1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Dynamic sound vs Planar Magnetic sound

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by lord voldemort, Dec 20, 2012.
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5
7 8 9
Next
 
Last
  1. SP Wild
     
    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.
     
  2. higbvuyb
    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.
     
  3. SP Wild
    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.
     
  4. briskly
    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.
     
  5. SP Wild

     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.
     
  6. higbvuyb
    At the same amplitude, a higher frequency sound has greater power.
     
    omniweltall likes this.
  7. SP Wild
     
    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.
     
    [​IMG] 
     
    But boy that gives me a brief insight to how terrifying treble can be.
     
  8. higbvuyb
    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.
     
  9. SP Wild
    [​IMG]
     
  10. up late

    good point. i really shouldn't be here either. dunno what i was thinking. :wink:
     
  11. bigshot
    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.
     
  12. ultrabike
     
    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.
     
     
    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.
     
     
    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.
     
  13. White Lotus
     
    "Uneven"? How so?
     
    Channel imbalance? 
     
  14. ultrabike
    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.
     
  15. proton007
    The HD650 would've been the reference. ..in 1996.

    I'd say a better reference would be the HD800/700.
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5
7 8 9
Next
 
Last

Share This Page