jessica
hi sennheiser. me again..
i've got this stubborn hair stuck in there, giving me a buzz on the lower frequencies, as stubborn hairs stuck in headphones tend to do.
now, it's been happening for years, and it's never been much of a problem - quick tweezer run over over a quick vacuum gets the dirt out. it's just something that happens to headphones and that headphones people have to deal with.
but this one is deep in the drivers and all attempts to get it out have failed. i'd probably need to use a tool that is something like a surgeon uses to get in there to pull it out, and it's too stuck for the vacuum (or loud bass music) to get it out.
now, i know you can usually take newer phones apart to do this but the way these ones are made suggests to me that the only way this would be possible is by twisting the top and, again, i don't really want to do that until i'm sure they can actually be disassembled. so, can i get in there without breaking them or do i need to call a surgeon?
those are the out of production 440-IIs, to jog your memory.
sennheiser
Hello Jessica,
It is possible to take the 440 apart.
I used to do it all the time. Use caution, however, since there are no more spares for this model, and if an accident happens, you're SOL! Twisting is not necessary. The baffle is held by a series of claws. Slip a fingernail between and pry gently. Easy does it.
To get the capsule driver out, gently pry up on the black tabs, and be careful not to disturb the connecting wires. They are exceedingly fragile and will not respond well to attempts to reconnect. Use both hands.
If you're talking hair, you might need tweezers, but for dust or other particles, a squirrel hair paintbrush will usually do. DO NOT brush hard!
Any wrinkles put on the diaphragm will be permanent.
Note orientation of the capsule driver to the baffle. It goes in one way only!
You mentioned using a vacuum...be careful with that! It's possible to suck the voice coil right out of the gap with force like that.
jessica
thanks again.
Friday, September 5, 2014
if i understand this correctly, you should be enormously psyched for this. if i understood what he said, he's been working on several records in parallel over the last thirteen years without the pressure of release dates or market trends with the aim of producing multiple perfect thematically linked works that are timeless masterpieces rather than in-the-moment commodities.
i hear some 00s autechre in here (some 90s autechre too, actually), but all those guys influenced each other. he's surely listening to new music, and you're surely going to hear it's influence. it's going to be very interesting to hear how mr. james interprets the last decade of electronic music as it has some of the best and some of the worst that the history of electronic music has to offer.
i hear some 00s autechre in here (some 90s autechre too, actually), but all those guys influenced each other. he's surely listening to new music, and you're surely going to hear it's influence. it's going to be very interesting to hear how mr. james interprets the last decade of electronic music as it has some of the best and some of the worst that the history of electronic music has to offer.
deathtokoalas
there is an environmental benefit in not printing paper. i know that social progress isn't on the list of gen y sales tactics, but a trend back to paper really wouldn't be in the best interests of the species.
mailing catalogs that can’t be downloaded over pdf is a horrific and unjustifiable waste of resources, and their cute little ad shouldn't trick you into thinking otherwise.
obviously, the difference between electronic and paper distribution is that the electronics are being manufactured anyways as multiple purpose devices. there's really no reason that resource extraction and recycling can't be done efficiently. this is needless waste coming out of a marketing strategy trying to be "different" in the electronic era with no regard to sustainability. you reward this kind of nonsense at your own peril.
tovetroll84
I wonder how all the extra electricity we use since we all got computers and smartphones and kindles is affecting the environment.... (not saying that printing would be a better option though) Also, I don't think this ad is really about appealing for paperbacks, it's just for fun ;)
deathtokoalas
it's a dumb argument (and electricity generation has no environmental effect if it's generated using renewable sources, anyways). if you're looking at the situation socially, you want to look at what creates the least amount of harm first and then make the harmful parts as least harmful as you can. did you buy a laptop or a phone to download an ikea catalog? no. you're using it for work, school and day-to-day life. consequently, you need to look at the extra resource usage that downloading an ikea catalog has on top of what you'd be doing anyways, which is purely measured in terms of bandwidth. there's absolutely no environmental cost to this, whereas the costs of printing a book and sending it to every house are enormous.
it's an irresponsible marketing strategy, and ikea deserves a punch in the face for it.
telling people to use less electricity isn't environmental policy. switching to renewable sources is environmental policy. reducing usage just helps the companies maintain an artificially inflated price by controlling supply and demand (in an unregulated energy market, which is the case through most of north america).
Mark
I have to say I find it pretty hysterical that someone by the name of "deathtokoalas" is arguing an environmental issue. Your name suggests that you want to kill an entire species, which in turn would unbalance and decimate multiple ecosystems.
deathtokoalas
the subversive threat that koalas pose to our social fabric as a result of their despicable cuteness far exceeds any environmental threats that their demise would cause.
fwiw, koalas have no real predators and contribute virtually nothing to the ecology they inhabit, except, perhaps, limiting the growth of eucalyptus trees - which isn't really working out in our benefit.
there is an environmental benefit in not printing paper. i know that social progress isn't on the list of gen y sales tactics, but a trend back to paper really wouldn't be in the best interests of the species.
mailing catalogs that can’t be downloaded over pdf is a horrific and unjustifiable waste of resources, and their cute little ad shouldn't trick you into thinking otherwise.
obviously, the difference between electronic and paper distribution is that the electronics are being manufactured anyways as multiple purpose devices. there's really no reason that resource extraction and recycling can't be done efficiently. this is needless waste coming out of a marketing strategy trying to be "different" in the electronic era with no regard to sustainability. you reward this kind of nonsense at your own peril.
tovetroll84
I wonder how all the extra electricity we use since we all got computers and smartphones and kindles is affecting the environment.... (not saying that printing would be a better option though) Also, I don't think this ad is really about appealing for paperbacks, it's just for fun ;)
deathtokoalas
it's a dumb argument (and electricity generation has no environmental effect if it's generated using renewable sources, anyways). if you're looking at the situation socially, you want to look at what creates the least amount of harm first and then make the harmful parts as least harmful as you can. did you buy a laptop or a phone to download an ikea catalog? no. you're using it for work, school and day-to-day life. consequently, you need to look at the extra resource usage that downloading an ikea catalog has on top of what you'd be doing anyways, which is purely measured in terms of bandwidth. there's absolutely no environmental cost to this, whereas the costs of printing a book and sending it to every house are enormous.
it's an irresponsible marketing strategy, and ikea deserves a punch in the face for it.
telling people to use less electricity isn't environmental policy. switching to renewable sources is environmental policy. reducing usage just helps the companies maintain an artificially inflated price by controlling supply and demand (in an unregulated energy market, which is the case through most of north america).
Mark
I have to say I find it pretty hysterical that someone by the name of "deathtokoalas" is arguing an environmental issue. Your name suggests that you want to kill an entire species, which in turn would unbalance and decimate multiple ecosystems.
deathtokoalas
the subversive threat that koalas pose to our social fabric as a result of their despicable cuteness far exceeds any environmental threats that their demise would cause.
fwiw, koalas have no real predators and contribute virtually nothing to the ecology they inhabit, except, perhaps, limiting the growth of eucalyptus trees - which isn't really working out in our benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)