Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [Review] Impressions of the Sony EX1000 versus the FX700, GR10 and e-Q5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Review] Impressions of the Sony EX1000 versus the FX700, GR10 and e-Q5 - Page 178

post #2656 of 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

ER4S is pretty much flat, those who measure various IEMs and do monitoring pretty much establish it as such for a reason. 

 

It is, pretty much.  I do think more would use a UERM than the ER4 professionally and it has more bass to my ears.  As you know I have no issue w/ deep insertion, that's how I roll.  I get more midbass from the dBA than the ER4 but DBA's lack extension by comparison.  I also find the ER4P to sound rather boomy at times and sharply bright though they don't seem to graph much different from the 'S'.  'S' I can listen to endlessly, 'P' kills me in less than 2 minutes.  There is also an unfinished debate about what truly neutral bass at the ear should graph like though the deviation is rather small.  Same for headphones.  It's actually very complicated and goes beyond FR so we should probably avoid it here. 

 

A V-shaped response isn't always bloated like the HJE900s or even the TF10s case, these are an example of that. 

 

That's what 'U' curves are for.  wink.gif  I'd still need to reproduce more bass on the EX1000 to agree but I understand what you are saying and hearing.

 

Not sure if I remember, but did you hear my GR07 or joker's? There's a difference between the two. 

 

I don't recall, but it was a bit bass boosted, treble harsh, unrefined and not reference to my ears.  It had that bio-cellulose 'attack' and flavor to it.


 

post #2657 of 3003

 

It is, pretty much.  I do think more would use a UERM than the ER4 professionally and it has more bass to my ears.  As you know I have no issue w/ deep insertion, that's how I roll.  I get more midbass from the dBA than the ER4 but DBA's lack extension by comparison.  I also find the ER4P to sound rather boomy at times and sharply bright though they don't seem to graph much different from the 'S'.  'S' I can listen to endlessly, 'P' kills me in less than 2 minutes.  There is also an unfinished debate about what truly neutral bass at the ear should graph like though the deviation is rather small.  Same for headphones.  It's actually very complicated and goes beyond FR so we should probably avoid it here. 

I don't think that's the case yet for the UERM, though who knows with time. I don't believe in complete neutrality, as it just doesn't happen, but manufacturers should do their research and get at least as close as possible. Nowadays IEMs are more about flash, do something cool in the design, hype up the price and expectation bias is going to make it sound substantially better (there's a very good article about this, which I can't sadly quote). 

 

I don't recall, but it was a bit bass boosted, treble harsh, unrefined and not reference to my ears.  It had that bio-cellulose 'attack' and flavor to it.

My GR07 was a rev.2 which was easily bassier than the EX1000s. I don't like the GR07's treble either, a bit grainy and still has a spike in the ear's sensible region, surprisingly not that sharp though sibilant. Rev.1 (joker's) has what I think is the GR07's main strength, moderate bass to midrange neutrality with a nice subbass boost. I don't think rev.1 is better, more like on par for a fraction of the price. 

I do plan on doing a write-up on these, as I do have a bit of interesting things to add. 


Edited by Inks - 4/13/12 at 12:55am
post #2658 of 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post


I agree on your neutrality comment.  

 

No need for a link I very well familiar w/ the article(s) in question.  I consider it informative and relevant but relative not definitive.

 

Look forward to the write-up!

post #2659 of 3003
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post


ER4S has less bass than EX1000 but I don't think the ER4S is reference neutral either.  UERM is more neutral and present than both IMHO.  

 

James how do you feel the UERM bass presence compares to how you heard the EX1000?

 

TF10 is V-Shaped, HJE900 as well, EX1000 never got that impression.  Sony does more than V shape so that's not the best argument.  7550, V6, Z1000, CD2000/3000, SA5000, R10, Qualia.  

 

I do not recall the EX1000s bass response hiding any details and thought it was the most detailed DD I had heard in an IEM at the time.  Bass boom would have masked the detail I was hearing.  If it's not a tip issue must be source or ears then.  The GR07 has the extra bass you describe in the EX1000 for me so we just hear the two differently I guess.  

 

I also diagree about the tips, every manufacturer tunes w/ their tips, doesn't mean they will not perform better w/ alternatives.  Sony uses the same tips for most if not all their IEMs, not just flagships.  It's economics, not sound dictating that.  If your theory was correct, tip rolling would always be detrimental.  There is nothing about Sony that makes them more special in how we should view their supplied tips compared to anyone else.

