Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Dynamic sound vs Planar Magnetic sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dynamic sound vs Planar Magnetic sound - Page 8  

post #106 of 120

I'm generally not a classical listener...and never tried the LCD2 for classical, until just recently actually.  Though I don't generally listen to classical - I do understand music when it is presented to me.  In my opinion - listening at 'moderate levels' I would say a brighter headphone would indeed connect with the recorded message better.  For large scale symphonies it might work well - but at the moment I do not have a headphone amplifier powerful enough to hit the 'realistic' peak levels without running into compression and distortion.  Until I can setup my reference rig I am unable to give a yes to classical.

 

Personally I would reach for a brighter can if I truly wanted to enjoy classical on a subjective level.  However I have never attended a live classical performance, nor do I know what a maestro would hear.  The general consensus seems true to me with regards to classical.


Edited by SP Wild - 3/6/14 at 10:06am
post #107 of 120

Classical music utilizes acoustic instruments with very specific sounds that people instantly recognize. It is very easy to tell an amplified violin from an unamplified one because of all of the complex harmonics in a real violin. Roll off some frequencies here or boost a couple there and it doesn't sound real at all. That's why classical music and acoustic jazz are the two types of music that benefit the most from an accurately balanced frequency response.

post #108 of 120

I'm more inclined to believe that different compensation curves are used for recording different music genres in anticipation of the playback system a market segment might have more of.  As in compensation curves are different to cinema (X-curve), commercial music (B&K house curves), audiophilia (bright systems).

post #109 of 120

The goal of high fidelity sound is a flat frequency response. The only problem is creating real world transducers that can do that. That's why we have EQ or tone controls to correct for imbalances in headphones and speakers.

 

All music benefits from a flat response because that is the baseline calibration the recording studio used to create it.

post #110 of 120

The goal is to reproduce the music as the producer intended.  Sales and marketing drives everything.  Audiophile systems never have tone controls to compensate for these factors. Listening levels throw everything out the window.

 

I like digital EQ, Tube amps and silver cables.

 

 

:confused_face_2:


Edited by SP Wild - 3/6/14 at 11:25am
post #111 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post
 

Are the LCD's good with classical? 

 

To my ears, in a word, yes. 

 

Accuracy. 

post #112 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

You talk of all these measurements...it sounds like this to me. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's just basic signal processing theory. You could easily understand what everyone is saying with just a little bit of effort put into learning.

 

Quote:
Frankly transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements you state.  I can only trust my ears...cymbals, snares, kick drums, piano key strikes, cowbell strikes, guitar plucks - these have an attack that gives away to me what might be going on.

This is impossible; impulse response is by definition a transient.

Quote:

If cymbals on the HD650 sound rough and grained - not like cymbals in real life, and on a Fostex T50 RP, LCD2, HD800, SE530, D7000, T1- regardless of treble amplitude produce a crisp real precise sound - like in a ride cymbal, it sounds so much true to life with minimal graining what can I hypothesise?

 

The only logical hypothesis is that on the HD650, the driver is not accurately tracking the electronic signal.  If not, why not?  On the other cans the definition on ride cymbal sounds correct regardless of amplitude, if so why so, we can hypothesise that possibly because the driver more accurately tracks the signal?  Its not just cymbals either, it encompasses all of the sounds I listed before.

This is true, but...

 

Quote:
Planars are quick - the 80 dollar T50RP Fostex has far superior cymbal definition and piano key definition than the HD650 - regardless of poor housing or frequency response.

...it has nothing to do with planars being 'quick'.

 

Any kind of distortion will prevent the driver from 'accurately tracking the electronic signal', be it distorted frequency response, poor damping, harmonic distortion, etc.

 

You keep asserting that certain drivers are 'faster' than others; can you actually define what 'fast' actually means in rigorous terms, without contradicting established signal processing theory?

 

So far you've asserted that something is fast because you can hear it and you can trust your ears; you can hear it because it sounds fast. That's just a bit circular.

post #113 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

It's just basic signal processing theory. You could easily understand what everyone is saying with just a little bit of effort put into learning.

