Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8 - Page 8

post #106 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
Waves don't accelerate/decelerate, drivers do.



Waves lose energy, which is amplitude.
Erm, I know its been a while since I've studied physics but I'm pretty sure I was using tangents to calculate the accerelation (rate of change) of a sound wave.


Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Whatever reverberation a note contains is in the recording. A driver can not add extra "reverberation". That would be distortion.

My main issue here is simple. MVw2 claims the flaw of the phonak is it is too quick. My contention is there is no such thing.
Yes, the debate somehow veered in that direction were physics principles were being butchered but then to be fair, going back to mvw2's original review, I think the chief complaint was that phonaks sounded something like source->headphones and the er4ps' were something like source->speakers? which he/she preferred.

Reading through some posts on head fi would leave me with the assumption that many do prefer that grander sound. Reverberation or distortion (as you may prefer calling it) can be produced by the driver. In the context of iems, it would be on a much much smaller scale and this, 'the body of note' that mvw2 and indeed many others find more to their liking.

Like has been stated a driver can't be too fast and listening to the phonaks I can see why that assumption had been made as compared to the X10's they really don't mess around with added notes. However, that sound is not really for everyone though that being said I certainly do appreciate it as technically it is very hard to touch the PFE's, complex passages are handled with ease and basslines are so much easier to follow!
post #107 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by communic View Post
Yes, the debate somehow veered in that direction were physics principles were being butchered but then to be fair, going back to mvw2's original review, I think the chief complaint was that phonaks sounded something like source->headphones and the er4ps' were something like source->speakers? which he/she preferred.

Reading through some posts on head fi would leave me with the assumption that many do prefer that grander sound. Reverberation or distortion (as you may prefer calling it) can be produced by the driver. In the context of iems, it would be on a much much smaller scale and this, 'the body of note' that mvw2 and indeed many others find more to their liking.

Like has been stated a driver can't be too fast and listening to the phonaks I can see why that assumption had been made as compared to the X10's they really don't mess around with added notes. However, that sound is not really for everyone though that being said I certainly do appreciate it as technically it is very hard to touch the PFE's, complex passages are handled with ease and basslines are so much easier to follow!

I have no problem with someone stating a personal preference. But claiming that the Phonak was flawed because it didn't distort to produce the sound one likes is not very helpful. If one can prove a flaw with measurements I am all for it. It is like claiming a solid state amp is flawed because it does not produce the same distortions as a tube amp.


I wouldn't have any problem if some one claimed I like X more than Y because its sound signature appeals to them more. When one claims that a product (which is obviously not badly designed) is flawed because it doesn't meet some expectation (not grounded in science) it really doesn't help new comers to this hobby.

This happens a lot. When people get really good subwoofers that are clean they wonder where the bass went. They then realize their old sub was just distorting and booming more. Some might like the old sub more. Some quickly learn what quality bass is and move on.
post #108 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by communic View Post
Erm, I know its been a while since I've studied physics but I'm pretty sure I was using tangents to calculate the accerelation (rate of change) of a sound wave.
Unfortunately this stuff isn't fresh in my mind, been a while since I worked with waves, so I might have forgot. But I do not recall wave acceleration. I even broke out my old texts to refresh and The Master Handbook of Acoustics. I didn't see any wave acceleration, nor do I ever recall it coming up in my classes or professional life when I was dealing with RF and HF waves. I did find tangential components of linear acceleration.

Can you find a web link?
post #109 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
Unfortunately this stuff isn't fresh in my mind, been a while since I worked with waves, so I might have forgot. But I do not recall wave acceleration. I even broke out my old texts to refresh and The Master Handbook of Acoustics. I didn't see any wave acceleration, nor do I ever recall it coming up in my classes or professional life when I was dealing with RF and HF waves. I did find tangential components of linear acceleration.

Can you find a web link?
Sound waves have a fixed velocity in air.

