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 181

post #2701 of 3000

I understand the W4 has less bass quantity compared with the EX1000, otherwise I would be more interested.

post #2702 of 3000

Previously the cable for my EX600 broke at the very end. I have the feeling the cable for my EX1000 will likely follow the suit just a matter of time. I keep thinking and believe the cable is going thru stresses from twisting at the end due to restraint. Those stresses are perhaps the primary cause. I also notice the two cables are not twisted to the same degree - meaning my ears are not produced symmetrically.

 

ex1k.jpg

post #2703 of 3000

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostid View Post

Previously the cable for my EX600 broke at the very end. I have the feeling the cable for my EX1000 will likely follow the suit just a matter of time. I keep thinking and believe the cable is going thru stresses from twisting at the end due to restraint. Those stresses are perhaps the primary cause. I also notice the two cables are not twisted to the same degree - meaning my ears are not produced symmetrically.

 

ex1k.jpg

 

Paranoid anyone? :)

post #2704 of 3000

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

I still disagree, IME the EX1000 has slightly less bass quantity than the UERM.  If you want to say the UERM has bloated or exaggerated bass feel free.  The K3003 certainly seems to have more bass than the EX1000 to me as well w/ reference filters but less than the GR07.  I would say that if someone became psychoacoustically adjusted to the lesser bass quantity of another phone anything more than that will sound overdone.  Same goes for the other direction.  I'm also not sure why you are discounting the use of gear and tips to explain differences in perception and making such an absolute crusade out of this EX1000 V-shape thing as if it's absolute.  If the ER4 and diffuse field is your reference for neutral then we just simply disagree on what neutral is.  That's fine.  I simply don't think the ER4 graph is what I'd consider neutral.  The HD800 uses diffuse field too and has more measured and produced bass.  You can see how they graph versus the LCD2 or 009.  Senn and Beyer simply have a different interpretation of neutral compared to Audeze and Stax.  I like to call it anechoic versus acoustic gain.

I suspect B2 bass levels are very close to the CK10s, now that kind of bass presentation keeps the midrange transparency close do a good reference level. The Sonys aren't just quite there, they muddy up things a bit more in comparison (despite being one of the least muddy dynamics), missing that true transparent tone in the midrange. EX1000s don't change very much with sources, it's acoustics are linear as are it's impedance phase. Because of it's acoustics tips don't change it much, seal is a bit changing factor though, mostly for the bass and I suspect I got a better seal than yours as I'm surprised you find the bass levels so low (I get a better fit wearing them straight down). ER-4 is neutral, but the CK10 is also pretty neutral as well as is the B2 with a good fit I assume. Haven't heard the HD800, but I suspect it's closer to a B2/ER4S than the EX1000.

 

A lot of companies admittedly don't use any diffuse-field , just make them electrically linear which leaves a lot gaps in our ear's true hearing, causing coloration and v-shaped sounds. Senn and Beyer base their diffuse fields on studies that are likely very close, almost the same transfers, perhaps the difference is in their ability of who gets closer. A fairly recent 2008 study at Denmark stablished an average of head-related transfered functions (HRTF), which manufacturers should use as reference since it's the most established universal HRTF one can use (see pic below), sadly most manufacturers are more worried about what sells or what kind of gimmick can justify a high cost. Of course, everyone's HRTFs vary (though not vastly), headphones can never be as flat as speakers and things are never perfect and nicely laid-out. But you do get a good idea of which companies are actually doing their homework. 

(source)

2008DF.gif

(response of monitors should get close to mimicking this for the most pure tonal linearity)

 

 

No comment on the UERM or K3003. No desire, though curious for the latter, but it's price probably ups it's performance two-fold. 

 

 

 


Edited by Inks - 4/21/12 at 3:03am
post #2705 of 3000

does anyone where I could get a replacement cable for ex1000?
I am using ex600's cable at the moment .
I heard that ex800's cable offers more bass and ex1000's cable has a bigger sound stage and warmer and sweeter mid
Is that true??? 

post #2706 of 3000

No, they're all placebo-induced impressions. Read this and this (ears cannot be trusted section), don't waste your money. 

post #2707 of 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

No, they're all placebo-induced impressions. Read this and this (ears cannot be trusted section), don't waste your money. 

I like that second article and am inclined to agree that everything in theory can be measured. In practice, good luck finding measurements on a driver's power response and its interaction with the IEM'S chamber, not to mention that interaction with a statistically relevant model of the average human ear canal, to figure out an IEM's soundstage.

Besides, the average buyer doesn't have the time nor the patience to learn how to understand such measurements, where to find them, and actually read and understand them.

Good read though beerchug.gif
post #2708 of 3000
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post
I like that second article and am inclined to agree that everything in theory can be measured. In practice, good luck finding measurements on a driver's power response and its interaction with the IEM'S chamber, not to mention that interaction with a statistically relevant model of the average human ear canal, to figure out an IEM's soundstage.
Besides, the average buyer doesn't have the time nor the patience to learn how to understand such measurements, where to find them, and actually read and understand them.
Good read though beerchug.gif

The most relevant factors in performance can be measured, only smaller ones like soundstage size can't be. You don't need a measurement of a driver's power response with IEM's chamber, that sounds like unneeded work. what's the point? We aren't trying to create an IEM. There is a relavent model of the average human ear's in relation to response to headphones by Moller and Hammershoi as pictured in my post above. Not for soundstage size no, but I argue transient response aka soundstage imaging is far more important and that can be measured. 

