[FarCry]

Quote:

If graphs were as objective as you make them out to be, Rin & InnerFidelity's graphs would be identical (they are, in this instance, quite different).

 
 
 
 
actually they are similar. take a look at the grey lines which represent the raw data
 
 
http://rinchoi.blogspot.gr/2013/02/final-audio-design-fi-ba-ss.html
 
 
raw data are similar to rin.

 

[vwinter]

Air displacement is measured by pressure...  dB is simply air pressure.  If you displace the same air pressure, you move the same amount of air...  Regardless of how the work internally, they are capable of displacing the same amount of air pressure. 

I'm more interested in this with regard to your earlier statement about tuning one to sound like the other. While I believe this can be done to an extent, I would be much less inclined to believe that it can be done for the whole nine yards.

So, would this per chance be an oversimplification? What you said seems to imply that a BA and a dynamic can produce the same SPL. Let's assume that's correct (I have no idea if it is, but let's just assume it for arguments sake). That discounts so many variables to make it true that it's a borderline useless statement without more information. Can it be done mass for mass? How about size for size? Can they do it exactly the same way over a given length of time? Is it an average over time? I'm sure anyone inclined could think of a hundred more questions because the statement is way too broad reaching to even be considered accurate given the amount of possible microscopic issues.

The truth of the matter is that they are different technologies trying to reach a similar goal and they do it in different ways yielding a similar result in that they reproduce sound to some degree of accuracy to life as well as it was recorded. I'd gamble that a lot of these inaudible measurements affect the way the brain processes sound wholistically as opposed to being audible or not in themselves. And I'd gamble that the "inaudible" ways that they differently produce sound has an affect on the sound produced as well in ways that are not even worth the cost of measuring.

And studies don't usually prove anything. They just show that it's more likely to be true within a specific scope until a better study comes along. A study is not a law and a law is only a law until proven wrong.

It just seems like an oversimplification to me.

I guess /rant

 

[kyuuketsuki]

Quote:

 
Find 2 IEMs frequency response charts...  If they have the same dB output, they displace the same amount of air...  It's simple as that.  That said, find an SPL chart of a dynamic that has big bass and a BA with big bass and the dB differences should be within 10%. 
 
For example, compare the Shure SE215 (dynamic) vs the Phonak PFE232 (dual BA) on InnerFidelity. They both have an approximated 8-9 dB bump in the bass from the lowest peak... 

 
Or you could just look at the comparison between all four Shures from Innerfedelity. And the 215 (the only dynamic) and the three others have varying dB ratios. Again, the way the diaphragms are designed are different. The diaphragm of dynamic drivers can displace more air per driver (as you can see with the Shure line) than any single BA. They need to compensate this my modifying the bore of BA IEMs (or so I understand) to make the dB output more or less equal. I could compare different IEMs but each BA IEM uses the same method of increasing air pressure, which is to say a smaller or otherwise modified bore (smaller bore, less air can get through at any given time, thus pressure increases). However, in terms of what can move more air, do you really think a BA can even come remotely close to dynamic? A large dynamic driver can displace as much air as surface area of the moving diaphragm. The same cannot be said of BA. Just because measurements out of well designed headphones show similar attributes due to overall design, does not mean the capabilities of individual or differing drivers is the same. 
 
Also, though I'm not 100% sure. I think that all FR graphs are normalized, making all measurements relative to the IEM, rather than an accurate representation of dB level in general.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

 
Or you could just look at the comparison between all four Shures from Innerfedelity. And the 215 (the only dynamic) and the three others have varying dB ratios. Again, the way the diaphragms are designed are different. The diaphragm of dynamic drivers can displace more air per driver (as you can see with the Shure line) than any single BA. They need to compensate this my modifying the bore of BA IEMs (or so I understand) to make the dB output more or less equal. I could compare different IEMs but each BA IEM uses the same method of increasing air pressure, which is to say a smaller or otherwise modified bore (smaller bore, less air can get through at any given time, thus pressure increases). However, in terms of what can move more air, do you really think a BA can even come remotely close to dynamic? A large dynamic driver can displace as much air as surface area of the moving diaphragm. The same cannot be said of BA. Just because measurements out of well designed headphones show similar attributes due to overall design, does not mean the capabilities of individual or differing drivers is the same. 

 
I'm tired of arguing with you.  I show you proof, you ignore it.  You can believe what you want.  But you can't deny that the Phonak PFE232 and the Shure SE215 displace the same amount of air.  Shure isn't compensating anything.  They are tuning to a certain sound.  Their BAs tend to be more bass light, because they're tuned that way. 
 
If you want to talk surface area, fine.  The dynamic has more surface area...  You forget pressure = force * surface area.  Force = 1/2 mv^2.  You can always compensate the BA's mass by it's velocity (it's acceleration really) to generate the same pressure.  The dynamic loses in terms of speed due to it's large size and air resistance. In terms of force, a small increase in velocity will create more force than the same increase in mass...  So yes, the dynamic has more surface area, the BA has more potential velocity it can reach.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Here's the Inner Fidelity frequency response graph for the FI-BA-SB (aka Heaven-S) which looks quite different to the one you linked to, and is pretty much how I hear this particular IEM.
 


That said, a graph only tells part of the story, not everything — and as for objectivity, there's obviously different aspects you're not familiar with when measuring headphones and earphones. As for distortion and other measurable aspects, most people's hearing will not be able to tell the differences between the distortion of one IEM/headphone and another. Same goes for some aspects relating to the actual frequencies shown on graphs and the so-called extension you mentioned earlier. The graph above, btw, shows a very respectable extension at both ends.

If graphs were as objective as you make them out to be, Rin & InnerFidelity's graphs would be identical (they are, in this instance, quite different).

