Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [REVIEW] Head-Direct RE0 - a new contender for the best IEM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[REVIEW] Head-Direct RE0 - a new contender for the best IEM - Page 7

post #91 of 1976
4/24/09 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
A great review again, dfkt!

Meh. Didn't really say much. And said something about it making bad recordings sound bad? Uh, what?
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #92 of 1976
4/24/09 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
A great review again, dfkt!
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post
Meh. Didn't really say much. And said something about it making bad recordings sound bad? Uh, what?
What's missing?

And, I didn't say anything like that, "making bad recordings sound bad" - I mentioned they're sibilant with certain material. Wonder what you read between the lines there.
Reply
post #93 of 1976
4/24/09 at 7:50pm
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/image...Comparison.gif

kind of disappointing

EDIT: you say soundstage is better on Audéo. mvw2 said soundstage is better on RE0 http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/m...4s-ok1-369643/
Isn't that thing supposed to be objective and not subjective?
Reply
post #94 of 1976
4/24/09 at 9:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by patate View Post
Isn't that thing supposed to be objective and not subjective?
No two persons in HF have the same taste or preferences. As objective as a reviewer can be, he/she must still follow what his/her heart tell him/her. That's is why a reader must know the reviewer well to know which part of the review makes more sense to that reader and which part doesn't - that's the art of reading review, 'always takes it with a grain of salt'.
Reply
post #95 of 1976
4/25/09 at 1:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Thanks.

What's missing?
And, I didn't say anything like that, "making bad recordings sound bad" - I mentioned they're sibilant with certain material. Wonder what you read between the lines there.
Didnt mean to try to bust your b*lls. Thats how I interpreted this:

"It can be unforgiving with badly recorded material, resulting in sssss… sibilance. It can sound harsh at times, but it’s still of decent quality."

You seem to say that revealing the sibilance is the fault of the headphone, yet you praise it later for its treble extension. If it reveals the inferior quality of a recording, I would see that as a good thing. I was just confused by it. seemed like two opposite opinions.
Reply
post #96 of 1976
4/25/09 at 5:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post
Didnt mean to try to bust your b*lls. Thats how I interpreted this:

"It can be unforgiving with badly recorded material, resulting in sssss… sibilance. It can sound harsh at times, but it’s still of decent quality."

You seem to say that revealing the sibilance is the fault of the headphone, yet you praise it later for its treble extension. If it reveals the inferior quality of a recording, I would see that as a good thing. I was just confused by it. seemed like two opposite opinions.
I think I might know what the problem is.

Sibilance, or harshness, is the over emphasis at what considered to be higher mid or lower treble, region around 6kHz to 8kHz. Treble extension is more about how far the treble can go before significant roll off, often in the region of 15kHz to 18kHz, which is about about half way of upper treble.

I have previously done a rough test listening to different IEM with a set of progressive lower test tone from 22kHz (inaudible) to 12kHz under a fixed volume. RE0 is the only one capable of reaching close to 17.5kHz before rolling off, and that is almost over 1kHz higher than the next best IEM.
Reply
post #97 of 1976
4/25/09 at 5:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
No two persons in HF have the same taste or preferences. As objective as a reviewer can be, he/she must still follow what his/her heart tell him/her. That's is why a reader must know the reviewer well to know which part of the review makes more sense to that reader and which part doesn't - that's the art of reading review, 'always takes it with a grain of salt'.
Ok then I'm gonna wait for your Audeo review to make my decision
Reply
post #98 of 1976
4/25/09 at 5:27am
Thread Starter 
I'll be reviewing NE-7M first. My ordered Audeo is still not in stock yet.
Reply
post #99 of 1976
4/25/09 at 8:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by patate View Post
That ranking is just my subjective personal opinion and others might not agree, as stated in big red letters in the thread I posted that list.

Personally I'm a sucker for soundstage and sub-bass that goes to the lowest octave. That's why I personally rank the RE0 the way I do. Others might have other preferences and come to a completely different conclusion. If you look at where I rate the ER-6 in that list, I'm wondering I didn't get any death threats already.

