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 6  

post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

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.

 

Take 2 common headphones...the HD650 and K701...play around with EQ to remove the effects of frequency masking.  If you can't work out the strengths and weaknesses of these headphones at particular frequency bands - well then I am at a loss.

post #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

Take 2 common headphones...the HD650 and K701...play around with EQ to remove the effects of frequency masking.  If you can't work out the strengths and weaknesses of these headphones at particular frequency bands - well then I am at a loss.
It seems that your posts are all over the place so it might be a good idea for you to take a moment to collect your thoughts. There has to be something a bit more coherent or I can't really give you a response.
post #78 of 120

All I'm saying is, take whatever headphones you have and use an EQ as a diagnostic tool to understand more about audio reproduction - compare them to each other playing around with EQ to strip away masking effects. 

 

Use the tools available to you effectively.  I only own a handful of reference cans - a good source, a good amp and an EQ was all that was needed for me to understand what is going on.

 

You got guys here that jump from FOTM to FOTM or with god knows how many headphones, we got guys here and other forums with more tools available to them...yet they go around in circles - not having a clue as to what is going on.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/16/14 at 6:52am
post #79 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 % (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.

The bulk of energy is below 1khz, but the ear is most discriminating in the high midrange and low treble. The ear basically works out so that we hear equal energy per octave (pink noise), so on a spectrum most music would look tilted towards the bass.


Edited by briskly - 2/16/14 at 6:54am
post #80 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by briskly View Post
 

The bulk of energy is below 1khz, but the ear is most discriminating in the high midrange and low treble. The ear basically works out so that we hear equal energy per octave (pink noise), so on a spectrogram most music would look tilted towards the bass.


 Understand what I am trying to say, I do not dispute you.

 

But take a 300hz signal and a an 6khz signal - at the same amplitude, arrived at the ear...the 300hz signal contains far, far more energy...by miles. 

 

Understand how the eardrum reacts to certain frequencies and we might understand why higher frequencies are more damaging to our hearing system.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/16/14 at 6:57am
post #81 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

But take a 300hz signal and a an 6khz signal - at the same amplitude, arrived at the ear...the 300hz signal contains far, far more energy...by miles. 

At the same amplitude, a higher frequency sound has greater power.

post #82 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

At the same amplitude, a higher frequency sound has greater power.

 

How about energy required to propagate equal loudness as perceived by the individual.  Smart people know what I am trying to express, but I'll give you a round of applause for being much more smarter than I am.

 

:rolleyes: 

 

But boy that gives me a brief insight to how terrifying treble can be.


Edited by SP Wild - 2/16/14 at 11:17pm
post #83 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

 

How about energy required to propagate equal loudness as perceived by the individual.  Smart people know what I am trying to express, but I'll give you a round of applause for being much more smarter than I am.

 

:rolleyes: 

 

But boy that gives me a brief insight to how terrifying treble can be.

I know what you're trying to express, but it needs to have more of a basis in reality to discuss; after all this is the sound science subforum.

 

Again, you should take some time to collect your thoughts and do some research on them so that there's something concrete to discuss. Alternatively you can ask in the cables subforum which is DBT free.


Edited by higbvuyb - 2/17/14 at 2:56am
post #84 of 120

:tongue:

post #85 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post

I know what you're trying to express, but it needs to have more of a basis in reality to discuss; after all this is the sound science subforum.

good point. i really shouldn't be here either. dunno what i was thinking. wink.gif
post #86 of 120

It's always good to be open to learn from the people around you. I try to pick friends who are smarter and more creative than I am in hopes a bit of it will rub off.

post #87 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

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.

 

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

 

I have. Easiest if you use impulse response alternative visualizations such as Frequency Response and CSDs.

 

Transient is an engineering term that refers to the behavior of a system before it reaches steady state. This applies to analog and digital systems.

 

The mechanisms that affect transient response also affect overall tone, balance, soundstage, and so forth... not just drums.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

I think it's the larger size of the planar driver - being very extremely effective at creating pressure waves of lower frequency.  The fact that transient response is faster than any dynamic means they do not have a problem with frequency extension.  I think the magnetic bars might pose as a kind of attenuator to the treble energy...although being more extended in response than dynamics the treble is of lower amplitude than the rest of the frequency response.  Which I believe, incidentally is a good thing for headphones as the attenuation of treble matches well known headphone HRTF models.

 

To say that a planar is rolled of at the treble would not make sense, as a true roll-off would blunt transients.  Planars in the speaker world are renowned for making good tweeters and midrange drivers and in fact, are poor bass drivers.

 

Actually, the more I think about it...I think it is just the tuning of planars to sound in a manner to exhibit its strengths.  Overall...the mids on all my planars exhibit the most realistic voices I've heard in headphones.  If you were to brighten the Planars to HD800 levels, sure the goodness of vocals is still there, but the qualities are slightly diminished by being masked by treble.

 

Not sure why you think it's a fact that the LCD-2 has a "faster" transient response (an impulse response characteristic) than the HD650. From IF characterization, relative to the main peak of the impulse response, I think there is about the same or less energy in the HD650 past 1.5 ms than in the LCD-2 case.

 

Also not sure about "tremble matches well known headphone HRTF models", HRTF models vary quite wildly.

 

Roll-off in the tremble does not mean shorter or "blunt" transients. It may mean less low frequency transients and more mid/high frequency transients.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In the bass range, the LCD-2 is IMO superior to the HD650. But not in the mids and treble regions. I found the LCD-2s I heard slightly more recessed in the mids and lower tremble. Relatively uneven as well. There might also be some product variation. I also do not like the LCD-2s price at all.


Edited by ultrabike - 2/18/14 at 1:41pm
post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

 

In the bass range, the LCD-2 is IMO superior to the HD650. But not in the mids and treble regions. I found the LCD-2s I heard slightly more recessed in the mids and lower tremble. Relatively uneven as well.

 

"Uneven"? How so?

 

Channel imbalance? 

post #89 of 120

There has been some reported channel imbalance issues w certain LCD-2s in the wild.

 

Moreover, LCD-2 tend to exhibit a FR depression above 1 kHz and recover around ~15 kHz (upper treble). In between this region (1kHz to 15kHz) some bumpyness may develop between 6 to 10 kHz. Some more smooth and lesser bumps seem to occur through out the recession.

 

As far as how that sounds to me. Well, a bit dark but retaining some air (perhaps due to said recession). Not a bad headphone IMO, but I wouldn't say it is superior to every single dynamic in every single department. Specially in the mids and treble region.


Edited by ultrabike - 2/18/14 at 2:28pm
post #90 of 120
The HD650 would've been the reference. ..in 1996.

I'd say a better reference would be the HD800/700.
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