Sennheiser IE800 IEM's - Page 45

Quote:

Originally Posted by lelek45 

Thanks, James!
Can you elaborate on the soundstade size differences between those? I own ex1000 and my biggest complain is the soundstage size. While it does feel 3d and has some imaging even... It feels very small and therefore not convincing. compared to IE8 at least, which i enjoy more because of this. From your comparison both competitors are not better in this regard.

Seems like we don't have the same perception of the EX1000's soundstage. To me, the Sonys sound large and out-of-head, perhaps not as much forward projected as the IE8's, but still comparable in absolute size. I've heard some complaints from fellow members, who felt the EX1000 were too wide and their center image was too weak. But no one has ever called their soundstage small and unconvincing.

With the IE800, I feel that soundstage depends on whether you wear them over-ear or downwards, probably due to their slightly angled housings and different insertion depths. Over-ear gives me more width (which I like), but at the cost of center image, so left and right feel somewhat disjointed at times. Downward results in a more coherent soundstage with stronger center image, but at the cost of some width. However, absolute dimensions are always smaller than the IE8's imo, but not overly so. Plus, they don't feel closed in.

I'm a big soundstage junkie, and the IE800's soundstage is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by macbug 

The IE800 is a single dynamic driver right?  For the price though how is it possible for it to be better sounding than the 4/6/8 BA CIEMs in the same range?  

It's because better has so many different meanings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lelek45 

Thanks, James!
Can you elaborate on the soundstade size differences between those? I own ex1000 and my biggest complain is the soundstage size. While it does feel 3d and has some imaging even... It feels very small and therefore not convincing. compared to IE8 at least, which i enjoy more because of this. From your comparison both competitors are not better in this regard.

The FX700s are behind the IE80 IMO in sound staging. Pretty close but the IE80 is still bigger. The EX1000 is quite wide but not much depth at all thus that closed in and thin sound you mention. Not much to my liking as I like a good balance between width and depth. The MDR-7550s do better IMO. The sound stage isn't quite as wide but makes up for it with a fuller sound having more depth to the sound. Plus better mids and more bass quantity. Plus the lack of treble spikes in comparison to its evil twin sister ;).

Getting a hybrid custom near that price seems more logical to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devoker 

Getting a hybrid custom near that price seems more logical to me.

Why is that? Going that route you risk not liking the IEM and taking a major loss or even fit issues and spending a lot of time and money on shipping getting that sorted.. No one is gonna give you near full price for a used Custom IEM. Your best bet in that regards is the Heir products due to their re-shell policy and even then you are gonna take a loss. With universals you have the ability to easily sell it in comparison at a higher price in comparison (recouping most of your costs). Plus others can have opportunities to listen to your IEM. I don't see it as illogical at all. In the end I'll have both a Custom and a Universal. Lastly how would you know the Custom hybrid is indeed better? Sound tubes do lead to coherency issues big time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

The FX700s are behind the IE80 IMO in sound staging. Pretty close but the IE80 is still bigger. The EX1000 is quite wide but not much depth at all thus that closed in and thin sound you mention. Not much to my liking as I like a good balance between width and depth. The MDR-7550s do better IMO. The sound stage isn't quite as wide but makes up for it with a fuller sound having more depth to the sound. Plus better mids and more bass quantity. Plus the lack of treble spikes in comparison to its evil twin sister ;).

From my experience, soundstage perception varies quite widely among listeners, because virtual 3D information is reconstructed from a stereo L/R signal in our brain, and people seem to have differing abilities to do that. I like to compare this to our visual sense, where some people just seem to be more capable than others in reconstructing 3D information from a picture or a map. Therefore I tend to think it's impossible to assess soundstage on an absolute scale.

For example, perception of depth is usually derived from dynamics, which should be about the same between the EX600, MDR7550 and EX1000. Forward projection is closely related to near or distant sounding mids (the IE8/80 being a prime example). Since the MDR7550 are more mid-centric than the EX1000, they should actually sound closer and less forward projected than the latter. But like I said, perception of soundstage isn't absolute, so ymmv.

Oh and btw, I think youre demonizing the evil twin sister a bit too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

Sound tubes do lead to coherency issues big time.

In my understanding it's the multi-driver setup and crossover network, not the number of sound tubes, that can lead to coherency issues. In fact, I'd assume that if you want to implement phase/time alignment, like JHA with their "Freqphase", that's actually easier to achieve with one dedicated sound tube per (twin-)driver. Probably the main reason why they went from a dual bore to a triple bore configuration on the new JH13.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

 

From my experience, soundstage perception varies quite widely among listeners, because virtual 3D information is reconstructed from a stereo L/R signal in our brain, and people seem to have differing abilities to do that. I like to compare this to our visual sense, where some people just seem to be more capable than others in reconstructing 3D information from a picture or a map. Therefore I tend to think it's impossible to assess soundstage on an absolute scale.

