00940
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Posts
- 4,493
- Likes
- 47
i received a classical formation in high school (6 years of latin, 6 years of classical greek), never seen anyone spelling lamda.
Electrostatic vs. Dynamic Headphones
- Thread starter JMedeiros
- Start date
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
The reason why electrostats «generally» (= averagely!) sound better is: they are niche products for demanding people. They can't be plugged in every headphone jack, need special devices to operate and thus never get a wide spread, so they never reach high production numbers, meaning they are expensive anyway. So a cheaply built electrostatic would make no sense. Technically there's no reason why they have to be more expensive than dynamic headphones. Apart from the voltage supply/transformer unit their design is even simplier.
If this wasn't the case there would be a lot of mediocre sounding electrostatics around, maybe in the form of electrets.
Nobody can deny that (good) electrostatics have some qualitites dynamic types barely can equal. In terms of detail, transparency and freedom of obvious resonances they're simply the best. But when it comes to the bass, there's no competition. Well not every dynamic headphone has better bass than the best electrostats, but it's a valid generaliation anyway. With «better bass» I don't necessarily mean «slam» and visceral impact, but the «grip» and control normally only dynamics provide.
The best example therefore is the Etymotic ER-4. Its bass has no visceral impact at all, and many people think it sounds thin as paper. I for one like this bass a lot, for me it's the most controlled and accurate bass I ever heard. Well, it comes from the tiny membrane of a canalphone which is directly coupled with the eardrum by a tiny air volume, so you can say with low frequencies the eardrum is directly driven by the transducer's voice coil.
O.k. – this is a case where we have indeed very low moving masses even similar to electrostatics. But I don't think this is the clou, but in fact the direct coupling membrane/eardrum. However, the conclusion from this example is: the Ety bass sounds very different from electrostatic bass! There's a lot more control and speed. Electrostatic bass is slow (sorry for the generalization, of course there are differences among them...). It is, in the best cases, very clean, transparent, unobstrusive and non-fatiging. But it's slightly uncontrolled, at least compared to the best dynamic headphones. The best exponents of them (which are usually open designs and clearly not some with typically boomy bass) come much closer to the Ety bass than the best electrostatics. Of course this statement is the result of my personal, limited experience.
The superordinate reason for this example is to show that the preference for dynamic bass isn't synonym to preference for distorted or boomy bass, not even impactful bass.
But it's not just the bass which is concerned by this lack of control and «grip», but also the midrange and even the highs, to a certain degree. This is the reason for the more colorful, more «musical» reproduction of dynamic headphones. It's as if the music is more substantial, more real, whereas the electrostatic sound is more of an etherial, intellectual or analytical kind (roughly spoken). It's audible that there's not a rigid, massive membrane driving the air, but a soft and thin foil.
The resolution of electrostatics with mid and especially high frequencies is simply unbeatable as far as I can imagine. Every tiny detail is reproduced with ultimate delicacy. Beside the openness of most electrostatic enclosure designs with a minimum of hollow colorations and thus smearing of the original spatial depth information this may also be the main reason for very wide soundstage most electrostatics offer. The downside of the lightweight and sound-leaking diaphragm: every change of acoustic impedance immediately affects it seriously. I.e. if you hold one finger over the driver outside, there's a huge sonic impact caused by the corresponding reflections. Even the typical vertical plastic trusses on the Stax enclosures have a considerable impact on the sound (the reason why I have used much thinner grid for my own constructions). Knowing that on both sides of the diaphragm there are stator grids to provide the driving force in the form of high tension which BTW have less than 50% air permeability, thus a high acoustic resistance and reflection potential, you can easily imagine how much this influences the sound. The ideal electrostatic transducer has no stator grids at all...
I put these theoretical speculations in front of the thing I'd actually like to explain: to my ears, the treble of electrostatics, despite its ultimate clarity and focus, has some sort of glaring accentuation of brilliance, even if the highs themselves are not overly accentuated. I guess the reason for this are the stator grids. I even state that to a certain degree this effect is also responsible for the ultimately high detail and resolution one perceives with them. But this is only speculation so far.
It may seem as if I hate electrostatics. Quite the opposite is true: I like them a lot, and if there wasn't a certain Mike, I would defend them against every unfair criticism. Once you have accostumed to the opulence of detail, you realize: in a wonderful way it's simply not fatiguing, you can listen as long as with barely any dynamic headphone. Well, Im not speaking of the Lambda Pros I had years ago... those had a sharp and peaky treble which made my teeth hurt. And to come to an end: the liquid midrange is so wonderful you feel like swimming in the music... Pity I have decided to like dynamic headphones better.
