Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Sony XBA-H1 and XBA-H3 Hybrid Dynamic and BA IEM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony XBA-H1 and XBA-H3 Hybrid Dynamic and BA IEM - Page 114

post #1696 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Change is Good View Post

A blurred and bloated offering for the Beats crowd? Are you serious?!? Dude, I've heard bloated Beats bass before... and these ARE NOT that!

But, of course, to those who are accustomed to dry/bright headphones... I can see why that assumption is made.

But to say these a bloated like Beats, is a bit over exaggerated... don't you think?


I believe you.  Some bass capable headphones/IEMs will vary a lot in their performance depending on the audio setup they are connected to.  For example, a powerful amplifier makes a big difference when a bass capable driver is involved.

post #1697 of 2796

Hmm. Sounds like I'll be sticking with the XBA-3 for now.

post #1698 of 2796

I will share my experience with my lastest bass heavy pair of IEMs in this post.

 

Thus far, my ears have never accepted PMP audio quality.  My audio setup is at my desktop computer.  I rip my CDs into 24/96 WAV files and run them through foobar2000 with 45 equalization bands available to a E-MU 0202 USB DAC with 24 bit capacity.  The sound goes to the headphones through the DAC's headphones output which has an inner amplifier or through another external small amplifier.  Right now, I am using the PA2V2.

 

I got the dual dynamic driver DENON AH-C300 in mid December.  Those, have two 11.5mm drivers and are targeted to bass lovers or the EDM and equivalent crowd.  When I first listened to them, my ears were neither amazed nor disappointed.  Bass was abundant and of very good quality.  Mids were very clean and clear with no mud in them.  It was obvious that the effect of two separate drivers was showing in the mids.  Still, lower mids were bassier than my audiophile ears wanted to tolerate.  Middle mids were very good.  The upper mids were good, but had some important flaws.  They had a tad of a cheap tonality to them and vocals sounded somewhat rough/grainy.   The highs were of very good quality in the upper region (10kHz and above), but seemed to lack a little in quantity.  The lower highs were dry, sharp (harsh, piercing).  With most recordings, I had to EQ down the 3-5kHz frequencies into the negative zone.  Even with that, my ears were tortured with each snare and tom hit.  My overall perception was that some parts of the sound spectrum were of very good quality and others were of mixed quality.  But my ears told me not to worry, because those not so good quality parts had a good quality to them waiting to happen.

 

As I kept using my DENON AH-C300, I seemed to notice some changes for the better in those parts of the sound spectrum that had a mixed quality to them, mainly in the lower highs.  Snares and toms would not sound as hard to bear as they did before.  With more use, my ears asked me to move the 3-5kHz EQ sliders and they gradually ended up a couple of dBs in the positive zone.  Now, after about 450 hours of use, I have to say "WOW, what a change, my ears knew it all from the beginning!!!!  No part of the sound spectrum sounds close to being of low quality.  My ears point at some parts where improvements can be made, but they smile and say "we will not complain with this sound quality, we are just letting you know what changes would make us happier."

 

What happened here?  Part of the difference in perception is brain adaptation to the new sound.  However, as this process took place, I stopped using the AH-C300 for several days and would go back to listening exclusively to the Rockit Sounds R-50 for long enough for my brain to get used to the R-50's sound signature.  I did this several times.  That kept my ears aware of the change that was taking place with the IEMs themselves.  What happened with use, was that the big bass tightened up quite slowly, but surely.  As it withdrew its presence from other frequencies property, those frequencies flourished as expected.  Even the bass itself got better.  Now, I have set the 200-50Hz EQ sliders as high as my ears always wanted them, and bass gets bigger and hits harder without affecting how the mids and highs sound.  I couldn't do that before.  Now, the lower mids don't have the note thickness that made them bassy enough to be regarded as an invaded zone.  The middle mids are clearer and sharper.  The upper mids lost that tad of shoutiness and cheap tonality that they had and although vocals did not become as smooth as silk, they are not rough/grainy anymore.  The lower highs are a lot more fluid with much better decay and the harshness has been greatly reduced and they don't sound dry anymore.  I can't say that the lower highs peak that is shown in FR graphs, got smaller.  My guess is that when the lower highs stopped being dry by the bass withdrawal, my ears stopped perceiving those peaks as sharp (harsh, piercing) and now consider them acceptable or even good lower highs.  The upper highs haven't changed much, but they were already good from the beginning.  Decay (ssshh) is better and it seems that so is their presence or amount.

