# Dynamic sound vs Planar Magnetic sound



## Lord Voldemort

What are the differences between the two in sound quality? Yes it's obvious that planar magnetic cans have superior transient response.
   
  However, I ask this because I recently bought a planar magnetic headphone and want to know if the differences are attributes of the planar magnetic sound or the particular nature of my headphone.  I feel that there is some kind of a "wall" of sound that makes things sound a bit distant, and I've read from two other people about the same thing. 
   
   
  Side note: should striving for a flat headphone be our main goal here? How often do sound engineers actually use flat systems to record and master the music?


----------



## ultrabike

I know LFF is a mastering engineer and his T50RP based Paradox planar magnetic headphones strive for neutrality.
   
  AFAIK planar magnetic headphones are known to do bass better than most dynamic headphones, but I'm not sure what you mean by planar magnetic cans having superior transient response...


----------



## chewy4

From what I've seen the main difference is flat bass. Dynamic headphones generally have a mid-bass hump to some extent while planars can have it be totally flat.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





ultrabike said:


> I know LFF is a mastering engineer and his T50RP based Paradox planar magnetic headphones strive for neutrality.
> 
> AFAIK planar magnetic headphones are known to do bass better than most dynamic headphones, but I'm not sure what you mean by planar magnetic cans having superior transient response...


 
  My Mad Dogs have more precision in the sound, especially in the sub-mid bass region. This is clear on acoustics tracks. 
   
  The problem I hear is present in piano music. It loses a lot of the dynamics that the artist intended (it's obvious because some scores have accents to them, and the Mad Dog do not portray them well). Everything seems "flattened" out to the same dynamic level. At first, I thought this was because the Mad Dogs were so neutral, and they are, not particularly emphasizing any particular frequency except the bass (to compensate for the vibrations that enter our bodies). But even with this in consideration, I feel like I'm hearing a wall of sound. I need to hear another planar magnetic can to confirm if this is just that kind of signature. MIdrange has less presence in my Mad Dogs for the most part, with a more artificial timbre.


----------



## ultrabike

The Mad Dogs I heard had a little bit of bass emphasis. IMO the Paradox were more neutral (and therefore precise if we are striving for flat frequency response.) Not a bad headphone though.
   
  When a set of frequencies get emphasized over others certain details may get "masked".


----------



## chewy4

I don't get a wall of sound feeling _at all_ with my HE-400's. Quite the opposite really, poorly mastered rock songs that are meant to sound like a wall of sound can sound a little empty.
   
  Are you sure it's not just the particular song? The Mad Dogs seem like a pretty fast headphone...


----------



## ultrabike

I agree with chewy4. I have the HE-400 and HE-500 on long term loan. Don't think I get the wall of sound effect there either.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> I don't get a wall of sound feeling _at all_ with my HE-400's. Quite the opposite really, poorly mastered rock songs that are meant to sound like a wall of sound can sound a little empty.
> 
> Are you sure it's not just the particular song? The Mad Dogs seem like a pretty fast headphone...


 
  Oh yes it's definitely fast. The problem here has nothing to do with fastness. And no this applies to every song/ piece I've listened to out of the Mad Dogs. I've been trying to find comments about this 'wall of sound'. I've read it once somewhere but can't find that specific comment. Instead I've found: 
   
  "As Brooko said, I didn't say inferior.

The "deal" with any planar radiator (ESP, electret, planar-magnetic/orthodynamic, etc) is that they put out a very uniform "wall" of sound, compared to the conical pattern that will come out of a dynamic cone (which is what you'll find in every Grado ever made). This is a very different presentation on it's own, even if they had the exact same frequency response (which they do not), because of how the sound-wave will interact with your outer and inner ear. So just like how an Ultrasone with S-LOGIC will not image or position audio in the same way as any conventional headphone, neither will any planar radiator. Same thing with speakers - there are plenty of great-sounding speakers that use multiple drivers in various alignments, and there are also a number of planar/dipole models that are also great-sounding. But they produce a very different sonic image because of the difference in how they put sound out.

So not only should you expect to see a large difference in tonal balance (in that, nothing has the same PRaT, tonal balance, etc that a Grado does), but the difference in radiation will also change and influence the sound very heavily. I will tell you that flat-out, if you think your Grado headphones are the best sounding thing since sliced bread, nothing else will get you that same experience except another Grado. They're very unique. I say this to hopefully prevent a lot of dragon chasing - don't waste your time with other manufacturers trying to get "a better sounding Grado" - just get a better Grado. If there's *major* issues you have with Grado headphones (e.g. you hate their tonal balance), don't waste your time buying more expensive Grado models - try something else.

It all ultimately comes down to preference - do you like chocolate or vanilla or perhaps Neapolitan?"
   
   
   
   
  "The "wall-of-sound" effect is because LCD2s are heavily damped, unfortunately that damping scheme is also what makes it sound like an Audeze headphone. I can make my HE400s sound quite LCD2-like with similar driver-back damping with foam and felt, without the properly tuned bass response / smooth mids ofc, but as a proof of concept." 
   
   
  Wish I had another planar magnetic to know for sure. I've only ever listened to dynamic drive headphones (lots of them) and they don't have this kind of sound.


----------



## ultrabike

I found this post extremely valuable and might be relevant to our discussion: http://www.head-fi.org/t/223263/the-stax-thread-new/20355#post_8967417
   
  "But in practice, *this shape of the transducer has nothing to do with the pressure wave that results from it*. Be it a piston or a stretched diaphragm like and estat or ortho, they all drive a small acoustic space which is again in stiffness controlled region (no acoustic modes in the earcup cavity there) and you get uniform pressure across the earcup."


----------



## asdfghjkzxcvbnm

What is transient response?


----------



## thelostMIDrange

it may sound simplistic, but to me, the difference is that planars are not dynamic sounding. And neither are some dynamics, but at least have the potential to for it....or at the least, the planar is dynamic in a totally different manner.


----------



## TMRaven

To me the main difference is just in the bass.  I don't really get a 'wall of sound' with the he-400.


----------



## matti620

Which cans did you upgrade from? Could it be that the "wall of soudn" you're describing is simply the deep extended slow bass which you weren't use to its presence before? It happened to me. Everything sounded much "heavier" when I got the HD650.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





matti620 said:


> Which cans did you upgrade from? Could it be that the "wall of soudn" you're describing is simply the deep extended slow bass which you weren't use to its presence before? It happened to me. Everything sounded much "heavier" when I got the HD650.


 
  No not at all. The HD650 does sound heavy, mainly because of its midbass. I had the same impression with the M50s as well. The Mad Dog has a very neutral midbass... about the same amount as my HD598 actually. 
   
  Maybe one day when I get the chance, I'll be able to compare it with a HE-400 or another planar magnetic. 
   
  Oh and I didn't "upgrade" from anything. I own the HD598 currently, though I've auditioned numerous cans in the price range and above. No dynamic headphones sound quite like the Mad Dogs. My main interest currently with the Mad Dogs isn't really its "wall of sound" but rather the lack of dynamics. Everything feels dampened, and although this doesn't affect most genres of music, it does affect my piano music heavily. A friend came over to audition my two cans and he agreed that the Mad Dogs just can't compete with the HD598 in classical music (well excluding organ). But he loved the Mad Dogs for darker ambient music.


----------



## TMRaven

Well, that might be because they are a closed, heavily dampened headphone.  Hifiman headphones are extremely open and have almost no damping.
   
  I really can't comment on the lack of dynamics.  For what it's worth, I feel all Sennheiser 5xx series headphones lack dynamics.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> Well, that might be because they are a closed, heavily dampened headphone.  Hifiman headphones are extremely open and have almost no damping.
> 
> I really can't comment on the lack of dynamics.  For what it's worth, I feel all Sennheiser 5xx series headphones lack dynamics.


 
  I can't say the 5xx have any less dynamics than the 6xx. The HD650 did give some of that midbass energy so there were some greater increase in dynamic in that region, but that could be said about any other headphones that have an elevated part of the frequency response. 
   
  I guess you are right about them being heavily dampened... may be the reason for the lack of dynamics.


----------



## TMRaven

All of the 5xx series is less clear sounding to me, compared to 600 and even 650.
   
  The thing is that excess damping shouldn't take away any dynamics unless it's to the point of hurting the treble extension of a headphone.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> All of the 5xx series is less clear sounding to me, compared to 600 and even 650.
> 
> The thing is that excess damping shouldn't take away any dynamics unless it's to the point of hurting the treble extension of a headphone.


 
  Do you have any approaches to testing treble extension? The Mad Dogs definitely have less treble than most headphones, though I do not know if it extends worse or better than others.


----------



## TMRaven

Very little.  Usually when I compare headphones, treble extension is one of my lesser priorities.  I have no experience with the Mad-dogs, but people do describe them as dark like the Audez'e headphones.  Perhaps you might not like?  I thought the 598, 600 etc had quite a bit of upper mid and treble presence, but nothing too emphasized.
   
  It's tough to say what you're experiencing unless you try other planar magnetics.


----------



## Lord Voldemort

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> Very little.  Usually when I compare headphones, treble extension is one of my lesser priorities.  I have no experience with the Mad-dogs, but people do describe them as dark like the Audez'e headphones.  Perhaps you might not like?  I thought the 598, 600 etc had quite a bit of upper mid and treble presence, but nothing too emphasized.
> 
> It's tough to say what you're experiencing unless you try other planar magnetics.


 
  Yes I know  I need another planar magnetic to compare it with. I actually do like this darker signature, depending on what music I am listening to. 
   
