Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are high end dynamics/orthos still being created?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are high end dynamics/orthos still being created? - Page 3

post #31 of 46
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

 

I haven't heard a ton of Lambdas for some reason, but there are pretty obvious tonal differences between headphones like the Lambda/Lambda Sig vs the LNS/SR507.



Oh yeah, there's certainly a difference, and you can see it in the graphs. To clarify what I meant a little better; each lambda I have heard has been a slightly different 'flavour', rather than a new headphone (eg. moving from an HD600 to an HD650, etc). IMO, YMMV, etc

post #32 of 46

Some people like to watch Jurassic Park with Headphones on.  Electrostatic Headphones can't even Come close to making a T-Rex sound like a T-rex (if only we knew what a T-Rex should sound like).    

 

Also some people like to listen to Pantera or AC-DC, with headphones on.   On electrostatic headphones, the Cowboys don't sound like there coming from hell and I've never been thunder struck if you know what I mean.

 

When it comes to moving air, Electrostatic headphones (or speakers)  at ANY PRICE suck worse then a dust buster.  

 

Maybe if your old and only listen to Polka Music then Electrostatics are the way to go. lol jk

 

But seriously I wouldn't buy an electrostatic even it was free,  they don't do what I want them to do. 

post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreen View Post


Quote:

Originally Posted by RexAeterna View Post



that is interesting.thanks for the explanation. i wonder tho have you found any headphones that were actually free field equalized? only headphone i know of are the akg 240 Cardens(sextetts) going by the PDF file AKG sent me when i asked them about my sextetts. i shared the file in the akg grado'ed forum been going on. i always thought ''free field'' in theory be better since the equalization gets taken place in an anechoic chamber with mics attached to ear lobes of a test dummy while ''diffused field'' is done in a reverberation chamber with reflections everywhere measured with pink noise.

 

Hi, the entire stax lambda line and the original omega are free-field equalised, and very accurately. 

 As an FYI, the key differences in sound come from how the waves interact with the head, rather than the room type used.

Free field = Sound coming at the face, captured at the ears

Diffuse field = Sound captured at the ears in a diffuse field

I'm not sure how direction independant is defined, or how it's capturing technique different, but the curve itself is somewhere between the two above.

The lambda line specifically has a "semi-panorama", in that they have uneven padding, which makes the sound come from slightly more forward than most headphones. Still, I'm not sure how big an effect this actually has

   IMHO free field is the better in practise, since it is easily reproducable, and much closer to real life (usually we are facing a sound, most sounds are recorded head on, and those that aren't are typically captured with cariod mics that have different off-axis properties; which means the effect is in the recording, often not captured at all). On the other hand, Diffuse field is often the sought after "ideal" for all speaker setups (one that is essentially futile since any body in the room would disrupt the field)

 

@Shike; iirc, there was a post made here by another person who was doing amateur measurements against some results for stax by Ryumatsuba - one with the pad flush and one with it sitting slightly ajar. The Ryumatsuba results looked like the ones with the pads slightly ajar. I can't remember where the post is, but I've seen it posted several times.


I do, however agree with you about stax lambda sounds in the sense that there isn't that much of a difference between the models. There are differences in construction (housing, driver mounts) over various decades of production (Eg, Mechanical damping, no mechanical damping, modern mounting frame), which would make a difference. But otherwise, they are pretty similar if you ask me.

I haven't heard any from the new line.

FWIW, I'll give recording headphones a go once I knock up a recording studio at home, but honestly it seems very hard (and expensive) to do well
 

 


that is interesting. from reading supposedly diffused field was invented cause free field suffered from ''center'' imagery with the midrange which is interested cause you mention free field is recorded in front of the face of the head dummy in an anechoic chamber. thing i notice with diffused field headphones that they can have trouble with presenting that bass ''presence'' like in vocals on a broadcasting radio. it's there but not as noticeable. going by my sextetts lp i never had issues with center imagery with these compared to my DF's. i prefer my sextetts lp a bit more cause it give me that extra bass ''presence'' to make it easier to pick it up listening to vocals while remaining very transparent.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreen View Post

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.
 

 

 

Maybe you should bother and it would be CLEAR why dynamics are still in production.   Some music/media  requires the ability to reproduce a boomy sound.  Try playing LL Cool J on your electrostatic headphones.  They do not reproduce a sound that is faithfull or even realistic to what the artist intended. 

 

Electrostatic headphone/speakers just can't move large volumes of air quickly.  Kick drums don't kick, T-rexs don't rex,  and Thunder dose not strike.    

 

This is a HUGE weakness in that technology that is evident the moment you put them on. 

 

Electrostatic's are inferior to dynamics for this reason in MANY instances. 
 

 


Edited by Super MANSKITO - 8/5/11 at 8:23pm
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post

 

Maybe you should bother and it would be CLEAR why dynamics are still in production.   Some music/media  requires the ability to reproduce a boomy sound.  Try playing LL Cool J on your electrostatic headphones.  They do not reproduce a sound that is faithfull or even realistic to what the artist intended. 

 

Electrostatic headphone/speakers just can't move large volumes of air quickly.  Kick drums don't kick, T-rexs don't rex,  and Thunder dose not strike.    

 

This is a HUGE weakness in that technology that is evident the moment you put them on. 

 

Electrostatic's are inferior to dynamics for this reason in MANY instances.


Try listening to a well driven Stax Omega 2, they're seriously slammin'. Even compared to the current bass kings, the LCD-2, the O2's are so bloody close in terms of impact, one simply cannot say electrostatics are inferior to dynamics in the bass department. I've had them both side by side for a long time, with a balanced b22 feeding the LCD-2.

 

I think someone mentioned that the O2's had more bass than 90% of the current high end phones just the other day.

post #36 of 46

"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?"

