putting 3 or 4 pieces of sorb on a headphone connector is totally amazing, particularly for my akg k 340, that i loved very much but that are difficult to tweak, and difficult to amplify  with good synergy... I stick them tighly in place with electrical tape to compress them a little....It takes 2 days to settle....What a great tweak....I cannot thank you enough....The Akg k 340 of all my headphone is the one that gain most to be damped....

UPDATE:
Always remember that the adhesive power of the sorb. takes in fact more than 2 days to takes his optimal effect,  but now after few days, the damping potential of the sorb. has completely transformed my K340 in something i love really more than anything....I must wait to damp the interior of the cups with a new order of sorb.....Sorbothane is truly transformative of all my headphone and of my speakers....Also it is a pity than nobody use stones or crystals to treat their system( my dac that i treat with many more of the right stones in the last days touch another level now) ....I am completely in love with mine now....


----------



## castleofargh

edstrelow said:


> A number of companies have been applying sorbothane on what you consider non-moving parts including Naim and Schitt. The last was told me in person by one of their engineers at a Canjam a few years back who told me that they had a custom order with Sorbothane. The issue as far as I can tell is microphonics,
> 
> " Microphonics or microphony describes the phenomenon wherein certain components in electronic devices transform mechanical vibrations into an undesired electrical signal (noise). The term comes from analogy with a microphone, which is intentionally designed to convert vibrations to electrical signals."    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphonics
> 
> ...


ok I would intuitively be concerned for a device with certain tubes as some of those suckers just love turning physical vibrations into signal (when I see portable amps with tubes, I'm like "whyyyyyyyyy????????"). and a cd player/turntable or maybe something with fans, so anything with actual moving parts. then I get why such products could take measures against vibrations or if you wished to extend those measures even by curiosity. TBH I wasn't thinking about that so now it seems less crazy to me  
maybe I'll try placing gears on my speakers and measure them for the lolz. well I say that but my audio to do list doesn't empty itself as fast as I hoped, and I still haven't tried to measure a headphone's crosstalk with and without the headband to guess what the maximum impact from vibrations could be. I totally blame @hakuzen who sent me a coupler just so I could try it myself for IEM measurements after I asked him a random question. by doing so he dragged me into a rabbit hole once again. helpful selfless people are the worst.  
^_^


----------



## edstrelow (Oct 28, 2017)

I think the measurements that are needed are of the vibrational characteristics of audio gear. I have heard strain guages mentioned as the tool of choice.  As regards what equipment needs damping, yes you would presume that those subject to most vibration would be the first choices.  That would include speakers, headphones, cd players and turntables. As regards amps and other equipment the only source of vibration I can see would be ac hum. Generally not a big deal but I had a power amp once that made so much audible noise that I finally put in in a closet. I suspect it could have a microphonics issue.


----------



## edstrelow (Oct 31, 2017)

About all I have been doing of late is adding layers of tape to sorbothane previously placed on phones and speakers and using small strips on rca and optical connectors. I usually try to avoid doing such joint manipulations but hey I have been playing with this stuff for years and I still haven't reached the point of ultimate improvement and I don't have forever to find out. As regards the tape, I am now up to 4 layers of electrical tape  as backing. This results in "constrained layer damping." 

Anyway the two together are giving great results.  Now, many of my old analog masterered cd's, AAD and ADD, are sounding like sparkling new recordings.  With the newer DDD recordings I am hearing more detail, openness and dynamics. I was just listening to a recording of Vila-Lobos' Bachianas Brasilieras which I had put aside for over ten years, because the orchestral sound was just too heavy, with all the cellos and double basses. It just sounds delightful now,  much more detail and clarity.

As I have often noted, it seems to take a few days for the tape or sorbothane backing to kick in.  The first day, you will hear something but don't get great results, but after a couple of days or a week, the system starts to sing. I would guess that this shows that the glue is curing.


----------



## richard51

same experience here.... Thanks ed...


----------



## Henery

According to manufacturer, sorbothane can also be used for acoustic isolation and absorpbtion. I don´t remember this being mentioned on this thread.

*Sorbothane® has wide applications in:*

Shock absorption in industrial, electronic, athletic and medical applications
Vibration isolation in industrial, electronic and ergonomic applications
Vibration damping in industrial, electronic and ergonomic applications
Gasket/sealing in industrial and electronic applications
Applications where low cost, high color plastic molding is required
*High-space-efficiency acoustic absorption*
*High-space-efficiency acoustic barriers*
https://www.sorbothane.com/material-properties.aspx


----------



## edstrelow

Henery said:


> According to manufacturer, sorbothane can also be used for acoustic isolation and absorpbtion. I don´t remember this being mentioned on this thread.
> 
> *Sorbothane® has wide applications in:*
> 
> ...



I can see it as a barrier.  I am not sure what they mean by acoustic absorption which is different from vibration damping, acoustic and otherwise.  Did you find an example?


----------



## edstrelow

This is a set-up for my old portable cd player.   1/4 inch 70 duro on the base with 4 layers of electrical tape to provide constrained damping.  Then  4 1/0 inch 70 duro pieces on the plug going into the player with tape wrapped.  And of course damping on the phones, 1/10 70 duro behind the driver unit and 1/2  70 duro on the headband. Amazingly good sound.  I can not stand mp3 sound.

