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 35

post #511 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

 

I am not sure but it seems Rin is one of the founding members of GE so why should I have to wait for GE graphs. Do not get me wrong. I do not say I am not believing in Rin's graph. I am just waiting for another source or at least the response from Earsonics.    And while we are waiting for the result please do not conclude that such result will be the same as we can not see it yet.

 

By the way, as you mentioned that is a smoothing resolution. I tried to compare the ratio between these two graphs and these are different. Please explain if I am wrong as I am almost not looking to the graph when buying headphones. 

 

Funny cause GE and Rin don't get along nowadays, long story....I would love a response from Earsonics, hope they don't ignore like Heir did. As for the graph, Tiny knows what's he's talking about. At this point, it seems like a desparate attempt to not accept what's there. 


Edited by Inks - 5/24/13 at 10:52pm
post #512 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

At this point, it seems like a desparate attempt to not accept what's there. 

To accept or not to accept what the measurement shows was never in question. What IS in question, however, is whether or not any discrepancy exists between the otherwise faulty unit Rin received and measured, and another seemingly fully functional unit. For completion sake, I'm all for Rin measuring a second set, as well as hearing what Earsonics has to say with regards to Rin's findings.
post #513 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Funny cause GE and Rin don't get along nowadays, long story....I would love a response from Earsonics, hope they don't ignore like Heir did. As for the graph, Tiny knows what's he's talking about. At this point, it seems like a desparate attempt to not accept what's there. 

 

Inks, as mentioned above, I do NOT reject Rin's result and you mentioned it is cold fact. I provide another cold fact to compare and then you said it is a smoothing version. Based on what you said, I compared the ratio between these two graphs and these are different ratio.

 

If I am wrong, please explain and I am happy to learn. Do not just say that is a desperate attempt to not accept what is there.

post #514 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

 

Inks, as mentioned above, I do NOT reject Rin's result and you mentioned it is cold fact. I provide another cold fact to compare and then you said it is a smoothing version. Based on what you said, I compared the ratio between these two graphs and these are different ratio.

 

If I am wrong, please explain and I am happy to learn. Do not just say that is a desperate attempt to not accept what is there.

 

You can't compare them...  They are smoothed differently.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

I don't have an SM64 on hand to show you the effects of smoothing on it specifically, but I do have the next best thing, the Heir Audio 4.Ai which is also known to have this dip.  Please ignore the resonance my setup has at 90 Hz and the early roll off in bass, but the graph below shows the effect of smoothing and how it can make a difference in the way the graph is represented.  Below is an unsmoothed, 1/24 smoothed, and 1/3 smoothed graph all based on the same unsmoothed data.  No compensation has been done to any of the graphs.  With the Heir Audio 4.Ai the smoothing brings the dip up about 5 dB.

 

post #515 of 1214

Tiny just did, NEVER trust a graph with smoothing

 

Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

I don't have an SM64 on hand to show you the effects of smoothing on it specifically, but I do have the next best thing, the Heir Audio 4.Ai which is also known to have this dip.  Please ignore the resonance my setup has at 90 Hz and the early roll off in bass, but the graph below shows the effect of smoothing and how it can make a difference in the way the graph is represented.  Below is an unsmoothed, 1/24 smoothed, and 1/3 smoothed graph all based on the same unsmoothed data.  No compensation has been done to any of the graphs.  With the Heir Audio 4.Ai the smoothing brings the dip up about 5 dB.

 

 


Edit: whoops Tiny just responded lol
Edited by Inks - 5/24/13 at 11:17pm
post #516 of 1214
midnightwalker, he's merely playing devil's advocate. As of yet (unless I missed an edit), no one refuted what's shown on the graph.
post #517 of 1214

Thank you very much tinyman392. My next question is: As written on Rin's graph: smoothed 1/24 and the other graph only smooth -> normalize, so how can we know it is not smoothed 1/24 as it was measured from different earphone so the result can be different.

 

By the way, I love your signature ;)

post #518 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

Thank you very much tinyman392. My next question is: As written on Rin's graph: smoothed 1/24 and the other graph only smooth -> normalize, so how can we know it is not smoothed 1/24 as it was measured from different earphone so the result can be different.

 

By the way, I love your signature ;)

 

We don't know what smooth normalize is...  It could be full spectrum, 1/2, 1/3, it's not specified.  Rin and Tyll generally use 1/24 smoothing (when I start actually measuring, I'll be doing the same).  There is a way to show what smoothing that graph uses, it'd require Rin to smooth his graph to match that of the normalized one.  If he can get a match, he can know what smoothing was used ;) 

 

Thanks for the signature complement :D

 

EDIT: the other way would be to have the original creator of the graph to tell us what smoothing was used and/or what software was used to smooth so we can see what "normalize(d)" means.


