Separate names with a comma.
Wish I will be at first shipment line......
I heard that the production is going well
I hope you'll share your feelings with us when you get it!
btw did any of you guys know about this one? seems like float frame got their traction back
that's very similar to the way sony did back then with mdr f1 and sony ma900, and i think technics also did a bit similar like that. also there are precide ergo and float QA still on the market
i really interesting with that variations in design alone, for the acoustic, what's the pro and cons here?
Yes, the approach is very much the same as Sony did it first time with the MDR F1.
It uses instead of necessary almost tight cushions, much more the proximity effect as MYSPHERE 3 is doing as well. It just more visible by the industrial design of the construction from the Kurada people.
Interesting to learn how it perform which is very much depending on the used driver itself.
A Pro is of course the usual fit around the ear and the use of a classic head bow which do not has the need that users has to learn how to wear.
A Con is in theory that the big cushion alone already influence the acoustic environment around the ear already much which cause reflection ending into a kind of "Shell-Effect". But obviously less than many other headphones do.
...talking about the proximity effect: Is it the same «Nahbesprechungseffekt» as with microphones, or rather a consequence of minimized phase cancellation due to the closer proximity to the direct sound waves (relative to the rear waves)?
If the latter is the case, would something like a shield in the form of an inclined wall around the outside border help for fighting phase cancellation? Ideally it should imply some damping at the inside of the wall to prevent a horn effect toward the environment.
Unlike speakers I don't know much about headphone acoustics, so forgive my naive question!
You are absolutely right with your idea.
Such a larger wall would increase the Bass level further.
But it would also reduce the "openess" of the complete System. This result into less spaciality, less sound stage.
I just thought due to the moderate inclination angle the wall wouldn't reflect much of the produced sound to the ear.
BTW, even the now Mysphere doesn't provide uncompromized openness, as it still comes with a considerable reflective area in the form of the baffle and the membrane itself. However, low and mid frequencies are virtually unaffected, since their wavelength is too large, so the only thing to care for is good high-frequency absorption between driver and head/ear.
That would attenuate the back wave in a frequency specific manner and change the voicing of the drivers. I wonder what would be the result of an exterior layer of sound absorbing material which would not reflect back the sound waves (not to negate the design objectives of such open design). Maybe something like Twaron would work but even that material has frequency variant absorption efficiency.
Msphere is using an unique sound absorber surounding the driver membrane ...
In other words,, Yes you are right. However it is always a question to what extend an effect is used. In all cases, it is a compromise.
thank you for the reply! i really appreciate it
sorry if i'm going a bit off topic here, so in theory, in form factor design alone which one has less "shell effect", the design like mdr f1 or design like jecklin float/precide ergo/mb quart 85?
also are you familiar with stax sigma? in theory, which one should be more natural sounding or at least closest to speaker listening experience, a concept like stax sigma or full open design like mysphere?
Sorry answering late due to traveling!
I do not see any problem about topics, it exactly fitting to the topic of the specific MYSPHERE design as also the mentioned ones are a bit different to the main stream.
To the questions:
If we want to stay with the synonym "Shell Effect" which is based on resonant reflections, I guess that the MDR F-1 has a stronger one as the Jecklin Type. This is because the pad (with the round shaped frame) is surrounding much closer the ear. But real measurements would proof it better. I do have the F1, but not the Jecklin actually to compare.
The STAX sigma types are totally different. Due to the electrostatic working principle and the very limited membrane excursion, such HP's need a closed cushion to the ear. (Otherwise there would not be any significant bass level). Also because of the very low mass membrane, low frequencies till the middle ones are passing through well.
This means the back open design works quite well in regards to sound stage a.s.o.
MYSPHERE is using a 40x40mm membrane which is effectively the same working membrane area as a HD800. But due to the shape it is much less "shadowing" the sound from the far field as any other membrane offering the same air volume motioned.
Also it use an almost totally open cushion to the ear - and a very unique absorber.
Based on this design layout it offer the best sound stage.
However, as you mention "natural sounding closest to speakers" - this is not only influenced by the mechanics surrounding the membrane, but also to a large content depending on the frequency and phase response of the driver itself.
Looking to many post's back - MS is one of the best in this matter which is best visible by the impulse response of it.
From the design properties I expect the Mysphere to have the best impulse response of all headphones I know.
The Jecklin Float has a slight mid-bass accentuation, followed by a severe drop-off towards the sub-bass, and a sharp treble – not my cup of tea (although the developer is a fellow countryman). I owned the Stax Sigma some time ago, but couldn't live with its colorations: a boomy mid- and upper-bass excess which makes the sound mushy and intransparent. Apparently the absorbing materials (a kind of wadding) aren't able to kill the expectable reflections and resonances (→ shell effect) within and possibly on the thin plastic housing, and this even applies to low and mid frequencies in this case – so the frontal sound-wave impact from the frontal drivers wasn't so clear anymore. I took them apart and finally built two derivatives with much smaller housings and smaller driver angling (see signature) which corresponded much better to my sonic ideal. Nevertheless, I'm not a fan of electrostats, I think their impulse response is overrated. That's why they rather sound ethereal than realistic. The culprit, as I see/hear it, are the electrode grids causing air-molecule turbulences and reflections on and between them. It's the great advantage of the dynamic principle that it can renounce disturbing components between membrane and ear. (On the other hand, a free space between membrane and ear provokes standing waves, so it's a double-edged sword calling for sound-absorbing materials there with their own inherent problems.)
thanks! and no worries. have a safe flight! i hope you have a good time
yes i did read your previous post, you mentioned about electrostatic drivers are not going to work well with this kind of open design because of the bass frequency, what about AMT? is there any significant disadvantages to put in open design regarding to the transducer principle?
that almost looks like a stax lambda
Yeah, maybe... at least the headband is from Lambda and Sigma! The difference is in housing materials (airplane plywood), geometry (larger air volume, driver angling) and careful inner damping. The larger volumes make for stronger and more impactful bass (the Sigma overshoots the mark, though).
It's a thing these days to talk about how perforations in stators or otherwise magnet arrays in planars affect airflow, hence the acoustic transparency of the driver but this this has not scientific backing. It's well known that airflow resistance starts to play a role when the perforation diameter is really smaller (<1mm), google up micro-perforated panels for instance.
For the headphones we deal with, this is mostly hogwash I feel and I am convinced the physics involved have to do with something else such as the effective absorber properties of the perforated panel, horn effect (anything placed in front of a moving membrane can affect how effectively it radiates), and possibly sound diffraction / reflections effects toward higher frequencies.
Now, what I find more interesting / pertinent in the discussion is the formation of standing waves in the headphone enclosure (on both sides of the moving membrane). Since these start to occur in a critical part of audio range (>2kHz), we can imagine why a headphone is so much more than just a driver, down to influence of slight change in the pad design.
As you pointed out above, even without pad, just having a rigid diaphragm (e.g. electrodynamic driver) in a baffle at some distance parallel to the head does not prevent acoustic resonances in that air gap (laterally and eventually in the depth direction). The "lateral" resonances shift in frequency if the pad is closed / open / non-existant (like those resonances in a pipe depending if its open or closed at its ends) but they still exist.
The mysphere headphone feels closer to an on-ear design than over ear and I guess the foam pad in front of the driver provides quite a bit of liberty to voice the headphone.