1/2 inch is good if you can fit it where needed.  Here I used my expensive  Lord adhesive because I cannot find 1/2 with 3m self-stick.  Unfortunately my can of glue dried out.


----------



## wuwhere (Nov 24, 2017)

I've got to try this on my Stax Sr-003 Mk2 and 007Mk1, probably after I got my new e-amp.


----------



## wuwhere

Some anti-vibration to try under my equipment.

http://www.vibrationmounts.com/Stor...x3jh6vDNQUnnCa7mXVl53UAUQSXRFSbhoCyTUQAvD_BwE

https://www.diversitech.com/category/cat_id/209


----------



## edstrelow (Jan 17, 2018)

The link posted above to the Sorbothane Company site distinguishes between isolation and damping. It gives the example of  spring or rubber mounts which can be effective isolators but ineffective at damping. I would add that car springs are very good for when your car hits a bump, but requires a shock absorber to dampen down the oscillations cause by the impact. Sorbothane appears   to be more like a shock absorber, getting rid of energy by coverting it to heat.   Here it is again.      https://www.sorbothane.com/material-properties.aspx


----------



## Cruelhand Luke

Has anyone determined if there is a difference between treating the outside of the cups and the inside in terms of effectiveness?
Does the surface of the sorbothane need to be exposed to the soundwaves directly for better effectiveness...or does simply being attached to the surface and controlling vibrations of the 'non-driver parts' matter? To put it another way....is it absorbing on it's _surface_ AND controlling the vibrations of what it's attached to...or just the latter?
I have two different dynamic headphones that I want to try this on possibly ( I need to find some cheap sorbothane) both headphones seem fairly well designed, but not damped AT ALL compared to my Fidelio L2 for example...I am going to start with a Philips SHP 9500s and a Superlux HD681...they both sound pretty good for their price and it feels like they have tons of potential, because their flaws aren't serious.... but they are cheaply made. The Superlux especially has very thin/resonant plastic...it feels like if I can pay a little attention to the details of controlling resonances in the housing for the best sound possible, these 'budget' headphones will reproduce my music beautifully....which is the WHOLE point. 
I have had good cars that can be made great by simply addressing the corners that the manufacturer cut. (it's AMAZING the difference an aluminum radiator makes over a plastic one when you are trying to autocross in the Texas heat!) and the more I look at my headphones and try to understand why one sounds better than another, it feels like too much reflection or glare coming from the housing is part of the problem. It looks like like y'all have put A LOT of thought into this (thanks guys! loooooong read lol.) but I didn't see an answer to my question...does having the surface of the sorb facing the soundwaves make a big difference, or is it more about finding the best spot on the surface of the housing?


----------



## Cruelhand Luke (Jan 23, 2018)

This was a double post.......
but I would like to add, the Superlux HD681...it sounds to me like they are nice clear drivers in a decent housing in terms of design. They are an 'homage' to the classic AKG 240 line. But the plastic they are made from is thin and brittle. I know materials, from my professional life, and the cups on these things _sing _with energy. I am betting that with some strategically placed sorb they will hush up and my Senilux 681s will become deadly accurate, truth telling headphones. They already have a spare, clean sort of sound, but it's like there's a little smoke in the air...


----------



## edstrelow (Jan 24, 2018)

Cruelhand Luke said:


> Has anyone determined if there is a difference between treating the outside of the cups and the inside in terms of effectiveness?
> Does the surface of the sorbothane need to be exposed to the soundwaves directly for better effectiveness...or does simply being attached to the surface and controlling vibrations of the 'non-driver parts' matter? To put it another way....is it absorbing on it's _surface_ AND controlling the vibrations of what it's attached to...or just the latter?
> I have two different dynamic headphones that I want to try this on possibly ( I need to find some cheap sorbothane) both headphones seem fairly well designed, but not damped AT ALL compared to my Fidelio L2 for example...I am going to start with a Philips SHP 9500s and a Superlux HD681...they both sound pretty good for their price and it feels like they have tons of potential, because their flaws aren't serious.... but they are cheaply made. The Superlux especially has very thin/resonant plastic...it feels like if I can pay a little attention to the details of controlling resonances in the housing for the best sound possible, these 'budget' headphones will reproduce my music beautifully....which is the WHOLE point.
> I have had good cars that can be made great by simply addressing the corners that the manufacturer cut. (it's AMAZING the difference an aluminum radiator makes over a plastic one when you are trying to autocross in the Texas heat!) and the more I look at my headphones and try to understand why one sounds better than another, it feels like too much reflection or glare coming from the housing is part of the problem. It looks like like y'all have put A LOT of thought into this (thanks guys! loooooong read lol.) but I didn't see an answer to my question...does having the surface of the sorb facing the soundwaves make a big difference, or is it more about finding the best spot on the surface of the housing?





