Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM64: The Impressions and Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Earsonics SM64: The Impressions and Appreciation Thread - Page 53

post #781 of 1118

I agree Sly and it gets very annoying quickly. But generally that's the MO. Then again ourselves being music lovers can have our own opinions as well ;).
 

post #782 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

I agree Sly and it gets very annoying quickly. But generally that's the MO. Then again ourselves being music lovers can have our own opinions as well ;).
 

 

Yes it is and the problem is that at this moment, they calm down, but they just  wait that we log off for the weekend to spread their incredible knowledge.... and Knowledge is like Jam, the less you have, the more you spread it on a slice of bread...

 

On monday, we will have tons of wonderful technicians discussions with graphs and insults...


Edited by sly_in_the_sky - 6/28/13 at 6:40am
post #783 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Of course, people are going to say that simulation using EQ is nothing like the real thing, despite experiments conducted by the Audio Engineering Society that shows cheap and expensive headphones to be nigh indistinguishable in SQ when FR is matched, never mind that the experiment was conducted using full size headphones where sonic interaction with the subjects' head and ear are much more unpredictable and objective sonic performance of cheap full size headphones are generally much inferior to expensive ones whereas even very cheap IEMs can show exemplary measurements, so if anything one would expect the experiment to be even more "successful" if using IEMs... confused.gif

 

I'm sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I EQ'ed the hell out of your praised philips phone to no avail. It still totally lacked in refinement, clarity, speed, and just raw resolution in comparison to even the Sony MH1C.

 

I was recently part of a loan tour that had two almost identical iems. One cost $800, and one cost $50. The $800 was the Widing ME-10EX, and the $50 was the Novodio IHX. Both had damn near identical frequency responses, with the exception that the Widing phone had a 150ohm (IIRC) impedance. I fully expected the Novodio iem to match in SQ. 

 

I started with the Widing, liked it, then moved to the Novodio. What I heard was an instant and unmistakable drop in everything, the most notable being refinement. It was like going from 1080p to 480p. I usually take pride in not BSing myself, so this was definitely not price placebo.

 

 

I wish people would get it through their heads that FR Graphs and EQ only operate on a single plane of the multidimensional concept that is headphone audio. They only deal with how LOUD a frequency is...no more, no less. Graphs are a very useful tool, but they will never EVER supplant the listening experience.

post #784 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

I'm sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I EQ'ed the hell out of your praised philips phone to no avail. It still totally lacked in refinement, clarity, speed, and just raw resolution in comparison to even the Sony MH1C.

 

I was recently part of a loan tour that had two almost identical iems. One cost $800, and one cost $50. The $800 was the Widing ME-10EX, and the $50 was the Novodio IHX. Both had damn near identical frequency responses, with the exception that the Widing phone had a 150ohm (IIRC) impedance. I fully expected the Novodio iem to match in SQ. 

 

I started with the Widing, liked it, then moved to the Novodio. What I heard was an instant and unmistakable drop in everything, the most notable being refinement. It was like going from 1080p to 480p. I usually take pride in not BSing myself, so this was definitely not price placebo.

 

 

I wish people would get it through their heads that FR Graphs and EQ only operate on a single plane of the multidimensional concept that is headphone audio. They only deal with how LOUD a frequency is...no more, no less. Graphs are a very useful tool, but they will never EVER supplant the listening experience.

 

 

I really thank you for this imput eke... very useful.

 

A clear proof that graphs are just a good information tool that don't say everything, not more not less....

post #785 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

I'm sorry, but this is utter rubbish. I EQ'ed the hell out of your praised philips phone to no avail. It still totally lacked in refinement, clarity, speed, and just raw resolution in comparison to even the Sony MH1C.

 

I was recently part of a loan tour that had two almost identical iems. One cost $800, and one cost $50. The $800 was the Widing ME-10EX, and the $50 was the Novodio IHX. Both had damn near identical frequency responses, with the exception that the Widing phone had a 150ohm (IIRC) impedance. I fully expected the Novodio iem to match in SQ. 

 

I started with the Widing, liked it, then moved to the Novodio. What I heard was an instant and unmistakable drop in everything, the most notable being refinement. It was like going from 1080p to 480p. I usually take pride in not BSing myself, so this was definitely not price placebo.

 

 

I wish people would get it through their heads that FR Graphs and EQ only operate on a single plane of the multidimensional concept that is headphone audio. They only deal with how LOUD a frequency is...no more, no less. Graphs are a very useful tool, but they will never EVER supplant the listening experience.