 

With this experience and a previous one with another pair of bass heavy IEMs, I am convinced of one thing:  It takes 400+ hours for the bass to settle in its relationship with itself and with the other frequencies.  This will have a significant impact on sound quality for all frequencies.  I am suspicious that something similar happens to a lesser degree to the treble in regard to losing dryness and becoming more fluid with better decay.  But, I can't be sure about that because the bass withdrawal is already having that effect on the highs.  Whether only the bass change or both the bass and treble change, I find it impossible to fully trust any review/impressions of a bass heavy IEM model that has not been put to work for at least 400 hours.  I know that it could be impractical for many to review IEMs in such a way.  But, at that statement, my ears just smile and say "it is better to have a significant sound improvement with an inaccurate underrating review, than to have an accurate review with no sound improvement."  I am glad they are right.  So, is my wallet.   


Edited by Alberto01 - 3/8/14 at 1:23pm
post #1699 of 2796


Edited by Change is Good - 3/7/14 at 9:15pm
post #1700 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguegeek View Post
 

Hmm. Sounds like I'll be sticking with the XBA-3 for now.

 

   xba 3 is a nice phone man , if you wanna go up , go for dn-1000 .

post #1701 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberto01 View Post

I will share my experience with my lastest bass heavy pair of IEMs in this post.

Thus far, my ears have never accepted PMP audio quality.  My audio setup is at my desktop computer.  I burn my CDs into 24/96 WAV files and run them through foobar2000 with 45 equalization bands available to a E-MU 0202 USB DAC with 24 bit capacity.  The sound goes to the headphones through the DAC's headphones output which has an inner amplifier or through another external small amplifier.  Right now, I am using the PA2V2.

I got the dual dynamic driver DENON AH-C300 in mid December.  Those, have two 11.5mm drivers and are targeted to bass lovers or the EDM and equivalent crowd.  When I first listened to them, my ears were neither amazed nor disappointed.  Bass was abundant and of very good quality.  Mids were very clean and clear with no mud in them.  It was obvious that the effect of two separate drivers was showing in the mids.  Still, lower mids were bassier than my audiophile ears wanted to tolerate.  Middle mids were very good and so were the upper mids.  Still, those upper mids had a tad of a cheap tonality to them.   The highs were of very good quality in the upper region (10kHz and above), but seemed to lack a little in quantity.  The lower highs were dry, sharp (harsh, piercing).  With most recordings, I had to EQ down the 3-5kHz frequencies into the negative zone.  Even with that, my ears were tortured with each snare and tom hit.  My overall perception was that some parts of the sound spectrum were of very good quality and others were of mixed quality.  But my ears told me not to worry, because those not so good quality parts had a good quality to them waiting to happen.

As I kept using my DENON AH-C300, I seemed to notice some changes for the better in those parts of the sound spectrum that had a mixed quality to them, mainly in the lower highs.  Snares and toms would not sound as hard to bear as they did before.  With more use, my ears asked me to move the 3-5kHz EQ sliders and they gradually ended up a couple of dBs in the positive zone.  Now, after about 450 hours of use, I have to say "WOW, what a change, my ears knew it all from the beginning!!!!  No part of the sound spectrum sounds close to being of low quality.  My ears point at some parts where improvements can be made, but they smile and say "we will not complain with this sound quality, we are just letting you know what changes would make us happier."