  Yeah I didn't think the HD598 or the HD600 had much of an upper mid / treble presence either - all relatively neutral. Even though the HD598 can sound a trifle too bright for some recordings, it had a very non-fatiguing upper mid/ treble compared to other cans in the price range. 
   
  I kind of want a treble quantity that's between the Mad Dog and the HD598.


----------



## MrMateoHead

I'm not sure that the wave form differences between planars and dynamic phones matter a great deal when each is less than an inch from your noggin'.
   
  What my HE 400s do extremely well is make it seem like sound reproduction is an "effortless" task. The near-flat bass response possible is a great thing, sure, but I am not sure that dynamics do not typically achieve this as well, in certain applications (concert speakers, monitors, and so on).
   
  I am inclined to attribute a lot of their desirable sound qualities to larger overall surface area. They can simply move more air, and will not work as hard to produce greater volume. Ever heard a 15 inch sub in a car? How about an 8 inch right afterward? A 15 is wasted in a car space, mostly, but the "ease" of bass reproduction can be really cool.
   
  The planar's definitely have a lot more surface area. But it seems that, based on different frequency response curves I've seen, they can struggle in the midrange and treble frequencies - just like a big driver being asked to play at a higher frequency than it is optimized for.
   
  I am probably totally wrong on this, but I open to all suggestions. The main issue is also, of course, the dynamics "piston" like motion and rubber-band like popping compared to the planars movement within a magnetic field.


----------



## jerg

The utterly opposite approaches to damping with Audezes vs Hifimans make it hard to say what sound attributes are intrinsic to planar / orthos sound in general and not the products of specific designs.
   
  The only observable trait that is shared across seems to be full-bodied bass and lower mids, that no dynamics can simulate. Not sure how planars do that but it might be observed as somewhat slower decay in CSDs.


----------



## wuwhere

Not dynamic vs. planar but electrostat vs. planar. Its start and stop of the diaphragm or control of the transducer. Its related to the area of the transducer too. I think the electrostats still have the advantage over planar magnetics. They're lighter compared to the planars.


----------



## TMRaven

But supposedly they don't have the bass impact of planars either, because of their lighter diaphragms and less forceful drive.


----------



## MrMateoHead

A "light" driver or a heavy driver doesn't matter when the point is to move air. Aluminum, paper, and plastic all get used in speaker drivers, and each has inherent trade-offs. For that matter, some of the best speakers I've heard are made from paper and plastic, and some of the worst used "exotic" ceramics.
   
  Bass "impact" is above moving a lot of air, and many of the nastiest subwoofers out there all use _the same cone size_. The differentiating factor is the strength of their motors, the Xmax or peak to peak extension of the driver, and the ability to manage heat (given that they consume more power). Most of the best subs out there are built like tanks. But this confuses the point, which is that, bottom line, it is the size of the driver that determines total output (or at least output potential). I know this gets complicated when we state, immediately after, that little tweeters can be loud as hell, so "movement of air" is maybe the wrong idea for ALL thoughts of sound quality.
   
  But surely, if planars and electrostatics can exert more control over the diaphragm, and the diaphragm can be larger, I would think that this is a key advantage.


----------



## sonance

The question of impulse response in a dynamic vs. planar design is an interesting one. There are a few aspects to 'slow' sounding headphones, or a slight smearing of response in the time-domain: weight of the driver, drive & control of the diaphragm, surface area and resistance, and finally resonances and diffraction. Some planar headphones do seem to sound clearer in sharp transients compared to the average dynamic (I've found this is something that does come across pretty well in measurements - even though you're measuring the whole system), but I wouldn't say this is true across the board. I think the HD800 sounds as fast as most planars I've listened to, possibly due in part to the ring radiator design.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Quote: 





sonance said:


> The question of impulse response in a dynamic vs. planar design is an interesting one. There are a few aspects to 'slow' sounding headphones, or a slight smearing of response in the time-domain: weight of the driver, drive & control of the diaphragm, surface area and resistance, and finally resonances and diffraction. Some planar headphones do seem to sound clearer in sharp transients compared to the average dynamic (I've found this is something that does come across pretty well in measurements - even though you're measuring the whole system), but I wouldn't say this is true across the board. I think the HD800 sounds as fast as most planars I've listened to, possibly due in part to the ring radiator design.


 

 I haven't heard a headphone better than my HE-400 yet. I would like to hear some very-high end dynamics to see if they are also as "fast" and awesome as my Orthos.
   
   
  Quote from Headphone.com:
  "_*A larger driver will allow the diaphragm do displace more air for any given unit distance moved compared with a smaller driver. Moving more air means the driver can achieve better bass extension before it runs out of voice coil travel.* It’s pretty obvious when listening to these cans, they really have an astonishing sense of ease and control in the lows. Not overly big and bloated, just controlled right down to the point you feel your Adam’s apple wiggling._
_The second advantage the new ring radiator has in the HD800 is improved imaging, and sense of coherence. When sound approaches your head from a speaker or natural sound source it travels a substantial distance to reach your head, and therefore the wavefront of the sounds is fairly planar when it hits your ears._"
   
  They claim that the HD-800 creates a more "planar" wavefront.
   
  Sounds to me like I may not be crazy after all.


----------



## Scotteq

asdfghjkzxcvbnm said:


> What is transient response?




"Transients" refers to how well a piece of gear handles very fast waveforms - The leading edge of a drum or cymbal hit, for example. Or a finger snap. If a component handles these well, the result will be crisp and accurate.


----------



## ultrabike

Quote: 





scotteq said:


> "Transients" refers to how well a piece of gear handles very fast waveforms - The leading edge of a drum or cymbal hit, for example. Or a finger snap. If a component handles these well, the result will be crisp and accurate.


 

 When one passes a signal through a filter (or a headphone), the "processed" signal will not come out immediately. The signal will come out a bit later because hardware does not respond instantaneously to an stimulus. A bunch of junk will come out first depending on how "fast" the hardware is, and how it reacts to certain frequency stimulus. This junk that comes out first is usually referred to as a transient.
   
  AFAIK, the impulse response represents the linear transient behavior of filter (or a headphone). I guess the less junk before and after the main peak of a headphone's impulse response, the "faster" the headphone.


----------



## Scotteq

Quote: 





ultrabike said:


> When one passes a signal through a filter (or a headphone), the "processed" signal will not come out immediately. The signal will come out a bit later because hardware does not respond instantaneously to an stimulus. A bunch of junk will come out first depending on how "fast" the hardware is, and how it reacts to certain frequency stimulus. This junk that comes out first is usually referred to as a transient.
> 
> AFAIK, the impulse response represents the linear transient behavior of filter (or a headphone). I guess the less junk before and after the main peak of a headphone's impulse response, the "faster" the headphone.


 
   
   
  The definition I learned a long time ago was that a transient is a short lived/sudden sound - such as a snare drum hit.  And that transient response refers to a piece of gear's ability to render that sound accurately.
   
  <shrug>


----------



## ultrabike

That is probably another way to look at it.
   
  An impulse response is the output of a system (say a headphone or an amplifier) when excited by an impulse signal.  An ideal impulse is an infinitely sudden signal, which would make a snare drum hit seem like it took forever.
   
  In practice no such signal exist. Alternative methods are used to get equivalent results.


----------



## JohnSantana

Yes, I'd love to know what makes *planar magnetic *driver better than the other ?
   
  what is best used for ?


----------



## ultrabike

Quote: 





johnsantana said:


> Yes, I'd love to know what makes *planar magnetic *driver better than the other ?
> 
> what is best used for ?


 
   
_Some_ planar magnetic headphones are better at reproducing bass relative to other technologies (dynamic and electrostatic headphones.)
   
_Some_ also exhibit low non-linear distortion numbers relative to dynamic headphones (electrostatic headphones however may have an edge here.)
   
  Planar magnetic headphones usually behave as resisitve loads to the amplifier which may have some benefits. However, many planar magnetic headphones tend to have low sensitivity values and may require quite a bit of current to drive, relative to more mainstream dynamic headphones.
   
  Planar magnetic cans tend to be a bit on the heavy side (weight) compared to other technologies.


----------



## JohnSantana

ultrabike said:


> _Some_ planar magnetic headphones are better at reproducing bass relative to other technologies (dynamic and electrostatic headphones.)
> 
> _Some_ also exhibit low non-linear distortion numbers relative to dynamic headphones (electrostatic headphones however may have an edge here.)
> 
> ...


 
  Cool, many thanks for the explanation, now I know that by using Planar Magnetic head phone, it would means that I will also need to buy decent DAC and AMP as well with copper cable to get the maximum benefits of my iphone and PC listening experience.
  (I do not have any decent source apart from those mobile device and MP3 320 kbps or FLAC at best).


----------



## leadbythemelody

Why are planar magnetics' harder to drive? I just don't get it...


----------



## xnor

You mean harder to drive as in lower sensitivity?
   
  Well there are a couple of points I can think of..
   
  The diaphragms sits between the magnets, so if you want a higher excursion limit you have to increase the distance between the magnets reducing the magnetic flux density. In a dynamic headphone the air gap can be very tight, just wide enough so that the coil doesn't touch anything since it's moving up and down in the gap, not back and forth.
   
  Also, the voice coils in dynamic headphone drivers use magnetic cores which increase the magnetic flux density a lot.
   
  And then there's the problem of the number of magnets you need with planar magnetic drivers. You cannot use a couple of the same heavy, big neodymium magnets found in dynamic drivers, but smaller and lighter (and weaker) ones since you need to cover an area on both sides of the diaphragm and create a uniform magnetic field.
   
  The diaphragms in dynamic drivers are rigid, but in planar magnetic drivers they are thin foils. This foil needs to be stretched which naturally resists back and forth movement.


----------



## leadbythemelody

Okay, I think I get it thanks!