 

I understand what people are saying.  I am saying our measurements are not complete IMO or we are attributing different factor to the wrong measurements.

 

This is impossible; impulse response is by definition a transient.

 

By your argument, we can all end our headphone searches with the PX100 and KossPorta Pro - because their impulse response is better than all the summit fi cans.

 

This is true, but...

 

...it has nothing to do with planars being 'quick'.

 

Any kind of distortion will prevent the driver from 'accurately tracking the electronic signal', be it distorted frequency response, poor damping, harmonic distortion, etc.

 

I believe cups contribute into the measurement...not just the driver.  The T1 has higher distortion than the HD650....but the T1 does sound clearer and more defined.  The HD650 certainly is yesterday's flagship - the T1 sounds clearly like a current flagshipCup characteristics does not necessarily impede the drivers ability to articulate.

 

You keep asserting that certain drivers are 'faster' than others; can you actually define what 'fast' actually means in rigorous terms, without contradicting established signal processing theory?

 

So far you've asserted that something is fast because you can hear it and you can trust your ears; you can hear it because it sounds fast. That's just a bit circular.

 

I am giving a very valid hypothesis to the divide between subjective hearing and established measurements.  It is you that claim absolute knowledge and certainty without the inclusion of reasonable doubt. 

post #114 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
I understand what people are saying.  I am saying our measurements are not complete IMO or 

This is hard to believe, considering comments like "transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements"

 

Quote:
we are attributing different factor to the wrong measurements.

This is definitely an issue. People often look at square waves and assess them in terms of how 'nice' they look, which is completely irrelevant to how the headphones actually sound. The things that people readily notice in graphs aren't necessarily the most important feature in terms of describing sound.

 

Quote:
By your argument,

That isn't an argument; It's the definition of 'transient' and 'impulse response'.

 

Quote:

we can all end our headphone searches with the PX100 and KossPorta Pro - because their impulse response is better than all the summit fi cans.

 

'Better'?

 

[citation needed]

 

If you think they have 'better' impulse responses, you aren't reading the impulse response correctly.

 

Quote:
I believe cups contribute into the measurement...not just the driver.  The T1 has higher distortion than the HD650....but the T1 does sound clearer and more defined.  The HD650 certainly is yesterday's flagship - the T1 sounds clearly like a current flagship.  Cup characteristics does not necessarily impede the drivers ability to articulate.

By 'driver' I'm referring to the entire headphone system, not just the movement of the diaphragm. What it means is "accurately tracking the electronic signal" has nothing to do with being 'fast'; it's related to any kind of distortion.

 

The T1 sounds like it has peaky treble around 6-10 kHz.

 

Quote:
I am giving a very valid hypothesis to the divide between subjective hearing and established measurements.  It is you that claim absolute knowledge and certainty without the inclusion of reasonable doubt. 

It isn't a valid hypothesis. The first thing a valid hypothesis has to be is falsifiable, and your "fast" theory isn't.

 

And it hardly bridges a divide between hearing and measurements if you can't point to a measurement and say "fast headphones have this"

 

The only certainties I've claimed are when your ideas contradict established, basic signal theory.

post #115 of 120


PX100II impulse

 


PortaPros

 


HD800

 

higbvuyb:  Going by your absolutes...the PX100 and PortaPros have better 'transients' or 'speed' or whatever than the 'perfect' HD800.  I attribute different factors other than 'transient' or 'speed' or 'articulation' for these, but seeing as anything I say is coming from a lowly layman - it will be immediately discounted by so called 'scientists'.  So I shall keep them to myself.  :p

 

Square waves at 30 hz can only say what is happening at 30 hz - nothing else.  I think the square waves at 'middle C' could say something about my preferences and what I hear...but this lowly layman has run out of patience with you 'scientists'. 