Cruelhand Luke said:


> Has anyone determined if there is a difference between treating the outside of the cups and the inside in terms of effectiveness?
> Does the surface of the sorbothane need to be exposed to the soundwaves directly for better effectiveness...or does simply being attached to the surface and controlling vibrations of the 'non-driver parts' matter? To put it another way....is it absorbing on it's _surface_ AND controlling the vibrations of what it's attached to...or just the latter?
> I have two different dynamic headphones that I want to try this on possibly ( I need to find some cheap sorbothane) both headphones seem fairly well designed, but not damped AT ALL compared to my Fidelio L2 for example...I am going to start with a Philips SHP 9500s and a Superlux HD681...they both sound pretty good for their price and it feels like they have tons of potential, because their flaws aren't serious.... but they are cheaply made. The Superlux especially has very thin/resonant plastic...it feels like if I can pay a little attention to the details of controlling resonances in the housing for the best sound possible, these 'budget' headphones will reproduce my music beautifully....which is the WHOLE point.
> I have had good cars that can be made great by simply addressing the corners that the manufacturer cut. (it's AMAZING the difference an aluminum radiator makes over a plastic one when you are trying to autocross in the Texas heat!) and the more I look at my headphones and try to understand why one sounds better than another, it feels like too much reflection or glare coming from the housing is part of the problem. It looks like like y'all have put A LOT of thought into this (thanks guys! loooooong read lol.) but I didn't see an answer to my question...does having the surface of the sorb facing the soundwaves make a big difference, or is it more about finding the best spot on the surface of the housing?



I wouldn't say that the surface does no absorbtion  but I doubt it is significant. The problem is, I believe,  sometimes called impedance mismatch. Airborne sounds striking the surface of sorbothane are going to mostly bounce off the surface and not get damped. You can of course dampen airborne vibrations with various foams and fibers but that is not the same problem we are dealing with using sorbothane.

As regards location, I would have thought, all things being equal, you would get best results, applying materials like sorb close to the driver. That said, Sennhesier puts it's damping  on the headband of the HD800 and the new HD820, and I suspect also in their new $50K electrostatic.

I recommend 1/4 self stick 70 duro sorb, cut into small squares, no dimension exceeding 1".  Applying  2-4 layers of electrical tape over the pieces of sorb will markedly improve performance, giving what is called "constrained damping."  You can get sheets about 4X4 or 6x6 in on Ebay for $10.00 or less.  I would recommend 1/2" 70 duro sorb, but I have not found any with self-stick. Finding  a good glue  a problem. Superglue will hold, but seems to create a barrier to the vibrations getting to the sorb.  I have used a very expensive Lord glue recommended by Sorbothane, but it is costly ($70.00 minimum order)  and messy.


----------



## castleofargh

it really depends on the main target. doing anything inside the headphone's cup adds probable(even if small) changes in the acoustic chamber.
so if the main idea is to just limit vibrations from propagating inside the headphone cup and headband, I would rather pick areas less likely to change the signature(although I imagine heavy headphones and/or strong clamping would do the best job in this case. too bad I can't stand either).
now fooling around inside the cup can be fun too and could kill 2 birds with one stone, but IMO it's for a more elaborate purpose and I would highly recommend having some means to measure the results.


----------



## Cruelhand Luke

Would this work? Self adhesive, 70 duro... 
https://www.amazon.com/33-P007-062-002-036-General-Durometer-Adhesive-Thickness/dp/B00P5VQ7HE


----------



## richard51

Cruelhand Luke said:


> Would this work? Self adhesive, 70 duro...
> https://www.amazon.com/33-P007-062-002-036-General-Durometer-Adhesive-Thickness/dp/B00P5VQ7HE



This is rubber not sorbothane...

Try this 1/8 inches thick self adhesive sorb. 

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/SORBOTHANE-...273912?hash=item3aa390b8f8:g:vTIAAMXQIfJRGEbU

Or 1/4 inches thick :

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/SORBOTHANE-...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649


----------



## Cruelhand Luke

richard51 said:


> This is rubber not sorbothane...
> 
> Try this 1/8 inches thick self adhesive sorb.
> 
> ...


that's 36 square inches of sorb...It's my understanding that one inch squares are the preferred size....so, lets say there are thirty usable pieces here (adjusting for shrinkage in all that cutting) how many headphones could I reasonably treat with this?


----------



## richard51

It is relative to the number of pieces  around 1 inches  you need for a specific headphones.... For my he 400  I used certainly half of the 36 square inches or a little more, for my akg k 340  little less than that...And the pieces I used where always smaller than this one inch squares except some pieces for the headband....


----------



## nick n (Mar 4, 2018)

I was using *1 centimeter* squares  as a baseline generally.
=1 Inch seems like a lot/excessively large considering  I often could not use many depending on *headphone* in question. 
You do not want to go overboard on this stuff, for me it's incremental tweaking to a critical point, and over that line it can ruin the headphone's characteristic sound ( often overboard they possibly can all start to sound the same  )
Speakers would obviously be a different case


----------



## richard51

nick n said:


> I was using *1 centimeter* squares  as a baseline generally.
> =1 Inch seems like a lot/excessively large considering  I often could not use many depending on *headphone* in question.
> You do not want to go overboard on this stuff, for me it's incremental tweaking to a critical point, and over that line it can ruin the headphone's characteristic sound ( often overboard they possibly can all start to sound the same  )
> Speakers would obviously be a different case




 I apologize it is my bad.... 1 cm also for me I wrongly wrote 1 inch....


