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 41

post #601 of 1360

Thought I'd mention, and FWIW, that there's also another very experienced HF'er, MuppetFace, who has rated the SM64s quite highly.

 

------------------------------------

There may be some people in this thread who already know I'm not exactly a fan of Erasonics — I thought their SM3 was a dreadful IEM (BTW, I've yet to see a FR graph after all these years of one of the most hyped IEMs on Head-fi, an IEM, btw, hardly anyone mentions these days [I wonder why] — people still talk about other IEMs that have been around for some time, but the SM3..…). Build quality on the SM3 was poor and Earsonics' customer service (CS) leaves quite a bit to be desired as evidenced by several accounts from unhappy customers who have spoken of the less than stellar CS they received from ES. And, on that note, I was on the phone to, and emailed, ES a couple of months ago, and let's just say I wasn't impressed by the responses I got, to put it very mildly — wasted precious time and money (on long-distance calls).

That said, quite a few people have said the new SM64 is a pretty good IEM. Yet, once again, we have what appears to be a not so great looking FR graph, measurements of which, BTW, were taken from a faulty SM64 unit, no less (!). Those who know me know I'm quite averse to hype, BS, exaggeration, misinformation and so on. But, I'm afraid to say that now we seem to have something approaching the other extreme, ie "if it doesn't measure right / perfect, it can't possibly sound good". I personally appreciate FR graphs and measurements—I really do—as I'm someone who in several ways strives for factual information and honesty.

I've mentioned something a couple of times recently: "for quite some time I've been questioning the accuracy of FR graphs specifically for IEMs (not for full-sized headphones). Apologies to those reading this post if I choose not to rehash what I've said in other threads to explain roughly why this is so.

One last thing, I really wish udauda / Rin didn't use a mouthpiece and, instead, posted himself, or at least did so (much) more frequently. I've no idea whether udauda / Rin would display the same attitude often seen by his mouthpiece. In some ways I applaud udauda's stance regarding some of the audio companies / matters we often talk about in these forum threads (he often tends to be very critical), and feel, for the most part, his findings are valuable…BUT something seems a bit too extreme at times, which sadly spoils some of this often valuable work — another form of bias is how I see it, I'm afraid to say.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case in many parts of our lives, we get the fans, the extremists even, believing only in data in this case (data I personally sometimes question, as noted above) — effectively, and I don't believe I'm not exaggerating here—allowing data / graphs to dictate what sounds good / right, just another for of placebo in my book, ie if the data says it sounds good, therefore it does sound good to my (measurements-biased) ears. On the other hand, we get people who seem to feel threatened by data, perhaps because they've made such outlandish claims that may really be so off the mark at times, they'll just happily say, "I don't believe in graphs". Finding the middle ground is much easier said than done—and often just a mere cliché—as we generally don't even know where the middle ground lies since we can't even recognise where the extremes lie.

post #602 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post


I am? tongue.gif

 

TBH, I haven't heard the V2 SM64 at all, but the V1 (112 ohm) SM64 sounded pretty darn good to me. The music had plenty of crispness and clarity. There was a "blackness" that was hard to explain, and that may account for a bit of a 5k suckout, but I never did any serious testing with it as I never listened to it with my own music/test tracks. It was always with an AK100 loaded with all that demo MQS music, as my own DAP has been broken for months (soon to be replaced by a FiiO X3, thank goodness).

 

As for the "massive gap" at 5k, again, there's some kind of phase cancellation thing going on with the FK/WBFK junction caused by the fact that the drivers are welded cover to cover. So, in fact, the two drivers need to be shifted apart in phase, as the two drivers are too similar to each other --- the WBFK is merely an FK with a stiffer armature design. That's why almost all TWFKs have an integral capacitor that's not meant to be messed with, unless the designers really know what they're doing. The Knowles engineer that I spoke with said something to this effect as well. I asked her about the issue with the SM64, and she told me she'd get back to me. She hasn't replied yet, but I don't want to rush her, as she's often busy with real clients. I'm just a pesky gadfly...

 

I want to point people toward this article, written by KumitateK, a Japanese DIYer: http://diy-ciem.blogspot.jp/2013/04/twfk.html

It's written in Japanese, but Google Translate and the copious amount of pictorial labeling should help people get the gist of it. The solution presented by KumitateK is to wire the FK in reverse phase and the WBFK in normal phase; in measurements, the impulse response will still undoubtedly look ugly, and the phase will look much different from the way TWFKs normally look (look at all earphones with a TWFK, they all have a similar phase pattern). I imagine playing with higher-order crossovers may possibly do the trick as well, but driver timing might then become an issue.

 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that the TWFK is actually quite difficult to get right.


Wait where is it mentioned the sm64 uses a twfk/wbfk inside? From all the photos I've seen so far the tweeter looks more like a single driver to me.

post #603 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post


Wait where is it mentioned the sm64 uses a twfk/wbfk inside? From all the photos I've seen so far the tweeter looks more like a single driver to me.


Nopes! It's the same as the SM3. I've seen it up close.

post #604 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Thought I'd mention, and FWIW, that there's also another very experienced HF'er, MuppetFace, who has rated the SM64s quite highly.



There may be some people in this thread who already know I'm not exactly a fan of Erasonics — I thought their SM3 was a dreadful IEM (BTW, I've yet to see a FR graph after all these years of one of the most hyped IEMs on Head-fi, an IEM, btw, hardly anyone mentions these days — people still talk about other IEMs that have been around for some time, but the SM3..…). Build quality on the SM3 was poor and Earsonics' customer service (CS) leaves quite a bit to be desired as evidenced by several accounts from unhappy customers who have spoken of the less than stellar CS they received from ES. And, on that note, I was on the phone to, and emailed, ES a couple of months ago, and let's just say I wasn't impressed by the responses I got, to put it very mildly — wasted precious time and money (on long-distance calls).


That said, quite a few people have said the new SM64 is a pretty good IEM. Yet, once again, we have what appears to be a not so great looking FR graph, measurements of which, BTW, were taken from a faulty SM64 unit, no less (!). Those who know me know I'm quite averse to hype, BS, exaggeration, misinformation and so on. But, I'm afraid to say that now we seem to have something approaching the other extreme, ie "if it doesn't measure right / perfect, it can't possibly sound good". I personally appreciate FR graphs and measurements—I really do—as I'm someone who in several ways strives for factual information and honesty.


I've mentioned something a couple of times recently: "for quite some time I've been questioning the accuracy of FR graphs specifically for IEMs (not for full-sized headphones). Apologies to those reading this post if I choose not to rehash what I've said in other threads to explain roughly why this is so.


One last thing, I really wish udauda / Rin didn't use a mouthpiece and, instead, posted himself, or at least did so (much) more frequently. I've no idea whether udauda / Rin would display the same attitude often seen by his mouthpiece. In some ways I applaud udauda's stance regarding some of the audio companies / matters we often talk about in these forum threads (he often tends to be very critical), and feel, for the most part, his findings are valuable…BUT something seems a bit too extreme at times, which sadly spoils some of this often valuable work — another form of bias is how I see it, I'm afraid to say.


Unfortunately, as is so often the case in many parts of our lives, we get the fans, the extremists even, believing only in data in this case (data I personally sometimes question, as noted above) — effectively, and I don't believe I'm not exaggerating here—allowing data / graphs to dictate what sounds good / right, just another for of placebo in my book, ie if the data says it sounds good, therefore it does sound good to my (measurements-biased) ears. On the other hand, we get people who seem to feel threatened by data, perhaps because they've made such outlandish claims that may really be so off the mark at times, they'll just happily say, "I don't believe in graphs". Finding the middle ground is much easier said than done—and often just a mere cliché—as we generally don't even know where the middle ground lies since we can't even recognise where the extremes lie.

Hope you don't mind me quoting the above in its entirety. Too good a post not to.
post #605 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post


Nopes! It's the same as the SM3. I've seen it up close.

Interesting. If that's the case it would be strange if there was no dip there lol. Even if you wire the twfk in phase acoustically with another woofer there'll always be a dip within the midrage in the end, unless the wbfk is wired out of phase with the fk, but that's not the optimal solution.

 

Judging from the phase plot the ci (?) might have been wired off phased with the twfk, or there's some low pass xo involved here and the cut off f is way too low resulting in that dip.

post #606 of 1360

I have to agree in its entirety with Music_4321's post.  People tend to forget too quickly that science works horribly as a predictor.  If you let the graph influence how you'll hear something, you create a reviewer bias.  A dip at the 5kHz does have some negative effects, but never as much as Rin and Inks make it seem.  Science, however, does make a great tool to confirm your subjective findings.  I don't consider "the suckout kills these headphones" or "makes them an abomination" a subjective finding.  You'd need more than just a suckout to do that.  I've seen so many IEMs with a really poor graph sound so great in person.  Listen first, measure later.

post #607 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

@Rin Choi: i am sorry to see you have a hard time reaching Earsonics.

 

I received 2 other graphs today in response to the 2cc coupler and smoothed measurement. 

 

 

They used pink noise to measure the headphones.  That could be why the dip doesn't seem as large as on Rin's findings. There is nothing wrong with doing it this way, but it can sometimes yield different results.  I think with the Heir Audio, it also reduces the null-peak.  Theoretically, though, both ways of measurements should yield the same results, or something close.  It always isn't the case, which shows there is something more to it than just a frequency graph. 

 

EDIT: looking at the graph again, it actually does look closer to Rin's.  If you smooth it 1/24 like Rin does, it should come extremely close to Rin's.  Earsonics did use a bit more smoothing than what Tyll or Rin normally uses though I think. 


Edited by tinyman392 - 6/5/13 at 9:54am
post #608 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

EDIT: looking at the graph again, it actually does look closer to Rin's.  If you smooth it 1/24 like Rin does, it should come extremely close to Rin's.  Earsonics did use a bit more smoothing than what Tyll or Rin normally uses though I think. 

 

As couple of members mentioned above, there is no reason to compare 2 different graphs as people used different standards on their measurements. And based on the graphs i received from ES, I see no issue with the treble region.

 

By the way

- Some members are waiting for response from ES: Yes, ES already responded to this case.

- Some asked for the graph from ES: Yes, ES provided the fr graph to you.

- Some said the graph was smoothed: OK, they sent you the un-smoothed version.

 

I think that is the best I can do to seek for compromise with technical discussion in this thread. Personally, I believe in my ears than any graphs.

post #609 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Thought I'd mention, and FWIW, that there's also another very experienced HF'er, MuppetFace, who has rated the SM64s quite highly.

 

------------------------------------

There may be some people in this thread who already know I'm not exactly a fan of Erasonics — I thought their SM3 was a dreadful IEM (BTW, I've yet to see a FR graph after all these years of one of the most hyped IEMs on Head-fi, an IEM, btw, hardly anyone mentions these days [I wonder why] — people still talk about other IEMs that have been around for some time, but the SM3..…). Build quality on the SM3 was poor and Earsonics' customer service (CS) leaves quite a bit to be desired as evidenced by several accounts from unhappy customers who have spoken of the less than stellar CS they received from ES. And, on that note, I was on the phone to, and emailed, ES a couple of months ago, and let's just say I wasn't impressed by the responses I got, to put it very mildly — wasted precious time and money (on long-distance calls).

That said, quite a few people have said the new SM64 is a pretty good IEM. Yet, once again, we have what appears to be a not so great looking FR graph, measurements of which, BTW, were taken from a faulty SM64 unit, no less (!). Those who know me know I'm quite averse to hype, BS, exaggeration, misinformation and so on. But, I'm afraid to say that now we seem to have something approaching the other extreme, ie "if it doesn't measure right / perfect, it can't possibly sound good". I personally appreciate FR graphs and measurements—I really do—as I'm someone who in several ways strives for factual information and honesty.

 

Only one channel was possibly faulty. It's not that it isn't perfect, there are boundaries, this is just an extreme irresponsibility of tuning. At least with the FAD SS it's obvious what they went for, even if the fidelity wasn't there. 

I've mentioned something a couple of times recently: "for quite some time I've been questioning the accuracy of FR graphs specifically for IEMs (not for full-sized headphones). Apologies to those reading this post if I choose not to rehash what I've said in other threads to explain roughly why this is so.

One last thing, I really wish udauda / Rin didn't use a mouthpiece and, instead, posted himself, or at least did so (much) more frequently. I've no idea whether udauda / Rin would display the same attitude often seen by his mouthpiece. In some ways I applaud udauda's stance regarding some of the audio companies / matters we often talk about in these forum threads (he often tends to be very critical), and feel, for the most part, his findings are valuable…BUT something seems a bit too extreme at times, which sadly spoils some of this often valuable work — another form of bias is how I see it, I'm afraid to say.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case in many parts of our lives, we get the fans, the extremists even, believing only in data in this case (data I personally sometimes question, as noted above) — effectively, and I don't believe I'm not exaggerating here—allowing data / graphs to dictate what sounds good / right, just another for of placebo in my book, ie if the data says it sounds good, therefore it does sound good to my (measurements-biased) ears. On the other hand, we get people who seem to feel threatened by data, perhaps because they've made such outlandish claims that may really be so off the mark at times, they'll just happily say, "I don't believe in graphs". Finding the middle ground is much easier said than done—and often just a mere cliché—as we generally don't even know where the middle ground lies since we can't even recognise where the extremes lie.

 

What is there to question? Specific instances would make it a more grounded claim, expectation bias would cloud your judgement. Rin doesn't use anybody, I act by my own accord and it's obvious you lack the respect to take one's opinion into the matter. Exactly, I think those that happened to overlook a flaw are quick to point at the data as an scapegoat, it's tricky when it's a specific region like in this case, but it does deter fidelity. Honestly 4AI didn't seem as bad to me at first [despite similar suckout], but with time I felt there was something wrong I couldn't place my finger on, which was later revealed. Does that mean it's not there? NO.

 

I don't understand why some want to let this go by and accept it. These do have great qualities [that bass response is very nice], but would't it be great if it didn't have such at outlandish suckout? If that's not a technical flaw, I don't what is, not only that, the control quality seems poor. 

 

People are missing the whole point and trying to justify a blatant error. Okay, it's fine if you still like it despite the suckout, but I wouldn't spread misinformation by saying it's not there, or it's just a mere dip, let the listener decide if the suckout bothers them. But don't say there isn't one just because one happens to overlook it. 


Edited by Inks - 6/5/13 at 10:51am
post #610 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightwalker View Post

@Rin Choi: i am sorry to see you have a hard time reaching Earsonics.

 

I received 2 other graphs today in response to the 2cc coupler and smoothed measurement. 

 

 

I told them to stop acting like a sissy and deal with me directly already... I don't know why they are playing this funny game of theirs, by responding to you and not to me. Earsonics, are you scared?

 

Anyway, their data is definitely not of a 2cc setup. It is indeed an IEC 60318-4 measurement, with low-resolution smoothing applied, and/or pink-noise measured.

 

 

I superimposed my data(both 1/24th and 1/2nd) on top of their data. Insertion depth has been adjusted to match the resonant frequencies. When you compare the manufacturer FR to my 1/2nd octave smoothed graph, you can see the same response pattern here with the same level of dip at 5 kHz. Mystery solved!

 

I am still open to re-evaluation though. Feel free to shoot me a PM to arrange a loan!

post #611 of 1360

Heh, according to that data, if anything that proves there's no need for another pair, it looks fine. 

 

The question is, why an outlandish SUCKOUT? sure a dip is fine to avoid sibilance, but ES just cut off 5k altogether, how is this not an error?

 

Not only that, I question their quality control, cracked shells and out of phase drivers....


Edited by Inks - 6/5/13 at 10:48am
post #612 of 1360

Very well said Music_4321, especially on the last paragraph.

post #613 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Heh, according to that data, if anything that proves there's no need for another pair, it looks fine. 

 

The question is, why an outlandish SUCKOUT? sure a dip is fine to avoid sibilance, but ES just cut off 5k altogether, how is this not an error?

 

Not only that, I question their quality control, cracked shells and out of phase drivers....

 

They call it a dip, you call it a suckout.  They already told you.  You just fail to accept the answer.  If you ask Earsonics, they will tell you to tame the highs.  You got the data you want, they aren't tweaking their data, and it's the same data.  We know there are some quality control issues.  I'm sure someone already explained the phase above (I could have sworn there was a link above about the TFWK and it's wiring, don't quote me though)...  I know it's hard for you to accept, but that's the truth, there is nothing more to it. 

 

Lastly, NO ONE is saying that the dip isn't there and isn't audible  Many actually admit it causes some issues with vocals and energy (as it does with the Heir Audio).  We also make the statement that it causes some positive effects to.

post #614 of 1360
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

They call it a dip, you call it a suckout.  They already told you.  You just fail to accept the answer.  If you ask Earsonics, they will tell you to tame the highs.  You got the data you want, they aren't tweaking their data, and it's the same data.  We know there are some quality control issues.  I'm sure someone already explained the phase above (I could have sworn there was a link above about the TFWK and it's wiring, don't quote me though)...  I know it's hard for you to accept, but that's the truth, there is nothing more to it. 

 

Lastly, NO ONE is saying that the dip isn't there and isn't audible  Many actually admit it causes some issues with vocals and energy (as it does with the Heir Audio).  We also make the statement that it causes some positive effects to.

That's the problem, they call it a dip and try to find ways to make it seem so [smoothed graphs, though luckily fixed], it's a complete cutoff of 5k altogether. If they think they're doing something right here, very well. Not from users who are defending these to a point where they want to overlook the flaw altogther.

post #615 of 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by udauda View Post

 

I told them to stop acting like a sissy and deal with me directly already... I don't know why they are playing this funny game of theirs, by responding to you and not to me. Earsonics, are you scared?

 

Anyway, their data is definitely not of a 2cc setup. It is indeed an IEC 60318-4 measurement, with low-resolution smoothing applied, and/or pink-noise measured.

 

 

I superimposed my data(both 1/24th and 1/2nd) on top of their data. Insertion depth has been adjusted to match the resonant frequencies. When you compare the manufacturer FR to my 1/2nd octave smoothed graph, you can see the same response pattern here with the same level of dip at 5 kHz. Mystery solved!

 

I am still open to re-evaluation though. Feel free to shoot me a PM to arrange a loan!


1/2 is way too much. I don't get why they have to use such ratio unless it is to alleviate the notch. And pink noise? what?

 

Personally I will go along with whatever explanation/excuse they come up with as long they stick to the truth there's something ugly going on, there're loads of the people feeling satisfied with their purchase and that's a happy ending we all want. I will even give them some credit for making something out of the box this time but playing around with data to make things less serious isn't something I'd approve of.

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