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

Originally Posted by AstralStorm 

 

[/]

So you end up with "headphone" bass.

I thought all headphones did that.

Originally Posted by Inks

Originally Posted by kiteki

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?

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?

Originally Posted by Inks 

Originally Posted by kiteki 

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

/

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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