On the other hand, the laws of physics are on the side of electrostatic headphones. Namely, acceleration is directly proportional to the moving mass. Electrostatic headphones have much lighter diaphragms than planar headphones.
There is one more factor in favor of electrostatic headphones, driving force is uniform across the diaphragm while planar headphones have driving force only under the surface of the conductors, which never cover the whole diaphragm surface. There are always parts of diaphragm that are just passively following and sometimes even partially moving out of phase. So, by definition it has too take longer for planars to stop since once they go in motion, there isn't in some cases a magnet nearby to stop the movement as quickly as other parts of the mylar - hence out of phase as well, not to mention more mass.
There's a bit of oversimplification here, and the technical subject, though relatively rudimentary from a physics/engineering point of view, is still rather complex for the average person. I didn't finish my EE degree, but did ace all of my physics, chemistry, and math courses in community college, and enjoyed a short stint of tutoring in the math and science labs, so hopefully I'll be able to expain the following concepts in a way that is easily assimilated.
Yes, any object with lower inertia necessarily accelerates/decelerates faster from a given force. It's also theoretically correct to assert that in the ideal scenario, neither planar nor electrostatic diaphragms would have any mass. In reality, F=ma means if force is proportional to mass, then acceleration remains the same. Estat may have marginally lighter diaphragms, but that doesn't mean it is able to keep up in terms of force. The ribbons are generally able to take a comparatively much greater amount of power, which allows them to vibrate enough to create much more sound than estats, hence the dynamic range advantage you mentioned. This may sound like planars have an inherent power advantage, but that would be also a superficial look into the matter.
In actuality, estat tech is largely hampered by the litigiousness of modern/westernized cultures. The knowledge to create amps that can produce high voltages already exists. The mass manufacturing of the components necessary to produce these amps at accessible prices doesn't, because high voltages and electrically challenged people don't go well together; someone gets hurts, or dies, and someone gets sued into bankruptcy. Alas, we can't have nice things. That said, planar diaphragms arguably can take so much power while remaining very ultra low mass that estats aren't even that interesting (for me) at the moment for this reason alone. The extremely low harmonic distortions from estats are their only real advantage, and even here imo it is moot.
On to the topic of stopping the diaphragm. Let's return to the Lenz Law concept from earlier. This time, instead of holding the pipe stationary, imagine we hold the magnet stationary and drop the pipe directly over it, to observe its constant rate of fall. It should be initially obvious to us that if we can make the pipe thinner, it would weigh less, and thus traveling slower, even though resistivity has been proportionately increased due to less thickness. If we continue to thin the pipe, the closer it comes to zero mass, the closer the fall rate would approach an asymptotic limit. Lenz Law also applies to planar-magnetic technology. In other words, past a certain point, it becomes really moot to try and further reduce the mass of the planar diaphragm, which is dampened by the Lenz Law effect. There's also the electrical damping part of the equation, which I'll leave out for now. At some point, it becomes necessary to increase the conductivity of the ribbon, or magnet strength, which also run into the material science wall. Nevertheless, we have seen demonstrated and measured that planars can rise/fall as fast, if not faster than estats'. Perhaps even more important is the dynamic range advantage that you mentioned.
They are or should be hand in hand - not in oppostion when indeed materials/design has improved from a purely tecnical angle. Why improve if you cannot make it manifest in an audible manner to those that may purchase it?
Again, I repeat the diminishing returns reality of the improvements in these techs. At this point, I'm more interested in how these headphones jive with other components, rather than the technical side of things. You ask, why improve if it's not audible. That's a good question, to which I have no answer. Perhaps the marketing departments do. It is also possible to tune the product so that it sounds different, regardless of whether the tech itself has improved. Stax may have realized, for example, that after they had used their new tech currently implemented in their 009, or x9000, to create a new version of the 007, with the same/similar 007 tuning, that it sounded pretty much the same as the older 007. In other words, no audible improvement. However, they'd already poured so much resources into R&D, and need to create a new product to justify the investment. So, instead, they created something that is tuned differently, hence the 009. So, perhaps in reality, their new tech isn't necessarily audibly better than their old tech, but the new product with the included tech just has a different flavor. This is just a hypothetical possible scenario I can think of.
I'm already thoroughly satisfied with the Sundara, which I don't even believe is certainly technically superior to most other planars. In the final equation, audio tech is only as valued as much as it is enjoyed (or marketed, sadly).