----------



## White Lotus

Sorry to bring this old chestnut up again.
  
 Are planar magnetic drivers fairly FOTM at the moment?
  
 Or is it genuinely that much "better"?
  
 If the latter is true, why are most "high end" headphones dynamic, instead of planar?
  
(Yes, yes, obvious exceptions are the Audeze and a few others)


----------



## TMRaven

I don't know about 'most being dynamic,' at least not as far as head-fi talk goes.


----------



## Muinarc

white lotus said:


> Sorry to bring this old chestnut up again.
> 
> Are planar magnetic drivers fairly FOTM at the moment?
> 
> ...


 
 I wouldn't say better, just different.


----------



## White Lotus

Sorry if I was misleading.
  
 The sentiment (and the question I raised) remains the same.
  
 Allow me to rephrase: 
  
 "High end" headphones - why aren't they ALL planar magnetic? 
  
 For example - the Sennheiser HD800 is highly regarded, yet it is dynamic. Do dynamic drivers in this size have advantages over planar magnetic?


----------



## xnor

Yeah, just take a look at the shape of the HD800 driver or the weight of the entire headphone.


----------



## MrMateoHead

white lotus said:


> Sorry if I was misleading.
> 
> The sentiment (and the question I raised) remains the same.
> 
> ...


 

 Without knowing the actual area and excursion of the HD-800 ring radiator drivers versus popular planars, I can't make a guess as to which is superior in terms of surface area - which I think is a critical determinant of any speakers performance. As with automotive engines, I tend to believe that 'there is no replacement for displacement'. If you can move more air, you can make more sound, simple as that. You can either accomplish that with a large stroke (excursion), or a larger bore (cone diameter). Going to one large concert helps illustrate what I mean: you usually see more, bigger, not less / higher quality.
  
 I would tend to believe that most driver decisions are a function of efficiency, performance, and *cost*. I don't see planar's ruling the audio landscape because I don't think they have as long a development history as dynamics, and may tend to be inferior in terms of efficiency and cost. The HiFimans I currently enjoy are 'inexpensive' supposedly because of simplified design and low cost production (which is in part do to production occurring in China). But they are still bulky, and the overall sound is not 'perfect' (a tad too hot). Furthermore, amplification is needed despite their relatively efficient design. While I think part of their 'effortless sound' is a function of driver area vs. my other dynamics, many people still prefer other phones which I would think are technically inferior.
  
 So, to answer your question, I will defer to economics. Most 'high end' headphones are NOT planars because headphone manufacturers will tend to *a)* be technologically committed to dynamic technologies (i.e. they have 'sunk costs', or past investments in the technology which make them less likely to switch to a whole new approach to drivers / headphone design) *b)* Perceive planar as less efficient / higher cost technology *c)* are unwilling to do the R&D necessary to develop alternative driver technologies. Planars are having a renaissance because newer companies have sprung up to develop them and target a 'niche' market (or because advances have made planars more economically attractive). Although, my own logic wouldn't explain why HifiMan is willing to develop dynamic _and_ planar headphones. But do notice that their lower-cost phones are all using dynamic drivers. Perhaps their sticking with planars at the high end is partly an admission that they could not do a high end dynamic on the caliber of Sennhesier that could compete on terms of performance and cost. But they can produce extremely awesome planars at prices that compete with the best dynamics.
  
 The top reason I might pass on planars in my living room is that it seems that placement is more difficult because of the flat front and back waves they generate. Oddly, they may also still benefit from a regular dynamic subwoofer since they do not reach into extremely low bass.
  
 I would pass on electrostatic speakers because they need a constant charge to work - meaning they might use more energy over time than comparable speakers (and I care about the
 environment so efficiency matters to me).
  
 Here is also a link to some marketing / information about planars:
http://www.wisdomaudio.com/sage_series-why-planar-magnetics.php
  
 I would think the flat impedance curves, tendency for greater 'speed', and large surface area are important factors in making planars a good starting point for high quality sound.


----------



## husthn

lord voldemort said:


> What are the differences between the two in sound quality? Yes it's obvious that planar magnetic cans have superior transient response.
> 
> However, I ask this because I recently bought a planar magnetic headphone and want to know if the differences are attributes of the planar magnetic sound or the particular nature of my headphone.  I feel that there is some kind of a "wall" of sound that makes things sound a bit distant, and I've read from two other people about the same thing.
> 
> ...




What did you mean by a wall of sound?


----------



## MrMateoHead

^^^^^ I wonder what "wall of sound" references as well. One thing that seems noted online is that a lot of planars have resonance or "ringing" in the 2 Khz area. That is in the critical midrange, so it may be a negative overall, or need to be 'tuned' out somehow as through damping.


----------



## husthn

Yeah, planar can always make the midrange more detail and clarity


----------



## proton007

From what I've read so far, dynamic and planar magnetic are two different technologies.
 Went through the article on innerfidelity by Tyll.
  
 My observations so far:
 -- Planars seem to be the 'better' design. Better from a purely electrical and sonic standpoint.
 -- They're heavy and may be uncomfortable.
 -- They produce a planar wavefront. The same is done by the HD800.
 -- Planars seem to struggle in the high frequency area.
  
 Questions:
 -- Why aren't they popular? Disruptive Technology? Price?
 -- Why can't other dynamic headphones be designed to produce a better wavefront? The HD800 seems like it can.
 -- Are they 'superior' or just 'different' ?


----------



## MrMateoHead

Great Summary Proton -
  
 As I suggested earlier, the weight, price, and relative 'crudeness' of current planars versus dynamics (which are literally disposable in some applications like airplanes) suggests to me that they suffer under- or a lack of development by businesses. Businesses, with large sunk costs in dynamic technology, do not have an incentive to innovate in planars. But some of the new companies springing up do - because they are able to get extremely good sound at a cost that can compete with the best that dynamics offer.
  
 I suppose we'll know the technology is mature when it can be found in a $25 dollar set of cans sold at Wal Mart.
  
 I suppose Planars can't be considered "better" outright - otherwise dynamics would be obsolete already and many companies would be making the transition (cough, Sennheiser). So the "compromises" that are forced by going to a planar design must still create economic and technical inefficiencies.


----------



## mikeaj

I'd imagine the array of magnets and the diaphragm to be more expensive to manufacture, hence higher costs even with maturity. That said, the Fostex set wasn't all that expensive. Did it use a smaller array? Different arrangement?
  
 Also, there seems to be a steeper tradeoff with respect to weight, distortion, and sensitivity, other factors too probably.
  
  
 I don't know much at all about headphone operating principles or even electromagnetics, but given a certain magnet I would assume that having the diaphragm closer to it would result in higher sensitivity because the magnetic field strength is higher there, right? But closer up, a given displacement will be a greater shift from the neutral position, so nonlinearities would go up? Also, if you use magnets on only one side rather than both, that would seem to be a good idea for weight and cost reduction, but I can't imagine that being more linear without some compensation elsewhere.
  
  
 Note Fostex TR50-RP relative performance (even when modded; particularly note increased distortion for equivalent volume after people mod them because I'm guessing the damping eats up the sound output and you need more excursion for a given volume) and cost. Also note that HE-400, which has relatively high sensitivity, has midrange weirdness and higher distortion. For magnets only on one side there is the JPS Labs Abyss, which also has higher distortion despite its cost. HE-4 is also supposed to have magnets only on one side, but I don't see measurements for that. Upcoming HiFiMAN HE-400i and HE-560 are lighter than previous models and also only have magnets on one side. Supposedly sound is improved over the older HE-400 and HE-500 models, but we shall see.


----------



## White Lotus

I guess more research and development has gone into dynamic drivers over the years. That, as well as (presumably) cheaper manufacturing costs. These might be a few of the reasons why there are many high-end dynamic cans.


----------



## jcx

Neodymium magnets at tolerable cost is really the change enabling new interest in Orthos


----------



## MrMateoHead

JCX - That's an interesting theory.
  
 White Lotus - That would be my best guess. On the other hand, we are having a real headphone renaissance these days, as head-fi has been identified as a good niche for a lot of companies. Must be the success of Smart Phones or something. I would point out that a lot of flagships have what, 10 year runs? The HD 600/650 have been around forever. Seems only recently Sennheiser felt the pressure to really do something new and awesome.
  
 MikeAJ - while I don't agree with "midrange weirdness and distortion" in the HE-400 (which I think have a beautiful midrange at times), the distortion has been measured. I would point out that said distortion is recorded at pretty high SPLs, so we don't always know how speakers are behaving at less ear-damaging volumes.
  
 Double-ended planars are supposed to do better with respect to distortion than single ended, as two magnets provide twice the control of one. But they also would impact the diffusion of sound, I would think, so single ended probably has even better intimacy in exchange for more distortion and less linearity at higher SPLs.
  
 I have to admit, the HE-400i seem to me, at least initially, to be a weight / cost / performance cut at a higher price - the opposite of what a consumer wants. But I guess the Magnepan speakers are single-ended also, so, you don't know til you can hear.


----------



## mikeaj

Yeah, it's probably significantly lower at say 80 or 70 dB SPL. And I suppose I meant "relative weirdness" or at least some evidence of some performance issues, not really a comment about the headphone itself but rather on what seems to be the state of the technology.
  
 On the other hand, when people talk 1W into 50 ohms kind of amps for HE-400... actually, it's probably best not to think too much about that.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Over at InnerFidelity, the LCD planars generally keep distortion at or below say, 1%. Hifiman's other planars are generally very good also, at around 1%. Very clean, very well behaved.
  
 The Abyss, despite its high price, is actually a little distort-ty (between 1-10% in places).
  
