Headphones vs Speakers.....Go!

[esldude]

11 hours ago, hdo said:

You will never enjoy "high-resolution" sound with speakers as mandated by the laws of physics. High-resolution headphones' common frequency range is 10Hz ~ 50KHz that speakers never match. Headphone drivers are small. So it lacks bass volumes. But it can be easily corrected with bass boosting using equalizer of player software. Once you this setup, you will enjoy bass with headphones.

Let us be real now.  There are speakers that reach past 20 khz (not that your hearing does).  There are speakers easily able to move well enough without violating the laws of physics.  And there is no way you can pump up below 50 hz bass to mimic at all the experience over speakers.  Headphones have plenty of advantages, but no need to tell un-truths about speakers to make that point. 

 

I'm one who always prefers speakers, even pretty poor speakers over headphones.  I use headphones when I must.  Headphones can be used like a magnifying glass to find details that might be missed over speakers.  

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

can you explain what you mean in 1 & 2?

No he can't because he is mistaken.  

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, hdo said:

Did you study physics?

As part of an engineering curriculum.  

 

 

[esldude]

21 hours ago, hdo said:

You need to take laws of physics into account: inertia and momentum of drivers. Speaker drivers are very heavy. They cannot move fast to produce accurate sound. This is well-known fact! That's why they adopt alternative technology such as magnetic planar and electro-static. Electro-static force is very weak force. So it cannot generate volume. Magnetic planar uses stronger magnetic force. Perfect for headphones. But it cannot extend to speaker level naturally. You need over-engineering like Magnepan speakers.

 

Yes speaker drivers are relatively heavy.  So they require more power to move fast enough to accurately reproduce sound.  But nothing has prevented that from being realized.  Speakers do produce accurate detailed sound.  So your fact is not factual. 

 

Good near field monitors listened to closer than 2 meters in a quiet studio can match headphones for detail.  

 

ESLs do sometimes have extended response.  Much of the reason they are used is to drive one panel with all frequencies so multiple drivers from multiple physical points don't have to blend with crossovers to produce the final sound.  They are inefficient, but can play around or above 100 db in room so not the loudest available, but loud enough.  

 

Maggies are not over-engineered, simply engineered to meet their goals.    

 

Again every approach involves some compromises and every approach has problem areas to be overcome to achieve good sound quality.  You don't have to tell un-truths about speakers to say you prefer headphones or even to say headphones have some very good qualities. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, hdo said:

You don't understand things relating speakers. Your response show that.

Are dome tweeters heavier than electrostatic panels?  Sort of kind of.  The thinner mylar panels don't have much more density than the air.  Tweeter domes do, but aren't tremendously heavy.  We aren't talking about moving several ounces for instance. The dome diaphragm itself is measured in grams. Its weight(mass actually) is offset by being able to wind tightly around it a voice-coil which can supply some pretty intense motivation to that dome. Ribbons and Maggie style panels are in between the two.  All three can be driven enough to move at ultrasonic frequencies at low distortion.  In fact many conventional headphone elements are the size roughly of the dome tweeters or even larger, but don't have more than a good fraction of a watt available to drive them at high frequencies.  Should we conclude headphones are too under-powered to have good detail?

 

Your comment about heavy speakers is ignoring we can put 10, 20, 200 watts of power toward moving them.  Mass alone, displacement alone, frequency alone does not tell us anything. With the right power applied we could yes move a car back and forth at 20,000 hz.  It would take lots of power and to have it follow a wave with fidelity would take some kind of control system over the movement, but in theory quite doable.  In practice it is regularly achieved for dome tweeters.  So your thinking on this is misguided about what is important.  Some electrostat mylar panels weigh little more than the diaphragm in some conventional headphones.  All of this tells you nothing about which type of transducer has the most detail without looking at all the particulars.  

 

You are trying to over-simply and in the process abusing physics to reach a dubious conclusion. 

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, hdo said:

Actually if you look at coils of large speakers, they are quite thick and heavy. Coils have to move to push and pull cons. Weight makes them difficult to move fast. So distortion is necessary.

No distortion is not necessary or guaranteed.   There are plenty of speakers that play at those high frequencies at low distortion. Whether you understand all this or not that fact:

the existence of low distortion speakers capable of clean ultrasonic frequency response should give you reason to reconsider your ideas on this.