What happened here?  Part of the difference in perception is brain adaptation to the new sound.  However, as this process took place, I stopped using the AH-C300 for several days and would go back to listening exclusively to the Rockit Sounds R-50 for long enough for my brain to get used to the R-50's sound signature.  I did this several times.  That kept my ears aware of the change that was taking place with the IEMs themselves.  What happened with use, was that the big bass tightened up quite slowly, but surely.  As it withdrew its presence from other frequencies property, those frequencies flourished as expected.  Even the bass itself got better.  Now, I have set the 200-50Hz EQ sliders as high as my ears always wanted them, and bass gets bigger and hits harder without affecting how the mids and highs sound.  I couldn't do that before.  Now, the lower mids don't have the note thickness that made them bassy enough to be regarded as an invaded zone.  The middle mids are clearer and sharper.  The upper mids (most vocals) lost that tad of shoutiness and cheap tonality that they had.  The lower highs are a lot more fluid with much better decay and the harshness has been greatly reduced and they don't sound dry anymore.  I can't say that the lower highs peak that is shown in FR graphs, got smaller.  My guess is that when the lower highs stopped being dry by the bass withdrawal, my ears stopped perceiving those peaks as sharp (harsh, piercing) and now consider them acceptable or even good lower highs.  The upper highs haven't changed much, but they were already good from the beginning.  Decay (ssshh) is better and it seems that so is their presence or amount.

With this experience and a previous one with another pair of bass heavy IEMs, I am convinced of one thing:  It takes 400+ hours for the bass to settle in its relationship with itself and with the other frequencies.  This will have a significant impact on sound quality for all frequencies.  I am suspicious that something similar happens to a lesser degree to the treble in regard to losing dryness and becoming more fluid with better decay.  But, I can't be sure about that because the bass withdrawal is already having that effect on the highs.  Whether only the bass change or both the bass and treble change, I find it impossible to fully trust any review/impressions of a bass heavy IEM model that has not been put to work for at least 400 hours.  I know that it could be impractical for many to review IEMs in such a way.  But, at that statement, my ears just smile and say "it is better to have a significant sound improvement than an accurate review, than to have an accurate review with no sound improvement."  I am glad they are right.  So, is my wallet.   

Is it a standard for speakers to improve with time?

I am starting to think that there is in fact no improvement, instead as you said the brain adapts to the sound signature. It just seems odd that all these reports of burn in time appear to always improve the speakers & correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of sound becoming worse over time in reviews. Thus, I am a bit skeptical as it seems to be a major coincidence of all these reports about improvement as I don't see why the sound quality would necessarily improve when it could also lean the other way.
post #1702 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberto01 View Post
 

I burn my CDs into 24/96 WAV files and run them through foobar2000 with 45 equalization bands available to a E-MU 0202 USB DAC with 24 bit capacity.

 

You do realise I hope that this will not bring you any benefits at most, depending on the converter you use it may actually slightly degrade the audio quality - resampling is not trivial. All this combined with huge waste of space and processing power. That is if I read properly what you are trying to say - i.e. convert RedBook audio CD (16bits/44.1Khz) to 24/96

post #1703 of 2796

Redbook disc stores 16/44.1 lossless and nothing more. Ripping at higher sample rate waste both time and space.

post #1704 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukalop View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberto01 View Post

I will share my experience with my lastest bass heavy pair of IEMs in this post.

Thus far, my ears have never accepted PMP audio quality.  My audio setup is at my desktop computer.  I burn my CDs into 24/96 WAV files and run them through foobar2000 with 45 equalization bands available to a E-MU 0202 USB DAC with 24 bit capacity.  The sound goes to the headphones through the DAC's headphones output which has an inner amplifier or through another external small amplifier.  Right now, I am using the PA2V2.

