Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is the purpose of making headphones open?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the purpose of making headphones open? - Page 2

post #16 of 48

Open cans make for a wider soundstage and less sweaty ears. Closed cans isolate and often have more oomph from the bass. Generalisations, but on the whole true.

post #17 of 48

Perhaps because an open-back headphone is easier to R&D than a closed-back one.

Hence easier to tune the sound the way the designer want.

post #18 of 48

also,there is the bass issue.  you can't get hardcore bass and punch from an open headphone like you can with a closed one,at least i didn't heard one that can.

is it impossible to produce such rumbling bass with an open headphone?  if it's true,than it must say that open headphones are not just "the easy way out" cause you actually missing something here.  same thing about the soundstage with closed headphones.

 

this must say,that headphone companies choosing the type of headphone by the kind of sound they want to achieve...right?

post #19 of 48
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post

 

dynamat only works within a relatively small bandwidth and it has a limited effectiveness. It doesnt eliminate resonances, it dampens some of them.

 

It's dynaxorb, not dynamat...completely different animal. Quite frankly, I really don't see the point to use Dynamat in a headphone enclosure...especially the new version w/ the foil lining as this will make the trebles spikey and metallic.

 

a closed phone like the cd3k/r10 kills most open phones in the 3D SS depth department, and for bassheads a closed phone can literally be used as a personal bass reflex(like on the DT770)....there's no good excuse to not go closed, except the lack of money to do some proper R&D.

 

Ultrasone is the leader for SS depth in closed designs these days? I know someone who rates his Pro2500 as high as his cd3k SS-wise....too bad their algorithm doesn't work on everybody.

post #20 of 48

 

Originally Posted by plonter View Post

also,there is the bass issue. you can't get hardcore bass and punch from an open headphone like you can with a closed one,at least i didn't heard one that can.

is it impossible to produce such rumbling bass with an open headphone?  if it's true,than it must say that open headphones are not just "the easy way out" cause you actually missing something here.


For a «hardcore bass» you have to chose a closed headphone. But open headphones like the HD 800 can produce very deep and lifelike bass down to 20 Hz. It's just not hardcore or subwoofer-like. In exchange acoustic instruments like double bass are extremely well reproduced. It's hard for a closed headphone (or subwoofer) to do it right. So if you want accuracy – also at low frequencies – open headphones are the way to go. If you want hardcore bass, closed headphones are the way to go.
.

post #21 of 48
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

if you want accuracy – also at low frequencies – open headphones are the way to go. If you want hardcore bass, closed headphones are the way to go.
 

way too generalizing IMO...you can get a very clear and aerial bass on closed phones...did you hear a cd3k/r10 at all?

..
 

post #22 of 48
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

way too generalizing IMO...you can get a very clear and aerial bass on closed phones...did you hear a cd3k/r10 at all?
 


Yes, I heard both. Quite a pleasing experience, and the bass was certainly good for my taste. But it could also have been from an open headphone, far from «hardcore». BTW, both are effectively open-back headphones.

 

(A bit of generalizing doesn't hurt, the more so if it's so close to the truth.)
.


Edited by JaZZ - 5/23/10 at 11:55am
post #23 of 48

I'll give you that the cd3k(haven't heard the r10) is more semi-open than hard closed like a dt770...its isolation is nowhere near as high.

 

so I think we can reach a compromise and make everyone happy:

-open phones are for the chicken companies that can't afford the R&D required for semi-open

-true closed phones have a very high isolation(DT770/Pro comes to mind, you could almost use it on a shooting stand [:xvi ames]), which allows for a true "bass reflex" system towards the skull to make the bassheads happy...but SS imaging is usually lousy. They're the best choice to record vocals in a studio, though.

-semi-open takes the best of both worlds, and requires a lot more R&D...but when properly engineered they can compete w/ nothing but the best headphones.

post #24 of 48
Thread Starter 

What are the benefits to sound isolation with full size phones?  I know for noisy environments, its very crucial.  Although my HD650 is open, I've noticed that with the drivers being so closed to the ears, outside noise does not interfere with what is being outputted by the drivers, unless the power of the outside noise is comparable.  From an engineering stand point, if it takes less time and money to design a great sounding headphones why force yourself to go the more difficult route?  I am still wondering if isolated phones provide better environmental effects.  I thought that was mainly up to the EQ.  If musical headphones provide good detail, wouldn't it provide good details for movies, games etc?    Also isn't 3D sound caused by phase of the signal? 


Edited by High_Q - 5/23/10 at 12:20pm
post #25 of 48

leeperry...

 

Not sure if I agree on that compromise... I think I don't and stick to the sonic perfection: open designs for nothing but the truth and without coloring reflections.   I can renounce isolation.

