[Tom Brown]

I installed Neutron Eval just now on my Motorola G7 Power Android 10. It wouldn't run. The icon is grayed out and touching it shows "unavailable". Rebooting did not help.

Any thoughts on getting Neutron to run?

 

[james444]

A DD moves more volume of air at low pressure
A BA moves less volume of air at high pressure

Both in dB terms kinda are same

But diaphragm on BA is small and inductance is sky high in value, which make the total reactance speed very high compared to a DD.

In ratio basis, the Xmas of BA is higher than that of DD(relative ratio and not exact mm)

In Impulse response, a DD note will linger a while but BA will stop immediately

Why

Because BA small and light diaphragm is easy to stop(thats why sports car are made light, so they can handle well). The DD, due to larger size and slightly more weight in coil and diaphragm system doesnt stop on time


For BA to sound like DD

1st thing is bass shelf
2nd thing is Time delay(not phase delay)
3rd thing is to give it enough air buffer before firing toward ear drum so that it can move more air.... Creates dB loss.

Moondrop S8 bass has slight humm to it rather than rumble of DD

Thats why, get a EQ profile and listen to Shure SE846. Because shure does that very nicely with long ass labyrinth

Very few BA iem do bass properly

The important thing is what I need is Rumble of DD but braking power or control of BA.

Agree

But in context of how the designer wants to tune them and how much engineering he or she knows
BA can be made to linger longer too.

I just wanted to be as simplistic as I want

If we go complex

BA distortion is higher in bass than that of DD(except Sonion 38D1XJ007mi/8a)
BA has better brake effect and can recover quicker.

Also tube effect comes in play
Distance of driver
Phase delay
Time delay
Etc etc


Actually we can go on and on..

But being simple
BA bass sound comes from high distortion and high speed

Interesting posts, thanks!

The thing I'm wondering regarding BAs: why would I as a consumer want a transducer with faster brake and recovery speed than the mixing engineer? The vast majority of music is produced with DD monitoring equipment. So why would I want to hear music differently from the pros who made the record in the first place?

 

[dhruvmeena96]

Interesting posts, thanks!

The thing I'm wondering regarding BAs: why would I as a consumer want a transducer with faster brake and recovery speed than the mixing engineer? The vast majority of music is produced with DD monitoring equipment. So why would I want to hear music differently from the pros who made the record in the first place?

A DD monitoring equipment you say are speakers ryt

Those DD are fast enough plus in a room with damping etc etc etc many factor


Now using not the same setup but iem

With a DD of its own decay(different impulse), will add colouration or kind of its own timbre

A BA will break quicker but it won't be quicker than source signal ryt(its impossible)
But a DD can be late than recorded source signal causing that subwoofer like rumble rather bass drum attack


I mean
To be simple as possible

The drivers cannot be quicker than the source its feeded

So by that logic, a BA will interpret the PRaT better(pace, rhythms Attack and timing).

A DD will is slower than BA.

Its doesnt matter what monitor is used to make those song. Once the song is made and recorded in file

You need a device which can act as quick as the voltage swing and shift while making sine wave, so it can keep up with digital recording file time.

What happens in DD is that it will start at same time as BA on first Impulse strike, but it then doesnt come back as quickly as a BA can..


In general monitoring speaker, the size and the magnetic structure etc are very different than that of headphones and IEM.

Plus you have a room to play with rather than a sealed canal.

Somebody long ago cleared this same doubt for me. I hope I am as clear as he was.

Ohh by the way
@toranku sensei has to put some light on this topic

 

[james444]

A DD monitoring equipment you say are speakers ryt

Those DD are fast enough plus in a room with damping etc etc etc many factor


Now using not the same setup but iem

With a DD of its own decay(different impulse), will add colouration or kind of its own timbre

A BA will break quicker but it won't be quicker than source signal ryt(its impossible)
But a DD can be late than recorded source signal causing that subwoofer like rumble rather bass drum attack


I mean
To be simple as possible

The drivers cannot be quicker than the source its feeded

So by that logic, a BA will interpret the PRaT better(pace, rhythms Attack and timing).

A DD will is slower than BA.

Its doesnt matter what monitor is used to make those song. Once the song is made and recorded in file

You need a device which can act as quick as the voltage swing and shift while making sine wave, so it can keep up with digital recording file time.

