[e-Q5 added] Shootout: The Ortofon e-Q7 versus 3 new Final Audio IEMs (FI-BA-A1, FI-BA-SB, FI-BA-SS) - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

Lets not confuse things, the FADs are definitely MAs. They are the first to use venting on MAs, but as stated earlier standard BAs have been vented before. Not sure how venting can help BAs considering they don't move any air, but I can definitely see it benefit MAs. The BAs in their names doesn't make it a standard BA, because the name MA or anything of the sort isn't official. Therefore naming it BA isn't out of of place because it is a Balanced Amature afterall regardless of the implementation to a  Moving Armature design.

 

*edit: matter of fact they name their Moving Armature design, "Balanced Air Movement" BAM.

 

 Bam yourself. Proves nothing nor does it need to. The sound is what matters but even their own cut away sure looks like every other BA. The BAM is about the venting and theirs may well be unique yet applied to a traditional BA motor. Do you have a fact or do you just like the way this rationalization sounds?

I obviously haven't, but James confirms my findings. I'm working with what I got from Japanese sites and their own description of the product. They are not explicit about it, but these are MA/MBA/BAM whatever you would like to call it.

I'll call it a vented BA until I see more than marketing. Like I said, it doesn't really matter. The sound does but we shouldn't be changing what the are. Nowhere have I seen them called MA or any type of moving iron design yet have seen BA come up many times. They may well be unique custom BAs or only so because they vented some they already liked but I think BAs are what they are.

They are BAs, but with "Balanced Air Movement" which is their implicit way of saying it's a MA. I think you'll be ignoring the fact that these do sound  very close to MAs (as James describes) and the fact that FAD doesn't market it as simply a BA but a "new  air movement technology" . BA just describes the driver but the fact that it's a moving one will never be said upfront by FAD because that's how they work. Like Monster not stating the driver specs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

I thought the Finals were BA and not MA, therefore the BA in their names. I believe there are BA drivers available with a vent. Here's link to Shure's new se315 with a description of such. http://blog.earphonesolutions.com/?p=517     and a pic of an opened se530 showing a vented BA so they've been around a while. You would assume Sleek is using the same with their tuning.  

I could be mistaken about the Final's and it certainly doesn't change the results of those excellent impressions.  If not, so much for single BAs not being capable of full range sound.  Thanks James.

To me, the example of the SE530 doesn't quite make sense to me as a 'vented BA'. Because the entire chamber is sealed, just because the BA module is vented doesn't mean the actual IEM is. The air moving out of that tiny hole in the BA module is still going to come out of the nozzle - there are no vents to open air.

I never said 530s were vented. Only that there was a vented BA inside the case. I used the pic as a clear view of one. No more, no less. I fact, in a thread where this pic came up about recabling, I mentioned that if tried to make sure to reseal the case to negate any effect free air venting. I'm well aware the 530 isn't vented to the outside though the volume in the case will lower the resonance point compared to a sealed BA and therefore the low extension somewhat. Lots of reading in on this thread. It was only an example of vented BAs not being anything new. If you go so far as to vent it a lot, you will lose damping, lower the resonance point in system and could make the bass much rounder in either a good or bad way. It appears it's all good here. It does not diminish the Final in any way but I think some just want it to be more unique because of some belief or another about BAs. As long as it sings, who cares but we shouldn't we try to be accurate? I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time. 

Here's a quote from Spyro on the MA GR10 vs BA 535.

"BASS:  While GR10 is a good 10% improved over GR8, SE535 is still a good 10% more than GR10 and carries a little more weight.  This will certainly come down to personal preference and while SE535 bass may be a little more fun I would tend to think GR10 is probably a bit more accurate in relation to the other frequencies." Sounds like a BA can have fun bass even compared to a MA and the GR10 has more than the GR8/EQ-7. It's all relative and a matter of perspective. I'm sure Ortos would have rounder/more bass with a hole in the back too but they chose a different character.  """     "   ;wdjj9pIt's all relative

