Originally Posted by milford30
Just go listen to a pair of say ATH-im50 or a pair or shure846, or whichever others recommend that has good slam/impact, play around with the eq in the 50hz region, then come back tell me you don't HEAR the difference in impact between that and your er4/re272.
Not amplified does not imply that the bass and sub bass does not exist in the recording.
I disagree on the it's ONLY felt part, pointing to actual listening experience above.
Having the sound of the drum scaled down in volume does not imply the impact goes away suddenly, it also gets scaled, it is all sound waves we are talking about.
Please explain why if the recording is compressed you lose drum impact and depth, many people can't tell the difference between flac and 320k... Also reflections are recorded no matter how many microphones you use, waves interfere... Your basically saying it's impossible to record a loud echo of a guy yelling in a jungle with one microphone but somehow you can with 2.....
You can't say something is artificially boosting just because the neutral iems you are lacking in this area, just go listen and forget about your graphs, just because graphs are the best representation the industry uses, but it doesn't mean it's any good. ALSO this assumes you can record this sub bass in the first place, which you seem to disagree with.....
Where is this proof of you can't feel (i agree with hear) impact under 80db? I'm not asking for completely the same, just as close as possible
Lastly I agree with Spyro, I DON'T CARE what voodoo magic they pull, as long as i can sit there with iem #1, and have it sound closer to a set of drums then iem#2 then iem#1 is more accurate than iem#2 in the drums department! If it's not in the recording, no matter what they do, they can't fake it! A warm sound can only mask badly mastered song, not change the notes, same as a bright iem seem to have more details in the mids too.
There is no good way of measuring this objectively! the dummy head test has huge problems i pointed out before.
Yes sitting there with a pair of iems to compare what you hear from a drum is a SUBJECTIVE matter! Show me a better way of comparing if the iem is natural in a objective way and i'll take that!
EDIT: If you still don't believe this impact exists, feel free to click into the Shure 846 trend and tell them that, see how many people disagree with you. Sure you're missing the frequencies passing through your body, it doesn't mean your ears don't hear it too!
Firstly, you're thinking of the wrong type of compression. There are two types of compression, only one is done inside of the studio and it's called dynamic range compression, it's done before anything is released (and it'll effect both lossy and lossless). The way it works is that it takes the soft sounds of a recording and amplifies them (this is done in the studio, after the recording). This, in turn, makes the track louder, but compresses the dynamic range. Since your kicks and snares are generally the loudest part of the recording (without compression), when the record company compresses it for release, the volume level of those instruments become softer (and everything else becomes louder, in turn, this makes everything brighter). This is why artificially boosting those regions makes the song sound more natural, more realistic, it's compensating for something that was done, but not reproducing what it is being fed directly. Most modern songs use compression, and it became quite popular in the 90's.
With that said, the job of a neutral, accurate speaker is to reproduce what it's given, not what it should be given. So if it's given a compressed track, it will sound bright, and dull because it is bright and dull. Don't blame the headphones, blame the track it's playing (black the record label and the artist). A natural sounding headphone will reproduce and essentially compensate for this in a way by bumping the lows and controlling the highs (the signature of just about every headphone you've mentioned (in the bass region) to try to compensate for this. This is why it is generally a preferred sound for a lot of people, including audiophiles (myself included).
So I'm not claiming impact doesn't exist, it definitely does, however, the track doesn't have it because it's essentially been removed to make the track (as a whole) louder.
So I still beg the question, if a headphone makes drums sound more like drums, even if the track itself doesn't have drums sounding like drums, is that headphone more accurate? I understand your reasoning, but do accept mine as well. Compression is a real thing, and you cannot assume it doesn't exist.
I honestly have no clue where you got the notion where you can't feel impact under 80 dB... My statement is that any noise over 80 dB causes your ears to tense up (as a protective mechanism) and changes your hearing curve drastically. Again, I refer you to this article: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/loud-music-sucks
Originally Posted by milford30
Ok, may I ask how you know this 'unnatural' music sounds like? do you have anything physical to compare it to? or is it just what's coming out of what you thought were neutral iems? My basis depends upon real instruments, and yours depends on what may or may not be neutral iems?
Hence your notion of neutral is highly subjective with no basis
Your basis depends on the actual instrument, good... However, you're comparing it to something that has been compressed and distorted which is why neutral IEMs don't work for you.
So you want to hear what you hear in real life (no problem with that), but the recording itself isn't representative of that, so you choose a pair of headphones/IEMs to try to replicate it. You've chosen a natural headphone/IEM which matches the Olive-Welti compensation (preferred compensation among most audiophiles). It has a correlation with what happens with compression in general.
The idea of neutral, flat after diffuse field compensation, actually isn't subjective, neither is free field. Both attempt to recreate what sound reflections occur when sound reflects from your ears, head, etc matched with a flat loudspeaker. There is a direct definition of neutral that was scientifically generated. More information here:
The above is actually why the Dummy Head is a good source of information in terms of measurements.
Some notes about dynamic range compression:
- It was originally started in the 90's when record labels had a war to make their albums louder than the competition. Louder albums catch the ear more, but are less musical in general. And if you haven't noticed (you will), destroys the musical notion of, well, music.
- It's been ongoing, dubbed the loudness wars, and still exists today. The tides are slowly turning after 25 years of battle, but records are still being released to little to no dynamic range (Metallica's, and RHCP's, most recent albums are proof of this, they sound horrible).
- The artist isn't against it, in an interview with some of Metallica's band members, they preferred the compressed sound to the uncompressed for some reason.
- The sound engineers and record masterers are against it, it ruins music and they hate the idea of doing it.
Examples of dynamic range compression:
You can search for others (or keep going through the playlist). Do note that effects of compression may vary from track to track. As a general rule of thumb, the more complex the music, the more obvious the differences will be. Also, the compressed music is unnatural, and distorted, in nature.
With that said, if you feed a neutral IEM compressed music, it will sound compressed (bright, fatiguing, and dull in the bass). If you feed a neutral IEM uncompressed music, it won't sound as bad as many put it. Actually, with uncompressed music, any headphone will sound better (not just neutral).
Some personal words. I personally do not prefer a dead neutral IEM. That's because the majority of my music is modern (post '00s) and most of it is compressed and a warm over neutral signature (my personal preference) does sound better with them. But if someone asks for an accurate, neutral headphone, I won't recommend a natural one because it fails at being accurate and neutral (to the source). Since they used that words neutral and accurate, I assume they know what they are looking for, something that will reproduce exactly what its fed. Feed it garbage, and it'll play garbage, feed it quality, it'll play quality. This is the reason why they tend to be unforgiven and regarded to as cold.
EDIT: Please do note that I'm not saying that you don't know what you're hearing. I truly believe that what you are hearing with the bassier headphones is more realistic to you (more natural) because it probably is. The above is trying to explain why that fact is true. It also explains why this is all of question of preference for a certain sound signature. The OP asked for something that was neutral and accurate (assuming accurate to the source, nothing will be universally accurate to what we hear, above infers that without spelling it out specifically).
Edited by tinyman392 - 5/3/14 at 8:34pm