What happens in DD is that it will start at same time as BA on first Impulse strike, but it then doesnt come back as quickly as a BA can..


In general monitoring speaker, the size and the magnetic structure etc are very different than that of headphones and IEM.

Plus you have a room to play with rather than a sealed canal.

Somebody long ago cleared this same doubt for me. I hope I am as clear as he was.

Ohh by the way
@toranku sensei has to put some light on this topic

Well, I'd argue that moving coil transient response is more similar between speakers, headphones and DD IEMs than between any DD transducer and BAs. Also, headphones are being used in mixing too, not only speakers. And lastly, you don't really have a room to play with nearfield monitors (= the most common speakers used for mixing).

So, any mixing engineer who uses headphones or nearfield monitors will be subject to DD transient characteristics. Plus, mixing pretty much always involves shaping of the source signal's transient envelope (manipulating attack and delay times). And the engineer will do that according to what he / she hears from these DD-based monitors.

My point is that the monitoring equipment might possibly be faster than some DD IEMs (though I doubt that e.g. for microdrivers, which don't have much mass either, don't move much air and are very fast, too). Still, the monitoring equipment used in mixing will very likely be slower than BAs. Would be an interesting experiment, to mix the same source material, but use BA-IEMs as monitors... I bet the result would sound different.

Anyway, I've often wondered why many IEM listeners seem to prefer DDs over BAs. And from my point of view, it might be a possible explanation that we're just more used to the sound of moving coil transducers (including headphones and speakers) than to the sound of BAs.

 

[IEMusic]

...that we're just more used to the sound of moving coil transducers (including headphones and speakers)...

That’s what I think. We’re constantly exposed to the sound/timbral characteristics of moving coil transducers, all around us.

 

[jenkinsontherun]

That’s what I think. We’re constantly exposed to the sound/timbral characteristics of moving coil transducers, all around us.

We may be all brainwashed to what "natural" is. It weirdly reminds me of standing up as a kid in class every morning to sing the national anthem. The speakers of course were DD. Think of our plastic brains being taught what a speaker/headphone should sound, and then to bring that into adulthood only to be introduced to BA.

 

[dhruvmeena96]

ROFL

first of all, a DD sealed in ear canal and a DD in open space sound way different.

Well, I'd argue that moving coil transient response is more similar between speakers, headphones and DD IEMs than between any DD transducer and BAs. Also, headphones are being used in mixing too, not only speakers. And lastly, you don't really have a room to play with nearfield monitors (= the most common speakers used for mixing).

So, any mixing engineer who uses headphones or nearfield monitors will be subject to DD transient characteristics. Plus, mixing pretty much always involves shaping of the source signal's transient envelope (manipulating attack and delay times). And the engineer will do that according to what he / she hears from these DD-based monitors.

My point is that the monitoring equipment might possibly be faster than some DD IEMs (though I doubt that e.g. for microdrivers, which don't have much mass either, don't move much air and are very fast, too). Still, the monitoring equipment used in mixing will very likely be slower than BAs. Would be an interesting experiment, to mix the same source material, but use BA-IEMs as monitors... I bet the result would sound different.

Anyway, I've often wondered why many IEM listeners seem to prefer DDs over BAs. And from my point of view, it might be a possible explanation that we're just more used to the sound of moving coil transducers (including headphones and speakers) than to the sound of BAs.

a Near feild monitor is still in open space

a closed back headphone might be the best thing to describe
true open back is still open.

in open scenario, the loss of acoustic force is also seen on decay. yest, the structure and timbre of DD retains, but decay is always very low in open scenario

now in iem, i havent seen a true open back system or free system. its sealed. in seal system, you have to deal with a lot of energy plus you can hear the DD lag easily as there is mo transmission loss of the acoustic energy.

i get the timbre part, but its the decay in sealed iem or closed back headphone which ruins the experience of a near field monitor

but you know, with proper engineering and sound space time domain and Computational Fluid Dynamics(never seen brands doing CFD), you can make BA sound like DD in timbre but also faster, like a near-feild monitor.

