[jagwap]

There a few more factors that should be taken into account:

1: Dynamic drivers in IMEs will by their nature have similarities to dynamic headphones and speakers. These devices are not perfect, but we are familiar with them and more likely to accept they deficiencies.

2: Dynamic drivers IMEs generally do not have crossovers, while many high end BA IMEs do. Crossovers introduce phase and amplitude errors, and a system will be more transparent if a single (and good) driver is used.

3: It would be interesting to know what the order of the system is on BA IEMs. Dynamic driver sealed IEMs should be 2nd order, like infinite baffle (port-less) speakers. If BA is a higher order, then this can have an effect of the "tightness" of the bass. That is the alignment in time of the lower frequencies. Miss-aligned and the bass sounds fatter, but less involving.

 

[Audiosolace]

I think It's a personal preference thing. I really like hybrid iems. Like others have said, a DD is usually slower and a really slow DD can really hold back a good music listening experience. A DD in my experience can help drown out a little of the "tin" sounding high frequency BAs as well when you run into them. I tend to EQ down the 250hz and lower on all hybrids I test to try and see how the mids and highs sound without some of the DD in play and it can be surprising how good or bad some of the BAs used sound.

I find that beryllium-coated dynamic drivers really do get the best of the balanced-armature and dynamic driver world. You get the stiff diaphragm to provide less distortion as well as the weight you would normally find in dynamic driver set-ups. Having said that, I have heard multi-BA designs which have fantastic weight and timbre to their bass - so implementation also plays a role.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I find that beryllium-coated dynamic drivers really do get the best of the balanced-armature and dynamic driver world. You get the stiff diaphragm to provide less distortion as well as the weight you would normally find in dynamic driver set-ups. Having said that, I have heard multi-BA designs which have fantastic weight and timbre to their bass - so implementation also plays a role.

The Sennheiser Duofol driver has a lot of potential if they actually were to develop it.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I can only offer my limited subjective listening opinions and extrapolate convolutedly on IEM ideas. First off there are no perfect IEMs. I’ve never heard one that was exactly correct but mild ideas of getting closer and closer. Take the qdc Anole VX. A flagship full 10 BA per side masterpiece. It’s completeness comes from well done craftsmanship of not only great IEM BA bass but there is no stone unturned in reproducing a conservative and complete tone response. The Anole VX offers such an accomplishment as it’s maybe easy to integrate just 10 BAs together. Still I would guess it’s still complicated as you have tubes with filters and electronic crossovers. Somehow the Anole gets closer to the DD smoothness and warmth yet with BA bass. Purists would still argue that the BA Anole VX bass is still missing the delay and presence that is fundamentally part of the DD IEM experience.........and they are right. But when something is made to do so much, what may be left out, can possibly be overlooked?

Due to issues noted with BA bass you have the hybrids. Two hybrids I own are the two BA and one DD; the 2014 Sony XBA-Z5 and the two DD and single BA hybrid the flagship IER-Z1R. Both of these IEMs were considered TOTL (upon release) and do offer the low frequency physicality that only comes with DD bass. Maybe some feel we don’t get full integration of replay here? In some ways it’s an exercise in complication as (just like home 2 channel) crossovers are in essence trying to dove-tail midrange and treble response (along with bass) into a seamless unity. If suggested only.......or definitely real...........some folks have issues in hearing places where things don’t match up. I myself seem to fall for the illusion of the different driver technologies blending?

Imagine if someone didn’t like forward midrange, you could have an elaborate Tri-Hybrid, but even with everything close to perfect; if the tone is subjectively-off, it’s still a no-go. IMO

Though again much of this has to fall back on my earlier post in this thread; the fact that it’s basically all about what bass tone your used to!


That while yes, there are substantial measurable response differences between the two technologies, there can be a lot said of our willingness to accept whatever bass response character is there. To question the real-life ability or to perceive things as not natural is always going to be based on listening history and tone preferences.

This is why the person with 10 years of single DD bass listening experience may question BA bass no matter how well done it is. Their brain is just used to all aspects of DD bass, the slowness and slamming quality which up to now, I have not had the pleasure of hearing from a pure BA IEM. And because their brain tells them this bass quality is the only one that’s correct..........that’s what they prefer. But if someone spends years with good BA bass they can learn to get into BA bass and possibly prefer it.

