Talk:Grado Labs

What is Audio Hall of Fame?

The article mentions that Joseph Grado was inducted in the Audio Hall of Fame in 1982. Can anybody specify what this 'Audio Hall of Fame' is (what organization/association administers the induction)?Yavrey (est vrai) 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV does not mean unbiased, but that the article takes a neutral point of view. The oppinion of "phono cartridges" is attributed to audiophiles, so I think it's NPOV. Maybe I'm wrong on this? Reub2000 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that you have a point...however, who but audiophiles are really qualified to make that distinction? Certainly it would be less biased if they got an average joe to test the cartridges, but audiophiles are the ones who will notice and care about the differences. Tapanageta 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that someone who has a high regard of audiology and psychoacoustics should also test out Grado's headphones as well, as Grado's Headphones often uses the Supra-Aural Form Factor. I really think Grado needs to start making Circumaural Headphones IMO. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the GS-1000 are circumaural - User

Escalated article to Condition 2

After going over the article over and over again, I feel that the article's lack of neutrality is the problem, and at my discretion, I have thus decided that this article needs to be fixed a bit in order to be a bit more neutral, as it's too much goes in detail regarding about Grado's headphones. Some audiophile who has high praise with these headphones started out this article—apparently it's coming to a point where it's lacking too much neutrality, so I'm gonna have to state it as not being neutral completely. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. How is a simple layout of the product history of any brand anything but "absolute and non-negotiable." Now there might be other parts of the article that might not be neutral, but the general content, I feel, is not.Wsender 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, with one caveat. Most of the article is expository in nature, and is quite accurate. It takes no position, and therefore cannot be contested. The exception to this is the "Criticisms" section. This is perhaps non-neutral, but more importantly is just plain goofy and generally wrong. Point in case: "While Grado's round-cup, open-air, and supra-aural policy worked really well through the years, noise-cancelling veterans are dying for a noise-cancellation version of Grado's headphones plus headphone aficionados are expecting more out of Grado in the future." At the present time, all high-end headphones are open, and the thought of noise canceling Grado’s is simply laughable. “Criticisms” section needs to be re-written, but there is nothing else wrong with the article. — User

I feel that for some reason, the article has been written by some audiophile who had too much praise with Grado's headphones. I really am worried about this as this article just seems to be pro-Grado rather than a neutral article. That is why I have issues with this article, since it currently overly praises the Grado headphones as a whole. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is now fairly good as far as NPOV goes except where it says "which year after year won many awards and accolades from many audio publishing groups and the like, namely Stereophile magazine.". It would be better if someone mentioned actual awards they've won rather than just claiming they they win awards year after year. Thats my main criticism as of right now --Hugzz 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tables

I've already deployed the tables for all domestically-made Grado headphones. I'm gonna hold up on the fancier Grado Headphones (Grado novelties) until I can see what I can do about the notes, since notes can be a big pest to work with. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Sennheiser versus Grado paragraph should be removed. It's obviously a biased opinion, and the nature of the sound signature shouldn't be presented as Fact.

The GS1000 is not a sucessor to the HP1000.

Requested move

The suggested move makes perfect sense. —User

• Agreed, but I need more users to agree with the move to Grado Labs before it commences. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the name should be moved --FLECOM

I totally agree, that's the name of the company--Dougmwpsu

OK, it will be done ASAP. Enough votes to do so. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Move complete

I moved the article and hopefully, I wikilink-fixed all possible "things" at the article's "What Links Here" link. If there are any more bugs, please direct any attention-grabbing bugs directly to me. Thanx. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Facility Tour

There is a picture tour of Grado Labs on the net, not sure if it is something you all want to add. http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/271/grado-labs-facility-tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethro2234 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Audio Hall of Fame

I'm adding a fact tag to the cite about "Audio Hall of Fame". What Audio Hall of Fame is this talking about? I can't find any such Hall or any organization that put Grado on this specific list of honorees, and I've been looking for it for a month. The closest I've come to finding out who honored Grado in 1982 was a past magazine editor who pointed me to Richard Ekstract and the now-defunct magazine Audio Times, where I found no further information one way or another.

