Fastest Dynamic Drivers that can match Electrostatic Drivers?

[kool bubba ice]

True.

 

[Faust2D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif If TR/speed can be meaured, why is there any argument about it?

Measurements and perception are different things unfortunately, due to many factors. Also keep in mind that we all use different equipment and listen to different things with the same headphones. There is however an objective technical way to see that one type of transducer has better transient response than the other.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomzDayz /img/forum/go_quote.gif DT880 is renowned here for its inconsistent and very extreme opinions on its speed. Many claim DT880 is absurdly slow, while others claim it is very fast. I'm not sure which it is, but its square wave graph looks pretty good on headroom, although its upper midrange is very very polite, where a lot of 'speed' appears to our ears. that said, i've made a couple posts asking about how they compare speed as I have not been able to tell TOO much difference other than upper mid definition between my dt880, stax, and IM716's. I only detect that stax ~ im716 is maybe a bit faster than my dt880's, but both are significantly more defined in the upper mids.

Perhaps I can be of some use here.

For several months I have been exclusively listening to the DT880 / Little Dot MKIII combo for most of my electronica collection. As some of you might recall, I felt there was something missing but couldn't put my finger on it. The DT880 seemed really fast when it came to sudden transients, but quite often felt a bit slurred when handling complex passages.

One day out of curiosity I plugged my DT880 into my integrated Emu0404 amp and was bowled over. The trade-off was glaringly obvious - reduced soundstage, drier midrange, tighter bass but significantly more clarity and focus during complex passages. While this might not suit everyone's taste, when it came to resolving detail, it was no contest.

I have since sold my LDMKIII and picked up a solid state Presonus HP4....yes that's right....an HP4 for half the cost of the LDMKIII. And to all of you who think that the Emu0404 integrated amp is garbage, I urge you to reconsider. While it might not drive headphones to their loudest volumes, the actual sound quality itself was stunning.

Perhaps transient response is not the fault of the DT880s, but the equipment that it is partnered with.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

The speed of movement on a dynamic diaphragm depends on the power of the magnet, the stiffness of the surround and the weight of the diaphragm and voice-coil.

Only the latter points are correct. The stiffness of the surround/suspension just defines frequency and Q factor of the system resonance, not over-all transient response. In this sense a stiffer surround even makes for a more resonant characteristic (higher Q factor) – although just around the resonance frequency. As to magnet strength, a study of the German «Hobby HiFi» magazine has shown that it doesn't have the slightest effect on transient response (again, except for the resonance frequency).


Quote:

...no dynamic can ever be as fast and as responsive as an electrostatic...

Quote:

It is rather stupid to have a disargeement about a technical aspect. Not exactly a matter of opinion here - transient response on electrostatic headphones is superior to dynamics.

Quote:

Dynamics cannot even come close to the speed of electrostatics by definition. Some dynamics fake sounding very fast by shoving the treble way forward, but in terms of actual speed, not even the Qualia 010, which is the fastest dynamic around by miles, can compare to electrostats.

Quote:

There is not only how fast it starts, there is also how fast it stops - and no dynamic can ever come close to an electrostatic.

As logical as it may sound that electrostatics with their low moving mass offer more accurate transient response, as wrong it is.

Below a few decay spectra (waterfall plots) published by «Stereophile». The first four are dynamic speakers, the last three electrostatic speakers (at least from the lower midrange on).

Totem Acoustic Forest:

B&W Compact Domestic Monitor 1:

B&W Nautilus 805:

Audio Physic Virgo:

Martin Logan Aerial:

Martin Logan SL3:

Martin Logan Prodigy:

The dynamic speakers have by far the shorter decay. The few extreme exceptions within their responses (in the form of narrow-band material resonances) border on or are in the ultrasonic range, hence are barely audible.


I remember transient-response plots in «Stereoplay» and «Hobby HiFi» editions: Electrostatic tweeters regularly had miserable transient response, whereas conventional dome tweeters were comparably perfect in this discipline. Ribbon and planar tweeters were mostly just as good, with even slightly faster onset (ribbons), but the larger membranes among them showed longer decay and no onset advantage compared to dome tweeters.

This would be stuff for a «Sound Science» thread à la «Electrostatics: the Myth exploded!», «The Truth about Transient Response»...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I consider the the drivers of my Etymotic ER4's pretty darn fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Balanced armatures also have a good combination of speed and impact, but they fail at treble extension, which hurts their ability to replicate transients.

