[tucker71]

I have a few semi-noob questions about the advantages and disadvantages of both drivers. (I'm currently a Futuresonics user with SuperFi EBs as my backup)



It's time for an upgrade and it's looking like the UE Hybrid is going to be my weapon of choice. I will be using it for onstage monitoring a few hours a day, and then with my iPod the rest of the time on planes and buses.


My question is, FS and UE boast roughly the same freq response so, how would you characterize the sonic differences between the two camps? Does the diaphragm offer more "oomph"?

FS is constantly pointing out that their earpieces "do not use hearing-aid type drivers". My question is, well...aren't hearing aids supposed to reproduce all the audible freqs? Why is using hearing aid drivers a "bad" thing?
On the other hand, if UE is the industry leader, and if armatures really ARE superior, why would UE be manufacturing two models that feature dynamic diaphragms? (the EB and the Hybrid)
Conversely...if armatures really ARE better drivers...why wouldn't FS hop on that bandwagon and offer armature driven products? FS is in this business to make money, no?

It seems that all earpieces that use diaphragm drivers offer a lot less noise reduction. What is it about the diaphragm earpieces that NEED to breathe? They NEED to be ported/vented. Why can't the FS or HYBRIDS offer the same iso as their armature counterparts? It's my understanding that..the better the seal...the better the sound. So, why would that logic NOT apply to the diaphragm earpieces?

My ears are extremely sensitive to high freqs. I had the EB's and they simply had too much sizzle for my taste. I know, I know....everybody here talks about the bloated bass. I hear that. But, on top of it, I'm also hearing the highs burning through like a laser.

An armature is reproducing those highs. Is the nature of the armature SO detailed that the high freqs are piercing? If yes...can they be adjusted/tuned to have less high freq output?
What about making the mid-high bore hole smaller? Would that close off some of those freqs, or would it have no effect because it's so close to my eardrum?


As you can see, I'm not looking for a transparent/neutral tone. I want WARMTH.
In laymans terms, (not unlike the digital vs. analog battle) it seems like

Diaphragm = warmth.
Armature = detail.

Is that accurate?


This is a pretty big spending decision for me so, I'm trying to gather all the info I can.
THANX.

 

[tucker71]

Hey Gang,

Sorry to bump my own thread but, I was really hoping to get a few answers from you -THE CONSUMERS- instead of falling for all the hype that's on the UE and FS websites.

I went to an audiologist here in Toronto at the Musicians Clinic and he claims that there really is no difference in freq response or sound quality between UE and Future sonics. He implied that I might as well get whatever model is the least expensive because the difference in performance is barely noticeable.

He didn't "bash" the UE product except to say that, for much LESS money, I could get a product that sounds the same.



I've noticed that nobody around here uses FS products and, I wonder...why is that?



Has anyone out there actually HEARD a custom IEM by Future Sonics? I'd love to hear your findings. Especially if you can directly compare them to a dual or triple driver IEM.

 

[creyc]

Well if you take a look at the EB's design, it uses a 13.5mm diaphragm for the low range and an armature for the highs. Then look at the Pro and it uses two armatures, no diaphragm. The point of the diaphragm is that it can push a serious amount of air in your ear. Thats what gives the EB's their crazy insane bass. However the reasoning behind armatures being used in the higher-end models is because of their performance in the upper frequencies. Diaphragms are relatively slow in comparison with an armature, for the same given size, so it's difficult to get crisp distinct highs and mids from a diaphragm.

I've heard the EB's and I suppose your complain about them isn't unfounded. I can't say that was the first thing about them that bugged me, but yes the EB's are a bit peaky. Perhaps its due to the serious midrange "hole" I experience with them.

I've never tried FutureSonics, so I can't compare directly. It's a bit tough to determine which IEM would suit you best without really understanding this high-frequency complain of yours. Do you notice it on most headphones? (non IEM) It's possible you're high range of hearing is just much more sensitive, though unlikely as thats generally the first to go!

 

[tucker71]

My hearing WAS tested and he mentioned that my hearing was "quite good".

He did tell me where my notch was but, I honestly don't recall. One thing's for sure...he didn't mention that I was hyper-sensitive to high freqs. It defintiely is NOT in my mind though. Weird.


But, getting back to IEMs...when I use the EM3 (by Future Sonics) I definitely don't notice as much of that sizzle as with the SuperFi EB's. So...maybe the limitations of the EM3's are an asset to me.

My real question was/is; what are the real DIFFERENCES between the two kinds of drivers. Is it two ways of achieving the same thing (like Coke vs. Pepsi) or...do they differ in a million ways? According to the respective websites, they both offer outstanding Bass and clear highs and the same overall response of roughly 20-20k. How can the specs and the descriptions be so similar if the technologies are so different? Are we comparing apples to apples...or not?

I would looove to buy 'em both and do a true A/B. I just don't think I'll ever have the extra 900 bucks to blow.

 

[Sugarfried]

tucker: you have opened up a big can of worms.

First off, you use the term "diaphragm" as if it is a speaker type. All speakers (transducers) have a diaphragm. I think that you are actually referring to dynamic speakers/drivers. They are also called by several other names, but in general they are referred to as dynamic speakers/drivers. Both dynamic and armature based drivers have diaphragms, but they are not (as you stated) "apples to apples."

I own and am very familiar with the models you're mentioning, but as I work for Shure I must limit my comments to Shure products (for the most part). So I'll keep it in the context of the E2c model (which uses a dynamic driver) and our other models (which all use armature drivers).

We opened up the nozzle on the E2c because dynamic drivers need a wider space in order to allow high frequencies to get through. We could have gone wider, but we learned that a wider diameter would cause comfort problems for a lot of people. The overall shape of the E2c is not merely to fit the driver inside, but to allow certain air flow behind and in front of the driver. Dynamic drivers at the size we need for in-ear products are vastly affected by surrounding space/dimensions.

