[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaoDi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you've mistaken, basically all balanced armature drivers don't have a problem with presenting the mid-range frequencies as it's the easiest frequency range to produce. Every BA driver in the industry can handle mid-range frequencies without a problem, so no you don't need a mid-range driver JUST to reproduce the mids. JH Audio three ways don't have a mid-range driver, it's treble, a low, and a full-range. There doesn't need to be a "mid-range" driver cause it's the basic nature of the drivers. But yes, a dedicated driver could increase the "potential" of the mid-range frequencies.

It would be nice if you could cite the source of your information, for I would love to learn more about BA drivers (more than what I've already learned). Otherwise, I can only guess that you may be correct. I can believe that mid-range frequencies are the easiest frequency range to produce. "Every BA driver in the industry can handle mid-range frequencies without a problem." <-- This I'm not so sure of. Every BA driver? I don't know how much different BA drivers are than dynamic drivers, but I've never heard a woofer or tweeter that handles mid-range frequencies particularly well with good dynamic range.

"it's the basic nature of the drivers" <-- What does that mean?

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's a reason why all the highest-end IEMs (except the JH10 pro, which was probably designed to have comparable bass to the JH11 & JH13) implement at least one dedicated mid-range driver.

Actually the JH10 pro is similar to the UE10 pro in that they both have a one-point crossover (two woofers, one tweeter). Yet the UE10 pro was praised for having some of the finest midrange in its day. The SE530 also has a one-point crossover (two woofers, one tweeter) and has a very prominent midrange. The UM3X, with its two-point crossover (one woofer, one mid-range, one tweeter) design doesn't compete with the SE530 in mids.

It's in implementation, not design. A dedicated mid-range driver doesn't mean jack.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually the JH10 pro is similar to the UE10 pro in that they both have a one-point crossover (two woofers, one tweeter). Yet the UE10 pro was praised for having some of the finest midrange in its day. The SE530 also has a one-point crossover (two woofers, one tweeter) and has a very prominent midrange. The UM3X, with its two-point crossover (one woofer, one mid-range, one tweeter) design doesn't compete with the SE530 in mids. It's in implementation, not design. A dedicated mid-range driver doesn't mean jack.

"The UM3X, with its two-point crossover...design doesn't compete with the SE530 in mids."

Some would disagree with that statement. In fact, some already have. HPA commented at least a couple times how he felt the ES3X was considerably superior to his custom-shelled se530 in the mid-range. I really think now why so many praise the se530 as having the best mids is perhaps for two main reasons:

1. The artificial hump. Some people seem to enjoy it.
2. The cable, IEM housing, and tips for the UM3X altogether somehow hold back its potential greatly.

I think reason #2 is also one of the reasons why so many felt the UE10 had the best mids during its reign. I think to most accurately benchmark the design and and implementation of a set of drivers, the ideal condition would include that the IEM is custom-shelled with the best cable available.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif It would be nice if you could cite the source of your information, for I would love to learn more about BA drivers (more than what I've already learned). Otherwise, I can only guess that you may be correct. I can believe that mid-range frequencies are the easiest frequency range to produce. "Every BA driver in the industry can handle mid-range frequencies without a problem." <-- This I'm not so sure of. Every BA driver? I don't know how much different BA drivers are than dynamic drivers, but I've never heard a woofer or tweeter that handles mid-range frequencies particularly well with good dynamic range. "it's the basic nature of the drivers" <-- What does that mean?

Yes, i can very confidently say that every BA drivers don't have a problem in producing the mid-range. Why? Because BA drivers were invented to be used by themselves, in a hearing-aid. Now, if a BA driver couldn't handle mid-range then how is it "suppose" to qualify to be put into a $2000 pair of hearing aids?

You've "heard" tweeters and woofers because they were "configured" to be one, but not naturally ARE one. Basically, all BA drivers are full-range drivers however some excel in the higher frequencies, and some excel in others. The ones that "excel" in higher frequencies are usually chosen to be the configured "tweeter" series. It isn't necessarily a "tweeter" but rather a full-range driver just given the high frequencies acting as a tweeter. Same goes with woofers and mids.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The UM3X, with its two-point crossover...design doesn't compete with the SE530 in mids." Some would disagree with that statement. In fact, some already have. HPA commented at least a couple times how he felt the ES3X was considerably superior to his custom-shelled se530 in the mid-range. I really think now why so many praise the se530 as having the best mids is perhaps for two main reasons: 1. The artificial hump. Some people seem to enjoy it. 2. The cable, IEM housing, and tips for the UM3X altogether somehow hold back its potential greatly. I think reason #2 is also one of the reasons why so many felt the UE10 had the best mids during its reign. I think to most accurately benchmark the design and and implementation of a set of drivers, the ideal condition would include that the IEM is custom-shelled with the best cable available.