This corresponds to my experience. Balanced-armatures are most likely the «fastest» headphone drivers around with the best transient response – apart from the treble: here the nearly undampened microacoustics and multipath effects in the chambers and canals make for a considerable high-frequency transient smearing finally leading to limited high-frequency extension.


It has to be noted that the transient response of a sound transducer can vary considerably throughout the frequency spectrum; there are (hinted) resonances, frequency areas where kinetic energy gets stored and released delayedly. So there's no definitively «fastest» headphone, it may (e.g.) just have a fast high-frequency response and a mediocre mid- and low-frequency response compared to a contender. And of course all sound transducers are still far from perfect transient response (e.g. compared to amps). Add to this the obligatory reflections between driver and ear which inevitably will corrupt transients in one or the other way and to a higher or a lesser degree. Open headphones have by far the better preconditions, since they're at least not affected by rear-wave reflections.
.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bullseye!

Yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perhaps I can be of some use here. For several months I have been exclusively listening to the DT880 / Little Dot MKIII combo for most of my electronica collection. As some of you might recall, I felt there was something missing but couldn't put my finger on it. The DT880 seemed really fast when it came to sudden transients, but quite often felt a bit slurred when handling complex passages. One day out of curiosity I plugged my DT880 into my integrated Emu0404 amp and was bowled over. The trade-off was glaringly obvious - reduced soundstage, drier midrange, tighter bass but significantly more clarity and focus during complex passages. While this might not suit everyone's taste, when it came to resolving detail, it was no contest. I have since sold my LDMKIII and picked up a solid state Presonus HP4....yes that's right....an HP4 for half the cost of the LDMKIII. And to all of you who think that the Emu0404 integrated amp is garbage, I urge you to reconsider. While it might not drive headphones to their loudest volumes, the actual sound quality itself was stunning. Perhaps transient response is not the fault of the DT880s, but the equipment that it is partnered with.

No doubt you preferred the SS amp. You were listening to the distortion tubes gave (from the LD MKIII amp), and when those were removed you got to listen how the DT880s sound.

The specs of the HP4 are good enough to be compared with any other well built SS amp in the market, and with similar specs. You might want to look at the Samson S·Amp. Just to learn more about tech details.

About the drivers we are talking about a subjective opinion here, unless the term "speed" is directly related to something that can be measured. Dynamic and electrostatic are two different types of technologies that involve the use of magnets. Then the response also varies depending on the magnetic properties of the magnets used.

Anyways have to do some stuff so will keep reading the thread to see how it goes on.

 

[kool bubba ice]

I won't argue that the Qualia isn't the fastest dynamic around.. But there are dynamics that some members feel that are on par or faster then electro's they own or heard.. Sometimes theory doesn't work in practice.. Too be far, I'm sure some electros are 'faster' then other electro's..

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes? No doubt you preferred the SS amp. You were listening to the distortion tubes gave (from the LD MKIII amp), and when those were removed you got to listen how the DT880s sound. The specs of the HP4 are good enough to be compared with any other well built SS amp in the market, and with similar specs. You might want to look at the Samson S·Amp. Just to learn more about tech details. About the drivers we are talking about a subjective opinion here, unless the term "speed" is directly related to something that can be measured. Dynamic and electrostatic are two different types of technologies that involve the use of magnets. Then the response also varies depending on the magnetic properties of the magnets used. Anyways have to do some stuff so will keep reading the thread to see how it goes on.

Erik made a good point about headphone speed.. A lot also depends on the amp.

 

[spritzer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif The dynamic speakers have by far the shorter decay. The few extreme exceptions within their responses (in the form of narrow-band material resonances) border on or are in the ultrasonic range, hence are barely audible.

IMO the Martin Logans are a bad example of the ESL breed given the terrible panel design which hasn't progressed in a long time. They also use very thick mylar and the panel doesn't have the support it needs. Measure a new Sound Lab U-1PX and the results should be very different. Sure it is a 30k$ beast but it is one of the few speakers to have a proper frame for the electrostatic panel.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritzer /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO the Martin Logans are a bad example of the ESL breed given the terrible panel design which hasn't progressed in a long time. They also use very thick mylar and the panel doesn't have the support it needs. Measure a new Sound Lab U-1PX and the results should be very different. Sure it is a 30k$ beast but it is one of the few speakers to have a proper frame for the electrostatic panel.

I know the Martin Logans quite a bit, and I like their sound. It is typlically electrostatic: extremely transparent, smooth, airy, ethereal. There's no audible flaw which would make you think of such bad measuring values.


