I’ve been thinking about this as part of my own quest to understand what are the factors that affect sound quality, real or perceived. And I started this other thread, to discuss an aspect of this, the import of drivers, dynamic or otherwise, linked below.
Apologies if I do not post all the evidence here, of the things I’m fairly sure of, cos these are things that can be easily verified, by anyone. And hopefully this is not as “academic” and super evidence centric place to discuss, unlike some other forums - where only “expert” opinions are given any room to breathe - e.g ASR.
Out of the mouth of babes …
I have not yet come to a firm conclusion, on whether driver type matters or not, because, I would have to assemble a fairly decent number of listening devices of each type, and conduct a scientific test, with various participants, like the kind that Harman did to come up with their preference curve (you know what I mean, not just the curve but the range of preferred sound signatures in a head based listening device, or in a speaker e.g the room curve for speakers.). That is clearly beyond the resources of mere mortals, and probably beyond the resources of the one and only headphones.com, to invest in such an effort.
So we have to tease out some truth from information, in a round about manner. Hypothesis, and suspected evidence.
- In the other thread I propose that there may be a difference based on driver type, borrowing some truths that are not questioned in the professional music/audio world where dynamic microphones are NOT the preferred choice for any delicate recordings where the utmost accuracy is needed. For example, it is nigh on impossible, that anyone would record a real orchestra with a dynamic microphone. And almost certain that there would be not a single dynamic microphone in sight in the recording of a classical orchestra, or one of the opera greats - e.g Pavarotti, Placido Domingo, etc. No one records such outstanding performances with dynamic microphones. Never. Typically done with ribbons, or condenser (capacitor microphones) - why, Dynamics cannot capture the intended level of detail, with the same accuracy as a condenser - this is not conjecture - but FACT, non contestable FACT.
So there is every reason to extrapolate that using dynamic drivers, will impose a similar limitation on listening devices., making them what should be the last choice when choosing drivers for a speaker/headphone/IEM. In theory.
- In my limited experience, having listened to only one planar magnetic device, the ARTTI T10, I was shocked to discover a level of clarity, which was different from all the other budget listening devices I own, and also different from my AKG K702 headphone, which is not a “budget” device. I was not expecting such a difference. So just something I noticed.
When I compared the frequency responses of the ARTTI to IEM’s such as the 7Hz Zero 2, on squig.link, and some other IEMs I own, they were similar, yet I could not explain why they sounded so different. All the dynamic driver IEMs sounded similar, had the same “sound”, even though their frequency response was dissimilar, and the were not identical in measurements on squig.link.
I’m an audio engineer, so one of the 1st important thing one learns is the sound of limiting and compression. The sound of limiting and compression, is kind of like what I expect perfect pitch to sound like to those who have it. I do not have perfect pitch, but I easily “detect” the sound of a compressed recording or one which has been limited. It just has a “sound” and I can tell how much compresson or limiting has been added - just by listening to it. Sorry I have no way of explaining this further. How I learnt to detect this, is a story for, another day. Suffice to say, I know the signature of a compressed/limited processed audio. item.
On an exhaustive listening marathon, with my small set of IEMs, I discovered that it was so much easier for me to hear these artefacts of compression and limiting, via my dynamic IEMs, and here is my hypothesis, to explain this. Dynamic drivers are altering the transient response of audio in most likely two extremes. Dynamic drivers are adding more compression/limiting/expansion, of their own, making it even easier for me to hear the dynamic processing that is already contained in the audio/music
2.1 Limiting and Compression at the high point of excursion, as well as the sluggisness to move from Zero. Mass establishes a certain inertia or over excursion at the top of the excursion curve - i.e Due to the mass of the driver, on excursion, they are NOT able to stop and turn on a dime.
2.2 Similar to an Expander in Audio engineering, below a certain level, it is difficult for a dynamic driver to accurately represent the quiet signals, cos instead of finely tracking small changes, almost as if a dynamic driver has a kind of bit reduction, very similar to using a smaller number of bits to represent an audio recording. So a dynamic driver does not follow small changes well, kind of jumping broad levels. And especially for very low signals, it just goes back to Zero. In my listening, I hear these artefacts of some kind of change in the dynamic response/transfer function where compared to the planar magnetic of the ARTTI T10, the few dynamic IEMs such as the 7Hz Zero 2 and KZ SAGA Balanced, are “distorting” the signal. Especially of note is their poor performance at representing reverb trails, something which the ARTTI T10 does a much better job of, compared to every dynamic driver, head worn listening device I have heard.
So in conclusion - At this time, in spite of my limited sample set of listening devices, I am about as certain as I will ever be, YES, driver type does matter. From what I have heard so far, the planar magnetic device I have heard, in spite of having a similar frequency response, does not sound the same as any of the dynamic driver playback devices I own. And my layman’s hypotheses are defined above.
This view may run contra to the view of others, and all I ask is, please think through the reasons I have logically and painstakingly presented above, there must be some truth in these. I think of this as the theoretical physics, like Einstein did, and now we wait for experimental confirmation, in teh same way that we not too long ago had confirmation of gravitational waves, a prediction from theoretical physics.
I’d be happy to collaborate with, in any way I can, with anyone who has the experimental resources to examine these thoughts further, and test them practically, as I am unable to. But this is how the world should work, I should not have to be good at everything. If I can think of plausible causes, and others can assist to examine - debunk through practical experiments, or otherwise confirm there is truth in my assertions, either way, that would be great, cos we can move forward as people of knowledge.
The difference in clarity, especially on acoustic music, or any music with natural sounds such as reverb (real or artificial), when heard on the ARTTI T10, compared to the other dynamic IEMs, in my possession is significant, and the only explanation I have, since the measured frequency response is similar, has to be a difference in transient response.
If I can think of these things. I suspect that many people out there know the truth, that in my hypothesis, dynamic drivers in audio reproduction devices, are a cost based compromise(i.e. garbage that makes money for some), a fact well known by those who know more than me, but those who know - especially audio gear manufacturers, and the researchers, are keeping hush hush about this info - which would shake the entire audio world, if the cat was out of the bag, irrefutably.
Sadly all I have is a suspicion, based on what my ears are telling me, clearly, every time I compare planar vs dynamic., from my limited pool of IEM devices.