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

Earsonics SM64: The Impressions Thread - Page 19

post #271 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Yum Goong View Post

Here is a french review of the SM64 with some frequenzcy graphs (for the people who care).
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/earsonics-sm64-p15053/test.html#test-complet

Wow! That is significant amount of bass! 

post #272 of 1250
Thanks for the explanation. I'm pretty suspicious of the method the reviewer used as well, so I took a look at some of the other earbuds they reviewed. The UE700 measurements posted don't make any sense. It also seems like they used some sort of compensation already, but the bass FR doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

No, that's not how it works.

Tyll uses an industry-standard ear simulator (IEC711-style) connected to a manikin. Purrin uses some kind of DIY tube-coupler setup. This, I have no idea. It doesn't look like 2cc, because I know how the various sound signatures look on a 2cc, and that graph definitely doesn't fit right. It's probably just a tube connected to a microphone, which means that these measurements can't be compared to anything else. Besides, the microphone used matters, as well. It needs to be a straight-up pressure-field microphone, not a field-equalized (free, diffuse) microphone. I can't even tell whether or not these graphs are before equalization or after. That's why I stated that these graphs make no sense without knowing what they used and how they measured.
post #273 of 1250
They're not bass heavy. That chart makes them look like a W3 or ie8. No way. Secretly posted by an Etymotics fan
post #274 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMarkRemains View Post

They're not bass heavy. That chart makes them look like a W3 or ie8. No way. Secretly posted by an Etymotics fan


+1

Yeah they are really not as bassy as this graph says. Now I really want to know how the reviewer produced this thing.

post #275 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMarkRemains View Post

They're not bass heavy. That chart makes them look like a W3 or ie8. No way. Secretly posted by an Etymotics fan

lol so hard biggrin.gif

post #276 of 1250

FR chart looks a little off. There is +10db on the bass level and in comparison to the TH900, it only manage +5db and that's taken into account that the TH900 has very low distortion. The sub and mid bass on the TH900 obviously sound much more than the SM64 so I am not sure that the FR Chart matches what I heard relatively.

 

I do believe the scoop out from 2K and 5K region as its a little recess there.

post #277 of 1250
Random question: has anyone noticed a significant change from swapping tips?

The SM64 sounded a little too warm for my tastes with the stock tips and the complys, but when I tried them with Shure olives there was a pretty big difference in treble response. Right now they sound pretty neutral. (using the paradox and hd600 as references), although there's still a slight bump in the bass region. I had a nice seal with the double flange tips too, so its confusing.

Also, I'm having a really hard time pulling out the cables for swapping. Any tips?
post #278 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by applehead View Post

Random question: has anyone noticed a significant change from swapping tips?

The SM64 sounded a little too warm for my tastes with the stock tips and the complys, but when I tried them with Shure olives there was a pretty big difference in treble response. Right now they sound pretty neutral. (using the paradox and hd600 as references), although there's still a slight bump in the bass region. I had a nice seal with the double flange tips too, so its confusing.

Also, I'm having a really hard time pulling out the cables for swapping. Any tips?

Your sm 64 is v1 or v2?
If v2 please don't use complys tips , this complys absorb the high
I never like and use complys tips.

Use shure silicon tips is very good in clarity and bass impact
post #279 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by applehead View Post

Random question: has anyone noticed a significant change from swapping tips?

The SM64 sounded a little too warm for my tastes with the stock tips and the complys, but when I tried them with Shure olives there was a pretty big difference in treble response. Right now they sound pretty neutral. (using the paradox and hd600 as references), although there's still a slight bump in the bass region. I had a nice seal with the double flange tips too, so its confusing.

Also, I'm having a really hard time pulling out the cables for swapping. Any tips?

