[Inks]

There are examples of non-vented dynamics with very good bass response, but I think some space will be required behind the driver (EX: SB/MD Tributes)

 

[Kunlun]

The Monster Miles Davis is vented, according to the KWKarth, who designed the Monster turbine for Monster. Just laying out the facts.

 

[Kunlun]

 
Quote:

 

 
roy_jones: My understanding of BA's mirrors what average_joe has said here. A single BA cannot as efficiently cover the full frequency range, so sharing the load helps--up to a point.

 

Thanks for explaining, Kunlun. However, I think you misunderstood me slightly: I wasn't comparing the size of BA drivers to dynamic drivers at all. When I mentioned "space requirements", I was referring to the chamber where the driver is housed, and whether a dynamic driver needed a larger chamber than a BA to recreate a natural sound. Nonetheless your explanation has helped dispel some of the mystery around drivers, thanks.

Oops, sorry. My understanding is that a non vented BA doesn't require a chamber at all, none. The newer vented BAs do use the chamber but it's not clear to me how much the chamber is used to tune the sound. I'd be happy if goodvibes or another knowledgeable head-fier would chime in. Dynamics use the chamber and require a vent.

 
 

 

[average_joe]

I have been told that the chamber the BA is in, even if closed, does make a difference.  Just how much, I have no idea, and how that works with silicone is unknown to me.

 

[Kunlun]

Quote:

I have been told that the chamber the BA is in, even if closed, does make a difference.  Just how much, I have no idea, and how that works with silicone is unknown to me.

Hmm, thanks A_J. So, there's the issue of whether the BA is vented or not and there's the issue of whether the chamber is vented or not.

 
 

 

[WisdomListens]

Once you pass a certain price point, say $200+, then the amount of drivers shouldn't be your worry or deciding factor. I would be more concerned about the sound signatures of each brand.
Frequency accuracy in mid to high end IEM's are all great it's just how the manufacturer wants to tweak the sound for their audience/buyers.

 

[Inks]

Interesting, it must be very minimal venting because there's nothing noticeable about it. Monster did a good job getting such a big nice bass out of them without the need of big venting. 

The Monster Miles Davis is vented, according to the KWKarth, who designed the Monster turbine for Monster. Just laying out the facts.

 

 

[Inks]

Right on and even closed BAs seem to get benefit from vented housing as elaborated by ClieOS in another thread. 

Hmm, thanks A_J. So, there's the issue of whether the BA is vented or not and there's the issue of whether the chamber is vented or not.

 
 

 

 

[goodvibes]

Threads like this are looking for a resolution and that's the problem in a nutshell. Better is better. the rest doesn't matter. It has more to do with the aptitude of the engineer than the # of drivers. Point is to listen at a budget you're willing to invest and leave the rest to those that know more about it than you do.
 
Vented BAs have been around for years.

 

[JackKontney]

Confirming Kunlun's post, the Sensaphonics 3MAX triple-driver is a two-way (single crossover) design.
 
Fun and possibly relevant fact: This design was the clear winner in blind listening tests over a quad-driver version during product development. Not being a marketing-driven company, Sensaphonics opted to go with the triple.

 

[roy_jones]

Quote:

 
Yes, it's good to outline the terms of the discussion. In terms of saying that there is a clear progression for BA customs, could you help me understand that a bit better? As I understand it three driver customs have been around quite a while. Maybe they were two way crossover designs, now they are three way. Still, look at ASC T1, the UE IERM, Sensaphonics (I think these might even be 2 way crossovers still), these are still top tier. So, maybe in the past we've gone from early two driver designs to three driver to....today's three driver top tier designs? Of course, I'm not saying that more than 3 can't be good or any such thing, just that the three driver models compete and have evolved from three driver models which have been around quite a while. So, I'm not sure about a progression in terms of performance, however, I'm interested in your thoughts on it.

 
 

 
By your own logic, why don't those competitive three-driver models use a single driver instead?  This is the problem with the arguments made in this thread.  People want to defend triple driver configurations against their competitors, and perhaps with legitimate reasons, but don't seem to fully grasp the implication.   
 
