Brainwavz B2/DBA-02/ATH-CK10 clarity, but with more bass? - Page 6

Hmm. The FX700 has a nice special timbre, but not a great tonal balance, so I wouldn't place tonal balance as a requirement for good timbre. A timbre like the FX700 is hard to explain, but it's mostly due to the materials use rather than a linear or well compensated frequency response. Using the FX500 made me realize this even more. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

I wouldn't even regard timbre as a factor by itself, imo it's rather the result of an interaction between factors like tonal balance, note weight, etc. The exact recipe for timbre (i.e. the exact nature of this interaction) is probably too complex to understand, but it's funny that most of us would recognize great timbre when they hear it. I also think the derivative nature of timbre makes it pretty controversial for the more analytical minds among us, because "it doesn't really get to the bottom of things".

x2.  That's very near the definition of the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

Hmm. The FX700 has a nice special timbre, but not a great tonal balance, so I wouldn't place tonal balance as a requirement for good timbre. A timbre like the FX700 is hard to explain, but it's mostly due to the materials use rather than a linear or well compensated frequency response. Using the FX500 made me realize this even more. 

Well, actually I didn't say that great tonal balance is requred for great timbre, just that timbre is determined by several other factors and the exact formula for great timbre is probably poorly understood. I agree that the materials used are most likely the key to the JVCs great timbre, but again, the precise acoustic benefits of using a wooden driver over other materials are probably anything but trivial to explain. It's certainly not as easy as "wooden driver + wooden instruments = great timbre".

One more thing regarding tonal balance, I don't think the FX700's is that bad. Imo tonal balance shouldn't be judged without considering spatial presentation and the FX700 are tuned for utmost out-of-head experience, so any more mid-forwardness would be detrimental to that objective. You need to put some distance into the mids to achieve the illusion of forward projection and the Sony EX600 are actually a good example for what happens if you don't. They sound extremely wide, but have more present mids and as a result a rather shallow stage that doesn't quite seem to fit in with the width. Another good example to illustrate that point are the IE8 vs. the IE80. Most people raved about the IE8's soundstage but were less happy with their somewhat veiled and distant mids. Now the new IE80 have been tuned to sound noticably clearer and less distant, but they also lost part of the famous IE8 soundstage size along the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

One more thing regarding tonal balance, I don't think the FX700's is that bad. Imo tonal balance shouldn't be judged without considering spatial presentation and the FX700 are tuned for utmost out-of-head experience, so any more mid-forwardness would be detrimental to that objective.

Good point.

Originally Posted by james444 

Well, actually I didn't say that great tonal balance is requred for great timbre, just that timbre is determined by several other factors and the exact formula for great timbre is probably poorly understood. I agree that the materials used are most likely the key to the JVCs great timbre, but again, the precise acoustic benefits of using a wooden driver over other materials are probably anything but trivial to explain. It's certainly not as easy as "wooden driver + wooden instruments = great timbre".

 

One more thing regarding tonal balance, I don't think the FX700's is that bad. Imo tonal balance shouldn't be judged without considering spatial presentation and the FX700 are tuned for utmost out-of-head experience, so any more mid-forwardness would be detrimental to that objective. You need to put some distance into the mids to achieve the illusion of forward projection and the Sony EX600 are actually a good example for what happens if you don't. They sound extremely wide, but have more present mids and as a result a rather shallow stage that doesn't quite seem to fit in with the width. Another good example to illustrate that point are the IE8 vs. the IE80. Most people raved about the IE8's soundstage but were less happy with their somewhat veiled and distant mids. Now the new IE80 have been tuned to sound noticably clearer and less distant, but they also lost part of the famous IE8 soundstage size along the way.

Wooden driver + wooden instruments doesn't equal great timbre but the wooden driver gets you closer to a more realistic timbre. It's a step, but then you have to have a great tonal balance which will be achieved by a linear, well compensated frequency response. FX700 has that wooden chamber, but makes a lot of compromises with it's frequency response. It's tonal balance isn't great, but not bad either. I think the FX700s were made for Classical, orchestral works in mind and that's perhaps why they went with a v-shaped response and the modest venting. It makes it sound more engaging and grand, but it's certainly not a very accurate sound. I will describe the FX700's response as kind of boomy in the bass and shouty in the lower treble with a relatively poor treble extension. Mids as a result while having some nice thickness due to the midbass, also tend to sound a bit too sharp at times due to the lower treble. They did manage to not overshadow the mids too much, but the tonal balance is a hit or miss imo. EX600 may seem more shallow because of their response but it's more true to the source, more linear overall. It does lack a bit of body in the bass and it's lower treble is a bit grainy but it's overall less of a roller coaster ride like the FX700. I actually disagree that the EX600 is shallow though, it's got solid dynamic range and that' s where that depth should come form rather than an illusion due to subdued mids. SE535 for example, even though having a mid centric sound, pretty much blow away the FX700 and EX600 in depth due to it's grand dynamic range. They do lack air though and sound a bit smaller in comparison to the mentioned IEMs. Soundstage width in IEMs is still pretty limited with venting but it's good to have as it makes things more engaging, but I think frequency response balance is of more importance. 

I think the FX700 is one of those IEM that shouldn't be judged solely on it's technical, accuracy merits though. I think it was just meant to be fun and different as well, it just tries to get you involved. 

Damn Inks. Great analysis. 

Also james444, interesting read on the effect of mids on spatial presentation. I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Too true.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 

It's hard to really get the entire spectrum well.

The OP sounds like he/she needs a synergistic amp.

DBA-02, CK10 and ER4P have less bass than B2s, and all have quite brilliant treble which most other phones in the same price range are unable to match.

Is timbre an example of colouration/coloration? [I'm Australia you see ;)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

I actually disagree that the EX600 is shallow though, it's got solid dynamic range and that' s where that depth should come form rather than an illusion due to subdued mids.