----------



## edstrelow

nick n said:


> I was using *1 centimeter* squares  as a baseline generally.
> =1 Inch seems like a lot/excessively large considering  I often could not use many depending on *headphone* in question.
> You do not want to go overboard on this stuff, for me it's incremental tweaking to a critical point, and over that line it can ruin the headphone's characteristic sound ( often overboard they possibly can all start to sound the same  )
> Speakers would obviously be a different case




Why would speakers be different from headphones?


----------



## chrismini

richard51 said:


> (it is possible to made the cut cleaner than mine with a razor blade..)
> 
> 
> _*How to make a simple filtering space with many pieces of damping sorbothane*_ : *6* *RULES*:  *1* Many small pieces works better than more large one  *2* too big mass of sorbothane does not work well , because too much is worse, (too much damping is a catastrophy, blutak mod for example is damping mod hence +sorb mod maybe too much damping simultaneous mod) and *3* the right thickness and duro...mine is 30 duro,1/8 inches for the metallic cup of the HE400, i had not try higher duro because i think the 30 duro work so well for me *4* and not more than 65% of the surface covered by sorbothane and probably around 50% or a little more  is way better ....*5* cut rule modulo 6 : with a razor blade or an exacto you cut a rectangular pieces in 6 little squares. ( it is not necessary to cut it before sticking it to the headphone, it was more easy for me to cut it after because i want them very close one another)I had originally stick 4 pieces of sorb at the bottom of the hoop, i cut now the four rectangular pieces of sorb in 6 pieces each, hence at one level i have 4 pieces of sorb, at another level i have divided these 4 pieces of sorb in 24 pieces, and i think that the mass of sorb act  at one level as a 24 frequencies filtering mass, at another level act like an agglomerate 4 filtering frequencies mass of sorb... the principle is simple : divide the mass in cutting it in  6...
> ...


----------



## chrismini

Hello Richard. Remember me, Chris?


----------



## richard51

salutation Chris.... I hope all is right for you my best to you...


----------



## skwoodwiva (Mar 31, 2018)

edstrelow said:


> (Edit October 13, 2015  This thread has changed considerably since i started it with the intention of showing how the sound of Stax phones could be improved by using sorbothane on various portions of the earcups.  Several other Headfiers have joined in to discuss the use of sorbothane and even some other materials to achieve these improvements on Stax and various other phones. This is all to the good in my opinion because it has gradually become evident that there is a problem of undamped mechanical resonance in many, if not all headphones.  The more phones which are studied the more we will come to understand the nature of the underlying issues of mechanical resonance.  It is clear that this is no longer simply an issue for Stax or even electrostatic phones.
> 
> My efforts and those of others to come up with damping strategies with Stax phones are found in the earlier posts.  Whenever I have modified my methods, I have edited the posts for those phones, including the Stax Lambdas, SRX III pro, Sigma/pro, SR007 and SR003 so what is there should represent my latest take.
> 
> ...


I have plenty of insoles, shall I put one in the blender?



 
Water helps


----------



## skwoodwiva

Imitation is flattery!
Good thread


----------



## skwoodwiva

@edstrelow 
Can you see how the heel pad, by just hugging the magnet, acts like one of those massive building weights opposing / absorbing back movement.


----------



## Maxx134 (Apr 22, 2018)

richard51 said:


> (it is possible to made the cut cleaner than mine with a razor blade..)
> 
> 
> _*How to make a simple filtering space with many pieces of damping sorbothane*_ : *6* *RULES*:  *1* Many small pieces works better than more large one  *2* too big mass of sorbothane does not work well , because too much is worse, (too much damping is a catastrophy, blutak mod for example is damping mod hence +sorb mod maybe too much damping simultaneous mod) and *3* the right thickness and duro...mine is 30 duro,1/8 inches for the metallic cup of the HE400, i had not try higher duro because i think the 30 duro work so well for me *4* and not more than 65% of the surface covered by sorbothane and probably around 50% or a little more  is way better ....*5* cut rule modulo 6 : with a razor blade or an exacto you cut a rectangular pieces in 6 little squares. ( it is not necessary to cut it before sticking it to the headphone, it was more easy for me to cut it after because i want them very close one another)I had originally stick 4 pieces of sorb at the bottom of the hoop, i cut now the four rectangular pieces of sorb in 6 pieces each, hence at one level i have 4 pieces of sorb, at another level i have divided these 4 pieces of sorb in 24 pieces, and i think that the mass of sorb act  at one level as a 24 frequencies filtering mass, at another level act like an agglomerate 4 filtering frequencies mass of sorb... the principle is simple : divide the mass in cutting it in  6...
> ...



I have seen it all now.
Exterior modding actually funny but in a cool way.

I don't deny your results though.

I have used sorbothane inside cups over dynamic drivers with some success with bass,

but for resonance control, I would rather dampen than absorb,
so I like dynamat type material,
 yet they add more weight than sorbothane.

Sorbothane is a tricky material for me to get most out of.
I still use sorbothane,
 but in tension, not in an "at rest" state.

In my experience ,their best performance are done in either a "slight comprehension", or a "slight expansion" state.

I never posted about it before but its cool the ways it has been chosen to be used here.
So hat's off to you guys.


