Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3 - Page 10

post #136 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralStorm View Post

MMM's won't match HD650 in highs. Not ever. The > 20 dB difference in highest end (beyond 14 kHz) is huge and impossible to correct without introducing major distortion.

 

It also seems that they have more resonance by looking at the step responses. And these do provide plenty subbass, but in both cases the decay is subpar. So you end up with "headphone" bass.

Who knows, maybe a simple mod fixes that?

post #137 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by AstralStorm View Post

 

[/]

So you end up with "headphone" bass.

 

I thought all headphones did that.

post #138 of 143

Nope, quite a few higher end IEMs have perfect bass decay.

I think some headphones do too - LCD-3, Senn HD800, Beyerdynamic DT1350 among others.

post #139 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

It's just a random picture of diffraction. What I mean is sound doesn't 'like' to travel down echoey plastic tunnels, I think the CK10 might use Titanium but I don't have a picture or blueprint of the nozzle.

 

It will depend on the matter, having a metal nozzle isn't always going to give you substantial gains, tuning of the driver itself is a lot more important. I would dare someone to take out that damper on the CK10 and see if the nozzle is truly metal inside, if anything a replacement damper can be bought and placed inside.

 

The FR, THD and IR are only important if you're looking for an IEM with flat FR, low THD and fast IR decay........ I'm not sure if that's all we're actually looking for in an IEM.

 

That's the whole point of using better materials, to reduce resonance which will result in a more even response and low THD, etc.

 

Even if two IEM's have identical THD levels, or one is higher, or similar impulse response, perhaps they just have different time envelopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSR_envelope#ADSR_envelope, overtones or harmonics, which in turn result in a different and unique tone in each one..... after all there is no perfect IEM in THD, IMD or IR.

 

Overtones and harmonics are of the recording, the IEM's work is just to present what's given. Sure an IEM does add a tone as purity is impossible, but the parameters are mostly set by the main criteria in FR, THD, etc. in trying to get close to the source as possible, that's fidelity.

 

If IEM's all had perfect IR, perfect square waves and 0.00001% THD, IMD... well then they'd all sound nice and transparent, open windows to the recording without any tone of their own (apart from the soundspace size and related 3D perceptions), in reality they all sound slightly 'different' and we can't really anlyze 'how' they sound different.

 

That's assuming perfection, which isn't a reality, even stuff with very outstanding technicality can be slightly different because of certain small characteristics. We can realize how they're different, one just has to analyze every detail.

 


 

Here is an example, lots of THD and choppy square waves - http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/hifiman-re-262-and-re-272-ear-headphones-measurements, neither graph relates to human perception, and neither graph can tell me the differences between the RE262 and RE272

 

Which makes perfect sense, since graphs like that can't really tell me the difference between a clarinet and flute either, only show me a nonsensical difference.

 

Sure it can, they share the driver but the RE262 has more laid back midhighs and treble, focuses more on bass and midrange. I can deduce that by just looking at the FR graphs, HRTF will relate it to human perception. If you can't make sense of it, that's another matter, if you're expecting it to tell you how you will perceive the sound and all the subjective factors involved, you're making ridiculous requests.

 

 

 

Answering your part in purple.

 

The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.

 

IR and SWR look extremely close.

 

So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?

 

1000

 

 

Answering your part in blue.

 

Faithfulness to the recording is fidelity, yes, which we perhaps can find in linear FR to the diffuse field, low THD and fast IR.

 

If that's all we strived for - the Etymotic ER-4S would still be a very popular IEM.

 

Not touching the topic of custom IEM's or multi-drivers, there are single driver IEM's today which surpass it and looking at your signature, you have two of them?  The Sony MDR-EX1000 and the Final Audio FI-BA-SS?  Care to explain?

post #140 of 143
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

Answering your part in purple.

 

The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.

 

IR and SWR look extremely close.

 

So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?

 

They should be very similar, it's the same driver with different damping. To note the RE262 needs an amp, otherwise it will lack the dynamic range of the RE272. The extent in which how those small differences are going to be perceived are the subjective factors, not illusions just perception.

 

 

Faithfulness to the recording is fidelity, yes, which we perhaps can find in linear FR to the diffuse field, low THD and fast IR.

 

If that's all we strived for - the Etymotic ER-4S would still be a very popular IEM.

 

Not touching the topic of custom IEM's or multi-drivers, there are single driver IEM's today which surpass it and looking at your signature, you have two of them?  The Sony MDR-EX1000 and the Final Audio FI-BA-SS?  Care to explain?

 

The ER4 series are still popular IEMs, still among the best. 4S/B are very neutral, but need amping nowadays a lot of people just use a standalone DAP/Smartphone. 

