[castleofargh]

because in decades of research he has not found any other factor in headphones that affects perceived sound quality in controlled test conditions.

he often mentions that FR is a dominant variable. but I can't imagine him talking as if there weren't any other variables involved in perceived sound quality.
about the rest we're of course in agreement. FR responses are so important given how our hearing "suffers" from masking which of course is a huge deal when getting impressions in music. when 2 signals are close in frequency, what will determine if both are audible and how loud the second one will feel, is determined by the difference in amplitude between them, which is what a frequency response directly affects.

and we're also in agreement about how dynamic must refer to something about amplitude relations somehow. but how?
- relation between amplitudes of various frequencies is the frequency response. it doesn't need to be called dynamic when it has a very defining name already.
- relation between amplitudes of various instruments if we disregard FR of the IEM, have been worked out by the sound engineer mixing and mastering the album. that's not about the headphone(again beside its FR).
- relation between the loudest and quietest sound(once again, removing FR for the sake of trying to make sense of what some are saying about FR not being the cause of what they describe), that would be dynamic range. yeah!!!! that's actually a situation where we should say dynamic!!!!! but now how do we explain what people are calling a less dynamic IEM? are we supposed to understand that if we set the IEM to output 90dB SPL at 1kHz and we reduce the gain by 10dB, we're going to measure like 82dB instead of 80? if that was happening, the non linear movement of the driver would result in new frequencies the moment the perfect sine wave is turned into a different shape. those extra frequencies are what we measure as distortions. so it's not an impossible idea, we even have circumstances where we know it will happen in a big way, and the dynamic range will get reduced. the most obvious case is when we go too loud for what the IEM can do, it stops increasing in loudness while we keep pushing the signal. one could call that less dynamic. but everybody else in audio would be more concerned with the huge amount of distortions measured and more than likely, heard.
- difference between the loudest sounds and the noise floor(SNR). I guess someone could consider this to be a matter of dynamic, objectively when the SNR is also the limit of dynamic(like it usually is with delta sigma DACs so both show the same number with the quantization error also being where the noise floor is). and subjectively, the amount of noise can very much affect what we perceive, how loud it will feel, etc. so I could understand that use of the term dynamic even if discussing noise would clearly make more sense for an IEM. but in this case, any Ety is going to reduce the ambient noise as much or more than most other IEMs, so shouldn't they be seen as the "more dynamic ones" in that misuse of the term dynamic? I added this possibility last because IMO it's very possible that it partly explains what people call a less dynamic sound(again while pretending that it's something more than FR even if it obviously plays a role they don't want to see). that IEM isolates a lot, so we typically don't listen as loudly as we do with most of the less isolating IEMs. and a difference in loudness can and will be felt as a change in a lot of stuff, a perception of dynamic could very much be among them.

one thing is clear to me, we always end up with a clearly more fitting term than dynamic to describe the sound of an IEM.

 

[491838]

For the last time: there's no such thing as a more dynamic or less dynamic earphone, unless you're hearing them buzz and crackle with distortion at loud sounds.

The next time someone praises an earphone by calling it "dynamic" I'm going to buy any earphone BUT that earphone, because apparently they think every "undynamic" earphone out that has a thousand dollar studio dynamic compressor embedded into the works of the earphone itself--a technical and financial impossibility that I would love to partake in! The Etys must be especially valuable in this regard!

@Dealux if a certain instrument gets buried in the mix, the earphones are simply not reproducing the frequencies associated with those instruments loudly enough compared to others. Google up an "EQ cheat sheet" and turn up the frequencies of the instruments you have in mind to find out. What separates high end earphones from low end ones? Very little. As Sean Olive found, price of earphones has very little to do with measured quality. And he measures quality solely in terms of frequency response curves because in decades of research he has not found any other factor in headphones that affects perceived sound quality in controlled test conditions. At all. Unless your earphones buzz and crackle with distortion.

I feel like I entered some sort of cult here. Just to offer some context, I think the ER4XR is one of the best if not the best headphone for ~$300 but that doesn't mean I can't nitpick some things about it.

The difference is kinda subtle but it is definitely there. It's not strictly related to bass. In fact I think the bass is better on the ER4 than the boomy bass you get on a dynamic driver headphone in that price range. However, I still think some dynamic driver headphones sound a bit more effortless and spacious (i.e. that difference between loud and soft) even on music with high dynamic range (typically acoustic music). It's definitely noticeable to me.

