Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics SM64 Universal IEM review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EarSonics SM64 Universal IEM review - Page 4

post #46 of 67
Really enjoy your write-ups, average_joe! Thank you, as always.
post #47 of 67

Inks, what are you trying to archieve?
We all know and accept that the suckout/dropout/hole is in fact there.
So what?
If it's a product of screwing up the crossover or whatever technical thing, so be it. If Earsonics would keep on making "faulty" products like these then they sure are going to get the appropriate customer feedback.
But even with this suckout, these IEMs, objectively, still sound pretty good and in a way that they belong into the league of similar priced IEMs.
So what is your point? I really don't think that Earsonics are going to do another for-free-upgrade-thingy because all the impressions and thoughts on these in-ears don't suggest that this is a necessary step, if you ask me.
And for the same reason there won't be a ridiculous international lawsuit against Earsonics.

post #48 of 67
Thread Starter 

I downloaded this program and ran a 30 second sweep between 4000 Hz and 6000 Hz.  To my ears my SM64 has a dip but not a suckout. I encourage other SM64 owners to do the same and report their results and we can go from there.  I would like people to use the exact same program and settings so all the tests are equal, at least from a source material perspective.


Edited by average_joe - 6/8/13 at 8:48am
post #49 of 67
post #50 of 67

 

We've all seen the graph...  He also has a dropped tweeter :p  We were trying to figure out (and explain) why the 25 dB dip in the 5kHz region doesn't sound like a 25 dB dip, rather it sounds like a smaller dip. 

post #51 of 67
Remember, SM64 has audible distortion in the region as well...If its not any more obvious they screwed things up here
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Remember, SM64 has audible distortion in the region as well...If its not any more obvious they screwed things up here

 

I'm assuming that the dropped tweeter has been accounted for? 

post #53 of 67

I'm not a measurement over sound guy in terms of overall goodness but have been adversely aware of these types of dips when listening. I suspect it would be less of an issue for those that already like and are accustomed to a TWFK type of character. Not that every TWFK has it or thats what's used here, and certainly not to this measured extreme but it's a common sig.

post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Remember, SM64 has audible distortion in the region as well...If its not any more obvious they screwed things up here

They did! Maybe not as dramatic as you want to convince us, but they did.
You just keep repeating yourself.
What are you trying to archieve here?

post #55 of 67

 

WTF!!!!.... Sorry, my reaction and vocabulary is at the level of those who do these damn graphs.... go and buy a pair of ears instead of all your material to do these stupids graphs...it's just MY OPINION....

 

And to have a so hard opinion about these, I find it a little bit insulting for those that also have some skills (or not) and appreciate them...

 

Dip or not, I have or had all the IEm's above and the sooooo well pleased and loved Heir 5.0, Heir 4AI and many other's and TO MY EARS, the medium and the medium/treble transition on the Sm 64 sound so much natural, organic, textured and realistic than all the others... so you know what I think about these graphs?......

 

Why allways use a so "objective" tool if we all know that our ears are differents, and that they tend to react differently to some SQ tunning?.....

 

I tend to trust my own ears.... there's always the same group of persons on HF that tend to kill some good IEM's just by showing these graphs... tired of that, really.... and what affects me is that I am not sure that lot of these people really tried them more than a few seconds.....

 

AND, wanted to add that I have been told by ES that some people on HF (and outside HF) that had some of the SM 64 or others ES products as test/review sample, oppened the IEM housing, remove parts and even changed some components..... why did these people do that?...MMhh...you can easily guess, I'm sure.... SO my "friends", you can do all your tests, I ONLY TRUST A FEW MEMBERS HERE AND MY OWN EARS.....this is not specially aimed to those who have done this graph test but I think that it's also important to know that....

 

People just beware of tests and graphs....sound is not about what you see....


Edited by sly_in_the_sky - 6/12/13 at 8:03am
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sly_in_the_sky View Post

 

WTF!!!!.... Sorry, my reaction and vocabulary is at the level of those who do these damn graphs.... go and buy a pair of ears instead of all your material to do these stupids graphs...it's just MY OPINION....

 

And to have a so hard opinion about these, I find it a little bit insulting for those that also have some skills (or not) and appreciate them...

 

Dip or not, I have or had all the IEm's above and the sooooo well pleased and loved Heir 5.0, Heir 4AI and many other's and TO MY EARS, the medium and the medium/treble transition on the Sm 64 sound so much natural, organic, textured and realistic than all the others... so you know what I think about these graphs?......

 

Why allways use a so "objective" tool if we all know that our ears are differents, and that they tend to react differently to some SQ tunning?.....

