Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics S-EM6 Six driver universal IEM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EarSonics S-EM6 Six driver universal IEM - Page 16

post #226 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

I just wanted to add...me too wink.gif  I have the S-EM6 in ear right now.
Yep I am getting a loaner pair of S-EM6 this week. From what I gathered on the French forums, the EM32 has the same earsonics house sound but deeper sub bass, more details, slightly better soundstage and less forward mids...
post #227 of 591

Looking forward to you and Joe's views.

The S-EM6 doesn't have recessed nor forward mids IMO but I can  understand why some people might think the mids are recessed as the sound appear to be  projected from further away, more akin to listening to monitors. Fantastic 3D imaging and realistic center image for an iem but it doesn't sounds as detailed as similarly priced CIEM.

post #228 of 591

Just had a meal with some friends tonight, and here are the main guests of the gathering (sorry for the crappy photo):


Note: Please stop reading any further if you are 1/ EarSonics fan or 2/ S-EM6 lover. All the impressions written below are my personal opinions (coupled with some friends’ opinion at the meet). I don’t want to turn this thread into another war like what I*** did with the SM64 thread but it’s worth voicing my thoughts I suppose.

 

So, how do they sound? Before coming to the meet I kinda had some vague predictions about their sound, judging from the trend drawn by the SM3, SM64, EM6 (demo), yet they were all wrong, so wrong that 10’ in and I couldn’t believe if I was hearing things right.

 

Having heard the SM64 and EM6 before, I’d thought that the S-EM6 would be somewhat similar, especially after seeing the 2 TWFK’s inside. Yet it turned out to be entirely different, very soft and polite treble, or if I were to be harsh with words, ‘muffled’ and ‘muddy’ would describe these IEMs’ high frequencies the best. It sounded as if the sound had to go through a huge low pass filter before hitting my eardrums. Cymbals sounded like they were being hit from somewhere far, far away. There was neither sparkle nor extension at all. Also forget about soundstaging and such, talking about qualities is out of the question with this kind of treble. And I have to mention they were being plugged into the Touch 4, which is considered to be a bright DAP.

 

Things got a bit better with the midrange, though I still found serious problems here as well. The lower mids was quite full-bodied, with enough warmth to it, very intimate sounding I would say. Contrary to what I heard on the EM6, the universal version isn’t recessed in the lower mid range any more. However, thanks to the polite treble the upper midrange was nowhere to be heard. Sounds like another SM64? No way, mids on the SM64 is still a league above. Despite having such a huge suckout that prevents it from rendering the upper midrange, the SM64’s mids still retains enough clarity and charm that I can understand why some people like it. The S-EM6’s on the other hand was just as muddy as its treble, maybe a bit less, but it affected the positioning of the vocal so much  I couldn’t believe I was listening to a 1k$ pair of IEM.

 

Bass might be the only thing that the S-EM6 did ok (just barely ok, nothing more nothing less). Focusing mostly on the mid bass, together with enough upper bass as back up, S-EM6’s lows felt just right without becoming too much or too little on whatever genres I threw in. The sub bass didn’t get heavily boosted but it was very ample when being called for, something I don’t get to hear very often on other phones. Another good quality about the lows can be mentioned is how it kept everything in check, despite having quite a large amount of sub bass when needed it didn’t seem to bleed much into the midrange. At first I thought the upper bass bled quite a bit into the lower mids but upon further inspection it was actually due to the lower mids being quite upfront (didn’t come close to being forward though) and muddy at the same time. Sure there was some bleeding happening but it was just at the level of the SM3.

 

One funny thing, while the mids wasn’t very recessed at all, bass came about as if there was a subwoofer firing from behind. I reckon there was something wrong with the woofer network that reversed the phase response of low frequencies on the one earpiece.