 

My 2 cents, YMMV.    


I wonder whether I'd qualify for this discussion, since my approach to listening seems to be so different to Inks' and yours. Apart from my review work or occasional A/B requests, I never ever listen analytically and focus on detail, but rather indulge in the experience as a whole. I doing so, my standard is realism/credibility of sound and presentation, as compared to live performances, which I have pretty good experience with (as a listener, not player).

 

Therefore it doesn't make much sense, from my rather holistic point of view, to talk about neutrality and disregard presentation. For example, the UERM may stay a bit more neutral in the mids and the EX1000 may exhibit a slight dip, but the UERM's vocals sound actually a bit too close for a realistic spatial presentation. You don't get that sense of closeness in a real audience, unless you're perhaps listening to an acoustic concert in a very intimate venue.

 

Same goes for detail, you simply don't get that kind of meticulous separation in any venue I know of. The Vienna Golden Hall is world-famous for its acoustics and I can confirm that it's an outstanding experience to attend a classical concert there, but the instruments still blend noticably more together than on highly analytical IEMs. So, if the EX1000 might be hiding some minute detail as compared to the ER4S (which I haven't heard), that might actually be a good thing in my book, as it probably makes them sound more realistic and believable.

 

Last not least, regarding bass, again this hardly qualifies as a third opinion in the spirit of your discussion, since I usually don't dissociate impact from texture. Instruments like cello or double bass sound more credible on the EX1000 to my ear, because they're slightly better textured. So, even if the UERM may be closer to neutral from a quantitative point of view, imo the EX1000's bass sounds more realistic overall.

 

These are my 2c, don't shoot me, lol. wink.gif

post #2660 of 3003

Lol!  wink_face.gif  Love it James.

post #2661 of 3003
that opened my mind more since I don't have experiences from different venues like you mentioned..

thanks!!
post #2662 of 3003
Ck-10 > ex1000 in terms of micro-details of the low-end?
Am I reading this right? I wholeheartedly disagree.
Additionally, just because the ck10 have/measure a "flatter" bass, in no way does this lead to increased details or sense of realism. On the contrary, the sense of realism is decreased.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's about time people started listening to the music rather than the medium. Really? The ex1000 possessing a V-oriented signature? That's the last conclusion I would make by listening to them in isolation, not consulting a graph.
So is the sa5000 also initiated into the same family as the l3000?
Edited by Sil3nce - 4/16/12 at 3:52am
post #2663 of 3003

I haven't been following the discussion here as closely as I hoped I could, as I've been taking care of other things along the way, but this current line of conversation is exactly what I've been pondering these past few weeks, especially after I received my 4.A. I don't quite know how to jump in, though.

post #2664 of 3003

does ex1000 need an amp to be completely driven? (or an amp is just needed to color the sound?)

I have searched this thread and others, but can't find any clear statement.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/sony-mdr-ex600-and-mdr-ex1000-ear-headphones

says: ex1000 need to be amped

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/548726/review-sony-mdr-ex1000

says: not necessary to be amped

 

thanks

post #2665 of 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by heart banger-97 View Post

does ex1000 need an amp to be completely driven? (or an amp is just needed to color the sound?)

I have searched this thread and others, but can't find any clear statement.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/sony-mdr-ex600-and-mdr-ex1000-ear-headphones

says: ex1000 need to be amped

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/548726/review-sony-mdr-ex1000

says: not necessary to be amped

 

thanks


I didn't find it necessary to be amped but when paired with the SR-71A the bass was absolutely awesome.  

 

post #2666 of 3003
Anyone tried the double flange silicone grey earsonics tips with ex1000? Sounds the best to me much better than others
post #2667 of 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurdt-bada View Post

Anyone tried the double flange silicone grey earsonics tips with ex1000? Sounds the best to me much better than others


could you please describe the SQ in comparison the hybrids?

thanks
post #2668 of 3003

dont try them I've spent more time with them and the hybrids sound better at last but the soundstage is smaller with the hybrids...what ive found is that the comply tx200 sound great, better than any of  the hybrids...ive been using the medium size with hybrids and now medium with tx200  i can say they have the same bass impact than the medium and more than the larger sizes but with bigger soundstage, more clear and detailed sound. Maybe more people tried them too

post #2669 of 3003
Originally Posted by james444 View Post


I wonder whether I'd qualify for this discussion, since my approach to listening seems to be so different to Inks' and yours. Apart from my review work or occasional A/B requests, I never ever listen analytically and focus on detail, but rather indulge in the experience as a whole. I doing so, my standard is realism/credibility of sound and presentation, as compared to live performances, which I have pretty good experience with (as a listener, not player).

