Are Passive Closed Back Headphones and IEMs Outdated?

[pablolie]

Why don't you EQ the open-back headphones and IEMs to the same target curve then?

Trying to EQ something to a target doesn't guarantee it will 100% deliver on said target reliably. The attempt may push equipment into other limitations. I am completely convinced EQ'ing isn't the magical solution that makes all equipment 100% the same. I even think it a silly assumption.

 

[HiFiHelp]

I am completely convinced EQ'ing isn't the magical solution that makes all equipment 100% the same.

My point is that even if the open-back headphones have low distortion, eq'ing them to an extremely similar DRP response as an IEM will still result in the open-back headphones sounding more open due to a lack of occlusion, among other factors.

 

[Curupira]

Why don't you EQ the open-back headphones and IEMs to the same target curve then?

Because there are several physical and acoustic limitations to this. Even two iems, measured on the same coupler and with the same FR, may not sound the same to one person's ears due to sealing issues, bore length, size etc. I'm not disputing that the occlusion effect doesn't exist, I'm disputing what "openness" entails (it's a very subjective term) and how high is the correlation with passive isolation with that sound characteristic.

 

[kyuu]

The occlusion effect is a well-known phenomenon.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean a clear preference for avoiding it has been established by studies. Particularly to the extent that we should consider closed-back phones/IEMs to be obsolete.

Even anecdotally, I don't believe you have much of a leg to stand on. I have a pair of ANC headphones, and I generally prefer to use them with ANC off. I only use ANC when I want to avoid an outside noise source, not to avoid occlusion. Plus I had to find a model that I could use wired via USB in order to avoid the hassles of my previous Bose QCs (battery life and Bluetooth woes).

 

[fritobugger]

I've been using the same IEM with custom tips for roughly a decade now. While I've had to replace the wires/cable a couple of times, the IEM themselves have performed flawlessly. ANC wireless headphones in my experience are heavy if full size and fragile while requiring frequent recharging. I don't want to worry about charging headphones on the first 15 hour leg of a long trip. No thanks.

 

[Bleib]

No. I prefer closed back as the others leak in way way too much audio
IEM are for travel and portable machines that you don't want to drain the battery on

 

[InfiniteJester]

I have been waiting for an affordable fully open-back / open-baffle IEM design to minimize the variable acoustic load of the ear canal, ensuring FR consistency across users while eliminating the occlusion effect and improving spatial perception.

Is such a feat physically possible without dipole phase cancellation destroying sub-bass extension, or requiring compensation that pushes the drivers into non-linear excursion? I don't know. But a man can dream.

 

[HiFiHelp]

I have been waiting for an affordable fully open-back / open-baffle IEM design to minimize the variable acoustic load of the ear canal, ensuring FR consistency across users while eliminating the occlusion effect and improving spatial perception.

Is such a feat physically possible without dipole phase cancellation destroying sub-bass extension, or requiring compensation that pushes the drivers into non-linear excursion? I don't know. But a man can dream.

I agree completely. In terms of pure sound quality, this would blow out anything else, assuming a wide bandwidth response with minimal resonances and low distortion.

 

[Robin L]

I don't have any wireless headphones/IEMs and don't want them. I've got the 7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEMs, will soon have the 7Hz Salnotes Zero IEMs. Also have the Drop 6XX open back headphones (Drop's clone of the Sennheiser HD 650), the AKG K371s, some other Sennheiser headphones, some essentially disposable IEMs from Sony and Klipsch and Philips' big, bad, funky and clunky Fidelio X2HR open-back 'phones. Of the batch, the best sounding is the $25 Zero:2 IEM by a big margin. If I want something super-portable my FiiO DAP is tiny and holds 1600 worth of CDs in the ALAC format. Otherwise, I'm using my primary system.

I've been using headphones for over 50 years, earbuds/IEMs pretty much since they first appeared. I haven't encountered any device of this sort that successfully presents an outside the head sonic image, including STAX earspeakers playing Binaural recordings. You can get closer to the goal, but it appears akin to Zeno's paradox—you can't get there from here. So, I don't worry about that. If you've got a sound source next to your ear it's going to sound like a sound source next to your ear, seems to have something to do with reality.

 

[Clmrt]

Sony MDR-V6 until I die, thank you.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I've been using headphones for over 50 years, earbuds/IEMs pretty much since they first appeared. I haven't encountered any device of this sort that successfully presents an outside the head sonic image, including STAX earspeakers playing Binaural recordings. You can get closer to the goal, but it appears akin to Xeno's paradox—you can't get there from here. So, I don't worry about that. If you've got a sound source next to your ear it's going to sound like a sound source next to your ear, seems to have something to do with reality.

As Calculus solved Zeno's paradox, the barrier you are hitting isn't necessarily ontological, it’s probably just a technical limitation regarding HRTF and DSP.

The reason even Stax playing binaural recordings failed you is, I think, that those recordings utilize a generic dummy head. If the shape of your pinna and ear canal differs significantly from that dummy head, your brain rejects the spatial cues.

Furthermore, the "sound source next to the ear" issue you described is caused by the lack of crosstalk and reflections. In the real world, your left ear hears what’s on your right side with a slight delay and tonal shift. Headphones isolate the channels, destroying the geometric triangulation your brain needs to project sound externally. The Zero:2 likely wins for you because it nails your preferred frequency response, but that would vary depending of ear canal shape (they sound awful to me), a lower acoustic impedance load would provide a more consistent frequency response among users. Right now, buying a IEM is a lot like rolling a dice.

I love the virtualization effect of my Creative soundcard, it really does the trick for me, and I wish it worked on Android.

I don't see any reason why eliminating occlusion and adapting the sound to your HRTF with DSP wouldn't result in the perception of soundstage. The sound waves reaching your eardrums would be isomorphic, no matter where do they originate.

But I may be wrong. More knowledgeable users may explain why it won't ever work.

 

[Tito]

As Calculus solved Zeno's paradox, the barrier you are hitting isn't necessarily ontological, it’s probably just a technical limitation regarding HRTF and DSP.

The reason even Stax playing binaural recordings failed you is, I think, that those recordings utilize a generic dummy head. If the shape of your pinna and ear canal differs significantly from that dummy head, your brain rejects the spatial cues.

Furthermore, the "sound source next to the ear" issue you described is caused by the lack of crosstalk and reflections. In the real world, your left ear hears what’s on your right side with a slight delay and tonal shift. Headphones isolate the channels, destroying the geometric triangulation your brain needs to project sound externally. The Zero:2 likely wins for you because it nails your preferred frequency response, but that would vary depending of ear canal shape (they sound awful to me), a lower acoustic impedance load would provide a more consistent frequency response among users. Right now, buying a IEM is a lot like rolling a dice.

I love the virtualization effect of my Creative soundcard, it really does the trick for me, and I wish it worked on Android.

I don't see any reason why eliminating occlusion and adapting the sound to your HRTF with DSP wouldn't result in the perception of soundstage. The sound waves reaching your eardrums would be isomorphic, no matter where do they originate.

But I may be wrong. More knowledgeable users may explain why it won't ever work.

i must say i was forced to play minecraft few weeks ago and brought my superlux 681 and i had to get up to find where the sounds / music are coming out of the room. i was sure some phone was ringing/ playing music couple of meters left from my position.. , so i got up and searched for a sound source and went searching under the bed.. only to realize it was in the game..

iit is incredible i could get this experince from these cheap phones. it doesn't happen that often. so i guess this is because they suit my hrtf so i could get proper space cues?

My most out of head experiences i have is kistening to field recordings i make with my stereo recorder in around here in my village.. it is just a simple zoom sterreo recorder.

 

[Robin L]

As Calculus solved Zeno's paradox, the barrier you are hitting isn't necessarily ontological, it’s probably just a technical limitation regarding HRTF and DSP.

Like I said, akin to, and that would be the common interpretation of Zeno's Paradox representing an unreachable goal.

But I may be wrong. More knowledgeable users may explain why it won't ever work.

My POV: most modern productions have artificially (albeit artistically) created soundstages; there's no "there" there, so whatever soundstage—including performers in a semi-circle inside my head—seems equally valid to me. If I listen via speakers, it's outside my head, but no more "real" than inside my head. Your mileage may vary.

However, I've got a fair level of experience recording acoustic music, usually "live" performances (a few "dead" performances and a few recording sessions for CDs and such). Orchestra, chorus, chamber, keyboard, combinations thereof, etc. It might be possible to have a fully convincing rendition of performance + hall acoustic, including depth, width and height. Maybe somebody is experiencing it right now. I have yet to hear it in recordings. Maybe I'm underexposed to new tech. However, I'm perfectly happy with what I'm using right now, my need to upgrade seems to have vanished during the last five years or so. I'm not expecting to get the Concertgebouw in my listening room or my IEMs.

 

[HiFiHelp]

The reason even Stax playing binaural recordings failed you is, I think, that those recordings utilize a generic dummy head. If the shape of your pinna and ear canal differs significantly from that dummy head, your brain rejects the spatial cues.

Not to mention that over-ear headphones impart their own transfer function to the blocked entrance of the ear canal, or wherever the binaural recording took place.

