[samandhi]

You shouldn't have suspected at all, as I said earlier, they definitely make one of the best DD drivers in the world, for both, speakers and headphone.
For $300 ... well you are lucky guy . Enjoy!

That I have found out myself... Thank you...

I know it is off topic, but you can still get them at that discounted price. Well, right now they are up again, but they drop in price frequently drop $100 or so... HERE

 

[o0genesis0o]

Anyhow, I believe that if there isn't actual scientific research and proof shown, the claim that they sound different than shells without "diffusion dimples" (we'll call them), is NOT acceptable proof of the claim, and shouldn't be marketed as such. It is misleading at best, and devious at worst. I really don't want to offend here, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this.

I think there are two alternative statements:

1. Adding those nubs make the earbuds sound better
2. (a) Adding those nubs help diffuse the sound, (b) which makes the buds sound better.

If the subjective experience from everyone involved is reliable, we might be able to say that the first one is true.

Given the physics involved, the both 2a and subsequently 2b might be individually incorrect. But it does not mean that the statement (1) is false.

The problem becomes problematic if one believes that (2) is right, they might try in vain trying to advance along that line to improve the results, without any results.

 

[Pylaczynski]

I think there are two alternative statements:

1. Adding those nubs make the earbuds sound better
2. (a) Adding those nubs help diffuse the sound, (b) which makes the buds sound better.

If the subjective experience from everyone involved is reliable, we might be able to say that the first one is true.

Given the physics involved, the both 2a and subsequently 2b might be individually incorrect. But it does not mean that the statement (1) is false.

The problem becomes problematic if one believes that (2) is right, they might try in vain trying to advance along that line to improve the results, without any results.

I think that acoustic in such a small scale - meaning the scale of that small acoustic cavity + what happens with waveform on air/rigid body surface on contact on particle/waveform level + how roughness affect the behaviour of the wave - are not fully known now neither to me nor anyone involved in the discussion. We as human race have problem to simulate properly much simpler phenomenons

What could be caused by those nubs is the scattering of the acoustic wave (which is base principle for diffusion as well, though diffusion is a very specific scenario of the even distribution of reflected wave). There is a thing called Rayleigh scattering which is a phenomenon that happens when a wave (the most notably electromagnetic, though it is also applied to acoustic waves for example in sonar principle of operation) have an object in its path of smaller geometry than its waveform - case similar to what is happening in the shell of this bud. What else is caused by those nubs - I don't know 100%.

Riku was posting a graph comparing the FR of shell with and without pyramids, but that was deleted along with several other posts, but the difference shown was very significant. I don't know what exactly happens inside to make this difference, how much different factors contribute to that difference (change in general geometry, change in volume etc), but that is most likely above my limit of understanding.
I think that he may want to repost it soon

 

[o0genesis0o]

I think that acoustic in such a small scale - meaning the scale of that small acoustic cavity + what happens with waveform on air/rigid body surface on contact on particle/waveform level + how roughness affect the behaviour of the wave - are not fully known now neither to me nor anyone involved in the discussion. We as human race have problem to simulate properly much simpler phenomenons

What could be caused by those nubs is the scattering of the acoustic wave (which is base principle for diffusion as well, though diffusion is a very specific scenario of the even distribution of reflected wave). There is a thing called Rayleigh scattering which is a phenomenon that happens when a wave (the most notably electromagnetic, though it is also applied to acoustic waves for example in sonar principle of operation) have an object in its path of smaller geometry than its waveform - case similar to what is happening in the shell of this bud. What else is caused by those nubs - I don't know 100%.

Riku was posting a graph comparing the FR of shell with and without pyramids, but that was deleted along with several other posts, but the difference shown was very significant. I don't know what exactly happens inside to make this difference, how much different factors contribute to that difference (change in general geometry, change in volume etc), but that is most likely above my limit of understanding.
I think that he may want to repost it soon

I’m not saying that there is no effect, aka “snake oil”. I’m just thinking about the possibility of attributing the wrong cause to the effect. So far, we know that the guy has invested a lot to bring his idea to reality, and initial feedback seems excellent. I wish nothing but the best to Riku.