One small note about FS customs: they are vented because the amount of air behind the driver does not allow significant flow of movement for the driver, so they "port" it and give 5 or 6 different sized plugs that allow different amounts of air in or out. So you can go from very little bass to a significant amount of bass. The highs are a bit shy regardless of which port is used, but that's common to all dynamic drivers.

Armature drivers are fundamentally different, they are magnitudes more efficient (require less power to be driven), and do not have all of the acoustic cavity requirements that dynamic drivers have. So as a designer/ manufacturer I am able to create smaller products that are still tuned the way I want them to be tuned.

For example, the E500 has three armature drivers per side, yet the combined size of all three drivers is a tad bit smaller than the single E2c driver. Each of the three is tuned the way we chose, and we feel that we didn't sacrifice low end by using armatures rather than dynamic drivers.

Regarding the specs for both types of drivers being similar: Don't put a whole lot of stock into specifications. Trust your ears if you get the chance.

I hope this helps.

 

[tucker71]

Wow.
Thanks for your detailed reply.

Sorry about my incorrect use of the terminology but, it seems like you managed to understand my questions.


If I ask FS to make my custom IEMs with a smaller nozzle/hole...will it also effect (affect?) the amount of Bass freqs or will it only squash the highs? If the bass is not reduced, I'm all for it.
I get a TON of high freqs from the onstage cymbals, snare, two guitars, sequences, and keys. Both ambiently and piped into my ears from bleed through. This is probably why I'm so "allergic" to those higher frequencies. I'm being bombarded with them all night, every night.

If shrinking that hole a bit will give me some relief....GREAT.

Are IEM companies willing to do that kind of alteration?

 

[Sugarfried]

Usually that type of result can be obtained with EQ on the mixing side, but since you're wanting for both performing and regular listening I could see why you might want the earphone to do that on its own.

My suggestion would be to stick with a dynamic-based earphone. I don't know if Futuresonics would consider making a smaller tube to reduce high frequency response, but it can't hurt to ask. It will probably not affect the bass response.

Have you tried the E2/E2c? Just curious.

 

[Dr.Sade]

I still don't know what an armature driver is. I have an intuitive feel for what
a dynamic driver is based upon common experience with full size headphones,
but haven't got a clue to what what an armature driver is or what it looks like.

So somebody please post some pictures and an explanation of how an
armature driver works and what it looks like. How is an armature driver's technology different from the dynamic driver?

 

[tucker71]

Thanks Sugarfried.

1) I just got off the phone with Marty Garcia from FS.
Short answer: NO...they won't alter the size of the hole.
Long answer: All their research and resources have lead them to the current design and the company just wouldn't feel comfortable deviating from that. They'd have no way to grade the performance and they certainly wouldn't be able to guarantee them.

My decision is to go with their custom IEMs and experiment with the different ports and, of course, with my EQ.


2) I haven't tried the Shure E2cs. I've heard that getting a good seal is difficult and I tend to move around quite a bit onstage. I didn't want anything that didn't really stay in place. My singer uses the E2c and loves it.
I think I tried the E5c's last year (the dual driver model) but, I didn't use them onstage. Only with a CD player. They sounded quite good but again....I wasn't able to properly audition them in my normal environment.

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sade I still don't know what an armature driver is. I have an intuitive feel for what a dynamic driver is based upon common experience with full size headphones, but haven't got a clue to what what an armature driver is or what it looks like. So somebody please post some pictures and an explanation of how an armature driver works and what it looks like. How is an armature driver's technology different from the dynamic driver?

This Wikipedia article on types of drivers doesn't describe the technical differences bytween dynamic and armature drivers either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headphones

 

[hook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker71 IMy question is, FS and UE boast roughly the same freq response so, how would you characterize the sonic differences between the two camps? Does the diaphragm offer more "oomph"? <<snip>> As you can see, I'm not looking for a transparent/neutral tone. I want WARMTH.

Have you considered Westone UM2s?

 

[tucker71]

I haven't really heard enough the Westones (good OR bad) to make an informed decision.
However...I do know that Westone and UE are, basically, the same thing so..I kinda assumed that performance would be similar.

If I decide to ever use something besides Future Sonics...it will be the Sensaphonics 2x-S. Nothing but good reviews!

 

[Dr.Sade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker71 I have a few semi-noob questions about the advantages and disadvantages of both drivers. (I'm currently a Futuresonics user with SuperFi EBs as my backup) This is a pretty big spending decision for me so, I'm trying to gather all the info I can. THANX.

This guy says the Sensaphonics 2X SOFT has it all: warmth, fullness, resolution, and comfort.


http://ipastudio.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=54

 

[akg_man701]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker71 I haven't really heard enough the Westones (good OR bad) to make an informed decision. However...I do know that Westone and UE are, basically, the same thing so..I kinda assumed that performance would be similar.

I've been told the Westones and Shure's are basically the same because Westone used to manufacture Shure IEMs (or something along those lines) but I've never heard anything about similarities between them and UEs. But they could be similar also.

I love my UM2s for any use, monitoring or listening, etc., and they are so COMFY!

 

[tucker71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akg_man701 I've been told the Westones and Shure's are basically the same because Westone used to manufacture Shure IEMs (or something along those lines) but I've never heard anything about similarities between them and UEs. But they could be similar also.

What I heard (from my audiologist) was... employees of Westone basically "defected" and started Ultimate Ears.
Regardless, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that all the IEM companies use the same drivers. Especially when you consider how similar in price they all are. Can't really be all THAT much difference.