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

I never said 530s were vented. Only that there was a vented BA inside the case. I used the pic as a clear view of one. No more, no less. I fact, in a thread where this pic came up about recabling, I mentioned that if tried to make sure to reseal the case to negate any effect free air venting. I'm well aware the 530 isn't vented to the outside though the volume in the case will lower the resonance point compared to a sealed BA and therefore the low extension somewhat. Lots of reading in on this thread. It was only an example of vented BAs not being anything new. If you go so far as to vent it a lot, you will lose damping and could make the bass much rounder in either a good or bad way. It appears it's all good here. It does not diminish the Final in any way but I think some just want it to be more unique because of some belief or another about BAs. As long as it sings, who cares but we should try to be accurate? I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time.

Fair enough. I think though that no one here is falling for any marketing - or indeed the absence of marketing as to the issue of whether this earphone is a moving armature design or not.

I think that if one earphone, which has a technology stated in marketing which sounds *in principle* to have similar mechanics to another earphone, actually *sounds* similar to that other earphone, and has similar physical dimensions to that other earphone, we can make an educated guess that that the two earphones share the same technology, if not the very same driver, and we can hopefully take on good faith that the two companies Ortofon and FAD are just providing different names for what is essentially a new technology. As ClieOS suggests, there is only one manufacturer at the moment who is making MA drivers.

You can say it's not important, as long as the sound is good. But from an education standpoint of telling other members what to expect from the sound, it's very important. If we know whether the FAD's have MA drivers or not, then we can begin as a community to have a consensus opinion on what are the general merits of MA technology. In the same way that we can make the generally helpful suggestion for people trying to choose between dynamic drivers and balanced armature, that in general balanced armatures are faster with better micro-detail, but dynamic drivers are able to deliver a more visceral feeling of bass punch and timbre. As more MA earphones come into production - I believe another example is the Jays S-Jays (though I'm not entirely sure at all about the technology used in that driver), if we have listened to enough MA phones that we actually know are MA and work out what properties of sound are unique to MA's, we can take a bit of the guesswork out of what any MA phone may sound like.

Now there occasionally comes along an earphone that breaks these rules - for instance, the RE0 with its sheer amount of precision and detail despite being a dynamic driver. However, these exceptions to the rule are *still* helpful in providing a helpful reference point - we can say, "X headphone has properties of sound more like technology Y despite the fact that it has technology Z."

I'm not saying for sure that the FAD's are MA phones, but I think its a good guess that is worthy of further inquiry. It's only natural to be curious to see if an earphone uses a new technology, especially when that new technology seems to deliver a good set of compromises and benefits. It might not make a lick of difference once you have the earphone in your ear to enjoy, but it does make a difference when you're trying to decide whether or not to open up your wallet.
 

FA vs Orto and you can see the balanced air movement is not the driver itself.

^Goodvibes That's true - Balanced Air Movement could refer to the vented design, rather than whatever driver they are using. Obviously  the Ortofon's are not vented like the FAD's, and have greater isolation. This still doesn't tell us whether or not the FAD's use new MA drivers - after all, the diagram is like everything else just marketing, and its a very simplistic diagram at best. Maybe we are wrong, and that using a vented balanced armature housing somehow delivers the same sound as a moving armature. Until someone either pulls one apart, gets an X-Ray, or credible information from a manufacturer, we can only go by our ears and say the Ortofon and E-Q7 sound and feel quite similar, and thus might use the same driver.

When two boutique-ish Japanese manufacturers come out with similar earphones at similar times, with similar sounds, I don't think its such a bad guess.

To each his own but that pic is a classic BA profile and nothing like the Orto driver. Perhaps it's just a representation but somehow I don't think it coincidence that a pic like that and BA in the actual product name is haphazard.

^ Fair enough. I don't think anyone can actually settle this unless they go ahead and crack open their $300+ IEM's. I'm curious, but not THAT curious. XD

 Appropriately scary thought for Halloween

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 

I do like that the moving armature has more of a presentation that I expect from a dynamic driver.  Most BA earphones have the sound but lack a visceral sense.  The note impulse just seems different between the designs.

Very well said.