Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Why french forums bashing IE8?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why french forums bashing IE8? - Page 5

post #61 of 75
12/31/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip N' Burn View Post
Regardless of how it's recorded or what gear is being used, it still says a lot about the IE8 with live music recordings. I trust my ears over any frequency, sine wave, square wave response graphs.
What post are you referring to?
Reply
post #62 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:05pm
#57 for live recordings and #58 for the rebuttal
Reply
post #63 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:30pm
What headphones do you have Shike and Antony6555?I am and I am sure everybody else are interested to know....
Reply
post #64 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antony6555 View Post
Not a good comparison, because the se530 and tf10 are both substantially more accurate than the IE8. Also, the er-4 is more accurate than any of them, and half-the price. Price never tells the whole story.
No, I have to disagree. Did you equalize the IE8s (reducing the mid-bass hump)?
Even without the equalisation, the IE8 tops the mentioned earphones in accuracy (except the er-4, I like the speed&clarity)- like it or not its detailed & controlled IMO
Reply
post #65 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by midoo1990 View Post
What headphones do you have Shike and Antony6555?I am and I am sure everybody else are interested to know....
DITTO
Reply
post #66 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by midoo1990
What headphones do you have Shike and Antony6555?I am and I am sure everybody else are interested to know....
You're free to look at my head-fi gear on my profile -- though that doesn't tell you everything I've heard either

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebhuber View Post
Even without the equalisation, the IE8 tops the mentioned earphones in accuracy (except the er-4, I like the speed&clarity)- like it or not its detailed & controlled IMO
Except you know, the fact that they aren't objectively.
Reply
post #67 of 75
12/31/09 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post
This is ludicrous. A transducers should not produce decay beyond what's in the signal. It sounds like a problem with the recording if it's not to your liking.
Perhaps you've not understood my meaning. I'm starting with the assumption that the decay is represented correctly in the recording. Why? Well - I was in the choir that recorded it, and I hear a natural and realistic playback via my DT880's, my HD650's, my IE8's and even in my $50 NE7m's. The ER6i's, by contrast, fail in this department. I hear the percussive hit at the beginning of each note, but the "sustained pressure" (to use your phrasing) is lacking. Notes sound clipped, resulting (to my ears), in an impression of great detail, but one that departs from the sound of live music as I heard it at the time and also as I hear it through my other phones.

I'm interested in your discussion of the square wave graphs, but I confess I'm largely ignorant on the topic aside from reading a couple of wiki entries. Could you clarify for me why the "ringing" exhibited in the IE8 square wave makes it less accurate than the apparent extreme "overshooting" depicted in the er6i's wave?

Reply
post #68 of 75
12/31/09 at 6:02pm
Has anyone taken into account the physiology the ear and the way the human brain processes sound? I'm not an audiologist but humans don't hear all frequencies with the same intensity. The brain filters the frequencies and tends to place importance on the more mid-range frequencies. Even bass lovers spend most of their day in mid-range frequencies just through everyday activities. That is one reason why I'm skeptical of the "objectivity" of the various sound measurement graphs. Not that they don't depict frequency information correctly but humans just don't hear linearally.
Reply
post #69 of 75
12/31/09 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
I'm interested in your discussion of the square wave graphs, but I confess I'm largely ignorant on the topic aside from reading a couple of wiki entries. Could you clarify for me why the "ringing" exhibited in the IE8 square wave makes it less accurate than the apparent extreme "overshooting" depicted in the er6i's wave?
The 50Hz response is vastly different from the 500Hz response. It's not "ringing" in the IE8, that's uneven pressure building and lack of a linear line shows poor damping on the driver.

In case you don't believe me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by headroom
In no case we've observed has a headphone been able to keep a truly flat line; ear canal headphones can come the closest as they only have a small, sealed volume of air in the ear canal to compress. But the ability for the headphones to create a straight line at the top and bottom, even if it's tilted will indicate coherent performance in the lows.

