[googleli]

Slightly more than a week since I got my UE18 Pro. Seems that the 6 drivers design is indeed much better than the collection of my 3 drivers. Many people doubt whether more drivers make it sound better. It seems to me that more drivers do sound better.

I picked up CK100 and eQ7 yesterday and gave them a listen. The CK100's treble smoothness still astonishes me, and the eQ7 instrument separation is still pretty amazing, but their overall sound quality has become unacceptable now. UE18 Pro is simply in another league, I guess just like how people describe JH13 Pro. I think it isn't much of a custom thing - I had my SE530 reshelled by Unique Melody and it still sounded crap after they came back.

 

[dmcom]

I would doubt if is just the amount of drivers, that provides a superior SQ. I would rather say, the amount of drivers is one part in the hole story, but there is also the crossover, shell, bores, etc.

 

[KLS]

I like what Maodi said in another thread, "More drivers doesn't mean better, but more drivers can have more potential". I really like this.

Even e-Q7 became unacceptable??? This is the last IEMs (and MTP Gold/Copper maybe) which I would like to try before getting customs...

 

[googleli]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KLS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even e-Q7 became unacceptable??? This is the last IEMs (and MTP Gold/Copper maybe) which I would like to try before getting customs...

Well I also got my e-Q7 after I placed my 18 Pro order but before the 18 Pro arrived. My suggestion is go straight for 6/8 driver customs. e-Q7 is quite different from other universals and may appeal to SE530 fans (they are improved SE530 is some way) and has a soundstage never heard on universals.

But now they are useless to me.

 

[james444]

^ googleli, you weren't too thrilled by the e-Q7s at all, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, I haven't tried customs, but apart from that my experience has been pretty much the exact opposite. After having heard quite a few multi-driver universal IEMs, I'm more and more in doubt that this is my way to go. To my ears neither the SF5 Pro, SE530, CK10 or CK100 did live up to their promise, while single driver designs like the PFEs, IE8 or e-Q7 repeatedly managed to come up to or even exceed my expectations.

 

[ClieOS]

It isn't really about the number of drivers at all. Practically speaking, why wouldn't a >$1K headphone sounds better than a much cheaper headphone? The real question is, in very objective terms (more or less), will a $1500 headphone has 5X the performance of a $300 headphone? The answer is almost always 'nay'. In high-end audio, performance increment is never linear to price jump. To the majority of users, even among those of us who call ourselves audiophile, the limitation of our wallet's size and the rule of diminishing return always prevail.

 

[firoze]

^ I agree with James. To my ears single driver earphones sound more coherent. Voices and instrunments sound "whole", more focused. But it all depends on what you are looking for sound-wise - to some coherence may matter less than other aspects.

 

[weibby]

nope.
More drivers also means more problems with balancing the sound.

Ety ER4p sounds far more impressive to me than a TF10p, W3

 

[noisecancelationheadphone]

does a headphone really need that many drivers?
something like speakers?
2.1? 5.1? 7.1?

 

[Jensen]

mo drivers mo problems.

 

[ethan961]

The reason for multiple drivers is to designate frequency ranges to particular drivers chosen for that job. That reduces the load on all the drivers and has armatures that are known to be good for, for example, highs, doing the high frequency range.
More does not mean better, but if you have lots of expensive armatures then yes, they can have the potential to be better than a single armature IEM.
Expensive armatures=possibly but cheap armatures (SF5P, Q-jays etc) are going to be inferior to some single BA IEMs.

 

[weibby]

I think biasing the frequencies is the hardest part.
Its like having more power in a car but if it lacks control, its quite pointless.

 

[iponderous]

One of the advantages of a multi-driver design compared to a single-driver is that they never feel lonely.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethan961 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason for multiple drivers is to designate frequency ranges to particular drivers chosen for that job. That reduces the load on all the drivers and has armatures that are known to be good for, for example, highs, doing the high frequency range. More does not mean better, but if you have lots of expensive armatures then yes, they can have the potential to be better than a single armature IEM. Expensive armatures=possibly but cheap armatures (SF5P, Q-jays etc) are going to be inferior to some single BA IEMs.

No such things as cheap armatures

all armatures made by Knowles and Sonion are top notch quality. I can't say about the other brands. But most armatures come from those two. Ultimate Ears uses Sonion for their line of universal, and a mix between the two in their customs. Shure uses Knowles and Sonion, Westone uses only Knowles, Klipsch uses Sonion, Jays uses Knowles...you can see where it's going.

To me, more drivers doesn't mean better. More drivers mean you can "make" a monitors that's superior to a single driver. But this "making" is about ten times harder than working with a single driver. There's just so much more to worry about. Downfall of multi-driver monitors are when manufactures thinking just grabbing two drivers that are good for their frequencies and hooking it up and selling it.

 

[Alec E]

I suspect the armature/dynamic, multiple/single dichotomies result in a lot of a priori stereotyping of how any new-to-the-listener IEM sounds. Look at the e-Q7 reactions. How many people have copied out the manufacturer's chat about the new hybrid type of driver, then discussed their impressions of the sound, and summed it all up with, "It sounds like an armature in some ways, but a dynamic in others!" When I see that reaction written by someone who didn't know beforehand that it was an armature/dynamic hybrid, I'll start taking it seriously.

The only earphones I've heard which I would describe as coming close to constituting true headphone substitutes used triple armature driver configurations. The difference is simply the overall fullness of sound, and the sense of power. The PFE I'm happy with at the moment, on the other hand, isn't what I'd call a headphone substitute; it sounds, rather, just as I'd always assumed an IEM should/would sound, before I'd ever heard one. Not a big sound, but a very precise, clean one. More drivers get you closer to headphone or speaker sound, in my far from comprehensive experience.

I've come to feel that a dynamic driver IEM provides a too-obviously dwarfed and stunted version of closed headphone sound. I think I prefer to listen to an alternative built from the ground up, with different technology, toward a slightly different goal. More drivers and again, I think you approach the fullness of presentation, and the illusion of being surrounded by the music, that headphones provide.

So, to sum up my slightly offensive opinion, I suspect that people who claim to hear a divided sound, when listening to armature drivers, are basically full of it, extrapolating with comic literal-mindedness from what they know about the IEM's innards.

EDIT: Yes, I have in fact heard and owned balanced armature, triple armature, and dynamic driver earphones! Amazing!