dusty42701
Super Member
Sony MDR-V150. Lot of bad reviews by some people but I have NEVER had a problem and I think they are just perfect.
Let's see your cans!
- Thread starter cmb3366
- Start date
33&athird
Turn on & Tune in
I just got a set of those the other day, for use on the computer, reading your post I actually took them off my head and went "huh"
.They are decent headphones, for the price, excellent. A little uncomfortable long-term (then again, I think my grados are comfortable
). A little bit bassy, but it evens out nicely on most things. The cord and plug are pretty nice, seemingly more rugged than most sub-$20 ones, certainly.Overall, price to performance is acceptable...they won't touch higher end 'phones sound quality, but shouldn't be expected to.
poppachubby
Boo Yaka! Boo Yaka!
33&athird
Turn on & Tune in
David Bowie apporved, I see
. Is that a custom case for the headphones?, looks really nice (so do the phones...koss pro4aa's, maybe?) Looks like a rectifier tube, maybe...and perhaps a 6v6 or something
.Very nice picture:thmbsp:
poppachubby
Boo Yaka! Boo Yaka!
David Bowie apporved, I see
Very nice picture:thmbsp:
Thanks 33, you are always good for my ego! :thmbsp:
Yes they are indeed Pro4AA, but the case is OEM and original. I don't spend much time on them, as compared to the K240S, they have got nothing. Here's another pic for you...
dusty42701
Super Member
I just got a set of those the other day, for use on the computer, reading your post I actually took them off my head and went "huh"
They are decent headphones, for the price, excellent. A little uncomfortable long-term (then again, I think my grados are comfortable
Overall, price to performance is acceptable...they won't touch higher end 'phones sound quality, but shouldn't be expected to.
Popular complaint is that the headbands break. Mine have never been broken, besides a small crack which I would call my own fault by shoving them into the pocket of my Carhartt, and now they seem a little loose from wearing them so much, but hey, they are 4 years old this year, that's expected right? I just bought a new pair at the store with a fresh headband. Still love 'em.
Squonk07
Someday you'll understand
The soundstage on these has to be amazing. K1000 look out.
Impressive interconnects....
dusty42701
Super Member
Light a firecracker...Guess who's deaf.
Squonk07
Someday you'll understand
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
Permanent Waves
Digital Man
Ok, now I'm curious as to what the intended purpose was of those things? (And I'm too lazy to look it up.
) Also, good picture to show to the gf if she complains I have too many headphones laying around...hey, at least I don't have these in the backyard!
Squonk07
Someday you'll understand
Ok, now I'm curious as to what the intended purpose was of those things? (And I'm too lazy to look it up.
Also, good picture to show to the gf if she complains I have too many headphones laying around...hey, at least I don't have these in the backyard!
It's probably not a good idea to be wearing these when the GF is complaining about the other headphones. A firecracker is nothing....
aidynphoenix
Super Member
yea nagging at that volume typically makes a man commit murder
Trower
Two-Headed Boy
Ok, now I'm curious as to what the intended purpose was of those things? (And I'm too lazy to look it up.
Also, good picture to show to the gf if she complains I have too many headphones laying around...hey, at least I don't have these in the backyard!
I believe they were listening for enemy planes.
Permanent Waves
Digital Man
Lol! :lmao:
Huh? Are you joking? Are people that stupid? What about radar? Relying on someones subjective hearing of thinking maybe he heard some planes maybe from such a device just seems ridiculous.
Then again I thought the same thing, or perhaps use in bomb testing.
Squonk07
Someday you'll understand
The first time radar became practical and entered wide usage was just before WWII, whereas the first time airplanes were used in war was WWI. This picture could have been from the WWI days. Maybe the poster can enlighten us as to what it is.
I agree, though. This stands as a sterling example of why mechanical/electromechanical methods of amplification are highly impractical.
BTW, sorry if this seems like thread jacking. The picture that spawned this was fascinating and, frankly, hilarious.
Sticklyman
Well-Known Member
You are kidding, right? That photo looks like it's from at the latest, the 1930's, so... no radar in mass usage. Second of all, passive sonar relies on a person's subjective hearing, at least, that's what Das Boot and Hunt for Red October taught me. Finally, even actual radar isn't foolproof, the Tonkin Gulf incident should have taught us that, if nothing else.
stabby
Active Member
While these are all great pictures of very nice rigs , I am very disappointed after reading the thread title-and spraying beer all over the wife's laptop-trying to click on it left-handed.
Finally! I thought it was just me.
Permanent Waves
Digital Man
Well of course I do know when in general radar was more widely used (although I don't know why I know this, useless trivia imo), and true that no radar is perfect afaik (I remember reading something about some flock of geese being mistaken for Russian planes in either "The Fate of the Earth" or "The Abolition" by Jonathan Schell--tremendous books btw, not the least for his writing ability), but this? Come on. How unreliable/unscientific. Anything that relies mostly or purely on human subjective interpretation of data is hopelessly flawed.
Then again, of course. Humankind has and will continue to do all sorts of irrational things based on pseudoscience/technology (like lie dector tests) or at least limited technology.
As to the pictures age, I took it (for surely a purely subjective reason) as to "look" like it was dated in or around WWII, hence there should have been better methods to "listen" for enemy aircraft at the time than just to actually stand in a field and try to use such a flawed/subjective technology as this (again knowing that no radar, at least afaik--I'm no radar technology expert--is entirely accurate/objective). But who knows when it was taken just by looking at it? I'm no photography expert.
Anyway, hilarious and interesting pic, but perhaps enough of thread derail...sorry!
EDIT: To do something easy to find the source of the pic, I simply right clicked on it and looked at the "image properties" to get the address and hence link to the site it came from (I did this before but was too tired/lazy to then look up the site).
So here it is, and now we can see that according to this site that pic was taken in 1921. So that explains some things obviously (if that date is correct of course).
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/ear.htm
Also according to the site, this device is a acoustic locater which:
Acoustic location was used from mid-WW1 to the early years of WW2 for the passive detection of aircraft by picking up the noise of the engines. It was rendered obsolete before and during WW2 by the introduction of radar, which was far more effective. Horns give both acoustic gain and directionality; the increased inter-horn spacing compared with human ears increases the observer's ability to localise the direction of a sound.
So it is an example of limited/faulty technology which was, I suppose, better than nothing at the time. I'd like to see some test results to see how accurate these were in location of aircraft position and distance...it would make sense they were more so than just the unaided human ear...IF such devices did not introduce distorting data (sound reflections off the top of my head) that could prove actually more inaccurate than the unaided human ear.
Last edited:
