Resolution, speed, do these things really exist?

[Human Bass]

Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.

 

[audio2design]

Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.

That's far more about room interaction and frequency response. There is nothing "faster".

 

[odyo]

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.

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.

 

[ADU]

Speed of the transducer is certainly a thing, a planar set usually sounds "faster and tighter" than a DD.

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.)

 

[odyo]

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.)

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.

 

[Human Bass]

That's far more about room interaction and frequency response. There is nothing "faster".

Room interaction in a headphone?

 

[audio2design]

Room interaction in a headphone?

Obviously I am confusing threads ... doh!!! I blame the wine.

 

[Doodski]

Obviously I am confusing threads ... doh!!! I blame the wine.

CheeerZ to ya, you bOOzer! lol... I make similar mistakes too...lol

 

[dc655321]

Obviously I am confusing threads ... doh!!! I blame the wine.

Yes, this the Head-Fi thread…

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Room interaction in a headphone?

Well in closed back headphones you actually can have "room interactions".

 

[JanesJr1]

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.)

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?

 

[MRC01]

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.
...

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.

When I added a lot bass damping (giant size tube traps and bass traps) to my listening room the bass didn't just get flatter / more linear in frequency response, but it also sounded "faster" or "tighter". Measurements showed significant improvements in both frequency response and in CSD.

Not just in bass. Highly reflective rooms can have reduced peceived midrange resolution/clarity. Adding acoustic foam to reduce midrange reflections can improve perceived resolution/clarity.

 

[cheapmessiah]

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?

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.

 

[MRC01]

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.

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.
However, a large area driver that is light, is usually flexible. So to "get excited all along its surface" so it moves uniformly isn't necessarily happening. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, depending on how well they met that design challenge.

 

[dc655321]

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?

Resonances can manifest as a "decay" effect, as their presence indicates energy storage (which can decay differently when the input is removed/altered).

However, given hypothetical single BA and DD drivers with identical measured frequency response, they would sound identical too, all else being equal (ear piece form factor, etc).

 

[Roland68]

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?

 

[dc655321]

Is this really only FR?

Yes, and/or paying more or less attention to details in the tracks at any one time.

It’s not supernatural.

 

[Roland68]

Yes, and/or paying more or less attention to details in the tracks at any one time.

It’s not supernatural.

No, of course not, this is a great album by Santana .
For me it has nothing to do with attention.
I wasn't actually willing to spend that much money on headphones back then, but I hadn't found any cheaper headphones with which I could hear these details so clearly.
I listen to stuff like that on recordings I've known for over 20 years.
It's not nice when you have to strain to hear details on a recording. Especially when you know it more clearly and effortlessly.

 

[ADU]

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?

Different sound signatures will certainly emphasize different details in a recording. If the response of the headphone isn't neutral though, or at last close to it, then it may bring out details in the recording which were not intended to be heard by the artists or producers of the recording.

One of the objectives of trying to achieve a more neutral or accurate response though is to bring out as many of the intended details and nuances in a recording as possible, imo, as well as improving timbral accuracy/precision. These are probably subjects for another topic though.

Distortion could also be a factor... if you are coming from a headphone with quite alot of distortion, and going to one with noticeably less.

 

[ADU]

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?

I don't know all the precise technical terms for this. But imo, the best reference for something like this would probably be the impulse response/envelope/attack/sustain/decay of the transducers used to produce and master the recording. On good quality recordings these would generally be high-quality studio monitors. On lower quality recordings they could be near field monitors, or sometimes headphones. Good engineers will usually check their recordings on multiple devices though, including sometimes a "grot box".

If they are using speakers, then they should also (imho) have an anechoically flat frequency response across most of the audible frequency spectrum. With some setups, a separate sub-woofer might be needed to better accomplish this in the sub-bass frequencies.

Another possible reference could be the target/intended playback device, especially if it has different response characteristics than the transducers used for mastering purposes.