This being said, the RE0 are very nice sounding phones, as stated in the (objective) front page review on ABI. They belong up there with the big boys, no doubt about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patate View Post
EDIT: you say soundstage is better on Audéo. mvw2 said soundstage is better on RE0 http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/m...4s-ok1-369643/
Isn't that thing supposed to be objective and not subjective?
I'm sure MVW2 is trying to be as objective as me in his review. However, people's ears are different and might perceive some aspects differently. For example, the "S-Logic" soundstage thing on the Ultrasone phones doesn't do anything for me at all, I'm finding other closed cans by Beyer or Senn to have a better soundstage for my ears.

With the Phonaks it's not that they're extremely much wider than the RE0 (well, no IEM is, we're talking about phones that don't interact with the important anatomical parts in the outer ear for soundstage), it's only a bit wider to my ears, but the soundstage appears to be more accurate to me. On the PFE I can pinpoint instrument positions more accurately than on the RE0.
Reply
post #100 of 1976
4/25/09 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithpgdrb View Post
Didnt mean to try to bust your b*lls. Thats how I interpreted this:

"It can be unforgiving with badly recorded material, resulting in sssss… sibilance. It can sound harsh at times, but it’s still of decent quality."

You seem to say that revealing the sibilance is the fault of the headphone, yet you praise it later for its treble extension. If it reveals the inferior quality of a recording, I would see that as a good thing. I was just confused by it. seemed like two opposite opinions.
Ah, now I get it. The thing is, phones like the PFE, q-Jays, UE11 have (more or less) as revealing and extended treble as the RE0 to my ears, but those don't come off as harsh with the same material. It's not that the RE0 are sibilant all the time, with every recording, but ABed with any of the above mentioned phones, they are more sibilant with the same "hot" material.

In other words, the RE0 reveal a bit too much of the sibilance of badly recorded stuff, without revealing more perceived detail and precision than the other ones I mentioned.

I should try to graph a Fletcher-Munson curve with the RE0, seeing if they have a boost in some specific treble range, something the other phones don't have - maybe some frequency range my ears are sensitive at, but others aren't.
Reply
post #101 of 1976
4/25/09 at 9:07am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
I should try to graph a Fletcher-Munson curve with the RE0, seeing if they have a boost in some specific treble range, something the other phones don't have...
I would like to see that too!
Reply
post #102 of 1976
4/25/09 at 9:47am
Here's how I perceive the RE0:



At 6kHz there's a dip for me, and at 8kHz they're quite a bit louder than average.

Keep in mind that's only my ears, and also might change depending on health condition, fatigue, mood, loudness used for the test, and so on.

Other phones can be found here, for reference: Index of /equal-loudness
Reply
post #103 of 1976
4/25/09 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 
Thanks dfkt, I'll try it out when I have the time. Will report back then.
Reply
post #104 of 1976
4/25/09 at 10:14am
Hello. First post here. Have been reading some on IEMS and have narrowed my choice down to RE0...
Q1) Does anyone have a Super.fi4 they can compare the RE0 to?
Q2) I'm also interested in getting a Yuin PK3. How does this compare to the RE0 (In terms of Sound quality only) I know PK3 has no isolation so it will generally be an at home/ in the office use; while RE0 will see use on public transport.

Thanks
Reply
post #105 of 1976
4/25/09 at 12:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by showtest View Post
Hello. First post here. Have been reading some on IEMS and have narrowed my choice down to RE0...
Q1) Does anyone have a Super.fi4 they can compare the RE0 to?
Q2) I'm also interested in getting a Yuin PK3. How does this compare to the RE0 (In terms of Sound quality only) I know PK3 has no isolation so it will generally be an at home/ in the office use; while RE0 will see use on public transport.

Thanks
For Q2, I will pick RE0 over PK3. RE0 is more on PK1's level.

Here is my equal loudness test result with RE0. I am not sure how accurate the treble region is cause my hearing is pretty lousy today. Usually I can listen (to a different test tone I usually used) up to 17~18kHz but today I can barely register 16kHz. I am actually very tired and a bit sleepy now, so I will repeat the test some other time to confirm the result.
Attachment 16364
LL
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 › [REVIEW] Head-Direct RE0 - a new contender for the best IEM