 The HE-400 looks the worse out of the group, but there are lots of observations to make. For one, the issues are mainly in the 200hz - 2.5 khz range, which are critical frequencies, but that is a narrow band. It is also measured with the pleathers, not the velours or modded pleathers (though I am not sure if the distortion would be any different. Finally, I always thought the general rule was that you wanted to see results less that 10% THD. Judging by all the peaks you can see, I would guess that average distortion is probably closer to 1%.
  
 Then there is the issue of deciding what is "audible" versus what is just "measurable". In any case, I think you are right that planars may show their worst performances in the midrange/treble areas - Large drivers trying to vibrate quickly. When I look at the very best dynamics, however, they always seem to post the worst THD values at the bass and treble extremes - yet they are somewhat linear typically. The look like they are optimized for midrange performance and suffer at the extremes. the relative opposite of what planars seem to do well (low THD bass and treble, distortion in the midrange).


----------



## SP Wild

I think it's the larger size of the planar driver - being very extremely effective at creating pressure waves of lower frequency.  The fact that transient response is faster than any dynamic means they do not have a problem with frequency extension.  I think the magnetic bars might pose as a kind of attenuator to the treble energy...although being more extended in response than dynamics the treble is of lower amplitude than the rest of the frequency response.  Which I believe, incidentally is a good thing for headphones as the attenuation of treble matches well known headphone HRTF models.
  
 To say that a planar is rolled of at the treble would not make sense, as a true roll-off would blunt transients.  Planars in the speaker world are renowned for making good tweeters and midrange drivers and in fact, are poor bass drivers.
  
 Actually, the more I think about it...I think it is just the tuning of planars to sound in a manner to exhibit its strengths.  Overall...the mids on all my planars exhibit the most realistic voices I've heard in headphones.  If you were to brighten the Planars to HD800 levels, sure the goodness of vocals is still there, but the qualities are slightly diminished by being masked by treble.


----------



## husthn

mrmateohead said:


> JCX - That's an interesting theory.
> 
> White Lotus - That would be my best guess. On the other hand, we are having a real headphone renaissance these days, as head-fi has been identified as a good niche for a lot of companies. Must be the success of Smart Phones or something. I would point out that a lot of flagships have what, 10 year runs? The HD 600/650 have been around forever. Seems only recently Sennheiser felt the pressure to really do something new and awesome.
> 
> ...




Could you tell more details about HE400i?


----------



## MrMateoHead

> Could you tell more details about HE400i?


 
 There are a few places online to read about the 400i, and a separate thread already devoted to rumors / speculation.
  
 They should be released next month, so we'll know lots by that time. I am most definitely going to consider them if they are a big improvement. Key issues with the HE-400 have been comfort, weight, and ergonomics. But sound quality has been noted for being awesome (especially with minor tweaks). I am expecting a more balanced sound signature with more speed and a more comfortable weight and fit. But I am hoping that the brightness / aggressiveness will be preserved as it serves a lot of genres well.


----------



## SP Wild

lord voldemort said:


> My Mad Dogs have more precision in the sound, especially in the sub-mid bass region. This is clear on acoustics tracks.
> 
> The problem I hear is present in piano music. It loses a lot of the dynamics that the artist intended (it's obvious because some scores have accents to them, and the Mad Dog do not portray them well). Everything seems "flattened" out to the same dynamic level. At first, I thought this was because the Mad Dogs were so neutral, and they are, not particularly emphasizing any particular frequency except the bass (to compensate for the vibrations that enter our bodies). But even with this in consideration, I feel like I'm hearing a wall of sound. I need to hear another planar magnetic can to confirm if this is just that kind of signature. MIdrange has less presence in my Mad Dogs for the most part, with a more artificial timbre.


 
  
 Yes you need to hear other planars.  I've gone through the how what and why of the stock T50RP in the original mod thread and will not repeat it again.  Suffice to say any can that is not of a pure open back design (semi-closed/semi-open is not an open back) will inevitably restrict maximum air pressure and precision of air pressure variation (some part of the frequency response) as induced by the electrical stimuli.  Take a guess at how that involves the definition of dynamics.  Bass needs a lot of air to be moved...and so to does piano notes....least is treble.  There is only so far you can go with the soft plastic of the T50RP cups.
  
 This is just plain and simple physics 101.
  


lord voldemort said:


> Oh yes it's definitely fast. The problem here has nothing to do with fastness. And no this applies to every song/ piece I've listened to out of the Mad Dogs. I've been trying to find comments about this 'wall of sound'. I've read it once somewhere but can't find that specific comment. Instead I've found:
> 
> "As Brooko said, I didn't say inferior.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Right...now I understand where this 'wall' of sound criticism for the LCD2 originated from...perpetuated by people who have no clue - and suffering from placebo.  They also have never been amongst the musicians in a performance.  Instead of mucking around with damping schemes, I suggest to just use an equaliser.  Any damping scheme that restricts air pressure in the powerful midrange and bass frequencies are not used in headphones...their job is to control lower and upper treble - it's just a fabric over the speaker...the treble - which involves minimal air pressure.
  
 It is true with my Grado HF2...they're fast in the uppermids to treble...much faster than the K701 and HD650.  Very quick in the midbass as well.
  


lord voldemort said:


> No not at all. The HD650 does sound heavy, mainly because of its midbass. I had the same impression with the M50s as well. The Mad Dog has a very neutral midbass... about the same amount as my HD598 actually.
> 
> Maybe one day when I get the chance, I'll be able to compare it with a HE-400 or another planar magnetic.
> 
> Oh and I didn't "upgrade" from anything. I own the HD598 currently, though I've auditioned numerous cans in the price range and above. No dynamic headphones sound quite like the Mad Dogs. My main interest currently with the Mad Dogs isn't really its "wall of sound" but rather the lack of dynamics. Everything feels dampened, and although this doesn't affect most genres of music, it does affect my piano music heavily. A friend came over to audition my two cans and he agreed that the Mad Dogs just can't compete with the HD598 in classical music (well excluding organ). But he loved the Mad Dogs for darker ambient music.


 
  
 I think the preference here is merely for the 'open' back characteristic of the HD598 over anything. 
  
 HD650, heavy?  in comparison to what?  Your HD598? some small bookshelf speaker? large 4 way active reference speakers with 15 inch bass drivers?  live instruments?  A real drumkit? other headphones?  WHAT?
  


proton007 said:


> From what I've read so far, dynamic and planar magnetic are two different technologies.
> Went through the article on innerfidelity by Tyll.
> 
> My observations so far:
> ...


 
  
 Bingo!
  
 we have a winner.
  

 Quote:


ultrabike said:


> When one passes a signal through a filter (or a headphone), the "processed" signal will not come out immediately. The signal will come out a bit later because hardware does not respond instantaneously to an stimulus. A bunch of junk will come out first depending on how "fast" the hardware is, and how it reacts to certain frequency stimulus. This junk that comes out first is usually referred to as a transient.
> 
> AFAIK, the impulse response represents the linear transient behavior of filter (or a headphone). I guess the less junk before and after the main peak of a headphone's impulse response, the "faster" the headphone.


 
  
  
  I have never ever been able to correlate the impulse response graph to anything I actually hear on headphones.  Least of all transient attack.
  

 Lesson I learned:  I need to read a thread from the start before wading in to a debate...not just the last page.  IMO, Planars have superceded dynamics by a good margin in the high end market, the only place that should be left for dynamics is portable, light, rugged, convenient headphones.


----------



## up late

^ good thing you added "IMO" coz that's all it is. planars haven't superseded high-end dynamic headphones or speakers.


----------



## SP Wild

This is a headphone forum and I mentioned nothing of speakers.


----------



## up late

^ you sure about that?

"HD650, heavy? in comparison to what? Your HD598? some *small bookshelf speaker? large 4 way active reference speakers with 15 inch bass drivers? live instruments? A real drumkit? other headphones? WHAT?"
*


----------



## HPiper

I am in the market to upgrade my phones, and like many of you I currently have the HD650's. I have been listening to a LOT of headphones recently and I agree there is definitely a difference in the sound from a planar headphone vs a dynamic headphone and it has little to do with the actual frequency response and probably little to do with distortion or transient response. I am not even sure which I like the most. To be totally honest I am have decided to sell off enough equipment so I can have 1 of each because the sound difference is so unique. The dynamic phones seems to have more impact and immediacy to them. If that is because the driver is moving a (comparatively)   larger amount of air or the way sound propagates from a dynamic vs a planar I don't know. The planar on the other hand is smoother sounding, as others have said when speaking of the HE400, the sound is effortless. A simplistic way to put it is like comparing a Grado to any other phone. The one is good at rock and the other best at classical and jazz. I have not heard a planar that sounded like a dynamic or a dynamic that would sound like a planar, though the HD800 comes close to the later.
  I don't think the technology exists to make a planar and a dynamic that sound the same right now. The dynamic would need to have an extremely light yet stiff diaphragm not to mention a magnet with a very uniform and strong field. Sennheiser will probably be the one to build it (HD1000?) and it will be the most expensive headphone on the planet.


----------



## SP Wild

up late said:


> ^ good thing you added "IMO" coz that's all it is. planars haven't superseded high-end dynamic headphones or speakers.


 

  Its all good, miscommunication is all.  I thought from this post that you have put words in my mouth, that I had said planars headphones were going to supercede speakers.
  
 HPiper:  My adventures started before the HD650, I had other senheisser headphones that I enjoyed immensely (HD497), had two channels mounted to standmounts - filled with sand even, and hometheatre setups...But it was the HD650 that threw all that out the window as it made me remember that I, long ago, had aspired to be a musician - and henceforth to use my own ears to asses for what I like in music and not let others tell me how to enjoy my music.  But I had always maintained that the whole lot sounded like rubbish compared to real life.
  
