Sony MH1 R&D Story ...and discussion. - Page 11

Originally Posted by tinyman392 

I'm going to have to agree with this, sorry Inks, nothing against you.  But to you Rin's data seems to be the end-all of data, it reads like you feel that only his data is correct, no one else's holds any merit in your eyes.  If this isn't true, your tone of language and voice don't say that.  I agree with Eke2k6 100% here (and we don't always get along...  Right Ekes?). 

 

Reading through Rin's work, his take on the MH1 is as subjective as ClieOS'.  There really is no objectivity to his initial opinion.  Sure, he has frequency graphs and impedance responses...  But he's also the one that interprets what point A means and what point B means.  Listeners do this same interpretation when they listen to the headphones.  The statements he does make in the end, ClieOS does have a point, show that Rin had an agenda on this.  Whether it was conscious or unconsciously done is beyond me.  But there was an agenda to not only attack Sony, but also ClieOS.  I have used Rin's graphs for what they were in the past, agreeing with, but also disagreeing with some things he has said. 

   His raw results are for the most part identical to Tyll's, I do feel Rin's compensations are the most correct, yes, but isn't so black and white as you put it. The data and backing evidence is objective, not so much just a full subjective option. The way you put everything is open to interpretation, but it isn't so, those slow transients and big boost are what they are and evidence is backing it. PM me a response as it's quite OT. 

Originally Posted by eke2k6 

Inks, I think you need to reevaluate your approach to presenting your opinions and facts. Regardless of your intentions, you often come of as arrogant and insultive. You may intend to presen raw information, but your posts often end up being cancerous and highly counterproductive to the threads you post in.

  I am very straightforward, somewhat aggressive in my approach, but when I critique it's always the product or ideas, avoiding actual insults to users as that leads nowhere and I have no interest in. Well the thing is, the stuff I have put to light are VERY controversial stuff, from the tuning approach and review here to the blatant flaws of the Heirs and I don't hold back critiquing as much as I can. I mean no actual harm to users though product attachment makes it inevitable. 

And due to the high controversy and approach, I do have my share of detractors, but I also have those that understand and are in agreement with what I do, inevitable compromise.

I though the discussion was already done, both ClieOS, Joe and I have said all that was needed. 

i am noob, so i got no idea about technical stuff.

So my question is, whats the problem with these iem?  i dont get it .  can som1 explain me whats the problem in plain and simple english??

thanks
 

Originally Posted by rickdohc 

i am noob, so i got no idea about technical stuff.

 

So my question is, whats the problem with these iem?  i dont get it .  can som1 explain me whats the problem in plain and simple english??

 

thanks

  Too slow of a bass and it's boosted a tad too much. Besides that, everything is outstanding, EQing helps the boost but not the slowness of the bass. 

ok... thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

  Too slow of a bass and it's boosted a tad too much. Besides that, everything is outstanding, EQing helps the boost but not the slowness of the bass. 

hahaha. wanna know what's funny?

I quote from ClieOS's review:

Originally Posted by ClieOS 

Sound Quality
The IEM was given over 50 hours of burn-in before the review. At first, the bass can be a bit boomy while the presentation is more upfront than it should. In time, bass will settle down and the sense of space will improve. I do recommend a minimum 50 hours of burn-in (100 hours if you can) with MH1, but it is not mandatory. The IEM will sound good out-of-the-box - burn-in just tightens up the overall presentation and resolution.
The overall sound signature of MH1 is warm and sweet, while well balanced in all frequencies. Bass extends down to 10Hz and hits with really good quantity and quality. Not the fastest or biggest impact around, but nothing to be ashamed of even among bass monster. Mid is sweet and right in the butter zone to give the right balance of intimacy and texture while still maintains a good sense of layer and space. Treble extends up to the very top, but it is more about smoothness than it is brightness. While analytical listeners might not find the sparkle or crispiness to be enough for their taste, it still however compliments the mid and bass impeccably and doesn’t feel lacking in anyway. Soundstage is rather good. By no mean the best of the best or endlessly large, it does portrait width and depth in a very 3D, well layered and resolving manner within its own confine.
What I have noticed as I listened to MH1 during the course of evaluation is that this is an IEM that truly has bare minimum weakness in overall tuning. In fact, it excels in almost any genre I can throw at it – Pop, Alternative Rock, Vocal, Folk, Country, and even Classical – just name it. Granted it might not be the best at every genre, I will say it has some of the most consistent performance across the board… Okay, may be Electronic can use a bit more sparkles, but that’s about it - and it is not to say Electronic isn’t enjoyable on MH1 at all.