Good point and you're right, the EX600 have good dynamic range and nice stage depth. I actually meant lack of forward projection, not shallow stage depth. Like I said, you need to tune the mids if you want forward projection, cause imo you can't create distance with close sounding vocals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's technically correct, but psychoacoustics in IEMs are full of compromises. Some favor a flat frequency response over everything else and that's perfectly ok with me, but there are others (like me) who just love an out-of-head presentation, even if it comes at the cost of some deviation from a perfect graph. My UERMs are amazingly flat and accurate, but they're like watching TV on a 26", whereas the FX700 are more like a 40" in comparison. The picture's sharper on the UERMs no doubt, but who am I to resist the 40"?

  What's exactly on the recording will be mostly shown  if the response is close to linear, the vocals will be close or far depending on the recording. A hump in the midrange may kill forward projection by bringing something too forward, a dip may subdue presence.

IEM psychoacoustics will require some compensation, a flat response doesn't sound right because of it. A flat treble is too forward and harsh, a flat bass is lacking body. Due to a lack of body vibration compared to speakers, I do think the bass needs to be boosted a little, while the treble needs to be filtered because otherwise it sounds artificially too forward with this information since it's so close to the ear with a lack of filtering. To top it off you'll want to maintain linear midrange, to avoid grain or poor projection. I will place the higher mids as exeption, since our ear's sensibility is high in the 3-7k region you'll want to place it back to balance it out and avoid harshness . This can be achieved in a variety of ways, no one signature will always get it right.

I personally think the TF10 has the best compromise of a fairly accurate response while having a big stage and leniency for that kind of projection. The main compromise will be it's bass extension though imo. 

Nice analogy. I don't think the FX700 is that much bigger though, but this is very psychological and will vary with users. I would take a smaller TV with higher definition to a bigger one with less definition myself. FX700s are probably the best IEM to complement an accurate one IMO, I would feel I am compromising too much using it solely though. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

  What's exactly on the recording will be mostly shown  if the response is close to linear, the vocals will be close or far depending on the recording. A hump in the midrange may kill forward projection by bringing something too forward, a dip may subdue presence.

 

IEM psychoacoustics will require some compensation, a flat response doesn't sound right because of it. A flat treble is too forward and harsh, a flat bass is lacking body. Due to a lack of body vibration compared to speakers, I do think the bass needs to be boosted a little, while the treble needs to be filtered because otherwise it sounds artificially too forward with this information since it's so close to the ear with a lack of filtering. To top it off you'll want to maintain linear midrange, to avoid grain or poor projection. I will place the higher mids as exeption, since our ear's sensibility is high in the 3-7k region you'll want to place it back to balance it out and avoid harshness . This can be achieved in a variety of ways, no one signature will always get it right.

 

I personally think the TF10 has the best compromise of a fairly accurate response while having a big stage and leniency for that kind of projection. The main compromise will be it's bass extension though imo. 

 

Nice analogy. I don't think the FX700 is that much bigger though, but this is very psychological and will vary with users. I would take a smaller TV with higher definition to a bigger one with less definition myself. FX700s are probably the best IEM to complement an accurate one IMO, I would feel I am compromising too much using it solely though. 

Which dynamic iem has the closest sound to TF10 but with more bass impact and extension? FX700? If yes, also FXT90 (which has ~85% of FX700  sound) but with forwarded mids?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

  What's exactly on the recording will be mostly shown  if the response is close to linear, the vocals will be close or far depending on the recording. A hump in the midrange may kill forward projection by bringing something too forward, a dip may subdue presence.

 

IEM psychoacoustics will require some compensation, a flat response doesn't sound right because of it. A flat treble is too forward and harsh, a flat bass is lacking body. Due to a lack of body vibration compared to speakers, I do think the bass needs to be boosted a little, while the treble needs to be filtered because otherwise it sounds artificially too forward with this information since it's so close to the ear with a lack of filtering. To top it off you'll want to maintain linear midrange, to avoid grain or poor projection. I will place the higher mids as exeption, since our ear's sensibility is high in the 3-7k region you'll want to place it back to balance it out and avoid harshness . This can be achieved in a variety of ways, no one signature will always get it right.

 

I personally think the TF10 has the best compromise of a fairly accurate response while having a big stage and leniency for that kind of projection. The main compromise will be it's bass extension though imo. 

 

Nice analogy. I don't think the FX700 is that much bigger though, but this is very psychological and will vary with users. I would take a smaller TV with higher definition to a bigger one with less definition myself. FX700s are probably the best IEM to complement an accurate one IMO, I would feel I am compromising too much using it solely though. 

Well, we've known each other long enough to know that you'd prefer the smaller TV with higher definition and I would grab the 40". Different preferences are what makes these discussions so interesting and at the same time often fruitless. Different folks look for different things in IEMs and my personal goal is to recreate the feeling of a live concert as closely as possible. I want to close my eyes, put on Mahler's 2nd and imagine myself in a concert hall. This requires a certain degree of tonal and dynamic accuracy for instruments to sound real. But it also requires a certain degree of spatial accuracy (size of venue and positioning of instruments) to render a concert hall convincingly.

A lot of phones that are great in the first discipline fall short in the second and vice versa. Among those I've heard, the ones that manage both pretty well are my favorites: EX1000, FI-BA-SS, FX700. The FX700 may not be up there with the very best in tonal accuracy (and I too wished they had less mid-bass), but they have wonderful dynamics and are able to create a large and realistic soundstage. Therefore they've earned a top spot on my personal list. I know that not everybody feels the same about them and that's perfectly alright with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

No Retina Display for you!  

You've got me there! I'm actually considering the 5.3" Samsung Galaxy Note...