 

Do any of you actually introduce yourself as 'scientist' to other people.  I actually had a roommate from America for the whole of last year that was indeed a Nuclear Physicist, designed new cooling systems for nuclear reactors to avoid the tragedy in Japan.  I treated him like a protege seeing as he looked up to me so much. :D

post #116 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

higbvuyb:  Going by your absolutes...the PX100 and PortaPros have better 'transients' or 'speed' or whatever than the 'perfect' HD800.  I attribute different factors other than 'transient' or 'speed' or 'articulation' for these, but seeing as anything I say is coming from a lowly layman - it will be immediately discounted by so called 'scientists'.  So I shall keep them to myself.  :p

 

There's still nothing there explaining why you think the HD800 graph is 'worse' than the Portapro's.

 

Sure, the HD800 graph probably 'looks worse' to you. So? Nobody hears with your eyes. It's just that you're unable to validly interpret the graph.

 

Quote:
Square waves at 30 hz can only say what is happening at 30 hz - nothing else.  I think the square waves at 'middle C' could say something about my preferences and what I hear...but this lowly layman has run out of patience with you 'scientists'. 

Nope. A 30 Hz square wave contains every single odd harmonic above 30 Hz.

 

This is what I mean about you not understanding what people are saying. Without a basic knowledge of mathematics, the best one can do is have the illusion of understanding. This has nothing to do with 'scientists' - any person could pick up this basic understanding.

 

 

Did you have a valid hypothesis for your 'fast driver' theory yet? I'm still interested in hearing it.


Edited by higbvuyb - 3/6/14 at 11:14pm
post #117 of 120

Agreed about the 30 hz....the closer the headphone is to neutral the closer it looks like a square.  So going by your logic...according to the impulse I posted up...the HD800 transient response is poorer than a 50 dollar can?

 

Educate me...what is the meaning of the impulse response graph?

post #118 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

Agreed about the 30 hz....the closer the headphone is to neutral the closer it looks like a square.  So going by your logic...according to the impulse I posted up...the HD800 transient response is poorer than a 50 dollar can?

This is again, wrong. While the ideal is a perfect rectangular shape (after compensation), that doesn't mean "it looks worse to me" = "it sounds worse". Nobody listens with your eyes.

 

Quote:
Educate me...what is the meaning of the impulse response graph?

The meaning of an impulse response is that it represents the system's response to an impulse (a type of transient). That's not so hard.

 

As for visually interpreting it? That's what the Fourier transform is for.

post #119 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

This is again, wrong. While the ideal is a perfect rectangular shape (after compensation), that doesn't mean "it looks worse to me" = "it sounds worse". Nobody listens with your eyes.

 

Now you're arguing my point.  The measurements do not reveal the whole picture.

 

The meaning of an impulse response is that it represents the system's response to an impulse (a type of transient). That's not so hard.

 

As for visually interpreting it? That's what the Fourier transform is for.

 

OK, then judging by the impulse graphs I posted - which headphone has the better 'system response to a type of transient'.  The 50 dollar can or the 1500 dollar can?  Which one? 

 

You and I are in a zero sum argument.  You're already starting to not make any sense whatsoever.


Edited by SP Wild - 3/7/14 at 12:39am
post #120 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

Now you're arguing my point.  The measurements do not reveal the whole picture.

The point is: people are bad at reading measurements correctly. This is why you think impulse responses have nothing to do with transient response.

 

Quote:
OK, then judging by the impulse graphs I posted - which headphone has the better 'system response to a type of transient'.  The 50 dollar can or the 1500 dollar can?  Which one? 

Easy. Looking at the impulse response with the most relevant tool for analysis (the magnitude response), the HD800 is clearly more linear (esp in the 10-1000 Hz region).

 

Going by your reply, you didn't really understand my sentence so you really should revise the definitions of terms like 'transient' or 'impulse' or 'response'.

 

Quote:
You and I are in a zero sum argument.  You're already starting to not make any sense whatsoever.

I concede that it may be a bit difficult to understand for you, but it really isn't that hard once you give it a try. Here's a very simple explanation of the FT.

 

There's no need for you to be argumentative; I'm trying to help you to understand.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Dynamic sound vs Planar Magnetic sound