You also seem to assume that the ER4 delivers all the performance that can be achieved in an earphone, which is a strange assumption and not a fact based one at that.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I feel like I entered some sort of cult here. Just to offer some context, I think the ER4XR is one of the best if not the best headphone for ~$300 but that doesn't mean I can't nitpick some things about it.

The difference is kinda subtle but it is definitely there. It's not strictly related to bass. In fact I think the bass is better on the ER4 than the boomy bass you get on a dynamic driver headphone in that price range. However, I still think some dynamic driver headphones sound a bit more effortless and spacious (i.e. that difference between loud and soft) even on music with high dynamic range (typically acoustic music). It's definitely noticeable to me.

You also seem to assume that the ER4 delivers all the performance that can be achieved in an earphone, which is a strange assumption and not a fact based one at that.

Frequency response
Distortion
Impulse response
are the things that's actually needed to describe a system.
Dynamic in reproduction means low distortion at high output level.
But the 99% of what we feel and hear is frequency response. And that's where etymotic achieved greatness. Not perfect but better than most other earphones and headphones.
Distortion is the shortcoming of er4 series. In er2 series it's vastly improve with small sacrifice in frequency response.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I feel like I entered some sort of cult here. Just to offer some context, I think the ER4XR is one of the best if not the best headphone for ~$300 but that doesn't mean I can't nitpick some things about it.

The difference is kinda subtle but it is definitely there. It's not strictly related to bass. In fact I think the bass is better on the ER4 than the boomy bass you get on a dynamic driver headphone in that price range. However, I still think some dynamic driver headphones sound a bit more effortless and spacious (i.e. that difference between loud and soft) even on music with high dynamic range (typically acoustic music). It's definitely noticeable to me.

You also seem to assume that the ER4 delivers all the performance that can be achieved in an earphone, which is a strange assumption and not a fact based one at that.

I'm not saying you can't pan the ER4. I'm saying that, whatever you're hearing is the difference, difference in dynamic range isn't it. You just described other earphones as more "spacious". That's a much more realistic differentiator with many possible technical and physiological correlates* to account for--unlike "more dynamic".
*not the least of which is the fact that you usually feel like the etys are mere millimetres from your eardrums, lol.

 

[SilverEars]

I'm not saying you can't pan the ER4. I'm saying that, whatever you're hearing is the difference, difference in dynamic range isn't it. You just described other earphones as more "spacious". That's a much more realistic differentiator with many possible technical and physiological correlates* to account for--unlike "more dynamic".
*not the least of which is the fact that you usually feel like the etys are mere millimetres from your eardrums, lol.

It's obvious that the poster's intention here isn't 'dynamic range,' but trying to describe the differences. I don't know if you are purposefully trying to sound like you are correct for using terms compared to trying to understand what the writer is intending. It's coming off a bit pompous. If have heard differences or no differences with some iems, you are welcome to share as that's what the poster is trying to discuss on a thread impressions are shared. People generally understand context when words are used in various circumstances.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

It's obvious that the poster's intention here isn't 'dynamic range,' but trying to describe the differences. I don't know if you are purposefully trying to sound like you are correct for using terms compared to trying to understand what the writer is intending. It's coming off a bit pompous. If have heard differences or no differences with some iems, you are welcome to share as that's what the poster is trying to discuss on a thread impressions are shared. People generally understand context when words are used in various circumstances.

I'm sorry but I have literally no idea (never will) when someone says one pair of earphones are "more dynamic" than another. Grabbing a random answer from @castleofargh 's list is not the way to go. It's about as helpful as saying one car paints walls faster than another--anyone with knowledge of what cars do will recognize that it's simply not something that cars do and be at a loss as to what he's actually talking about.

Btw did you ever find the correction (or maybe "transform") file for MH1C to ER3SE you asked me for that I pointed to in the thread? It's here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/if-...-thread-for-you.538615/page-914#post-15054557

I didn't notice the uploaded zip file disappearing last time. I've changed it to a dropbox link that will definitely work.

 

[JohnYang1997]

It's obvious that the poster's intention here isn't 'dynamic range,' but trying to describe the differences. I don't know if you are purposefully trying to sound like you are correct for using terms compared to trying to understand what the writer is intending. It's coming off a bit pompous. If have heard differences or no differences with some iems, you are welcome to share as that's what the poster is trying to discuss on a thread impressions are shared. People generally understand context when words are used in various circumstances.