 

The EX1000 and FAD SS don't surpass the ER4S or ER6, they do certain things better yes. EX1000's bass response is better though a tad too mellow in transients, but treble of the ER6/4S are a lot better, more even and a bit more extended. The imaging of the ER6/ER4 trump the EX1000's soundstage size strenght IMO. 

 

SS bass is a lot more extended, but I prefer the ER4/ER6's tighter bass response than the more midbassy SS. The SS's treble is nice, a tad sharp, but still pretty flat, no more extended than the ER4S/ER6, I'll say it's a tie. The SS has better soundstage size and imaging is on par, but the midbass makes sound a bit cloudier at times. The SS also has audible distortion, just a bit, the ER4S/ER6 is clean in comparison.  I only own the HF3s, the rest are loaners and/or stuff I plan on selling.


Edited by Inks - 11/10/12 at 12:23pm
post #141 of 143
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Inks View Post
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

Answering your part in purple.

 

The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.

 

IR and SWR look extremely close.

 

So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?

 

They should be very similar, it's the same driver with different damping. To note the RE262 needs an amp, otherwise it will lack the dynamic range of the RE272. The extent in which how those small differences are going to be perceived are the subjective factors, not illusions just perception.

 

I don't think the graphs are accurate in this case, you have no evidence that they are, anyway.  Just because hardware can't lie, doesn't mean it's always telling the truth.

 

 

Originally Posted by proedros View Post

/

i really like the 272 , while the 262 never really won me due to its muffled, rolled-off highs

 

the 262 has great mids and decent bass , but highs...nope.plus they need an amp to shine.

the 272 has AMAZING highs , great mids , decent bass.no complain whatsoever

 

 

Almost everyone says the RE262 has rolled-off highs, and amazing mid-centric vocals.  Likewise, people say the RE272 has great excellent highs, and very light bass.  Lol.

 

1000

post #142 of 143
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

I don't think the graphs are accurate in this case, you have no evidence that they are, anyway.  Just because hardware can't lie, doesn't mean it's always telling the truth.

 

Almost everyone says the RE262 has rolled-off highs, and amazing mid-centric vocals.  Likewise, people say the RE272 has great excellent highs, and very light bass.  Lol.

   Lots of evidence backing the accuracy Tyll's simulator, coincides with industry standards and gear by Phonak and Etymotic. Tyll's ID equalization is iffy though and I don't agree with it,the raw graph themselves are accurate though. Rin will graph the RE272 soon, expect same raw results but Rin's DF equalization is more accurate IME. see this and this

 

RE262's treble does roll off a bit early after 10k, but has still has very good extension though, capability is not as well portrayed. The RE272's tuning which bumps the treble from 10k> in comparison gives listeners a much better feel of how far the driver actually extends, since both have about the same bandwidth. The RE262 is already a bit bass light to many listeners, the 4db reduction in the RE272 will give those impressions I would think, bass levels are close to that of Etys. RE262 does have a midcentric response based on those graphs and RE272 seems to have a sparkly, non-sibilant and extended treble. 

 

I will be listening to the RE272 soon as well, should be fun ; ]


Edited by Inks - 11/11/12 at 8:44pm
post #143 of 143
Thread Starter 

RE262, RE272 and HE300 on sale here, black friday specials.

 

http://www.head-direct.com/Products/?cid=1

 

 


 

I've been researching speakers lately and found this paper which is interesting - http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf

 

If you read up on the Yamaha NS10 studio monitor, it was one of the most popular monitors used in studios for a long time, yet it's said to have an approx +7dB spike at 1.7kHz.  Why?  The studio engineers said something like a lot of instruments have important information in that area, they collide there, or something, so when it's spiked it's more revealing.  That makes sense, right?  If you want a 'vocal monitor' the FR should emphasize important vocal areas, if you want an 'electric guitar monitor', the speakers should reveal important information on the electric guitar.

 

 

If you want to see heat, you use an infrared camera...

 

web_Wiki_polarbear.jpg

 

 

If you want to see in the dark, you use a night-vision camera...

 

nightvision2.jpg

 

 

Light is very similar to sound, it operates in wavelengths (frequency) in the visible spectra, at varying intensity (SPL). 

 

"night vision is made possible by a combination of two approaches: sufficient spectral range, and sufficient intensity range." 

 

 

Naturally if these specific spectral ranges are intensified (volume) then they show more information (revealing) in that sector.

 

 

This applies to the transmitter (light / sound), receptor (lens / microphone), transmitter (screen / transducer) and receptor again (eye / ear).