Believe me, I am as skeptical a head-fier as anyone (at least I try to be), so if there's good reason or evidence to suggest that a single driver is as good as a multi-driver configuration, I'm all ears. 

 

[Kunlun]

 
Quote:

 
By your own logic, why don't those competitive three-driver models use a single driver instead?  This is the problem with the arguments made in this thread.  People want to defend triple driver configurations against their competitors, and perhaps with legitimate reasons, but don't seem to fully grasp the implication.   
 
Believe me, I am as skeptical a head-fier as anyone (at least I try to be), so if there's good reason or evidence to suggest that a single driver is as good as a multi-driver configuration, I'm all ears. 

You seem to be having trouble grasping my logic. Further, I think your argument is simplistic and lacking in a basic understanding of the issues involved. Let's start with why your ideas are overly simple. You want to imagine a very simple chart where the x axis is # of balanced armature drivers and the y axis is how "good" the music sounds. Yes, you labeled the y axis "good". In your mind, there is a 45 degree line showing a straight line progression. That's really your argument. You wanted to show that you were skeptical about this but then you were distracted by something shiny.
 
Here's the trouble with that kind of thinking. First, it misses the basic question, which has to do with why anyone would use more than one armature in the first place. A balanced armature has trouble covering the entire frequency spectrum. That's the reason, the only reason one would use more than one. Every other reason is garbage and I will cover why in a moment. The question is then how many armatures do we need to adequately cover the entire frequency spectrum. That is the real issue. The answer seems to be about three. You can compete with any other number of armatures if you have a well designed custom that has three. So, let's return to the simple graph. The curve now proceeds over to 3 on the x axis, at which point it flatlines.
Let's go back to our original question: How many armatures do we need to cover the entire frequency spectrum? "But we covered that!" You say as you take a pull of juice from your sippy cup. Yes, but let's now look at what happens if we reduce the frequency range we are looking at something a single armature can handle, let's say the bass or the midrange or the treble considered on their own. Now, a single armature can indeed handle the reduced frequency range we are looking at. So, it looks like a properly designed single armature should be able to compete with multiple armatures covering this same reduced range. And, in fact, this is exactly what we find. The big single bass armature in the very musical Westone ES5 or the single bass armature in the ASC T1 (which is known for having awesome bass) or the single bass armature in the ruler flat UE IERM all compete excellently versus customs that have multi armatures devoted to that same bass range. The tuning may be different, but a single armature used in a given limited frequency range can and does indeed fully compete and excell versus dual and even quad armature designs for that limited frequency range, which shows that all arguments for the use of multi armatures for a given range are, at best, sidesteps in sound quality.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[kelv]

What Kunlun has mentioned about BA drivers seems very true to me, based on my observations with experiencing single BA designs.
I will not mention names, but traditional BA designs (with the exception of moving armature design or FAD's BAM enhanced BA),
have this seeming weakness when it comes to reproducing the entire frequency range. Something dynamic transducers do not have a problem with. 
And i don't think it is a problem with tuning or enclosure designs.
 
Even some dual BA designs i had experiences with have faced this problem,
but yes there were exceptions when it comes to regular dual BA designs.
So, i am not about to say that dual BA designs share the same problem as the inherent weakness single BA designs possess.

 

[Kunlun]

 
Quote:

What Kunlun has mentioned about BA drivers seems very true to me, based on my observations with experiencing single BA designs.
I will not mention names, but traditional BA designs (with the exception of moving armature design or FAD's BAM enhanced BA),
have this seeming weakness when it comes to reproducing the entire frequency range. Something dynamic transducers do not have a problem with. 
And i don't think it is a problem with tuning or enclosure designs.
 
Even some dual BA designs i had experiences with have faced this problem,
but yes there were exceptions when it comes to regular dual BA designs.
So, i am not about to say that dual BA designs share the same problem as the inherent weakness single BA designs possess.

Right, and I don't mean that I'm rigidly saying that a dual ba design can't be good, look at sensaphonics 2max, which competes with anything out there.