or Connect
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 5  

post #61 of 120
^ you sure about that?

"HD650, heavy? in comparison to what? Your HD598? some small bookshelf speaker? large 4 way active reference speakers with 15 inch bass drivers? live instruments? A real drumkit? other headphones? WHAT?"
wink.gif
Edited by up late - 2/15/14 at 7:54pm
post #62 of 120

I am in the market to upgrade my phones, and like many of you I currently have the HD650's. I have been listening to a LOT of headphones recently and I agree there is definitely a difference in the sound from a planar headphone vs a dynamic headphone and it has little to do with the actual frequency response and probably little to do with distortion or transient response. I am not even sure which I like the most. To be totally honest I am have decided to sell off enough equipment so I can have 1 of each because the sound difference is so unique. The dynamic phones seems to have more impact and immediacy to them. If that is because the driver is moving a (comparatively)   larger amount of air or the way sound propagates from a dynamic vs a planar I don't know. The planar on the other hand is smoother sounding, as others have said when speaking of the HE400, the sound is effortless. A simplistic way to put it is like comparing a Grado to any other phone. The one is good at rock and the other best at classical and jazz. I have not heard a planar that sounded like a dynamic or a dynamic that would sound like a planar, though the HD800 comes close to the later.

 I don't think the technology exists to make a planar and a dynamic that sound the same right now. The dynamic would need to have an extremely light yet stiff diaphragm not to mention a magnet with a very uniform and strong field. Sennheiser will probably be the one to build it (HD1000?) and it will be the most expensive headphone on the planet.

post #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post

^ good thing you added "IMO" coz that's all it is. planars haven't superseded high-end dynamic headphones or speakers.


 Its all good, miscommunication is all.  I thought from this post that you have put words in my mouth, that I had said planars headphones were going to supercede speakers.

 

HPiper:  My adventures started before the HD650, I had other senheisser headphones that I enjoyed immensely (HD497), had two channels mounted to standmounts - filled with sand even, and hometheatre setups...But it was the HD650 that threw all that out the window as it made me remember that I, long ago, had aspired to be a musician - and henceforth to use my own ears to asses for what I like in music and not let others tell me how to enjoy my music.  But I had always maintained that the whole lot sounded like rubbish compared to real life.

 

The LCD2s - were the second revelation, I had not anticipated that headphones can sound so true to life in the frequency balance, they may not be perfect, but for its price, without EQ - they sound FAR more realistic than anything else - more so than even the HD800.  This is coming from not only music lessons from many years ago that I now remember but also a career using my ears as a diagnostic tool for machinery repairs - and resonance in car cabins induced by drivetrains and roadbumps. 

 

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the HD650 can do better than the LCD2s...dynamics? I don't think people even knows what this really means - no.  Depth of soundfield (soundstage) - no.  Frequency extension - no, imaging - no - zero, zilch, nada. 

 

But it is not wrong for people to prefer the HD650, but to declare the HD650 can even approach the LCD2 on a technical basis - that is a lie - or wishful thinking - by people who have no clue.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/15/14 at 8:11pm
post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the HD650 can do better than the LCD2s...dynamics? I don't think people even knows what this really means - no.  Depth of soundfield (soundstage) - no.  Frequency extension - no, imaging - no - zero, zilch, nada. 

 

 

 

Being lighter and having better production consistency. 

post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

 

 

Being lighter and having better production consistency. 


I'll give you lighter...but the only people who complain about production consistency are people who could not adopt to a neutral signature no matter what, for whatever reason be it mental or physiological.

 

Heck, even my original R1 pads are a little uneven and if I listen hard enough, yes there is a channel imbalance - what cause of that, I'll take the 650 over the LCD2...you gotta be kiddin me, I'm here to enjoy music and approximate reality - not to nit pick.

post #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post


 Its all good, miscommunication is all.  I thought from this post that you have put words in my mouth, that I had said planars headphones were going to supercede speakers.

i meant planar headphones and speakers. gotta say that it would be helpful to the conversation if you could chill. we get that you're a planar guy but there's no need to force it down folks throats like it's gospel.

so here's my 2 cents. don't have a dog in this fight but am looking for a high-end open can. have auditioned some planars including the audeze lcd2 and 3. don't agree with you about the lcd2. thought it sounded closed-in with rolled-off highs. it might be your idea of "true to life" but it ain't mine. wink.gif liked the he6 a lot more than both audeze cans so guess i'm not a fan of the house sound. also heard the abyss which really impressed. they all lack the air that dynamics can give you and they're bloody heavy imo. the abyss was way more comfortable than the others but it won't be winning any beauty contests.
Edited by up late - 2/16/14 at 4:54am
post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by up late View Post


i meant planar headphones and speakers. gotta say that it would be helpful to the conversation if you could chill. we get that you're a planar guy but there's no need to force it down folks throats like it's gospel.

so here's my 2 cents. don't have a dog in this fight but am looking for a high-end open can. have auditioned some planars including the audeze lcd2 and 3. don't agree with you about the lcd2. thought it sounded closed-in with rolled-off highs. it might be your idea of "true to life" but it ain't mine. wink.gif liked the he6 a lot more than both audeze cans so guess i'm not a fan of the house sound. also heard the abyss which really impressed. they all lack the air that dynamics can give you and they're bloody heavy imo. the abyss was way more comfortable than the others but it won't be winning any beauty contests.


 hahah, here comes the 'you gotta chill' argument.  Just read my posts in a soothing voice.  :L3000:

post #68 of 120
so you've heard it before? funny that. wink.gif
post #69 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

I have never ever been able to correlate the impulse response graph to anything I actually hear on headphones.  Least of all transient attack.

It's hard to directly interpret the appearance of an impulse response into what something sounds like, yes.It can show things like ringing at a particular frequency.

 

However through the magic of the fourier transform, we can turn it into a CSD plot which is much more useful to look at.

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

It's hard to directly interpret the appearance of an impulse response into what something sounds like, yes.It can show things like ringing at a particular frequency.

 

However through the magic of the fourier transform, we can turn it into a CSD plot which is much more useful to look at.


And the problem with most CSD plots is that it tells me nothing about what happens below 1khz - where maybe 70 % (likely even more) of the energy of most music resides.  CSD still tells me nothing of driver articulation.

 

Using a single CSD plot to cast judgement on a headphone would be idiotic to say the least.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/16/14 at 5:55am
post #71 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 


 And the problem with most CSD plots is that it tells me nothing about what happens below 1khz - where maybe 70 % of the energy of most music resides.  CSD still tells me nothing of driver articulation.

There's nothing inherent about a CSD plot that prevents you from seeing what happens below 1kHz. Perhaps if you have a short sample length you may not have enough room for the FT to work at the lower frequencies at later time values.

 

You won't get any 'transients' below 1 kHz anyway.

post #72 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

There's nothing inherent about a CSD plot that prevents you from seeing what happens below 1kHz. Perhaps if you have a short sample length you may not have enough room for the FT to work at the lower frequencies at later time values.

 

You won't get any 'transients' below 1 kHz anyway.


 How about precise articulation of the input signal below 1 khz?

 

Where the majority of the information is, by far.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/16/14 at 6:02am
post #73 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 


 How about precise articulation of the input signal below 1 khz?

 

Where the majority of the information is, by far.

1. You'd have to define what 'precise articulation' actually means.

 

2. Where are you getting 'the majority of the information'?

The ear is more sensitive to higher frequencies (around 3 kHz) as it is adapted for human speech esp vowel sounds. Also mathematically higher frequencies contain more information than lower ones.

post #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

1. You'd have to define what 'precise articulation' actually means.

 

2. Where are you getting 'the majority of the information'?

The ear is more sensitive to higher frequencies (around 3 kHz) as it is adapted for human speech esp vowel sounds. Also mathematically higher frequencies contain more information than lower ones.


 Physically, there is more energy below 1khz...more energy necessitates more control in order to present the energy correctly.  Medically hearing damage occurs at the upper midrange and treble areas.  Some people - especially the younger ones, do not require a boost here to perceive 'details' 'air' and 'soundstage'.

post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 


 Physically, there is more energy below 1khz...more energy necessitates more control in order to present the energy correctly.  Medically hearing damage occurs at the upper midrange and treble areas.  Some people - especially the younger ones, do not require a boost here to perceive 'details' 'air' and 'soundstage'.

You're still introducing terms without meanings that are grounded in reality like 'control' and 'present the energy correctly'.

An impulse response or a CSD is very like a representation of energy (over time).

 

There are specific difficulties in speaker or headphone design that can manifest in lower frequencies, e.g. room reflections or earpad resonances. However, these are addressed case-by-case, and nebulous terms like 'control' are not really helpful.


Edited by higbvuyb - 2/16/14 at 6:21am
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