Originally Posted by gnarlsagan
Tinyman you are awesome
The ER4S will be more neutral than the hf5 with less treble and actually less bass. I too have a hard time believing that little bass is percieved as accurately neutral, but that's a different discussion. It's more important/efficient to compare iems like the AS2 and hf2 accurately than debate the definitions we use. Describing comparative perceived frequency responses is the easiest way to do it. "Bass at 'y' frequency is more emphasized in 'x' iem as evidenced by this instrument in this track."
Without comparisons these reviews can be very difficult imo. Drawing FR graphs is actually a really good idea.
I kind of feel we already attempt to draw a freq graph with our words. A drawing does enforce it though
but do think about it. Each of our descriptive word does correspond to a certain pattern(s) in an FR graph. Texture generally being a bump in the lower frequencies (or conversely slower decay, or both). Clarity is generally regarded as a small bump in the upper midrange. Dynamics compares peaks (ratios) within an FR graph to each other in a way. When we talk about treble splash, we see a bump in the highs. Sure, we aren't talking specifically about x Hz, or y kHz, but the estimate is close enough
in a way, the sound description is a way for the reviewer to attempt to pain what the FR graph looks like to him, but indirectly using figurative language and jargon. If done correctly, it works wonderfully.
Of course you can only describe a Picasso so far before you need to see the actual thing. A reprint might do some justice, but still doesn't beat the real thing
(Picasso being the headphone, description being our figurative words (in glossary), reprint being a redrawn FR graph (no matter how close it is, it isn't it).)
Sent from an iPod touch with TapaTalk... Autocorrect may alter the meaning of this message