The ES3X != the UM3X. The crossovers are different, which has the potential to change everything. Example: the JH10 pro and JH7 pro both have three balanced armature drivers (two woofers and a tweeter) and a one-point crossover. Same with the UE10 pro and the UE7 pro. The implementation can produce very different personalities.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaoDi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, i can very confidently say that every BA drivers don't have a problem in producing the mid-range. Why? Because BA drivers were invented to be used by themselves, in a hearing-aid. Now, if a BA driver couldn't handle mid-range then how is it "suppose" to qualify to be put into a $2000 pair of hearing aids? You've "heard" tweeters and woofers because they were "configured" to be one, but not naturally ARE one. Basically, all BA drivers are full-range drivers however some excel in the higher frequencies, and some excel in others. The ones that "excel" in higher frequencies are usually chosen to be the configured "tweeter" series. It isn't necessarily a "tweeter" but rather a full-range driver just given the high frequencies acting as a tweeter. Same goes with woofers and mids.

You're basing the assumption that BA drivers do mid-range well solely on the fact that BA technology was invented for hearing aid? Seriously, I'm not trying to deflate your claims, but could you please give at least one citing of where you're getting your information from? Otherwise, it remains dubious to me.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The ES3X != the UM3X. The crossovers are different, which has the potential to change everything. Example: the JH10 pro and JH7 pro both have three balanced armature drivers (two woofers and a tweeter) and a one-point crossover. Same with the UE10 pro and the UE7 pro. The implementation can produce very different personalities.

"The crossovers are different"

Oh? Powderhound23 said otherwise.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The crossovers are different" Oh? Powderhound23 said otherwise.

Actually, you're right. According to him: "Same drivers, same crossover point. What gives them a different sound is the "shell". The universal has all three drivers into one sound bore, the custom has the highs/mids in one sound bore and the bass in another. Frequency separation is a beautiful thing, when possible. "

In which case I do not know at all what to make of the UM3X vs. the ES3X. Perhaps HPA's evaluations would be different if the SE530 was given separate sound bores (not sure if his does) and careful driver positioning (UM apparently just throws drivers into the shell).

Maybe the JH5 pro excels in the mids for the same way you think the UE10 pro did? They share the same DNA.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaoDi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You've "heard" tweeters and woofers because they were "configured" to be one, but not naturally ARE one.

Eh?? I'm sure what a tweeter, and what a woofer, is when I see one. They looked markedly different. In their specifications, it also specifically stated the frequency ranges in which they were supposed to render. The tweeter looked solid metal... which makes me doubt that it was meant to do 300-900 hz frequencies well.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, you're right. According to him: "Same drivers, same crossover point. What gives them a different sound is the "shell". The universal has all three drivers into one sound bore, the custom has the highs/mids in one sound bore and the bass in another. Frequency separation is a beautiful thing, when possible. " In which case I do not know at all what to make of the UM3X vs. the ES3X. Perhaps HPA's evaluations would be different if the SE530 was given separate sound bores (not sure if his does) and careful driver positioning (UM apparently just throws drivers into the shell). Maybe the JH5 pro excels in the mids for the same way you think the UE10 pro did? They share the same DNA.

Agreed totally. I was wondering the same thing about how UM implement their custom shelling.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're basing the assumption that BA drivers do mid-range well solely on the fact that BA technology was invented for hearing aid? Seriously, I'm not trying to deflate your claims, but could you please give at least one citing of where you're getting your information from? Otherwise, it remains dubious to me.

Simply look at a chart of a BA driver and you would know. If i'm simply claiming they do well because they were designed on hearing-aids, then i wouldn't be designing my own custom monitors.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh?? I'm sure what a tweeter, and what a woofer, is when I see one. They looked markedly different. In their specifications, it also specifically stated the frequency ranges in which they were supposed to render. The tweeter looked solid metal... which makes me doubt that it was meant to do 300-900 hz frequencies well.

