[dongster]

resonance can do that. think about blowing into a bottle, if you add water to change the volume of air inside it, you change the frequency at which the bottle resonates. by inserting the IEM deeper you change at the very least the volume of air in the ear canal/IEM system. that's only the super obvious stuff.
the measurement rig obeys the same rules, but it's not so strange that a perfect cylinder and some more or less arbitrary distance between the IEM and the mic, will end up showing something very different. maybe we just assume the spike shifted because we see/ear 2 spikes and assume they must be the same thing. but your ear is not Crinacle's coupler.
again as others have said, of course we wish to correlate measurements and our impressions, I'd like that too. but most of the time we are talking about 2 different systems and conditions and there is only so much to correlate without making false assumptions. the purpose of those measurements if to tell when one IEM has a lot more trebles than another one. measurement compared with other measurement done the same way with the same rig. then because you've heard one of the IEMs, you can start making educated guesses about how the other might sound to you. that rational is pretty solid. at least more than a direct measurement to feeling conversion attempt based on 1 graph and some arbitrary compensation.

Addressed this observation quite early on in the thread here. Deeper insert results in higher frequency resonant peaks shifting higher, while a shallower insert results in a shift to a lower frequency. This is not limited to DIY tube-based couplers and even ISO-standard couplers need to take this into consideration.

thanks for the responses
was just wondering if there is some effect other than resonance

 

[DanWiggins]

Temperature, humidity, and materials can all affect the frequency response. All via resonance or speed of sound, of course.

 

[crinacle]

New toy in the mail today. Kindly provided by the folks at Massdrop as an early sample.

Massdrop Plus

Still listening to it, but first impressions are very good. As usual, will be posting in my thoughts in the other thread.

 

[Raketen]

Initial impressions

• Thin and shrill sounding midrange. Vocals not of the right timbre.
• Treble also sounds off, in a way that is quite piercing yet lacks the upper octave air.
• Bass is decent but nothing exceptional.
• Unacceptable channel matching. Left channel has more treble than the right by a significant margin of error. (Measurement above is taken with the right channel)

This is pretty consistent with my impressions- though I thought the bass was quite emphatic, similar to Zero but a lower frequency lift. Also thought the presentation was interesting, notably spacious/open sounding but weirdly incoherent (guess channel matching might explain that) - probably why I found them quite fun with electronica, but also haven't used them again

 

[crinacle]

Here's an interesting entry. Spurred on by the gurus in my audiophile chatrooms.

Super Audio "Supermeme" 2BA+2DD

*Nicknamed as such due to it's painfully generic and overly-complicated name.

 

[crinacle]

Fresh squiggles.

Hifiman RE2000

Remeasure:

Shure KSE1500

 

[csglinux]

Remeasure:

Shure KSE1500

Aha! There we go! There's the ~10 kHz resonance peak. Nice job! Any thoughts on why your previous measurements didn't pick this up?

 

[crinacle]

Aha! There we go! There's the ~10 kHz resonance peak. Nice job! Any thoughts on why your previous measurements didn't pick this up?

Probably my inexperience in the early days. The creation of the PWN file helps with speed and consistency a lot, reducing the need for an absolutely-stable environment. Can't exactly pinpoint what went wrong, but I'm in the process of re-measuring all that I think may have been measured slightly wrongly.

On a side note, new impressions for the previous IEMs. @csglinux, you probably would be interested in the KSE1500's new grade.

 

[csglinux]

Probably my inexperience in the early days. The creation of the PWN file helps with speed and consistency a lot, reducing the need for an absolutely-stable environment. Can't exactly pinpoint what went wrong, but I'm in the process of re-measuring all that I think may have been measured slightly wrongly.

On a side note, new impressions for the previous IEMs. @csglinux, you probably would be interested in the KSE1500's new grade.

Thanks buddy! BTW, were your latest measurements made with silicone tips?

 

[headwhacker]

Probably my inexperience in the early days. The creation of the PWN file helps with speed and consistency a lot, reducing the need for an absolutely-stable environment. Can't exactly pinpoint what went wrong, but I'm in the process of re-measuring all that I think may have been measured slightly wrongly.

On a side note, new impressions for the previous IEMs. @csglinux, you probably would be interested in the KSE1500's new grade.

I am just curious how a change in FR measurements influences the grade of the iems. They should still sound the same regardless of the difference with before and after measurements. FR can be easily modified by EQ.

 

[csglinux]

I am just curious how a change in FR measurements influences the grade of the iems. They should still sound the same regardless of the difference with before and after measurements. FR can be easily modified by EQ.

The KSE1500 can sound really different with different tips (like most IEMs), and also with different inputs. Its built-in DAC is ok, but it benefits from taking a line-out from a better DAC. With a few subtle changes, two listening sessions could produce quite different results. I hope I'm not influencing the grade here - I appreciate the effort being made in what is a difficult job of rating or ranking IEMs, but I've also heard most of the IEMs that sit in @crinacle's S list and I wouldn't swap my KSE for any of them. A lot probably depends on what weight you give to the different aspects of the sound, i.e., areas of the FR curve, soundstage width/depth and detail, etc. I put a lot of weight on the micro-detail and haven't found an IEM that does that better than the KSE.

 

[james444]

Jm2c, I haven't heard the KSE1500, but to my ears, a peak like this around 10 kHz usually results in too light note-weight with cymbals. Examples that come to mind are the Sennheiser IE800 and MEE Audio Pinnacle P1. Both tend to sound as if cymbals are struck with pencils instead of drumsticks. Granted, that emphasizes "perceived detail", but imho doesn't sound lifelike / realistic at all.

 

[csglinux]

Jm2c, I haven't heard the KSE1500, but to my ears, a peak like this around 10 kHz usually results in too light note-weight with cymbals. Examples that come to mind are the Sennheiser IE800 and MEE Audio Pinnacle P1. Both tend to sound as if cymbals are struck with pencils instead of drumsticks. Granted, that emphasizes "perceived detail", but imho doesn't sound lifelike / realistic at all.

The KSE1500 (resonance peak) isn't anywhere near as dramatic as that of the IE800. From my experience (listening and measurements), you can also eliminate it entirely by using foam tips.

 

[headwhacker]

The KSE1500 can sound really different with different tips (like most IEMs), and also with different inputs. Its built-in DAC is ok, but it benefits from taking a line-out from a better DAC. With a few subtle changes, two listening sessions could produce quite different results. I hope I'm not influencing the grade here - I appreciate the effort being made in what is a difficult job of rating or ranking IEMs, but I've also heard most of the IEMs that sit in @crinacle's S list and I wouldn't swap my KSE for any of them. A lot probably depends on what weight you give to the different aspects of the sound, i.e., areas of the FR curve, soundstage width/depth and detail, etc. I put a lot of weight on the micro-detail and haven't found an IEM that does that better than the KSE.

Which is the point where I was trying to go. Maybe FR should not be the biggest factor in evaluating a headphone as this can change from one guy to another and with different setup/environment (e.g. tip, temp, etc). Clarity, distortion level especially when driven at high volume, transient response, etc., I believe should take more weight as this can't be influence by FR. Like I mention a properly implemented EQ can almost fix the FR to one's desire/preference. In my experience, KSE1500 and the Audeze iSines should easily be able to match any headphone with a decent EQ.

 

[crinacle]

Which is the point where I was trying to go. Maybe FR should not be the biggest factor in evaluating a headphone as this can change from one guy to another and with different setup/environment (e.g. tip, temp, etc). Clarity, distortion level especially when driven at high volume, transient response, etc., I believe should take more weight as this can't be influence by FR. Like I mention a properly implemented EQ can almost fix the FR to one's desire/preference. In my experience, KSE1500 and the Audeze iSines should easily be able to match any headphone with a decent EQ.

My FR database and my ranking guide are separate entities. I re-measured the KSE1500 because I decided to re-audition them again. I found them a lot more appealing in tonality on the second try as compared to the first. Nothing more, nothing less.