^Try the first post.
We need a better way to explain "resolution" to planar people...I think Marv, Anax, ultra and I all hear it but we keep running into this descriptor conundrum when trying to explain it....Resolution is, as I have come to define it independently from what I hear as well as what I glean from others, the ability to portray information on the recording. The ability to render the picture/frame in its entirety if we want to use the video analogy. It's not a big leap to extend that definition to include both microdetail (plankton, inner-whatever, etc) and spatial information (ambient cues, precise imaging, etc.)
Just finally reading through this thread, and this ^^^ is EXACTLY how I feel comparing the ability of the 650's vs the LCD-3F's. Thank you. I have never heard a planar that offers the resolution I hear from the 650's/800's. I would really enjoy if I could, but I haven't. The mistake I've made multiple times is thinking that more expensive headphones would naturally offer better resolution. Aha, fool me, you can't get fooled again!
I have never heard a planar that offers the resolution I hear from the 650's/800's.
It sounds crazy to the uninitiated because the planar drive mechanism is better on paper and a lot of people seem to expect cool-looking, exotic tech and big price tags to go hand-in-hand with superior performance. But the proof is in the pudding. Dynamics tend to be more resolving for whatever reason.