I feel like you were reading into the impressions of other members instead of ClieOS's actual review.

Anyways. Is Sead interested in answering this question from earlier?
 

Originally Posted by Muzzy011 

Pozdrav Seade! Hello Sead!

 

First of all, thank you for make possible for all of us to enjoy mh1-mh1c, and also for good R&D article.

 

My question is, from diagrams I saw in your article, is it one of the biggest problems in IEM design, is resonance, I mean, unwanted ones.

 

Is it there scientific ways to lower resonance, to lower spikes on diagrams, to make real frequency response closer to reference one? or is it still hit or run process?

 

Is there some kind of filters (or whatever their name is), air canals/chambers, etc that can help? Or is that characteristic of certain driver?

 

Thanks.

Atomik, thats after "50 hours of burn in"... such thing is a myth, you know
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

  Too slow of a bass and it's boosted a tad too much. Besides that, everything is outstanding, EQing helps the boost but not the slowness of the bass. 

For the nth time... I thought a slow bass is a plus in Rin's book on psychoacoustics?  You know filling in the missing 6dB?

what do we loose if its slow. please tell us 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalper 

what do we loose if its slow. please tell us 

People like to call it PRaT (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing).  Essentially, the music sounds slower than it actually is.  Slowless often, but doesn't always, lead to a smoother sound as well. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalper 

what do we loose if its slow. please tell us 

The driver can't catch up with the freq of the music and it sounds slow and overdone on the bass and the close freq, for what I can undestand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS 

I think of slow in two ways: first, the actual transient / attack is slow. 2nd, there is more decay that it should be, giving more lingering bass note and thus more perception of bass and slowness. Basically there is nothing you can do with the first condition. A tighter amp section might help but the driver is limited by its electronic and physical property. This can however be easily measured, and generally not an issue in small driver, certainly not the case in MH1 simply by looking at its impulse response. The 2nd condition is more commonly what we associated with slowness in IEM. The decay of bass note is longer than usual so any attack that follows the first attack will get masked and only becomes clear when the first bass's decay is diminished enough. The resolution between note is reduced and thus there is lesser 'audio space' for listener to interpret speed. The big reason why BA is usually perceived as having faster speed has to do with their tendency to have much shorter decay (of course their transient is really fast as well). That's my opinion.

Hmm, the fact that I was able to understand that either means that I'm a genius, or you are. I'm gonna go with the latter lol! Regardless, thanks for that explanation.

Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs 

For the nth time... I thought a slow bass is a plus in Rin's book on psychoacoustics?  You know filling in the missing 6dB?

  And as I have stated many times, it's too slow. Yes some delay would be a nice way to compensate for the missing 6db phenomenon, but the MH1's is way too much of an overkill, even the BOSE AE2s delay doesn't look so bad (but it has more issues in other areas). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inks 

  And as I have stated many times, it's too slow. Yes some delay would be a nice way to compensate for the missing 6db phenomenon, but the MH1's is way too much of an overkill, even the BOSE AE2s delay doesn't look so bad (but it has more issues in other areas). 

Hi Inks,

     here we talk about measurments, and I beleive we can be much precise in statements.

     What is numerical value of ideal bas delay regarding missing 6db compensation, and what is numerical value of MH1c bas delay?

     Many thanks for your answer in advance.

     Cheers,   Sika