Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › MEElec M6 & M9: Chameleons of Portable Phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MEElec M6 & M9: Chameleons of Portable Phones - Page 2

post #16 of 35

I did say I liked the review otherwise. I just don't want others to assume a certain cause and effect statement was accurate when not. Boundry reinforcement of long wavelengths (feet) is not what's happening in an ear canal either.

post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jSatch View Post

Better yet is the Customer Service, which is second to none. You'd think these were $300 headphones instead of $30, and even then I doubt you'd get the rapid response I got from the nice people at MEElec. Thanks for all the help Joe and Simon. A great philosophy to build up a good customer base- keep them happy, and they shall return. I wish this company success as a model to the industry.


I completely agree. I've had nothing but positive experiences with their customer service.

 

I bought an M6 earphone recently and unfortunately, they forgot to include the medium sized tips. I emailed them, and they replied within 10 minutes with a very kind, and helpful email. After proving my purchase with my receipt, he said he would send me replacement medium tips for free, as well as a bi-flange pair to try out! All of it coming out of pure generosity and at absolutely no charge!

 

MEelctronics not only have very impressive earphones, but their customer service is the best I've ever experienced. Thanks MEelec!


Edited by Katun - 8/6/10 at 2:13pm
post #18 of 35
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I did say I liked the review otherwise. I just don't want others to assume a certain cause and effect statement was accurate when not. Boundry reinforcement of long wavelengths (feet) is not what's happening in an ear canal either.


Thank you, I do appreciate the clarification. 

 

But I don't understand, why can't the boundry effect work? Just because the wavelength is feet long should not exclude its reflection off a solid object that is less the distance than the size of the wavelength. The closer the coupling, the less the problem.

 

post #19 of 35

The seal is so much more dominant. In a room, what happens is that you lose side boundry reinforcement once the wavelength become longer than the box width. Mids and tweets sound different on large or small baffles just like woofers do when the box is wall loaded. Here, it's more about pistonic movement of the ear drum from direct pressure and the effect covers a large range.

post #20 of 35
Thread Starter 

 

 

^^^ I disagree.

 

 

 

Seal can be equally good with different tips, yet many, myself included, can hear differences even in the composition of foam tips. Donut tips and flange tips even more so.

 

I fail to see how simple pistonic movement is able to address these differences. 

 

post #21 of 35

It's the overall balance that changes with tips. I find the upper mids and highs are more effected. More or less of those will give a different sense of bass. Once sealed, the low bass should be very similar between tips. You'll notice that you tend to turn it down when you discover a brighter sounding tip that still seals. It's becase it's louder up top and not less at the bottom.

post #22 of 35
Thread Starter 

^^^Again, I disagree.

 

Firstly, my findings of extensive testing and making of tips, attempting to increase bass in the iM716, and here the tips sent by the kind people of MEElec prominently effected the low freq, not the other way around. I think you will find most people here that have had similar and extensive experiences testing various tips will agree. Simply turning the volume down, as I think you mentioned, if the bass is attenuated would have exactly the effects you noted. However, on this point we can agree to disagree according to our own experiences.

 

 

Secondly, I believe your previous statement is fundamentally incorrect. Do you believe there is not boundary reinforcement for low frequencies as the boundary becomes smaller than the sine wave, ie, a smaller and smaller room will lose wall reflections when the size of the walls become smaller than the wavelength? This could render large woofers nearly useless in a normal sized room, in a car, forget it. 

 

Thirdly, although there is a large degree of anonymity on the web, one should still follow some decorum, as in simple manners. I don't feel statements such as  "but things clearly don't happen as the op postulated" follows such courtesy, especially when left unsubstantiated. At least when I posted my hypotheses, I mentioned them as such to try to explain differences we hear with different tips. I am open to discussion to the ideas generated. You have come off here as arrogant and authoritative, and meantime have brought very little to the table. 


Edited by jSatch - 8/8/10 at 2:14pm
post #23 of 35

Bass waves are many feet long and those are the lengths your dealing with for boundary wave reinforcement. Below that it's pressure change from pistonic motion. We can disagree all day but it doesn't change the science. I don't get my info from the web. I'm in the industry. Your ear responds to pressure in a room or vehicle also. That's why you can hear lower than a supported wavelength and small rooms can have more bottom (along with standing waves which is another form of reinforcement we wont to get into).