 

Ha ha! Flame bait! Glad you've found your favorite headphones! Different strokes for different folks. That said, I'm not here to dismiss electrostatics, BUT...

 

post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadlylover View Post


Try listening to a well driven Stax Omega 2, they're seriously slammin'. Even compared to the current bass kings, the LCD-2, the O2's are so bloody close in terms of impact, one simply cannot say electrostatics are inferior to dynamics in the bass department. I've had them both side by side for a long time, with a balanced b22 feeding the LCD-2.

 

I think someone mentioned that the O2's had more bass than 90% of the current high end phones just the other day.


Never heard the Omega 2, from stax all i have heard is the SR-007 and it did not cut the mustard. 

 

post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post

...and I've never been thunder struck if you know what I mean.

 


Listen to them in the shower.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post

Never heard the Omega 2, from stax all i have heard is the SR-007 and it did not cut the mustard. 


That is the Omega 2.

post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post

Never heard the Omega 2, from stax all i have heard is the SR-007 and it did not cut the mustard.

 

Wow were they being driven by a dynamic amp or something? tongue.gif

 

I don't know of any high end headphones that can surpass the LCD-2's ruler flat bass, which should be faithful to the recording.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Listen to them in the shower.

 

LOL

 

post #40 of 46
Quote:

Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post
 

I've never been thunder struck if you know what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Listen to them in the shower.


High voltage is fun!

post #41 of 46
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Listen to them in the shower.

 


LOL

Ps there's no truth at all to the "No bass", when applied directly to a stax setup. Many commercial endeavours with speakers include a dynamic sub for artificial slam, and also for the demand based on this misconception.

Most albums these days are recorded with electrostatic mics (except for vocals). I don't think albums have become less bassy at all; more so even, because of CD

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by RexAeterna View Post



that is interesting. from reading supposedly diffused field was invented cause free field suffered from ''center'' imagery with the midrange which is interested cause you mention free field is recorded in front of the face of the head dummy in an anechoic chamber. thing i notice with diffused field headphones that they can have trouble with presenting that bass ''presence'' like in vocals on a broadcasting radio. it's there but not as noticeable. going by my sextetts lp i never had issues with center imagery with these compared to my DF's. i prefer my sextetts lp a bit more cause it give me that extra bass ''presence'' to make it easier to pick it up listening to vocals while remaining very transparent.

Yes, diffuse field was considered for headphones after freefield.

 


Edited by MrGreen - 8/5/11 at 11:43pm
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreen View Post

Most albums these days are recorded with electrostatic mics (except for vocals). I don't think albums have become less bassy at all; more so even, because of CD


Its not really an issue of "can't".  Its more an issue of "don't" since the 'stat market is dominated by Stax and except for the O2 all their 'phones are voiced pretty similarly.

post #43 of 46

Not to mention the inherent difference between recording a signal and reproducing it.  It's much easier to accurately record pressure waves than it is to reproduce them - if it weren't, speakers and headphones would all have the same order of magnitude of accuracy as microphones...

 

IOW, it's one thing to record, say, (in an extremely simplified example) a 40 Hz sin wave at 100 dB than it is to reproduce that same frequency accurately at the proper SPL in a given environment.

post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super MANSKITO View Post

Some people like to watch Jurassic Park with Headphones on.  Electrostatic Headphones can't even Come close to making a T-Rex sound like a T-rex (if only we knew what a T-Rex should sound like).    

 

Also some people like to listen to Pantera or AC-DC, with headphones on.   On electrostatic headphones, the Cowboys don't sound like there coming from hell and I've never been thunder struck if you know what I mean.

 

When it comes to moving air, Electrostatic headphones (or speakers)  at ANY PRICE suck worse then a dust buster.  

 

Maybe if your old and only listen to Polka Music then Electrostatics are the way to go. lol jk

 

But seriously I wouldn't buy an electrostatic even it was free,  they don't do what I want them to do. 


pretty happy with the bass performance of SR-507 (metal, classical orchestra + piano, hip-hop)... Was not happy with DT48e, K271 or SA-5000...Those all had a major bass roll-off that made you go 'wtf, where is the low end' (sold within days of purchase). SR-507 goes deep enough to be genre-versatile and the low end amount is good too.

Also, Ice Cube disagrees the bass is not enough biggrin.gif .... [FLAC] [04:20] Ice cube - greatest hits - 10 - It Was A Good Day </44 kHz/861 kbps/26.72 MB/> (worst case you can eq the low end + 3, 2, 1 db at 60, 80, 100hz, if you feel it's not enough. I don't really)

The kind of argument, 'it doesn't sound like i'm in a club near a 25inch sub, hence it has bad low end performance' just doesn't cut it.
It's exactly that - it's not a 25inch sub, but it doesn't intend to be one biggrin.gif


Aside from that, I hate the SR-507 headband (squeezes the bottom of my ears against the mesh... well, bottom of my face really. great design there stax) and they're kinda heavy. But that's rectifiable by buying an old style headband assembly, which is what I did. I also wished stax made a closed version of them, but yea...
Edited by svyr - 8/6/11 at 5:49am
post #45 of 46
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackbeardBen View Post

Not to mention the inherent difference between recording a signal and reproducing it.  It's much easier to accurately record pressure waves than it is to reproduce them - if it weren't, speakers and headphones would all have the same order of magnitude of accuracy as microphones...


Last I checked, most microphones actually had significantly inferior noise ratings compared to headphones, both due to size and other factors.

But I've already mentioned differences between mics and headphones, though the differences in technology still apply- arguably moreso since dynamics will have a more uneven force applied in headphone scenarios.


Edited by MrGreen - 8/6/11 at 9:40am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why are high end dynamics/orthos still being created?