or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106) - Page 44

post #646 of 16803

I wouldn't read the graphs too critically.  The price it says and the price you can get a pair for are two different things.  I bought my IE8 used at $240.  There's a CK100 for sale on the forum for $290.  Bang for the buck depends on what you can get them for.

post #647 of 16803

I have to say I am on my 3rd pair of Monster Turbine Pro Copper's and all three have sounded different due to burnin process differences. My first pair was burned in playing music at regular listening levels and that pair had a slightly recessed midrange that made it very dry to listen to and sucked a bit of life out of the vocals in my opinion. My 2nd pair I deliberatly burned in the IEM with a brown noise centric burnin file consisting of brown, pink, and white noise doubling up the brown noise. I increased the volume throughout the burnin process from 10% to 15% volume on my computer. This pair ended up having a pretty heavy bass with a hump in the mid-bass and lower midrange making the pair warmer sounding than the first pair with a more forward midrange at least in the lower midrange. I liked this version more than the first pair but did find the added midbass a bit to much to handle over time. Fortunately the IEM started to have the same physical flaw as some of the other early MTPC's and was breaking wher the two halfs of the IEM are joined together so I warrantied them and recieved a new pair. This latest pair I changed up my burnin routine by creating a burnin file based off of my P-W-B-P-W burnin file, to this file I added 1 minute heavy drumming intervals every cycle and 3 minutes of cymbals every cycle. I used this for the first 5 or so hours and had a listen and found the midrange was not changing as much as I had hoped so I switched to my brown centric burnin file and let the IEM's burn for about 15 hours and the midrange was just about perfect more forward but no big midbass hump. I then set up my system to rotate between my new burnin file and the brown burnin file, set the volume to 15% and left on holidays for 2 and half days. I have since been listening to these headphones on and off and have to say they are much better than my first two. I have never seen a pair of headphones respond to differences in the burnin process so much.

 

|Joker|, do you still have the Coppers you used for your review? If so I would love to send you this pair and have you do a comparison. I think the difference is startling but would love to have someone else verify they are hearing a similar difference (or not).

 

BTW I also have started to use a home made foam tip made from earplugs that has eliminated the one issue of echoing I had with this IEM.

 

Between the new tip and my latest burnin process this IEM is the nicest sounding dynamic based IEM I have heard, I much prefer it to my IE8. I think it conveys emotion very well and is good for music like rock with the exception of anything that is extremely fast and complex that is better handled by a BA based IEM.

 

Will it replace my SM3 as my main IEM? Probably not, but I do have to say it will get used for certain genres more often and if the SM3 broke tomorrow I could certainly live with the MTPC for a good while without feeling like I was missing something.

post #648 of 16803
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post

I could go further.  Let's say I put equal weight on both ultimate SQ as well as the bang for the buck value I'm getting.  In this sense I put 50% on that it's king of SQ and I put 50% on that it offers high SQ per dollar spent.  These percentages could be different, but I chose 50% weight per each.  The scale is 1 to 0 for each measure and 1 is the highest number, 0 is lowest.  A SQ of 10 is 1.  A value of 4.57 is 1.  A SQ of 7 is 0.  A value of 40.03 is 0.  I could set the ranges different so SQ 0 to 10 and value 0 to 500 if I wanted, and things would scale differently.  I am merely staying within the range of the test group here and broke the range down linearly and with equal weight.

 

 

 

The weighted approach might make a little more sense because we as humans do put value on different aspects.  It's not all about SQ or all about comfort or all about price.  It's 50% SQ, 30% comfort, and 20% price or some other mix of things.  You could rebuilt Joker's entire table and put a weight scale for each category and pick your own preference.  The products would then be listed according to your own measures and how much you value each part.  Realize that charts and tables like these can be manipulated quite easily and biased towards certain "winners" if one so chooses.  It all depends on how I measure and weight various aspects.  It is useful to understand how a table is developed.  For example Joker's own rankings averages all of the categories he deems important.  All are weighed equally, so SQ is just as important as microphonics or accessories.  As an individual, it might be beneficial to add more weight to aspects you care about and less weight for aspects you don't really have a concern for.  Maybe accessories doesn't matter to you.  Maybe money is no object.  Maybe you want the best bang for the buck or the SQ king.  Well, adapt the data table to your needs.


Very nice. This approach definitely falls much closer to my own value ranking. And yep, nothing like applying your own weighting to the table. Maybe I'll make the bare table available in .xls format at some point for those curious to play around with it .

post #649 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post




Very nice. This approach definitely falls much closer to my own value ranking. And yep, nothing like applying your own weighting to the table. Maybe I'll make the bare table available in .xls format at some point for those curious to play around with it .

Question, is isolation a factor in your tables? I find that to be the most subjective, because some people might want something that barely isolates so they don't get hit by a car etc. Sorry if this has already been brought up before. It does seem like common sense, so no offense if it is excluded, but it's still something that came to my mind seeing the red to green boxes in the isolation column and thinking about how that's usually attributed to something being good or bad, 'bad' being ideal in some cases for isolation.
 

post #650 of 16803
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

 

|Joker|, do you still have the Coppers you used for your review? If so I would love to send you this pair and have you do a comparison. I think the difference is startling but would love to have someone else verify they are hearing a similar difference (or not).

