Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › VSONIC GR07 Impressions & Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VSONIC GR07 Impressions & Impressions Thread - Page 304

post #4546 of 6468

Well, actually, you're wrong I'm not coming from a basshead POV. I've always been an analytical listener - the iem I most enjoyed in my early hi-fi years was the altec lansing in716, which actally isn't much behind the er4s aside from being way harder to drive and slighltly less refined. I know and I agreed it's down to personal preferece and that's why we shouldn't be discussing this in the gr07's thread as it not very related as they are completely different. And I never get a bad fit with the er4 - nowadays I use it only with shure olives or comply P slims - saling doesn't get better than this. The funny thing is that you're telling me now how you prefer your music and how you see things differently even though you just got your er4s and I've listened to analytical iems including the er4s a lot longer. Gr07 is so fasr away from having a boosted bass - its bass is pretty flat and neutal while the er4s' bass is that but on top of it it is pretty lean and while neutral it isn't natural

post #4547 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post

EDIT: Sorry apparently forgot to quote. Was in response to this:

"Well, no recording actually sounds like the er4s portrays it. I was at the hi-fi expo in my country this year, which was just next to my home and they gave me to listen to some $100-200k systems with my recordings and the er4s couldn't be further away. I know what realistic is and what analytical iems do - the b2 pushes even more detail than the er4s ans is way more agressive in the treble region and that doesn't make it more accurate. Analytical iems don't acccurately produce what is on the recording - are you serious? I said it already - have you ever been to a live concert - nothing sounds that cold. Even my brother's band sounds analytical and cold with the er4s - they sound  nothing like that and my brother's voice sounds nothing like that ( I should know he's my twin brother and has the exact same voice as me, which is prety bassy)"

Every single argument you make falls apart when you consider two things:

1. The definition of "analytical." 
2. The quality of the recording and mastering.

Analytical does not mean "cold with little bass and aggressive treble." Analytical headphones only fit that description when the recording does. The definition of analytical is actually a logical conclusion of "what is true." The B2 is no more analytical than the ER4 because it has more aggressive treble and pushes more detail (which it doesn't, unless you're not amping the ER4 properly).  

The price of the audio chain means nothing if both the recording and entire audio chain are not accurate. 

Live concerts are not the same as a recording. Irrelevant argument. 

If recordings of your brother's band sound cold and analytical with the ER4, then that's how they were mastered. If you use inaccurate equipment in the master, the master will be inaccurate.

The GR07 is much farther from accurate than the ER4 is. The GR07 has a much better soundstage presentation, but tonally it's much less accurate than the ER4.

I don't see why we should be arguing in the gr07's thread anymore. I love the er4s - it's my most favorite BA iem and iem in my collection in general, so I'm not trying to make the gr07 sound better (literally) or anything. They are just so far apart to even consider comparing them. Analytical is usually a highly detailed signature due to thin note presentaion and a boosted treble - analytical does not mean true to life or natural sounding. The quiality of the recordings and the mastering has nothing to do with anything - if anything the er4s makes the music sound a lot worse due to it's analytical and picky nature. And yeah, the B2 smacks you in the face with the details while the er4s presents them more gently but still can be harsh - the RE0 is the best in presenting treble detail in my opinion. Also. I'm not comparing live concerts to studio albums - I'm comparing live concerts to live concert recordings. 


Edited by kova4a - 12/6/12 at 2:28pm
post #4548 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kova4a View Post

Well, actually, you're wrong I'm not coming from a basshead POV. I've always been an analytical listener - the iem I most enjoyed in my early hi-fi years was the altec lansing in716, which actally isn't much behind the er4s aside from being way harder to drive and slighltly less refined. I know and I agreed it's down to personal preferece and that's why we shouldn't be discussing this in the gr07's thread as it not very related as they are completely different. And I never get a bad fit with the er4 - nowadays I use it only with shure olives or comply P slims - saling doesn't get better than this. The funny thing is that you're telling me now how you prefer your music and how you see things differently even though you just got your er4s and I've listened to analytical iems including the er4s a lot longer. Gr07 is so fasr away from having a boosted bass - its bass is pretty flat and neutal while the er4s' bass is that but on top of it it is pretty lean and while neutral it isn't natural

If you look at the GR07's graph, its bass peaks at 7dB higher than the 1kHz reference point. 7dB is pretty significant in my book, and is not so flat. There have been at least a couple people in this thread who commented that the GR07 is slightly dark in tone, I myself had to attenuate its bass significant to get to be as close to flat as possible as shown by the image of my EQ setting a few pages back in this thread. With that setting, it sounded much like how the ER4S sounds.