 

My approach to listening is holistic as well, but FR is king and then perhaps transient speed/imaging. I do take detail into consideration because a transparent tone is going to reveal the most pure, detailed tone in relation to the recordings. I don't like the approach of relating things to a live performance, because not all recordings are done in such a way, an IEM should reveal the placing of each mic rather than trying to color it into something else. 

 

Therefore it doesn't make much sense, from my rather holistic point of view, to talk about neutrality and disregard presentation. For example, the UERM may stay a bit more neutral in the mids and the EX1000 may exhibit a slight dip, but the UERM's vocals sound actually a bit too close for a realistic spatial presentation. You don't get that sense of closeness in a real audience, unless you're perhaps listening to an acoustic concert in a very intimate venue.

 

Soundstage is an important aspect as well, but I think it's quite a tricky matter to discuss. Soundstage size is probably the most subjective aspect there is and I can't help but feel a lot of it is based on emotions and expectation bias. To me, the EX1000 does sound bigger than average for an IEM, but still pretty much has a closed presentation in relation to certain headphones and speakers. To me the CK10 or ER4S in no way sound tiny or congested in comparison, just a tad closer but their superior imaging give you a better sense of placement. 

 

I think soundstage size isn't as important of a matter in soundstage presentation as is imaging, which isn't a big strength on the EX1000s. EX1000s slight midrange dip is a coloration that places certain things back in the presentation, but not all, certain things are still forward. You may have the perception of a singer being more far back, but the bass player is still right upfront. With a more neutral tone and better imaging, you get a more pure presentation to the recordings and the driver's speed enables a more organized presentation of where everything is placed. 

 

Same goes for detail, you simply don't get that kind of meticulous separation in any venue I know of. The Vienna Golden Hall is world-famous for its acoustics and I can confirm that it's an outstanding experience to attend a classical concert there, but the instruments still blend noticably more together than on highly analytical IEMs. So, if the EX1000 might be hiding some minute detail as compared to the ER4S (which I haven't heard), that might actually be a good thing in my book, as it probably makes them sound more realistic and believable.

 

I think the EX1000s blending is a weakness, you get a slightly more muddied presentation in comparison the CK10/ER4S. In relation to the recordings, a more neutral IEM will present just how forward a detail is going to be, midrange detail is important to the musical experience as it enables a more pure tone. EX1000s coloration compromises more because that midhigh presentation does bring in forward those specific details whereas more detail in the fundamental midrange will be preferred, that unfortunately is masked a bit by the signature. 

 

Last not least, regarding bass, again this hardly qualifies as a third opinion in the spirit of your discussion, since I usually don't dissociate impact from texture. Instruments like cello or double bass sound more credible on the EX1000 to my ear, because they're slightly better textured. So, even if the UERM may be closer to neutral from a quantitative point of view, imo the EX1000's bass sounds more realistic overall.

 

Can't help but feel that you just simply prefer a beefier subbass region, that does not mean it's more realistic just beefier. I am lately in amazement of how much extension and rumble the CK10 has, nothing to envy the EX1000s. It's bass is much faster though, so you don't get that slower decay. Wouldn't want it any other way though, EX1000s bass just doesn't present itself in a more organized matter in imaging. EX1000 can sound a bit off to me once the cello's harmonics hit the midhighs and it's overtones don't sound as nicely laid out. I listen to a lot of double-bass to my Jazz background, CK10's bass sounds more credible because it's more precise in transients and yet maintains good depth and rumble. EX1000 to me compromises a bit much of the former to have the latter. 

 

These are my 2c, don't shoot me, lol. wink.gif



 

post #2670 of 3003

Those who found the EX1000 cable to sound noticeably better, should rethink the approach taken

 

Just another example of how big expectation-bias can be, less than 1db difference is insignificant. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [Review] Impressions of the Sony EX1000 versus the FX700, GR10 and e-Q5