 

I could go on and on about why you heard what you heard (what equalizer did you use?  How did you equalize?)  but this is such a waste of time.  And I know nothing about the 800 and 50 dollar IEMs you talked about to substantiate your claim that they are identical in FR.

 

But in the end, you hear what you hear and I hear what I hear.  And you have neither my EQ nor my ears (and each person's ear affects the response of each phone uniquely (not that a 24dB cutout can appear out of nowhere, though)).  So you can never quite hear what I am hearing.  So let's leave it at that, shall we?  Do I have to be the one to tell you guys that it's all about what we hear?  I've been trying to leave this thread be but if you lot insist on trying to make me look like a fool with non-sequiturs and ad hominems, I have no choice but to continue derailing this thread as well!


Edited by Joe Bloggs - 6/28/13 at 7:38am
post #786 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

I could go on and on about why you heard what you heard (what equalizer did you use?  How did you equalize?)  but this is such a waste of time.  And I know nothing about the 800 and 50 dollar IEMs you talked about to substantiate your claim that they are identical in FR.

 

But in the end, you hear what you hear and I hear what I hear.  And you have neither my EQ nor my ears (and each person's ear affects the response of each phone uniquely (not that a 24dB cutout can appear out of nowhere, though)).  So you can never quite hear what I am hearing.  So let's leave it at that, shall we?  Do I have to be the one to tell you guys that it's all about what we hear?  I've been trying to leave this thread be but if you lot insist on trying to make me look like a fool with non-sequiturs and ad hominems, I have no choice but to continue derailing this thread as well!

 

And that is again JUST HOW LOUD the iem is at that frequency. Things like refinement and detail are unmistakable unless one is hard of hearing. I'm getting sick of this religious obsession over the FR as if it is the standard by which all men must abide.

 

You don't have to know anything about the iems, other than I repeated your experiments with the philips, and with the other iems.

 

Please go on and on about what you heard. I'd very much love to be educated. How is it a waste of time to explain this, when you could go on and on about how silly we are for spending money on expensive headphones?

 

"non-sequiturs and ad hominems"? Pfft. Your argument is invalid, pointing that out is not a personal attack.

 

What you have implied is that we are wasting our time and money, simply because the 3c drivers used in many cheap headphones are equivalent to those that have been researched for years.

 

Tell you what, I'll bet my HD600 and Asgard on it. If you can equalize the philips (or whatever your new obsession is) to sound equal to high end headphones, and have this confirmed by members of a neutral loan tour, my headphone combo is yours. If you can't, you never post again about a phone you haven't heard.

 

Deal?

post #787 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

 

And that is again JUST HOW LOUD the iem is at that frequency. Things like refinement and detail are unmistakable unless one is hard of hearing. I'm getting sick of this religious obsession over the FR as if it is the standard by which all men must abide.

 

You don't have to know anything about the iems, other than I repeated your experiments with the philips, and with the other iems.

 

Please go on and on about what you heard. I'd very much love to be educated. How is it a waste of time to explain this, when you could go on and on about how silly we are for spending money on expensive headphones?

 

"non-sequiturs and ad hominems"? Pfft. Your argument is invalid, pointing that out is not a personal attack.

 

What you have implied is that we are wasting our time and money, simply because the 3c drivers used in many cheap headphones are equivalent to those that have been researched for years.

 

Tell you what, I'll bet my HD600 and Asgard on it. If you can equalize the philips (or whatever your new obsession is) to sound equal to high end headphones, and have this confirmed by members of a neutral loan tour, my headphone combo is yours. If you can't, you never post again about a phone you haven't heard.

 

Deal?

And how do you measure refinement and detail when the quality cheap phones we are talking about have negligible distortion, in some cases even lower than many flagship BA IEMs?

 

How did you repeat my experiment?  You know you can't just take my EQ curves and carry them over to your ears, right?  The resonances that need to be tamed are at different frequencies for different ears and eartips.

 

You know, as long as YOU know what headphones you're listening to you will never be able to eliminate bias and expectation regarding what you're hearing.  Ditto any attempt on my part to convince others.

 

Also, if EQing to match your own ears there are hearing tests that can be only be conducted by you.  I can't imagine a non-believer like you would go to the lengths necessary to conduct them.  As well practised as I am, it takes me an hour to profile a new pair of headphones.  I tried walking a head-fi member through the process and nothing but confusion on the verge of deafening his ears with screwed up Sinegen settings ensued.  I've given up trying to explain the in and outs of the process with anything less than a face to face meeting.  Of course a lab could make the necessary measurements using instruments but I don't run a lab now do I?

