New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sennheiser IE800 IEM's - Page 36

post #526 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3nenbgumi View Post


I found it kind of surprising that up to this point no one has mentioned burning in. Given that the IE800 is coming from Sennheiser, I'd hold my firm belief until at least 100 hours have passed on your pair, james444. Hopefully bass will settle down, soundstage will open up and the treble will get a bit more refined.

I believe that materials undergo changes with use over time, but it's funny that the changes, WRT to headphones, are always positive.

Not really trying to stir up an argument, I just find it intriguing.
post #527 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post  Well, I wouldn't hold my breath

 

Well, those tuning ports (front and back) look pretty prone to clogging.... heh

 

ADDENDUM 01: Now that I've looked at their measurements again, the FR looks quite beautiful; just too bassy for me. I suspect the D2CA thingy was actually their way of taming ear canal resonance with shallow insertion, but maybe it's not enough? (or maybe it's clogged already? wink.gif)

 

ADDENDUM 02:  Looks like there's space in between the two grilles of the tip and the housing to put some foam?


Edited by tomscy2000 - 11/20/12 at 7:32am
post #528 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

Well, I've re-read our prior PM-conversation and think the IE800's sound signature may be what you're looking for (in comparison to your FX700). But you won't catch me saying that they're "better", because I simply didn't get that impression from my listening so far.

 

Oh and yes, I still have my FX700 and will be able to do a more conclusive A/B comparison soon.

Good and bad news. Good news is that I'll probably buy the IE 800. Bad news is that I'll probably buy the IE 800. Start saving now.

 

Debit Mini0510              Credit Sennheiser

$1000                             $1000


Edited by Mini0510 - 11/20/12 at 9:25am
post #529 of 2598

Yep,  I haven't told the wife yet that I really need another set of earbuds yet...about six weeks after buying a set of IE80's and a pair of Momentums...biggrin.gif
 

post #530 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Well, those tuning ports (front and back) look pretty prone to clogging.... heh

 

Maybe, but there's a significant decrease in bass (and soundstage size) if you block them with your fingertips. So, by listening for that difference, you can tell whether they're clogged.

 

ADDENDUM 01: Now that I've looked at their measurements again, the FR looks quite beautiful; just too bassy for me. I suspect the D2CA thingy was actually their way of taming ear canal resonance with shallow insertion, but maybe it's not enough? (or maybe it's clogged already? wink.gif)

 

That bass elevation is actually fine when you're out and about. I tried them for commuting today and think their signature is almost perfect for that, much better suited for outside use than for home listening in quiet surroundings.

 

As for the graph, it sure looks beautiful, but if they're assuming a reference plane insertion, I can't see how it would reflect real life conditions. It's pretty much impossible to get there with this kind of housing and tips.

 

ADDENDUM 02:  Looks like there's space in between the two grilles of the tip and the housing to put some foam?

 

Seems like you struck gold there my friend, I tried a piece of cotton swab and highs are noticeably less sharp now, although at the cost of increased warmth. But your suggestion opens up nice possibilities for fine-tuning, thanks a lot! smile_phones.gif

post #531 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post


Well the mids are definitely "wow", and so is overall detail and clarity, with minor deductions for bass.

 

Long story short, since yesterday I've got my own pair of IE800s, and further listening has confirmed most of my first impressions. Their highs are definitely borderline thin and sibilant to my ears, at least with stock tips. However, even though I get a seal (and plenty of bass), it's not as secure as I'd like it to be, so I'm trying to mount additional tips beneath the stock ones for better support (did I say that I *loathe* these proprietory tips? ;-)

 

More news, they're not as well isolating as I first thought, still better than the IE8/80, but short of Shures/Westones. And they have back vents for sure, since covering them attenuates bass (a bit).

 

tbc... popcorn.gif

 

It appears the improvements in the detail and clarity come at the expense of treble as you mentioned in your initial impression comparing it to the EX1K (if I quoted you correctly). With regard to the bass, do you prefer the bass from the IE800 or from the EX1K? The EX1K presents excellent bass with that well controlled extension if I know what I am talking about. wink_face.gif

post #532 of 2598

^ Agreed, that's my impression too. The IE8/80 took a lot of flak for being veiled, so Senn made sure that wouldn't happen again. Since they still wanted to keep a somewhat bassy signature, they had to squeeze every bit of detail and clarity out of the mids and highs, but may have slightly overdone it with the treble. At least that's my humble take on it, lol.

 

As for the EX1000, I'll be able to do a direct A/B comparison in a few weeks, but so far I don't think the IE800 can touch the Sony's bass, which is the best compromise of speed, impact and texture I've heard. The IE800's bass is excellent and certainly more controlled than the IE8/80's, but from memory I'd think the EX1000's is better still.

post #533 of 2598

James thanks for the confirmation and look forward to your direct A/B comparison between the IE eight hundreds and the EX one thousand.

post #534 of 2598

Update: at the risk of being accused that I'm imagining things, I found out today that wearing the IE800 downward with a shallower seal makes them actually less sibilant than over-ear with a deeper seal. It's a slight but noticeable difference and goes against all my prior experience with IEMs, but yeah, that's how I hear it. Maybe Sennheiser tuned them intentionally for a shallower seal, I don't know... maybe someone with a better technical understanding of these things will care to chime in...

 

Another thing that's different between over-ear and downward is soundstaging: wearing the IE800 over-ear makes them enter the ear-canal at a different angle than when worn downward. As a consequence their soundstage appears to be noticeably wider, but center image becomes weak and L/R imaging somewhat disjointed. Wearing them downward sacrifices a little bit of width, but results in better depth and increased coherence across their virtual stage, so it's overall preferable.