JaZZ
If this wasn't the case there would be a lot of mediocre sounding electrostatics around, maybe in the form of electrets.
Nobody can deny that (good) electrostatics have some qualitites dynamic types barely can equal. In terms of detail, transparency and freedom of obvious resonances they're simply the best. But when it comes to the bass, there's no competition. Well not every dynamic headphone has better bass than the best electrostats, but it's a valid generaliation anyway. With «better bass» I don't necessarily mean «slam» and visceral impact, but the «grip» and control normally only dynamics provide.
The best example therefore is the Etymotic ER-4. Its bass has no visceral impact at all, and many people think it sounds thin as paper. I for one like this bass a lot, for me it's the most controlled and accurate bass I ever heard. Well, it comes from the tiny membrane of a canalphone which is directly coupled with the eardrum by a tiny air volume, so you can say with low frequencies the eardrum is directly driven by the transducer's voice coil.
O.k. – this is a case where we have indeed very low moving masses even similar to electrostatics. But I don't think this is the clou, but in fact the direct coupling membrane/eardrum. However, the conclusion from this example is: the Ety bass sounds very different from electrostatic bass! There's a lot more control and speed. Electrostatic bass is slow (sorry for the generalization, of course there are differences among them...). It is, in the best cases, very clean, transparent, unobstrusive and non-fatiging. But it's slightly uncontrolled, at least compared to the best dynamic headphones. The best exponents of them (which are usually open designs and clearly not some with typically boomy bass) come much closer to the Ety bass than the best electrostatics. Of course this statement is the result of my personal, limited experience.
The superordinate reason for this example is to show that the preference for dynamic bass isn't synonym to preference for distorted or boomy bass, not even impactful bass.
But it's not just the bass which is concerned by this lack of control and «grip», but also the midrange and even the highs, to a certain degree. This is the reason for the more colorful, more «musical» reproduction of dynamic headphones. It's as if the music is more substantial, more real, whereas the electrostatic sound is more of an etherial, intellectual or analytical kind (roughly spoken). It's audible that there's not a rigid, massive membrane driving the air, but a soft and thin foil.
The resolution of electrostatics with mid and especially high frequencies is simply unbeatable as far as I can imagine. Every tiny detail is reproduced with ultimate delicacy. Beside the openness of most electrostatic enclosure designs with a minimum of hollow colorations and thus smearing of the original spatial depth information this may also be the main reason for very wide soundstage most electrostatics offer. The downside of the lightweight and sound-leaking diaphragm: every change of acoustic impedance immediately affects it seriously. I.e. if you hold one finger over the driver outside, there's a huge sonic impact caused by the corresponding reflections. Even the typical vertical plastic trusses on the Stax enclosures have a considerable impact on the sound (the reason why I have used much thinner grid for my own constructions). Knowing that on both sides of the diaphragm there are stator grids to provide the driving force in the form of high tension which BTW have less than 50% air permeability, thus a high acoustic resistance and reflection potential, you can easily imagine how much this influences the sound. The ideal electrostatic transducer has no stator grids at all...
I put these theoretical speculations in front of the thing I'd actually like to explain: to my ears, the treble of electrostatics, despite its ultimate clarity and focus, has some sort of glaring accentuation of brilliance, even if the highs themselves are not overly accentuated. I guess the reason for this are the stator grids. I even state that to a certain degree this effect is also responsible for the ultimately high detail and resolution one perceives with them. But this is only speculation so far.
It may seem as if I hate electrostatics. Quite the opposite is true: I like them a lot, and if there wasn't a certain Mike, I would defend them against every unfair criticism. Once you have accostumed to the opulence of detail, you realize: in a wonderful way it's simply not fatiguing, you can listen as long as with barely any dynamic headphone. Well, Im not speaking of the Lambda Pros I had years ago... those had a sharp and peaky treble which made my teeth hurt. And to come to an end: the liquid midrange is so wonderful you feel like swimming in the music... Pity I have decided to like dynamic headphones better.
zeplin
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2002
- Posts
- 1,466
- Likes
- 10
Hey Mike,
So just because I like to write, I take drugs now? LOL
That's actually funny. My professors always tell me not to write so much. But believe it or not Mike, all of what I said makes perfect sense.
<sigh>AGAIN, read over the whole thread and see how many times people have proven you wrong about something you thought you knew. My guess is you never studied any of these things that you thought you knew, and simply guessed about things like the lighter and faster the material, the better LOL!!!