 

 I didn't call you names, accuse you of anything or imply that you weren't intelligent, just that you got something wrong. I'm sorry if you took offense but non was intended. I doubt others look upon that quote as a personal attack. Postulate was used as meaning a theory on your part so as to make certain not to attack your credability. Manners is being able to discuss a subject without ridicule or personal attacks. If politely pointing out a general technical error in an audio forum is beyond proper decorum than we have nothing more to discuss. Have a nice life. I'm out.


Edited by goodvibes - 8/8/10 at 9:46pm
post #24 of 35
Thread Starter 

This is an open forum. Having access to the "science", then this is the place to share it. Education would help all of us to separate the facts from the advertising, and would have added substantially to this thread. That would have been "politely pointing out a general technical error" and open the data to discussion. An unsubstantiated remark, well, less so.

 

Let me put it this way, if a stranger came up to you at a conference and said "The hypotheses you derived from your data are all wrong", and walked away. Would you find that polite? Or, if he said "Your hypotheses can be interpreted differently depending upon the methodology of data collection", and went to to discuss the variables and alternative explanations, well that would be a polite discussion. Small difference? Maybe, but I hope you can appreciate the distinction. 

 

Have a nice life too. Seriously.

 

And if you want to put forth the science, I for one would be appreciative to hear it.


Edited by jSatch - 8/12/10 at 9:04pm
post #25 of 35

Fine then, I'm still here but we need to get away from these accusational posts. I'm trying not to bicker and is why I thought it should end. I thought we were past it on post 18 but it seems you took offense again to being disagreed with. Lets move on.

 

Boundary wave reinforcement isn't about reflections. That's why when you back a speaker up to wall it has more midbass. Low bass doesn't change as much because the longer wavelength was already getting some reinforcement. You've increased the frequency threshold of reinforcement to a smaller wavelength (higher frequency) by getting it closer to that wall. Obviously not 'reflection' as it's behind the speaker. Your ear canal has a boundary connection directly to the source and would reinforce everything up to the high frequency if that were the mechanism. In an IEM, if you lose seal (pressure) the bass goes away but the boundaries are still extremely close (reinforcement). Boundary reinforcement is not the mechanism in play for bass on IEMs.


Edited by goodvibes - 8/13/10 at 5:12am
post #26 of 35

What exactly did ME send you? "gray tips?" I recently bought a M6 and found a "seal" is ever so important.  I am leaning towards the comply tips.

post #27 of 35

Despite the devolution of this thread, I thought I would add the following: the Sony Hybrid tips have proved the most successful for myself both in fit/comfort and revealing the occasionally obscured middle frequencies.

 

Although the tips are pricey, in comparison with other silicone models, they are most definitely worth it from my point of view.

 

Nick

post #28 of 35

Just a little response to the tips/bass/seal discussion going on. The gray tips provided with the M9's are exactly the same as the black bi flanges that come in the set also. The only difference is the silicone they are made of. I think the gray ones are softer. The gray tips cut down the bass a bit and since the shape, size and insertion depth is the same as the black ones, I'm thinking it must be the tip composition.

post #29 of 35
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Fine then, I'm still here but we need to get away from these accusational posts. I'm trying not to bicker and is why I thought it should end. I thought we were past it on post 18 but it seems you took offense again to being disagreed with. Lets move on.

 

Boundary wave reinforcement isn't about reflections. That's why when you back a speaker up to wall it has more midbass. Low bass doesn't change as much because the longer wavelength was already getting some reinforcement. You've increased the frequency threshold of reinforcement to a smaller wavelength (higher frequency) by getting it closer to that wall. Obviously not 'reflection' as it's behind the speaker. Your ear canal has a boundary connection directly to the source and would reinforce everything up to the high frequency if that were the mechanism. In an IEM, if you lose seal (pressure) the bass goes away but the boundaries are still extremely close (reinforcement). Boundary reinforcement is not the mechanism in play for bass on IEMs.


Yes, the 'offense' was due to a lack of 'science' offered, just a you're wrong without explanation, as I tried to explain. So I very much appreciate your now bringing up some of the science. And yes, please, let's bury this and move forward.

 

Again, thank you for sharing this information. And yes, I think we all understand the importance of a good seal, and I do see your point regarding the boundary reinforcement. But back to the original question, assuming a good seal, how would you explain the wildly different effects that occur from different tips, or even composition of tips (see Painful Chafe's comment immediately preceding this one)?

 

post #30 of 35

Don't know really but I could guess it has to do with opening size and material beyond the nozzle effecting the tonal character by influencing the mids and highs. Opinion. Of course some of these may not make as good a seal as thought which would also effect the bass. Some foams aren't completely air tight for instance.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › MEElec M6 & M9: Chameleons of Portable Phones