 

[jeejack]

I think that acoustic in such a small scale - meaning the scale of that small acoustic cavity + what happens with waveform on air/rigid body surface on contact on particle/waveform level + how roughness affect the behaviour of the wave - are not fully known now neither to me nor anyone involved in the discussion. We as human race have problem to simulate properly much simpler phenomenons

What could be caused by those nubs is the scattering of the acoustic wave (which is base principle for diffusion as well, though diffusion is a very specific scenario of the even distribution of reflected wave). There is a thing called Rayleigh scattering which is a phenomenon that happens when a wave (the most notably electromagnetic, though it is also applied to acoustic waves for example in sonar principle of operation) have an object in its path of smaller geometry than its waveform - case similar to what is happening in the shell of this bud. What else is caused by those nubs - I don't know 100%.

Riku was posting a graph comparing the FR of shell with and without pyramids, but that was deleted along with several other posts, but the difference shown was very significant. I don't know what exactly happens inside to make this difference, how much different factors contribute to that difference (change in general geometry, change in volume etc), but that is most likely above my limit of understanding.
I think that he may want to repost it soon

Did you draw and print the shells?

 

[Pylaczynski]

Did you draw and print the shells?

I didn't do the printing of those particular shells of Gen 3, just 3d modelling based on Rikus ideas and requirements. I was printing my own similar shells, though without the internal thingies

 

[Pylaczynski]

This is the graph of FR of the same base geometry shell one with and one without the pyramids.
If you would ask about the differences of the internal cavity volume it is below 5% by design (+/- some deviation from the printing process tolerances themself) so not really that significant. The base internal cavity volume is at ~464,82 mm^3. No furhter differences, same driver, same tuning, same cable D)

 

[Ronion]

While I am uncertain of anyone using the M4 drivers specifically, some of them are the same drivers that came with the M2s Pro (150Ohm, 100Ohm, 40Ohm to name a few), and those have been used to great effect. I can vouch for that as I have both the 150Ohm and 40Ohm drivers in a DIY set of MX shells... They are fantastic and way better than they were in the (intended) Smabat shells.

Having said that, it might be quite a bit of (risky) work getting those drivers out of the casing, though might be worth a try on your part...



Apologies for (possibly) interjecting my thoughts where they might not be asked for, but I have to agree with the idea that the design of these shells do NOT work as intended. I can't say (without ever hearing them side by side) that they DON'T affect the sound in SOME way, but they will not reduce resonance in a way that the human ear will hear. There is just not enough room inside the shell to do this. I can't argue science for or against this topic, except for my own experiences with acoustics research and logic though. This is the same design that Focal uses in their closed back, high-end headphones, and while I would like to think that this works, I can neither prove nor disprove this.

Spoiler: Focal Elegia Internal

The good news where I am concerned is that I didn't buy those because of this feature (I didn't even know about it until after using them for a while).

This is much like another set of IEMs I have that claim to have a bone conducting driver in them. Originally they advertised this on their site, but have since removed the claim, but it still says it on the box. They are decidedly NOT bone conducting. They DO use a piezoelectric driver, but it is used as an "air conducting" driver instead. I believe that the word was used as a sales tactic to reach more people than would have been interested otherwise. A simple (non scientific) test revealed that they are not bone conducting (putting them in between your teeth ).

Anyhow, I believe that if there isn't actual scientific research and proof shown, the claim that they sound different than shells without "diffusion dimples" (we'll call them), is NOT acceptable proof of the claim, and shouldn't be marketed as such. It is misleading at best, and devious at worst. I really don't want to offend here, but I wanted to share my thoughts on this.

I am totally in agreeance with this. I would MUCH rather have a linear curve where treble is concerned (even if boosted), than spikes, then dips that give the fake impression of "good" treble. For my ears, this gives the sonic sensation of being capable of very smooth highs, while remaining uber clear and sparkly (without sibilance). The Moondrop Chaconne being a perfect example for me. They are decidedly boosted in treble (except lower treble/upper midrange), but they are not offensive at all.