Honestly, you sound like some of the little kids I take care of...guessing when it comes to science.
zzz,
I was making a point, if you didn't notice. I wanted Mike to see how it sounds when someone makes a ridiculous claim without hardly any knowledge at all! And I am in no way trying to outdo him. I'm sure you've noticed that, throughout this thread, millions of people have tried to explain certain concepts to Mike only to find that it went through one ear and out the other. Again, I was trying to put Mike in the audience so he could sit back and watch someone make stupid ridiculous comments...for the sake of this debate of course. It obviously worked on you
It's just very frustrating for me to sit back and watch someone like Mike not get what so many people are trying to convey without saying anything...wether it is polite or mean, I can't help what I say sometimes! But I should learn to hold back a little more.
But seriously, I apologize, zzz, if I've further ticked you off in any way...that is the very last thing I wish to do here. No hard feelings.
So just because I like to write, I take drugs now? LOL
<sigh>AGAIN, read over the whole thread and see how many times people have proven you wrong about something you thought you knew. My guess is you never studied any of these things that you thought you knew, and simply guessed about things like the lighter and faster the material, the better LOL!!!
Honestly, you sound like some of the little kids I take care of...guessing when it comes to science.
zzz,
I was making a point, if you didn't notice. I wanted Mike to see how it sounds when someone makes a ridiculous claim without hardly any knowledge at all! And I am in no way trying to outdo him. I'm sure you've noticed that, throughout this thread, millions of people have tried to explain certain concepts to Mike only to find that it went through one ear and out the other. Again, I was trying to put Mike in the audience so he could sit back and watch someone make stupid ridiculous comments...for the sake of this debate of course. It obviously worked on you
It's just very frustrating for me to sit back and watch someone like Mike not get what so many people are trying to convey without saying anything...wether it is polite or mean, I can't help what I say sometimes! But I should learn to hold back a little more.
But seriously, I apologize, zzz, if I've further ticked you off in any way...that is the very last thing I wish to do here. No hard feelings.
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
Mike...
...thank you for not insisting in «Lamda»!
00940...
...yes, electrostatics can go very deep – no difference to dynamic headphones, if not even in favor of electrostatics – and are a pleasure to listen to organ music.
...thank you for not insisting in «Lamda»!
00940...
...yes, electrostatics can go very deep – no difference to dynamic headphones, if not even in favor of electrostatics – and are a pleasure to listen to organ music.
00940
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Posts
- 4,493
- Likes
- 47
jazz : what i'm looking and can't find in reproduction of organ is the extremely particular soundstage of a church. Some churches with good organs suck big time because they're not built the right way. Deep bass is important but the really particular soundstage you experiment during an organ concert is even more important. In this respect, the great gregorian mass of the sunday morning at Notre-Dame in Paris is a quite unique experience.
JaZZ
Headphoneus Supremus
00940...
...I love organ music, particularly from modern composers, but I'm not experienced in live concerts with organ. With headphones I usually don't care about the shape of the soundstage, more about its credibility and realism. I imagine to be hard to recreate a specific acoustic in a recording. If you know the Notre-Dame by heart, I guess you'll never find it accurately reproduced on a CD. But to feel like in any church should be possible (well, a certain accomodation from the listener's side is needed like with all audio equipment). I like the Beyer DT 880 a lot with organ music.
...I love organ music, particularly from modern composers, but I'm not experienced in live concerts with organ. With headphones I usually don't care about the shape of the soundstage, more about its credibility and realism. I imagine to be hard to recreate a specific acoustic in a recording. If you know the Notre-Dame by heart, I guess you'll never find it accurately reproduced on a CD. But to feel like in any church should be possible (well, a certain accomodation from the listener's side is needed like with all audio equipment). I like the Beyer DT 880 a lot with organ music.
zzz
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Posts
- 757
- Likes
- 65
JaZZ:
I have to agree with most of the points you bring up about Lambda series headphones. On the other hand, what you said does not generalize well to some of the other electrostats which unfortunately happen to be much much more expensive than the Lambdas. For example, judging from my experience, Omega's presentation of undertones (hopefully I'm using the right term here) for instruments like grand piano or cello has no equal in the world of dynamic headphones.
I will try making a photo of Omega's stators when I get home. It's a rather see-through phone, so it should be possible to do that without disassembling them
.
Re: cost. *shrug*. SR-404 from EIFL or Audiocubes costs about the same as HD600 with an aftermarket cable. SR-007 costs less than R10 which I believe is its only real competitor. Prices of the amps are comparable and there are plenty DIY designs around. It's all good.