 

Comparison with the 1+2:

 

The 1+2 won in any aspect I could think of, period. Yes, they were a bit overly bright when plugged into the Touch 4 but that can be alleviated with tip rolling and changing insertion depth (which seemed impossible since the shell design is just terrible).  Treble on the 1+2 was much much much better, there’s clarity, detail retrieval, soundstaging, layering and a lot more to talk about. The midrange was of course a lot clearer, in fact it was crystal clear compared to the S-EM6. You could feel the sense of space, the ‘air’ that wraps around the vocalist, the distance between each instrument. Positioning was also very good with the 1+2’s imaging, it wasn’t as intimate as the S-EM6 though. S-EM6’s bass might have gained the upper hand against 1+2’s bass had it not been for the weird phase response, must be interesting to see the superimposed impulse response of the 2 ear.

 

The S-EM6 should receive some credit for its ergonomic shell design, which beat the 1+2 at its own game. All the people I talked to at the meet complained about how hard it was to have a good seal with the 1+2, and one person experienced discomfort and pain due to the bump on the shell pushing against his cavum. That aside, I cannot think of any aspect the S-EM6 can rival the 1+2.

 

All in all, think twice before pulling the trigger on the S-EM6. I really hope I was being biased while auditioning them, and it was my own taste that didn’t fit the eccentric sound signature of these hi-end IEMs, but sadly all the people there also shared the same thought, the S-EM6 failed even when being compared to their brothers. These IEMs might be for you if high frequencies and clarity are the last things to concern when it comes to sound reproduction, or you just don’t know where to blow 1k$.

 

Perhaps the unit I got hold of was faulty in the first place?


Edited by tranhieu - 11/4/13 at 4:50am
post #229 of 591

So you think its sound sign is worse than Sm64's, right? Does its overall spectrum still sound incoherent like Sm64?

 

and I think I may know yours friends :wink_face:

post #230 of 591

What do you mean by incoherent?

Surprisingly, I would have to admit I do agree with most of tranhieu's findings, although using "muddy" to describe the S-EM6 might be quite an exaggeration.

I had the S-EM6 for quite a while now but I am still questioning their value and I am still trying to get my head around their presentation.

After having the chance to hear quite few universal demo of CIEMs at the previous UK meet, I would have to admit the S-EM6 don't sound as impressive and don't throw as much details, but their overall very natural and smooth presentation and holographic soundstage is very enjoyable.

Vocal front projection / positioning is the best I heard in an iem.

post #231 of 591
I really do not understand how opinions differ so much on these. Really eager to hear them this week. Either we are talking about wildly different tastes or you had a faulty unit. Anyways it's nice to have different perspectives, thanks for the feedback.
post #232 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post


Yep I am getting a loaner pair of S-EM6 this week. From what I gathered on the French forums, the EM32 has the same earsonics house sound but deeper sub bass, more details, slightly better soundstage and less forward mids...

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and thanks for the additional info on the EM32.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpunk View Post
 

Looking forward to you and Joe's views.

The S-EM6 doesn't have recessed nor forward mids IMO but I can  understand why some people might think the mids are recessed as the sound appear to be  projected from further away, more akin to listening to monitors. Fantastic 3D imaging and realistic center image for an iem but it doesn't sounds as detailed as similarly priced CIEM.

 

Thanks!  The midrange is somewhat different than typical for EarSonics, but I still have a ways to go for my assessment.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranhieu View Post
 

Just had a meal with some friends tonight, and here are the main guests of the gathering (sorry for the crappy photo):


Note: Please stop reading any further if you are 1/ EarSonics fan or 2/ S-EM6 lover. All the impressions written below are my personal opinions (coupled with some friends’ opinion at the meet). I don’t want to turn this thread into another war like what I*** did with the SM64 thread but it’s worth voicing my thoughts I suppose.

 

So, how do they sound? Before coming to the meet I kinda had some vague predictions about their sound, judging from the trend drawn by the SM3, SM64, EM6 (demo), yet they were all wrong, so wrong that 10’ in and I couldn’t believe if I was hearing things right.

 

Having heard the SM64 and EM6 before, I’d thought that the S-EM6 would be somewhat similar, especially after seeing the 2 TWFK’s inside. Yet it turned out to be entirely different, very soft and polite treble, or if I were to be harsh with words, ‘muffled’ and ‘muddy’ would describe these IEMs’ high frequencies the best. It sounded as if the sound had to go through a huge low pass filter before hitting my eardrums. Cymbals sounded like they were being hit from somewhere far, far away. There was neither sparkle nor extension at all. Also forget about soundstaging and such, talking about qualities is out of the question with this kind of treble. And I have to mention they were being plugged into the Touch 4, which is considered to be a bright DAP.

