Human Bass
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2018
- Messages
- 686
- Likes
- 699
Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.
Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.
No need to go that far. I tried my old DT 1990 with both balanced and analytical pads. Balanced pads have more bass, analytical one little leaner. However no matter how i eq the analytical pad, it didn't gave me the punchy bass of balanced pads.For example, that's why my EQed Audioquest Nighthawk can't sound exactly like my EQed HD 600 or Sundara. After EQ, both sound signatures become very similar, and yet something remains different. It's not distortion (it remains below audible levels in my case, even @ 20-40 Hz, because I don't listen at very high loudness levels), and I guess it's not seal either. I think it has more to do with the Nighthawk's semi-closed nature and internal reflections. That's what I think I hear.
Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.
Yep you are right. My limited experience just like you said. Planar have more detail on individual parts, dynamics have more sense of detail, dynamism, contrast on bigger picture. Planar tend to sound compressed but more real. Slow and effortless. Dynamics tend to sound fast and more speaker like. Generalization from my experience.I think this is actually the reverse of what I've heard from most other headphone enthusiasts. I think the planars are generally thought of as having better detail and textural information, perhaps due to their low distortion. Whereas the dynamic headphones tend to have more speed and slam.
"Tighter" maybe, again probably because of the low distortion. But not generally faster... I haven't used any planars myself though yet. (But it is somethin I'd like to try.)
Room interaction in a headphone?That's far more about room interaction and frequency response. There is nothing "faster".
Room interaction in a headphone?
CheeerZ to ya, you bOOzer! lol... I make similar mistakes too...lolObviously I am confusing threads ... doh!!! I blame the wine.
Obviously I am confusing threads ... doh!!! I blame the wine.
Well in closed back headphones you actually can have "room interactions".Room interaction in a headphone?
Having read this thread, I am still unresolved on the issue of speed.I think this is actually the reverse of what I've heard from most other headphone enthusiasts. I think the planars are generally thought of as having better detail and textural information, perhaps due to their low distortion. Whereas the dynamic headphones tend to have more speed and slam.
"Tighter" maybe, again probably because of the low distortion. But not generally faster... I haven't used any planars myself though yet. (But it is somethin I'd like to try.)
If there is any real meaning to the term "fast", if whoever says that really is hearing something (even if he doesn't know what it is), and that something is more than just frequency response, spectral decay is a plausible explanation.As we may not have the final word on what parameters describe what we hear, we get terms like "fast" or "impact" which is totally meaningless but favorite terms of magazine writers or "soundstage" which has some FR component, some mechanical. ( Remember the Stax Nearphones?)
Decay, as measured in a CSD plot, can be informative if you understand what you are looking at. Plots can look terrible but actually show good behavior relative to possible. Darn physics. It takes force to stop things. It is not a favorite of reviewers as one can't put a number on it to say "bigger or smaller is better" It's a "it depends" measurement.
...
Having read this thread, I am still unresolved on the issue of speed.
It's not just planars, but also balanced-armature drivers (like those used in Etymotic IEM's), that I have read demonstrate a fast "settling time" when the same transient signal is sent to both dynamic and to balanced-armature IEM's. I would have to hunt around to find them, but I recall images of the ringing or transient response of a given signal, with a much shorter decay for the balanced-armature drivers.
I am no audiophile expert on this subject! However, I tried to converge the treble frequency response of my dynamic-driver HD650's as much as I could with my balanced-armature Etymotic IEM's. I could increase the subjective detail of the HD650's but they never came close to the clarity of attack, decay and timbre that the IEM's showed.
More relevant, I compared the dynamic drivers in Etymotic ER2XR's to the balanced-armature drivers in Etymotic ER4XR's, which Crinnacle says have nearly identical frequency response except in the deep bass.... I have exactly the same reaction, that the balanced-armature drivers are far more detailed. I did this extensively with comparisons of the same reference recordings, in a number of sessions on different dates, keeping track of subjective frequency response, resolution, separation of instruments, etc.
I know this is all subjective, but help me out! It really appears that not just THD and FR are involved in "speed" and "detail". Is there some objective evidence in favor of "settling time", or "transient response" or "decay speed" as a factor in transducer resolution?
Planar speakers and headphones have physically large area drivers. This means a given SPL requires less motion from the driver, which promotes low distortion (a driver's amplitude of displacement is one contributing factor to distortion). This is not limited strictly to planars, for example the ribbon tweeters in Magnepan speakers are 5' long and have very low measured distortion (0.1% or less). A large area also creates more air resistance to driver motion, which can improve damping.My educated guess is that balanced armatures and planar transducers get exited all along their surfaces, meaning the whole surface more or less accelerates in the same way, while dinamic drivers get exited on the coil and the cone/membrane attached to it doesnt accelerate in the same way where it touches the coil as it does on its periphery as the result of the rigidity of the material its made allowing some elasticity.
I know this is all subjective, but help me out! It really appears that not just THD and FR are involved in "speed" and "detail". Is there some objective evidence in favor of "settling time", or "transient response" or "decay speed" as a factor in transducer resolution?
Is this really only FR?
No, of course not, this is a great album by Santana .Yes, and/or paying more or less attention to details in the tracks at any one time.
It’s not supernatural.
This seems to be the correct thread for one of my questions about headphone resolution.
How can it be explained that e.g.:
- Shuffling with the shoes during concert recordings
- Gossiping in the hall
- quiet sounds in the background or errors in the recording
with some headphones they are not audible or only subliminal/spongy on the recording, while these things come out clearer to very clearly on other headphones.
That was one of the reasons I switched from K701/2 or K712 class headphones to a K812.
Is this really only FR?
I know this is all subjective, but help me out! It really appears that not just THD and FR are involved in "speed" and "detail". Is there some objective evidence in favor of "settling time", or "transient response" or "decay speed" as a factor in transducer resolution?