I believe that most misunderstandings surrounding Stax originate from its positioning by Headroom (good only for classic, very little bass) whose business is making and selling their own dynamic amplifiers, and various shows where from year to year one gets a chance to listen to the same seriously beat up untuned and improperly set up system with dying tubes. And this is somewhat unfortunate.
I have to agree with most of the points you bring up about Lambda series headphones. On the other hand, what you said does not generalize well to some of the other electrostats which unfortunately happen to be much much more expensive than the Lambdas. For example, judging from my experience, Omega's presentation of undertones (hopefully I'm using the right term here) for instruments like grand piano or cello has no equal in the world of dynamic headphones.
I will try making a photo of Omega's stators when I get home. It's a rather see-through phone, so it should be possible to do that without disassembling them
Re: cost. *shrug*. SR-404 from EIFL or Audiocubes costs about the same as HD600 with an aftermarket cable. SR-007 costs less than R10 which I believe is its only real competitor. Prices of the amps are comparable and there are plenty DIY designs around. It's all good.
I believe that most misunderstandings surrounding Stax originate from its positioning by Headroom (good only for classic, very little bass) whose business is making and selling their own dynamic amplifiers, and various shows where from year to year one gets a chance to listen to the same seriously beat up untuned and improperly set up system with dying tubes. And this is somewhat unfortunate.
Mike Scarpitti
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Posts
- 2,266
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
"Color, colour", "travelling, traveling" "judgment, judgement", etc. Spelling variations exist.
See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, reset, 1973, page 1170.
"Lamda, -doidal: see Lambda, -doidal"
| Originally posted by 00940 i received a classical formation in high school (6 years of latin, 6 years of classical greek), never seen anyone spelling lamda. |
"Color, colour", "travelling, traveling" "judgment, judgement", etc. Spelling variations exist.
See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, reset, 1973, page 1170.
"Lamda, -doidal: see Lambda, -doidal"
zzz
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Posts
- 757
- Likes
- 65
don't know if anyone cares. anyway: http://nameless.ca/stash/007/see-through/
(they are not really THIS brown, it's just the lighting setting on my digicam
)
as you can see, stators try to stay out of the way of sound as much as possible.
(they are not really THIS brown, it's just the lighting setting on my digicam
as you can see, stators try to stay out of the way of sound as much as possible.
eric343
Member of the Trade: Audiogeek: The "E" in META42
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2001
- Posts
- 6,038
- Likes
- 17
Quote:
And the master (well, other master) has spoken.
zzz, if I'm ever in Toronto (which is possible, I have a grandma there), or if you're ever in Vancouver with that Weebl, WE WILL MEET AGAIN.
[ed] Oh, and those are ODD stators... looking at the he90s, Sennheiser went in exactly the opposite direction and used very small, numerous holes.
| Originally posted by zzz JaZZ: I will try making a photo of Omega's stators when I get home. It's a rather see-through phone, so it should be possible to do that without disassembling them
Re: cost. *shrug*. SR-404 from EIFL or Audiocubes costs about the same as HD600 with an aftermarket cable. SR-007 costs less than R10 which I believe is its only real competitor. Prices of the amps are comparable and there are plenty DIY designs around. It's all good. |
And the master (well, other master) has spoken.
zzz, if I'm ever in Toronto (which is possible, I have a grandma there), or if you're ever in Vancouver with that Weebl, WE WILL MEET AGAIN.
[ed] Oh, and those are ODD stators... looking at the he90s, Sennheiser went in exactly the opposite direction and used very small, numerous holes.
00940
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Posts
- 4,493
- Likes
- 47
spelling variations are popular alterations. Or variations between local popular languages (the case you shown).
Snobbish students with classical background like me dismiss it as vulgar. Where are we going if ill-educated english speakers are going against the rules of the tradition ?? Btw, I'm from Belgium and made my high-school years in French (as you can guess it from my terrible English). French is respectful of the past and doesn't admit such a modification. Furthermore, such a difference in the spelling is a shame by modifying the historical prononciation of the word !
Let me guess : lamda has been admitted after generations of incult math students were unable to spell it correctly ? Anyway, the stax is called LamBDa, do I call the CD-3000 C-3000 ?
Snobbish students with classical background like me dismiss it as vulgar. Where are we going if ill-educated english speakers are going against the rules of the tradition ?? Btw, I'm from Belgium and made my high-school years in French (as you can guess it from my terrible English). French is respectful of the past and doesn't admit such a modification. Furthermore, such a difference in the spelling is a shame by modifying the historical prononciation of the word !