I try and not prejudge the technology and simply listen for balance as well as the given attributes we get with the two technologies. The 64 Audio N8 or the CA Atlas both offered a stunning and realistic bass response. Though the 64 Audio should have deep bass as that was the design focus. And even though the N8 has 8 BA drivers (and a DD) it’s the cat’s meow of warm analogue deep ($1700) bass tone. DD sub-bass draws people to the bass technicality! Also the crazy heavy bass of the ($1300) single DD CA Atlas sub-bass can be quite emotional upon first hearing. IMO Yes........the two DD bass drivers (just noted) do incredible bass. But who cares if it’s way too much. Personally I don’t care if the bass is fast or slow.......if in the end it’s too much and a form of pollution into the over all mix. What I’m not paying for is a bass distraction? That’s why of the three, N8, Atlas or Anole VX, I would take the Anole VX; the BA bass IEM.

But to get to my point here, the Anole VX even though being completely reserved and polite........ I would still go with something that was somewhat over the top like the IER-Z1R. Why? Well for one thing the DD bass of the IER-Z1R is (to my ears) better integrated into the mix? The IER-Z1R is more exciting. So really for me I would put them in a list of preferred choice as Z1R, Anole VX, N8 then Atlas. But it’s more about tone than anything.

So in conclusion it’s the tuning that is more important than the technicalities or the technology! IMO Read the reviews of the single DD Dunu Luna flagship; the only issue the reviewers have is with the tuning?

So again it’s all subjective. But maybe application oriented. The 64 Audio may be wanted by bass players due to how well the bass is pulled out and isolated in the mix; they were tuned by a bass player.

Also I can’t underestimate how important daily listening effects are to what people are able to enjoy. Meaning if someone simply lived with BA bass (how ever it’s realized) they are going to slowly accept what true imperfections are present and learn to live with them.

I’m sure there is a future for single DD IEMs. In fact that idea of the perfect single DD flagship is on the imagination of the IEM public at the very moment. If it arrives is simply a future question.

 

[mobbaddict]

Found this interesting article which mentions the way balanced armatures produce bass:

In addition, these drivers don’t displace any air and subsequently don’t have any vents, which directly affects the production of bass tones.

https://www.audioreputation.com/dynamic-vs-balanced-armature-drivers/

I think this is what causes the lack of impact we hear with armatures. Dynamics will have the advantage here. I'm wondering if this doesn't affect timbre also.

On the other hand I think armatures can often go deeper and have great bottom response, just like a planar headphone. I've never heard a dynamic headphone producing similar deep/tight response in the bass. And I'm only using a single armature IEM these days (Fiio FA1).

 

[jagwap]

Found this interesting article which mentions the way balanced armatures produce bass:

https://www.audioreputation.com/dynamic-vs-balanced-armature-drivers/

I think this is what causes the lack of impact we hear with armatures. Dynamics will have the advantage here. I'm wondering if this doesn't affect timbre also.

On the other hand I think armatures can often go deeper and have great bottom response, just like a planar headphone. I've never heard a dynamic headphone producing similar deep/tight response in the bass. And I'm only using a single armature IEM these days (Fiio FA1).

If they didn't displace air, there would be no sound. Perhaps they mean the amount of air is limited, leading to lower amplitude maximum low frequencies, but we shouldn't speculate. We should read better articles. Having no vent is a good thing for sound quality and sound isolation. This article is not very technically defined.

 

[dazzerfong]

If they didn't displace air, there would be no sound. Perhaps they mean the amount of air is limited, leading to lower amplitude maximum low frequencies, but we shouldn't speculate. We should read better articles. Having no vent is a good thing for sound quality and sound isolation. This article is not very technically defined.

http://stories.ultimateears.com/why-in-ear-monitors/whats-deal-balanced-armatures

There's a short explanation of what vented vs. non-vented BAs and how they differ. Basically, vented is better for sound, but worse for isolation.

 

[mobbaddict]

http://stories.ultimateears.com/why-in-ear-monitors/whats-deal-balanced-armatures

There's a short explanation of what vented vs. non-vented BAs and how they differ. Basically, vented is better for sound, but worse for isolation.

Is there a way to know if a specific iem has vented balanced armatures? Depending on the driver reference maybe? Or is it the shell itself that can be vented?
That's the first time I read about these two possibilities.

 

[dazzerfong]

Is there a way to know if a specific iem has vented balanced armatures? Depending on the driver reference maybe? Or is it the shell itself that can be vented?
That's the first time I read about these two possibilities.

If there's a hole in it. I know 64 Audio has an adjustable rear volume, and thus it's a vented design.

 

[castleofargh]

Is there a way to know if a specific iem has vented balanced armatures? Depending on the driver reference maybe? Or is it the shell itself that can be vented?
That's the first time I read about these two possibilities.