You want to know what's weird? Some time ago, I actually enjoyed listening to songs more from the mic'd demos of the Stax headphones more than the youtube-compressed version of the songs themselves. The L700/L300/202 and microphone setup together added dimensionality and density to the sound that I didn't get from the pure recordings. I haven't revisited these demos lately to see if it's still true. It's interesting that it was specifically Stax headphones, especially the L700, that made these mic'd headphone recordings sound better than the original. I'm sure their utlra low distortions is partially responsible for this. The mic may have added decay to the notes, giving them more dimensionality, but this is just my conjecture. Turns out, a cleaner/purer signal doesn't necessarily result in a more realistic/immersive/enjoyable experience. -shrug-
It takes two or more bass instruments in the same Hz range, playing at times in sync and out of sync where it can be heard. What's your current EQ in the bass for your Sundara? I built sub woofers back in the early/mid 80's and re-designed and tested them a lot. IM behavior with input at 40 Hz and adding one of 80, 160, 320 will tell a great deal more related to music playback than a steady state tone at 20 or 100 Hz.
The EQ is in this thread somewhere. But I don't think amplitude affects the timing/phase behavior. Plus, it's only a subbass shelf. Frequencies >50hz are largely unchanged. Yes, you're right that poor delay is a big deal here, as far as headphones go, and to this point, I cede that the 6se is by far superior to the Sundara. In fact, it's even superior in that regard to the original HE-6, and the Susvara very slightly, given their measured phase delays. If you're an affionado for perfectly timed subbass response, yes, the HE-6se is the way to go. I'm not. Below 60hz, I care about only one thing: how FUN and enveloping things sound, not how well I can pinpoint one instrument from another in a recording. It's a personal taste thing, and the HE-6se does what it does exceptionally well—just not ideal for me. Between 50hz and 100hz, the Sundara has measured delays that are still not ideal, but still quite acceptable.
I agree its not much, but since the bass FR curves they provide show that the Sundara has very slightly less bass output than the HE-6 SE, what accounts for your opinions on the HE-6 SE bass shortcomings based on? You maintained that it wasn't just one driver that went. Your original review before your 6 SE's were toasted was very positive.
Perhaps "shortcomings" would be a biased way to put it. As mentioned many times, I much prefered the Sundara's warmer, fuller bass and subbass presentation. Is it the most accurate presentation? I'm not sure, but I don't really care. I feel like I'm swimming in each pluck of the strings on a double bass, or bass guitar, whereas with the 6se, they feel positioned two feet in front of me. That's not bad—just not as engaging. Drums that have lowest fundamental frequencies sound like they're being played right in front of me with the Sundara+XLS. I very much enjoy that intimacy. With the 6se, they sound much further away.
Interesting comment as your initial impressions before you toasted them were very good indeed
Yes, turns out, a $400 headphone that sounds like a $400 is very good indeed. As I already said in that thread (boy, I'm repeating myself a lot), before the 6se v1 came, I only had the Sundara with a few other amps as a point of reference. None of those amps was able to take the Sundara to its full potential. So, when a better sounding thing came, I was happy about it. I'd take the 6se+XLS combo over the Sundara+THX789/Vali2. Those latter amps don't do justice to either of these headphones.
Did you get another pair of HE-6 SE's? If not, your negative comments regarding them does seem based in very large part on your having blown them up, which was greeted by a number of posts that were not flattering about what you had done.
I've already mentioned several times that I purchased a v2 after the v1 died. It sounded to me very similar, if not identical to the v1, based off of audio memory of the v1. I had already said before, for my tastes, they sound like they're priced more appropriately at $400. To me, the Sundara+XLS is simply levels above that. Those comments aren't "negative." They representative of what I was hearing from both setups. Yes, much of the disappointment is based on the fact that they died. You keep saying "blow up," there was just a pop, and then no sound.
I was bewildered by the people who reacted to my sharing of that experience with derisiveness. Clearly, they didn't think that there are plenty of users who push their planars very far in the bass department. I'd mentioned in that thread two things: I'd put the same amount of stress to all of the planars I'd owned, and they all not only survived under far more rumble, but survived for years under those conditions; secondly, there is a preponderance of HE-6SE listed on ebay as "for parts" because a driver died. In fact, I saw no other Hifiman models listed as such—only the 6se's. Those who thought what I did to the 6se was unreasonable clearly didn't realize that there are a lot of people out there who love really deep,
powerful bass. I didn't expect people would react so childishly, with such narrow-mindedness. Regardless, their reactions merely annoyed me, but had no effect on how I perceive my 6se. With the gear I have I find it's a good mid-fi headphone. There are levels to this game, and on a tiered system, I'd probably rank the 6se+XLS at B-tier, Sundara+Schiit/THX789 at C+, and the Sundara+XLS at S-tier. The 6se is not my cup of tea, but I understand why some may like it a lot more.