Edited by tinyman392 - 5/24/13 at 11:34pm
post #519 of 1214
Thread Starter 
I have to say I envy you inks. You never have to buy music or headphones to get what you want out of head-fi and its great forums. I'm stuck here counting my change so I can listen to every great iem!
post #520 of 1214

Technically you cannot compare any 2 graphs that are measured using different setups. AP is good stuff but who knows which configuration was used, what coupler was utilized, and what equalization curve was used for compensating? Heck even the smoothing ratio brings about massive difference already. It's useless arguing over the differences of graphs without knowing the measurement setups and the implemented techniques.

post #521 of 1214

I'm sad this thread has taken (like many on this forum as of late) a negative, argumentative turn. 

 

The SM64's has a crispness in the mids that reminded me of the Heir 4.ai. I felt that the bass response was better suited (SM64) to my musical tastes, therefore, it is my choice of the two.

 

That said if they both have a "suck out" at 5k, perhaps that's what I'm hearing, I suspect that's where the upper crossover is cutting in, but regardless, the sound is pleasant. I suspect that these valleys that has a few members so worked up are a direct result of the passive crossovers. Ok, if that's the case aren't they there in some form for all multi driver IEM's. Heck, multi driver speakers too.

 

In interpreting a graph, if that's my reference point, it's more of a comparison to a known sound. I look at the midbass/subbass levels, check for a "v" mid response and go from there. I can't really hear 12k and above, so that's about where I stop. A flat Etymotic bass response seldom works for me, a slightly elevated midbass,extended sub works best. But that's me and my crappy hearing.

 

 

I'm not trying to restart the salvos, but rather to confirm, to my ears, there were similarities in the upper mids/highs in the SM64/4.ai.  

 

I really like these headphones, I think they're the best IEM's I've heard yet for my music and hearing.

post #522 of 1214

@TheMarkRemains: I am glad that you love the Sm64. And yes it is also one of the best IEMs I have heard yet for my music.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post

Technically you cannot compare any 2 graphs that are measured using different setups. AP is good stuff but who knows which configuration was used, what coupler was utilized, and what equalization curve was used for compensating? Heck even the smoothing ratio brings about massive difference already. It's useless arguing over the differences of graphs without knowing the measurement setups and the implemented techniques.

 

That makes sense bro. So can we just discuss the graph on the right alone :D

 

Quote:

EDIT: the other way would be to have the original creator of the graph to tell us what smoothing was used and/or what software was used to smooth so we can see what "normalize(d)" means.

 

@tinyman392: it will be good but impossible to me as I do not know French. The original post is below, so I wonder if anyone knows French can contact the author to ask more info about his graph? Otherwise, we have to wait for the 2nd measurements from Rin and response from Earsonics.

 

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/earsonics-sm64-p15053/test.html


Edited by midnightwalker - 5/25/13 at 12:41pm
post #523 of 1214
Your situation sounds like a one-off; I've heard few if any complaints about Westones' durability. However the build problems with the
SM3 are well documented, as are negative experiences with the quality of their repairs. And I've heard more than one person (plus myself) complain about their customer service as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

I owned the Sm3 v1, sm3 v2 and currently own a Sm64. Never had a problem with these earphones so may I conclude the quality is good? I know there are some ES users in here had the shell issue but is it a big deal? That's what warranty for. I also owned the Westone 4/4R and the 4R dead right out of the box so should I blame Westone on their QC? We all know that a company produces error-free products does not exist.

Besides, I do not know how loud you test on the Sm3 V2 but seems I do not have any issue when listening to loud music. May be our PoVs of loud sound are different and the way we are testing on sound quality also different. I tend to turn the volume low to normal to test headphones. By the way, protect your ears, do not listen too loud smily_headphones1.gif
post #524 of 1214

What about the sound of SM64+AM900?

post #525 of 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

@TheMarkRemains: I am glad that you love the Sm64. And yes it is also one of the best IEMs I have heard yet for my music.

 

 

That makes sense bro. So can we just discuss the graph on the right alone :D

 

 

@tinyman392: it will be good but impossible to me as I do not know French. The original post is below, so I wonder if anyone knows French can contact the author to ask more info about his graph? Otherwise, we have to wait for the 2nd measurements from Rin and response from Earsonics.

 

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/earsonics-sm64-p15053/test.html

 

I can't find any information on what they mean by normalize, but do have the manufacturer and developers' webpage that makes the software they use.  The software comes from Audio Precision: http://www.ap.com/

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