I do like using shure olive tips on my sm64v1. Using stock tip sometimes I find the highs is a bit to sharp for my taste. Using shure olive tip it tames the highs a bit and I feel overall sound is smoother. But also shure olive tip also a bit shorter compared to stock tips and somehow I just need to push a bit more into my ear to get the perfect fit.
post #280 of 1250
Thanks for the responses. Regarding the SM64 in general, it seems that deep insertion is required to get the designed sound.

What do you guys think of this link?
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-deep-do-you-insert-you-er4.html

The highs seems to have been boosted when using the shallower insertion shure olives, while using the longer complys results in a warmer sound.

]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudi0504 View Post

Your sm 64 is v1 or v2?
If v2 please don't use complys tips , this complys absorb the high
I never like and use complys tips.

Use shure silicon tips is very good in clarity and bass impact

I'm using the v2. So far I've noticed that using the complys really does make the sound seem warmer, but the double flange tips sounded almost the same as the Complys. Only the olives made a big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muzic4life View Post

I do like using shure olive tips on my sm64v1. Using stock tip sometimes I find the highs is a bit to sharp for my taste. Using shure olive tip it tames the highs a bit and I feel overall sound is smoother. But also shure olive tip also a bit shorter compared to stock tips and somehow I just need to push a bit more into my ear to get the perfect fit.

Are you using the v1? Using Shure tips seems to have the opposite for me, in the sense that I heard more treble response when I used the Shure tips.
post #281 of 1250
Actually i did some test to several iems...including shure/sm/phonak, i compared between rubber tip, rubber biflange tip and olive tip. Except the rubber tip from shure which has smaller nozzle, i found olive tip is the smoother to its sound when i use on either of the iems. I can always notice that the highs is lesser. Did u try with different sizes? You need to get the right size to get perfectly sealed or otherwise yes, is becoming brighter.
post #282 of 1250
Btw..right now mine is sm64 V1....my sm64 V2 is on the way to my hand. Soon i reveived it...i will do testing with several tips and let u know which one better for me.
post #283 of 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

No, that's not how it works.

 

Tyll uses an industry-standard ear simulator (IEC711-style) connected to a manikin. Purrin uses some kind of DIY tube-coupler setup. This, I have no idea. It doesn't look like 2cc, because I know how the various sound signatures look on a 2cc, and that graph definitely doesn't fit right. It's probably just a tube connected to a microphone, which means that these measurements can't be compared to anything else. Besides, the microphone used matters, as well. It needs to be a straight-up pressure-field microphone, not a field-equalized (free, diffuse) microphone. I can't even tell whether or not these graphs are before equalization or after. That's why I stated that these graphs make no sense without knowing what they used and how they measured.

 

I'm pretty sure this is a dead topic by now, but I did want to chime in.  I think the reason why the graph looks very funky to you, in contrast to Tyll's graphs, isn't just the hardware (it's unknown if the hardware is at fault actually).  It looks like Purrin is using full (1) octave smoothing while Tyll normally uses 1/24 octave smoothing on his graphs (=> Tyll's graphs will be more detailed and contain more information).  You also make a great point about compensation.  If the FR graph shown is raw, I'm kind of scared as that graph doesn't look appealing at all. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by applehead View Post

Thanks for the responses. Regarding the SM64 in general, it seems that deep insertion is required to get the designed sound.

What do you guys think of this link?
http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-deep-do-you-insert-you-er4.html
 

 

In terms of how deep to insert an IEM, in general, it actually depends on the IEM itself.  Some IEMs are designed for a shallow insertion (they are generally more comfortable of the two, but will result in possible resonances).  There are other IEMs (and customs) that require that insertion to the second bend (as Rin describes in his blog post).


Edited by tinyman392 - 4/15/13 at 9:39pm
post #284 of 1250

Hi all,

 

I looked around a bit but I couldnt find an answer.

 

Did anybody removed the filters of SM64? Is there any experience about it?

post #285 of 1250
Hmm I think a past user (Mochi?) I gave knowles dampers to was able to place them in his SM3v2. It seems these share the same design?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM64: The Impressions Thread