I got the dual dynamic driver DENON AH-C300 in mid December.  Those, have two 11.5mm drivers and are targeted to bass lovers or the EDM and equivalent crowd.  When I first listened to them, my ears were neither amazed nor disappointed.  Bass was abundant and of very good quality.  Mids were very clean and clear with no mud in them.  It was obvious that the effect of two separate drivers was showing in the mids.  Still, lower mids were bassier than my audiophile ears wanted to tolerate.  Middle mids were very good and so were the upper mids.  Still, those upper mids had a tad of a cheap tonality to them.   The highs were of very good quality in the upper region (10kHz and above), but seemed to lack a little in quantity.  The lower highs were dry, sharp (harsh, piercing).  With most recordings, I had to EQ down the 3-5kHz frequencies into the negative zone.  Even with that, my ears were tortured with each snare and tom hit.  My overall perception was that some parts of the sound spectrum were of very good quality and others were of mixed quality.  But my ears told me not to worry, because those not so good quality parts had a good quality to them waiting to happen.

As I kept using my DENON AH-C300, I seemed to notice some changes for the better in those parts of the sound spectrum that had a mixed quality to them, mainly in the lower highs.  Snares and toms would not sound as hard to bear as they did before.  With more use, my ears asked me to move the 3-5kHz EQ sliders and they gradually ended up a couple of dBs in the positive zone.  Now, after about 450 hours of use, I have to say "WOW, what a change, my ears knew it all from the beginning!!!!  No part of the sound spectrum sounds close to being of low quality.  My ears point at some parts where improvements can be made, but they smile and say "we will not complain with this sound quality, we are just letting you know what changes would make us happier."

What happened here?  Part of the difference in perception is brain adaptation to the new sound.  However, as this process took place, I stopped using the AH-C300 for several days and would go back to listening exclusively to the Rockit Sounds R-50 for long enough for my brain to get used to the R-50's sound signature.  I did this several times.  That kept my ears aware of the change that was taking place with the IEMs themselves.  What happened with use, was that the big bass tightened up quite slowly, but surely.  As it withdrew its presence from other frequencies property, those frequencies flourished as expected.  Even the bass itself got better.  Now, I have set the 200-50Hz EQ sliders as high as my ears always wanted them, and bass gets bigger and hits harder without affecting how the mids and highs sound.  I couldn't do that before.  Now, the lower mids don't have the note thickness that made them bassy enough to be regarded as an invaded zone.  The middle mids are clearer and sharper.  The upper mids (most vocals) lost that tad of shoutiness and cheap tonality that they had.  The lower highs are a lot more fluid with much better decay and the harshness has been greatly reduced and they don't sound dry anymore.  I can't say that the lower highs peak that is shown in FR graphs, got smaller.  My guess is that when the lower highs stopped being dry by the bass withdrawal, my ears stopped perceiving those peaks as sharp (harsh, piercing) and now consider them acceptable or even good lower highs.  The upper highs haven't changed much, but they were already good from the beginning.  Decay (ssshh) is better and it seems that so is their presence or amount.

With this experience and a previous one with another pair of bass heavy IEMs, I am convinced of one thing:  It takes 400+ hours for the bass to settle in its relationship with itself and with the other frequencies.  This will have a significant impact on sound quality for all frequencies.  I am suspicious that something similar happens to a lesser degree to the treble in regard to losing dryness and becoming more fluid with better decay.  But, I can't be sure about that because the bass withdrawal is already having that effect on the highs.  Whether only the bass change or both the bass and treble change, I find it impossible to fully trust any review/impressions of a bass heavy IEM model that has not been put to work for at least 400 hours.  I know that it could be impractical for many to review IEMs in such a way.  But, at that statement, my ears just smile and say "it is better to have a significant sound improvement than an accurate review, than to have an accurate review with no sound improvement."  I am glad they are right.  So, is my wallet.   

Is it a standard for speakers to improve with time?

I am starting to think that there is in fact no improvement, instead as you said the brain adapts to the sound signature. It just seems odd that all these reports of burn in time appear to always improve the speakers & correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of sound becoming worse over time in reviews. Thus, I am a bit skeptical as it seems to be a major coincidence of all these reports about improvement as I don't see why the sound quality would necessarily improve when it could also lean the other way.