 

The Coppers I had belong to rawrster. They were BNIB when they got to me and were subjected to my usual burn through - a 64mb SD card loaded with pink noise, white noise, and a couple of music tracks. The card has a 15-min silent track at the end and runs about 50 mins in total. All new earphones I receive are subjected to at least 96 hours of burn-in with this SD card. To make a special case for the Coppers would be somewhat unfair. And no, I don't have them anymore, sadly.



Quote:

Originally Posted by ethan961 View Post

Question, is isolation a factor in your tables? I find that to be the most subjective, because some people might want something that barely isolates so they don't get hit by a car etc. Sorry if this has already been brought up before. It does seem like common sense, so no offense if it is excluded, but it's still something that came to my mind seeing the red to green boxes in the isolation column and thinking about how that's usually attributed to something being good or bad, 'bad' being ideal in some cases for isolation.
 


Yes, isolation is factored into the average. I definitely see your point and I've thought this through but I believe isolation is more often considered desirable than undesirable when it comes to IEMs. I think the accessories rating is more subjective, tbh. Most of the accessories we get with the $100+ earphones are worth $2-3 by themselves. I see people ask for isolation all the time. Never seen anyone ask for an IEM with a good accessory pack. Anyway, I leave it up to the reader to focus on what they feel is important. Obviously if isolation is not important the IE8 will do relatively better and the ER4 - worse. I think I made a note of that in my portable thread but not here for some reason. 

post #651 of 16803



Thats OK |Joker|;

 

I am more interested in seeing if anyone else notices a difference in the sound as anything. I may see if Rawrster is interested in doing a bit of A/B testing after these finish burning in. I'll give him a PM if and when I'm up for the task. This darn curiousity is gonna get me someday LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljokerl

 

The Coppers I had belong to rawrster. They were BNIB when they got to me and were subjected to my usual burn through - a 64mb SD card loaded with pink noise, white noise, and a couple of music tracks. The card has a 15-min silent track at the end and runs about 50 mins in total. All new earphones I receive are subjected to at least 96 hours of burn-in with this SD card. To make a special case for the Coppers would be somewhat unfair. And no, I don't have them anymore, sadly.

post #652 of 16803

I always thought the IE8 had good isolation.  It's just that it's so seldom well isolated.  You have a big weight flopping around at the end of the tip.  Unlike some of the more secure IEMs, I always found the IE8 to unseal itself pretty readily.  With the healthy amount of bass, you never really noticed it happening all that often.  Every once in a while you shove them back in and hey, more bass and look the outside world went away again.  They weren't godly in isolation but not terrible either.  I just found them to be on par with other IEMs and this is when I owned the SE530, UM3X, and Triple.Fi 10 too.  I was never disappointed by the amount of isolation...just as long as I had a solid seal.  The seal was the hard part because you had a big, floppy dumbbell at the end.

post #653 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post

That's an interesting little graph. Of course the CK100 is dead last in value :P


That's because the FI-BA-SS isn't yet on the list.

 

Oh, and of course congrats to Joker on 100 IEM reviews!

post #654 of 16803

Congrats to Joker for hitting the century mark! and still counting, keep the reviews coming.

post #655 of 16803

New to HF and this thread is amazing. I am looking to replace my iBuds, and I have some good ideas now.

post #656 of 16803

just for further fun, I dropped all of the values from the summary chart into a spreadsheet to be able to sort by whatever I wanted.  I also added the price tier info.

 

http://www.nuclearfuzz.com/idvsego/ljokerl_chart.xls


Edited by idvsego - 8/26/10 at 8:17am
post #657 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post


That's because the FI-BA-SS isn't yet on the list.

 

Oh, and of course congrats to Joker on 100 IEM reviews!


Well I don't think that earphone will make it on the list anytime soon :p So my wallet can relax right now without fear of it being emptied.

post #658 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by idvsego View Post

just for further fun, I dropped all of the values from the summary chart into a spreadsheet to be able to sort by whatever I wanted.  I also added the price tier info.

 

http://www.nuclearfuzz.com/idvsego/ljokerl_chart.xls


Cool, more work than I wanted to go through. :p

 

I would also suggest to anyone to add weights in front of each column so you can scale the level of importance each factor has for you.  The average can then be redone to include those weights and score the list to your preference.

 

Haha, just noticed you did it for the headphone chart, not the IEM chart.  I added weights to it, but I can't attach files without permission.


Edited by mvw2 - 8/26/10 at 8:50am
post #659 of 16803

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post




Cool, more work than I wanted to go through. :p

 

I would also suggest to anyone to add weights in front of each column so you can scale the level of importance each factor has for you.  The average can then be redone to include those weights and score the list to your preference.

 

Haha, just noticed you did it for the headphone chart, not the IEM chart.  I added weights to it, but I can't attach files without permission.


I have a worksheet for portables and a worksheet for IEM as well as a worksheet to track changes I am making.  All values were pulled from the summary table ljokerl posted. 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/478568/multi-iem-review-100-iems-compared-westone-um3x-turbine-pro-copper-added-08-18#post_6492059

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/433318/shootout-46-portable-headphones-compared-audio-technica-ath-em7-added-08-22#post_5830274

 

a little more info...

http://www.nuclearfuzz.com/idvsego/ljokerl_chart_rev2.xls


Edited by idvsego - 8/26/10 at 9:53am
post #660 of 16803

idvsego will upload a weighted version of the IEM Excel spreadsheet I whipped up.  I don't have a file host at the moment and head-fi doesn't yet support attached files.

 

You guys should be able to fiddle with the weights and then sort the list and get a nice breakdown of which products you should think about wasting more money on. :p

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)