New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phonak Audeo to close down? - Page 7

post #91 of 123

In my opinion, PFE also isn't as detailed as the Etys in the treble and doesn't have enough micro detail definition in the bass and mids to be reference quality. The resolution in the bass and mids is actually quite good with the PFE, but the finer micro details are quite muddy/glossed over and very hard to hear. ER4 presents all details with great definition and zero muddiness. I haven't heard a headphone yet that I can say is clearly more resolving that the ER4, but I heard plenty that can surpass PFE in micro detail definition and treble resolution. My HD650 and HE-500 easily outperform PFE in these aspects by good margin. ER4S more than holds its own against these reference full sized cans and I think actually surpasses both in treble micro detailing. In resolution and definition, I think PFE is more in the league with HF5 than ER4. HF5 beats PFE in the upper mids and treble by a good margin, but PFE sounds cleaner in the lower mids. Bass extends lower on the PFE, but HF5 has better definition down there. ER4, both P and S variants, easily surpass both PFE and HF5 to my ears and are in a different league overall IMO.


Edited by Pianist - 7/3/13 at 2:23pm
post #92 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

In my opinion, PFE also isn't as detailed as the Etys in the treble and doesn't have enough micro detail definition in the bass and mids to be reference quality. The resolution in the bass and mids is actually quite good with the PFE, but the finer micro details are quite muddy/glossed over and very hard to hear. ER4 presents all details with great definition and zero muddiness. I haven't heard a headphone yet that I can say is clearly more resolving that the ER4, but I heard plenty that can surpass PFE in micro detail definition and treble resolution. My HD650 and HE-500 easily outperform PFE in these aspects by good margin. ER4S more than holds its own against these reference full sized cans and I think actually surpasses both in treble micro detailing. In resolution and definition, I think PFE is more in the league with HF5 than ER4. HF5 beats PFE in the upper mids and treble by a good margin, but PFE sounds cleaner in the lower mids. Bass extends lower on the PFE, but HF5 has better definition down there. ER4, both P and S variants, easily surpass both PFE and HF5 to my ears and are in a different league overall IMO.

 

I agree for the most part.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying the pfe are equivalent in micro detail or quality per se.  I'm only saying that they have so many plusses that if frequency response isn't you're only determining factor then the pfe are a good contender.  The sound stage is the only real "improvement" in quality in my opinion for the pfe.

 

However, WITH eq, I can get the pfe112 to sound extremely close in micro detail to the er4s.  The micro details stem from the fact that the er4s are so smooth in frequency response that no one area of the spectrum is masking any other area.  So, stock, yes the er4s definitely reveal more details, as the pfe112 have peaky treble that masks the overall treble lower than the peaks.  However, I hear more bass definition in the pfe112 once they are eq'd to flat.

 

Have you tried accudio?  I use the pfe112 on hi-fi setting and they sound amazing.  The er4s are amazing in their own right,  but as this is an audeo thread, I'm just trying to spell out their greatness too. :-)

post #93 of 123

........I love my er4s. hahaha

post #94 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 


So I think they actually did an excellent job with the pfe112.  I think it is better to listen to them and try not to analyze the bass.  Before you know it you are listening to them and thinking "these sound amazing" without any problems.  At least that has been my case.

 

Nailed it. I got the 122's in the $70 sale the other week. I did like them at first, but wasn't sure if I would own them for long.  But they are showing signs of a long term keeper. They really do sound amazing. There are a couple of minor quibbles, but like you said, the sound they produce is amazing. Once you stop thinking "I wish there was a touch more bass" and just listen, you start to appreciate them greatly.  Smooth yet detailed in the treble and mids, never offending. I'm hearing things in songs I know inside and out. Such as bass. I can pick up the initial pluck in songs I never noticed before. And this is in heavy metal where its hard to hear these things. I'm really liking these and hope to find a good deal on the 232's.


Edited by Painful Chafe - 7/3/13 at 11:13pm
post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Painful Chafe View Post

 

Nailed it. I got the 122's in the $70 sale the other week. I did like them at first, but wasn't sure if I would own them for long.  But they are showing signs of a long term keeper. They really do sound amazing. There are a couple of minor quibbles, but like you said, the sound they produce is amazing. Once you stop thinking "I wish there was a touch more bass" and just listen, you start to appreciate them greatly.  Smooth yet detailed in the treble and mids, never offending. I'm hearing things in songs I know inside and out. Such as bass. I can pick up the initial pluck in songs I never noticed before. And this is in heavy metal where its hard to hear these things. I'm really liking these and hope to find a good deal on the 232's.