It's not like that because virtually the term "dynamic" doesn't exist. There is NO actual meaning or reference to authority to the word. Everyone can hear differently and have different definition. However, if one is trained to hear frequency response difference it may be very obvious that it could be V shaped, or less mid bass hump, or simply more 2-3k snap to the sound. It's just not a term that has definitive meaning not that he or we try to sound correct.

 

[WhatToChoose]

For the last time: there's no such thing as a more dynamic or less dynamic earphone, unless you're hearing them buzz and crackle with distortion at loud sounds.

The next time someone praises an earphone by calling it "dynamic" I'm going to buy any earphone BUT that earphone, because apparently they think every "undynamic" earphone out that has a thousand dollar studio dynamic compressor embedded into the works of the earphone itself--a technical and financial impossibility that I would love to partake in! The Etys must be especially valuable in this regard!

@Dealux if a certain instrument gets buried in the mix, the earphones are simply not reproducing the frequencies associated with those instruments loudly enough compared to others. Google up an "EQ cheat sheet" and turn up the frequencies of the instruments you have in mind to find out. What separates high end earphones from low end ones? Very little. As Sean Olive found, price of earphones has very little to do with measured quality. And he measures quality solely in terms of frequency response curves because in decades of research he has not found any other factor in headphones that affects perceived sound quality in controlled test conditions. At all. Unless your earphones buzz and crackle with distortion.

I Googled Sean Olive's Audio Musings, and found the results he mentioned, which I find quite reasonable. In terms of frequency response, based on the evidence (thank you for providing evidence backing up claims), it makes sense that the main difference between pricey and low end headphones is frequency response.

However, (good) high end headphones are those engineered with a higher power-to-weight ratio with respect to the diaphragm, and that is a physical characteristic of the IEM that EQing can't really change. Better diaphragm power-to-weight ratio means more detail and resolution (let me know if you need clarification), given the same frequency response and input power level.

Basically, frequency response is very important, but it is not everything. Maybe it is 60% or so of the end sound, but nowhere near 99%.

 

[chinmie]

@Dealux forgive me for asking: is what you mean as dynamic is like in musical term of the difference between the softest/quietest passage and the loudest? and also do you mean that the more dynamic earphones are the ones with faster attack and decay in that?

 

[SilentNote]

I also don't understand the concept of "dynamic" when comparing 2 headphones. Dynamic range in photography means the brightest signal to the darkest signal that can be meaningfully perceived. In audio that would be similar to -0dB sounds down to -XdB sound that can be heard. However this is not a function of the headphone, more a function of your ability to be affected by volume masking or not.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I Googled Sean Olive's Audio Musings, and found the results he mentioned, which I find quite reasonable. In terms of frequency response, based on the evidence (thank you for providing evidence backing up claims), it makes sense that the main difference between pricey and low end headphones is frequency response.

However, (good) high end headphones are those engineered with a higher power-to-weight ratio with respect to the diaphragm, and that is a physical characteristic of the IEM that EQing can't really change. Better diaphragm power-to-weight ratio means more detail and resolution (let me know if you need clarification), given the same frequency response and input power level.

Better power to weight ratio lets you drive them to the same volume with less amp power, especially at high frequencies. But amp power is hardly something we are lacking these days. If a diaphragm produces proportionally more or less high frequencies compared to some reference frequency and we want to correct that, that is exactly where EQ comes in.

It would be another matter if your cheap earphones are so poor as to be incapable of high volumes at certain frequencies without being driven into distortion. It's been pointed out that that's certainly not the case, at least with the chearp IEMs I pointed out as example (the Philips SHE3590, with cheap single dynamic drivers that have lower distortion across the board).

There's no other sense of "more detail and resolution" that does not relate to THD and frequency response. Well there's phase response, but that's not a problem with any single driver headphones and not enough of a problem to be perceptible even with multi-driver ones.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I Googled Sean Olive's Audio Musings, and found the results he mentioned, which I find quite reasonable. In terms of frequency response, based on the evidence (thank you for providing evidence backing up claims), it makes sense that the main difference between pricey and low end headphones is frequency response.

However, (good) high end headphones are those engineered with a higher power-to-weight ratio with respect to the diaphragm, and that is a physical characteristic of the IEM that EQing can't really change. Better diaphragm power-to-weight ratio means more detail and resolution (let me know if you need clarification), given the same frequency response and input power level.

