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 50

post #736 of 1294

Sibillance in the Sm 64? Are we speaking about that?....

 

AAAhhh I am laughing....

 

My God I better go to work... this thread is NOT SERIOUS.

 

What is sad is that people just like me, liking a product and having no other intention to share impressions, good or bad, will just post one or two posts and stop ...and finish to just slowly quit a thread or come ponctually, as I do...

 

Other people who have other goal are like virus... and will tend to keep on and keep on and keep on watching thread to spread false informations and to be always connected, their purpose is different but dangerous. 

 

Please people be careful of those who pretend to be "Headphoneus Supremus...."

 

I am out... tired... HF is loosing credibility. 


Edited by sly_in_the_sky - 6/28/13 at 12:27am
post #737 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by sly_in_the_sky View Post

All I know is that to my ears, this medium/treble transition sounds good....really natural, never piercing, organic, sweet, convincing....

 

Those who have listened to it and I really mean LISTENED or better: those who have them, do you think that you feel something lacking there... please can all those who listened to them answer... no graphs arguments please. 

 

IS THERE REALLY SOMETHING LACKING IN VOICES (female), TIMBRES, GUITARS, CYMBALS?

 

I think that the real question is that.... is something lacking?

 

Why can't we also speak this language instead?tongue_smile.gif

......

.........

..............

Apparently nobody bothers to read my description boxes on my YouTube channel. For what it's worth Sly, I've copied and pasted my final impressions from my channel. I've also recently submitted a tweaked version of these findings to CYMBACAVUM and it should be up in a few days, hopefully. I like the SM64 but I don't think it's a giant killer. Even so, right now it's probably the most used IEM I have in my collection. Seriously, all you guys from the look at the graphs crowd and the I trust my ears crowd should all take a step back from the keyboard and chill for a day or two and stop arguing. You're all doing a disservice to both your camps by arguing non stop on the thread. At this rate it's only a matter of time before someone says the wrong thing and someone else blows up and the thread gets locked.  A lot of people on head-fi don't like seeing that happen and are getting rather tired of seeing it repeatedly happen. As it stands right now most people who watch this thread are probably not even bothering to read most of your posts because you're all mostly arguing for the sake or arguing. You guys have to learn to accept no matter how much you argue there's people who will never agree with you no matter what you say. Sometimes it's best just to say oh well and walk away.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Final Impressions

For starters, while most other pieces of kit are manufactured in China Earsonics decided to keep manufacturing in their own backyard which happens to be France. Although meant for mobile use these IEM's are not low impedance earphones but instead boast a high impedance value of a whopping 98 ohms and a sensitivity value of 122 dB/mW, more on that in a minute. Under the hood we have a triple driver setup with something called a HQ 3 way crossover with impedance corrector which is a crossover design patented by EarSonics.

With the tidbits and specs out of the way it's time to get to the most important part, the sonics. First off, I wouldn't class the SM64 as a sound engineers monitor but instead I class it more along the lines as a very capable fun headphone. What that means is these little babies are rated low on being neutral and instead are rated high on sounding fun. The bass is slightly elevated and sounds lush and full. Even so, the lows do not sound muddy and are textured and detail is quite good with very little bleed into the lower mids. Mid and sub bass rumble is very satisfying and the lows can hit quite hard when called upon.

The mids are very forward, mid centric would be a proper description. Like the lows the mids also sound full and lush and electric guitars have a very nice crunch behind them. Detail retrieval, I would rate as good although I wouldn't mind seeing a little more micro detail present in the sigs mids on some songs. Overall tonality for guitars, flutes, violins and piano is also very good and sounds very natural and effortless. Vocals, especially female vocals, also sound natural and these IEM's do quite well with vocal driven music.

The highs are smooth and extend very well giving the overall sig a sense of added space within it's soundstage. They sound clean and clear and display no grain in the upper registers. Transition between the upper mids and lower highs is good and sibilance seems very well controlled leading me to think there's probably a dip somewhere along the 4 to 5000 khz region of the signature. Although highs extend well and sound clean and clear they are not overly boosted. End result, no fatigue during long listening sessions.

Soundstage, the sig sounds wide and tall with acceptable depth giving the listener a out of head listening experience. Although acceptable I still wouldn't mind seeing a little more added depth and layering added into the equation. Even so, the SM64 still pulls off a very satisfying 3D like audio sound. Instrument separation is very good with good space between instruments and I can pinpoint instruments acceptably well within the soundstage.

As mentioned before the SM64 is not a overly sensitive low impedance earphone. The good news, although it's impedance value is 98 ohms it can still be driven to acceptably loud levels on an MP3 player. The bad news, in my experience, it sounded quite sloppy out of my iPod and iPhone. This IEM benefits from amping and is happier when it has a quality mobile amp behind it and will scale up very nicely. Throw in a quality mobile DAC such as the CLAS-db and it's really happy.

although the SM6 isn't an audiophile earphone it is an incredibly fun and involving little IEM. It has a very liquid like smooth sound signature that's very tastefully done. It's very much a genre master that will handle various kinds of music quite well and will make you want to tap your toes every time you have your favorite tunes playing. It's a definite must have IEM for those in the hobby who like to dance around on the fun side of the fence.


Edited by DigitalFreak - 6/28/13 at 12:25am
post #738 of 1294

It's not gonna be more 'successful' the moment they know what's going into their ears is dirt cheap, regardless of what EQ will be implemented later (and no, this post has nothing to do with the SM64 by any means) biggrin.gif

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

Edited by tranhieu - 6/28/13 at 12:24am
post #739 of 1294

DigitalFreak

 

A BIG THANK YOU....dt880smile.png

 

A pleasure to read a real impression from someone that has ears and not only eyes... 


Edited by sly_in_the_sky - 6/28/13 at 12:36am
post #740 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post

It's not gonna be more 'successful' the moment they know what's going into their ears is dirt cheap, regardless of what EQ will be implemented later (and no, this post has nothing to do with the SM64 by any means) biggrin.gif

How can you seriously say that? You know how many people come on these boards who refuse to spend 5,6,7, 1000+ bones on earphones and instead search out the bang for the buck sub 4,3,200 bone earphones that are known for delivering a lot for the money spent. Most people in life aren't financially lucky enough to be able to spend hundreds of bones on a simple pair of earphones.


Edited by DigitalFreak - 6/28/13 at 12:41am
post #741 of 1294

This whole thing reminds of of the 4.Ai debacle, where it was suddenly the worst iem on the planet because it had a huge dip at 4K (or whatever the frequency is). I believed it for a while, until I got to hear the 4.Ai for myself and noticed no detriment to the sound because of that dip. The Q is so small that all areas around it are almost completely unaffected.

 

I imagine the same must go for the SM64, looking at its FR. That is what Inks won't tell you..."THERE'S A MASSIVE SUCKOUT AT 5K...but the range is  too small for you to even notice it. "

 

I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere that prevents members from posting specific thoughts about gear they hadn't heard.

post #742 of 1294

I think the analogy of EQ a cheap IEM or headphone to sound like a higher end IEM or headphone is BS. Even with volume matching involved is not going to yield the exact same results. Now I can believe possibly giving a similar sound signature or somewhere in the direction of the headphone or IEM (but there's a huge difference between somewhat and the real thing). Otherwise it's oversimplifying everything as usual. If this truly was the case there would be no market for high end gear period.


Edited by lee730 - 6/28/13 at 12:48am
post #743 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

This whole thing reminds of of the 4.Ai debacle, where it was suddenly the worst iem on the planet because it had a huge dip at 4K (or whatever the frequency is). I believed it for a while, until I got to hear the 4.Ai for myself and noticed no detriment to the sound because of that dip. The Q is so small that all areas around it are almost completely unaffected.

I imagine the same must go for the SM64, looking at its FR. That is what Inks won't tell you..."THERE'S A MASSIVE SUCKOUT AT 5K...but the range is  too small for you to even notice it. "

I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere that prevents members from posting specific thoughts about gear they hadn't heard.

The bandwidth I used for my EQ simulation was narrower than the actual dip on the SM64. It sounded decent enough on its own but when the full frequency range was restored the missing information is apparent in terms of better timbre to everything. Of course, such an AB comparison is impossible on phones like the 4Ai and SM64 where the hardware is incapable of reproducing the frequencies in question...
post #744 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

This whole thing reminds of of the 4.Ai debacle, where it was suddenly the worst iem on the planet because it had a huge dip at 4K (or whatever the frequency is). I believed it for a while, until I got to hear the 4.Ai for myself and noticed no detriment to the sound because of that dip. The Q is so small that all areas around it are almost completely unaffected.

 

I imagine the same must go for the SM64, looking at its FR. That is what Inks won't tell you..."THERE'S A MASSIVE SUCKOUT AT 5K...but the range is  too small for you to even notice it. "

 

I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere that prevents members from posting specific thoughts about gear they hadn't heard.

Apparently I have no ears, yet I detected the dip when hearing the 4AI [though couldn't pinpoint where], before measurements, when compared to the HF3. Sorry to hear you couldn't,but it's really like taking out a note on Piano [simulate it on EQ], sure it may sound great elsewhere [SM64's bass response looks great],but for there is a great amount of money at stake here for such an amateurish tuning error. Joe is spot-on on it's effect, it can go unnoticed, but your'e getting suckered out of a specific frequency for a supposed high-fidelity product

post #745 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

I think the analogy of EQ a cheap IEM or headphone to sound like a higher end IEM or headphone is BS. Even with volume matching involved is not going to yield the exact same results. Now I can believe possibly giving a similar sound signature or somewhere in the direction of the headphone or IEM (but there's a huge difference between somewhat and the real thing). Otherwise it's oversimplifying everything as usual. If this truly was the case there would be no market for high end gear period.

The market would continue to do just fine as long as most people believes it impossible and also aren't willing to EQ wink.gif
post #746 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

I think the analogy of EQ a cheap IEM or headphone to sound like a higher end IEM or headphone and then volume matching is going to yield the same results. That oversimplifying everything as usual. If this truly was the case there would be no market for high end gear period.


If it was truly the case the industry as a whole would have collapsed ages ago and we'd all be sitting here discussing the finer points of a 10 dollar IEM. Bravo lee, great post. I have no qualms saying there's stuff on the market that's way overpriced but there's also stuff on the market that's expensive but in my opinion is worth the premium.

post #747 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Apparently I have no ears, yet I detected the dip when hearing the 4AI [though couldn't pinpoint where], before measurements, when compared to the HF3. Sorry to hear you couldn't,but it's really like taking out a note on Piano [simulate it on EQ], sure it may sound great elsewhere [SM64's bass response looks great],but for there is a great amount of money at stake here for such an amateurish tuning error. Joe is spot-on on it's effect, it can go unnoticed, but your'e getting suckered out of a specific frequency for a supposed high-fidelity product

 

I'm off to bed. 

post #748 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

I think the analogy of EQ a cheap IEM or headphone to sound like a higher end IEM or headphone is BS. Even with volume matching involved is not going to yield the exact same results. Now I can believe possibly giving a similar sound signature or somewhere in the direction of the headphone or IEM (but there's a huge difference between somewhat and the real thing). Otherwise it's oversimplifying everything as usual. If this truly was the case there would be no market for high end gear period.

There's a market because the proper protocols to allow it are complicated and intricate. But re-read Joe's post, in a scientific controlled blind test, in headphones [where there are more variables] it was done with success. Price-bias is huge, spending 1000+$ on gear already makes it sound 10x better.

post #749 of 1294

DigitalFreak

 

+1...

post #750 of 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


The market would continue to do just fine as long as most people believes it impossible and also aren't willing to EQ wink.gif

 

I've extensively used EQ and the results aren't the same. Believe what you want though. Guess it's good to think in such as way to save money. But it's a naive perspective and a gross oversimplification of the concept as a whole IMO.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post


If it was truly the case the industry as a whole would have collapsed ages ago and we'd all be sitting here discussing the finer points of a 10 dollar IEM. Bravo lee, great post. I have no qualms saying there's stuff on the market that's way overpriced but there's also stuff on the market that's expensive but in my opinion is worth the premium.

 

I agree it goes both ways.


Edited by lee730 - 6/28/13 at 1:04am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Earsonics SM64: The Impressions Thread