.

post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

I'll give you that the cd3k(haven't heard the r10) is more semi-open than hard closed like a dt770...its isolation is nowhere near as high.

 

so I think we can reach a compromise and make everyone happy:

-open phones are for the chicken companies that can't afford the R&D required for semi-open

-true closed phones have a very high isolation(DT770/Pro comes to mind, you could almost use it on a shooting stand [:xvi ames]), which allows for a true "bass reflex" system towards the skull to make the bassheads happy...but SS imaging is usually lousy. They're the best choice to record vocals in a studio, though.

-semi-open takes the best of both worlds, and requires a lot more R&D...but when properly engineered they can compete w/ nothing but the best headphones.


I'm not sure why you're so averse to open headphones. You make it sound like open headphones shouldn't exist.  Everything is a compromise in some way.  The best headphones are the ones with the least amount of compromises (or perhaps with the highest monetary/all else compromise ratio).  Many closed or semi-open headphones are incredible performers, but some of the best(arguably) headphones are open: HD800, Omega2, HE-90.

 

Also even if the best an open headphone could be was only 90% of a semi-open, but the open cost $300 and the semi-open cost $5k, which do you think more people would get?  Companies might choose to go lighter on R&D so they can deliver to a price point.  It doesn't make them any worse.  

post #27 of 48

the R10's are not closed...

post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by High_Q View Post

What are the benefits to sound isolation with full size phones?  I know for noisy environments, its very crucial.  Although my HD650 is open, I've noticed that with the drivers being so closed to the ears, outside noise does not interfere with what is being outputted by the drivers, unless the power of the outside noise is comparable.  From an engineering stand point, if it takes less time and money to design a great sounding headphones why force yourself to go the more difficult route?  I am still wondering if isolated phones provide better environmental effects.  I thought that was mainly up to the EQ.  If musical headphones provide good detail, wouldn't it provide good details for movies, games etc?    Also isn't 3D sound caused by phase of the signal? 


Why are you assuming that closed cans give better "environmental effects"? You cite the AD700 as an example, but the AD700 is an open headphone.

 

Some closed cans (Denons, DT770) are popular movie and gaming choices because of their bass, not "environmental effects". Their bass goes lower and/or has more punch, which makes explosions and the like (anything with low sub-bass) sound more realistic. Normally those frequencies are felt as much as heard because they move a lot of air, but with tiny headphone drivers there will never be enough air to truly feel it. So an accented bass response sounds more natural when lots of it is called for. With regular music that doesn't reach down as low as often, this isn't needed as much.

 

In the low price range, where the AD700 sits, open cans are very often considered better. Why? Because the profit margins are too low down there for companies to take lots of time and effort to dampen closed headphones adequately. So you get lots of resonance, the direction the discussion has turned. Open headphones by design have less of that.

 

I also don't understand your aversion to isolation. Do you really not notice more detail and overall better sound quality when less if going on around you? How loud do you listen? Isolation is extremely important for low volume listening. I listen at low volume with open Grados, and sometimes I have to pause the music because someone several rooms down the hall is talking loudly on his/her cell phone or something. My parents are mowing the lawn right now, and we've got a wide property. Even when the mower is several acres away, there's enough noise to make me want to pause and wait. That wouldn't be a problem with closed headphones. Though because of the resonance in poorly designed ones already mentioned, I still prefer open.

post #29 of 48
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by High_Q View Post

What are the benefits to sound isolation with full size phones?  I know for noisy environments, its very crucial.  Although my HD650 is open, I've noticed that with the drivers being so closed to the ears, outside noise does not interfere with what is being outputted by the drivers, unless the power of the outside noise is comparable.  From an engineering stand point, if it takes less time and money to design a great sounding headphones why force yourself to go the more difficult route?  I am still wondering if isolated phones provide better environmental effects.  I thought that was mainly up to the EQ.  If musical headphones provide good detail, wouldn't it provide good details for movies, games etc?    Also isn't 3D sound caused by phase of the signal? 

Assuming people are not mowing the lawn around you.  Thanks for all your responses guys.
 


Edited by High_Q - 5/23/10 at 12:55pm
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

dynaxorb_with_without.gif

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Quite frankly, I really don't see the point to use Dynamat in a headphone enclosure...especially the new version w/ the foil lining as this will make the trebles spikey and metallic.

 


Thanks for the meaningless marketing image, and for comparing the sonic aspects of a product based entirely on how it looks and what it's made out of. 

 

Do you have any experience with headphone design and development costs, or are you just talking out of your crapper? 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is the purpose of making headphones open?