 

Things got a bit better with the midrange, though I still found serious problems here as well. The lower mids was quite full-bodied, with enough warmth to it, very intimate sounding I would say. Contrary to what I heard on the EM6, the universal version isn’t recessed in the lower mid range any more. However, thanks to the polite treble the upper midrange was nowhere to be heard. Sounds like another SM64? No way, mids on the SM64 is still a league above. Despite having such a huge suckout that prevents it from rendering the upper midrange, the SM64’s mids still retains enough clarity and charm that I can understand why some people like it. The S-EM6’s on the other hand was just as muddy as its treble, maybe a bit less, but it affected the positioning of the vocal so much  I couldn’t believe I was listening to a 1k$ pair of IEM.

 

Bass might be the only thing that the S-EM6 did ok (just barely ok, nothing more nothing less). Focusing mostly on the mid bass, together with enough upper bass as back up, S-EM6’s lows felt just right without becoming too much or too little on whatever genres I threw in. The sub bass didn’t get heavily boosted but it was very ample when being called for, something I don’t get to hear very often on other phones. Another good quality about the lows can be mentioned is how it kept everything in check, despite having quite a large amount of sub bass when needed it didn’t seem to bleed much into the midrange. At first I thought the upper bass bled quite a bit into the lower mids but upon further inspection it was actually due to the lower mids being quite upfront (didn’t come close to being forward though) and muddy at the same time. Sure there was some bleeding happening but it was just at the level of the SM3.

 

One funny thing, while the mids wasn’t very recessed at all, bass came about as if there was a subwoofer firing from behind. I reckon there was something wrong with the woofer network that reversed the phase response of low frequencies on the one earpiece.

 

Comparison with the 1+2:

 

The 1+2 won in any aspect I could think of, period. Yes, they were a bit overly bright when plugged into the Touch 4 but that can be alleviated with tip rolling and changing insertion depth (which seemed impossible since the shell design is just terrible).  Treble on the 1+2 was much much much better, there’s clarity, detail retrieval, soundstaging, layering and a lot more to talk about. The midrange was of course a lot clearer, in fact it was crystal clear compared to the S-EM6. You could feel the sense of space, the ‘air’ that wraps around the vocalist, the distance between each instrument. Positioning was also very good with the 1+2’s imaging, it wasn’t as intimate as the S-EM6 though. S-EM6’s bass might have gained the upper hand against 1+2’s bass had it not been for the weird phase response, must be interesting to see the superimposed impulse response of the 2 ear.

 

The S-EM6 should receive some credit for its ergonomic shell design, which beat the 1+2 at its own game. All the people I talked to at the meet complained about how hard it was to have a good seal with the 1+2, and one person experienced discomfort and pain due to the bump on the shell pushing against his cavum. That aside, I cannot think of any aspect the S-EM6 can rival the 1+2.

 

All in all, think twice before pulling the trigger on the S-EM6. I really hope I was being biased while auditioning them, and it was my own taste that didn’t fit the eccentric sound signature of these hi-end IEMs, but sadly all the people there also shared the same thought, the S-EM6 failed even when being compared to their brothers. These IEMs might be for you if high frequencies and clarity are the last things to concern when it comes to sound reproduction, or you just don’t know where to blow 1k$.

 

Perhaps the unit I got hold of was faulty in the first place?