 

For example, perception of depth is usually derived from dynamics, which should be about the same between the EX600, MDR7550 and EX1000. Forward projection is closely related to near or distant sounding mids (the IE8/80 being a prime example). Since the MDR7550 are more mid-centric than the EX1000, they should actually sound closer and less forward projected than the latter. But like I said, perception of soundstage isn't absolute, so ymmv.

 

Oh and btw, I think youre demonizing the evil twin sister a bit too much.

 

 

In my understanding it's the multi-driver setup and crossover network, not the number of sound tubes, that can lead to coherency issues. In fact, I'd assume that if you want to implement phase/time alignment, like JHA with their "Freqphase", that's actually easier to achieve with one dedicated sound tube per (twin-)driver. Probably the main reason why they went from a dual bore to a triple bore configuration on the new JH13.

Hmm I was under the impression that these multi driver IEMs have several sound tubes (each per driver generally) feeding into the bores which contributed to the peaks and coherency issues. I understand that the crossovers play a major roll in it all as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730   Hmm I was under the impression that these multi driver IEMs have several sound tubes (each per driver generally) feeding into the bores which contributed to the peaks and coherency issues. I understand that the crossovers play a major roll in it all as well.

It's not as simplistic as that, nor as black and white; sound tubes are a very important and absolutely integral part of the tuning process. Tubes, dampers, crossover network --- they're all part of designing a CIEM with a smooth FR, clean impulse, and linear phase --- they can all work for or against the sound. Because there are so many elements to tweak, it's very difficult to design something that ticks all the boxes, and that's why people regard multi-driver IEMs as having "coherency" problems.

"Coherency" here isn't really a true term --- it's a fuzzy idea that we audiophiles like to throw out there when something "doesn't sound right"...

The truth is that sound design is a huge series of tradeoffs. There is no 'better' choice in using dynamics or multi-BA drivers. Sound engineers just choose whatever they're most familiar with and they'll be able to get the best results that way. In Sennheiser's case, it's a dynamic driver; in Jerry Harvey's, it's balanced armatures. A single dynamic driver requires a complicated series of acoustic dampeners in order to get the desired response. An obliquely-mounted dynamic driver, no matter what, will produce extra resonance at high frequencies, due to the oblique incident angle at which sound waves enter the sound tube. Likewise, multi-driver BAs have issues with timing and phase, which can be introduced in a myriad of ways, such as crossover circuit-induced time delay and/or phase shift or the positioning of the drivers relative to one another. The sound tube length/width affects the peak amplitudes and frequency position of the resonances. Acoustic dampers affect peak amplitudes. Sometimes you want a certain peak, and other times you don't, and that's up to designers to slowly play with the relative distances of the tubes to dampen or enhance each of the resonances. It's time-consuming, complicated, and basically unpredictable, but when it's done the right way, it pays off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

It's not as simplistic as that, nor as black and white; sound tubes are a very important and absolutely integral part of the tuning process. Tubes, dampers, crossover network --- they're all part of designing a CIEM with a smooth FR, clean impulse, and linear phase --- they can all work for or against the sound. Because there are so many elements to tweak, it's very difficult to design something that ticks all the boxes, and that's why people regard multi-driver IEMs as having "coherency" problems.

 

"Coherency" here isn't really a true term --- it's a fuzzy idea that we audiophiles like to throw out there when something "doesn't sound right"...

 

The truth is that sound design is a huge series of tradeoffs. There is no 'better' choice in using dynamics or multi-BA drivers. Sound engineers just choose whatever they're most familiar with and they'll be able to get the best results that way. In Sennheiser's case, it's a dynamic driver; in Jerry Harvey's, it's balanced armatures. A single dynamic driver requires a complicated series of acoustic dampeners in order to get the desired response. An obliquely-mounted dynamic driver, no matter what, will produce extra resonance at high frequencies, due to the oblique incident angle at which sound waves enter the sound tube. Likewise, multi-driver BAs have issues with timing and phase, which can be introduced in a myriad of ways, such as crossover circuit-induced time delay and/or phase shift or the positioning of the drivers relative to one another. The sound tube length/width affects the peak amplitudes and frequency position of the resonances. Acoustic dampers affect peak amplitudes. Sometimes you want a certain peak, and other times you don't, and that's up to designers to slowly play with the relative distances of the tubes to dampen or enhance each of the resonances. It's time-consuming, complicated, and basically unpredictable, but when it's done the right way, it pays off.

thanks for the lesson - all info i didnt understand but very interesting 

Is there such a thing as dynamic sound stage? if there is, that's how I would describe the EX1000. Yeah its sound stage is very dynamic. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

It's not as simplistic as that, nor as black and white; sound tubes are a very important and absolutely integral part of the tuning process. Tubes, dampers, crossover network --- they're all part of designing a CIEM with a smooth FR, clean impulse, and linear phase --- they can all work for or against the sound. Because there are so many elements to tweak, it's very difficult to design something that ticks all the boxes, and that's why people regard multi-driver IEMs as having "coherency" problems.