Let me guess : lamda has been admitted after generations of incult math students were unable to spell it correctly ? Anyway, the stax is called LamBDa, do I call the CD-3000 C-3000 ?
zzz
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Posts
- 757
- Likes
- 65
Quote:
I believe Stax Lambdas use this approach, though I don't have them on hand for comparison (they're in Vancouver). JaZZ would know.
Heh, I'll be back in Vancouver in two weeks. Drop by with that HE90 of yours anytime
.
| Originally posted by eric343 And the master (well, other master) has spoken. zzz, if I'm ever in Toronto (which is possible, I have a grandma there), or if you're ever in Vancouver with that Weebl, WE WILL MEET AGAIN.
[ed] Oh, and those are ODD stators... looking at the he90s, Sennheiser went in exactly the opposite direction and used very small, numerous holes. |
I believe Stax Lambdas use this approach, though I don't have them on hand for comparison (they're in Vancouver). JaZZ would know.
Heh, I'll be back in Vancouver in two weeks. Drop by with that HE90 of yours anytime
Mike Scarpitti
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Posts
- 2,266
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
No-one has "proved" a thing, just made assertions. I have been listening to music for a long time on various kinds of audio equipment. (I used to own a very nice turntable with a Magnepan tone arm and a Stax electret cartridge ($750 in 1983). This cartridge used a battery and had no magnets. It was the best cartridge I have ever heard, before or since.)
The point is that I have LOTS of experience, at least 30 years, so I'm not a "newbie". If I offer an opinion, it's an educated one. I didn't just get off the boat. Based on this experience, I have the following to offer:
1. Tubes are over-rated
2. Electrostatic devices are the top of the food chain in transducers
3. "Speed" in one form or another is the single most important factor in transducer design. The Yamaha NS1000M speakers that I now own have berylium diaphragms, which are very light and rigid. The magnet for the midrange is about the size of most woofer magnets. the magnet for the tweeter is about the size of most midrange magnets. Impressive on all counts.
I DO understand the physics. Thank you very much for reading.
| Originally posted by zeplin Hey Mike, So just because I like to write, I take drugs now? LOL
<sigh>AGAIN, read over the whole thread and see how many times people have proven you wrong about something you thought you knew. My guess is you never studied any of these things that you thought you knew, and simply guessed about things like the lighter and faster the material, the better LOL!!! Honestly, you sound like some of the little kids I take care of...guessing when it comes to science. zzz, I was making a point, if you didn't notice. I wanted Mike to see how it sounds when someone makes a ridiculous claim without hardly any knowledge at all! And I am in no way trying to outdo him. I'm sure you've noticed that, throughout this thread, millions of people have tried to explain certain concepts to Mike only to find that it went through one ear and out the other. Again, I was trying to put Mike in the audience so he could sit back and watch someone make stupid ridiculous comments...for the sake of this debate of course. It obviously worked on you
It's just very frustrating for me to sit back and watch someone like Mike not get what so many people are trying to convey without saying anything...wether it is polite or mean, I can't help what I say sometimes! But I should learn to hold back a little more. But seriously, I apologize, zzz, if I've further ticked you off in any way...that is the very last thing I wish to do here. No hard feelings. |
No-one has "proved" a thing, just made assertions. I have been listening to music for a long time on various kinds of audio equipment. (I used to own a very nice turntable with a Magnepan tone arm and a Stax electret cartridge ($750 in 1983). This cartridge used a battery and had no magnets. It was the best cartridge I have ever heard, before or since.)
The point is that I have LOTS of experience, at least 30 years, so I'm not a "newbie". If I offer an opinion, it's an educated one. I didn't just get off the boat. Based on this experience, I have the following to offer:
1. Tubes are over-rated
2. Electrostatic devices are the top of the food chain in transducers
3. "Speed" in one form or another is the single most important factor in transducer design. The Yamaha NS1000M speakers that I now own have berylium diaphragms, which are very light and rigid. The magnet for the midrange is about the size of most woofer magnets. the magnet for the tweeter is about the size of most midrange magnets. Impressive on all counts.
I DO understand the physics. Thank you very much for reading.
Calanctus
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Posts
- 875
- Likes
- 10
Here's a real first for me: first time to use the 'ignore' function on this board. I thought of using it for Kelly, but his posts were just too darn informative--most of the time. Now, however, I'm confronted with an argumentative, annoying, thickheaded and ignorant individual.
Hasta la vista, baby.
Hasta la vista, baby.
nArKeD
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2003
- Posts
- 69
- Likes
- 0
Compromise is overrated as well
Same w/ using real world experience to make a subjective observation
Generalizations work for everything!
Same w/ using real world experience to make a subjective observation
Generalizations work for everything!
Users who are viewing this thread
