Quote:
I never said 530s were vented. Only that there was a vented BA inside the case. I used the pic as a clear view of one. No more, no less. I fact, in a thread where this pic came up about recabling, I mentioned that if tried to make sure to reseal the case to negate any effect free air venting. I'm well aware the 530 isn't vented to the outside though the volume in the case will lower the resonance point compared to a sealed BA and therefore the low extension somewhat. Lots of reading in on this thread. It was only an example of vented BAs not being anything new. If you go so far as to vent it a lot, you will lose damping and could make the bass much rounder in either a good or bad way. It appears it's all good here. It does not diminish the Final in any way but I think some just want it to be more unique because of some belief or another about BAs. As long as it sings, who cares but we should try to be accurate? I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time.
Fair enough. I think though that no one here is falling for any marketing - or indeed the absence of marketing as to the issue of whether this earphone is a moving armature design or not.
I think that if one earphone, which has a technology stated in marketing which sounds *in principle* to have similar mechanics to another earphone, actually *sounds* similar to that other earphone, and has similar physical dimensions to that other earphone, we can make an educated guess that that the two earphones share the same technology, if not the very same driver, and we can hopefully take on good faith that the two companies Ortofon and FAD are just providing different names for what is essentially a new technology. As ClieOS suggests, there is only one manufacturer at the moment who is making MA drivers.
You can say it's not important, as long as the sound is good. But from an education standpoint of telling other members what to expect from the sound, it's very important. If we know whether the FAD's have MA drivers or not, then we can begin as a community to have a consensus opinion on what are the general merits of MA technology. In the same way that we can make the generally helpful suggestion for people trying to choose between dynamic drivers and balanced armature, that in general balanced armatures are faster with better micro-detail, but dynamic drivers are able to deliver a more visceral feeling of bass punch and timbre. As more MA earphones come into production - I believe another example is the Jays S-Jays (though I'm not entirely sure at all about the technology used in that driver), if we have listened to enough MA phones that we actually know are MA and work out what properties of sound are unique to MA's, we can take a bit of the guesswork out of what any MA phone may sound like.
Now there occasionally comes along an earphone that breaks these rules - for instance, the RE0 with its sheer amount of precision and detail despite being a dynamic driver. However, these exceptions to the rule are *still* helpful in providing a helpful reference point - we can say, "X headphone has properties of sound more like technology Y despite the fact that it has technology Z."
I'm not saying for sure that the FAD's are MA phones, but I think its a good guess that is worthy of further inquiry. It's only natural to be curious to see if an earphone uses a new technology, especially when that new technology seems to deliver a good set of compromises and benefits. It might not make a lick of difference once you have the earphone in your ear to enjoy, but it does make a difference when you're trying to decide whether or not to open up your wallet.