 The LCD2s - were the second revelation, I had not anticipated that headphones can sound so true to life in the frequency balance, they may not be perfect, but for its price, without EQ - they sound FAR more realistic than anything else - more so than even the HD800.  This is coming from not only music lessons from many years ago that I now remember but also a career using my ears as a diagnostic tool for machinery repairs - and resonance in car cabins induced by drivetrains and roadbumps. 
  
 There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the HD650 can do better than the LCD2s...dynamics? I don't think people even knows what this really means - no.  Depth of soundfield (soundstage) - no.  Frequency extension - no, imaging - no - zero, zilch, nada. 
  
 But it is not wrong for people to prefer the HD650, but to declare the HD650 can even approach the LCD2 on a technical basis - that is a lie - or wishful thinking - by people who have no clue.


----------



## TMRaven

sp wild said:


> There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the HD650 can do better than the LCD2s...dynamics? I don't think people even knows what this really means - no.  Depth of soundfield (soundstage) - no.  Frequency extension - no, imaging - no - zero, zilch, nada.


 
  
  
 Being lighter and having better production consistency.


----------



## SP Wild

tmraven said:


> Being lighter and having better production consistency.


 

 I'll give you lighter...but the only people who complain about production consistency are people who could not adopt to a neutral signature no matter what, for whatever reason be it mental or physiological.
  
 Heck, even my original R1 pads are a little uneven and if I listen hard enough, yes there is a channel imbalance - what cause of that, I'll take the 650 over the LCD2...you gotta be kiddin me, I'm here to enjoy music and approximate reality - not to nit pick.


----------



## up late

sp wild said:


> Its all good, miscommunication is all.  I thought from this post that you have put words in my mouth, that I had said planars headphones were going to supercede speakers.




i meant planar headphones and speakers. gotta say that it would be helpful to the conversation if you could chill. we get that you're a planar guy but there's no need to force it down folks throats like it's gospel. 

so here's my 2 cents. don't have a dog in this fight but am looking for a high-end open can. have auditioned some planars including the audeze lcd2 and 3. don't agree with you about the lcd2. thought it sounded closed-in with rolled-off highs. it might be your idea of "true to life" but it ain't mine.  liked the he6 a lot more than both audeze cans so guess i'm not a fan of the house sound. also heard the abyss which really impressed. they all lack the air that dynamics can give you and they're bloody heavy imo. the abyss was way more comfortable than the others but it won't be winning any beauty contests.


----------



## SP Wild

up late said:


> i meant planar headphones and speakers. gotta say that it would be helpful to the conversation if you could chill. we get that you're a planar guy but there's no need to force it down folks throats like it's gospel.
> 
> so here's my 2 cents. don't have a dog in this fight but am looking for a high-end open can. have auditioned some planars including the audeze lcd2 and 3. don't agree with you about the lcd2. thought it sounded closed-in with rolled-off highs. it might be your idea of "true to life" but it ain't mine.
> 
> ...


 

  hahah, here comes the 'you gotta chill' argument.  Just read my posts in a soothing voice.


----------



## up late

so you've heard it before? funny that.


----------



## higbvuyb

> Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I have never ever been able to correlate the impulse response graph to anything I actually hear on headphones.  Least of all transient attack.


 
 It's hard to directly interpret the appearance of an impulse response into what something sounds like, yes.It can show things like ringing at a particular frequency.
  
 However through the magic of the fourier transform, we can turn it into a CSD plot which is much more useful to look at.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> It's hard to directly interpret the appearance of an impulse response into what something sounds like, yes.It can show things like ringing at a particular frequency.
> 
> However through the magic of the fourier transform, we can turn it into a CSD plot which is much more useful to look at.


 

 And the problem with most CSD plots is that it tells me nothing about what happens below 1khz - where maybe 70 % (likely even more) of the energy of most music resides.  CSD still tells me nothing of driver articulation.
  
 Using a single CSD plot to cast judgement on a headphone would be idiotic to say the least.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> And the problem with most CSD plots is that it tells me nothing about what happens below 1khz - where maybe 70 % of the energy of most music resides.  CSD still tells me nothing of driver articulation.


 
 There's nothing inherent about a CSD plot that prevents you from seeing what happens below 1kHz. Perhaps if you have a short sample length you may not have enough room for the FT to work at the lower frequencies at later time values.
  
 You won't get any 'transients' below 1 kHz anyway.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> There's nothing inherent about a CSD plot that prevents you from seeing what happens below 1kHz. Perhaps if you have a short sample length you may not have enough room for the FT to work at the lower frequencies at later time values.
> 
> You won't get any 'transients' below 1 kHz anyway.


 

  How about precise articulation of the input signal below 1 khz?
  
 Where the majority of the information is, by far.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> How about precise articulation of the input signal below 1 khz?
> 
> Where the majority of the information is, by far.


 
 1. You'd have to define what 'precise articulation' actually means.
  
 2. Where are you getting 'the majority of the information'?
 The ear is more sensitive to higher frequencies (around 3 kHz) as it is adapted for human speech esp vowel sounds. Also mathematically higher frequencies contain more information than lower ones.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> 1. You'd have to define what 'precise articulation' actually means.
> 
> 2. Where are you getting 'the majority of the information'?
> The ear is more sensitive to higher frequencies (around 3 kHz) as it is adapted for human speech esp vowel sounds. Also mathematically higher frequencies contain more information than lower ones.


 

  Physically, there is more energy below 1khz...more energy necessitates more control in order to present the energy correctly.  Medically hearing damage occurs at the upper midrange and treble areas.  Some people - especially the younger ones, do not require a boost here to perceive 'details' 'air' and 'soundstage'.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> Physically, there is more energy below 1khz...more energy necessitates more control in order to present the energy correctly.  Medically hearing damage occurs at the upper midrange and treble areas.  Some people - especially the younger ones, do not require a boost here to perceive 'details' 'air' and 'soundstage'.


 
 You're still introducing terms without meanings that are grounded in reality like 'control' and 'present the energy correctly'.
 An impulse response or a CSD is very like a representation of energy (over time).
  
 There are specific difficulties in speaker or headphone design that can manifest in lower frequencies, e.g. room reflections or earpad resonances. However, these are addressed case-by-case, and nebulous terms like 'control' are not really helpful.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> You're still introducing terms without meanings that are grounded in reality like 'control' and 'present the energy correctly'.
> An impulse response or a CSD is very like a representation of energy (over time).
> 
> There are specific difficulties in speaker or headphone design that can manifest in lower frequencies, e.g. room reflections or earpad resonances. However, these are addressed case-by-case, and nebulous terms like 'control' are not really helpful.


 
  
 Take 2 common headphones...the HD650 and K701...play around with EQ to remove the effects of frequency masking.  If you can't work out the strengths and weaknesses of these headphones at particular frequency bands - well then I am at a loss.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> Take 2 common headphones...the HD650 and K701...play around with EQ to remove the effects of frequency masking.  If you can't work out the strengths and weaknesses of these headphones at particular frequency bands - well then I am at a loss.



It seems that your posts are all over the place so it might be a good idea for you to take a moment to collect your thoughts. There has to be something a bit more coherent or I can't really give you a response.


----------



## SP Wild

All I'm saying is, take whatever headphones you have and use an EQ as a diagnostic tool to understand more about audio reproduction - compare them to each other playing around with EQ to strip away masking effects. 
  
 Use the tools available to you effectively.  I only own a handful of reference cans - a good source, a good amp and an EQ was all that was needed for me to understand what is going on.
  
 You got guys here that jump from FOTM to FOTM or with god knows how many headphones, we got guys here and other forums with more tools available to them...yet they go around in circles - not having a clue as to what is going on.


----------



## briskly

sp wild said:


> And the problem with most CSD plots is that it tells me nothing about what happens below 1khz - where maybe 70 % (likely even more) of the energy of most music resides.  CSD still tells me nothing of driver articulation.
> 
> Using a single CSD plot to cast judgement on a headphone would be idiotic to say the least.


 
 The bulk of energy is below 1khz, but the ear is most discriminating in the high midrange and low treble. The ear basically works out so that we hear equal energy per octave (pink noise), so on a spectrum most music would look tilted towards the bass.


----------



## SP Wild

briskly said:


> The bulk of energy is below 1khz, but the ear is most discriminating in the high midrange and low treble. The ear basically works out so that we hear equal energy per octave (pink noise), so on a spectrogram most music would look tilted towards the bass.


 

  Understand what I am trying to say, I do not dispute you.
  
 But take a 300hz signal and a an 6khz signal - at the same amplitude, arrived at the ear...the 300hz signal contains far, far more energy...by miles. 
  
 Understand how the eardrum reacts to certain frequencies and we might understand why higher frequencies are more damaging to our hearing system.


----------



## higbvuyb

> Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> But take a 300hz signal and a an 6khz signal - at the same amplitude, arrived at the ear...the 300hz signal contains far, far more energy...by miles.


 
 At the same amplitude, a higher frequency sound has greater power.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> At the same amplitude, a higher frequency sound has greater power.


 
  
 How about energy required to propagate equal loudness as perceived by the individual.  Smart people know what I am trying to express, but I'll give you a round of applause for being much more smarter than I am.
  






 
  
 But boy that gives me a brief insight to how terrifying treble can be.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> How about energy required to propagate equal loudness as perceived by the individual.  Smart people know what I am trying to express, but I'll give you a round of applause for being much more smarter than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I know what you're trying to express, but it needs to have more of a basis in reality to discuss; after all this is the sound _science _subforum.
  
