Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ultimate Ears Triple Fi 10 Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ultimate Ears Triple Fi 10 Appreciation Thread - Page 8

post #106 of 8053
3/30/08 at 12:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool_Torpedo View Post

Let's be clear, I don't expect any IEM to sound even close to a pair of HD600, DX1000, D5000 or R10, but if I can get a nice close up to any of those cans that I enjoy for different reasons, I'll be happy
Well, I've got the AKG K701s and the Audio Techinica W5000s and find the Triple.fi 10s superior to both. I don't own any of the Senns, but didn't like the 600 and 650s when I tried them, thinking that they sounded artificially warm in the mids and upper bass. I say that not to diss the Senns, but to help you understand my perspective.

Dave
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #107 of 8053
3/30/08 at 12:12am
I love the Triple.fi's. I would recommend anyone looking at dropping some $$$ on universal fit IEM's start with the Triple.fi's. I wasted a lot of time, and nearly gave up on IEM's all together before I found the Triple.fi's. For an IEM they sound fantastic, none of the harshness I associate with Shure, and nice extension on the highs unlike the UM2's.

That being said, to my ears the AKG 701's smack them around like a kitten with a ball of string. The only thing I would say the TF's do better is a bit more emphasis on the lower frequencies, althought the 701's are more controlled. Mind you I spend a lot more time with the Triple.fi's, as I can't exactly carry a DAC and a tube amp around with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Well, I've got the AKG K701s and the Audio Techinica W5000s and find the Triple.fi 10s superior to both. I don't own any of the Senns, but didn't like the 600 and 650s when I tried them, thinking that they sounded artificially warm in the mids and upper bass. I say that not to diss the Senns, but to help you understand my perspective.

Dave
Reply
post #108 of 8053
3/30/08 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
Well, I've got the AKG K701s and the Audio Techinica W5000s and find the Triple.fi 10s superior to both. I don't own any of the Senns, but didn't like the 600 and 650s when I tried them, thinking that they sounded artificially warm in the mids and upper bass. I say that not to diss the Senns, but to help you understand my perspective.

Dave
It's all about personal priorities regarding sound features. To my ears, regarding tonal balance, the HD600 are as neutral as a pair of cans can be. As for now, and we have measured over 10 different HP using serious measuring devices, they're the ones that measure closer to ruler flat, even more if you run them balanced. But flat measuring cans is not what most people would like, our hearing is not linear and tends to like slight enhancements in the extremes, specially if you don't listen particularly aloud.
I agree about the 650, they're artificially warm in the mid-upper bass and that makes them sound veiled in the lower highs. Balanced they improve.

Nontheless I'm very thankful for your posting your thoughts regarding the Tf10, that you like them over those cans is very significative and means that they can do many things right I can see them in my future hehehe.

Rgrds
Reply
post #109 of 8053
3/30/08 at 8:19am
Thread Starter 
wow just plugged these in, with my tomahawk, freakn awesome, everytime i plug these in i hear some new stuff in my tracks - wowsers!
Reply
post #110 of 8053
3/30/08 at 8:43am
Interesting chart for the Triple.Fi:


Reply
post #111 of 8053
3/30/08 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slwiser View Post
Interesting chart for the Triple.Fi:
UE are upfront about the Triple-Fi's response going up to 17,000 hz. Such sweet treble; it's interesting what it suggests about the relative importance of high frequencies.
Reply
post #112 of 8053
3/30/08 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slwiser View Post
Interesting chart for the Triple.Fi:
It's a fantastic measurement graph, but it's not even close to other graphs I've seen like this one:


I know measuring these tiny earphones accurately is very difficult, that's why we don't even dare to try, and the cause I really don't take very seriously their measurements and prefer to trust my ears. To me not seeing the 8KHz peak and the response under 1KHz with just a +5dB enhancement in the mid-upper bass, is quite enough to be interested in hearing them.

Thanks for the graph, very useful and interesting for comparison Regards
Reply
post #113 of 8053
3/30/08 at 11:45am
They are the very same graphs, but using a different logarithmic scale.
Reply
post #114 of 8053
3/30/08 at 11:46am
I don't know how the first graph was done, but the HeadRoom graphs are all "adjusted" to allow for how the ear interacts with the IEMs. Unfortunately, none of us are the same, so any "adjustment" is arbitrary. This also partially explains why some of us love certain IEMs and others hate the same IEMs.

So, we have to be careful with any IEM chart. I wonder if that first graph is unadjusted. Given its flatness I'm thinking that it's unadjusted.

Dave
Reply
post #115 of 8053
3/30/08 at 11:56am
There's to be noted that foam tips are said to give a sweeter midrange than silicon tips. This should due to the better seal.
Reply
post #116 of 8053
3/30/08 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by antonyfirst View Post
They are the very same graphs, but using a different logarithmic scale.
Not really mate. The first graph doesn't show any sort of dip from 1KHz up to 10KHz, being very finicky, a very small one at around 4.5KHz (not more than 3-5dB IMO) and some flat increases, while the Headroom's, whose line steps are 20-200-2000 Hz instead of the 10-100-1000Hz of the first one, shows a quite big dip of -12dB between 3.5 to 5.5 (more or less) KHz. Also take a look at the midtreble peak, one graph has it at around 6.5KHz while the Headroom's has it in the same 8KHz area that the Super.fi 5Pro has it, but way way less prominent.

If that's due to the different measurement techniques, mics, dummy ears, software or any sort of correction Headroom introduces into their graphs, I can't know. Nevertheless both are commandably flat measurements in the areas which I care most.

Rgrds
Reply
post #117 of 8053
3/30/08 at 1:55pm
Yeah but look at the scale on the side. The top one starts at -30db, whereas the headroom one is adjusted for neutrality (i.e. surrounding 0db). They're the same in relation to each other but db is a logarithmic scale meaning that an increase of 10db means that it's 10 times louder or the differences are 10 times more apparent.
Reply
post #118 of 8053
3/30/08 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc87 View Post
Yeah but look at the scale on the side. The top one starts at -30db, whereas the headroom one is adjusted for neutrality (i.e. surrounding 0db). They're the same in relation to each other but db is a logarithmic scale meaning that an increase of 10db means that it's 10 times louder or the differences are 10 times more apparent.
Both are logarithmic, since both are using dB as measuring sound pressure unit, and dB is a logarithmic parameter by definition. The question is which is the reference for the dBs they're measuring. The first one could be dB SPL or FS (since 0 seems to be the top and that's also the top for FS dB) and the other one are dBr which frankly I ignore what's its reference. If you want to use ponderated dB for human hearing sensivity, then they should have used dBHL, the same ponderation used for audiometry, or even dB(A) or dB(C).
What I find strange is that the center of the HF dip is at a different frequency, hence I assume both were made using different measuring procedures or mics.

Rgrds.
Reply
post #119 of 8053
3/30/08 at 2:31pm
didnt know there were that many dB types

both graphs are definitly not the same
Reply
post #120 of 8053
3/30/08 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelc87 View Post
Yeah but look at the scale on the side. The top one starts at -30db, whereas the headroom one is adjusted for neutrality (i.e. surrounding 0db). They're the same in relation to each other but db is a logarithmic scale meaning that an increase of 10db means that it's 10 times louder or the differences are 10 times more apparent.
Isn't it every 10db increase = double the loudness?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Ultimate Ears Triple Fi 10 Appreciation Thread