 

"Coherency" here isn't really a true term --- it's a fuzzy idea that we audiophiles like to throw out there when something "doesn't sound right"...

 

The truth is that sound design is a huge series of tradeoffs. There is no 'better' choice in using dynamics or multi-BA drivers. Sound engineers just choose whatever they're most familiar with and they'll be able to get the best results that way. In Sennheiser's case, it's a dynamic driver; in Jerry Harvey's, it's balanced armatures. A single dynamic driver requires a complicated series of acoustic dampeners in order to get the desired response. An obliquely-mounted dynamic driver, no matter what, will produce extra resonance at high frequencies, due to the oblique incident angle at which sound waves enter the sound tube. Likewise, multi-driver BAs have issues with timing and phase, which can be introduced in a myriad of ways, such as crossover circuit-induced time delay and/or phase shift or the positioning of the drivers relative to one another. The sound tube length/width affects the peak amplitudes and frequency position of the resonances. Acoustic dampers affect peak amplitudes. Sometimes you want a certain peak, and other times you don't, and that's up to designers to slowly play with the relative distances of the tubes to dampen or enhance each of the resonances. It's time-consuming, complicated, and basically unpredictable, but when it's done the right way, it pays off.

Thanks for your elaborate explanation, Tom. :)

From the context of Lee's "coherency" post, I got the impression that he was citing the use of sound tubes as a potential weakness of customs in comparison with universals. My point is that funneling the sound of multiple BAs into a single bore, like it's usually done in universals, won't give you an acoustic advantage over customs and their multi sound tube/bore design.

In other news, it's been a windy day and I was out and about with my IE800. Sad to say, I have to add another entry to their list of questionable design choices.

Those dual vents look pretty cool, but they protrude like chimneys from a roof. As a result, the Senns are quite prone to wind noise. Not as severely as the EX600/1000, thankfully, but more than your average pair of IEMs.

In fact, I did some tests and it turned out that (unsurprisingly) wind noise on the IE800 varies with insertion depth. The less those vents protrude from your pinna, the less the noise. Unfortunately the positioning of their strain reliefs makes deep insertion a no-go with downward fit, so your best bet to avoid wind noise is to wear them over-ears with a deeper fit. However, there are other downsides to over-ear fit, as described in an earlier post. Some day I'll wind up drawing a decision tree on how to wear the IE800... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 

 

Nice graphic.  

I should really, really not start reading this thread.

I think the Momentum's raised my respect for Sennheiser by a lot though (it was already pretty high before), so now I'm ever so curious.

Regarding the above discussion of the soundstage MDR7550 vs EX1000, I feel like the 7550 definitely sounds more intimate and closed in because of the richer mids / volume increase allowed by subdued treble. However, the actual detail within that space feels about the same.

Coherency is a pretty vague term like tomscy points out. I think that the XBA-4's are universally described as incoherent (and I agree they dont sound natural) and yet I love the way they sound because instruments seem so hyper separated and pop out all over the place; this is strange considering the whole thing sounds a little fuzzy. The soundstage seems to me both completely unnatural and yet incredibly holographic and 3D as well. There's finger pointing at phase issues with the XBA-4, crossover or no, but I've never seen that confirmed anywhere.

Still, all the high end single dynamic drivers always sound really natural to me, from the FXD80 up to the EX1000. The IE800 looks wonderful to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_recording 

I should really, really not start reading this thread.

 

I think the Momentum's raised my respect for Sennheiser by a lot though (it was already pretty high before), so now I'm ever so curious.

 

Regarding the above discussion of the soundstage MDR7550 vs EX1000, I feel like the 7550 definitely sounds more intimate and closed in because of the richer mids / volume increase allowed by subdued treble. However, the actual detail within that space feels about the same.

 

Coherency is a pretty vague term like tomscy points out. I think that the XBA-4's are universally described as incoherent (and I agree they dont sound natural) and yet I love the way they sound because instruments seem so hyper separated and pop out all over the place; this is strange considering the whole thing sounds a little fuzzy. The soundstage seems to me both completely unnatural and yet incredibly holographic and 3D as well. There's finger pointing at phase issues with the XBA-4, crossover or no, but I've never seen that confirmed anywhere.

 

Still, all the high end single dynamic drivers always sound really natural to me, from the FXD80 up to the EX1000. The IE800 looks wonderful to me.

Naturalness is perhaps the most apparent strong point of the IE800, especially in the mids. I've been using these phones for more than a month now, and think their mids are simply outstanding: natural, realistic, ultra-smooth and hyper-detailed at the same time. I can't think of any IEMs I've heard (including the UERM and JH13) that would top these sublime mids.

However, where there's light, there's also shadow. And in case of the IE800, the latter cannot be overlooked. Hope I'll find the time to wrap up my thoughts this weekend and post a short review, or at least some final conclusions.