 Again, you should take some time to collect your thoughts and do some research on them so that there's something concrete to discuss. Alternatively you can ask in the cables subforum which is DBT free.


----------



## SP Wild




----------



## up late

higbvuyb said:


> I know what you're trying to express, but it needs to have more of a basis in reality to discuss; after all this is the sound _science_ subforum.




good point. i really shouldn't be here either. dunno what i was thinking.


----------



## bigshot

It's always good to be open to learn from the people around you. I try to pick friends who are smarter and more creative than I am in hopes a bit of it will rub off.


----------



## ultrabike

sp wild said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> ultrabike said:
> ...


 
  
 I have. Easiest if you use impulse response alternative visualizations such as Frequency Response and CSDs.
  
 Transient is an engineering term that refers to the behavior of a system before it reaches steady state. This applies to analog and digital systems.
  
 The mechanisms that affect transient response also affect overall tone, balance, soundstage, and so forth... not just drums.
  


sp wild said:


> I think it's the larger size of the planar driver - being very extremely effective at creating pressure waves of lower frequency.  The fact that transient response is faster than any dynamic means they do not have a problem with frequency extension.  I think the magnetic bars might pose as a kind of attenuator to the treble energy...although being more extended in response than dynamics the treble is of lower amplitude than the rest of the frequency response.  Which I believe, incidentally is a good thing for headphones as the attenuation of treble matches well known headphone HRTF models.
> 
> To say that a planar is rolled of at the treble would not make sense, as a true roll-off would blunt transients.  Planars in the speaker world are renowned for making good tweeters and midrange drivers and in fact, are poor bass drivers.
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it...I think it is just the tuning of planars to sound in a manner to exhibit its strengths.  Overall...the mids on all my planars exhibit the most realistic voices I've heard in headphones.  If you were to brighten the Planars to HD800 levels, sure the goodness of vocals is still there, but the qualities are slightly diminished by being masked by treble.


 
  
 Not sure why you think it's a fact that the LCD-2 has a "faster" transient response (an impulse response characteristic) than the HD650. From IF characterization, _relative_ to the main peak of the impulse response, I think there is about the same or less energy in the HD650 past 1.5 ms than in the LCD-2 case.
  
 Also not sure about "tremble matches well known headphone HRTF models", HRTF models vary quite wildly.
  
 Roll-off in the tremble does not mean shorter or "blunt" transients. It may mean less low frequency transients and more mid/high frequency transients.
  


sp wild said:


> Its all good, miscommunication is all.  I thought from this post that you have put words in my mouth, that I had said planars headphones were going to supercede speakers.
> 
> HPiper:  My adventures started before the HD650, I had other senheisser headphones that I enjoyed immensely (HD497), had two channels mounted to standmounts - filled with sand even, and hometheatre setups...But it was the HD650 that threw all that out the window as it made me remember that I, long ago, had aspired to be a musician - and henceforth to use my own ears to asses for what I like in music and not let others tell me how to enjoy my music.  But I had always maintained that the whole lot sounded like rubbish compared to real life.
> 
> ...


 
  
 In the bass range, the LCD-2 is IMO superior to the HD650. But not in the mids and treble regions. I found the LCD-2s I heard slightly more recessed in the mids and lower tremble. Relatively uneven as well. There might also be some product variation. I also do not like the LCD-2s price at all.


----------



## White Lotus

ultrabike said:


> In the bass range, the LCD-2 is IMO superior to the HD650. But not in the mids and treble regions. I found the LCD-2s I heard slightly more recessed in the mids and lower tremble.* Relatively uneven as well.*


 
  
 "Uneven"? How so?
  
 Channel imbalance?


----------



## ultrabike

There has been some reported channel imbalance issues w certain LCD-2s in the wild.
  
 Moreover, LCD-2 tend to exhibit a FR depression above 1 kHz and recover around ~15 kHz (upper treble). In between this region (1kHz to 15kHz) some bumpyness may develop between 6 to 10 kHz. Some more smooth and lesser bumps seem to occur through out the recession.
  
 As far as how that sounds to me. Well, a bit dark but retaining some air (perhaps due to said recession). Not a bad headphone IMO, but I wouldn't say it is superior to every single dynamic in every single department. Specially in the mids and treble region.


----------



## proton007

The HD650 would've been the reference. ..in 1996.

I'd say a better reference would be the HD800/700.


----------



## ultrabike

I don't consider the HD650 a reference in many departments. In the sub-bass area it's probably not reference material. I also slightly prefer the HD600 to the HD650. The upper mids and the treble are not without some bumps. However, I like the tone better than the LCD-2, HD700 and HD800.
  
 Furthermore I don't think the HD700 had a reference level upper mid and treble response at all. Relative to an HD6x0 model, the HD700 seems way more colored and bright.
  
 The HD800 OTOH needs some modding to tame it's analytic tone (somewhat lower treble emphasis and a little tilted response).
  
 The fact that the HD6x0 (& HD580) models have been able to hold their own even today is remarkable to me.


----------



## SP Wild

The only time the impulse response even remotely correlated with my listening is the PX100 and Portapros...very little cavity resonance so to speak of - as there really isn't any major cup cavities in those cans.


----------



## ultrabike

Well, cavity resonance might introduce standing waves, which in turn might introduce sort of a combing filtering effect. It could also just color the frequency response depending on the reflection(s) amplitude, phase, delay and so forth. IMO best to look for the effects in the FR or CSD which are both a function of the IR anyway.
  
 I have not heard or measured the PortaPros, but I have heard and measured a few KSC-75s which are somewhat similar. I think those have a null around 4 kHz. It could be due to some cup resonance (maybe around the edges at the front of the driver) or driver limitations or whatever. Either way, things like these may impact frequency response.
  
 As far as correlating measurements to what I've heard... Well, things are not perfect. Several places and people do them different. IMO best to use a baseline from the same site (preferably a can that you heard/own) and use them relative to such baseline.


----------



## SP Wild

Yes, Inner Fidelity is my baseline - Great big thanks to Tyll and his hardwork.


----------



## ultrabike

I also have a great deal of respect for Tyll and his work. However, when I talked about a baseline, I did not necessarily meant by that a particular website.
  
 What I meant was to take a look at a particular set of measurements of a headphone that one is fairly familiar with, from say Innerfidelity. Correlate ones own impressions to those measurements to form a baseline. Then look at the _differences _between those measurements and the ones of other headphones (from the same website), and get an idea how those differences affect perceived sound quality.


----------



## MrMateoHead

Or, Go over to headphone.com and set the graph to +- 10 dB and sit back in horror.


----------



## moses1258

This looks like a good place to post my quandry.
  
 Currently I have an HD-800 that I love through a tube amp (CSP2+), but I am looking for a complement.  I agree with most Head-fi posters and other industry people (Tyll) who say the 800's sound "analytical."  Most folks say the planars are the way to go and I agree that they do bass great.  The only thing is, I just don't get the level of detail that I do with my 800's.  So ultimately is that the trade off or am I just so enamored with my dynamic choice that no planar will sound as good.
  
 I may soon try an HE-6 and LCD-3 through a First Watt F3 and see if Nelson Pass can solve the issue
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 And for anyone in the know, might an HD650 be a good compliment (more bass please) to the HD800?
  
 Thanks.


----------



## Xenophon

moses1258 said:


> This looks like a good place to post my quandry.
> 
> Currently I have an HD-800 that I love through a tube amp (CSP2+), but I am looking for a complement.  I agree with most Head-fi posters and other industry people (Tyll) who say the 800's sound "analytical."  Most folks say the planars are the way to go and I agree that they do bass great.  The only thing is, I just don't get the level of detail that I do with my 800's.  So ultimately is that the trade off or am I just so enamored with my dynamic choice that no planar will sound as good.
> 
> ...


 
 I own the HD-800 and for my tastes too (classical music) their treble is a bit too harsh and they're just a bit too analytic/resolving, which can be a real pain with older recordings.  
  
 I like them on my tube amp, it takes them 'down' a bit (for a tube amp it's quite neutral with my TS 5998/RCA 'red hots') but the price to pay is a slight loss of clarity.  I also own the HE-500 and the HE-6, the 500 has an absolutely glorious midrange, it's voiced on the warmer side and does great with small ensembles/strings and vocals.  But again:  no hyper clarity.  
  
 The HE-6, lastly, brings everything to the table imho.  Only 2 problems:  it's a bear to drive (power) and (a small niggle) sometimes I find the treble just a bit on the hot side.  Nothing but praise for the rest; not the huge soundstage of the HD-800 but very neutral, clear, engaging.  If you try the 6, make sure to give them 50 hours to settle (manual emanations 150 hours burn in but that's overkill imo).  For me they represent the very best, except (maybe) for the electrostats that cost >12 kUSD with their amp.
  
 I have a FirstWatt F3 on order, will only be able to audition it mid april though.  Of the FirstWatt models it's the one that brings a 'tube sound' though still very clean and neutral to the table.  Or so they say/I hope.  Curious what you'll find.  If it works out that'll be my designated HE-6 rig and double as a room heater (15 W pure class A...200 Watt power use).  I also have a resistor box on order that will enable me to safely use it with the HD-800.
  
 Interesting times, I'll have to exercise my patience a bit.


----------



## moses1258

Thanks Xenophon.  It sounds like your experiences mirror mine.
  
 By the way, the best I ever heard the planars sound is through an RSA Darkstar.  Just don't want to lay down $3600!


----------



## Xenophon

moses1258 said:


> Thanks Xenophon.  It sounds like your experiences mirror mine.
> 
> By the way, the best I ever heard the planars sound is through an RSA Darkstar.  Just don't want to lay down $3600!


 
 Yes, the RSA amplifiers....I believe what you say but my problem with them is that the maker hardly lists any clear, technical details and specifications and lack of those is an instant kill in my book, especially at the price of the B-71.  Have to add that I never heard one of them myself, from what I gathered here in the community they're working with extreme gain, also not a very good thing in my book.  I read one quite positive review about the Darkstar on Headphonia but that didn't help either because while I like the guys running the site, I find that more often than not I disagree with their assessment of gear that I also own.
  
 A fellow Head-Fi'er (handle's preproman) is also a big HE-6 fan and he's tested MANY headphone and speaker amps (ss and tube) with them, I believe he must be one of 3 or so real hands on experts with the HE-6, especially where speaker amps are concerned and I trust his judgment.  Nowadays he uses a FW F1-J amplifier; according to him the best he ever heard the HE-6 with was with the Sim Audio 600i Amplifier.  Problem was, in his next sentence he mentioned the price tag:  a cool 8k USD.  That's too rich for me.


----------



## moses1258

xenophon said:


> Yes, the RSA amplifiers....I believe what you say but my problem with them is that the maker hardly lists any clear, technical details and specifications and lack of those is an instant kill in my book, especially at the price of the B-71.  Have to add that I never heard one of them myself, from what I gathered here in the community they're working with extreme gain, also not a very good thing in my book.  I read one quite positive review about the Darkstar on Headphonia but that didn't help either because while I like the guys running the site, I find that more often than not I disagree with their assessment of gear that I also own.
> 
> A fellow Head-Fi'er (handle's preproman) is also a big HE-6 fan and he's tested MANY headphone and speaker amps (ss and tube) with them, I believe he must be one of 3 or so real hands on experts with the HE-6, especially where speaker amps are concerned and I trust his judgment.  Nowadays he uses a FW F1-J amplifier; according to him the best he ever heard the HE-6 with was with the Sim Audio 600i Amplifier.  Problem was, in his next sentence he mentioned the price tag:  a cool 8k USD.  That's too rich for me.


 
 I own an RSA Intruder and it is a very good amp.  Only thing is the volume pot developed "scratchyness" within a couple of weeks.  That seems way too soon to me.  Some folks have said all you have to do is turn it back and forth quickly, but that seems like a rather "stopgap" method.  Also, I've read that the chips in the DS have very bad noise characteristics and that combined with the extreme ouput levels would probably lead to a small amount of noise...I've read about this in the DS post.  I still thought it sounded great at Canjam, but at venues like that I may not be able to judge the "quietness" of an amp.  I, like you, like a dead silent amp...I listen to classical music and notice any noise during silent passages.
  
 To get this thread back on track, I will wait for the F3 and various planars to see if I can get the level of reproduction I want.  Maybe dynamics are the only way to go for me.


----------



## JamesHuntington

I got the wall of sound with my yh100. That was one of my first impressions compared with the dynamic. The Yamaha ability to play multiple sounds without overloading them puts them ahead of dynamic IMO. I could hear sound coming from many different areas inside the hp, which I don't hear in dynamic to this day. It reminds me of the difference between a one way and a three way speaker system.


----------



## MrMateoHead

True - you can't beat the "realism" and "space" that planars can deliver. When I listened to crowd noise and realized, for the first time, that it didn't sound like white noise, I knew I was experiencing something new. Some dynamics and speakers are really, really, good, but planars' ability to separate out and render individual pieces of a recording are uncanny at times.


----------



## SP Wild

ultrabike said:


> I have. Easiest if you use impulse response alternative visualizations such as Frequency Response and CSDs.
> 
> Transient is an engineering term that refers to the behavior of a system before it reaches steady state. This applies to analog and digital systems.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You talk of all these measurements...it sounds like this to me. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
  
 Frankly transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements you state.  I can only trust my ears...cymbals, snares, kick drums, piano key strikes, cowbell strikes, guitar plucks - these have an attack that gives away to me what might be going on.
  
 If cymbals on the HD650 sound rough and grained - not like cymbals in real life, and on a Fostex T50 RP, LCD2, HD800, SE530, D7000, T1- regardless of treble amplitude produce a crisp real precise sound - like in a ride cymbal, it sounds so much true to life with minimal graining what can I hypothesise?
  
 The only logical hypothesis is that on the HD650, the driver is not accurately tracking the electronic signal.  If not, why not?  On the other cans the definition on ride cymbal sounds correct regardless of amplitude, if so why so, we can hypothesise that possibly because the driver more accurately tracks the signal?  Its not just cymbals either, it encompasses all of the sounds I listed before.
  
 Planars are quick - the 80 dollar T50RP Fostex has far superior cymbal definition and piano key definition than the HD650 - regardless of poor housing or frequency response.
  
 LCD2s recessed in the mids?  you mean upper mids? upper mids being the same thing as lower treble.  Regardless...what if I told you it doesn't sound all that recessed to me at reference volume.  If one person is adamant that it is muffled and another person is adamant that it is not - who do we believe?  Perhaps one is listening at lower volumes so it sounds muffled - how low?  If lower than an actual performance level - or reference level, then this is void as neutral cannot be established below reference - we become subject to the loudness curves.  If opposing views are presented at reference levels than we can hypothesise that one person is hearing the upper frequencies at a magnified level compared to the other.  If so, why so? All these hypothesis are entirely falsifiable and falls within the jurisdiction of science.  I do not have the equipment to falsify these hypothesis - but they are open to be falsified.
  
 Your assumption seems to be that drummers merely bash on the kit with no consideration to their band members...and what if the leading lady would like to perform a ballad?  The key aspect with band members is to listen very carefully to one another - not play to drown another out, this requires careful playing to matching volumes by everyone, we do this by listening carefully to each other...especially when hardly always only drumming to heavy metal - ask the leading lady, she likes to perform love songs all the time.  Don't underestimate any member of the 5 piece band - they know the sound of their members instruments very well - and often switch positions if necessary.  The guitarist often can drum, the pianist often can guitar - enough for practice to continue.
  
 The whole idea of recreating music in the audience perspective is flawed - musicians play to themselves, not to you.  In classical music - only the Maestro knows how an orchestral piece sounds - he conducts for himself, not for you. 
  
 The LCD2 is not perfect, but any planar to my ears are faster than most dynamics, and the best planars are faster than the best dynamics to my ears.  Yes the HD800 has a smoother, more even treble response - it must, it is peaked there.  But in no way to me do the attack of instruments sound more precise than the LCD2 - in all my amps - regardless of amplification and dac.  I'm confident to say, the HD800 is no more articulate than the 80 dollar Fostex T50 RP.


----------



## Xenophon

@SP Wild:  Are the LCD's good with classical?  Never heard 'em so I can't say but based on the reviews I read I had discounted them (especially the 3) for that genre (which is, apart from some jazz/blues what I listen to).  I do agree that one of the benchmarks (for my ears) is the way a piano note or cymbal is rendered, many fall flat there (no pun intended), sometimes it's the cans, sometimes the amp.


----------



## SP Wild

I'm generally not a classical listener...and never tried the LCD2 for classical, until just recently actually.  Though I don't generally listen to classical - I do understand music when it is presented to me.  In my opinion - listening at 'moderate levels' I would say a brighter headphone would indeed connect with the recorded message better.  For large scale symphonies it might work well - but at the moment I do not have a headphone amplifier powerful enough to hit the 'realistic' peak levels without running into compression and distortion.  Until I can setup my reference rig I am unable to give a yes to classical.
  
 Personally I would reach for a brighter can if I truly wanted to enjoy classical on a subjective level.  However I have never attended a live classical performance, nor do I know what a maestro would hear.  The general consensus seems true to me with regards to classical.


----------



## bigshot

Classical music utilizes acoustic instruments with very specific sounds that people instantly recognize. It is very easy to tell an amplified violin from an unamplified one because of all of the complex harmonics in a real violin. Roll off some frequencies here or boost a couple there and it doesn't sound real at all. That's why classical music and acoustic jazz are the two types of music that benefit the most from an accurately balanced frequency response.


----------



## SP Wild

I'm more inclined to believe that different compensation curves are used for recording different music genres in anticipation of the playback system a market segment might have more of.  As in compensation curves are different to cinema (X-curve), commercial music (B&K house curves), audiophilia (bright systems).


----------



## bigshot

The goal of high fidelity sound is a flat frequency response. The only problem is creating real world transducers that can do that. That's why we have EQ or tone controls to correct for imbalances in headphones and speakers.
  
 All music benefits from a flat response because that is the baseline calibration the recording studio used to create it.


----------



## SP Wild

The goal is to reproduce the music as the producer intended.  Sales and marketing drives everything.  Audiophile systems never have tone controls to compensate for these factors. Listening levels throw everything out the window.
  
 I like digital EQ, Tube amps and silver cables.


----------



## White Lotus

xenophon said:


> Are the LCD's good with classical?


 
  
 To my ears, in a word, yes. 
  
 Accuracy.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> You talk of all these measurements...it sounds like this to me. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.


 
 It's just basic signal processing theory. You could easily understand what everyone is saying with just a little bit of effort put into learning.
  


> Frankly transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements you state.  I can only trust my ears...cymbals, snares, kick drums, piano key strikes, cowbell strikes, guitar plucks - these have an attack that gives away to me what might be going on.


 
 This is impossible; impulse response is by definition a transient.