in the end, its all upto designer, i have seen DD faster and impotent than BA bass. i mean a DD excelling in treble but sound worse on bass than your common run of the mill BA


while tuning, the most important thing for a bass to sound nice and rumbly is to have a bass shelf between 150HZ to 250Hz and a boost of 8dB and above. In this tuning, the BA can also sound chad, excelling many DD iem . especially iem using 38D1XJ or HODVTEC for this range. Now you guys might say about using a DD in that range(hybrid), but that has its own issue, as there is considerable detachment of bass timbre(higher air mass or volume, low pressure) compared to BA(low air mass or volume, high pressure). Only AKG n5005 seems to nail this type of response

second is mainly the structure of mids where human is mostly sensitive(99.02Hz to 1.01kHz). a flat mids shows the bass more clearly in rumble, warmer tilt makes impact hard, giving male vocal some more grunt but slows down bass in speed as it seems more smoother transient in FR

a upsloping harman old style mids make bass seem faster yet more rumbly


what i mean to say, there are many factors to which iem can be designed and mostly iem designers dont work upto that level [management issues(Gordon Murray says that management and heirarchy kills innovation), restricted time, and sometime not knowing how to tackle and control the situation because of lack of information]

i am not saying that i know acoustic engineering

but my time in HomeMade iem thread, i have made projects where the BA can emulate a Fast precise attacking DD with enough rumble.

 

[dhruvmeena96]

Unlike dynamic driver designs, balanced armature drivers to not displace air mass as much in order to generate sound. There are upsides and downsides to this. Balanced armature in-ear monitors typically provide better isolation because there is no need for a vent to move air. On the contrary, balanced armature drivers lack the superior bass frequency presentation of dynamic driver designs.

but what if, we take a very high dB BA driver and make a air buffer in-front of it. so that the air volume high pressure effectively couple and convert into High volume low pressure, in that case the IEM BA will sound like Dynamic but the speed of BA will retain as its more on the driver Q factor(not eq Q factor but the driver signal damping factor like Qes, QTS and Qms), how fast it moves diaphragm.
BA- small tube- 3D printed big size box or any structure- small tube


for any brands or My DIY buddies who reads @toranku sensei thread

 

[james444]

We may be all brainwashed to what "natural" is. It weirdly reminds me of standing up as a kid in class every morning to sing the national anthem. The speakers of course were DD. Think of our plastic brains being taught what a speaker/headphone should sound, and then to bring that into adulthood only to be introduced to BA.

In a way, yes! But I think it's a little more sophisticated than that. Think about how we learn to experience live music, it's pretty much always in an environment that adds reverb of some sort. Virtually no one learns what "natural" is, by listening to live music in an anechoic chamber. So, naturally, our brains are not being callbrated to ultra-fast decay.

Now, this is where the recording process of acoustic instruments and vocals comes in. And that happens almost always close-miked, thus eliminating room ambiance, which is recorded separately and later added to the mix at digression of the engineer. I'm sure, at this point, the engineer could perfectly create a mix for BA target audience if he wanted... but that's actually not a priority, for the vast majority of records.

ROFL

first of all, a DD sealed in ear canal and a DD in open space sound way different.

a Near feild monitor is still in open space

a closed back headphone might be the best thing to describe
true open back is still open.

in open scenario, the loss of acoustic force is also seen on decay. yest, the structure and timbre of DD retains, but decay is always very low in open scenario

now in iem, i havent seen a true open back system or free system. its sealed. in seal system, you have to deal with a lot of energy plus you can hear the DD lag easily as there is mo transmission loss of the acoustic energy.

i get the timbre part, but its the decay in sealed iem or closed back headphone which ruins the experience of a near field monitor

but you know, with proper engineering and sound space time domain and Computational Fluid Dynamics(never seen brands doing CFD), you can make BA sound like DD in timbre but also faster, like a near-feild monitor.

in the end, its all upto designer, i have seen DD faster and impotent than BA bass. i mean a DD excelling in treble but sound worse on bass than your common run of the mill BA


while tuning, the most important thing for a bass to sound nice and rumbly is to have a bass shelf between 150HZ to 250Hz and a boost of 8dB and above. In this tuning, the BA can also sound chad, excelling many DD iem . especially iem using 38D1XJ or HODVTEC for this range. Now you guys might say about using a DD in that range(hybrid), but that has its own issue, as there is considerable detachment of bass timbre(higher air mass or volume, low pressure) compared to BA(low air mass or volume, high pressure). Only AKG n5005 seems to nail this type of response

