Originally Posted by james444
I've been trying out the MW1 headset version of these phones and think they're excellent for the price. With regards to bass (I know these are just subjective listening impressions), I've A/Bed them with my IE8 and even though I'd consider the Senn's as overall superior, the Sonys sound a lot less bass bloated to my ears. Maybe that's because they peak further down than the IE8, idk, but I didn't quite hear them as emphasized as Rin's graph would suggest.
One more thing I'd factor in when it comes to bass level is isolation. IEMs are mainly intended for mobile use and bass is the first thing to get drowned out in a noisy environment, since isolation usually works worse in the low frequency range. A moderate bass emphasis can partly make up for this effect, though I'm of course not saying that it's the healthiest solution.
Well the IE8 is one of the most bloated midbassy IEMs there is in the higher end, maybe it does have more midbass as the MH1's biggest bass peak is at subbass regions. While bass is affected by outside noise, I feel it's still somewhat overstated IME. I do prefer my HF3 with orange dampers in the bass to a ER4S or stock HF in loud noise, but the differences aren't huge and my modded HF3 will likely have a heck of a lot less bass than the MH1.
Originally Posted by macbug
I don't know if it's just me misreading, but I don't see anywhere in Sead's writing saying that he used free field to tune anything, in fact he explicitly stated the opposite. Also I read that 6db debunked posting and I'm still confused, first it states that "proper procedure" can eliminate the physiological variables without outlining how it can be done in the real world, second it still admits that untrained listener, that is the target audience of this headphone, will still experience this phenomenon. Lastly I'm unfamiliar with this non-individualized binaural synthesis method as it's simply not standard in MP3 players and android smart phones, so in what sense is it debunked and how is this any different than claiming there is no need to boost anything because the user can always use EQ?
Well, the MH1 performs in a more linear fashion in free-field, coincidence? Maybe, maybe not, but my point was the critique of the blogger. Read his other articles on the 6db phenomenon, maybe ask a question there.
Originally Posted by goodvibes
Closing the vent should only provide more back pressure to the driver and help prevent over excursion on a sealed insertion or removal. I don't see the mechanism that would provide greater risk. On a sealed insertion, the diaphragm would move until there was equal pressure on either side of it (- some mechanical resistance) and slowly relax to neutral, same as with an open vent. The amount of pressure would be a non issue as it's equal and excursion should be held in better check. The biggest difference is the shorter and less violent excursion compare to an open vent where the driver can be brought to it's mechanical limit more easily and dramatically. Cooling is also a non issue with any normal usage. I don't see how venting protects a driver.
Rin had spoke to an engineer, he says top and front vents are to avoid pressure, back vents are for bass tuning. I used the wrong examples too sorry, the MC5 of Rin's broke because of another reason, it was another IEM that had damage after a vent was closed. He says the engineer told him the MC series has a rerouting mechanism to avoid the pressure damage, same as Sennhesier CX300.
Rin has updated his analysis with a CSD with the vent closed. It further slows down the transients in the subbass regions and concludes the vents helps with transients, specially since the driver is of high compliance.
Edited by Inks - 11/6/12 at 10:31am