You find both. A few BA drivers are vented(extra hole beside the output). But nothing stops an IEM designer from using those in a sealed IEM shell and provide whatever extra internal air volume he wants, while still getting the good isolation from outside noises with the overall seal.

 

[jagwap]

http://stories.ultimateears.com/why-in-ear-monitors/whats-deal-balanced-armatures

There's a short explanation of what vented vs. non-vented BAs and how they differ. Basically, vented is better for sound, but worse for isolation.

I doubt it is that simple. It is likely to be analogous to ported speakers. Ports are a cheap way to extend the bass through resonance. However they are therefore changing the dynamic and phase response of the driver system. This is usually to the detriment of the sound, as even with good design, the air flapping in and out of it is less defined and controlled than a driver. You cannot measure it with a Klippel. Also steeper phase shifts cause larger group delays, which can translate to misalignment of the bass transients, giving a lose fat bass, rather than a defined tight bass. I can count on one hand the number of acoustic engineers on one hand that I have met in 30 years in the industry that get this (I honestly hope there are more I haven't met yet.). Most of them go "huuh?"

 

[dazzerfong]

I doubt it is that simple. It is likely to be analogous to ported speakers. Ports are a cheap way to extend the bass through resonance. However they are therefore changing the dynamic and phase response of the driver system. This is usually to the detriment of the sound, as even with good design, the air flapping in and out of it is less defined and controlled than a driver. You cannot measure it with a Klippel. Also steeper phase shifts cause larger group delays, which can translate to misalignment of the bass transients, giving a lose fat bass, rather than a defined tight bass. I can count on one hand the number of acoustic engineers on one hand that I have met in 30 years in the industry that get this (I honestly hope there are more I haven't met yet.). Most of them go "huuh?"

Knowles has a bit more to say on that too (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/science-premium-sound-using-miniature-transducers-davin-moorman/):

In contrast, one can use an unvented balanced armature driver that requires no external back volume at all. Unvented drivers provide a balanced acoustic signature especially suitable for voice applications as well as music. When the designer wishes to provide elevated bass, a vented balanced armature driver is called for. The typical rule of thumb for back volume is to provide minimum 50% of the exterior volume of the driver – substantially less than is required for the dynamic speaker. Using the RAB Series as an example, the typical back volume would be 20mm3. One other factor when considering volumetric efficiency is the form factor of the round dynamic speaker vs. the rectangular balanced armature. Overall volumetric efficiency can be improved when using a balanced armature driver because other components (such as the chipset or Bluetooth transceiver) are more easily packed tightly around it. Additional design flexibility is available because the sound-port opening on a balanced armature driver can be placed on several surfaces – edge, side, or top – with or without tube.

So really, less 'better' and more about bass instead. Misleading of me to say it's better.

Does explain why a lot of BAs sound anemic in the bass department. In exchange, you're getting better control of the signature.

Not familiar enough with speakers to translate relevancy across.

 

[Blackwoof]

I doubt it is that simple. It is likely to be analogous to ported speakers. Ports are a cheap way to extend the bass through resonance. However they are therefore changing the dynamic and phase response of the driver system. This is usually to the detriment of the sound, as even with good design, the air flapping in and out of it is less defined and controlled than a driver. You cannot measure it with a Klippel. Also steeper phase shifts cause larger group delays, which can translate to misalignment of the bass transients, giving a lose fat bass, rather than a defined tight bass. I can count on one hand the number of acoustic engineers on one hand that I have met in 30 years in the industry that get this (I honestly hope there are more I haven't met yet.). Most of them go "huuh?"

DD have lower stiffness, meaning there is more potential LF gain through venting the back volume.
In a BA driver venting the back will not gain as much LF, as the stiffness is dominated by the diaphragm and not by the back volume.
Which is why DD often sound "bassier", as it's easier to tune them with more bass.
but a BA can play bass just as well - just turn it up louder ("use an EQ") ~ oratory1990

A studio engineer who at Reddit, explains why the ER4XR only gains 2 db over ER4S/SR by vented BA. Also pretty much say's a bass cannon 1 BA IEM can be done but it would need a cipher style cable to have the +5db tuning by DSP EQ.


https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/hjwv3w/eq_on_etymotic_iems_bass_boosting/fwp7idn/

 

[mobbaddict]

I grabbed a pair of Fiio FA1 recently, these are supposed to be close to Etymotics (single balanced armature), and I must say I agree with OP, these are sounding really close to a good planar headphone in terms of speed and overall detail retrieval.