second is mainly the structure of mids where human is mostly sensitive(99.02Hz to 1.01kHz). a flat mids shows the bass more clearly in rumble, warmer tilt makes impact hard, giving male vocal some more grunt but slows down bass in speed as it seems more smoother transient in FR

a upsloping harman old style mids make bass seem faster yet more rumbly


what i mean to say, there are many factors to which iem can be designed and mostly iem designers dont work upto that level [management issues(Gordon Murray says that management and heirarchy kills innovation), restricted time, and sometime not knowing how to tackle and control the situation because of lack of information]

i am not saying that i know acoustic engineering

but my time in HomeMade iem thread, i have made projects where the BA can emulate a Fast precise attacking DD with enough rumble.

Sorry to say, "ROFL" is not a good discussion style.

You seem to think that I'm trying to make a case for DD being "better" than BA (hence the touchiness?), but that's not what I actually tried to express. All I'm saying is that we may be more used to the characteristics of DD transducers and therefore many people seem to have some kind of preference for DD IEMs. I've been in this hobby for a long time, and over and over came across people who tried both BAs and DDs, only to end up declaring the latter as "more natural" sounding.

I get it that you have a lot of experience with BA IEMs and I think that your posts are well-informed and valuable in that regard. However, you seem to have less experience with DD IEMs (and probably acoustics in general). As an example, 9 out of 10 DD IEMs are front vented, so we're not really talking about fully sealed ear canal acoustics there. Anyway, that's a topic for another time and place and I'm not going to clutter this thread any further with it.

Let me just say, I'm very much in agreement with what @crinacle writes about the "problem in having too little decay", though I wouldn't phrase it as generally valid, but rather (as explained above) as a problem in the context of modern recording and mixing practice.

Therefore, I fully concur with Matt's posting below Crin's article, that says:

But, of course, it’s not actually objective. The music was all recorded to sound “correct” on a certain setup in a recording studio, and the producer/engineer had a “target audience,” whether they realized it or not, of a certain listening environment. Usually that target is a room with speakers. Both of these subjectivities are encoded into the music, and later recovered by our earphones.

If EDM producers were trying to get their tunes to sound good on very fast speakers, I wouldn’t keep experiencing the decay of my BA earphones as too short. But they target these massive soundsystems with big-diameter subwoofers. Talking about a transducer’s effects in the time domain is actually a commentary on how closely the transients as heard through the transducer track the producer’s subjective intent, as reflected in the recording.

 

[dhruvmeena96]

In a way, yes! But I think it's a little more sophisticated than that. Think about how we learn to experience live music, it's pretty much always in an environment that adds reverb of some sort. Virtually no one learns what "natural" is, by listening to live music in an anechoic chamber. So, naturally, our brains are not being callbrated to ultra-fast decay.

Now, this is where the recording process of acoustic instruments and vocals comes in. And that happens almost always close-miked, thus eliminating room ambiance, which is recorded separately and later added to the mix at digression of the engineer. I'm sure, at this point, the engineer could perfectly create a mix for BA target audience if he wanted... but that's actually not a priority, for the vast majority of records.



Sorry to say, "ROFL" is not a good discussion style.

You seem to think that I'm trying to make a case for DD being "better" than BA (hence the touchiness?), but that's not what I actually tried to express. All I'm saying is that we may be more used to the characteristics of DD transducers and therefore many people seem to have some kind of preference for DD IEMs. I've been in this hobby for a long time, and over and over came across people who tried both BAs and DDs, only to end up declaring the latter as "more natural" sounding.

I get it that you have a lot of experience with BA IEMs and I think that your posts are well-informed and valuable in that regard. However, you seem to have less experience with DD IEMs (and probably acoustics in general). As an example, 9 out of 10 DD IEMs are front vented, so we're not really talking about fully sealed ear canal acoustics there. Anyway, that's a topic for another time and place and I'm not going to clutter this thread any further with it.

Let me just say, I'm very much in agreement with what @crinacle writes about the "problem in having too little decay", though I wouldn't phrase it as generally valid, but rather (as explained above) as a problem in the context of modern recording and mixing practice.