 

I would avoid the 232 personally.  They are very nice, but the 112/122 are a very neutral earphone with a bit extra treble emphasis.  The 232 have much more treble and bass.  While the extra bass doesn't hurt, I find the treble does.  They are much more V-shaped.  And while they are very nice, I actually think the pfe112/122 are much better.  I've owned the pfe112 and the 232 both two different times.  I've let go of the 232 and never looked back.  I'd save the money for something else personally...

post #96 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I would avoid the 232 personally.  They are very nice, but the 112/122 are a very neutral earphone with a bit extra treble emphasis.  The 232 have much more treble and bass.  While the extra bass doesn't hurt, I find the treble does.  They are much more V-shaped.  And while they are very nice, I actually think the pfe112/122 are much better.  I've owned the pfe112 and the 232 both two different times.  I've let go of the 232 and never looked back.  I'd save the money for something else personally...

Thanks for that.

 

I"m actually thinking of selling my collection except for one or two(one probably being the Phonaks) and going with  some CIEM's. I just have to figure out how to explain that to the wife. LOL

 

"You did WHAT??!!!??!"

post #97 of 123
Which UK or EU email did you guys use to contact phonak about a new cable? Thanks.
post #98 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I would avoid the 232 personally.  They are very nice, but the 112/122 are a very neutral earphone with a bit extra treble emphasis.  The 232 have much more treble and bass.  While the extra bass doesn't hurt, I find the treble does.  They are much more V-shaped.  And while they are very nice, I actually think the pfe112/122 are much better.  I've owned the pfe112 and the 232 both two different times.  I've let go of the 232 and never looked back.  I'd save the money for something else personally...

 

Never have I had any piece of audio equipment benefit more from burn in than the pfe 232. Not even close

 

The difference IS night and day. When I first received it my 112 were superior in pretty much every way. Three weeks of pink noise burn in later, having not physically touched the 232 (so no brain burn in), the change was genuinely large. Easily better than the 112's except in the field of midrange fluidity/positioning within the headstage. 

post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFC_SL View Post

Spoke too soon. Had a forum member round my house today to demo the AK120 and each other's IEM collection

 

Standard cable on the PFE 232 was cutting out. Exchanged it for the smartphone cable (which I never use) and it is fine. Hmm. Standard cable displays no visible damage. I have emailed Phonak about a replacement. If they quote me a charge I will point them to this thread and you got a freebie ha

 

Wow!

 

Phonaks customer service was exemplary. It really was. They'll give you the cables for free, I'm sure of it. 

post #100 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantScareMe View Post

 

Never have I had any piece of audio equipment benefit more from burn in than the pfe 232. Not even close

 

The difference IS night and day. When I first received it my 112 were superior in pretty much every way. Three weeks of pink noise burn in later, having not physically touched the 232 (so no brain burn in), the change was genuinely large. Easily better than the 112's except in the field of midrange fluidity/positioning within the headstage. 

 

I used the pfe232 for months straight with no discernible difference in sound except that the silicon or foam tips would soften a bit after a while and the sound would get a little less bright.  Once I used new tips again it was back to its original brightness.  Plus, the signature is so different from the pfe112 that it would take a completely new earphone to bring it anywhere near the sound of the pfe112.  I'm not saying you're not hearing a difference, and you may prefer it, but you would have to flatten the bass and treble by such a large amount you wouldn't get much close to flat no matter how much it might burn in.  In other words, an earphone can't magically morph into another earphone with burn in.  You can't buy a westone 4 and have it burn in until it sounds like the er4s. :-P  There's about the same difference between the two. :-P

 

I personally don't believe in "driver" burn in.  Tips, yes.  But it is generally accepted that even if something did have "driver" burn in, it wouldn't be a large difference in sound.  So at most, I'm guessing it is soothing the treble for you and maybe tightening the bass?  Even if that's the case, the levels are still way to boosted for me personally.  I prefer flat neutral sound.

post #101 of 123

Now you guys are making me want to try out the ER4S's.

 

Damn you HF.

post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

I used the pfe232 for months straight with no discernible difference in sound except that the silicon or foam tips would soften a bit after a while and the sound would get a little less bright.  Once I used new tips again it was back to its original brightness.  Plus, the signature is so different from the pfe112 that it would take a completely new earphone to bring it anywhere near the sound of the pfe112.  I'm not saying you're not hearing a difference, and you may prefer it, but you would have to flatten the bass and treble by such a large amount you wouldn't get much close to flat no matter how much it might burn in.  In other words, an earphone can't magically morph into another earphone with burn in.  You can't buy a westone 4 and have it burn in until it sounds like the er4s. :-P  There's about the same difference between the two. :-P

 

I personally don't believe in "driver" burn in.  Tips, yes.  But it is generally accepted that even if something did have "driver" burn in, it wouldn't be a large difference in sound.  So at most, I'm guessing it is soothing the treble for you and maybe tightening the bass?  Even if that's the case, the levels are still way to boosted for me personally.  I prefer flat neutral sound.

