Upcoming Hifiman IEM's: RE-400 and RE-600 - Page 36

 

If a source reproduces something that is almost/resembling a square wave then that points out something. The more exact the better, but in real world it is difficult to do this (or perhaps measure it that exact). Tyll has a very good explanation on this subject on Innerfidelity. Two dimensional data would not give any more information on how well a source could reproduce a square wave or whatever wave for that matter as I see it (doesn't need to be square, but it is supposed to be easier to see a difference in a square wave). Still I cannot see how a decay plot can describe how tight bass is or other characteristics. So imo it makes more sense than looking at a decay plot.

Edited by Deni5 - 3/7/13 at 8:30pm

Simply put, one specific freq doesn't tell anything about nothing. Unless you do increments of 100hz for each bass region, which isn't done, that's why you look at CSD. Decay plot defintely shows how tight a bass is, see Rin's MH1C plot, easily shows a flabby bass, unless you're not familiar with how to interpret. 

The Decay plot is definitely something I could use because I like the bass to be detailed and clean though I do like the decay to have some length but not as much as the MH1C as it is quite sloppy and flabby.

 

Increments of 100Hz? Bass region (sub bass and bass) is from 20 to 250 Hz, how would this give you a more exact picture? Probably a typo. But there is a reason 30 Hz is a very good value to do measure on - not many can perform well in this sub bass region so it is of interest to many. Anyway if I want decay data I would look at CSD plots otherwise I will stick to square wave data - has worked out very well for me this far. One can choose whatever he/she likes.

But you see it's only telling you a specific region, how is that telling you the bass is "tight" makes no sense. You claim it can tell you the quality of bass but it only telling you a narrow region, it will have to tell you a whole picture of how 250hz and below behave which CSD does. CSD will tell you the same thing and more. Tyll uses an audio precision analyzer, which can't do a proper CSD, thus the square wave results :/

Nope, not claiming at all that a measurement on 30 Hz would give information on how to perceive bass, tight and so on. As I said before I think that measurement data is good on giving a hint, but to get the whole picture one would need extensive measurement data and even then you wouldn't be 100% sure how something would sound. There are so many factors that it can depend on. You would need many references  where you know how they sound to even get close. But I understand what you are saying. Let's not make this thread a subject on measurement but on Hifiman RE-400.

Well, decay plot would work, but standard methods of making a Cumulative Spectral Decay is wildly inaccurate at low frequencies. Instead of a windowed impulse response, a long maximum length sequence (pseudorandom) would have to be used.

 

Anyway, that 3kHz dip is I think a measurement/compensation artifact, as it's clearly not audible - not in GR07 nor in RE-400. What is audible is the 5.5k dip in stock configuration of RE-400. GR07 on the other hand has a small peak there combined with ringing. RE-400 has slight10kHz ringing, much less annoying, just slightly smoothing highs detailing - Comply Ts400 vastly reduced it, so it's definitely related to the shell damping and not created by the driver. Also a small 4.5kHz peak in RE-400 is audible, but not annoying.

Probably the different insertion depths can shift these resonances to nicer spots. It so happens that GR07 seens to be designed for deep insertion but lacks the tips required for that and there are scant few compatible ones. None of the included single flanges is suitable and MEElec triple flanges are plain annoying.

Edited by AstralStorm - 3/8/13 at 1:56pm

That's odd. I've been trying to EQ my RE-400s, and in my ears, the RE-400 produces a pretty strong ringing at 5.5k that has me dialing back that peak in EQ to get more even response (another near 9k). I'm new to the forums here: is this due to different ways of assessing the frequency response?

 

 If you like sound of your source (for example HO of your iPod Classic) so will get true sound of your source.
AMPing is good.

The peaks will shift depending on insertion depth. For me, the peak is at 4.5kHz. (RE-272 long biflanges)

Any of longer tips, deeper insertion and Comply foams tend to shift resonances down.

 

RE-400 do not benefit much from amplification as long as your source has enough power to drive their low sensitivity.

 

According to this, that means you're not getting a deeper insertion, you're actually getting a shallow insertion with the RE-400.  Note how at the reference plane, the spike is at 5k, 3-6 mm away, you get the spike bigger, and moved towards the 4.5k range.  You also lose extension this way as well.

 

@ Inks: I see that you are using Westone 4 and HF3. We may have pretty similar tastes as both of those IEMs really impressed me as well. In fact, I know I will be buying at least one pair of an Ety HF for myself when I'll have the money. Those things are so darn great for the price.

Except if you use the long biflanges (which are similar in sound to large biflanges, but bit airier, less midbassy), where you gain extension and highest end. I actually use shallow insertion (between -3 and -6 mm I think) and as you go shallower than -3 mm, the air returns. Reference plane is quite deep indeed. I also use them without the filter (the filter adds to the 5.5k null).

Edited by AstralStorm - 3/9/13 at 11:50am

Hey guys quick question. Should I buy the re-400 or the klipsch x10 if I listen to mostly EDM and dont use an amp? Thanks.

Definitely RE-400. Klipsch X10 is rolled off at the high end and not more refined at all... Has less bass impact, but more bass boost.

Edited by AstralStorm - 3/10/13 at 3:47am