----------



## richard51 (Apr 30, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> I have seen it all now.
> Exterior modding actually funny but in a cool way.
> 
> I don't deny your results though.
> ...



I use the sorbothane now mostly inside the He 400 .... and some between the headband to isolate the 2 cups.... I dont put in on the exterior cups anymore.... More practical to put it inside .... On My AKG 340 though I mostly put the sorb at the exterior around the cups compressed with elastic band because for this can it is more easy... Great results....


----------



## edstrelow

Maxx134   Looks like the outside of my Stax SRX 3 which I covered the same way.  I cannot stress too much that covering the pieces with 4 layers of electrical tape magnifies the damping effects.  hat is the principle of constrained damping.


----------



## edstrelow

I have not been too active of late, essentially because I have achieved my goal of getting effective damping of my headphones and loudspeakers and I have thus been doing less experimenting. Now it is just a matter of waiting for the rest of the audio world to catch up.  Here is my headphone line-up, Stax SR007, Stax Lambda (404 and LNS) and Sigma (Pro and 404.)  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  You can see a lot of damping on the outside of these phones, especially on the headbands. It came as a surprise to me that placing damping material on the bands would be effective, but as we know, Sennheiser figured this out years ago and is doing it now on its best dynamic phones and very likely to its stats as well. 

I have converted fully over to 70 duro sorbothane. I prefer to use the thickest sorb I can find, generally maxing out at 1/2 inch.  The 3M self-stick is effective but not available on 1/2 inch sorb for which I have been using very expensive Lord 7650 glue, which came recommended by Sorbothane. The gluing matters a lot. You can hear the difference in sound as the glue cures (for 7650 that is a week or more, although it sticks well after an hour.)  In fact even the tape cures over several hours.

You will also notice that I am using fairly small pieces.\ of sorb.  This has been one of the more interesting findings in this forum and several others agree that you get the best results if you use small pieces, eg. an inch or less in dimension. This was counter intuitive to me and why it works, I still don't understand. 

On top of the sorbothane I have also been adding 4 layers of electrical tape on the top (i.e. unglued side), thus turning the damping process into "constrained damping."  I swear this doubles the effect of sorb.  Possibly this article helps.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constrained-layer_damping

I have also been sticking  sorbothane mounted as near as possible to the drivers.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Irrespective of Sennheiser's choice, I see no reason to let vibrations loose in the system and it seems a better practice to dampen them as close to the drivers as possible.  This somewhat blurry shot shows small 1/4 strips, not yet covered with 4 layers of tape on the Sigma set-up.  The Lambdas are treated similarly, while in the SR007, the sorbothane is stuck to a metal plate inside the earcup. 

Finally, I have been working on my speakers.  This shows placements around my Polk SDA 1's. I have tried various thickness and the like over the last few years.  I believe all of these are 70 duro, although some are no the 1/2 inch sorb that I recommend.  Also some have only 2 layers of constraining tape, 4 is significantly better than 2.




What does one gain by such damping?  A huge improvement in sound quality.  I have been to a fair number of audio shows and have heard nothing of this order of magnitude since I was exposed to me first electrostatics, many years ago.  And of course damped stats gain hugely as well.   The gains of damping on sound quality are in several dimensions: 

1) Dynamics,  the attack and detail are much enhanced.  I recall when I first realized with my early experiments that I was involuntarily tapping my feet to the rhythm.  The treble detail, such as triangle, attack on strings, tremolo is much enhanced. 

2) tonal accuracy, you get more overtones and instruments and voices  sound more real. 

 3) Spatial imaging on headphones is much enhanced. Instruments and voices are localized better in space and the spatial field becomes wider.  This is presumably because of the damping of opposite channel signals across the headband (i.e. crossfeed.) Basically, if you mix left and right channel signals, you will get less stereo.  Sorbing reverses that trend.  If you go back some pages you will see where Mitchell actually measured the mechanical crossfeed from one earcup to another, i.e. he could detect and measure the left channel in the right earcup or vv.

4) Removing garbage sound. Volume goes down in my systems after sorbing. I generally will turn up my Stax headphone amps about one notch after damping of the phone.  This is what I expect if the sorbothane is getting rid of some of the signal.  Once early on, I quickly removed  sorb which had been stuck on the front of my Sigmas,  while listening to them.  The sound level suddenly jumped about one amplifier notch.  But what you heard was a sort of weird ambience added to the signal. That at least is how my brain interpreted it.  That I suspect is the sound of the buzzing in the system caused by the mechanical vibrations.

What are the basic physics here? At the outset we have Newton's rule that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's what is pumping mechanical energy into the earcups and speaker cabinets. However, energy does not just die, it has to be converted to some other form of energy. Sorbothane claims it converts mechanical energy to heat, thus getting rid of it that way. If you don't get rid of this energy it either causes the earcups/speaker boxes to vibrate, or what I think is more likely, feeds energy back into the drivers, thus messing up the driver's operation and rubbish sound is being added to the music. Presumably this rubbish energy still dies fairly quickly, i.e. in the milleseconds range otherwise you would be hearing sound on your phones/speakers after the music stopped. Sorbothane damping merely accelerates the process. 