All this started with the claim that the Phonak having a tiny sound stage. To my ears the phonak imaging is excellent. Grey filters + Silicone tips.
post #110 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
Unfortunately this stuff isn't fresh in my mind, been a while since I worked with waves, so I might have forgot. But I do not recall wave acceleration. I even broke out my old texts to refresh and The Master Handbook of Acoustics. I didn't see any wave acceleration, nor do I ever recall it coming up in my classes or professional life when I was dealing with RF and HF waves. I did find tangential components of linear acceleration.

Can you find a web link?
It's not a physics concept. It's just pretty rudimentary use of maths to express amplitudes of a wave relative to time that should be apparent just by looking at a sine wave!

Can't remember exactly how it came up but I think mvw2 made a point about changing amplitude while keeping frequency the same and mentioned acceleration of an individual wave to illustrate the point which makes sense if you plot waves on a graph.

Can't dreg up my old notes to get specific formulas, workings etc as it's been a while. Although if you scroll to the bottom of this link it should explain what has been said. Mathematics Illuminated | Unit 10| 10.4 Mathematics of Waves
post #111 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by oarnura View Post
Sound waves have a fixed velocity in air.

All this started with the claim that the Phonak having a tiny sound stage. To my ears the phonak imaging is excellent. Grey filters + Silicone tips.
Lol is that how it started?! This thread has become disjointed from the orignal post and has gone off on so many tangents its a little difficult to keep up!
post #112 of 142
It means, everthing (most of it) can be explained accurately in math/science.

But, it is very difficult to make mathematical model of human preception . It's varies from person to person.

Let's do a soundstage experiment.

1) Go to any consert hall. Ask some of audiences to describe how big is hall's soundstage.

2) Do the questionaire/sampling at each row of the hall.

IMHO, I can predict the outcome, the front row experience a smaller soundstage than the rows behind.


As I mentioned earlier, most of performance recording were done at a close range. Or even better, virtually/electronically generated sound, example, keyboard, synthesizer or other electronic instrument which directly recorded for 'line-out'. Not to mentioned, sound FXs during the editing.

So the only thing left to describe soundstage in audio reproduction, how the all those sounds mixed together before it reached to our ears. IEMs and headphones basically have smaller soundstage because no 'in air pre-mixed' sound compared to SS. An accurate reproduction of reverbrations/echos in source or recording do helps to enhanced the soundstage preception with IEMs/headphones.

Now, compare the recording of a piano performances in hall with the same performance in an anechoic chamber. IMHO, even with monorual recording, soundstage for performance in hall sounds to be bigger.

Finally, I think soundstage preception for IEMs is different from person to person. mvw2 thinks PFEs' soundstage is small based on his preception scale. Others think it bigger but their own preception scale. Then, how to clears thing up?

Lets us vote or do a poll, how big is the PFEs' soundstage?
To my ears it's sound wide/big.

Thank you.

Readings..
Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Audio engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
post #113 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by communic View Post
It's not a physics concept. It's just pretty rudimentary use of maths to express amplitudes of a wave relative to time that should be apparent just by looking at a sine wave!

Can't remember exactly how it came up but I think mvw2 made a point about changing amplitude while keeping frequency the same and mentioned acceleration of an individual wave to illustrate the point which makes sense if you plot waves on a graph.

Can't dreg up my old notes to get specific formulas, workings etc as it's been a while. Although if you scroll to the bottom of this link it should explain what has been said. Mathematics Illuminated | Unit 10| 10.4 Mathematics of Waves
If mvw2 made a point of amplitude changing, his odd and incorrect use of terms such as body and drivers producing a wave in 3.5ms vs. 5ms threw me off the path. And the acceleration in the example at the bottom of that page is for the curve acceleration due to change in amplitude, not acceleration of the actual wave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by communic View Post
Lol is that how it started?! This thread has become disjointed from the orignal post and has gone off on so many tangents its a little difficult to keep up!
Yea, I asked mvw2 a couple questions, including what source was used but did not receive an answer to that, it went to mvw's technical reasons why the PFE had the same soundstage as the NE-7.
post #114 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
It means, everthing (most of it) can be explained accurately in math/science.

