Are Planar Magnetic headphones really better than dynamic one's, or is there a fundamental misconception going on?

[Steven31]

So i've been doing some research recently on the structure and fundamental operating principles of planar magnetic headphone drivers, and comparing this information to my understanding of how dynamic-type drivers operate, and i'm left feeling slightly confused, as to whether planar magnetic drivers are actually the superior drivers, or if they are seriously flawed and imperfect. On paper (objectively) I have every reason to believe that planar magnetic drivers offer a technically superior performance, due to the ultra thin membrane suspended between magnets in a permanent electrostatic state, creating uniform soundwaves which (subjectively) gives planar magnetic headphones their most recognisable unique traits (a soundstage presentation comparable to loudspeakers, a linear frequency response, ultra realistic 3 dimensional positional audio, imaging and depth, phenomenal detail extraction and clarity of "background" noises in recordings, musicality) but I recently read a post (in a thread here on Head Fi) by someone who is clearly an expert in the field of driver technology and design, who seems to have an expert understanding of planar magnetic drivers, and what he said about planars has thrown my beliefs about their supposed superiority over dynamic drivers, up in the air. Made me question all I knew or at least all I thought I knew about them. What he said is perfectly legitimate and actually a very good reason to doubt planar magnetic drivers superiority over dynamic one's. He focused on the magnets on a planar magnetic driver and why - due to their position and the nature of the overall rectangular design, they may be obstructive to the soundwaves emitted by the membrane, he also explained how the intrinsic nature of the drivers makes it harder to eliminate distortion. After reading this I am not sure planar magnetic headphones are all they are made out to be. I am confused, they sound so good yet how am I meant to believe they are superior to dynamic driver headphones, given the above, and if when I hear them, am I just listening to a distorted mess?..with sound waves reaching my ears being a convoluted mess?..
Hmm it doesn't add up! perhaps there is a great deception.

Fostex TH500RP (Planar Magnetic driver)

AKG K702 (dynamic driver)

 

[Reputator]

So with planar technology, a key focus of advancing sound quality in just the last few years has been reducing the deflections and refractions of the sound waves caused by the obstruction of the magnet structure. Audeze has their Fazor waveguides, and Hifiman has their rounded Stealth magnets, with great results in both cases.

That being said, dynamic drivers haven't been sitting idle either, and in some cases the response speed and distortion can match some planars. So as for which technology is superior? There's really no definitive answer. They all have their pros and cons.

Spoiler

(jk AMT is superior don't @ me)

 

[kith86]

Seemed superior in paper indeed, this thread make me questioning myself too, why some big/audiophile reputable company like Fostex, AKG, Sony, ATH, Sennheiser, Focal Beyer, Grado, Denon, ZMF dont release planar Magnetic Driver in their TOTL line up instead still using dynamic ? especially fostex since their TOTL offering is still dynamic one

And some companies doesnot bother offer dynamic at all, like audeze, dan clark (CMIIW)

Maybe they have reason for that or some kind principal regarding sound tech

 

[Steven31]

So with planar technology, a key focus of advancing sound quality in just the last few years has been reducing the deflections and refractions of the sound waves caused by the obstruction of the magnet structure. Audeze has their Fazor waveguides, and Hifiman has their rounded Stealth magnets, with great results in both cases.

That being said, dynamic drivers haven't been sitting idle either, and in some cases the response speed and distortion can match some planars. So as for which technology is superior? There's really no definitive answer. They all have their pros and cons.

Spoiler

(jk AMT is superior don't @ me)

Thank you for your comment. I guess you are right. I agree 100%. I can't make up my mind which driver type I prefer, I have a ton of experience with dynamic type drivers but not as much experience with planars. I do really like the sound they are capable of, I think they have mysterious euphonic quality that doesn't exist with dynamic type drivers and thus can sound very addicting, but I remain on the fence as to which type of headphone driver I ultimately prefer. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Steven31]

Seemed superior in paper indeed, this thread make me questioning myself too, why some big/audiophile reputable company like Fostex, AKG, Sony, ATH, Sennheiser, Focal Beyer, Grado, Denon, ZMF dont release planar Magnetic Driver in their TOTL line up instead still using dynamic ? especially fostex since their TOTL offering is still dynamic one