 

I don't agree that this discussion isn't relevant to the thread.

post #4549 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post

There are a few issues with that viewpoint.

#1. There's not a whole lot of reverb in most instruments naturally, even in something like the tympani. Reverb is typically an effect of the mastering or the recording environment. 

 

 

confused.gif

 

My undergrad university had a fantastic music program. It was required for every student taking Music 101 to attend the recitals of graduating students every year. I know what live percussion sounds like. Not to mention, I've played the drums since I was six years old...drum sets and conga. The band teacher at my school is a master of anything you can hit with your hands or a stick, and I've watched him play several times.

 

Also, a tympani is not quite a tympani without the reverb.

 

In live recordings the reverb does not solely come from the instruments, but also from the reflections of waves bouncing off the walls. 

 

 

Listen to this on your Ety, then the GR07 and tell me which you honestly think better conveys the feel of the recording

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alondite View Post


#2. It is physically impossible for the decay to be shorter then the recorded decay unless the headphones are incapable of reproducing the decaying frequencies. The headphones do not simply play the attack then decay naturally; the decay is recorded and the headphones reproduce the decay. It's possible for headphone decay to be too slow, but a decay that is too fast is the result of the master, not the headphones. 
 

 

 

The human tympanic membrane is itself a dynamic driver of sorts. You may be correct in saying that what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life. The HF3 and, I assume, the ER4 just aren't capable of reproducing the natural reverb and decay that you'd hear from a live performance. That's why many classical listeners use the IE8, despite their obviously boosted midbass.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post


#3. Expanding on #2 a bit, "accurate" headphones are called accurate not because they sound natural, they are accurate because they accurately reproduce what is on the recording. If the recording and mastering is done properly, then accurate headphones will sound simply sublime. However, if the recording is poor, accurate headphones will portray it as such. Less accurate headphones may be more forgiving, or even better-sounding with poor recordings, but they won't sound right at all with good recordings. 
 

 

 

The inaccurate part about the Ety's, and most other "analytical" phones, is that they cannot portray note weight with proper fidelity. This is the price for a sharper image. The crux of the matter is whether or not the price is too steep for the individual. 

 

All I know is that I'll never trade in my GR07 for an Ety product.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post


#5. The GR07 aren't even close to portraying vocals properly either. They are overly warm and thick, honky, and sibilant. 

 

 

I don't think we're listening to the same phones. I could give you sibilant on certain tracks where that region is already boosted, but honky and overly warm? No.

 

 

Tell you what, see if you can find Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. Make sure it's the performance conducted by Eugen Jochum with the Berlin Orchestra in 1968. If you listen to that and still think the ER4 is more accurate than the GR07, then I'll shut up on the issue.

post #4550 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kova4a View Post

I don't see why we should be arguing in the gr07's thread anymore. I love the er4s - it's my most favorite BA iem and iem in my collection in general, so I'm not trying to make the gr07 sound better (literally) or anything. They are just so far apart to even consider comparing them. Analytical is usually a highly detailed signature due to thin note presentaion and a boosted treble - analytical does not mean true to life or natural sounding. The quiality of the recordings and the mastering has nothing to do with anything - if anything the er4s makes the music sound a lot worse due to it's analytical and picky nature. And yeah, the B2 smacks you in the face with the details while the er4s presents them more gently but still can be harsh - the RE0 is the best in presenting treble detail in my opinion. Also. I'm not comparing live concerts to studio albums - I'm comparing live concerts to live concert recordings. 