 

If you want to record vocals with high... vocal quality?, then a "vocal microphone" is best for the application, they tend to have a tailored frequency pickup.

 

 

Shure had some interactive recordings here - http://www.shure.com/americas/support/tools/mic-listening-lab

 

Click on "vocals", click around a little, I liked the KSM44A.

 

An article on dozens of vocal microphones, jeez... http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/vocalmics.htm

 

 

So I think what I can hypothesize with this is...

 

1 - It seems like an extended spectral range of equal intensity (in audio terms, a flat FR) is not revealing, in neither the receiver nor the transmitter.  A tailored FR will effectively 'zoom in' and reveal more information.

 

2 - The technology of a microphone influences the sound quality a lot.  They can have near-identical FR and still sound different.  It seems intuitively very unlikely that transducers of different material and technology, open-air vs closed, et cetera, could sound identical with identical FR.

 

 

...on the notes in point 2, I think this new app http://accudio.goldenears.net/ (Accurate Audio Player), from the most comprehensive measurement database of headphones and IEM's in the world (http://en.goldenears.net/), will shine some light on the perception of FR.

 

This iPhone app will ideally equalize your IEM's and headphones to flat, for you, by selecting which IEM / HP you're using, fetching the accurate data from their server, and sending the EQ settings to your phone.

 

 

So in essence, you can then tailor five of your products (via the parametric EQ compensation) to all have near-identical FR, and listen for yourself, should be fun. =]

 

It also plays .FLAC and .OGG.

 

 

They made an index of how well the products respond to parametric EQ and reach flat.  Interesting looking at the scores of Audio Technica versus Beyerdynamic.

 

 

Apple New In-Ear 5.0 / 5
Apple EarPods 4.0 / 5
ATOMIC FLOYD Super Darts 3.0 / 5
ATOMIC FLOYD AirJax Titanium2 2.0 / 5
AUDEZE LCD-2 5.0 / 5
Audio Chi W-Series 2.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-CM700 2.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-CK9 3.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-CM7 2.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-ES55 3.0 / 5
audio-technica W1000 3.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-M50 4.5 / 5
audio-technica ONTO 2.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-SJ11 3.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-ES7 3.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-ESW10 3.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-EW9 2.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-A950LTD 4.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-PRO500 4.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-PRO700 Mk2 3.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-ESW9 3.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-PRO500 Mk2 3.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-A900X 4.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-SJ3 3.0 / 5
audio-technica ATH-PRO700 3.5 / 5
audio-technica ATH-A2000X 3.0 / 5
Beats by Dr.Dre Tour 3.0 / 5
Beats by Dr.Dre Studio 3.5 / 5

 

beyerdynamic DTX11iE 2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DTX100 3.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT880 (32 Ohm) 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT880 (250 Ohm) 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT880 (600 Ohm) 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT250 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DT990 PRO 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic T50p 2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic T70p 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DTX300p 2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DT770 PRO 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT231 PRO 4.0 / 5
beyerdynamic T5P 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic T1 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT440 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DT860 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DT1350 5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic DT235 4.0 / 5
beyerdynamic T90 4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic DTX501p 3.5 / 5
beyerdynamic CUSTOM ONE PRO (BASS2) 3.5 / 5

 

 

 

However, even a 3.5 / 5 score looks pretty accurate here, this is the Ortofon E-Q5.

 

01.EQ_Ortofon_e-Q5.png

 

 

 

Here are the IEM's in their database with scores of 4.0 or higher...

 

Altec Lansing inMotion 616

Altec Lansing inMotion 716 (HD mode)

Apple EarPods

Creative Aurvana InEar 2

Cresyn C510E

Etymotic EtyKids5

Future Sonics Atrio M

Hidition NT1

Jays q-Jays

JVC HA-FX3X

M-Audio IE40

Motorola MOTOROKR EH20

Philips SHE9750

Plantronics Backbeat Go

Rooth LS8+

Sony MDR-500SL

Sony MDR-EX310S

Altec Lansing InMotion 716 (BASS mode)

Creative Aurvana InEar 2 (GE Edition)

Denon AH-C560R

Etymotic ER-4P

Etymotic ER-4S

Etymotic ER-4B

Etymotic HF5

Hidition NT6

JVC HA-FRD80 / HA-FXD80

Logitech UE200

Phonak PFE232

Samsung S2 bundle

Samsung S3 bundle

Sony JIENNE MDR-EX40LP

UE TF10

Apple New In-Ear

Hifiman RE0

JVC HA-FXC80

Phonak PFE112

Sony XBA-3

Sony XBA-4

T-PEOS H-100

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Skullcandy Mix Master Mike versus Audeze LCD-3