Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4 - Page 3

post #31 of 87

I guess it will depend on the music you listen to and what you expect from your earphones. BA drivers are nice but a Dynamic driver will offer something a BA Driver cant. On certain kinds of music a single or a lot of BA Drivers will do the job but on other styles of music a Dynamic Driver will be ideal.

post #32 of 87

But what advantage does venting air actually offer?  

 

Honestly, I'm no authoritative insight of knowledge on this particular subject but a balanced armature headphone can extend just as deep and deeper than a dynamic driver.  Furthermore, who is to say that experiencing something that isn't actually there is anything less than an alternative experience.  Aren't we all just trying to create new methods to replicate conventional ideals?

 

I am in no way insinuating that your opinion is useless, but rather that a balanced armature is not hindered by not venting air and can simulate an experience just the same as a dynamic driver.

 

In conclusion, I have made my points, but in the end as shown by the McGurk effect, our perception of sound is heavily affected by our other senses so if you believe that dynamic drivers are superior I will leave you to your set of beliefs and I will keep mine.

post #33 of 87

Venting is put there in order to move the air so you can not only hear the bass but also feel the bass. Justlike a home floor standing speaker the woofers has a hole so air can be pushed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

But what advantage does venting air actually offer?  

 

Honestly, I'm no authoritative insight of knowledge on this particular subject but a balanced armature headphone can extend just as deep and deeper than a dynamic driver.  Furthermore, who is to say that experiencing something that isn't actually there is anything less than an alternative experience.  Aren't we all just trying to create new methods to replicate conventional ideals?

 

I am in no way insinuating that your opinion is useless, but rather that a balanced armature is not hindered by not venting air and can simulate an experience just the same as a dynamic driver.

 

In conclusion, I have made my points, but in the end as shown by the McGurk effect, our perception of sound is heavily affected by our other senses so if you believe that dynamic drivers are superior I will leave you to your set of beliefs and I will keep mine.

post #34 of 87

Guys relax, I agree that a dynamic driver can produce natural bass beyond naturalism that balanced armatures just cannot produce. JH16 has good bass, but it needed 4 drivers to produce it which can be a whole set to produce an IEM itself. And the bass still isn't as natural as what a dynamic driver can produce. And I agree that balanced armature drivers can produce bass as deep as a dynamic driver, but because it can't move air as much, the impact is lost in the process. 

And guys, dynamic drivers ARE superior, most high-end headphones and speakers(if not all) use them, it's undeniable. 

post #35 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremypsp View Post

And guys, dynamic drivers ARE superior, most high-end headphones and speakers(if not all) use them, it's undeniable. 

 

Apples and oranges... how are you supposed to put a balanced armature into a headphone and (LOL) a speaker?  They're good for different things.  Get over it.  If dynamic drivers were undeniably better, nobody would be using the (more expensive) balanced armatures.  And vice versa.

post #36 of 87
First you make the assumption that moving air creates a better sound when it really doesn't as shown by Solid who stated he preferred rhett balanced armature bass. Furthermore just because it uses four bass drivers doesn't mean anything that is a opinion based argument.
post #37 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by guhmo View Post

 

Apples and oranges... how are you supposed to put a balanced armature into a headphone and (LOL) a speaker?  They're good for different things.  Get over it.  If dynamic drivers were undeniably better, nobody would be using the (more expensive) balanced armatures.  And vice versa.


It would always be possible to create a giant balanced armature, the fact they didn't already proves something. And you guys are the one that should get over it, I'm not a balanced armature nor I am a dynamic supporter, but the way you guys bash dynamic drivers are hilarious, seriously. Balanced armatures are undeniably more expensive, but dynamic drivers could be harder to tune to achieve a good sound. 

post #38 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post

First you make the assumption that moving air creates a better sound when it really doesn't as shown by Solid who stated he preferred rhett balanced armature bass. Furthermore just because it uses four bass drivers doesn't mean anything that is a opinion based argument.