I am very happy where I am in this exercise. I have  great sound probably in the top 1% of high fi systems and at very little cost. I just  laugh as I see the rubbish being talked about super costly systems, knowing that whatever the merits of such systems they are almost all suffer the major distortion that I am eliminating in mine and that they are not.   And yet I suspect I have not got the absolutely best results even now. I have been struck that the sound just keeps getting better the more damping I add.  I am guessing that I haven't got the full benefit especially on low frequencies, where according to Sorbothane, thicker sorb, eg. 1 inch or more works best.  It is difficult to add 1 in sorb to most headphones, except on the headband.  I suspect I may add some to the back of my speakers to see.


----------



## Maxx134 (Jun 4, 2018)

edstrelow said:


> On top of the sorbothane I have also been adding 4 layers of electrical tape on the top (i.e. unglued side), thus turning the damping process into "constrained damping." I swear this doubles the effect of sorb. Possibly this article helps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constrained-layer_damping



I do not dissmiss your methodology or results at all,  but I like to try clarify some points.

Sorbothane was designed to work under pressure, or tension.
I see most usage here without pressure or tenion, which is good to know it still works.

I thinking your taping was good for adding pressure to the sorbothane.


But your link is a bit different.
Constrained damping works by use of different density materials, like what Dynamat does.

Both work great and you have shown very interesting results in the  usage of sobothane methods.
Thanks for showing this.

I used sorbothane as well with success.
It deserves to be suggested for its benifits.


----------



## richard51

My testimony is the same ...A system without vibration does not exist....


----------



## edstrelow

Maxx134 said:


> I do not dissmiss your methodology or results at all,  but I like to try clarify some points.
> 
> Sorbothane was designed to work under pressure, or tension.
> I see most usage here without pressure or tenion, which is good to know it still works.
> ...



Re: sorbothane under pressure.  I have been on this problem for a few years and there is even one earlier thread just dealing with the Stax SR007. I have  talked a couple of times with technical reps as Sorbothane who gave me some pointers but had little to specifically discuss about speakers and headphones.  Often  it is used in industrial applications, as footers for equipment but it has to be carefully tailored to the weight of the object and the frequencies needed to be damped.   Vibration damping is a big deal to mechanical engineers and I have discussed what I have been doing with a half a dozen, and they they all seemed to understand and agree with the approach.   I do recall talking to one of the Schitt designers who acknowledged the use of sorb to dampen circuits in some of their equipment.  To my mind this problem is one of the last frontiers of audio.

 My first efforts used clamps on the sorb but over time I found I used little pressure to get the best sound. Then I started just sticking the sorb on using the self-stick or other glues and it seemed that I was still getting good results and I stopped playing with clamps. Still later I used electrical tape to hold some in place on headbands, by wrapping the sorb to the band. I liked that even more, and finally realized that simply covering the back with tape gave as good result as wrapping. I got the term "constrained" damping from Mitchell who did the measurements of mechanical crosstalk on headphones.   That does not imply pressure, just a wall of sorts on the back of the material. 

There's a lot of basic physical measurement needed here  to understand the phenomenon and to determine the best methods of damping. I would like to see measurements of the amount of vibration in earcups and speaker boxes and then a concerted effort to dampen it to non-existence.  Then I want to hear what non-vibrating speakers and phones sound like.


----------



## edstrelow

edstrelow said:


> Re: sorbothane under pressure.  I have been on this problem for a few years and there is even one earlier thread just dealing with the Stax SR007. I have  talked a couple of times with technical reps as Sorbothane who gave me some pointers but had little to specifically discuss about speakers and headphones.  Often  it is used in industrial applications, as footers for equipment but it has to be carefully tailored to the weight of the object and the frequencies needed to be damped.   Vibration damping is a big deal to mechanical engineers and I have discussed what I have been doing with a half a dozen, and they they all seemed to understand and agree with the approach.   I do recall talking to one of the Schitt designers who acknowledged the use of sorb to dampen circuits in some of their equipment.  To my mind this problem is one of the last frontiers of audio.
> 
> My first efforts used clamps on the sorb but over time I found I used little pressure to get the best sound. Then I started just sticking the sorb on using the self-stick or other glues and it seemed that I was still getting good results and I stopped playing with clamps. Still later I used electrical tape to hold some in place on headbands, by wrapping the sorb to the band. I liked that even more, and finally realized that simply covering the back with tape gave as good result as wrapping. I got the term "constrained" damping from Mitchell who did the measurements of mechanical crosstalk on headphones.   That does not imply pressure, just a wall of sorts on the back of the material.
> 
> There's a lot of basic physical measurement needed here  to understand the phenomenon and to determine the best methods of damping. I would like to see measurements of the amount of vibration in earcups and speaker boxes and then a concerted effort to dampen it to non-existence.  Then I want to hear what non-vibrating speakers and phones sound like.


----------



## edstrelow

I haven't added anything here for some time.  Basically I have pretty much solved the damping issues problem with my Stax phones and have been working more with speakers. These sobothane mods remain the best and cheapest improvement in sound you are going to find and I expect in the next few years  to see major adoption of this and possibly other damping techniques to speakers and headphones  as well as some items of equipment which have vibrational issues, such as CD/DVD players and amplifiers.


----------



## ericj

I came across this reading about HE400S mods, since i finally bought a modern ortho. 