You THINK that you "see" a BA driver tweeter and woofer. Infact, you are just looking at drivers in the monitor. Yes a CI is typically chosen to be the low frequency driver because it favours the low frequencies, but in UM's designs and in mine they are chosen and considered to be mid-range drivers. Why? because they perform mid-range well, on the other hand a TINY TINY driver like the ED23147 is MORE than capable of taking on the lows far better than the CI if tuned properly. UE11's are a great example, put the dual low drivers together and it still doesn't add up to the size of the mid-range driver.

The TWFK, which is a TEENY driver and looks like it can do nothing has one of the most flat, and accurate low frequency responses on teh market today. It just isn't chosen as a low frequency driver because it's output in the low frequencies is about 20dB less than the cheaper, less expensive CI at about 500hz meaning the TWFK would be a inefficient low frequency driver. The size of the driver doesn't always mean what they do....you would be surprised how different a driver would react just by the impedance. Even soldering of the drivers take skill, a simply solder could differ a driver from being a high frequency driver and a mid-range frequency driver.

 

[barleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif "The UM3X, with its two-point crossover...design doesn't compete with the SE530 in mids." Some would disagree with that statement. In fact, some already have. HPA commented at least a couple times how he felt the ES3X was considerably superior to his custom-shelled se530 in the mid-range. I really think now why so many praise the se530 as having the best mids is perhaps for two main reasons: 1. The artificial hump. Some people seem to enjoy it. 2. The cable, IEM housing, and tips for the UM3X altogether somehow hold back its potential greatly. I think reason #2 is also one of the reasons why so many felt the UE10 had the best mids during its reign. I think to most accurately benchmark the design and and implementation of a set of drivers, the ideal condition would include that the IEM is custom-shelled with the best cable available.

The SE530 also gets away without a tweeter because the highs start to roll off around 10 Khz, and are at -20 by 12 Khz. (Based on the frequency graph of the UM reshelled ones.) They essentially have two woofers and a midrange, but no tweeter at all. That's also pretty good evidence that not all BA's can do treble well. The X10's for example are only one driver that does from 10hz to 16Khz, but nothing above that. The JH13 pros are good to 20 Khz because they have a driver that is specifically designed to do 20 Khz.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaoDi /img/forum/go_quote.gif You THINK that you "see" a BA driver tweeter and woofer. Infact, you are just looking at drivers in the monitor. Yes a CI is typically chosen to be the low frequency driver because it favours the low frequencies, but in UM's designs and in mine they are chosen and considered to be mid-range drivers. Why? because they perform mid-range well, on the other hand a TINY TINY driver like the ED23147 is MORE than capable of taking on the lows far better than the CI if tuned properly. UE11's are a great example, put the dual low drivers together and it still doesn't add up to the size of the mid-range driver. The TWFK, which is a TEENY driver and looks like it can do nothing has one of the most flat, and accurate low frequency responses on teh market today. It just isn't chosen as a low frequency driver because it's output in the low frequencies is about 20dB less than the cheaper, less expensive CI at about 500hz meaning the TWFK would be a inefficient low frequency driver. The size of the driver doesn't always mean what they do....you would be surprised how different a driver would react just by the impedance. Even soldering of the drivers take skill, a simply solder could differ a driver from being a high frequency driver and a mid-range frequency driver.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about dynamic drivers? I was referring to speaker drivers that I've seen. Oops... Anyways, I understand your point. However, like barleyguy said, which I agree with, se530 only claimed to implement a treble driver, when in fact the treble driver is more like a mid-range or upper mid-range driver. This would be critical to explaining its reputation as having great mids, and poor upper treble.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigon_ridge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, I thought we were talking about dynamic drivers? I was referring to speaker drivers that I've seen. Oops... Anyways, I understand your point. However, like barleyguy said, which I agree with, se530 only claimed to implement a treble driver, when in fact the treble driver is more like a mid-range or upper mid-range driver. This would be critical to explaining its reputation as having great mids, and poor upper treble.

Haha, don't get those confused now. Big difference despite both being receivers. es the treble of the SE530 tends to roll off, but it's definitely present. High frequencies can "sound" just as loud as the mid-range equivalent at about 15 dB lower. Why? because high frequencies go a looooong way in the ear canal even when it's significantly more quiet than the mid-range equivalent. Low frequencies are the same, it takes more energy in the lows to "sound" at the same loudness as the mid-range. So despite being rolled off, and not the best treble it's present. A "Healthy" "youth" ear can hear from about 20Hz-20kHz, i myself being on of them but hearing to 22kHz (Hearing tests are fantastic

" But many people on hear struggle to hear below 60Hz and above 15kHz, so frequency range shouldn't be a problem to a lot of people