Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Brainwavz B2 Impressions & Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brainwavz B2 Impressions & Discussion Thread - Page 78

post #1156 of 1351

I'm genuinely happy that you found something that works that well for you.beerchug.gif I also understand the trade offs but that is exactly what I was getting at. If those of a B2 are in your wheelhouse, they're a tremendous value. If not, than not so much.

post #1157 of 1351

I've decided to post my own impressions of B2.

 

These are seriously bright, but suprisingly this added brightness is not at all annoying. No trace of sibilance from them. The sound is somewhat rough/noisy in detailing, but that's not necessarily an issue. Bass weight is nicely presented with the usual slight subbass rolloff.

Some mild lack in upper vocal pushes them a bit to the back - very mildly V-shaped signature with added lots of sparkle.

Equalized, they can easily go toe to toe with SE-5 on quality front, but do lose out on bass and subbass handling as well as extension. Instead, give sharp detailing compared to soft roundedness.

With Comply P Slim, they're real comfortable and pretty well isolating, almost on par with my CIEM. T100 works also relatively well, but is less comfortable. Shallow fit with silicones accentuates the brightness and adds some unwanted peaks in the sound.

 

I had a chance to compare them head to head for a short while with DBA-02 - there's no difference at all in sound, but build quality of B2 is generally better with the exception of the cable. They're also slimmer and now have J-shaped (hokey stick) minijack.

post #1158 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

I had the same experience when a/b'ing the DBA-02 against the LCD3. The way full size cans present sound is just a lot different than iems. I think an iem with the sound signature of the LCD3 would sound bloated because of the way the smaller sound stage affects frequency response. It's complicated but I think the comparison is a difficult one that should be left to more knowledgeable folk to explain in depth.

 

Actually, IEMs can and will go toe to toe in soundstaging with best of headphones... However here we're talking about custom IEMs with price tags closing to $1k.

On the other hand, most headphones (LCD-2 and 3 probably excluded) cannot manage the same bass quality as great IEMs. (certain orthodynamics excluded)

post #1159 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralStorm View Post

Actually, IEMs can and will go toe to toe in soundstaging with best of headphones... However here we're talking about custom IEMs with price tags closing to $1k.

On the other hand, most headphones (LCD-2 and 3 probably excluded) cannot manage the same bass quality as great IEMs. (certain orthodynamics excluded)

 

This is something I never understood. If a balanced armature is fully surrounded by acrylic or silicone, how can it have the free space to create the illusion of soundstage? I read in a review of a hybrid custom that they used a cavity behind the drivers since an enclosed dynamic driver would give off a terrible sound, but I imagine this must be necessary to create soundstage as well.


Edited by LizardKing1 - 9/6/12 at 8:04am
post #1160 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizardKing1 View Post

 

This is something I never understood. If a balanced armature is fully surrounded by acrylic or silicone, how can it have the free space to create the illusion of soundstage? I read in a review of a hybrid custom that they used a cavity behind the drivers since an enclosed dynamic driver would give off a terrible sound, but I imagine this must be necessary to create soundstage as well.

 

If sound stage was created into the track by the engineer, it would show up naturally.  Otherwise, the rest of the sound stage deals with the signature of the headphone.  Things that are louder tend to sound closer while things that are further are softer on the FR curve. 

post #1161 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

If sound stage was created into the track by the engineer, it would show up naturally.  Otherwise, the rest of the sound stage deals with the signature of the headphone.  Things that are louder tend to sound closer while things that are further are softer on the FR curve. 

Just as a side-note:

IEM's are also a bit different, where if you tune for ruler-flat sound, the user perceives it as midrange starved. This needs to be compensated for by raising audibility of ~4k range.

post #1162 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleki View Post

Just as a side-note:

IEM's are also a bit different, where if you tune for ruler-flat sound, the user perceives it as midrange starved. This needs to be compensated for by raising audibility of ~4k range.

 

Yes, the FR curve would have to be compensated to relate to the natural human hearing.  A bump around 2-3 kHz (maybe higher, maybe lower) as well as a bump in the higher treble and bass would be needed to create the neutral sound. 

post #1163 of 1351

Please, do not put silly ideas into the heads of the makers of IEMs. Actually, I get the best soundstaging out of BA IEMs by cutting 3-6kHz.

It is definitely not midrange starved. Just something about my own HRTF, however human hearing is the most sensitive around 3-4kHz anyway.

(something to do with leaves ruffling and babies crying)

 

Those boosts make the IEM sound more "in your face" in my case, while boosts around 8k make the soundstage artificially wider and higher vertically. On the other hand, cuts on 8-12kHz collapse the soundstage.

Low midrange boosts bring the soundstage closer.

 

Almost all (or even all) balanced armatures have a sizable boost around 3-5k (also often up to 8k) relatively to my flat sounding eq in there. Heck, some dynamic drivers do too. (RE272)

 

Better extension on the highest end (air) improves soundstaging the most, as does linearity in the highest register. Of course, you have to actually be able to hear it.