 

I tend to trust my own ears.... there's always the same group of persons on HF that tend to kill some good IEM's just by showing these graphs... tired of that, really.... and what affects me is that I am not sure that lot of these people really tried them more than a few seconds.....

 

AND, wanted to add that I have been told by ES that some people on HF (and outside HF) that had some of the SM 64 or others ES products as test/review sample, oppened the IEM housing, remove parts and even changed some components..... why did these people do that?...MMhh...you can easily guess, I'm sure.... SO my "friends", you can do all your tests, I ONLY TRUST A FEW MEMBERS HERE AND MY OWN EARS.....this is not specially aimed to those who have done this graph test but I think that it's also important to know that....

 

People just beware of tests and graphs....sound is not about what you see....

 

IDK about the SM64, they might actually be able to mask the issue well with resonances around 5kHz.  I know in the 4.Ai it did cause some issues with vocals and lower treble.  Nothing like an actual drop out, but did cause an issue or two (nothing like Inks stated though).  I don't even know if the 5.0 has this dip in the 5kHz region :p  No reason to bring it up, it has yet to be graphed. 

post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sly_in_the_sky View Post

Sorry, my reaction and vocabulary is at the level of those who do these damn graphs....

 

The people behind M.R.O. are into technical execution and they love a piece of hardware for its design and clean implementation.

 

You probably care most for enjoyable music, regarding the IEM as a tool. For you things like tonality, detail retrieval and soundstage will matter most.

In this relatively small community, where people search the best sounding in-ear, you have to respect different approaches.

 

I have not heard the SM64 and my only comment was a thank you to Joe. However, I am also a perfectionist and I get easily distracted by coherence issues. I get bothered by a few things other people tend not to pick up (whereas I might lose the focus on the whole), so I am also very thankful for these kind of measurements.

In case of the Heir 4.Ai, I posted my impressions saying the mids sound wrong and something would be missing. I even mentioned the term echo. At that time all of Head-Fi was raving about Heir 4.Ai and how it is the single best universal. After measurements were posted, I have seen many posts like yours above.

So to some of us, these measurements matter. Small flaws might not be picked up when auditioned for 5mins, but eventually they will show and a triviality might grow into a personal drama.

The other way around, I am bothered by people who jump into a thread of a well-executed IEM and rant "this sounds like crap and my 100$ budget joke is much more lively" (not an actual quote).

 

Everybody has different ears, but even more so, everybody has a different perception. What matters most is that we all don't lose this:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sly_in_the_sky View Post

I tend to trust my own ears.

post #58 of 67
G'day, I've been lucky enough to have a loaner SM64 from Musica Acoustics but I have to return it tomorrow so thought I'd give my quick 2 yen worth on these IEMs. I have to admit I don't know if they're v2 or v1 but Dimitri brought them back to Tokyo after the NYC meet in April - therefore presumably they're v2. Despite listening to them the whole day last week and now, it's still taken me awhile to get used to. I haven't read the whole of this thread yet on others' impressions. My very brief thoughts are that it has quite a decent sub bass but in the upper bass to lower midrange region, it seems to pull back somewhat but comes back up in the middle of the midrange to neutral almost all the way to the trebles (although there seems to be a quick dip and a quick come-back somewhere but can't poinpoint exactly where in the treble frequency that dip lies). But to my ears, they're by no means dark nor too warm. Despite a somewhat neutralish treble, it does seem to extend far. The soundstage and depth imaging is average to me (but I've been listening to the MH335DW and the 1Plus2 a lot recently so my perception of acceptable soundstage may be altered), however it does seem to have quite a bit of headroom. Impedance-wise, I'm definitely pumping up the volume more on these IEMs than any of my other IEMs. I gather they're somewhat mid-level impedance (maybe even high by IEM standards). In comparison to the TG!334, the TG!334 has a fuller upper bass/lower mid but comparatively the SM64 feels a tad little more sparkly in the treble region. To me the TG!334's treble seems to roll of a little earlier. The TG!334 feels spacious and airy across the FR, whereas with the SM64, it's primarily the treble region that gives some sense of space. These are my brief impressions before returning the SM64 tomorrow anyway. P.S. I'm using stock cables with each IEM and the RWAK100 with Listrid 2.0 as my DAP. The SM64 has the double-flange tips on whilst the TG!334 has Orotfon tips.
post #59 of 67
Is the 5 k suck out obvious?
Edited by Audiowood - 6/19/13 at 9:08pm
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiowood View Post

Is the 5 k suck out obvious?
Is that where it is? It's noticeable but all I hear is the treble is a tad "weird" from what I'm used to. I don't know if it's a fault, or how the maker intended it to be to have a unique sound different from other makers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics SM64 Universal IEM review