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts.  I recently A/Bed the S-EM6 with the brighter Audio Earz aud-8X and couldn't believe the treble was so far recessed.  It was shocking!  I had been tip rolling for a bit of time and settled on the Westone tips (forgot the name), so I decided to go back to the stock tips, which aren't all that comfortable in my ears, for the A/B.  That changed the sound quite a bit and brought the treble closer forward.  What I have noticed with the S-EM6, and all EarSonics universals I have tried, is they are very tip dependent.  The bass is very good IMO considering the universal fit, and the midrange is thick and creamy as is the EarSonics house sound.  Comparing it with something that is thinner and brighter, especially if that is what you are used to and/or prefer will not lend to a good experience.  I would venture to say the S-EM6 you tried is not faulty, but the result of fit/tips.  I don't have a full assessment of the S-EM6 vs. the SM64 at this time.

post #233 of 591

Hello, I can only ever seem to get a comfort fit with olives. Presume S-EM6 nozzle allows? I use SM64 with HP-P1. Bass is a little lacking, just needs some bottom end. Mids are superb. However, this may be the Earsonics signature. Has anyone tried SM64 & S-EM6 with HP-P1, and their comparsions. Thanks

post #234 of 591

I have been listening to a loaner pair of S-EM6 for 15mn out of my 901, and Tranhieu, I really have no clue what you are talking about. Either we have very different ears, or your pair is defective. They are not perfect, but they sound good, and I do not hear any huge trebble roll off or recessed trebble. Of course they are not bright by any means, but the trebble is there. It is quite smooth and harmless, but it makes for a very musical and smooth overall presentation.

post #235 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

I have been listening to a loaner pair of S-EM6 for 15mn out of my 901, and Tranhieu, I really have no clue what you are talking about. Either we have very different ears, or your pair is defective. They are not perfect, but they sound good, and I do not hear any huge trebble roll off or recessed trebble. Of course they are not bright by any means, but the trebble is there. It is quite smooth and harmless, but it makes for a very musical and smooth overall presentation.

Why don't you try it with the touch 4? Tranhieu didn't use the 901.
post #236 of 591
I try it with the iPhone 4S and iPod Classic, to my mind Tranhieu's S-EM6 were not well sealed or defective. But I completely understand the upset of your listening, I know the house sound signature of 1+2, which is almost the opposite philosophy...

SM3 has recessed treble, clearly, though you can hear trebles, but on S-EM6 they just are smooth but very present. The heritage of SM3 sound signature is to my mind inner the EM4, the EM6 sounds like any other EarSonics monitors if I'm very extrem.
Edited by Rollk2 - 11/6/13 at 12:21am
post #237 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by kytuphicanh View Post


Why don't you try it with the touch 4? Tranhieu didn't use the 901.


I don't have a touch :( Just a 901 and a Tera...I am just a poor little audiophile. But they sound good out of my computer too...not perfect but quite balanced.

post #238 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post
 


I don't have a touch :( Just a 901 and a Tera...I am just a poor little audiophile. But they sound good out of my computer too...not perfect but quite balanced.

Having a great time aren't we?

post #239 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post
 

I have been listening to a loaner pair of S-EM6 for 15mn out of my 901, and Tranhieu, I really have no clue what you are talking about. Either we have very different ears, or your pair is defective. They are not perfect, but they sound good, and I do not hear any huge trebble roll off or recessed trebble. Of course they are not bright by any means, but the trebble is there. It is quite smooth and harmless, but it makes for a very musical and smooth overall presentation.

 

Maybe you have the found a nice ear tip match; go try some other ear tips to get the sound to match Tranhieu ;)  I have experienced a WTF moment with the S-EM6 treble myself.

 

Seriously, for my ears they do change quite a bit and after A/Bing them with the SM64, they do sound very different.  I can see the more traditional sound of the SM64 being preferred over the more forward and thicker sound of the S-EM6.

 

What are you A/Bing with?

post #240 of 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

Maybe you have the found a nice ear tip match; go try some other ear tips to get the sound to match Tranhieu wink.gif  I have experienced a WTF moment with the S-EM6 treble myself.

Seriously, for my ears they do change quite a bit and after A/Bing them with the SM64, they do sound very different.  I can see the more traditional sound of the SM64 being preferred over the more forward and thicker sound of the S-EM6.

What are you A/Bing with?
I am just using the standard tips. I can compare with my SE5. So far they sound nice, but you have to like a really laid back sound. Fans of the 1plus2 sparkly trebble will certainly not like the S-EM6. I still prefer the SE5 quite a bit as there is more note weight and the sound is less laid back. The SE5 trebble is also smooth but more forward are detailed to my ears.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › EarSonics S-EM6 Six driver universal IEM