 

Bottom line, so there are three good reasons for wearing the IE800 downwards: no hassle with shortish cables, less sibilance and more coherent soundstage. However, there's also a severe downside, and it's cable microphonics. Therefore I feel compelled to address the following humble petition to the manufacturer of these luxurious high-end IEMs:

 

Dear Sennheiser, if you happen to read this, would you please consider to include a $1 shirtclip with the next revision of your $1000 IE800? Thank you!  ksc75smile.gif

post #535 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

Update: at the risk of being accused that I'm imagining things, I found out today that wearing the IE800 downward with a shallower seal makes them actually less sibilant than over-ear with a deeper seal. It's a slight but noticeable difference and goes against all my prior experience with IEMs, but yeah, that's how I hear it. Maybe Sennheiser tuned them intentionally for a shallower seal, I don't know... maybe someone with a better technical understanding of these things will care to chime in...

 

Another thing that's different between over-ear and downward is soundstaging: wearing the IE800 over-ear makes them enter the ear-canal at a different angle than when worn downward. As a consequence their soundstage appears to be noticeably wider, but center image becomes weak and L/R imaging somewhat disjointed. Wearing them downward sacrifices a little bit of width, but results in better depth and increased coherence across their virtual stage, so it's overall preferable.

 

Bottom line, so there are three good reasons for wearing the IE800 downwards: no hassle with shortish cables, less sibilance and more coherent soundstage. However, there's also a severe downside, and it's cable microphonics. Therefore I feel compelled to address the following humble petition to the manufacturer of these luxurious high-end IEMs:

 

Dear Sennheiser, if you happen to read this, would you please consider to include a $1 shirtclip with the next revision of your $1000 IE800? Thank you!  ksc75smile.gif

 

interesting and very observant points you have made - as someone who has owned only 1 pair of high end iem's ( IE80's) and looking to upgrade im starting to lean towards customs. I always found it slightly perturbing how slight positioning changes can completely change the sound of universals . I think if im going to spend over US$1k then I should look at customs - now if i only knew which ones :P

post #536 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post

Update: at the risk of being accused that I'm imagining things, I found out today that wearing the IE800 downward with a shallower seal makes them actually less sibilant than over-ear with a deeper seal. It's a slight but noticeable difference and goes against all my prior experience with IEMs, but yeah, that's how I hear it. Maybe Sennheiser tuned them intentionally for a shallower seal, I don't know... maybe someone with a better technical understanding of these things will care to chime in...

 

Another thing that's different between over-ear and downward is soundstaging: wearing the IE800 over-ear makes them enter the ear-canal at a different angle than when worn downward. As a consequence their soundstage appears to be noticeably wider, but center image becomes weak and L/R imaging somewhat disjointed. Wearing them downward sacrifices a little bit of width, but results in better depth and increased coherence across their virtual stage, so it's overall preferable.

 

Bottom line, so there are three good reasons for wearing the IE800 downwards: no hassle with shortish cables, less sibilance and more coherent soundstage. However, there's also a severe downside, and it's cable microphonics. Therefore I feel compelled to address the following humble petition to the manufacturer of these luxurious high-end IEMs:

 

Dear Sennheiser, if you happen to read this, would you please consider to include a $1 shirtclip with the next revision of your $1000 IE800? Thank you!  ksc75smile.gif

 

Hey, I think Axel Grell addresed the issue with the treble peaks:

 

"Q: What's was the biggest challenge in designing the new IS 800s?

IE 800? The biggest challenge was to design a transducers that covers the whole frequency range from 5 Hz to 46500 Hz. But it was definetely worth the work. It reproduces the sound without time differences what happens when you use a multi driver solution. The other thing is how to avoid the resonance that occurs when you put a earphone in your ear canal. The solutions is the dampened 2 chamber absorber. It leads to a smoother high frequency reproduction. Now you can hear r e a l heights instead of a peak at 7500 Hz!"

 

Maybe this damped chamber thing needs a shallow insertion to work as intended?


Edited by Kaffeemann - 11/22/12 at 7:48am
post #537 of 2598
To my understanding, deeper or shallower insertion alters both the amplitude and the frequency of the resonance peaks. Remember that in-ears are a sealed system with your ear canal serving only as a coupler with your eardrum. In the same way as changing the diameter and length of acoustic tubing, as well as mouth shape of the tubing, will alter the resonance peak frequencies and amplitudes, altering the insertion depth should do similar things, just on a different scale. In this case, quarter wavelength reflections are getting altered, and it's too complex to predict exactly why might shallow insertion actually be less harsh sounding than deep insertion because it's actually the opposite in most cases, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
post #538 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

To my understanding, deeper or shallower insertion alters both the amplitude and the frequency of the resonance peaks. Remember that in-ears are a sealed system with your ear canal serving only as a coupler with your eardrum. In the same way as changing the diameter and length of acoustic tubing, as well as mouth shape of the tubing, will alter the resonance peak frequencies and amplitudes, altering the insertion depth should do similar things, just on a different scale. In this case, quarter wavelength reflections are getting altered, and it's too complex to predict exactly why might shallow insertion actually be less harsh sounding than deep insertion because it's actually the opposite in most cases, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Based on the fact that D2CA is tuned to 7.5 kHz, I'd think it may only be effective for resonance peaks near that frequency. So any insertion depth, that results in a lower or higher frequency peak, may possibly sound more harsh.

post #539 of 2598
From what I understand, it's unlikely we'll see more stock until after Xmas, my stockist is saying that there seems to have been some supply issues.
post #540 of 2598
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSARider View Post

From what I understand, it's unlikely we'll see more stock until after Xmas, my stockist is saying that there seems to have been some supply issues.


We have some in stock....http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/sennheiser-ie800-audiophile-earphones.html


Edited by PhilW - 12/14/12 at 4:22am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: