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 2  

post #16 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Well, that might be because they are a closed, heavily dampened headphone.  Hifiman headphones are extremely open and have almost no damping.

 

I really can't comment on the lack of dynamics.  For what it's worth, I feel all Sennheiser 5xx series headphones lack dynamics.

I can't say the 5xx have any less dynamics than the 6xx. The HD650 did give some of that midbass energy so there were some greater increase in dynamic in that region, but that could be said about any other headphones that have an elevated part of the frequency response. 

 

I guess you are right about them being heavily dampened... may be the reason for the lack of dynamics. 

post #17 of 120

All of the 5xx series is less clear sounding to me, compared to 600 and even 650.

 

The thing is that excess damping shouldn't take away any dynamics unless it's to the point of hurting the treble extension of a headphone.

post #18 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

All of the 5xx series is less clear sounding to me, compared to 600 and even 650.

 

The thing is that excess damping shouldn't take away any dynamics unless it's to the point of hurting the treble extension of a headphone.

Do you have any approaches to testing treble extension? The Mad Dogs definitely have less treble than most headphones, though I do not know if it extends worse or better than others. 

post #19 of 120

Very little.  Usually when I compare headphones, treble extension is one of my lesser priorities.  I have no experience with the Mad-dogs, but people do describe them as dark like the Audez'e headphones.  Perhaps you might not like?  I thought the 598, 600 etc had quite a bit of upper mid and treble presence, but nothing too emphasized.

 

It's tough to say what you're experiencing unless you try other planar magnetics.

post #20 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Very little.  Usually when I compare headphones, treble extension is one of my lesser priorities.  I have no experience with the Mad-dogs, but people do describe them as dark like the Audez'e headphones.  Perhaps you might not like?  I thought the 598, 600 etc had quite a bit of upper mid and treble presence, but nothing too emphasized.

 

It's tough to say what you're experiencing unless you try other planar magnetics.

Yes I know :( I need another planar magnetic to compare it with. I actually do like this darker signature, depending on what music I am listening to. 

 

Yeah I didn't think the HD598 or the HD600 had much of an upper mid / treble presence either - all relatively neutral. Even though the HD598 can sound a trifle too bright for some recordings, it had a very non-fatiguing upper mid/ treble compared to other cans in the price range. 

 

I kind of want a treble quantity that's between the Mad Dog and the HD598. 

post #21 of 120

I'm not sure that the wave form differences between planars and dynamic phones matter a great deal when each is less than an inch from your noggin'.

 

What my HE 400s do extremely well is make it seem like sound reproduction is an "effortless" task. The near-flat bass response possible is a great thing, sure, but I am not sure that dynamics do not typically achieve this as well, in certain applications (concert speakers, monitors, and so on).

 

I am inclined to attribute a lot of their desirable sound qualities to larger overall surface area. They can simply move more air, and will not work as hard to produce greater volume. Ever heard a 15 inch sub in a car? How about an 8 inch right afterward? A 15 is wasted in a car space, mostly, but the "ease" of bass reproduction can be really cool.

 

The planar's definitely have a lot more surface area. But it seems that, based on different frequency response curves I've seen, they can struggle in the midrange and treble frequencies - just like a big driver being asked to play at a higher frequency than it is optimized for.

 

I am probably totally wrong on this, but I open to all suggestions. The main issue is also, of course, the dynamics "piston" like motion and rubber-band like popping compared to the planars movement within a magnetic field.

post #22 of 120

The utterly opposite approaches to damping with Audezes vs Hifimans make it hard to say what sound attributes are intrinsic to planar / orthos sound in general and not the products of specific designs.

 

The only observable trait that is shared across seems to be full-bodied bass and lower mids, that no dynamics can simulate. Not sure how planars do that but it might be observed as somewhat slower decay in CSDs.

post #23 of 120

Not dynamic vs. planar but electrostat vs. planar. Its start and stop of the diaphragm or control of the transducer. Its related to the area of the transducer too. I think the electrostats still have the advantage over planar magnetics. They're lighter compared to the planars.

post #24 of 120

But supposedly they don't have the bass impact of planars either, because of their lighter diaphragms and less forceful drive.

post #25 of 120

A "light" driver or a heavy driver doesn't matter when the point is to move air. Aluminum, paper, and plastic all get used in speaker drivers, and each has inherent trade-offs. For that matter, some of the best speakers I've heard are made from paper and plastic, and some of the worst used "exotic" ceramics.

