Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › LG Quadbeat 2 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LG Quadbeat 2 Impressions Thread - Page 8

post #106 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard View Post
 

Looks like I'm in luck:

http://en.goldenears.net/21721

 

These sound great. Punches way above $30, and does it with some nice clarity. Once you tame the midbass hump and fix a few peaks in the highs, they really are exceptional.

Thanks for indicating that something is out-of-bounds and needs taming.

 

As my first in-ear, I recently got the HSS F420 Quadbeat and was quite disappointed in the wide, cartoonish hump centered in the upper-bass. It dominates everything and makes a muddled mess, even managing to wipe out the low-mid-bass and low-bass. It certainly sounds like it looks below 1000hz: http://en.goldenears.net/15834

 

The quadbeat-2 seems to have an even more emphasized hump in the same region (http://en.goldenears.net/21721), which doesn't make me think it's moving in the right direction. Yes, it's all correctable with judicious EQ or inverse-filter design.

 

It seems, from the measurements, that many/most in-ears have a crazy bass/lower-midrange emphasis which makes me think that maybe in-ears aren't for me. (Unless I'm willing to put in the EQ work or spend big bucks for monitor-quality or customs.)

post #107 of 424

I think all dynamic iems need some burn in time to sound their best so judging the sound out of box is not fair. It needs at least 50 hours to settle down for peaks in treble. Please keep in mind that all iems can sound sharp when new and comply tips may help with taming the highs and decreasing the mid bass hump a little bit.:wink_face: 

 

Goldenears measurements aren't always right and helpfull. I trust innerfidelity measurements more. Just my 2 cents.


Edited by ozkan - 11/6/13 at 9:07am
post #108 of 424

To be fair, I've run them through about 30h of burn-in material and I do my inverse filter design using Innerfidelity data!

But I'll run them in some more and investigate alternative tips. I don't think it'll make a huge difference, but sometimes small differences are important ones.

post #109 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by thune View Post
 

Thanks for indicating that something is out-of-bounds and needs taming.

 

As my first in-ear, I recently got the HSS F420 Quadbeat and was quite disappointed in the wide, cartoonish hump centered in the upper-bass. It dominates everything and makes a muddled mess, even managing to wipe out the low-mid-bass and low-bass. It certainly sounds like it looks below 1000hz: http://en.goldenears.net/15834

 

The quadbeat-2 seems to have an even more emphasized hump in the same region (http://en.goldenears.net/21721), which doesn't make me think it's moving in the right direction. Yes, it's all correctable with judicious EQ or inverse-filter design.

 

It seems, from the measurements, that many/most in-ears have a crazy bass/lower-midrange emphasis which makes me think that maybe in-ears aren't for me. (Unless I'm willing to put in the EQ work or spend big bucks for monitor-quality or customs.)

 

A lot of headphones are tuned like this just the same. Use those innerfidelity and goldenears charts to find an iem for you with a flatter signature. You would probably like balanced armature IEMs like the Rock-It R50.

 

You don't need to spend big bucks for "monitor" quality. There are quite a few headphones and iems that can achieve this for $50-100.

 

I personally prefer speakers and headphones with the flattest signature possible, but also having a few DB of a subbass/midbass hump and the ability to handle EQ. 90db of 20hz sounds easier on the ears than 90db of 10,000hz, although you shouldn't stay at that level or higher for too long.

post #110 of 424

thanks for the comment Bhazard !

so i just got my pair, heard them for the first time now.

gott'a say i'm a little disappointed...mainly because of the treble.

a very similar treble to my Klipsch S4, with that "sssss" and a shallow sound.

mids could use a bit more presence, and the sound is overall on the thin side.

bass is good.

what drew my attention to these in the first place was how comfortable they

seem, and i have to say, they are.

this design is much better than a straight barrel and they just fit lovely.

on the other hand, the stiff flat cord is annoying.

i don't believe in burn-in, but i'll play music through them just in case over-night.

post #111 of 424

I'll share an EQ setting for foobar later that makes them sound better.

post #112 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amitl View Post
 

 

i don't believe in burn-in

please don't say that :L3000:

post #113 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by yalper View Post
 

please don't say that :L3000:

I don't either. Unless you can show measured differences, a lot of it is based on perception and so many other factors.

 

No harm in doing it though, you never know.

post #114 of 424

I can vouch for the burn in! If you don't hear any difference then no problem for you. But you can't say there is no burn in. Even PFE 1XX does burn in. 


Edited by ozkan - 11/6/13 at 1:02am
post #115 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozkan View Post
 

I can vouch for the burn in! If you don't hear any difference then no problem for you. But you can't say there is no burn in. Even PFE 1XX does burn in. 

Anyone can say there is or isn't burn in. It's proving it via measurements which becomes the issue.

 

There hasn't been any change in sound signature in the 10 hours I've been burning these in, but the EQ cut I implemented does change it. This can be measured, shown, and proven.

post #116 of 424

Not to dwell on this most flogged of horses, but a) the standard measurements don't communicate everything and b) control experiments using different specimens of an earphone with different numbers of hours on them have demonstrated appreciable differences. 

post #117 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by quartertone View Post
 

Not to dwell on this most flogged of horses, but a) the standard measurements don't communicate everything and b) control experiments using different specimens of an earphone with different numbers of hours on them have demonstrated appreciable differences. 

Ok, now subjectively apply this to the QB2.

 

You can wait 100 hours and hope the sound changes, or go into Accudio or EQ via the chart right now. I personally feel the QB2 is underwhelming out of the box without correction. Run that Accudio correction profile from Goldenears, and it sounds much better, instantly.

post #118 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard View Post
 

Run that Accudio correction profile from Goldenears, and it sounds much better, instantly.

I saw Goldenears review, but no idea about correction profile, how do we need to do that?

post #119 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by yalper View Post
 

I saw Goldenears review, but no idea about correction profile, how do we need to do that?

All of Goldenears' measurements are turned into correction profiles for their iOS app Accudio. Best $5 you'll spend on an audio app.

 

You load the profile from their list, and it instantly applies the correction, which you can turn on/off. You can adjust it too.

 

I only wish they had a windows and android app too. You have to create your own EQ profiles otherwise.

post #120 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard View Post
 

All of Goldenears' measurements are turned into correction profiles for their iOS app Accudio. Best $5 you'll spend on an audio app.

 

You load the profile from their list, and it instantly applies the correction, which you can turn on/off. You can adjust it too.

 

I only wish they had a windows and android app too. You have to create your own EQ profiles otherwise.

+1

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › LG Quadbeat 2 Impressions Thread