Edited by AstralStorm - 9/6/12 at 9:46pm
post #1164 of 1351

That's actually all true Astral, I've had the same experiences with those FR regions just as you describe them. 

 

 

But in general theres a trend of needed electrical 3k boost  with a gradual dip there-after, in general all these regions (2-10k) are electrically-boosted due to the canal, concha and pinna's resonance that subdues those regions.  Definitely not perfect but a reference to consider. Dips from 2-4k after human HRTF are actually very common but it's not something that I will consider most accurate with a diffuse-field equalization in mind. I think either way is fine, but I don't find extreme or moderate dips in these regions to be very realistic, slight ones do work though. Keep in mind though that those regions are likely almost always electrically boosted before they are placed into the ear due to HRTF, tinymans' point. 


Edited by Inks - 9/6/12 at 10:33pm
post #1165 of 1351

Uhm, the resonance actually increases loudness in those regions. That's why the ear is sensitive to them, while outer ear boosts even higher frequencies nonlinearly.

 

All DF, ID and FF equalizations drop 3-6kHz severely. When equalizing with sines, you'll get the ID (independent-of-direction) equalization, which is quite versatile.

Diffuse Field also adds a midrange dip (1-2kHz) on top of that, while Free Field has a minor lower midrange dip, slight midrange dips and a high end boost.

 

The paper specifies the head equalization for measurement in such fields (respective to plain measurement capsules, which are linear), so it is the inverse of actual response. So if you want a diffuse-field equalized IEM, you'd apply that curve.

Source: http://www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/application_notes/Equalization_brochure.pdf

 

ID equalization + convolution reverb = great rendition of any sound space. (Head tracking would be nice, but it's hard to implement properly and not a strict requirement.)


Edited by AstralStorm - 9/7/12 at 1:15pm
post #1166 of 1351

Pardon my ignorance, but why are we all arguing about the same thing?

post #1167 of 1351

Issue with ID. 

 

For those that haven't seen it.

 

B2 analysis. These actually like added resistance. 

 

Rin provides a tip comparison chart for these as well

post #1168 of 1351

Uh, why underdamp if equalization exists? That will only compromise bass response adding even more distortion.

Part of the reason why I equalize with 500 Hz reference rather than 1000 Hz is that most IEMs I've tried have the response similar to B2. The about only exceptions I know of are Etymotic products and Hifiman RE-252 and RE-272.

 

The case for open ear measurements being "better" - how did they evaluate that, I'd like to see the source for that statement. (no, I don't have the expensive IEC or AES paper access) I bet it could be true for open back headphones, less so for closed headphones and even less for IEMs - there, you have the sealed or mostly sealed ear canal, so you should correct it as such.

Also, my equalization is by ear, it's an "eardrum measurement" with a blocked (by an IEM) ear canal. Converting it to open ear response is likely improving soundstaging, making the "plug" disappear.

 

Long story short: use ID for IEMs, DF for headphones. (a compromise for closed headphones?)

 

This is more interesting. AES paygate again, eh. http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-case-of-missing-6-db-effect.html

It means that there should be a phase delay in the subbass and it will all be fine. However, SE-5 (which I happen to have) do attempt to recreate the effect with a "delayed-ignition armature". The result to my ears is similar in frequency response to B2, but bass quality is much more lifelike and rounded.

 

Note that my own preferred (flat sounding) boost is not +6 dB @ 100 Hz, only about effective +6 dB @ 20 Hz, starting far lower at around 60 Hz.

Both B2 and SE-5 roll off substantially, so the required boost is higher.

 

Pity the tip comparison doesn't include any long foams (Comply P/P Slim). The latter do sound very similar to included T100 with far more secure fit and better isolation, "flat", sparkly but smooth without eq.


Edited by AstralStorm - 9/8/12 at 3:17am
post #1169 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

Try a different tip.  Your tip might be too small to create any seal then... 


Ho, wow, truer words...

 

I had originally purchased Shure Olives about a month ago after hearing so many good things. Medium turned out to be too small. Last week, I got around to ordering a large set, and wow, is really all I can say. I'm removing my B2's from the FS section, and withdrawing my request that someone test them against their own.

 

Bass was sort of lacking with the porous Comply tips included with the B2s, no more with the Shure Olives. Great tip, tinyman, and great tips Shure.

 
post #1170 of 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadawgis732 View Post


Ho, wow, truer words...

 

I had originally purchased Shure Olives about a month ago after hearing so many good things. Medium turned out to be too small. Last week, I got around to ordering a large set, and wow, is really all I can say. I'm removing my B2's from the FS section, and withdrawing my request that someone test them against their own.

 

Bass was sort of lacking with the porous Comply tips included with the B2s, no more with the Shure Olives. Great tip, tinyman, and great tips Shure.

 

 

Glad I could help :)  Now go enjoy the B2s :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Brainwavz B2 Impressions & Discussion Thread