I am not at all familiar with Focal’s design, but suffice to say that they are not getting any useful diffusion in a headphone. They might be able to get some—we’d have to check an online calculator at 20kHz. They’re definitely not getting it at 1kHz. Again, not even close. You wouldn’t want it anyway to be honest. It would be stuck behind the driver whose job is to be acoustically opaque.

Imagine my surprise to see someone making my case with objective data this morning! The bud that’s behind the hoopla is officially the brightest measured earbud I have personally ever seen. This is even brighter measuring than the SMABAT ST20 pro! That thing was an “ice pick” straight to the dome. YMMV of course If you’re the type that needs more cowbell… (actually, a cowbell’s fundamental will be buried in the mix with this bud but you know what I meant.)

 

[Pylaczynski]

I am not at all familiar with Focal’s design, but suffice to say that they are not getting any useful diffusion in a headphone. They might be able to get some—we’d have to check an online calculator at 20kHz. They’re definitely not getting it at 1kHz. Again, not even close. You wouldn’t want it anyway to be honest. It would be stuck behind the driver whose job is to be acoustically opaque.

Imagine my surprise to see someone making my case with objective data this morning! The bud that’s behind the hoopla is officially the brightest measured earbud I have personally ever seen. This is even brighter measuring than the SMABAT ST20 pro! That thing was an “ice pick” straight to the dome. YMMV of course If you’re the type that needs more cowbell… (actually, a cowbell’s fundamental will be buried in the mix with this bud but you know what I meant.)

But you do realize that those are apple to apple measurements during the validation of the proof of concept whether those pyramids do work or not? If not, sorry if that was not made clear enough.
The measurements were made in as repeatible as possible manner, (which with buds as you obviously know is not that simple). To achieve that those measurements were made without foam on the shell, any kind of extra tuning (bare driver) etc. to get rid of as many variables as possible.
And those measurements cannot be taken into any other context apart as comparison A to B pyramids Vs no pyramids. Your own experience with ST20 Pro as compared to that is completely out of context

This is not the measurements of the final product which I happen to have on hand and which you could only believe me is not too bright even for my very sensitive ear.
For that you need some faith in my words (I am obviously biased). Or you could try them yourself (borrowing from someone as you seem as a person not willing to risk buying that model anyway)

 

[Ronion]

But you do realize that those are apple to apple measurements during the validation of the proof of concept whether those pyramids do work or not? If not, sorry if that was not made clear enough.
The measurements were made in as repeatible as possible manner, (which with buds as you obviously know is not that simple). To achieve that those measurements were made without foam on the shell, any kind of extra tuning (bare driver) etc. to get rid of as many variables as possible.
And those measurements cannot be taken into any other context apart as comparison A to B pyramids Vs no pyramids. Your own experience with ST20 Pro as compared to that is completely out of context

This is not the measurements of the final product which I happen to have on hand and which you could only believe me is not too bright even for my very sensitive ear.
For that you need some faith in my words (I am obviously biased). Or you could try them yourself (borrowing from someone as you seem as a person not willing to risk buying that model anyway)

Those pyramids don’t diffuse sound whatsoever. We both know that. I never questioned wether they would do something. I just know that they can’t do diffusion. It would take many of these shells on a wall to diffuse the upper reaches of human hearing.

We know the measurements are not on the same rig, but it doesn’t change the facts: that bud isn’t even remotely close to neutral on any rig and it is the brightest measurement I’ve ever seen of an earbud—well, actually any transducer. You can love it. People are allowed to love whatever they want. I really could care less. I’d avoid it like like the plague. You could care less. Thank you for posting those measurements! I appreciate it.

 

[Ronion]

Oh, if you guys want me to get my very sensitive hearing on a set of these and give you my honest opinion, I’d be glad to. My audiogram suggests my hearing is borderline flawless. I can show it to you if you need verification. I’d be thorough and honest you can rest assured. Just let me know.

 

[Touchowl]

Does anyone have pictures of Sony's sapphire earbud drivers like the ones on the 565 and 575? I'm really curious about the construction of them, is it like a coating on a plastic diaphragm or just a thin sheet of sapphire?

 

[Kenyon]

you do realize that those are apple to apple measurements during the validation of the proof of concept whether those pyramids do work or not?