Basically, frequency response is very important, but it is not everything. Maybe it is 60% or so of the end sound, but nowhere near 99%.

That's not the case either. First of all, the ability to get frequency response correct just almost takes everything we need. On top of that if we want sensitivity and low distortion is just very difficult.
What you described is NOT frequency response but rather tonal balance. So you should really understand what frequency response is and how is everything related to it. It is 99% or even more.

Also, to evaluate a driver, there are frequency response, impedance, sensitivity, distortion, maximum output. Expensive headphones/earphones don't necessarily have better in those regard either. All the technology in driver/transducer in these days are cheap. How much do you think a dynamic driver cost? A few cents? A dollar? Most expensive ba drivers are worse in distortion and cost more but even that you don't see more than 10 dollars. So what's the point? Did you prove anything?

Also eq is essentially cheating in physics. It's hard to understand the true laws that it breaks. Surely it's not unlimited, it decreases sensitivity and may decrease snr of the system. But the fact digital processing exists is much more than you think. How to increase high frequency response without changing resonance frequency or lose bass response in drivers? How to match 3k hump without introduce distortion? How to calm the driver without using too much acoustic resistance that lowers the transducer's air driving ability? Eq essentially breaks all those laws with little sacrifice.

 

[WhatToChoose]

Better power to weight ratio lets you drive them to the same volume with less amp power, especially at high frequencies. But amp power is hardly something we are lacking these days. If a diaphragm produces proportionally more or less high frequencies compared to some reference frequency and we want to correct that, that is exactly where EQ comes in.

It would be another matter if your cheap earphones are so poor as to be incapable of high volumes at certain frequencies without being driven into distortion. It's been pointed out that that's certainly not the case, at least with the chearp IEMs I pointed out as example (the Philips SHE3590, with cheap single dynamic drivers that have lower distortion across the board).

There's no other sense of "more detail and resolution" that does not relate to THD and frequency response. Well there's phase response, but that's not a problem with any single driver headphones and not enough of a problem to be perceptible even with multi-driver ones.

Alright, picture the following:

Your audio signal is like the one at the bottom (simplified). This is the exact pattern the physical diaphragm traces out in the air to play the music. From here, it should be clear that a lighter, more nimble diaphragm would be able to trace out the bottom waveform more precisely than a heavier, thicker diaphragm, simply due to inertia. Changing the frequency response only changes the amplitudes of the input sinusoidal tones (which will change the shape of the output wave), but at the end of the day, a lighter and more nimble diaphragm can trace out the arbitrary waveform shape better than a heavier and slower diaphragm.

 

[JohnYang1997]

@Dealux forgive me for asking: is what you mean as dynamic is like in musical term of the difference between the softest/quietest passage and the loudest? and also do you mean that the more dynamic earphones are the ones with faster attack and decay in that?

One thing to notice is that surely transient response and decay is important in a system (inlcuded in impulse response and csn reflect on frequency response).
But in a headphone/earphone system it's magnitudes lower than that of the room in recording or the speaker systems. It's so low that it sounds weird to many people. Thing is in this case the difference in decay and transient response doesn't matter very much. It's true if it's too bad it is serious issue but that not generally the case in real world.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Alright, picture the following:

http://...Z9/WvgP+qQtZT4P8Bky1uIluam4UAAAAASUVORK5CYII= http://...Z9/WvgP+qQtZT4P8Bky1uIluam4UAAAAASUVORK5CYII=

Your audio signal is like the one at the bottom (simplified). This is the exact pattern the physical diaphragm traces out in the air to play the music. From here, it should be clear that a lighter, more nimble diaphragm would be able to trace out the bottom waveform more precisely than a heavier, thicker diaphragm, simply due to inertia. Changing the frequency response only changes the amplitudes of the input sinusoidal tones (which will change the shape of the output wave), but at the end of the day, a lighter and more nimble diaphragm can trace out the arbitrary waveform shape better than a heavier and slower diaphragm.

Simple frequency response can describe that perfectly. Slew rate is what you are saying and it goes hand in hand with high frequency reproduction. But keep in mind you can only hear up to 18k or give it 20khz. If the driver can reproduce that frequency at certain level it's fine. That's why there is frequency response in the first place. It's not that we don't know how it works but you don't know what frequency response is.