I would like to have the Audio Hall of Fame defined before the cite can stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Fame cite removed. If anybody ever finds out which Hall of Fame was being referred to, we can add the cite back in. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image change

I just reverted a new image that had a less viewable GRADO name. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Grado Image I added is better than the current photos. Yes, it has a shallow depth of field. I also have other Grado iGrado images I'd like to see replace the current iGrado images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon50Dshooter (talk • contribs) 02:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear you saying you think your images are better than the current one. 'Better' is a subjective state--I like the current image for its clarity of the GRADO LABS casting in the plastic headphones housing. Your image of the SR-125 is okay but what the article needs is a lot more attention given to references and neutral wording that doesn't sound like a product brochure. I can't see how a few more images will help the article as much as digging in and making it more hard-edged and encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would an image of the Grado logo not be more appropriate where the pair of SR60s currently is? I am thinking of following the precedent of Sennheiser and placing company information where the SR60s are and moving the SR60s to the current production section. --Protolink24 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Frequency Response

I maintain that the frequency response as reported by Grado Labs themselves is useful, manufacturer-published data. The footnote used prevents the table from becoming unnecessarily large, which is a no-go for a clean article in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protolink24 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, frequency response data released without magnitude figures is just marketing jaws flapping in the wind. Magnitude, or tolerance, or some gauge of the y axis must be supplied. Such figures would look like these: 20–20,000 Hz, tolerance ±10 dB; 20–50,000 Hz, tolerance -10 dB. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you hide "no magnitude given" or some similar phrase inside a footnote, and put the footnote up next to Frequency response in the tables, it does not do enough for me. Most people will see the little blue [1] and assume that whatever the footnote is, it adds to the reliability of the data, rather than scrolling down to discover that the footnote details the UN-reliability. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on footnotes, footnotes serve two purposes, and the first is "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article." The inclusion of the data in the table is both distracting and shifts the focus away from manufacturer stated specifications and into personal views, however factual they may be. The inclusion of a footnote would both clean up the tables and shift the page more toward NPOV, in my opinion. --Protolink24 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no precedent for the statement of frequency response on Wikipedia that I can find. Most audio companies and especially headphone companies publish no tolerances along with their frequency responses, including Denon, Grado, and Sennheiser. This does not mean that the numbers are entirely irrelevant, or that they are purely advertising. Tolerances in headphones and even loudspeakers tend to be high almost to the point of uselessness. Few headphones under $1000 can achieve better than +/- 10 dB in the 20-20k Hz range. --Protolink24 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of my overt "no magnitude given" is to alert the reader that the so-called frequency response information is incomplete and cannot be accorded the normal respect that the term frequency response deserves. Distracting? I say it is necessary. Without magnitude information, the manufacturer's specs serve only as a comparison of how they market one of their products vs. another, that they say one set of headphones has a wider or narrower bandwidth.

I would approve of removing the mostly useless frequency response columns in the tables as another option. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove the frequency response columns as they are unneccesary. --Protolink24 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections

I'm all for putting criticism in the article, believe me. However, paragraphs of criticism unsupported by any cite cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you find me a source for that information? From Wikipedia:Criticism: "Negative criticism is not held to a higher standard from other content" and the general policy for content is "cite when possible." Since this article already lacks adequate citations, I see no reason for criticism to be treated differently. --Protolink24 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

At WP:CITE, the guideline states sources "should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image." Any kind of criticism is "likely to be challenged" as is any statement about an angry reaction from a living person. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in that while many do not believe that the said problems exist, they all recognize that such criticisms exist and therefore are accepted; it is impossible to cite the views of a community as a whole. --Protolink24 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)