 

Then again - you couldn't measure burn in as you were using it whilst it was burning in. With the exact same fit, exact same tips, same songs, same source (all invariant) I tested the 112 against the 232 and the treble was definitely sharper on the latter. After a long burn in of three weeks for the 232, the duration of which I used neither of these headphones at all, I put both on the exact same setup and the treble had swung. The 112 were definitely sharper than the 232. 

 

I have seen thousands of posts on headfi on burn in, thousands of claims of 'brain based' burn in/no burn in, yet very very few measure it like me. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but as far as I can tell it's the only way to get close to saying something objective about this phenomenon; compare it to something that is invariant.

I'm just talking about the treble here - there were plenty of other differences.

 

The pfe112 with grey filters is not flat in my opinion. It definitely has weaker than neutral bass, but that's not a bad thing. Music that has plenty of bass, even pristine live recordings where I've been in the audience, can't be reproduced faithfully in the bass regions by the 112. Impact, extension, weight, magnitude and decay are often lacking though not by much. Go to a headphone like the ultrasone sig pro / mad dog alpha / beyer t1 / phonak 232 and this bass line comes alive.  I find the 112 perfectly enjoyable all round and this 'weakness' in bass is not a general weakness of the headphone. It's not something like the fischer dba02 which is outright flawed because of the lack of bass.

post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantScareMe View Post

Then again - you couldn't measure burn in as you were using it whilst it was burning in. With the exact same fit, exact same tips, same songs, same source (all invariant) I tested the 112 against the 232 and the treble was definitely sharper on the latter. After a long burn in of three weeks for the 232, the duration of which I used neither of these headphones at all, I put both on the exact same setup and the treble had swung. The 112 were definitely sharper than the 232. 

I have seen thousands of posts on headfi on burn in, thousands of claims of 'brain based' burn in/no burn in, yet very very few measure it like me. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but as far as I can tell it's the only way to get close to saying something objective about this phenomenon; compare it to something that is invariant.
I'm just talking about the treble here - there were plenty of other differences.

The pfe112 with grey filters is not flat in my opinion. It definitely has weaker than neutral bass, but that's not a bad thing. Music that has plenty of bass, even pristine live recordings where I've been in the audience, can't be reproduced faithfully in the bass regions by the 112. Impact, extension, weight, magnitude and decay are often lacking though not by much. Go to a headphone like the ultrasone sig pro / mad dog alpha / beyer t1 / phonak 232 and this bass line comes alive.  I find the 112 perfectly enjoyable all round and this 'weakness' in bass is not a general weakness of the headphone. It's not something like the fischer dba02 which is outright flawed because of the lack of bass.
I find the bass perfect on the 112. And i did the same thing and had the opposite results, my pfe sound exactly the same difference between the 112 even after months of use. To say the pfe 232 becomes less sharp after time proves that's not possible for two reasons. First, that would mean it changed at least 10db in treble after break in. I don't personally believe that, and my experience shows the opposite. Second, the 112 is the same type of balanced armature driver. Are you saying that did,nt break in? Or did it break in backwards and gain treble?

Do you still own both right now?
post #104 of 123

I own both

 

As I said earlier in this thread, the time between when I wake up and when I sleep, I have the pfe's wired on to me! Before the 232's it was the 112's that I used to use for many hours in the day.

Nothing burned in backwards (akg k550 are the only headphones that have exhibited this in my experience, which required a re-burn in (again without me listening to it) to sound right). I 're-burned' in the 112's later to see if this was an issue but found no difference that I could speak of. 

 

When talking about burn in, It don't matter how long one has had a headphone for - I've over 30 pairs on me right now and the one I've had the longest has been used the least (senn mx980). It's burn in hours (pink noise if possible) that makes the difference. Having it playing a constant loop of pink noise for a week puts 12 times more burn in hours than if one was to use this for 2 hours a day for a week. Another factor like you mentioned was the tips. And just for the record, If ever I test two earphones I use the same ear tips. Otherwise it's not a test.

 

With the phonk 232's the supplied eartips I found to be of poor quality (pop in my ears) and I pretty much instantly began using these earphones with spare phonak 112 tips. Now I use them with klipsch gel medium single flange eartips which fit and sound the best (for both phonak earphones actually - brings out the clarity/air of the midrange)


Edited by CantScareMe - 7/4/13 at 3:16pm
post #105 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Painful Chafe View Post

Thanks for that.

I"m actually thinking of selling my collection except for one or two(one probably being the Phonaks) and going with  some CIEM's. I just have to figure out how to explain that to the wife. LOL

"You did WHAT??!!!??!"
It gets easier, my wife thinks I am completely insane but she has all but given up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: