[bigshot]

I am officially in Nirvana.

Everyone is away for Christmas, so I had the day to myself to tweak and adjust EQ and channel levels perfectly. The new speakers made my soundstage snap into ultra sharp focus. I plunked myself down in the sweet spot and put Mancini's Combo! on. Holy cow! I've never heard anything better. Incredible!

 

[Kaffeemann]

Sound Scientists, I need your help!
 
Which of these two IEM has better impulse response and 300 Hz square wave response?
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANRE262.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANRE272.pdf
 

 

[bigshot]

They don't look very different. Which one is cheaper?

 

[xnor]

They are pretty much the same, the 272 just seems to have a bit bigger peak at ~9 kHz which causes the extra ringing in the imp/sq response.
 
From the FR measurements: want (a bit) more treble, then take the 272.
 
edit: argh bigshot was faster, again!

 

[Kaffeemann]

The RE 262 was 150$ but is not available anymore. The RE 272 cost 250$.
 
 
I think the RE 272 is better because of the faster rise?

 

[Kaffeemann]

Quote:

They are pretty much the same, the 272 just seems to have a bit bigger peak at ~9 kHz which causes the extra ringing in the imp/sq response.

 
Isn't ringing caused by overly long dacay at a certain frequency?

 

[bigshot]

I doubt you'd hear any difference between those two.

 

[xnor]

No it's clearly the peak in the FR.
 
We're dealing with a small, single driver earphone here, so you can pretty much ignore the impulse response (which should be analyzed using software, not the naked eye anyway).

 

[Kaffeemann]

Quote:

I doubt you'd hear any difference between those two.

 
Well the folks at the IEM forum say the 262 is warm and sweet while the 272 is analytical. And they do have different FR.
 
To me, the 300 Hz square wave looks better on the 272, no?

 

[bigshot]

Square waves don't mean a whole heck of a lot. On paper, those don't look very different. Maybe there is a difference in the way they fit. The response curve is just different enough to barely notice in theory, but by the time you've popped one out and the other in, you wouldn't be able to tell any more.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Well the folks at the IEM forum say the 262 is warm and sweet while the 272 is analytical. And they do have different FR.

To me, the 300 Hz square wave looks better on the 272, no?

Like xnor said, on single driver headphones impulse response (and by extension square wave response) are almost entirely the product of frequency response. You could have a ruler flat FR producing a perfect impulse and square wave response and it wouldn't sound any good because it doesn't account for human ear HRTF.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Like xnor said, on single driver headphones impulse response (and by extension square wave response) are almost entirely the product of frequency response. You could have a ruler flat FR producing a perfect impulse and square wave response and it wouldn't sound any good because it doesn't account for human ear HRTF.

Why does the ER4S have sub optimal square wave responses then? Genuine question because I don't know the answer.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

because it doesn't have ruler flat FR? Its FR is highly linear when compensated with the standard diffuse field HRTF, which is very different from having rulerflat FR, which as I said above means having highly linear UNcompensated FR.

 

[gnarlsagan]

because it doesn't have ruler flat FR? Its FR is highly linear when compensated with the standard diffuse field HRTF, which is very different from having rulerflat FR, which as I said above means having highly linear UNcompensated FR.

Okay interesting. So it's not possible for single driver BA's to have compensated flat FR with good impulse response, but it doesn't matter.

 

[xnor]

Guys, what are your thoughts on the Xonar DGX, DSX and DX?