Heir Audio 4.Ai - Appreciation/Impression/Review Thread - Page 122

I was looking at Rin's impedance and FR graphs. I don't like it in general but I have to admit the when comparing the 2 graphs, a bit of loading should help almost everywhere.

 

Swim, you can't use that graph as evidence and them ignore one of mine from a different IEM that you called bass shy. 

There are a couple things I want to add about the UE900 vs the 4.Ai:

(1) I find the 4.Ai shell more comfortable and much easier to obtain a consistent and deeper seal with than the UE900's shell. In fact, despite the vast improvement in ergonomics over the TF10's shell, the UE900 still surprisingly gives me problems with regard to fit. I'll have to try out more tips, but I feel the depth-limited shallower insertion of the UE900 makes it difficult for me to get the right seal at times, especially with the differences between the shapes of my left/right ear canals.

(2) Like I mentioned in the UE900 thread, I think that, despite its novel mechanism, the small bass port is going to cause a lot of confusion and inconsistencies in both subjective and objective reporting of bass levels in the UE900. Is it bass heavy or is it bass light? I don't even think the engineers at UE could even decide. Like I alluded to in the previous post, ear canal sealing pressures may also have to do with the amount of bass being reported by listeners. The eardrum and the IEM become a single, coupled mechanism when it is sealed. Depending on the pressure within the system, the change in pressure inside the small bore will be far greater; if people hark back to basic physics, we know that Poiseuille's law tells us that the change in pressure of a pipe is inversely proportional to the fourth-power of the radius. Obviously, completely blocking the pinhole takes the ear canal's contribution out of the equation, but don't think for a second that changes in pressure of the ear canal won't alter the response of the UE900. To me, while the concept and application of such a mechanism is very cool, it can be too much of a variation for people who want a consistent sound.

 

Yes, the UE 900 doesn't do well in regards with lushness, detail retrieval is fine, but the 4.Ai does it better. 

 

 

1) agree 100%.  The 4.Ai is so much more comfortable and easier to get a seal with. 

2) agree that it will cause inconsistencies...  It already has caused confusion, twice.  By myself (in the UE 900 thread) and Swimsonny (this thread).  I don't know if it was intended, I don't know if UE is aware of this either :p  The air pressure can do this as well (if I understand correctly).  Air pressure build up in the smaller nozzle creates more resistance for air flow (and therefor less bass quantity).  If I'm not mistaken, smaller ears will generally build up more pressure (smaller volume) than bigger ones (I might be off on this).  But yes, all of this can play a key role in creating inconsistencies. 

 

Because of number two, I would advise people to test both for themselves (if they can) before making a purchase :p  I do find them on level with one another though. 

I got my 4ais and could use some tip advice. The medium red core tips come off in my right ear every time. They won't stay seated as far down the bore as the left ones, so maybe its not gripping well? The medium dual flange tips fit well and don't come off when I go to remove them but with them the highs are very bright and I think sibilant or at least annoying (though its hard to tell since I am coming from Shure E500s which didn't really have this kind of high end at all). I can't seem to get any of the blue core tips on at all and have not been able to try them.

 

I did get the Comply T500s (pack with each size to try) and the mediums are most like the Shure BLack Olives which I loved but again won't stay on the right IEM. 

 

Has anyone successfully modded the Shure tips to work with the larger bore of the 4ai?

 

Perhaps the right IEM is defective and needs to be sent back so they can shape it so that it hangs onto tips better?

From Rin's graph of increasing impedance of the 4.Ai it looked as if it made the dip larger if anything. Not sure exactly how it would sound in the end, but doesn't look much better from the graphs.

Heir has amazing customer service, I've already heard from them about my tip issue. Not sure if it is me or the IEM, but we will figure it out. Either I have the wrong tips for my ears or there is an issue that Heir will take care of. Absolutely amazing service, this is part of why I deal with companies like Heir.

 

It is amazing how good they sound out of the box. Coming from the original triple driver universal, so much is so much better about the sound. There is indeed plenty of low end (if its in the music its in your ears), and the highs are unlike anything I've heard on any sound system or headphones before (what can I say, I'm new here). The Magnus cable is so vastly superior to anything I've ever handled before, extremely flexible.

 

Lastly, everyone says these are tiny. I was expecting tiny, and these are outright miniscule. So much smaller than I imagined. Makes it very easy to fit way down in there. Wizard was right, the Buckeye Burl is really something special. My shells are pretty dark so you can't really see the components like on some pictures, but these are serious works of art. The wood is amazing. 

 

Once I get my fit issue sorted I'll post some thoughts and comparisons to my Shure E500s for giggles.

 

I think what ends up happening is that the loss in the bass and treble kind of boost some of the midrange a bit (look below 800 Hz and above 5 kHz).  I think that could help explain my ideas better.  His graphs do show some anomalies in what I find, but that's the only way for me to explain them. 

 

+1, I am also very curious about this comparison, and even though it has been a while, perhaps someone has a comparison?

Edited by RobotsEatCookie - 11/24/12 at 9:40pm

I find it funny that impedance adapters and expensive cables get more usage and attention than EQ, which should be considered the best bang-for-the-buck tool and "component" of Head-fi, in these forums. It's understandable, as EQing is a skill and an art. Still, I find it silly that months after the large dip was discovered, no one has posted an opinion on how the 4.ai sound with an EQ bump in the 2-4kHz range.

 

Although I generally disagree with changing components with an IEM to alter it's sound, I do like to play around with it.  I will report results if I so decide to play around :p  I don't do it myself in normal, everyday use though.  I will admit that I'd rather alter the sound at a lower level than the higher level.  EQuing is done digitally, impedance loading, cables, and filters will alter sound through an analog channel. 

 

I will admit, EQing is a much cheaper alternative though...  Now if only my iPod had a (manual) EQ that didn't suck the life out of my battery :p 

Edited by tinyman392 - 11/24/12 at 10:48pm

This was done before I installed Electri-Q or did any pure tone tests, so I did it purely by ear.

Simple Summary:
(1) Vocal height is much better
(2) Midrange depth is slightly better
(3) Slightly more even lower treble

Very interesting findings! :D