Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe - Page 23  

post #331 of 498
Thread Starter 

My brother stopped by for a holiday visit yesterday and gave me the speakers he has used with his Macintosh system since the mid 1970s. He's downsizing and decided to get smaller ones. They are custom made, with a fantastic 12 inch woofer, two 6 inch midrange speakers and a fancy chrome plated super tweeter. I patched them into my system replacing my 10 inch three ways that were made by the same guy as his, and the EQ is very close. I imagine they use the same crossovers and midrange speakers. I just have a little tweaking to do at the end of the spectrum. Now I am going to do a little work on my 10 inch cabinets and fly them up into the rafters as rear channels. When I get that set up, my sound is going to be formidable.


Edited by bigshot - 12/24/12 at 11:29am
post #332 of 498
Thread Starter 
I am officially in Nirvana.

Everyone is away for Christmas, so I had the day to myself to tweak and adjust EQ and channel levels perfectly. The new speakers made my soundstage snap into ultra sharp focus. I plunked myself down in the sweet spot and put Mancini's Combo! on. Holy cow! I've never heard anything better. Incredible!
post #333 of 498

Sound Scientists, I need your help!

 

Which of these two IEM has better impulse response and 300 Hz square wave response?

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANRE262.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANRE272.pdf
 

post #334 of 498
Thread Starter 
They don't look very different. Which one is cheaper?
post #335 of 498

They are pretty much the same, the 272 just seems to have a bit bigger peak at ~9 kHz which causes the extra ringing in the imp/sq response.

 

From the FR measurements: want (a bit) more treble, then take the 272.

 

edit: argh bigshot was faster, again!

post #336 of 498

The RE 262 was 150$ but is not available anymore. The RE 272 cost 250$.

 

 

I think the RE 272 is better because of the faster rise?

post #337 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

They are pretty much the same, the 272 just seems to have a bit bigger peak at ~9 kHz which causes the extra ringing in the imp/sq response.

 

Isn't ringing caused by overly long dacay at a certain frequency?

post #338 of 498
Thread Starter 
I doubt you'd hear any difference between those two.
post #339 of 498

No it's clearly the peak in the FR.

 

We're dealing with a small, single driver earphone here, so you can pretty much ignore the impulse response (which should be analyzed using software, not the naked eye anyway).

post #340 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I doubt you'd hear any difference between those two.

 

Well the folks at the IEM forum say the 262 is warm and sweet while the 272 is analytical. And they do have different FR.

 

To me, the 300 Hz square wave looks better on the 272, no?


Edited by Kaffeemann - 12/30/12 at 4:23pm
post #341 of 498
Thread Starter 
Square waves don't mean a whole heck of a lot. On paper, those don't look very different. Maybe there is a difference in the way they fit. The response curve is just different enough to barely notice in theory, but by the time you've popped one out and the other in, you wouldn't be able to tell any more.
Edited by bigshot - 12/30/12 at 4:44pm
post #342 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaffeemann View Post

Well the folks at the IEM forum say the 262 is warm and sweet while the 272 is analytical. And they do have different FR.

To me, the 300 Hz square wave looks better on the 272, no?

Like xnor said, on single driver headphones impulse response (and by extension square wave response) are almost entirely the product of frequency response. You could have a ruler flat FR producing a perfect impulse and square wave response and it wouldn't sound any good because it doesn't account for human ear HRTF.
post #343 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Like xnor said, on single driver headphones impulse response (and by extension square wave response) are almost entirely the product of frequency response. You could have a ruler flat FR producing a perfect impulse and square wave response and it wouldn't sound any good because it doesn't account for human ear HRTF.

Why does the ER4S have sub optimal square wave responses then? Genuine question because I don't know the answer.
post #344 of 498
because it doesn't have ruler flat FR? Its FR is highly linear when compensated with the standard diffuse field HRTF, which is very different from having rulerflat FR, which as I said above means having highly linear UNcompensated FR.
post #345 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

because it doesn't have ruler flat FR? Its FR is highly linear when compensated with the standard diffuse field HRTF, which is very different from having rulerflat FR, which as I said above means having highly linear UNcompensated FR.

Okay interesting. So it's not possible for single driver BA's to have compensated flat FR with good impulse response, but it doesn't matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Cafe Sceptico: The Objectivist Cafe