I just wanted to say, as a senior member of Team Cheap Bastards, that I'm disappointed to be the first person to mention Peel-n-Seal, Dynamat's affordable cousin. 

Got most of a roll of it here. Used a few feet of it to deaden ringing in plastic PA speaker horns. Worked a treat.


----------



## edstrelow

ericj said:


> Peel-n-Seal


   " I came across this reading about HE400S mods, since i finally bought a modern ortho. 

I just wanted to say, as a senior member of Team Cheap Bastards, that I'm disappointed to be the first person to mention Peel-n-Seal, Dynamat's affordable cousin. 

Got most of a roll of it here. Used a few feet of it to deaden ringing in plastic PA speaker horns. Worked a treat."

I am sure that many things, blue tack, peel and seal etc. can be stuck onto speakers and headphones and just about anything that sticks properly and adds mass will provide some damping.   However these are designed for some other purpose eg. fixing roofs.  Sorbothane has some scientific background as a means of specifically dampening vibrations by changing the mechanical energy into heat in accordance with the conservation of energy. I see no such claim for these other materials. In my experiments, reported here I have compared types and sizes of sorbothane and find the best results are fairly small, thick, dense (70 duro) pieces, properly glued and backed with, in my case, 4 layers of electrical tape to achieve " constrained damping."  I did one direct comparison with comparably sized blue tack pieces and found it had only a slight effect compared to sorbothane. But there has been so little good discussion and understanding of these issues I nevertheless like to see other solutions suggested.

I am sure that Sennheiser, which has been doing damping on its better phones for years, has some good data but it is probably considered "proprietary" and will not be released to the public.


----------



## BoyNamedSue

Reviving an old thread...TBH, I'm a bit skeptical but the cost is so low, why not? 

I have been focusing on modding my Jade 2's. They are the fastest and most transparent headphone I've had in my system, vocal/acoustic music is very lifelike, but there is a lack of sub bass and bass impact that makes them genre specific. I'd say the overall sound signature is thin and bright. I suspect the housing may be the issue as it is very light and plasticky. Thus, I am wondering if applying sorbothane would help increase the bass. I am thinking of adding them to the sides of the ear cups as well as the headband, spaced out in small blocks. It sounds like 70 duro is recommended, and I am leaning towards 1/8" for aesthetic reasons over the 1/4". I don't mind losing some transparency and even some sound stage if bass can be improved.

Internally, I've removed the plastic filter which made the sound more natural, and had to remove the dust cover, leaving the mesh stators in a naked state. I notice that there is some small flat surfaces near the edges of the mesh stators. This is likely an ignorant question, as I am not a technical guy, but would it be safe and potentially improve SQ to apply a bit of sorbothane directly on top the flat surfaces of the mesh stators?


----------



## Maxx134 (Dec 2, 2020)

Hey guys, I see thread activated in my notifications I forgot I was following this .

Anyways,
I feel I should mention the traditional ways to use materials most effectively.

So Sorbothane's energy absorbent qualities, or design of performance is done "under tension", thru two choices or conditions, which are both compression, and expansion.

In no other way was sorbothane designed or intended to be used, and so I am not sure to the optimal effectiveness of how it is being used differently  applied in this thread.
Yet I will not argue any changes or results hopefully benifiting others.

Also simply using sorbothane as a surface material, to rely on its reflective properties is not optimal.

Personally, I would suggest "dynamat extreme" for vibration absorption of housing, but it is not optimal either because of it being messy.
I especially not want to do anything inside the earcup chamber with anything sticky.


So sorbothane in a compression scenario, would be optimal, (such as inside the HD800, which is only discoverable under the driver).

I did try sorbothane in a stretched position around a driver once, but found it wasn't as effective, and broke with age.

For interior of Stax I would prefer to have something to break the earpad seal, in order to relieve inner cup (ear chamber) air pressure, and give the unit a more meaty bass ability.

Then I would look into damping in rear of the chassis sparingly because I have not experienced the stax(009) to have any issues.


----------



## Maxx134

BoyNamedSue said:


> vocal/acoustic music is very lifelike, but there is a lack of sub bass and bass impact that makes them genre specific


Try doing a pad seal port, like done here...


----------



## BoyNamedSue (Dec 18, 2020)

@Maxx134, thank you for the response! I'll check out the pad seal mod that you referenced. BTW, I often reference your hd800 and he1000 mod threads to get ideas for my headphones. Very helpful and educational!

Regarding sorbothane, I recently applied it to Jade 2's and lets just say I am a believer now. I was honestly skeptical at the significant improvements noted in this thread, even wondering if this thread was marketing for sorbothane, but I can understand the enthusiasm now.

I applied 1cm pieces (1/8, 70 duro, self-stick) all around the exterior of the Jade 2's (along the ear cup and headband), using several layers of electrical tape to both compress and adhere them to the phones.

The differences are not subtle. The sound is overall more natural, as if I am hearing only the music and none of the cup resonances/coloration. The tonality seems more neutral now, whereas before it was bright and airy. The speed is more regular paced/slower as opposed to previously being fast, as if the sound was slightly on fast forward. The sound stage seems more coherent as well, but still a bit 3-blob depending on the recording. I have to raise the dial higher to get the same volume, but I notice it is less fatiguing at higher volumes with almost zero shoutiness, which was a problem before. The music is just as fluid, detailed, and lively as before. The transparency and separation seems to have gone down a bit but seems more realistic, kind of like Paper Mario cut-outs to 3d Mario where edges are more rounded. Lastly, I am finally getting more bass presence and slam, which makes the sound images more solid, full-bodied, and grounded.