Yup I saw that. I know I don't care for the HE-400 Stealth, 4XX, 5XX, 5 SE. The Sundara is better IMO than all of those. The scrum of the XS, Sundara, and Ananda Stealth? Never heard any of them with non stock cables, mods, PEQ. Sundara is the closest to Harman. XS is tuned for popular tastes. Ananda Stealth isn't bad, and better than its earlier versions. I've owned 11 HFM cans including two 400's, 5 SE, 4XX, and an Ananda II - and I'm not interested in owning any of them again, nor the others listed. One issue I have with all the cans I just named is that none of them have a really good initial impact with bass notes below 70 Hz - neither does my HE-500 or HD-600. The HE-6 SE v1 is the best I can afford at that. The OG HE-6 is significantly better as is the very expensive Phi, and the OG LCD-4, and the Final D8000 all beyond my grasp.
You might be surprised by the number of professional reviews who claim either the XS or Ananda Stealth as the <$500 best headphone. William Murdock places both of them above his modded HE-500, which he obviously loves. His amps are very different from yours and mines, however. He has several transformer-coupled tube amps to play with.
I'm surprised you don't think the HE-500 has a "really good initial impact with bass notes below 70 Hz," because one of the things I've read most about the HE-500 is its strength in the bass section. If its bass impact is below that of the HE-6se, then I may have to reconsider my plan to try them out in the future. Again, I don't think the 6se has a particularly impactful subbass, at least compared to my EQ'd Sundara+XLS, which is miles ahead in this regard. If my memory serves me correctly, my EQ setting for the 6se had a fairly large amount of subbass boost, even though it didn't have the bass roll off that the Sundara does to warrant such a boost. Whether it was during movies or music listening, I always felt the 6se was comparatively anemic.
According to ASR your Class D amp is good for 30 dbW. Lots of power.
My Class A siding bias to Class AB Ragnarok 1 is capable of 26 dbW according to Stereophile. That gets the Sundara to what 108 db and that power is probably as much or more than 98+% of its users. That shoud suffice. So my objections are not based on lack of power.
I haven't heard that many Class D amps, but never found them to sound convincing, found this snippet in a hifivision review of the Crown XLS 1502, which may explain that:
"Definitely Lacks the micro dynamics and subtle musicality offered by Class AB design amps and XLS tends to sound more Clinical/Lifeless at times.
Class AB sounds more full bodied in general. If you can afford Class AB then it is certainly a preferred approach."
Class D isn't Class D, just as Class A isn't Class A. There are multiple ways to implement a design of each category, and especially for Class D some are much better than others. Asgard2 and the first version of Mjolnir were class A, with later versions turning to AB designs. Frankly, I didn't really think much of their sound quality, but perhaps that was because of the headphones I had paired with them.
Amps have immediately noticeable characteristics besides power, and besides all of the other measurable stuff ASR provides.
Power isn't the only issue. None of the Ragnarok versions is quite as capable in the way of current output as the the XLS 1502. The voltage swing necessary to output that much power is actually not that important, imo. These headphones seem to prefer an amp that is most authoritative in the way of current control. Take the HD600, and other high impedance headphones as examples of headphones that prefer OTL designs. Any solid state headphone amp can drive the HD600 to excessively loud levels, but it seems only the OTL amps, which have matching high output impedances, that can make them sing. I think back-EMF plays a large part in this dynamic. Frankly, I'm not knowledgeable in the field of amp designs enough to explain why the XLS happens to go so well with the Sundara, whereas every other headphone amp I've tried is just comparative very underwhelming. I also don't understand why it didn't have the same transformative effect on the 6se.
Regarding the Rag's sonic characteristics, I haven't read too many things about it in the way of praising its sound quality. Most of the praise for this amp seems to be about the versatility to drive everything from IEMs to loudspeakers.
That Hifivision quote is an example of the general bias people against Class D, and perhaps for good reasons. Class D has not had a great track record. As with all technologies, this category has seen much improvement, and it seems Crown has a strong case for having the best, or at least most cost-effective, implementation. Moreover, I'd rather not rely on a single review source. Synergism is the name of the game in this hobby. What could sound "meh" with one piece of gear, may sound fantastic with another. There are other reviews that have the XLS competitive with class AB amps several times pricier. It may sound lifeless through certain loudspeakers. Through the Sundara, if anyone tells me they're lifeless and clinical, I'd be really confused.