And some companies doesnot bother offer dynamic at all, like audeze, dan clark (CMIIW)

Maybe they have reason for that or some kind principal regarding sound tech

Yeah that is strange. I think I would totally buy a Beyerdynamic planar if they ever released one, but somehow I cant ever see that happening. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Whitigir]

The thing about planar is that they are still considered Dynamic ! Because it movements are based on the magnetic field and the thrust from current!! Lol!! But anyways, since I know the topic intention, I would say that

Planar: has a lot of weight on the diaphragm due to the voice coil being printed onto it. Also the reflections and obstructions of the magnet bars and housing. In trade off, it has the whole flat and large surface to reproduce the sound.

Dynamic: the weight of the voice coil is considered more centrifugal, and with no magnet reflecting or obstructing the air. In many cases, they need to restrict the air flow and dampening the retracted movements to control it better.

All in all, dynamic is more efficient than planar, neither one is really superior than the other. It is just the matter of RD onto which the aims and goal is for

 

[HipHopScribe]

They're not better or worse, they each have their advantages. As to why manufacturers often stick to only one type, some of it likely just having a certain design philosophy built up over the years, but there are also business reasons to only use one type of driver in terms of R&D, tooling costs, supply chain, and manufacturing processes making it more expensive to do both.

 

[asarkhentamentiu]

Yea that’s why there’s stealth magnets and fazors

It is a superior sound… effortless

 

[Steven31]

The thing about planar is that they are still considered Dynamic ! Because it movements are based on the magnetic field and the thrust from current!! Lol!! But anyways, since I know the topic intention, I would say that

Planar: has a lot of weight on the diaphragm due to the voice coil being printed onto it. Also the reflections and obstructions of the magnet bars and housing. In trade off, it has the whole flat and large surface to reproduce the sound.

Dynamic: the weight of the voice coil is considered more centrifugal, and with no magnet reflecting or obstructing the air. In many cases, they need to restrict the air flow and dampening the retracted movements to control it better.

All in all, dynamic is more efficient than planar, neither one is really superior than the other. It is just the matter of RD onto which the aims and goal is for

Thank you for explaining this, this helps my understanding. Thanks.

 

[Shane D]

I have gone through several pairs of planar's without being at all impressed. I now own two planar's that I like a lot (T60 Argons and HE6se V2's), but I never think of them as a different technology. I just explore sound signatures and keep the ones I like. Out of my top four, only one is planar. Just worked out that way.

I will say that cheap planars are usually underwhelming, but cheap dynamics can be very good.

 

[Reputator]

Thank you for your comment. I guess you are right. I agree 100%. I can't make up my mind which driver type I prefer, I have a ton of experience with dynamic type drivers but not as much experience with planars. I do really like the sound they are capable of, I think they have mysterious euphonic quality that doesn't exist with dynamic type drivers and thus can sound very addicting, but I remain on the fence as to which type of headphone driver I ultimately prefer. Time will tell I guess.

My advice would be not to think of things in terms of a "technology preference". Certain technologies have POTENTIAL, but how well each example executes on that potential comes down to each individual product. A few examples:

Solid State versus Tube amps. You can't really make a blanket statement and say that solid state amps will always sound better than tubes. There are thousands of examples of each technology and there will always be some worse than others, and vice-versa.

Single-ended versus balanced. Balanced does have some inherent advantages giving each channel its own ground signal, and that can lead to greater separation and cleaner (and often more) power. But similar to above, you can always find examples out of the many, many amps out there of single-ended amps that sound better than cheap balanced amps, with some of the cheaper ones not even being truly balanced internally.

Open versus closed-back. Open has its advantages, for sure. Less reflections and resonances usually leads to better decay, wider soundstaging, tighter bass, etc. But there are plenty of examples of crappy open-back headphones that are stomped all over by quality closed-backs, and in recent years there are quite a few god-tier closed backs out there that hold their own.