Therefore, I fully concur with Matt's posting below Crin's article, that says:

bro, ROFL was not for discussion but i felt that if i type that , the intensity of the discussion will slightly taper down as i have seen these sort of discussion going bonkers and serious and then not so good after sometime(so just to ease it up)

second, i have worked with planar, estat, peizo, BA, magnetostrictive and even ribbon nowadays and also making driver our own self(iem ribbon)

the thing is, my debate is not on decay or timbre, what i mean to say, you can control both of them and achieve better result from BA, as its tighter Qts(total damping factor) and its size makes it easy to use on physical stand point

and you can make a tight Qt loose but not vice versa in iem
, to make DD tight, you have to add vent to leak bass, which is theoritcal energy loss

in BA, you dont have too
so i mean to say, you can make BA sound like fast precise yet rumbling DD without losses


and Second, both are pistonic driver in working, so BA can be easily tuned to sound like DD.
i have mentioned that people just dont go that furthur because they have to run business and these thing can be either done by DIYer who has enough time or a research organisation having enough money(i am in first)

for suggestion, take a Sonion 38D1XJ007i/8a, take a tube longer than 50mm and ID smaller than 1 and add a yellow damper at center of tube and it makes all DD crap their pants in whole bass extension and rumble and decay, but it will stop its signal as signal is stopped

but a DD in general will keep on rumbling

but, see there are nice DD which have pretty nice Qts and are faster than BA itself.


so, in the end, its technical parameters of driver and DD in general are loose and BA are tight

now if you see Desktop Monitor, the Qts their has to be mantained between 0.4 to 0.7

The Q parameters are very important in speaker design. They represent measurements related to the control of a speaker’s suspension when it reaches the resonant frequency (Fs). They are expressed as Qms, Qes and Qts. The suspension must prevent any lateral motion that might allow the voice coil and pole (or core) to touch. The suspension acts as a shock absorber. Qms is the mechanical Q, which measures the control from the speaker’s mechanical suspension system, the surround and spider. Think of these components as springs. Qes is the electrical Q, which measures the control from the speaker’s electrical suspension, the voice coil and magnet. Opposing forces from the mechanical and electrical suspensions act to absorb shock. Qts is the total Q of the speaker and is derived from an equation where Qes is multiplied by Qms. The result is divided by the sum of the same.

if a speaker Qts is below 0.4, its too tight and fast(no matter its DD or BA). in this, if using a DD, it need a back pressure release vent to enhance bass and make the internal air less tight and springy and increase its Qts factor

if Qts is 0.4 to 0.7, its perfect, i like 0.58

above 0.7, things get rumbly and exciting but above 0.9, its gets the sound too weird and blunted




the real issue is planar and estat because they are surface vibration style driver and are very different in working from BA and DD which share same piston driver family

 

[IEMusic]

bro, ROFL was not for discussion but i felt that if i type that , the intensity of the discussion will slightly taper down as i have seen these sort of discussion going bonkers and serious and then not so good after sometime(so just to ease it up)

Just so you know, typing something like ROFL, does the exact opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. It doesn’t taper the intensity, but significantly escalates it. It comes across as extremely dismissive and insulting when someone is trying to have a serious conversation.

 

[dhruvmeena96]

Just so you know, typing something like ROFL, does the exact opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. It doesn’t taper the intensity, but significantly escalates it. It comes across as extremely dismissive and insulting when someone is trying to have a serious conversation.

I will keep in mind
But yah

If I do it again in future by mistake

Please accept my advanced apologies and ignore the ROFL.

 

[Raketen]

bro, ROFL was not for discussion but i felt that if i type that , the intensity of the discussion will slightly taper down as i have seen these sort of discussion going bonkers and serious and then not so good after sometime(so just to ease it up)

Not to pile-on, but just to clarify: As a response to something that was not intended as a humorous observation/joke, the implication of ROFL is that what was said is something so stupid that it caused you to lose all bodily self-control and fall to the floor. AFAIK in most discourse, drawing attention to this in such a manner would generally be considered a personal attack.

 

[IEMusic]

I will keep in mind
But yah

If I do it again in future by mistake

Please accept my advanced apologies and ignore the ROFL.

It’s all good. Thanks for clarifying earlier! Head-fi is an international ”melting pot”, plus you add on the fact that a lot of meaning is lost in text form, and it’s ripe for misunderstandings.

Interesting discussions though.

 

[kdphan]

@toranku when is that EE Odin review coming up? This is the only IEM I’ve considered paying full retail price for.