Below two more electrostatic speakers and two dynamic planar speakers:

InnerSound Eros Mk.III:

Quad ESL-989:

Magnepan MG3.6/R:

Eminent Technology LFT-VIII:

The Eros is the only electrostat which passably approaches the quality of mediocre dynamic speakers in terms of decay and linearity. Apart from it, all decay measurements I've seen from electrostatic speakers were bad to catastrophic.

It only tells that the undisputed qualities of electrostatics (and planars generally) don't express themselves in the transient-response measurements. At least in the speaker world.
.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomzDayz /img/forum/go_quote.gif DT880 is renowned here for its inconsistent and very extreme opinions on its speed. Many claim DT880 is absurdly slow, while others claim it is very fast. I'm not sure which it is, but its square wave graph looks pretty good on headroom, although its upper midrange is very very polite, where a lot of 'speed' appears to our ears. that said, i've made a couple posts asking about how they compare speed as I have not been able to tell TOO much difference other than upper mid definition between my dt880, stax, and IM716's. I only detect that stax ~ im716 is maybe a bit faster than my dt880's, but both are significantly more defined in the upper mids.

Now that I have the SA5000 in my possession, I will say that the DT880 is plenty fast in comparison, though considerably more wet sounding or warm than the SA5000 which might be mistaken for slowness.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now that I have the SA5000 in my possession, I will say that the DT880 is plenty fast in comparison, though considerably more wet sounding or warm than the SA5000 which might be mistaken for slowness.

You might want to try some material that shows speed really well. I usually go for speed metal. Try some Dragonforce with each and come back with impressions.

 

[Catharsis]

I'll give Dragonforce a listen - I would imagine the grainy sound of thick melodic distorted guitar would be a treat on the SA5000.

If you've ever heard some of the faster songs on a Squarepusher album (e.g. Go Plastic - track 3), it's in the range of ridiculousness. No human could play as fast as this digital machine can at over 180bpm with breaks and clicks that stop on a dime, and hi-hat hits that occur over 10 times in a single second.

In fact, fast drill and bass (a variant of drum and bass), will cause most people to tear their headphones off shock of how disgusting it can be. Drukqs by Aphex Twin is an album that contains some of the fastest and thickest music I've ever heard and both the DT880 and SA5000 handle it fine - just differently.

To give you an example of what I mean about the SA5000 / DT880 difference, there is an album by Oval called 94 Diskont. The first track consists of what is known as "microsound", or densely layered short stacatto rhythms and what sounds like a CD skipping. In addition to this there is a thick warm sample played simultaneously on top of everything. The DT880 becomes a bit overwhelmed by this sample and clouds the detail of the underlying microsound, whereas the SA5000 thins out the sample, and reveals the rest of the mix quite well.

With several more hours of listening under my belt, the SA5000 seems to have a crunchier and drier texture that is applied to the bass and midrange giving the music a different feel than the DT880. It's quite difficult to hear high frequencies (live or otherwise), through a low frequency bass rumble or thick warm synth and the SA5000 manages to take all that meat and thickness away to reveal the skeleton of the music. Instrument separation and placement of the SA5000 is also better than the DT880 despite the smaller soundstage (though the differences are not dramatic).

Which one is more enjoyable though from a musical standpoint? DT880 hands down. If I want maximum fidelity, or a more aggressive listen I'll throw on the SA5000.

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif So there's no definitively «fastest» headphone, it may (e.g.) just have a fast high-frequency response and a mediocre mid- and low-frequency response compared to a contender. And of course all sound transducers are still far from perfect transient response (e.g. compared to amps). Add to this the obligatory reflections between driver and ear which inevitably will corrupt transients in one or the other way and to a higher or a lesser degree. Open headphones have by far the better preconditions, since they're at least not affected by rear-wave reflections. .

Hi Jazz, this is soo good. Thanks for sharing this info to us. It's very logical.

 

[oqvist]

Should I take this as that a headphone or speaker can never be to fast in term of attack and decay? So the faster a headphone is the more correct it is?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oqvist /img/forum/go_quote.gif Should I take this as that a headphone or speaker can never be too fast in terms of attack and decay? So the faster a headphone is, the more correct it is?

Yes. But «fast» is a characteristic which is also often attributed to treble-friendliness, that's why it has to be taken with a grain of salt. A really fast (= accurate) headphone will sound relatively unspectacular. But certainly very transparent. (And it wouldn't sound like a typical electrostat.)
.