But, it is very difficult to make mathematical model of human preception . It's varies from person to person.

Let's do a soundstage experiment.

1) Go to any consert hall. Ask some of audiences to describe how big is hall's soundstage.

2) Do the questionaire/sampling at each row of the hall.

IMHO, I can predict the outcome, the front row experience a smaller soundstage than the rows behind.
Didn't you just make a model of human perception?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
As I mentioned earlier, most of performance recording were done at a close range. Or even better, virtually/electronically generated sound, example, keyboard, synthesizer or other electronic instrument which directly recorded for 'line-out'. Not to mentioned, sound FXs during the editing.

So the only thing left to describe soundstage in audio reproduction, how the all those sounds mixed together before it reached to our ears. IEMs and headphones basically have smaller soundstage because no 'in air pre-mixed' sound compared to SS. An accurate reproduction of reverbrations/echos in source or recording do helps to enhanced the soundstage preception with IEMs/headphones.

Now, compare the recording of a piano performances in hall with the same performance in an anechoic chamber. IMHO, even with monorual recording, soundstage for performance in hall sounds to be bigger.
As far as well recorded songs from a studio, the "stage" is added via signal processing. As the virtual barber shop demo shows, you can record/add stage to recordings.

your sentence
Quote:
An accurate reproduction of reverbrations/echos in source or recording do helps to enhanced the soundstage preception with IEMs/headphones.
should read "An accurate reproduction of reverb/echos in the source create the soundstage."

I can't comment on mono vs. stereo recordings, but recording in a hall will give you natural reverb/echos vs. processing the recording to have it. Have you listened to mono recordings to look for soundstage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
Finally, I think soundstage preception for IEMs is different from person to person. mvw2 thinks PFEs' soundstage is small based on his preception scale. Others think it bigger but their own preception scale. Then, how to clears thing up?

Lets us vote or do a poll, how big is the PFEs' soundstage?
To my ears answer it's sound wide/big.


Thank you.
Hey, a poll for PFE's soundstage is a great idea. I think the filters used also need to be incorporated into the poll. For any stereo reproduction there are factors that will cause people to hear stage differently. With IEMs, there are more factors including how the IEM is inserted. Here is my post that started all this:
Quote:
Thanks for the informative reviews. I just have some questions, as my experience with some of the reviewed IEMs differs from yours. You have the NE-7 and PFE soundstages being equal, both small. I thought with the grey filter the PFEs soundstage was very wide, much superior to the NE-7. And with the black filters, still wider. Now, this did vary between the 2 sources I used for testing (Fuze and Icon Mobile as a DAC/Amp).

Also, with both, soundstage for me is affected by how deep they are inserted. The NE-7 has a wider soundstage (by a little) if I don't insert it too deep. Same with the PFE, but the PFE is naturally inserted deeper.

I haven't heard any others in your review, but I have the PK3s, and their soundstage is much wider than the NE-7 to me, about where the PFE's is.

Did you try multiple sources? How did you determine insertion depth/angle. What tips were you using?

Thanks, just trying to get a grasp on how all these IEMs sound without sticking em in my ears, so trying to clarify my baselines.
While I think perception from person to person does change, I think the source is huge in determining how equipment will perform. That is well documented, and why people spend hundreds if not thousands on DAPs, DACs, and amps.

So, mvw used his laptop as a source. I will stop there!
post #115 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
Didn't you just make a model of human perception?
This what we call statistics


Quote:
As far as well recorded songs from a studio, the "stage" is added via signal processing. As the virtual barber shop demo shows, you can record/add stage to recordings.

your sentence should read "An accurate reproduction of reverb/echos in the source create the soundstage."
Thank you for the correction. Yes, that is what I want to say

Quote:
I can't comment on mono vs. stereo recordings, but recording in a hall will give you natural reverb/echos vs. processing the recording to have it. Have you listened to mono recordings to look for soundstage?
Yes, I also listening to 1950's recodings/album . At some point, I do sense a bit of soundstage even with monorual source with IEMs.


