And again: why does Rin's article make the MH1C out to be trash when his own measurements actually make them out to be "pretty good minus the bass" as you put it? Why does he pan the MH1C for its poor HF response in the deep insertion condition when it is obvious from his own data at the end that these were tuned for the more comfortable shallow insertion condition (and more successfully in the treble frequencies than any set Rin measured bar none as far as I can see)? Why is this engineering feat relegated to a footnote? Why put a designed-in bass boost in the spotlight as the sore point when it can be easily EQed out with a primitive 5-band equalizer, and when Sony has tackled the problem with high frequency peaks in the shallow insertion condition--which usually requires a level of parametric EQ not available on any mobile player to correct and even then is sensitive to small changes in fit?
He himself agreed with your latest comment on the MH1 article, better than expensive sets in midhighs/treble, minus the bass
You: Looking at your reviews, the MH1C still looks more linear with shallow insertion than either of these expensive sets..(GR07/GR10)
Rin: Indeed, except the gross bass
He critiques some of the tuning approach, the response looks nice after the actual IEM analysis which he likes (implied), even with deep insertion. He usually portrays the main graphs at the reference planel for consistency (even the TF10 which can't be taken there lol), it will be masking things if he didn't show how they are better shallow. Not only is the bass too boosted, it's too slow as well.
Edited by Inks - 11/11/12 at 9:49pm