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 39

post #571 of 1211

Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

Yesterday, I received this graph from Franck - Earsonics with the note: "After 15Khz, there is a big atténuation due to the testing systeme reflection phase annulation accident of our synthetic ear". Same as most of us, Earsonics does not want their customers making decision based on the graph but what they actually hear. That is why we do not see Earsonics publish technical measurements on their website. The notch at 5KHz as you can see in the graph (around -5 to -10dB) was made intentionally to avoid aggressive and sibilant treble. By the way, I, personally, prefer this thread will go as the old way, more impression less graph or technical measurement.

 

 

The data above is most likely derived with a 2cc coupler, which is basically a metal tube with a mic attached at the one end, not to mention that the 2cc coupler doesn't reflect ear canal impedance. It seems there is a low-resolution smoothing applied too. This is the exact same shameless behavior that I had with Heir Audio, when I presented their 3.Ai/4.Ai data. Measure 3.Ai/4.Ai with a 2cc setup, and you will see a flat response with no dip(Tinyman should be well-aware about this, right?)

 

And, especially, this statement from Franck: "After 15Khz, there is a big atténuation due to the testing systeme reflection phase annulation accident of our synthetic ear"- is a complete nonsense. Occluded ear simulators that comply the relevant international standards do not introduce attenuation above 15 kHz. 

 

If anybody, including Earsonics themselves, feels unjustified with my data, please feel free to send me your pair of SM64 along for analysis. PM me, and we'll arrange a deal. Personal calibration comes free of charge! biggrin.gif


Edited by udauda - 6/4/13 at 8:01pm
post #572 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

 

The data above is most likely derived with a 2cc coupler, which is basically a metal tube with a mic attached at the one end, not to mention that the 2cc coupler doesn't reflect ear canal impedance. This is the exact same shameless behavior that I had with Heir Audio, when I presented their 3.Ai/4.Ai data. Measure 3.Ai/4.Ai with a 2cc setup, and you will see a flat response with no dip(Tinyman should be well-aware about this, right?)

 

And, especially, this statement from Franck: "After 15Khz, there is a big atténuation due to the testing systeme reflection phase annulation accident of our synthetic ear"- is a complete nonsense. Occluded ear simulators that comply the relevant international standards do not introduce attenuation above 15 kHz. 

 

If anybody, including Earsonics themselves, feels unjustified with my data, please feel free to send me your pair of SM64 along for analysis. PM me, and we'll arrange a deal. Personal calibration comes free of charge! biggrin.gif

 

@RinChoi: why don't you just contact Franck directly asking for a pair for measurement and discussing about the issue you found? You can even do that at the beginning. I think ES will very appreciate your findings.

post #573 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

 

The data above is most likely derived with a 2cc coupler, which is basically a metal tube with a mic attached at the one end, not to mention that the 2cc coupler doesn't reflect ear canal impedance. This is the exact same shameless behavior that I had with Heir Audio, when I presented their 3.Ai/4.Ai data. Measure 3.Ai/4.Ai with a 2cc setup, and you will see a flat response with no dip(Tinyman should be well-aware about this, right?)

 

And, especially, this statement from Franck: "After 15Khz, there is a big atténuation due to the testing systeme reflection phase annulation accident of our synthetic ear"- is a complete nonsense. Occluded ear simulators that comply the relevant international standards do not introduce attenuation above 15 kHz. 

 

If anybody, including Earsonics themselves, feels unjustified with my data, please feel free to send me your pair of SM64 along for analysis. PM me, and we'll arrange a deal. Personal calibration comes free of charge! biggrin.gif

 

@RinChoi: why don't you just contact Franck directly asking for a pair for measurement and discussing about the issue you found? You can even do that at the beginning. I think ES will very appreciate your findings.


+1 you complain about how the manufacturer, but fail to even attempt to work with them...
post #574 of 1211
It's their responsibility to work for a change, we just critique, it's not out responsibility to work with them, it's ridiculous actually
post #575 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

+1 you complain about how the manufacturer, but fail to even attempt to work with them...

+2 Take it to Earsonics and tell them your findings, RinChoi you seem more than happy to talk about here without any intension of speaking to the company.
post #576 of 1211

I contacted them long time ago, my friends, but without a response wink.gif If that's what they want, then that's as far as I will go.

post #577 of 1211
So every reviewer should go out of their way to "work" with a manufacturer, who doesn't take responsibility of what they've done. It's obvious what's wrong here and Rin send them a link to the review a while back, it's up to them to change it, but they seem content on ignoring it?
post #578 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

So every reviewer should go out of their way to "work" with a manufacturer, who doesn't take responsibility of what they've done. It's obvious what's wrong here and Rin send them a link to the review a while back, it's up to them to change it, but they seem content on ignoring it?

 

If they are willing to work, then yes, you should.  You and Rin keep questioning manufacturers about why they do the things they do...  Yet you never go out and get the actual answers.  Instead, you rag on them for doing the the things they do.

post #579 of 1211
That's what a reviewer does they CRITIQUE!

Of there's a reasoning behind it they should mention it and not ignore it. D. Wilsom, Dr.Olive, etc made their explanations to Rin for what they do and listen, tell me what ES have done?
post #580 of 1211

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

If they are willing to work, then yes, you should.  You and Rin keep questioning manufacturers about why they do the things they do...  Yet you never go out and get the actual answers.  Instead, you rag on them for doing the the things they do.

 

Rin just posted this:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

I contacted them long time ago, my friends, but without a response wink.gif If that's what they want, then that's as far as I will go.

 

Seems that the ball was left in Earsonics' court and they're still on the bench. 

post #581 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

I contacted them long time ago, my friends, but without a response wink.gif If that's what they want, then that's as far as I will go.

 

Great! If you did that already, I will wait to see how Earsonics react on this.

post #582 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

 

Rin just posted this:

 

 

Seems that the ball was left in Earsonics' court and they're still on the bench. 

 

If this was a few weeks ago, it's possible there was an error in transmission, I would recommend re-sending the email just in case that happened.  If still no response, then they are most likely ignoring it. 

post #583 of 1211
It's also on twitter, publicaly seem, ignored. Why the need to babysit manufacturers?
post #584 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

It's also on twitter, publicaly seem, ignored. Why the need to babysit manufacturers?

 

Did you tweet it at them (@earsonics)?  If not, it's not the same.  If you did, then I'm sorry you got ignored...  I'm still curious to how a different Head-Fier got a response for the same question... 


Edited by tinyman392 - 6/4/13 at 9:01pm
post #585 of 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

So every reviewer should go out of their way to "work" with a manufacturer, who doesn't take responsibility of what they've done. It's obvious what's wrong here and Rin send them a link to the review a while back, it's up to them to change it, but they seem content on ignoring it?

Hope that U should contact with ES company and promise me you will be successful with this debate.( And I will have a new perfect SM64 v3 =)) ) .Anw. Thanks so much

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