 

And now to top it off, the study I was thinking of doesn't even fully support the premise I wrote down here (that EQing cheap phones makes them sound the same as expensive phones).  I know, laugh all you want, but why are the objectivists saddled with the burden of all the studying?  What did you subjectivists have to do other than sit there flapping your lips?  Here, take a look at the paper:

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart1.pdf

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~briolle/11thAESpart2.pdf

 

I admit I was misled by those who claimed such a conclusion from the paper, without getting ahold of the paper and reading it from start to finish myself.  Bonus points for pointing out actual scientific reasons why the paper doesn't quite support what I claimed.  Why do I expect nothing more than a lot of triumphant animal noises instead?

 

As for why I think my EQed MC3 and MH463 sound better than anything else I've heard:  that study tries to simulate one phone with another.  What I do instead is find the ideal sound sig with the phones I have.  That ideal sound sig does not exist in any commercial off the shelf product--indeed, may never be achievable even if a pair of phones were custom built for me, for physical reasons.  So the technical shortcomings of these phones (of the MH463, in any event;  not sure that the MC3 have any technical shortcoming other than a drop off towards the high frequency extremes that I can't hear anyway with my ears) are offset by the fact that they have been tuned to please my ears 100%.  Not even the Sennheiser Orpheus can make such a claim.  OTOH, such a tuning may not please the general population (though my tuning is not wildly off the beaten track--for the etys I just tune out the 7.5kHz resonance caused by my not-deep-enough insertion and add a simple bass boost.).  And then there's the above point that the response changes depending on the ears.  So no, I do not expect people to find my phones consistently better sounding than other high end headphones on this hypothetical loan tour.  I have taken the MH463 to a meet and one difficulty that has been difficult to surmount is, people want to demo the phones with their own music, and I can only do the processing on my computer.  Once people know the reason why the phones are chained to my computer (that they must be EQed) impressions of the phones generally take a dive.

post #788 of 1118

You make the statements that the subjective impressions are, well, subjective.  I'll agree with that.  However, one can look at a graph and feel one way while another can look at the graph and feel another.  Case and point, the various types of compensation.  That in itself is subjective.  You call it objective, when there is very little objective about it.  I've seen way too many graphs look extremely similar, yet sound so different in reality.  There is more than what meets the eye on the graph. 

 

The graph itself is objective, no questioning that.  The interpretation of it has yet to be standardized.  Like you asked Joe, how can we define detailing, refinement, sweetness, etc objectively?  Do current definitions match what shows up when someone listens?  Or does it go deeper than that?


Edited by tinyman392 - 6/28/13 at 8:46am
post #789 of 1118

I really think it's like eke says. You can EQ the living schiit out of you ear/headphone, but through that, you are only changing the sound signature. You won't get better clarity, a bigger and more realistic soundstage, better fit and build quality or more accesories from that. These are the things that make an IEM or a headphone expensive IMO.
I'm abolutely willing to pay money for that. What is a sound signature that you enjoy good for, if the reproduction of the actual sounds is just really really bad, or the soundstage makes you feel like you are sitting in a cardbord box together with the band?

I also do think that the manufactures had a specific image in their heads, how the product should sound overall. If you go and bend the frequencies with your EQ like there is no tomorrow, you will most likely ruin this "image". I'm sure that there are IEMs/headphones out there, who are far better suited to be EQed than others.

post #790 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

And how do you measure refinement and detail?

 

This is exactly what I was wondering.

post #791 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

And how do you measure refinement and detail when the quality cheap phones we are talking about have negligible distortion, in some cases even lower than many flagship BA IEMs?

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 

As for why I think my EQed MC3 and MH463 sound better than anything else I've heard:  that study tries to simulate one phone with another.  What I do instead is find the ideal sound sig with the phones I have.  That ideal sound sig does not exist in any commercial off the shelf product--indeed, may never be achievable even if a pair of phones were custom built for me, for physical reasons.  So the technical shortcomings of these phones (of the MH463, in any event;  not sure that the MC3 have any technical shortcoming other than a drop off towards the high frequency extremes that I can't hear anyway with my ears) are offset by the fact that they have been tuned to please my ears 100%.  Not even the Sennheiser Orpheus can make such a claim.  OTOH, such a tuning may not please the general population (though my tuning is not wildly off the beaten track--for the etys I just tune out the 7.5kHz resonance caused by my not-deep-enough insertion and add a simple bass boost.).  And then there's the above point that the response changes depending on the ears.  So no, I do not expect people to find my phones consistently better sounding than other high end headphones on this hypothetical loan tour. 