This is an impressions thread, not just an appreciation thread. As long as the comments relate to how the GR07 sounds, it's legitimate. Many readers who has never owned the GR07 are interested in how it sounds compared to other IEMs. As such, the debating going on doesn't hurt, and only contributes to the thread... at least until someone gets a little too passionate, which does happen from time to time.

post #4551 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

confused.gif

 

My undergrad university had a fantastic music program. It was required for every student taking Music 101 to attend the recitals of graduating students every year. I know what live percussion sounds like. Not to mention, I've played the drums since I was six years old...drum sets and conga. The band teacher at my school is a master of anything you can hit with your hands or a stick, and I've watched him play several times.

 

Also, a tympani is not quite a tympani without the reverb.

 

In live recordings the reverb does not solely come from the instruments, but also from the reflections of waves bouncing off the walls. 

 

 

Listen to this on your Ety, then the GR07 and tell me which you honestly think better conveys the feel of the recording

 

 

 

 

 

 

The human tympanic membrane is itself a dynamic driver of sorts. You may be correct in saying that what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life. The HF3 and, I assume, the ER4 just aren't capable of reproducing the natural reverb and decay that you'd hear from a live performance. That's why many classical listeners use the IE8, despite their obviously boosted midbass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The inaccurate part about the Ety's, and most other "analytical" phones, is that they cannot portray note weight with proper fidelity. This is the price for a sharper image. The crux of the matter is whether or not the price is too steep for the individual. 

 

All I know is that I'll never trade in my GR07 for an Ety product.

 

 

 

I don't think we're listening to the same phones. I could give you sibilant on certain tracks where that region is already boosted, but honky and overly warm? No.

 

 

Tell you what, see if you can find Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. Make sure it's the performance conducted by Eugen Jochum with the Berlin Orchestra in 1968. If you listen to that and still think the ER4 is more accurate than the GR07, then I'll shut up on the issue.

+1 Some people just can't understand the difference between detailed and clear image, and natural image. They just talk about detail and clarity as if sound is all about this - if it was like that there wouldn't be any new headphones and everyone in head-fi would use ety.  Come on, the gr07 being dark - I've heard dark, I've had sennheiser ie8 and ie7. If you have a dark source or EQ setting that make something dark that's another question - the gr07 does not have the boosted leaking bass to make it sound dark as it is. If someone thinks that the gr07 with a little bit of bass EQ sounds similar to the er4s then he is completely wasted as this is just not possible. I can remove completely the bass of my gr07 with eq and it will never sound close to an ety. I can boost the treble and it will still not sound like it.


Edited by kova4a - 12/6/12 at 2:51pm
post #4552 of 6468
Responses in bold.

 
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

confused.gif

 

My undergrad university had a fantastic music program. It was required for every student taking Music 101 to attend the recitals of graduating students every year. I know what live percussion sounds like. Not to mention, I've played the drums since I was six years old...drum sets and conga. The band teacher at my school is a master of anything you can hit with your hands or a stick, and I've watched him play several times.

 

Also, a tympani is not quite a tympani without the reverb.

The tympani has just about the most reverb of any percussive instrument, but it doesn't decay for some ridiculous amount of time. The ER4 is fully capable of replicating every bit of the reverb.

 

In live recordings the reverb does not solely come from the instruments, but also from the reflections of waves bouncing off the walls. 

 

 

Listen to this on your Ety, then the GR07 and tell me which you honestly think better conveys the feel of the recording

 

 

 

 

 

 

The human tympanic membrane is itself a dynamic driver of sorts. You may be correct in saying that what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life. The HF3 and, I assume, the ER4 just aren't capable of reproducing the natural reverb and decay that you'd hear from a live performance. That's why many classical listeners use the IE8, despite their obviously boosted midbass.

They are fully capable of reproducing the natural reverb if it's mastered into the recording. If they ER4 doesn't convey a natural reverb and decay, then it isn't in the recording. If different headphones play the same recording with natural reverb and decay, then it is technically a distortion of the original signal because it wasn't mastered to sound that way. It's all about the recording and mastering. Source is more important than anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The inaccurate part about the Ety's, and most other "analytical" phones, is that they cannot portray note weight with proper fidelity. This is the price for a sharper image. The crux of the matter is whether or not the price is too steep for the individual. 

They can, and do, if the track is mastered with proper weight. Analytical headphones, by definition, portray with proper fidelity. High-Fidelity literally means "accurate reproduction of the source." If the source isn't accurate, the reproduction won't be.

 

All I know is that I'll never trade in my GR07 for an Ety product.

 

 

 

I don't think we're listening to the same phones. I could give you sibilant on certain tracks where that region is already boosted, but honky and overly warm? No.

The GR07 ranges from slightly sibilant, to painfully sibilant. It's always there to some degree. They are absolutely warmer than natural, with a slightly honky tone. It's like listening to someone sing through glass at times because of the trouble in the 500 Hz area. Drop that down some and they become noticeably more neutral in tone. Still a bit on the warm side, but closer to neutral.

 

 

Tell you what, see if you can find Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. Make sure it's the performance conducted by Eugen Jochum with the Berlin Orchestra in 1968. If you listen to that and still think the ER4 is more accurate than the GR07, then I'll shut up on the issue.


It all comes down to source. If the source is balanced and natural, then analytical IEMs will portray it as such. The problem is, most sources aren't. That's not the fault of the IEM, it's the fault of the recording. 

post #4553 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

The human tympanic membrane is itself a dynamic driver of sorts. You may be correct in saying that what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life. The HF3 and, I assume, the ER4 just aren't capable of reproducing the natural reverb and decay that you'd hear from a live performance. That's why many classical listeners use the IE8, despite their obviously boosted midbass.

 

The inaccurate part about the Ety's, and most other "analytical" phones, is that they cannot portray note weight with proper fidelity. This is the price for a sharper image. The crux of the matter is whether or not the price is too steep for the individual.

"what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that it's the recording that is not containing "what you would hear in everyday life"? If that's the case, it's not the ER4S's fault, it's the recording; and any realism that you would sense from the GR07 would then be a distortion that brings that sense of realism to a recording didn't originally have.

 

"Note weight" is a tricky thing for IEMs. With loudspeakers, weight is generally not an issue even with flat response. With IEMs, a flat response may detract from some of that realism, but a boosted bass response can get in way of higher frequencies.

 

Again, I don't hear any less decay and reverb from my Etys than I do from my EQ'd GR07. That tells me that the reverb you're referring to may actually be more of a function of more intense bass response than actual decay.

post #4554 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post


It all comes down to source. If the source is balanced and natural, then analytical IEMs will portray it as such. The problem is, most sources aren't. That's not the fault of the IEM, it's the fault of the recording. 

Shouldn't it be the fault of the recording then? 

post #4555 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post


It all comes down to source. If the source is balanced and natural, then analytical IEMs will portray it as such. The problem is, most sources aren't. That's not the fault of the IEM, it's the fault of the recording. 

 

It's amazing how differently we can perceive things.

 

All the same, they are two different iems, suited for two different purposes. Let's leave it at that....for now biggrin.gif

 

_53681428_d05_robson_v2.gif

post #4556 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigon_ridge View Post

"what the ER4 produces may be truer to the recording, but the sound from the GR07 is truer to what you would hear in everyday life."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that it's the recording that is not containing "what you would hear in everyday life"? If that's the case, it's not the ER4S's fault, it's the recording; and any realism that you would sense from the GR07 would then be a distortion that brings that sense of realism to a recording didn't originally have.

 

"Note weight" is a tricky thing for IEMs. With loudspeakers, weight is generally not an issue even with flat response. With IEMs, a flat response may detract from some of that realism, but a boosted bass response can get in way of higher frequencies.

 

Again, I don't hear any less decay and reverb from my Etys than I do from my EQ'd GR07. That tells me that the reverb you're referring to may actually be more of a function of more intense bass response than actual decay.