So yeah, driver technology is much the same as any of the above examples. They may have their inherent advantages, and really what it comes to, potential, but when shopping for any given headphone, it still depends on your timbre preference and your taste in music, and ultimately each headphone should be evaluated individually based on that criteria, and other practical considerations (price, sensitivity, comfort, etc).

Like, don't get me wrong, I find all the different headphone technologies really fascinating. I'd like to own at least one headphone with every different driver technology (there's at least six that I know of, plus hybrids). But when I just want to sit down and listen to the music (or play a game or watch a movie), the ears don't really care how the sound was made.

 

[SoundHelmet]

some engineers have talked a bit this but one of the reasons is that planar magnetics are supposedly much easier to prototype and experiment with especially for a small company.
The high end dynamic driver manufacturers mostly come from larger/older companies like sennhieser/focal/foster. IIRC Zmf designs their drivers but its made by a different company experienced with mass manufacturing dynamic drivers.

younger Botique audiophile manufactures have an easier time making something very unique and/or innovative with planar drivers. Whereas older or larger companies already experienced with dynamic drivers can continue have success there. they will have entire factories dedicated to dynamic drivers and ditching that would be a huge risk.

 

[Infoseeker]

In terms of objective advantages. If you look up the concept of pre-ringing in Planar drivers. It is both an advantage and possible subjective disadvantage. (there is always artistic freedom, so no technology is "better")

Planars pre-ringing needs to be addressed in the DAC's impulse/filter playback to be compensated for.

As the driver is always primed to move when connected in a circuit. While a dynamic driver has a delay here to start moving.

I don't remember other differences currently.

 

[szore]

So i've been doing some research recently on the structure and fundamental operating principles of planar magnetic headphone drivers, and comparing this information to my understanding of how dynamic-type drivers operate, and i'm left feeling slightly confused, as to whether planar magnetic drivers are actually the superior drivers, or if they are seriously flawed and imperfect. On paper (objectively) I have every reason to believe that planar magnetic drivers offer a technically superior performance, due to the ultra thin membrane suspended between magnets in a permanent electrostatic state, creating uniform soundwaves which (subjectively) gives planar magnetic headphones their most recognisable unique traits (a soundstage presentation comparable to loudspeakers, a linear frequency response, ultra realistic 3 dimensional positional audio, imaging and depth, phenomenal detail extraction and clarity of "background" noises in recordings, musicality) but I recently read a post (in a thread here on Head Fi) by someone who is clearly an expert in the field of driver technology and design, who seems to have an expert understanding of planar magnetic drivers, and what he said about planars has thrown my beliefs about their supposed superiority over dynamic drivers, up in the air. Made me question all I knew or at least all I thought I knew about them. What he said is perfectly legitimate and actually a very good reason to doubt planar magnetic drivers superiority over dynamic one's. He focused on the magnets on a planar magnetic driver and why - due to their position and the nature of the overall rectangular design, they may be obstructive to the soundwaves emitted by the membrane, he also explained how the intrinsic nature of the drivers makes it harder to eliminate distortion. After reading this I am not sure planar magnetic headphones are all they are made out to be. I am confused, they sound so good yet how am I meant to believe they are superior to dynamic driver headphones, given the above, and if when I hear them, am I just listening to a distorted mess?..with sound waves reaching my ears being a convoluted mess?..
Hmm it doesn't add up! perhaps there is a great deception.

Fostex TH500RP (Planar Magnetic driver)


AKG K702 (dynamic driver)

Use your ears.

 

[tesarpa]

Few weeks ago I spent couple hours in audio shop, where I came to compare my Hifiman Ananda with Denon and Focal headphones, with the intention to decide if it makes sense to add some closed headphones to my equipment. The preferred candidate was Denon AH-D7200 or AH-D9200. I listened to all Denons available and to several Focals including Utopia - all with dynamic drivers. I came with an assumption that I will find closed model with warmer, more relaxed tuning and more bass than Ananda offers. I left convinced that I'm a planar bass fan. None of tested models, including Utopia, satisfied my taste in terms of bass presentation, texture, tone. Focals were interesting (better) in mids, but that was not my priority. Denons, ehm... not for me. So I guess it's all really subjective.