 
Rin measured the SS though, not SB. While extension may be good, it is certainly not an indicator of good quality. The highs may lack finesse and bass may lack definition, The sound may lack dynamics, distortion levels may be high, etc.
 
Quote:

That said, a graph only tells part of the story, not everything — and as for objectivity, there's obviously different aspects you're not familiar with when measuring headphones and earphones. As for distortion and other measurable aspects, most people's hearing will not be able to tell the differences between the distortion of one IEM/headphone and another. Same goes for some aspects relating to the actual frequencies shown on graphs and the so-called extension you mentioned earlier. The graph above, btw, shows a very respectable extension at both ends.

 
Which ones?

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

It's actually the same graph FYI   They're scaled differently.  The measurements are near identical if you look at relative extrema of the graphs (EG, 10 dB peak @ 3k with peaks after, etc). The different scaling makes the responses look extremely different (because they aren't scaled the same.  Rin's head is actually pretty accurate. 

 
It doesn't always seem to be that way from several of his graphs I've seen (see below, too).
 
Quote:

 
actually they are similar. take a look at the grey lines which represent the raw data
 
http://rinchoi.blogspot.gr/2013/02/final-audio-design-fi-ba-ss.html
 
raw data are similar to rin.

 
 
Both raw and compensated data look different, and particularly the latter quite different.
 
Measuring earphones seems to be more difficult / less precise than measuring full-sized headphones.

 

[FarCry]

Quote:

 
Rin measured the SS though, not SB.

 
 
 
Quote:

http://rinchoi.blogspot.gr/2012/10/final-audio-design-heaven-s-updated.html
 
 
 
Quote:

ON SECOND THOUGHT #5: Heaven-A yields slightly less amount of output above 10 kHz. Other than that, it turns out the only difference between the Heaven models and FI-BA-SS is the housing material.

 
 

 
 
the good thing about final design is that all models have similar FRs

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Speculating about phones you haven't heard and making such sweeping generalisations—as you often do—is a disservice to Head-fi in general, and those following this thread in particular. If perhaps you simply said, "This is my opinion from all the phones I've personally heard", that'd be quite a different story. Then, of course, there's the fact that you've changed your tune/views drastically many, many, many times.

 
Measurements are far more reliable and useful than subjective impressions. Let's say I listen to the SS and find the treble lacking, even though measurements show plenty of treble energy. Could that it mean the graph is wrong and the SS indeed lacks treble? Of course not. That probably means that either I have hearing loss in the treble, had fit issues, or simply have a personal preference for a very bright sound. You seem to place too much value on subjective impressions. Do you really think many people have perfect hearing and are able to form completely unbiased views? Impossible.
 
Quote:

the good thing about final design is that all models have similar FRs

 
Ok.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

 
Measurements are far more reliable and useful than subjective impressions. Let's say I listen to the SS and find the treble lacking, even though measurements show plenty of treble energy. Could that it mean the graph is wrong and the SS indeed lacks treble? Of course not. That probably means that either I have hearing loss in the treble, had fit issues, or simply have a personal preference for a very bright sound. You seem to place too much value on subjective impressions. Do you really think many people have perfect hearing and are able to form completely unbiased views? Impossible.

 
Please re-read my posts again, preferably more slowly... and think for a few minutes. Then, think again. And then, perhaps, think again.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianist /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
You seem to place too much value on subjective impressions

 
That's what it seems to you. (see above)
 
That's it from my end for now as this is a HIfiman thread and not a FAD thread or the science forum.

 

[JosephKim]

ridiculous

 

[FarCry]

Rin would side with the RE 262/272 without a doubt
 
 
also the channel mismatch is this. you have up to 4 db mismatch at around 7-8 KHz.
 
 

 

[Inks]

It doesn't always seem to be that way from several of his graphs I've seen (see below, too).
http://www.head-fi.org/t/632802/upcoming-hifiman-iems-re-400-and-re-600/720


Both raw and compensated data look different, and particularly the latter quite different.

Measuring earphones seems to be more difficult / less precise than measuring full-sized headphones.

Wait a minute, Rins graphs based in industrial standards while using a simulator that matches Tylls isn't accurate because of your personal impressions? Compensations are a tricky matter as Tylls is off and Rins is flat on the downslope IME. But the raw data are nearly identical, scale them properly and you'll see, Tylls scaling makes most iems seem more flat than what they actually are.

Actually measuring IEMs is more precise than measuring full size headphones as results are more consistent, the only varying factor is insertion depth.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

 
Please re-read my posts again, preferably more slowly... and think for a few minutes. Then, think again. And then, perhaps, think again.
 
 
That's what it seems to you. (see above)
 
That's it from my end for now as this is a HIfiman thread and not a FAD thread or the science forum.

 
I just don't see what I missed. You write that I speculate about headphones that I haven't heard and that it is a bad thing. I think you are wrong because I base my speculations on objective measurements that I feel are far more reliable and useful than subjective impressions anyway.

 

[EraserXIV]

A wise man once said, "Let's agree to disagree."

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Wait a minute, Rins graphs based in industrial standards while using a simulator that matches Tylls isn't accurate because of your personal impressions?

 
No.
 
Quote:

...Compensations are a tricky matter as Tylls is off and Rins is flat on the downslope IME.

 
Good.
 
Quote:

...But the raw data are nearly identical, scale them properly and you'll see...

 
Not quite (the raw data). Yet the compensated data varies significantly.
 
Quote:

... Tylls scaling makes most iems seem more flat than what they actually are.

 
Does it? I don't think that's the case.
 
Quote:

Actually measuring IEMs is more precise than measuring full size headphones as results are more consistent, the only varying factor is insertion depth.

 
Allow me to not so humbly disagree.
 
---------------
 
 
Last post on the subject.