New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IEM buying help...... - Page 2

post #16 of 51
The RHAs are more balanced sounding, with better treble response and sparkle. Shure still dominates the mids. And Shure has a warmer bass.

The Brainwavz B2 would make the Shures sound bass-heavy, it's mostly like the Etymotics, with slightly more bass and character.
post #17 of 51
There is also the v sonic gr07 bass edition
post #18 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashfury99 View Post

The RHAs are more balanced sounding, with better treble response and sparkle. Shure still dominates the mids. And Shure has a warmer bass.

The Brainwavz B2 would make the Shures sound bass-heavy, it's mostly like the Etymotics, with slightly more bass and character.

 

I guess it'll be between the RHAs (I found out recently they're sold at iStores :P) and the Shures then, whichever one is available...... 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zunehdrocks View Post

There is also the v sonic gr07 bass edition

Yes, I also considered that, but I have time constraints, so buying thru lendmeurears isn't an option and the price at amazon is simply way beyond my budget.....

post #19 of 51
Concise recommendation: RHA for more detail and clarity, losing out in bass. Shure for better bass, though sacrificing trebles.
Quite risky choices.
Edited by Slashfury99 - 4/15/14 at 4:15am
post #20 of 51
Most people say that the shures sound more fun because of the bass but the rhas are better for analytical listening because of the better clarity and detail.
The reviews say the shures a have a treble roll off and that the rhas have a few dips but have much more sparkle.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame-ear-monitors
Edited by zunehdrocks - 4/15/14 at 10:48am
post #21 of 51
The roll off is one thing, but the treble itself doesn't have enough sparkle (on Shure). Compare something like FAD Heaven II side by side and you'll get what I mean.
post #22 of 51
Thread Starter 

According to the reviews on the RHAs (specifically the one by |joker|), they don't lack much in bass, although most of it is sub-bass, which probably will make it boomy...... Question is, will the bass actually have some texture and not be overwhelming? Clarity and detail in the other spectrums seem like a plus point in case of the RHAs......

post #23 of 51
As far as I know (I might be wrong), sub-bass is in the lower than 60hz range. This will make them boomy as you said, but not overwhelming. They don't bleed into the mids. That's how clarity is retained.
post #24 of 51
Subbass will not necessarily make something sound boomy. It depends on the quality of the bass. People that think of subbass as boomy have typically never heard a good sub that is well integrated into an audio setup.

And people tend to think of subbass frequencies sort of differently, so hard to pin down exactly where it begins. I tend to agree with Slashflurry in that I see it as starting around 60hz to 55hz, but not everyone speaks of if that way.
post #25 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashfury99 View Post

As far as I know (I might be wrong), sub-bass is in the lower than 60hz range. This will make them boomy as you said, but not overwhelming. They don't bleed into the mids. That's how clarity is retained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Subbass will not necessarily make something sound boomy. It depends on the quality of the bass. People that think of subbass as boomy have typically never heard a good sub that is well integrated into an audio setup.

And people tend to think of subbass frequencies sort of differently, so hard to pin down exactly where it begins. I tend to agree with Slashflurry in that I see it as starting around 60hz to 55hz, but not everyone speaks of if that way.

As long the sub bass has quality, it doesn't really matter for me..... Besides, its probably nothing that a little EQing can't solve if it seems a bit overwhelming ;) , not that it will, considering the fact that I've heard the worst of the worst (and still do sometimes) :etysmile:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashfury99 View Post

The RHAs are more balanced sounding, with better treble response and sparkle. Shure still dominates the mids. And Shure has a warmer bass.

The Brainwavz B2 would make the Shures sound bass-heavy, it's mostly like the Etymotics, with slightly more bass and character.


Speaking of mid frequencies, does it have anything to do with the quality of the mid-bass or the spacing between the sub and the midrange in particular? LjokerL refers to the RHAs as being "warm, rich and full bodied' (because of its overall clarity, maybe?) and the Shures as being "warm and dry" (, although when it comes to considering both together, the RHAs seem a bit more appealing to me.

Treble-wise, The RHAs do have the Shures beat in spades in terms of brightness and clarity isn't it?

post #26 of 51
post #27 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunehdrocks View Post

Yamaha eph 100 might belong here too...
http://www.head-fi.org/products/yamaha-eph-100sl-inner-ear-headphone

Lacks treble....but the deal breaker was the flimsy cable and jack and uncomfortable design :(

post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasMan View Post

As long the sub bass has quality, it doesn't really matter for me..... Besides, its probably nothing that a little EQing can't solve if it seems a bit overwhelming wink.gif , not that it will, considering the fact that I've heard the worst of the worst (and still do sometimes) etysmile.gif



Speaking of mid frequencies, does it have anything to do with the quality of the mid-bass or the spacing between the sub and the midrange in particular? LjokerL refers to the RHAs as being "warm, rich and full bodied' (because of its overall clarity, maybe?) and the Shures as being "warm and dry" (, although when it comes to considering both together, the RHAs seem a bit more appealing to me.


Treble-wise, The RHAs do have the Shures beat in spades in terms of brightness and clarity isn't it?

Yes, the RHAs have more clarity and are brighter.
post #29 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasMan View Post

 

Speaking of mid frequencies, does it have anything to do with the quality of the mid-bass or the spacing between the sub and the midrange in particular? LjokerL refers to the RHAs as being "warm, rich and full bodied' (because of its overall clarity, maybe?) and the Shures as being "warm and dry" (, although when it comes to considering both together, the RHAs seem a bit more appealing to me.
 


What about the mid-bass? Does it have any role in accentuating the midrange frequencies?

post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasMan View Post


What about the mid-bass? Does it have any role in accentuating the midrange frequencies?

By mid-bass, I take it you mean the blending of the mids and bass frequency. That doesn't accentuate mids much, it's more like coherent sounding. If the bass blends well into the mids, then that means the mids and bass will seamlessly work together to produce sound, as perceived by the ears. Sometimes, this may lead to bass bleeding into the mids.

Another definition of mid-bass is the bass at around 60-150Hz.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home