 

Yes, that is why the average consumer is buying Beats and Bose. It is those who actually have more dedication in regards to this hobby that should place the more productive practice. 


Edited by Inks - 5/23/12 at 12:30pm
post #2709 of 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

The most relevant factors in performance can be measured, only smaller ones like soundstage size can't be. You don't need a measurement of a driver's power response with IEM's chamber, that sounds like unneeded work. what's the point? We aren't trying to create an IEM. There is a relavent model of the average human ear's in relation to response to headphones by Moller and Hammershoi as pictured in my post above. Not for soundstage size no, but I argue transient response aka soundstage imaging is far more important and that can be measured. 

Yes, that is why the average consumer is buying Beats and Bose. It is those who actually have more dedication in regards to this hobby that should place the more productive practice. 

What I was trying to say, and hopefully I'm not being too presumtuous in that it seems like you might agree, is that we need to pick and choose our target audience with how we describe sound. If everyone here spoke about sound in purely measurable terms, this would obviously be a different place. Unfortunately this would probably leave a lot of people who could be experiencing possibly good sound scratching their heads and out of luck.

Relevance is unfortunately a subjective factor. Soundstage characteristics might be deathly relevant to some, more so than even say sound signature. And the article while dancing around it a bit doesn't really go into the point that while speakers are reproductive, it's not just the preferences of the engineer that come into play, but the overall goal of the product or system, or what they, who are making it, want it to sound like and for who. I liken it to a camera and different filters or different films. The camera is a reproductive system but people want it to reproduce in a certain way, and if that's the goal, then I don't see how it can be spoken about negatively if it meets that goal. The most accurate reproduction possible at a given price point might be the goal for one set of speakers for one set of end users.
Edited by vwinter - 5/23/12 at 1:00pm
post #2710 of 3000
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

What I was trying to say, and hopefully I'm not being too presumtuous in that it seems like you might agree, is that we need to pick and choose our target audience with how we describe sound. If everyone here spoke about sound in purely measurable terms, this would obviously be a different place. Unfortunately this would probably leave a lot of people who could be experiencing possibly good sound scratching their heads and out of luck.
Relevance is unfortunately a subjective factor. Soundstage characteristics might be deathly relevant to some, more so than even say sound signature. And the article while dancing around it a bit doesn't really go into the point that while speakers are reproductive, it's not just the preferences of the engineer that come into play, but the overall goal of the product or system, or what they, who are making it, want it to sound like and for who. I liken it to a camera and different filters or different films. The camera is a reproductive system but people want it to reproduce in a certain way, and if that's the goal, then I don't see how it can be spoken about negatively if it meets that goal. The most accurate reproduction possible at a given price point might be the goal for one set of speakers for one set of end users.

Good point, but the norm of describing sound is even more confusing, vague and problematic. I don' think there's a way around it, if you want to to pin point exact stuff without listening, some education in the matter is needed. 

 

I would be surprised if there are those who will like an IEM with skewed FR response but bigger soundstage in comparison to vice-versa. FR is the very nature of the sound, but yes the importance of soundstage size is subjective but still submissive to FR and Transient response. The article is in relation to performance characterized by a transparent response, not choices of preferences or targeted audiences, that stuff can be all over the place. 

post #2711 of 3000
Agreed. It was a drastic example to be sure but you never know. The article kind of opened up door in briefly mentioning it so I couldn't help but to give it some thought. Like I said, I really like the article and will probably give it another read later. Thanks for the link!
post #2712 of 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellj View Post

does anyone where I could get a replacement cable for ex1000?
I am using ex600's cable at the moment .
I heard that ex800's cable offers more bass and ex1000's cable has a bigger sound stage and warmer and sweeter mid
Is that true??? 

 

Wow.  I've mentioned I did perceive a very slight difference but nothing drastic like you mention.  It was just an ever so slight enhancement to a narrow peak in the EX1000 that may have enhanced a sense of separation and air within that band and it's harmonics.  Very very slight though, maybe real or imagined.  I'll let others determine the validity of my senses since I'm obviously unqualified and third parties are much more so.  tongue_smile.gif

post #2713 of 3000

looks like i can save some money for other things
 

post #2714 of 3000

great review! thanks a bunch :D

post #2715 of 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

Wow.  I've mentioned I did perceive a very slight difference but nothing drastic like you mention.  It was just an ever so slight enhancement to a narrow peak in the EX1000 that may have enhanced a sense of separation and air within that band and it's harmonics.  Very very slight though, maybe real or imagined.  I'll let others determine the validity of my senses since I'm obviously unqualified and third parties are much more so.  tongue_smile.gif

I think he got that idea from other uses making such ridiculous comments. Yours is the most sound impression I've read in regards to the cable, you said it was so small it's maybe imagined, that easily complys with the data. You also mentioned maybe it was just a gain thing which is also quite sound and that was even before the measurements were done. I'll say you and Music1234 did a honest job comparing, can't same the same for the rest , but these kind of things are to be measured to be certain. 


Edited by Inks - 5/28/12 at 1:05pm
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