> If cymbals on the HD650 sound rough and grained - not like cymbals in real life, and on a Fostex T50 RP, LCD2, HD800, SE530, D7000, T1- regardless of treble amplitude produce a crisp real precise sound - like in a ride cymbal, it sounds so much true to life with minimal graining what can I hypothesise?
> 
> The only logical hypothesis is that on the HD650,* the driver is not accurately tracking the electronic signal*.  If not, why not?  On the other cans the definition on ride cymbal sounds correct regardless of amplitude, if so why so, we can hypothesise that possibly because the driver more accurately tracks the signal?  Its not just cymbals either, it encompasses all of the sounds I listed before.


 
 This is true, but...
  


> Planars are quick - the 80 dollar T50RP Fostex has far superior cymbal definition and piano key definition than the HD650 - regardless of poor housing or frequency response.


 
 ...it has nothing to do with planars being 'quick'.
  
 Any kind of distortion will prevent the driver from 'accurately tracking the electronic signal', be it distorted frequency response, poor damping, harmonic distortion, etc.
  
 You keep asserting that certain drivers are 'faster' than others; can you actually define what 'fast' actually means in rigorous terms, without contradicting established signal processing theory?
  
 So far you've asserted that something is fast because you can hear it and you can trust your ears; you can hear it because it sounds fast. That's just a _bit_ circular.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> It's just basic signal processing theory. You could easily understand what everyone is saying with just a little bit of effort put into learning.
> 
> *I understand what people are saying.  I am saying our measurements are not complete IMO or we are attributing different factor to the wrong measurements.*
> 
> ...


----------



## higbvuyb

> *I understand what people are saying.  I am saying our measurements are not complete IMO or *


 
 This is hard to believe, considering comments like "transients cannot be seen in any of the measurements"
  


> we are attributing different factor to the wrong measurements.


 
 This is definitely an issue. People often look at square waves and assess them in terms of how 'nice' they look, which is completely irrelevant to how the headphones actually sound. The things that people readily notice in graphs aren't necessarily the most important feature in terms of describing sound.
  


> By your argument,


 
 That isn't an argument; It's the definition of 'transient' and 'impulse response'.
  


> we can all end our headphone searches with the PX100 and KossPorta Pro - because their impulse response is better than all the summit fi cans.


 
 'Better'?
  
 [citation needed]
  
 If you think they have 'better' impulse responses, you aren't reading the impulse response correctly.
  


> *I believe cups contribute into the measurement...not just the driver.  The T1 has higher distortion than the HD650....but the T1 does sound clearer and more defined.  The HD650 certainly is yesterday's flagship - the T1 sounds clearly like a current flagship*.  *Cup characteristics does not necessarily impede the drivers ability to articulate.*


 
 By 'driver' I'm referring to the entire headphone system, not just the movement of the diaphragm. What it means is "accurately tracking the electronic signal" has nothing to do with being 'fast'; it's related to _any_ kind of distortion.
  
 The T1 sounds like it has peaky treble around 6-10 kHz.
  


> *I am giving a very valid hypothesis to the divide between subjective hearing and established measurements.  It is you that claim absolute knowledge and certainty without the inclusion of reasonable doubt. *


 
 It isn't a valid hypothesis. The first thing a valid hypothesis has to be is falsifiable, and your "fast" theory isn't.
  
 And it hardly bridges a divide between hearing and measurements if you can't point to a measurement and say "fast headphones have this"
  
 The only certainties I've claimed are when your ideas contradict established, basic signal theory.


----------



## SP Wild

PX100II impulse
  


 PortaPros
  


 HD800
  
 higbvuyb:  Going by your absolutes...the PX100 and PortaPros have better 'transients' or 'speed' or whatever than the 'perfect' HD800.  I attribute different factors other than 'transient' or 'speed' or 'articulation' for these, but seeing as anything I say is coming from a lowly layman - it will be immediately discounted by so called 'scientists'.  So I shall keep them to myself.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Square waves at 30 hz can only say what is happening at 30 hz - nothing else.  I think the square waves at 'middle C' could say something about my preferences and what I hear...but this lowly layman has run out of patience with you 'scientists'. 
  
 Do any of you actually introduce yourself as 'scientist' to other people.  I actually had a roommate from America for the whole of last year that was indeed a Nuclear Physicist, designed new cooling systems for nuclear reactors to avoid the tragedy in Japan.  I treated him like a protege seeing as he looked up to me so much.


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> higbvuyb:  Going by your absolutes...the PX100 and PortaPros have better 'transients' or 'speed' or whatever than the 'perfect' HD800.  I attribute different factors other than 'transient' or 'speed' or 'articulation' for these, but seeing as anything I say is coming from a lowly layman - it will be immediately discounted by so called 'scientists'.  So I shall keep them to myself.


 
  
 There's still nothing there explaining why you think the HD800 graph is 'worse' than the Portapro's.
  
 Sure, the HD800 graph probably 'looks worse' to you. So? Nobody _hears_ with _your eyes_. It's just that you're unable to validly interpret the graph.
  


> Square waves at 30 hz can only say what is happening at 30 hz - nothing else.  I think the square waves at 'middle C' could say something about my preferences and what I hear...but this lowly layman has run out of patience with you 'scientists'.


 
 Nope. A 30 Hz square wave contains every single odd harmonic above 30 Hz.
  
 This is what I mean about you not understanding what people are saying. Without a basic knowledge of mathematics, the best one can do is have the illusion of understanding. This has nothing to do with 'scientists' - any person could pick up this basic understanding.
  
  
 Did you have a valid hypothesis for your 'fast driver' theory yet? I'm still interested in hearing it.


----------



## SP Wild

Agreed about the 30 hz....the closer the headphone is to neutral the closer it looks like a square.  So going by your logic...according to the impulse I posted up...the HD800 transient response is poorer than a 50 dollar can?
  
 Educate me...what is the meaning of the impulse response graph?


----------



## higbvuyb

sp wild said:


> Agreed about the 30 hz....the closer the headphone is to neutral the closer it looks like a square.  So going by your logic...according to the impulse I posted up...the HD800 transient response is poorer than a 50 dollar can?


 
 This is again, wrong. While the ideal is a perfect rectangular shape (after compensation), that doesn't mean "it looks worse to me" = "it sounds worse". Nobody listens with your eyes.
  


> Educate me...what is the meaning of the impulse response graph?


 
 The meaning of an impulse response is that it represents the system's response to an impulse (a type of transient). That's not so hard.
  
 As for visually interpreting it? That's what the Fourier transform is for.


----------



## SP Wild

higbvuyb said:


> This is again, wrong. While the ideal is a perfect rectangular shape (after compensation), that doesn't mean "it looks worse to me" = "it sounds worse". Nobody listens with your eyes.
> 
> *Now you're arguing my point.  The measurements do not reveal the whole picture.*
> 
> ...


 
  
 You and I are in a zero sum argument.  You're already starting to not make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## higbvuyb

> Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> *Now you're arguing my point.  The measurements do not reveal the whole picture.*


 
 The point is: people are bad at reading measurements correctly. This is why you think impulse responses have nothing to do with transient response.
  


> *OK, then judging by the impulse graphs I posted - which headphone has the better 'system response to a type of transient'.  The 50 dollar can or the 1500 dollar can?  Which one? *


 
 Easy. Looking at the impulse response with the most relevant tool for analysis (the magnitude response), the HD800 is clearly more linear (esp in the 10-1000 Hz region).
  
 Going by your reply, you didn't really understand my sentence so you really should revise the definitions of terms like 'transient' or 'impulse' or 'response'.
  


> You and I are in a zero sum argument.  You're already starting to not make any sense whatsoever.


 
 I concede that it may be a bit difficult to understand for you, but it really isn't that hard once you give it a try. Here's a very simple explanation of the FT.
  
 There's no need for you to be argumentative; I'm trying to help you to understand.


----------



## dhruvmeena96

Well guys, the sound wall effect you get from any planar type speaker is due to a very different impulse it produces compared to dynamic. Dynamic can pull air back and push it and planar only vibrates the air, hence filling it...

Electrostatic is better in the terms as the sound is more controlled due to signal plates or electret... And diaphragm is a charge sheet getting attracted through and fro.. This creates a dynamic driver piston sound while keeping a bigger surface area and planar level thin and light film....so they sound relatively cleaner and more natural than planar magnetic.

Planar magnetic is a signal driven film between a set of magnet and can be under damped and weird in impulse what we receive in our eardrum. So manufacturers damp them both electrically, mechanically and physically..

This is what planar all about(audeze damps a lot, sacrificing sensitivity and increasing heck of impedance, but not with LCD 4z).

HiFiman does it electrical way only so they are seen to be less damped by foam etc.

Dynamic driver is more conventional and is nearly for a century now. The only drawback is impedance of coil and diaphragm thickness issue.

Some people are creating self biased film electrostatic(dharma headphones) and circular planar magnetic with center core movement(oppo pm1)

They are taking best of all worlds but are still a new concept which can be still improved upon


----------



## 71 dB

dhruvmeena96 said:


> Well guys, the sound wall effect you get from any planar type speaker is due to a very different impulse it produces compared to dynamic. Dynamic can pull air back and push it and planar only vibrates the air, hence filling it...



Planar speakers have_ bigger_ directivity, because the area of radiation is_ larger_. The radiation pattern is very different compared to typical boxed speakers and direct sound from a planar speaker dominates more compared to the reflections and reverberation in the listening room.


----------



## dhruvmeena96

71 dB said:


> Planar speakers have_ bigger_ directivity, because the area of radiation is_ larger_. The radiation pattern is very different compared to typical boxed speakers and direct sound from a planar speaker dominates more compared to the reflections and reverberation in the listening room.


Well this is also true

But the hard piano sound is due to bigger directivity and a little weird impulse


----------



## Hangling

I think Dynamic headphones have strong bass. But they often produce high levels of audio distortion. As for planar magnetic headphones, they have low sound distortion and better response.


----------

