Why are high end dynamics/orthos still being created?

I'm not here to dismiss both ortho and dynamic headphones straight out - they're both great alternatives. However, when it comes to the high end: why bother?

 The elementary standard for all modern, professional microphones is the electrostatic design; sometimes requiring a phantom power, plug in power, or having a permanent charge (electret). There are still dynamic microphones being made - but they are largely inferior in quality (and outright regarded as such). It's odd, when electrostatic microphone capsules can cost as little as $1.50. Most major companies have also abandoned ribbon design; although they share a cult following for their timbre.

However, for some reason, headphones seem to have a massive divide between dynamic, electrostat, and ortho. Until recently, many ortho users were looking for a cheap middle-ground between stat and dynamic; this is still true in many ways, though the "cheap" aspect is often removed. Dynamic users often complain about weak bass impact from the electrostat camp (I won't bother going into the flaws of this statement).

 Is market size the reason? I'm sure you can market $500 headphones to just about anyone (beats by dre), and I suppose that attaching a "by the way, you need to have an amplifier to use this" is not exactly going to sit well with everyone. But it's not at all hard to integrate, most portable recording devices provide either phantom power (48v bias) or plug in power (5-12V iirc). Couple this with the fact that electrostats are extremely cheap to make (see: just about any DIY electrostat thread)

Additonally, why are there so few electrostatic canalphones? This one truly baffles me; there are electrostatic mic capsules with diaphragms that range from 5mm to 10mm: all of which have been used in "high end" measuring microphones (STO-2, earthworks, etc).

Maybe there's a factor I'm missing; but for some reason it seems that headphone technology seems hellbent on what is widely-accepted inferior, outdated technology.

I might try use some stat mics as canalphones, and see how it goes.
 

Oh, and FYI, I'm aware there are some very popular dynamic mics (SM57 comes to mind), but I am talking about well designed, true-to-source microphones, not "here's a wiggly line response curve that gives you a more powerful voice!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

I'd pose the same question to you though, why bother with electrostatics?

Why is every measurement microphone in existence a condenser (electrostat)? Many of them are electret, though.

Regardless any "additional detail" is probably NOT the reason they are so often used in studio settings either (not for vocalists, who typically opt for wavy lines), since it is common practise to apply a pad which worses the SNR as well.

I don't have a K601 graph handy, but chances are it has boosted bass, like just about every headphone in existence (I have no idea why since physically speaking, it is unnecessary. Perhaps it has to do with the illusion of "bigger" or more air being moved). It doesn't seem as hard to make a perfectly neutral headphone as some companies make out

It was probably hasty of me to dismiss physical difference between speakers and microphones; one has a magnet exerting force. The other has a magnet transferring current. Obviously, a lighter membrane has different implications for microphones, but anyway.

I'd love to hear any companies take on why they chose a particular design in favour of electrostat. Ortho I can certainly understand, both it and stats seem to lend themselves to graphene

I don't like headrooms graphing technique, as it it applies the same functions to all headphones, and there are a range of responses. I'd like to see a raw response, more than anything. From their graph, it looks great, but not perfect. The DT880 is a widely acknowledged headphone that is close to diffuse field hrtfs. I also don't like their scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

Headroom uses DF EQ right?  Wasn't that your favorite?

 

 

Take a look at this response, as an example of a 0.25" electret microphone.

Here's the same, zoomed out

Certainly the goals are different, though I'm sure you can appreciate how close it would be to DF if placed in a dummy head in a diffuse field

Here's an electrostat microphone produced by (I think) one guy.

Certainly you can see it's less ideal, but it has other benefits that come wth it, and it's still very, very good. Especially when you consider that the actual microphone is $35~

Here's a graph of a small electret that comes from a $50 matched stereo pair. This mic has problems other than response, such as self noise and max SPL. These are all omnidirectional microphones which capture sound fairly evenly, the small-group mic probably has the most deviation off axis, and as you can see it's very small

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik 

Probably because dynamics are easier to manufacture and cost a lot less. They also work with portable gear. I would not be surprised if 95% or more of headphones sold were developed to work with DAPs. Electrostats are very much a niche and I don't think the sales volume is enough to pay attention to. Reminds me of the RX-7 I had. The rotary engine is wonderful and has some great advantages. Having a real mid-engined car was a joy. There's enough demand for one manufacturer to make a specialty car, but it just isn't different enough to justify everyone switching over.

Also, the amplification is a huge stumbling block. Expensive and little variety. There would have to be a major difference to convince people to switch. 'Stats sound great, but so do a lot of dynamics. I like the O2, but in the big picture, it is about as enjoyable as the HD-800. The SR-009 is probably fantastic and I'd have "new toy" excitement for several months. Then I'd probably return to the baseline of happiness I have with my current rig, which is high.

Also, I prefer electrostat speakers. If you're going through the expense and trouble of running electrostats, you might as well have a dipole. You can get into nice Quads for the same price as high-end Stax, the amplification is a lot cheaper, and you get a much better soundstage.

With regards to portable devices, every portable field recorder has something called "plug in power", which is basically a few volts applied to microphones - it's much less than phantom power, though (about 1/5th). There are quite a few electrostat microphones that work from portable sources that only have PiP, and no Phantom Power, including a small company called Naiant, who release very good microphones for the price (about $35, if you want to use plug in power). No doubt the capsule costs about $5 at most. (I'll be making a free album from them later ;))

Not that I don't agree with everything you've posted: the current "layout" of all DAPs definitely adds a stumbling block to adding an electrostat, but one has to wonder why it hasn't made the swap, like most field recorders have.

 One possible reason I've come up with, besides cost is producing a reasonable SPL for the general public. Using microphones as an example, a cheap variant of some very popular measuring microphones (earthworks, etc) from behringer (not too respected), is only capable of about 70dB SPL before it starts to malfunction. It's pretty much dead flat, though, and other that spec and it's self noise (due to size), it's an exceptional mic at $50 for hte matched pair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

See maverickronin's post, I purchased the K601 due to specifically how flat it was DF equalized -- flatter than the HD800 even.  You're right about it not being that hard though, since the K601 is only around $200.  The only thing I can say is some electrostatics have "fun" traits, but if that's all we're looking at there's just as many orthos and dynamics (cheap and overpriced) that do the same thing. 

 

Not every electrostatic headphone is as accurate as an Orpheus, and if they were I'd hate to see the price tag.

Most stax lambdas have a near-perfect free field response curve. Not diffuse field, but anyway. The same applies for the original SR-Omega. I'm not sure about the SR-009, or the 007, but judging by my experience from the SR007, I don't suspect it does. Etymotic is another source of diffuse field equalisation (for canalphones, obviously)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

Regardless of whether DF or FF is better, I'd like to ask you for a source that lists various lambda models with their measured response, including equipment used for testing if possible.

The manufacturer provides this information. Many of the classic lambdas actually came with a print-out. I could post a picture of my print-out, although mine is less close to a free-field curve than say, the lambda pro. Though I think I'd rather have the smaller diaphragm.

A dead-flat, omnidirectional microphone, when mounted inside a head with the correct ears will produce any kind of response for headphones, depending on the source of the sound.

 That's what I meant, I should have been clearer. Eg, if they were placed in a diffuse field, they'd capture the ideal "response" for a diffuse field headphone, because of the ears.

At any rate, I prefer diffuse field in headphones, though I am quick to acknowledge free field. But we've spoken about this before

The raw response for the K601, actually looks better than the adjusted one - were they taken on separate occasions?