Anonymous
10/15/2025, 2:32:23 AM
No.106891729
>>106891450
>Actual transient speed is only determined by FR and is fully EQable.
false by definition. FR doesn't tell you time-domain behavior. Two drivers can have identical FRs but very different impulse decay and subjective articulation. You can EQ them to the same curve, but you won’t get the same texture or “speed” because the mechanical response differs.
>Everything you mentioned only affects FR
That’s a half-truth turned into a fallacy. Yes, those factors influence FR — but they also define transient and distortion behavior independently. Similarly, damping affects both how much a frequency is reproduced (FR) and how long it rings (time domain). EQ can mimic the first part, not the second.
>IEM drivers don't ‘ring’ even for a single cycle
That’s demonstrably false.
Ring-downs appear clearly in CSDs and burst decay plots when the measurement window and smoothing aren’t excessive.
In high-Q resonant regions (especially >6 kHz or in BA nozzles), ringing is absolutely measurable — it’s just often buried under aggressive smoothing.
It’s also audibly observable as timbral smear or “zing.” You can EQ the amplitude down, but the underlying mechanical behavior remains.
>Crossovers smear the impulse but it still sounds fast.
You’re confusing phase smearing (a crossover artifact) with mechanical rise/settle speed.
Crossovers shift phase alignment, which may blur the impulse response on paper, but doesn’t define the micro-dynamics of diaphragm control.
That’s why multi-BA sets can still sound “fast” BAs have low moving mass and high damping, not because the crossover is doing magic.
FR and impulse response are transforms of the same ideal system — not the same physical system. EQ can change amplitude and phase, but not the diaphragm’s inertia or damping. You can’t FIR-filter your way to better motor control.
>Actual transient speed is only determined by FR and is fully EQable.
false by definition. FR doesn't tell you time-domain behavior. Two drivers can have identical FRs but very different impulse decay and subjective articulation. You can EQ them to the same curve, but you won’t get the same texture or “speed” because the mechanical response differs.
>Everything you mentioned only affects FR
That’s a half-truth turned into a fallacy. Yes, those factors influence FR — but they also define transient and distortion behavior independently. Similarly, damping affects both how much a frequency is reproduced (FR) and how long it rings (time domain). EQ can mimic the first part, not the second.
>IEM drivers don't ‘ring’ even for a single cycle
That’s demonstrably false.
Ring-downs appear clearly in CSDs and burst decay plots when the measurement window and smoothing aren’t excessive.
In high-Q resonant regions (especially >6 kHz or in BA nozzles), ringing is absolutely measurable — it’s just often buried under aggressive smoothing.
It’s also audibly observable as timbral smear or “zing.” You can EQ the amplitude down, but the underlying mechanical behavior remains.
>Crossovers smear the impulse but it still sounds fast.
You’re confusing phase smearing (a crossover artifact) with mechanical rise/settle speed.
Crossovers shift phase alignment, which may blur the impulse response on paper, but doesn’t define the micro-dynamics of diaphragm control.
That’s why multi-BA sets can still sound “fast” BAs have low moving mass and high damping, not because the crossover is doing magic.
FR and impulse response are transforms of the same ideal system — not the same physical system. EQ can change amplitude and phase, but not the diaphragm’s inertia or damping. You can’t FIR-filter your way to better motor control.