The noise at the edges is less important on this graph as it is more observable with the 500Hz square wave test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wantmyf1
Has anyone taken into account the physiology the ear and the way the human brain processes sound? I'm not an audiologist but humans don't hear all frequencies with the same intensity. The brain filters the frequencies and tends to place importance on the more mid-range frequencies. Even bass lovers spend most of their day in mid-range frequencies just through everyday activities. That is one reason why I'm skeptical of the "objectivity" of the various sound measurement graphs. Not that they don't depict frequency information correctly but humans just don't hear linearally.
That's irrelevant though, as if you were going to a concert or listening to someone singing they won't adjust for your hearing either. The goal of a transducer is to reproduce a signal accurately at the objective level. The deficiencies you would have with an accurate IEM would be the same as hearing it live.


EDIT:

Either way, this is heavily deviating from the topic. They may dislike the IE8 for various reasons . . . does it really matter to you?
Reply
post #70 of 75
12/31/09 at 9:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post
Either way, this is heavily deviating from the topic. They may dislike the IE8 for various reasons . . . does it really matter to you?
It seems completely on topic, since the "quote" the op gave from the French forum suggested that the members there found the IE8 to be fun-sounding but not very accurate.
Reply
post #71 of 75
12/31/09 at 10:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photofan1986 View Post
Hi there!
Rough translation :
"I don't want to be mean, but my wife owns IE8 with more than 400h of burn-in, and here is what I think:
They are good for people coming from a low end IEM and want a V shaped listening experience and a "fun" listening.
People coming from similarly priced IEMs and have experienced ears won't appreciate them much.
They are raw in the bass departement, have terrific midrange and the highs are piercing, what gives them an impression of clarity and soundstage, but the latter is only an illusion.
I think that for the technology used and the sound produced, the price tag is too high."
This particular poster also owns earsonic SM2, EM2, Westone UM2 and UM3.
I think his impressions match well with mine, except I don't think IE8 highs are ear piercing at all. After listening to some other high end IEMs, I do think IE8s sound less refined, and lack a bit of details. My biggest grudge against it is it's midbass hump, which can really get on my nerves for some genres of music. I don't think its a bad pair of IEM, but just not really my cup of tea.
Reply
post #72 of 75
1/1/10 at 1:04am
I am a big dynamic earphone fan, but even with such prejudices, the IE8 fail. They are well made and come in a great over-engineered box, but their largest failing isn't the mid-bass hump (turn up the bass knob to fix a lot of it); it is the midrange echo which hits particularly hard in fast bassy music. The housing's cheap plastic is too soft and creates what I hate: a horrid echo.

I wanted to love this earphone, but found too little to perfectly respect. The SM2 I do believe is one of the truly special universal ba phones out there. Is it the best? That is subjective, but it is a wonderful earphone which I put ahead of the IE8 in ever way, when driven from a good amp.

When not driven from an amp, the SM2 does not sound as stellar and I would prefer the echoey sound of the IE8. It comes down to the fact that compared to balanced armature earphones, the IE8 is a rather easy to drive earphone. It can sound good from a budget source while BA earphones don't begin to show what they can do without good amping.

Though I don't like the IE8 much at all, I realise that it is a quality product. It is easily worth its 250$, but I would in no way spend the American price.
Reply
post #73 of 75
1/1/10 at 9:33am
Thread Starter 
To Shike and Antony 6555: have a look at the square wave resp when the bass button is turned a little notch:
Reply
post #74 of 75
1/2/10 at 8:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photofan1986 View Post
To Shike and Antony 6555: have a look at the square wave resp when the bass button is turned a little notch:
The raise in pressure is greater than it is with the normal setting, and holds that over done pressure a bit steadier . . . though it does seems to help linearity it's still technically inaccurate.
Reply
post #75 of 75
1/2/10 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post
It's easy to be non-chauvinist about wine when you're from Norway
And are 16 yrs old
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Why french forums bashing IE8?