The major downside is that my phones look like Frankenstein now. And handling and wearing them now is a bit clunky to avoid accidentally stripping the pieces off.

I'm not sure why its improving things this way, but I read earlier that thickness damps different frequencies, and that thicker is needed to tame lower frequencies. I used 1/8 compared to 1/4 that Edstrelow recommended, which may mean that the cup resonance from mid-range and treble frequencies are being dampened but not so much the low end. Thus, by raising the volume, I may be getting more bass relative to the other frequencies. I don't know if this logic makes sense but may explain why bass response has improved. In addition, the headphones feel a bit heavier so not sure if it is more of the mass loading making a difference.

On a side note, the improvements seem to confirm my suspicion that the Jade 2's drivers are really good and the culprit is the housing. The headphone assembly seems to be primarily utilitarian versus the design of the HD800's structure/form factor, which seems to be designed for acoustic purposes.


----------



## jesh462 (Apr 24, 2021)

Maxx134 said:


> I feel I should mention the traditional ways to use materials most effectively.
> 
> So Sorbothane's energy absorbent qualities, or design of performance is done "under tension", thru two choices or conditions, which are both compression, and expansion.
> 
> ...


When I first saw this thread, this was my reaction.
Sorbothane is awesome, and I have used it in audio projects before.
HOWEVER
It is only a de-coupler. It has excellent viscoelastic properties, but that does not make it a constrained layer damper.
Using a purpose-built product is going to have much better results and fit in more spaces.
If you're after the absolute best damping per unit volume, look to Second Skin Audio based out of Illinois. (source: independent testing on DiyMobileAudio.com)
It used to be SoundDeadenerShowdown, but he retired, and his sources are unknown.
Second Skin sells these nice little 3x5 sheets that would be perfect for small projects like headphones and mechanical keyboards.
They also have liquid products that can be applied nearly anywhere and dry to harden.
It is important to note that the best results for CLDs are seen with continuous coverage. In other words, don't cut out 4 little pieces to make a circle. Do your best to cut out the exact shape that you need, and your results will be better.

I would still use Sorbothane inside of a headphone where two pieces are in mechanical contact, and you can fit something in there.
An easy example for the proper use of Sorbothane would be washing machine legs. Sorbothane would decouple the movements of the washer from the floor.
If you can see a place in the headphone where this could happen, Sorbothane will help.
What immediately comes to mind is how the driver is mounted in the enclosure.
Using Sorbothane 100% effectively would require a custom mounting solution in most headphones.


----------



## edstrelow

I have been off this thread for quite a while, mostly because I felt I had figured out how to handle sorbothane damping and had come up with a general understanding of the physics.  The latter is basic Newtonian physics, "*for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction*. If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. In other words, forces result from interactions."  Think of it this way,  as much energy is going into the case/box of your headphones/speakers as is going into the air and this your ears.  This energy sits buzzing around the drivers, some feeding back into the speaker itself thereby messing up the sound.  This energy stays around for probably only milliseconds before it transforms to heat, the first law of thermodynamics.  Sorbothane even puts this in their ads "Converting energy into heat, Sorbothane® combines the characteristics of shock absorption, vibration isolation, good memory and vibration damping to protect any object."   For audio, the problem is that for many/most materials used in headphone/speaker enclosures,  this conversion of energy to heat takes too long.  Sorb is simply faster. 

 Someone above raised the issue of whether or not you needed to apply pressure to sorb to for it to work well and the answer is mostly no.  I had this misconception too in part because of some of the ads for sorbothane footers emphasized this issue.  If you put a  very light vibrating objects on a sorbothane footer   you will get very little benefit because  the vibrations simply won't pass into the footer. Yes, applying pressure from the object to the sorb will improve transmission, however if the footer is glued properly to the sorbothane with a substance that will transmit the vibrational energy you can get very good damping.  Some of the commercially available sorb up to 1/4" comes with 3M double sided tape, which seems to do this job well.  I also use an industrial glue recommended by Sorbothane (the company) called Lord 7650.  It is expensive, messy, hard to find, and deteriorates after exposure to air (I pour it into smaller air tight containers to extend its life)  However it works a charm and without it would not have been able to apply the thicker 1/2 "  sorb to my speakers.  

I have found that even with the sorbothane footers I put under equipment, some like my B&O 8002 turntable, which is quite heavy,  the use of 3M or Lord between the footer and the equipment improves the sound quite a bit.    In this particular application, the sorb is doing two different jobs:  Firstly it is blocking the transmission of sound through the ground to the equipment, i.e. feedback, a big deal with turntables.  My other B&O the TX2 was appalling when I first got it  and I quickly bought footers for it (initially not made of sorbothane.)   However sorb can also absorb the vibrations within the equipment caused by things such as platter rumble which can make its way back to the cartridge.  (CD players have related issues with vibrations from the spinning discs upsetting the reading of digital signals.)


----------