First of all I didn't say moving air creates a better sound, but a more natural bass overall. And using four drivers just to get a sound 1/3 a driver can produce(high, mids, lows), I think that is already telling something. 

post #39 of 87

Hell yeah I agree with you man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremypsp View Post

Guys relax, I agree that a dynamic driver can produce natural bass beyond naturalism that balanced armatures just cannot produce. JH16 has good bass, but it needed 4 drivers to produce it which can be a whole set to produce an IEM itself. And the bass still isn't as natural as what a dynamic driver can produce. And I agree that balanced armature drivers can produce bass as deep as a dynamic driver, but because it can't move air as much, the impact is lost in the process. 

And guys, dynamic drivers ARE superior, most high-end headphones and speakers(if not all) use them, it's undeniable. 

post #40 of 87

I did demo the Earsonics customs and the bass is very very nice but its not the same as a dynamic. But I do like the bass it has.

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmiamihk View Post

I did demo the Earsonics customs and the bass is very very nice but its not the same as a dynamic. But I do like the bass it has.


Balanced armatures are usually meant to produce an accurate type of bass rather than a natural type that dynamic drivers can give... 

post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremypsp View Post


First of all I didn't say moving air creates a better sound, but a more natural bass overall. And using four drivers just to get a sound 1/3 a driver can produce(high, mids, lows), I think that is already telling something. 

That first point was directed towards another speaker. And you're wrong rofl. First offbalanced armatures give a more detailed and textured bass that the one dynamic driver cannot produce and cannot match the speed of a BA.

And because it needs three drivers to produce better bass doesn't make it inferior. That's a moot point because there is almost always just a single dynamic driver and multiple BAs. That's the advantage that BAs have that you can fit more because they're smaller.
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassadian View Post


That first point was directed towards another speaker. And you're wrong rofl. First offbalanced armatures give a more detailed and textured bass that the one dynamic driver cannot produce and cannot match the speed of a BA.
And because it needs three drivers to produce better bass doesn't make it inferior. That's a moot point because there is almost always just a single dynamic driver and multiple BAs. That's the advantage that BAs have that you can fit more because they're smaller.

If you have ever went to a concert, you would know that speed is not needed. Because naturalism is about decay.

 

If it needs more drivers to produce what 1 driver shows it is inferior. And more does not mean better, many companies are using a big amount of balanced armatures as marketing schemes. Why would you need 6-8 drivers to cover a frequency? Anyone knows that a well tuned 3-4 drivers can easily be on par, if not better.

post #44 of 87

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremypsp View Post

If you have ever went to a concert, you would know that speed is not needed. Because naturalism is about decay.

 

If it needs more drivers to produce what 1 driver shows it is inferior. And more does not mean better, many companies are using a big amount of balanced armatures as marketing schemes. Why would you need 6-8 drivers to cover a frequency? Anyone knows that a well tuned 3-4 drivers can easily be on par, if not better.

 

If you ever listened to a genre like trance, you would realize that speed is actually needed so maybe you should stop trying to portray a point that is false.  Furthermore, it isn't a marketing scheme.  More balanced armatures is not necessarily better a distinct difference from your "more does not mean better."  You are completely wrong, the usage of more balanced armatures distributes the burden of taking care of the entire spectrum allowing each to specialize in a certain area allowing for a more detailed and in the end result if done properly (key) a better sounding in ear monitor overall.  

 

You are completely wrong, "anyone knows that a well tuned3-4 drivers can easily be on par if not better."  Again, if done properly a multitude of drivers allows for greater potential of a better sounding ear phone.  The reason this isn't always true is execution, difference in sound signatures by different companies, and as you get deeper into audiophilia the concept of diminishing marginal returns applies so the differences aren't always as distinctly discernible.  At least, not by someone as ignorant as you.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM3 vs UE TF 10 vs Westone 4