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

The FitEar CIEM Impressions Thread - Page 181

post #2701 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by sutjahjo View Post


Thanks Kiats,

Since Lukalop puts "neutral" as the last of his rather demanding list, I guess Fitear will be perfect for him.

Perhaps a custom 435. Possibly also MH334 or Melomane.

 

We all have laundry lists, especially when we first start in this journey. It is what I call statement of hope, rather than fact. If Lukalop takes the trouble to listen to some IEM, he will realise quite quickly there is no such thing as a perfect IEM or headphone. :tongue_smile:

post #2702 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiats View Post

We all have laundry lists, especially when we first start in this journey. It is what I call statement of hope, rather than fact. If Lukalop takes the trouble to listen to some IEM, he will realise quite quickly there is no such thing as a perfect IEM or headphone. tongue_smile.gif

Well said.
post #2703 of 3596
Auditioning and handling the demos will give you a sense of build quality since its at the top of your wish list.
Just by reading forums and looking at pictures you are potentially setting yourself up for disappointment if the end product does not turn out to be what you expected.
post #2704 of 3596
Absolutely!
post #2705 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiats View Post
 

 

Which is why, Lukalop, you have to go and listen to some IEMs. Rather than do a desktop theoretical analysis. Numbers don't always add up. Implementation is key. :atsmile:

Haha I remember when I was at this stage of my journey.

 

I asked alot of questions... and none of the answers actually helped me understand. 

 

So after alot of buying and selling on the used market, (meets didn't really help honestly), I settled with FitEar as being my favorite. 

 

Ah... those were the fun days~

post #2706 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukalop View Post

So I have been doing some research on BA drivers. It seems to be a case of the more the merrier. What strikes me is as to why FitEar does not use multiple drivers for each frequency band. So far to my recollection they only employ the use of dual drivers for two with the remaining frequency (high, low or mid) stuck with just a single BA. Does anyone think FitEar will create IEMs that use multiple drivers for each frequency range?
 

 

What you're doing is not research. Actual research would involve you putting down those "white papers" (in quotes because even wikipedia stuff passes for white paper these days) and going out to try various demo units for yourself. Fitear might not have dealers where you live, but I'm sure bigger companies like UE and Westone do. Give their models a listen to get yourself some points of reference. That way you at least know what they sound like, not what they read like.

 

As for number of drivers, I believe posts above mine have explained it well enough.


Edited by kurochin - 4/23/14 at 10:04pm
post #2707 of 3596

How is instrument separation on 335?

 

Is sound clumped together or separated????

post #2708 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukalop View Post

So I have been doing some research on BA drivers. It seems to be a case of the more the merrier. What strikes me is as to why FitEar does not use multiple drivers for each frequency band. So far to my recollection they only employ the use of dual drivers for two with the remaining frequency (high, low or mid) stuck with just a single BA. Does anyone think FitEar will create IEMs that use multiple drivers for each frequency range?

I also stumbled upon an article depicting how to go about solving this. I know it is not just about shear gimmicky numbers, but implementing more BA drivers in an IEM design helps reduce the work load that each has to deal with, making the sound more effortless resulting in improved detail retrieval. I do not own any BA IEMs but am just explaining what if have researched. What are your thoughts?

Article: http://cymbacavum.com/2014/03/26/sonions-acupass-technology-making-things-easier-for-everyone/

Seriously this 'more driver = less work' logic is no different than saying you will save more gasoline by taking a dump 1st before getting in the car. 

 

More drivers ~ better control of the frequency response. The less drivers an engineer uses when tuning, the more skilled he is. That's all there's to it.

post #2709 of 3596

If Roxanne is 3 way, and each range uses 4 drivers.  Each individual driver in the group of 4 would output the same range correct?  Since it's 3 way?  I don't see the reason for having 4 drivers for each range.  Unless each driver in the group is tuned for separate bands.  I can see reasons for boosting bass and adding additional low driver or something of that nature, but is there a good reason for how Roxanne is designed?

post #2710 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

If Roxanne is 3 way, and each range uses 4 drivers.  Each individual driver in the group of 4 would output the same range correct?  Since it's 3 way?  I don't see the reason for having 4 drivers for each range.  Unless each driver in the group is tuned for separate bands.  I can see reasons for boosting bass and adding additional low driver or something of that nature, but is there a good reason for how Roxanne is designed?

I just realized the reason for the design.  It's for EQ or boosting each ranges as the user wishes with that dial thingy on the cable.  :p Basically, waht the 4 drivers is for is, if you want to lower the mids, you can turn off 1 of 4, or 2 of 4, and etc.. of the mid range drivers.  I think thats how it works.  It's for customization.


Edited by SilverEars - 4/24/14 at 12:59am
post #2711 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

If Roxanne is 3 way, and each range uses 4 drivers.  Each individual driver in the group of 4 would output the same range correct?  Since it's 3 way?  I don't see the reason for having 4 drivers for each range.  Unless each driver in the group is tuned for separate bands.  I can see reasons for boosting bass and adding additional low driver or something of that nature, but is there a good reason for how Roxanne is designed?

I just realized the reason for the design.  It's for EQ or boosting each ranges as the user wishes with that dial thingy on the cable.  :p Basically, waht the 4 drivers is for is, if you want to lower the mids, you can turn off 1 of 4, or 2 of 4, and etc.. of the mid range drivers.  I think thats how it works.  It's for customization.


No, that is not how the Roxanne works. The actual crossover is outside the shell itself and the dial adjust the bass amount. In theory, you can have a totally different crossover system using custom cables, not sure if that is viable though.

post #2712 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ra97oR View Post
 


No, that is not how the Roxanne works. The actual crossover is outside the shell itself and the dial adjust the bass amount. In theory, you can have a totally different crossover system using custom cables, not sure if that is viable though.

Then I don't see the point of the 4 drivers for each range.  Also, how come there are two dials?  I was  hoping you can adjust all 3 ranges. 

post #2713 of 3596
2 dials for left and right. See the other thread I posted in, the dials are not for lows, mids and highs, just lows.
post #2714 of 3596
Hmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post

Seriously this 'more driver = less work' logic is no different than saying you will save more gasoline by taking a dump 1st before getting in the car. 

More drivers ~ better control of the frequency response. The less drivers an engineer uses when tuning, the more skilled he is. That's all there's to it.
Then what exactly is the point in having say 12 or 10, even 8 drivers. Why does FitEar use double woofers to begin with? By your logic the Private 333 & F111 should suffice so I do not understand what advantage the MH334/5 or C435 would have over them. What you're saying is there only needs to be one driver for each frequency band?
post #2715 of 3596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukalop View Post

Hmm
Then what exactly is the point in having say 12 or 10, even 8 drivers. Why does FitEar use double woofers to begin with? By your logic the Private 333 & F111 should suffice so I do not understand what advantage the MH334/5 or C435 would have over them. What you're saying is there only needs to be one driver for each frequency band?

I can understand the double woofers as BA doesn't provide lots of bass.  That's why typically 4 driver units have a bit more bass emphasis with 3-way with 2 woofers.  I think Fitear products are the ones I wouldn't call neutral because of the bass, but I still enjoy the sound.


Edited by SilverEars - 4/24/14 at 6:05am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › The FitEar CIEM Impressions Thread