 

There is an Ultrasone model known for turning into inferior or less desirable sound quality after a certain point of use time.

 

When our ears dislike something to a great extent, they never get used to it to the point of being quite happy with what they hated before.  With brain adaptation if the initial dislike is big, the dislike diminishes but it never goes away.  For a flawed frequency area to turn into a good one for our ears, brain adaptation is not enough.  Obviously, this is based solely on observation.  To get some proof of whether the change happens or not, we would have to do blind tests with more than two pairs of headphones with half of them with zero hours of use and half of them with 400+ hours of use.  Do you have them at hand so that we can run the tests?


Edited by Alberto01 - 3/8/14 at 8:24am
post #1705 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by axismundi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberto01 View Post
 

I burn my CDs into 24/96 WAV files and run them through foobar2000 with 45 equalization bands available to a E-MU 0202 USB DAC with 24 bit capacity.

 

You do realise I hope that this will not bring you any benefits at most, depending on the converter you use it may actually slightly degrade the audio quality - resampling is not trivial. All this combined with huge waste of space and processing power. That is if I read properly what you are trying to say - i.e. convert RedBook audio CD (16bits/44.1Khz) to 24/96

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by helljudgement View Post
 

Redbook disc stores 16/44.1 lossless and nothing more. Ripping at higher sample rate waste both time and space.

 

Sure and I had not doubt that someone was going to point that out quickly, just as it happened.  I realized that in the process of ripping my CDs.  Then, I ran a test that had to do with a 16 vs 24 bit rip of the same track and the 16 bit track ran into quite noticeable distortion much quicker when I tried to raise the EQ sliders up to the level that my ears wanted.  I don't remember exactly what the 16 vs 24 rip test consisted of.  So, I am going to rip a track at 16/44.1 and the same track at 24/96 and report back with the results.

 

Excuse me for using the word "burn" instead of "rip" in my original post.  Ha, ha.


Edited by Alberto01 - 3/8/14 at 7:42am
post #1706 of 2796

Concerning the bass on the H3, it definitely is tuned for more sub-bass rather than mid-bass. I was comparing the H3 to the ASG-2 and the latter had far more abundant mid-bass albeit with less low end extension but more impact.

I would describe the bass of the H3 to have more of a 'liquid' quality but I get mixed results with regards to bass 'bloat'. I primarily use my X3 with flac files and with some tracks the bass is very prominent but on others, it blends in with the rest of the spectrum quite nicely. The one oddity I have noticed is that the bass is pushed back or recessed for lack of better terms. When listening to some Black Sabbath tracks with the ASG-2 for example, I can easily discern the details of Geezer Butler playing his bass guitar. With the H3, it not so apparent but the details are still there although it does not command attention like other iems I've heard. I personally think that the bass has been tuned this way so as not to be obtrusive and drown out other frequencies. If that was the goal of the Sony engineers, they nailed it.


Edited by Rip N' Burn - 3/9/14 at 10:05am
post #1707 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by suman134 View Post
 

 

   xba 3 is a nice phone man , if you wanna go up , go for dn-1000 .

so you think the dunu dn 1000 is better than the xba h3?

post #1708 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacomn View Post
 

so you think the dunu dn 1000 is better than the xba h3?

 

do note that xba 3 and xba h3 are two very different IEMs

post #1709 of 2796

I am trying to pick either between the dunu dm-1000, the sony xba-h3, or the ie80's. Any input would be much apprecieted 

post #1710 of 2796
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacomn View Post
 

so you think the dunu dn 1000 is better than the xba h3?

 

 

DN 1000 is an excellent phone, but the H3 is another level to my ears. To my ears the H3 clearly wins between the two, giving the music a more holographic feel, but you couldn't go wrong with the Dunu.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Sony XBA-H1 and XBA-H3 Hybrid Dynamic and BA IEM