 

Bass "impact" is above moving a lot of air, and many of the nastiest subwoofers out there all use the same cone size. The differentiating factor is the strength of their motors, the Xmax or peak to peak extension of the driver, and the ability to manage heat (given that they consume more power). Most of the best subs out there are built like tanks. But this confuses the point, which is that, bottom line, it is the size of the driver that determines total output (or at least output potential). I know this gets complicated when we state, immediately after, that little tweeters can be loud as hell, so "movement of air" is maybe the wrong idea for ALL thoughts of sound quality.

 

But surely, if planars and electrostatics can exert more control over the diaphragm, and the diaphragm can be larger, I would think that this is a key advantage.

post #26 of 120

The question of impulse response in a dynamic vs. planar design is an interesting one. There are a few aspects to 'slow' sounding headphones, or a slight smearing of response in the time-domain: weight of the driver, drive & control of the diaphragm, surface area and resistance, and finally resonances and diffraction. Some planar headphones do seem to sound clearer in sharp transients compared to the average dynamic (I've found this is something that does come across pretty well in measurements - even though you're measuring the whole system), but I wouldn't say this is true across the board. I think the HD800 sounds as fast as most planars I've listened to, possibly due in part to the ring radiator design.

post #27 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonance View Post

The question of impulse response in a dynamic vs. planar design is an interesting one. There are a few aspects to 'slow' sounding headphones, or a slight smearing of response in the time-domain: weight of the driver, drive & control of the diaphragm, surface area and resistance, and finally resonances and diffraction. Some planar headphones do seem to sound clearer in sharp transients compared to the average dynamic (I've found this is something that does come across pretty well in measurements - even though you're measuring the whole system), but I wouldn't say this is true across the board. I think the HD800 sounds as fast as most planars I've listened to, possibly due in part to the ring radiator design.


I haven't heard a headphone better than my HE-400 yet. I would like to hear some very-high end dynamics to see if they are also as "fast" and awesome as my Orthos.

 

 

Quote from Headphone.com:

"A larger driver will allow the diaphragm do displace more air for any given unit distance moved compared with a smaller driver. Moving more air means the driver can achieve better bass extension before it runs out of voice coil travel. It’s pretty obvious when listening to these cans, they really have an astonishing sense of ease and control in the lows. Not overly big and bloated, just controlled right down to the point you feel your Adam’s apple wiggling.

The second advantage the new ring radiator has in the HD800 is improved imaging, and sense of coherence. When sound approaches your head from a speaker or natural sound source it travels a substantial distance to reach your head, and therefore the wavefront of the sounds is fairly planar when it hits your ears."

 

They claim that the HD-800 creates a more "planar" wavefront.

 

Sounds to me like I may not be crazy after all.

post #28 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuggetsPie View Post

What is transient response?


"Transients" refers to how well a piece of gear handles very fast waveforms - The leading edge of a drum or cymbal hit, for example. Or a finger snap. If a component handles these well, the result will be crisp and accurate.
post #29 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotteq View Post


"Transients" refers to how well a piece of gear handles very fast waveforms - The leading edge of a drum or cymbal hit, for example. Or a finger snap. If a component handles these well, the result will be crisp and accurate.


When one passes a signal through a filter (or a headphone), the "processed" signal will not come out immediately. The signal will come out a bit later because hardware does not respond instantaneously to an stimulus. A bunch of junk will come out first depending on how "fast" the hardware is, and how it reacts to certain frequency stimulus. This junk that comes out first is usually referred to as a transient.

 

AFAIK, the impulse response represents the linear transient behavior of filter (or a headphone). I guess the less junk before and after the main peak of a headphone's impulse response, the "faster" the headphone.


Edited by ultrabike - 1/7/13 at 3:17pm
post #30 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post


When one passes a signal through a filter (or a headphone), the "processed" signal will not come out immediately. The signal will come out a bit later because hardware does not respond instantaneously to an stimulus. A bunch of junk will come out first depending on how "fast" the hardware is, and how it reacts to certain frequency stimulus. This junk that comes out first is usually referred to as a transient.

 

AFAIK, the impulse response represents the linear transient behavior of filter (or a headphone). I guess the less junk before and after the main peak of a headphone's impulse response, the "faster" the headphone.

 

 

The definition I learned a long time ago was that a transient is a short lived/sudden sound - such as a snare drum hit.  And that transient response refers to a piece of gear's ability to render that sound accurately.

 

<shrug>

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