This is not the measurements of the final product

We know the measurements are not on the same rig, but it doesn’t change the facts: that bud isn’t even remotely close to neutral on any rig and it is the brightest measurement I’ve ever seen of an earbud—well, actually any transducer. You can love it. People are allowed to love whatever they want. I really could care less. I’d avoid it like like the plague.

 

[Ronion]

What could be caused by those nubs is the scattering of the acoustic wave (which is base principle for diffusion as well, though diffusion is a very specific scenario of the even distribution of reflected wave). There is a thing called Rayleigh scattering which is a phenomenon that happens when a wave (the most notably electromagnetic, though it is also applied to acoustic waves for example in sonar principle of operation) have an object in its path of smaller geometry than its waveform - case similar to what is happening in the shell of this bud. What else is caused by those nubs - I don't know 100%.

Those little globs are going to redirect audible sound waves just about as much as driving over a coin in the road is going to divert your car which is exactly why I used the analogy earlier. You can't get an even dispersement of elephants in a soda can because you can't get an elephant in a soda can. These are pertinent analogies to the situation at hand. The amount of diversion is way too insignificant if any at all to even be worth devising some fiber optic mic to attempt to measure if you could even manage to do it, but don't let me words of discouragement stop you. I would love to see it. Maybe you do something truly revolutionary in the process. You have financial interest and you seem invested in it. So "do what you love and let it kill you." Idle hands are the Devil's toil. Edison found a lot of things that didn't work before he made a usable lightbulb. Of course he didn't claim he made a durable bulb until he did and he didn't claim it was something other than what it is--like a piece of the sun you can hold in your hand. So pack a lunch and go to work.

 

[Pylaczynski]

Those little globs are going to redirect audible sound waves just about as much as driving over a coin in the road is going to divert your car which is exactly why I used the analogy earlier. You can't get an even dispersement of elephants in a soda can because you can't get an elephant in a soda can. These are pertinent analogies to the situation at hand. The amount of diversion is way too insignificant if any at all to even be worth devising some fiber optic mic to attempt to measure if you could even manage to do it, but don't let me words of discouragement stop you. I would love to see it. Maybe you do something truly revolutionary in the process. You have financial interest and you seem invested in it. So "do what you love and let it kill you." Idle hands are the Devil's toil. Edison found a lot of things that didn't work before he made a usable lightbulb. Of course he didn't claim he made a durable bulb until he did and he didn't claim it was something other than what it is--like a piece of the sun you can hold in your hand. So pack a lunch and go to work.

Oh man, I really admire your persistence, but I don't get where does your passive aggression comes from, so I would not get into any personal dispute.

Speaking of things based strictly on personal beliefs and no facts to back it up - I don't know where did you get this information from but I don't have any interest (financial margin, cut etc) in the sales of Gen 3. There was an interest in me participating in the project though - I gained a lot of knowledge based on the experience in buds making, modding IEMs, headphones and reviewing of dozens of them from one of the most knowledgeable guy in the hobby I met. Ok, I also received a gift free of charge in form of a one piece of the Alter Rider 3 for the cooperation, but forgive me that.

In regards to scattering and your analogy.
I am not an acoustic engineer, but from your previous post I understand that neither are you. I assume then that you and I base our knowledge on the practice and the easily available sources, which very often simplify the reality for sake of understanding.

From higher up in the field in acoustics I found some interesting theory of Rayleigh scattering on rough surfaces that seems applicable to the phenomenon that happens scenario inside of the shell. You may be interested in reading about that. I won't claim I understand completely this theory because I dont., But I find it somewhat interesting in regards to what was observed.
Please find attached screen below (Chapter 9 Scattering of Sound at Rough Surfaces, Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics, Brekhovskikh et al).
The Rayleigh parameter mentioned in this screen for the design of shell is calculated to be estimately between 0.1 - 0.74 depending on the grazing angle and for the frequencies in range 10kHz to 20kHz. Is it a value <<1 making it discardable? It is also obviously not >>1. So we are somewhere in between. Interpret it as you wish.

Have a nice weekend