Quote:
While I think perception from person to person does change, I think the source is huge in determining how equipment will perform. That is well documented, and why people spend hundreds if not thousands on DAPs, DACs, and amps.
Totally agreed !

Quote:
So, mvw used his laptop as a source. I will stop there!
That is his choice. We cannot force other to follow. We can only suggest but up to him to consider. I do sometime listened to my laptop's, but most of time I prefers Nuforce IM .


Thank you.
post #116 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
This what we call statistics
model - a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process

statistics - the science dealing with the collection, classification, and interpretation of numerical information

My model comment was referring to when you said this:
Quote:
IMHO, I can predict the outcome, the front row experience a smaller soundstage than the rows behind.
I do know the difference between a model and statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
That is his choice. We cannot force other to follow. We can only suggest but up to him to consider. I do sometime listened to my laptop's, but most of time I prefers Nuforce IM .

Thank you.
I am not knocking him for his choice, but source does matter, and I do hear a big difference between my onboard sound, a Realtek HD and the IM, or my Prodigy sound card. Also, my Fuze doesn't deliver the soundstage or highs my Prodigy and IM do.

Can you tell a difference when listening directly to your laptop vs your IM through the PFEs?

My knock on mvw is he was asked what his source was at least 4 times before finally letting us know. How am I supposed to know how to interpret the reviews if I don't know the source? mvw's response was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
All of these phones I have listened back to back on a number of occasions on a wide variety of music, on several sources, and both amped and unamped.
Later mvw talked about using an E5 amp, but then later stated that wasn't used for the PFE and NE-7 I was inquiring about, just laptops.

I don't know why mvw was so hesitant to reveal the source, maybe you can shed some light.
post #117 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
I am not knocking him for his choice, but source does matter, and I do hear a big difference between my onboard sound, a Realtek HD and the IM, or my Prodigy sound card. Also, my Fuze doesn't deliver the soundstage or highs my Prodigy and IM do.

Can you tell a difference when listening directly to your laptop vs your IM through the PFEs?
Yes, and same as your findings. Also bass goes even deeper and clear with IM,.
post #118 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
Yes, and same as your findings. Also bass goes even deeper and clear with IM,.
Also, I had a T61 and IMO the audio out was really bad. I think any comparisons/critical listening should be done with the best source you can get your hands on.

With that said, while I do think the IM good, compared to my Audiotrak Prodigy and Fuze, the bass on the IM is weak, but the stage and highs are better than my Fuze.
post #119 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
Also, I had a T61 and IMO the audio out was really bad. I think any comparisons/critical listening should be done with the best source you can get your hands on.
Yup, but better than nothing, ie, during emergency . That's why I do most of the listenings with IM.

Quote:
With that said, while I do think the IM good, compared to my Audiotrak Prodigy and Fuze, the bass on the IM is weak, but the stage and highs are better than my Fuze.
I don't have those DAP or soundcard to compare, but, for me IM is very good enough. Next, let's go for iBasso D10.
post #120 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakhtiar View Post
Yup, but better than nothing, ie, during emergency . That's why I do most of the listenings with IM.



I don't have those DAP or soundcard to compare, but, for me IM is very good enough. Next, let's go for iBasso D10.
Yes, the IM is good, I am not knocking it at all. It allowed me to hear details the stock sound card couldn't, and hear soundstage my Fuze doesn't.

And yes, a good amp (possibly the D10) will be one of my next 2 purchases.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Mini Comparison - Vibe (1st gen), C700, PK2, RE0, NE-7M, PFE, ER4S, OK1, TF10, UM3X, SE530, IE8