 

Like I said, prove it. I've made my own EQ curves following your techniques. What you're trying to do was attempted in the dark ages by alchemists. 

 

Subjectivist? I follow a holistic approach, and I know the value and limits of measurements. You, on the other hand, sound like a fanatic..."non-believers." rolleyes.gif

 

Again, you fail to distinguish between technical performance and frequency response.

 

Then tell you what. Place your files on a flash drive, and send it out along with your phones. The panel can have an 85% pass rate, to account for such differences. Technical performance shouldn't be affected by frequencies.

 

Yes, your MH463 surpasses the Orpheus...for your ears. Good.

 

Feel free to PM me when you're made the necessary arrangements.

post #792 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Yum Goong View Post

I really think it's like eke says. You can EQ the living schiit out of you ear/headphone, but through that, you are only changing the sound signature. You won't get better clarity, a bigger and more realistic soundstage, better fit and build quality or more accesories from that. These are the things that make an IEM or a headphone expensive IMO.
I'm abolutely willing to pay money for that. What is a sound signature that you enjoy good for, if the reproduction of the actual sounds is just really really bad, or the soundstage makes you feel like you are sitting in a cardbord box together with the band?

I also do think that the manufactures had a specific image in their heads, how the product should sound overall. If you go and bend the frequencies with your EQ like there is no tomorrow, you will most likely ruin this "image". I'm sure that there are IEMs/headphones out there, who are far better suited to be EQed than others.

 

You definitely can change soundstage and clarity by EQing certain parts.  Part of sound stage is how loud one frequency is over another, your brain will place louder parts in front of softer parts, this is one way an artificial sound stage is created.  You can create clarity by pushing the 1kHz-4kHz region a bit.  Too much and you get harshness though.  There are main frequencies that are dealt with in each property, but then there are the secondary frequencies that also play a roll in presentation.  We know about the primary ones, they are normally part of the definition in the glossary...  We don't know enough about the secondary ones that can mask or enhance them though (or we don't know them well enough).

post #793 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

You make the statements that the subjective impressions are, well, subjective.  I'll agree with that.  However, one can look at a graph and feel one way while another can look at the graph and feel another.  Case and point, the various types of compensation.  That in itself is subjective.  You call it objective, when there is very little objective about it.  I've seen way too many graphs look extremely similar, yet sound so different in reality.  There is more than what meets the eye on the graph. 

 

The graph itself is objective, no questioning that.  The interpretation of it has yet to be standardized.  Like you asked Joe, how can we define detailing, refinement, sweetness, etc objectively?  Do current definitions match what shows up when someone listens?  Or does it go deeper than that?


Detailing and sweetness can be explained using THD, FR, CSD and square wave might help a bit but they don't work all the time.

The thing is, there're many different types of data out there and we aren't even sure they can convey everything we need to know about sound, but at the same time data can reveal what we normally miss out. 


Edited by tranhieu - 6/28/13 at 8:55am
post #794 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post


Detailing and sweetness can be explained using THD, FR, CSD and square wave might have a bit but they don't work all the time.

The thing is, there're many different types of data out there and we aren't even sure they can convey everything we need to know about sound, but at the same time data can reveal what we normally miss out. 

 

As I stated, we know about the main frequencies that impact it, but there are other frequencies that can impact it as well.  They are in the FR, but where.  Music is a holistic thing.  Our definitions remain very separated from one another...  What frequencies can mask clarity and sweetness.  How about detailing? Or how about a secondary-tone that creates the illusion of detailing (the main frequency isn't heard, but that certain instruments secondary can be heard creating the detailing). 

 

I've also bolded something...  A flaw...  If it was truly objective, like they state, it would would all the time. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 6/28/13 at 8:58am
post #795 of 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

You definitely can change soundstage and clarity by EQing certain parts.  Part of sound stage is how loud one frequency is over another, your brain will place louder parts in front of softer parts, this is one way an artificial sound stage is created.  You can create clarity by pushing the 1kHz-4kHz region a bit.  Too much and you get harshness though.  There are main frequencies that are dealt with in each property, but then there are the secondary frequencies that also play a roll in presentation.  We know about the primary ones, they are normally part of the definition in the glossary...  We don't know enough about the secondary ones that can mask or enhance them though (or we don't know them well enough).

But wouldn't that mean that you can't have really really good clarity/soundstage with specific types of sound signatures?
I'm not really trying to argue here, I'm just asking :) Sound science is something I want to stay away from.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM64: The Impressions and Appreciation Thread