Review - Koss Phase 2+2 Quadraphones

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

doity

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
434
From Popular Science 1975 I believe. I looked for years for a review of these headphones. Since they came out at the tail end of the quad craze they didn’t get much press. A good review and it basically confirms what I think about these great headphones. Good separation but sometimes hard to tell front from back unless you are listening closely.
35438CA3-44AD-4E9E-BD0D-430CCB5465A3.png
 

Attachments

  • 6E733980-2741-404F-99FD-EB0F3C53573D.png
    6E733980-2741-404F-99FD-EB0F3C53573D.png
    933.1 KB · Views: 318
  • DFB78988-207C-4387-9285-553139DCF32B.png
    DFB78988-207C-4387-9285-553139DCF32B.png
    628.8 KB · Views: 282
I've had 2 pairs now, the worst thing is the foam ear pads rot and they are rather low sensitivity wise. The control box works by altering phase of the various driver units creating a bigger more spacious sound. I never liked the idea of the rear drivers being mounted in the front with frequency response limited to try to fool you to think the sound is in the rear. I like Quad phones that are elongated to provide some space between front and rear drivers. I have a pair of Koss K/6LCQ's that I sometimes use for monitoring recording or editing audio files. They have the drivers mounted top to bottom but provide absolutely no Quad separation effect at all.
 
The whole concept of "quadraphonic" headphones is laughably flawed. Either the manufactures didn't know how the human hearing system works (which was quite likely) or they didn't care one way or another, thinking they'd sell any old rubbish at an inflated price if they could just stick a quad label on it (which was even more likely).
Now, I'm off to listen to some stereo records by sending both channels to one ear only.....!
 
I've had 2 pairs now, the worst thing is the foam ear pads rot and they are rather low sensitivity wise. The control box works by altering phase of the various driver units creating a bigger more spacious sound. I never liked the idea of the rear drivers being mounted in the front with frequency response limited to try to fool you to think the sound is in the rear. I like Quad phones that are elongated to provide some space between front and rear drivers. I have a pair of Koss K/6LCQ's that I sometimes use for monitoring recording or editing audio files. They have the drivers mounted top to bottom but provide absolutely no Quad separation effect at all.

I have a pair of Koss K/2+2 with the same top to bottom driver arrangement, and you are right. There is no quad effect at all. I use them when I record to my quad reel machines because I can hear all the channels at the same time. They are very uncomfortable too, like wearing vice-grips on your head. Quad collectors must have a pair of quad headphones though, even if they never use them.
 
In reply to Soundfield’s post:

I am sure that stereo purists said the same thing about Quad listening also. Did you even read the review? The Koss Phase headphones were about the closest to a Quad experience possible back then with headphones because of their design and their ability to shift the ‘listening space’ around via the different buttons. The review even states that the headphones even provided a better Quad experience than speakers do in some instances. But they seem to place more emphasis on overall “liveness” and ambience than just the trick of having instruments jump out from one corner or the other. Which is one thing that the headphones do somewhat well, but in a much more confined way than a 4 speaker setup would do.
 
Last edited:
I found a review of the aforementioned Koss Model K/2+2 from Oct.1972 from the same reviewers and they were not impressed. The Phase 2+2’s were almost 3 years later and with a cost of $150, $700 today if you factor in inflation.
 
In reply to Soundfield’s post:
Did you even read the review?

Yes, I did, it was very amusing. It seemed to largely consist of a regurgitation of some pseudo-scientific marketing twaddle in support of the product.
Although the reviewer was clearly desperate to wring some positives out of the thing, the particularly damning paragraph:

phones 1.JPG

really tells you all you need to know about how ineffectual it actually was.
 
Yes, I did, it was very amusing. It seemed to largely consist of a regurgitation of some pseudo-scientific marketing twaddle in support of the product.
Although the reviewer was clearly desperate to wring some positives out of the thing, the particularly damning paragraph:

View attachment 44152
really tells you all you need to know about how ineffectual it actually was.


Well obviously you aren’t going to get the same listening experience as a set of 4 speakers but you do get separation. The positives are that you don’t have to have 4 speakers in your listening space and can move around, lie down, etc.

It is kind of hard to knock something you haven’t tried right? The people who make the Smyth Realiser obviously have figured out how to do it.
 
I remember driving from Virginia Beach, VA to an audio store (that I can't remember the name of anymore) in the Washington, D.C. area to purchase a pair of these headphones around 75/76. They were still being made, as I sent away for the QS Koss Perspective LP and it came fairly quickly after sending away the post card (remember those?)

I have to say that even though I was really fired up to get these, and at the time the cost was around $160 or so which for a sailor making $8000 a year a serious stretch, the were not that impressive. They sure LOOKED impressive, and all of the switches and stuff were impressive, but in the end, they were 'quad headphones', which is probably the only time that one can truly say "Hey, I only have TWO EARS"! :sneaky:
 
Yes, I did, it was very amusing. It seemed to largely consist of a regurgitation of some pseudo-scientific marketing twaddle in support of the product.
Although the reviewer was clearly desperate to wring some positives out of the thing, the particularly damning paragraph:

View attachment 44152
really tells you all you need to know about how ineffectual it actually was.
Did anyone else find that they were very quiet? It's hard to rock and roll when you can't get the volume above 3 ...
 
Back
Top