Yeah, all recordings are bad and cold. Are you kidding me. The er4s can't make a warm recording sound warm to save its life. Yeah, there might be some colder recordings made for boosting the clarity but you just can't say honestly that all recordings are cold as the er4s portrays them properly. ALso a flat response has nothing to do with note presenataion. There are extremely flat iems that have a thick note peresenation  and vice versa. It's pretty insane if you can't hear the difference in decay times between the two as it is pretty obvious - not to start an argument but my 98-year-old grandmother would hear  LOLthat


Edited by kova4a - 12/6/12 at 3:02pm
post #4557 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kova4a View Post

+1 Some people just can't understand the difference between detailed and clear image, and natural image. They just talk about detail and clarity as if sound is all about this - if it was like that there wouldn't be any new headphones and everyone in head-fi would use ety.  Come on, the gr07 being dark - I've heard dark, I've had sennheiser ie8 and ie7. If you have a dark source or EQ setting that make something dark that's another question - the gr07 does not have the boosted leaking bass to make it sound dark as it is. If someone thinks that the gr07 with a little bit of bass EQ sounds similar to the er4s then he is completely wasted as this is just not possible. I can remove completely the bass of my gr07 with eq and it will never sound close to an ety. I can boost the treble and it will still not sound like it.

The GR07 already has slightly more treble than the ER4S, so I don't see how boosting the highs in GR07 would make them sound similar.

 

"If someone thinks that the gr07 with a little bit of bass EQ sounds similar to the er4s then he is completely wasted as this is just not possible." Well, being that I don't drink, it would be difficult to listen to headphones, "wasted." Have you actually ever tried it, or are you just guessing? I listened to my EQ'd GR07 for about a month, and at least 6 hours a day; so please don't patronize me by saying that what I heard isn't what I think I heard. You're coming off a bit presumptuous, now, and I may have to back away from this discussion; as I only prefer mature discussions.


Edited by tigon_ridge - 12/6/12 at 3:02pm
post #4558 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kova4a View Post

Yeah, all recordings are bad and cold. Are you kidding me. The er4s can't make a warm recording sound warm to save its life. Yeah, there might be some colder recordings made for boosting the clarity but you just can't say honestly that all recordings are cold as the er4s portrays them properly. ALso a flat response has nothing to do with note presenataion. There are extremely flat iems that have a thick note peresenation  and vice versa. It's pretty insane if you can't hear the difference in decay times between the two as it is pretty obvious - not to start an argument but my 98-year-old grandmother would hear  LOLthat

Yes, I'm aware that response isn't the only factor of presentation.

post #4559 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigon_ridge View Post

The GR07 already has slightly more treble than the ER4S, so I don't see how boosting the highs in GR07 would make them sound similar.

 

"If someone thinks that the gr07 with a little bit of bass EQ sounds similar to the er4s then he is completely wasted as this is just not possible." Well, being that I don't drink, it would be difficult to listen to headphones, "wasted." Have you actually ever tried it, or are you just guessing? I listened to my EQ'd GR07 for about a month, and at least 6 hours a day; so please don't patronize me by saying that what I heard isn't what I think I heard. You're coming off a bit presumptuous, now, and I may have to back away from this discussion; as I only prefer mature discussions.

Well, sorry, LOL - I have to admit I'm slightly drunk but the maturity level should be anout the same. So I'm not patronizing anyone, both iems are great and everyone has personal preference - my point is that the er4s is not nearly the upgrade to the gr07 you're trying to make it as they are very very different. I do advice everyone to get bought and keep them though

post #4560 of 6468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kova4a View Post

Yeah, all recordings are bad and cold. Are you kidding me. The er4s can't make a warm recording sound warm to save its life. Yeah, there might be some colder recordings made for boosting the clarity but you just can't say honestly that all recordings are cold as the er4s portrays them properly. ALso a flat response has nothing to do with note presenataion. There are extremely flat iems that have a thick note peresenation  and vice versa. It's pretty insane if you can't hear the difference in decay times between the too as it is pretty obvious - not to start an argument but my 98-year-old grandmother would hear  LOLthat

How close would you say the tip of the ER4S is to your eardrum? 6mm? 10mm? Just throwing out a guess but maybe try an even deeper fit with foams.

Either that or the definitions we use are completely different, which happens.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › VSONIC GR07 Impressions & Impressions Thread