 

[ZolaIII]

Because it just works for and to anything. Don't get me wrong I have rather expensive closed back still cheap Denon that's built like a tank and somewhat exotic open ear buds with ported shell's and use IEM's only when I need concealing mostly working with small engines around the house. For that purpose I still like old Sony MH-755 for short Y back cables even some time use old BT's for them for analog radio tuner built in. I have and small cute Hiby W3 II but experience isn't stellar and limits still apply.
To turn the table around why wouldn't you buy modular good quality wired IEM's supposing you are not too sensitive to them (I am on the long run) in mid 60~70$ tire and a good entry level BT instead? I won't go into speaker/headphone fundamental difference as depth of the stage, separation and time domain in generally.

 

[Calypso1]

One very simple reason; long term durability and repair.

I have a pair of Sony Wf-1000XM3 ANC iems that were introduced in 2019. Now, barely 5 years later, the batteries are dead and having them replaced is either impossible or not cost effective. It's essentially e-waste.

Whereas a pair of cabled headphones will still work for decades to come. Worst case scenario I replace the earpads or eartips and the cable when it breaks.
And don't underestimate how much of a jump IEMS are making right now. Chinese manufacturers are pumping out great designs every year at all price levels.

You can get great sounding models that also measure well for $20 but can go all the way up to several thousands.

I ordered the batteries from China and found a YouTube video for the replacement steps. They now have a new lease on life and not yet ready for the e-waste site. I need the ANC when in the plane or beach.

 

[beeface]

If the difference in sound quality is negligible, I'd take Bluetooth over wired every day of the week

 

[JaccoW]

If the difference in sound quality is negligible, I'd take Bluetooth over wired every day of the week

In my very limited experience a half-decent pair of headphones sounded a lot better than most Bluetooth ANC models. The ANC algorithm raises the noise floor which you hear especially during quiet moments in the music. But it depends on what you are used to. It was a huge difference for me with just a relatively simple pair of $50 headphones.

If you want the best of both worlds (or the extra faff of separate headphone amps and a phone), check out the Fiio BTR11, BTR13, BTR15 or Fiio BTR17. These are portable Bluetooth DACs and headphone amplifiers. They even add microphones you you can use them for calling.

 

[Babs776]

I think frequency response is extremely important, but there are other factors not discussed enough. You can have a "perfect" measuring multi driver IEM with high passive noise isolation, and it will sound completely closed off and claustrophobic with poor soundstage. The same applies with over-ear headphones. The perceived soundstage of the Bose QuietComfort and Apple AirPods Max in ANC modes make the Dan Clark Stealth and E3 sound muffled and closed off.

This is why a lot of Chinese in-ear manufacturers are making "semi-open" IEMs, but these still often have higher passive isolation than basic earbuds. If the only way for passive IEMs to compete with ANC and Transparency mode IEMs in soundstage once the frequency responses match is by being purely open-back, this brings into question, what is the point of an IEM?

Everything audible that isn’t distortion, noise, etc is encapsulated in frequency response. Any metric that can’t be plainly identified and quantified in FR exists only in the mind of the person listening to the device. Technicalities are subjective and abstract concepts without floors, ceilings, objective benchmarks, definitions, criteria, correlative measurements or designs that, much like a person’s emotional response to a painting, are not universal functions of that painting.

Just because a nonsensical audiophile word exists for something because companies wanted to sell expensive headphones to two channel enthusiasts doesn’t make soundstage and imaging anymore legitimate than evaluating a headphone on how much it reminds you of playing catch with your dad when you were a kid. Having a word for a concept, believing that you are hearing that word and then not being able to point to it in measurements when we can measure anything that’s audible speaks to the validity of that word and concept.

 

[HiFiHelp]

Everything audible that isn’t distortion, noise, etc is encapsulated in frequency response. Any metric that can’t be plainly identified and quantified in FR exists only in the mind of the person listening to the device. Technicalities are subjective and abstract concepts without floors, ceilings, objective benchmarks, definitions, criteria, correlative measurements or designs that, much like a person’s emotional response to a painting, are not universal functions of that painting.

Just because a nonsensical audiophile word exists for something because companies wanted to sell expensive headphones to two channel enthusiasts doesn’t make soundstage and imaging anymore legitimate than evaluating a headphone on how much it reminds you of playing catch with your dad when you were a kid. Having a word for a concept, believing that you are hearing that word and then not being able to point to it in measurements when we can measure anything that’s audible speaks to the validity of that word and concept.

So the vibrations felt on the skin with an over-ear headphone are not real because they don't show up in DRP measurements?