[Raketen]

Bose QC 35 II described as V-Shape? I have them and they are very far from being V-Shape, bass is almost non-existent compared to say galaxy buds, also treble doesn't even have sparkle, how could they be V-Shape?

Also DT 880 pro > DT1990 pro? Hahahaha

enhanced (more than flat) but loose & kind of midbassy (from what I recall) + upper mid peak = v-shaped. Tons of v-shaped headphones have bass and treble. I'd hazard the vast majority do considering the popularity of that signature in budget cans.

what would you call their signature?

 

[DenverW]

What a win for the Koss portapro, same technicalities as the Ether 2!

 

[1Q84]

enhanced (more than flat) but loose & kind of midbassy (from what I recall) + upper mid peak = v-shaped. Tons of v-shaped headphones have bass and treble. I'd hazard the vast majority do considering the popularity of that signature in budget cans.

what would you call their signature?

They sound rather flat to me, as the mids are as hazy as the bass and treble, but mids certainly isn't recessed

The sony ANC HP is the one I would classify as V-shaped

 

[buonassi]

What a win for the Koss portapro, same technicalities as the Ether 2!

Yeah, I think the only reason that happened is because crin considers technicalities a RESULT of the driver mechanical behavior AND the tuning. It's a shame actually, because many readers will see this ranking and think the electromechanical properties are on equal footing between these two transducers.

Let's face it, the Ether2 has dipped upper mids where the portapro gets the pinna and canal gain correct to have a more natural sound. Tuning - for this reason alone - the Ether was knocked in the technicalities department. I understand that tuning does affect resolving ability, hence, technicalities. But I've always dileneated between the two very differently than crin. Here's how I've always rated units:

• Tuning - (how balanced is the driver's frequency response?) how closely matched the amplitude of the SPL at each 1/3rd octave band sounds to my ears/brain with my chosen tips (equal loudness at 80db)
  
  
• Technicalities - (what is a driver's potential?) - this is purely electromechanical. First correct for tuning deficiencies using a very transparent EQ - then observe resolution, speed, driver control, damping, reverberations, distortion, ringing.... aka impulse.

The Ether2 has much better performance from a purely mechanical perspective - it runs circles around the portapro - let's not kid ourselves here.

 

[crinacle]

Yeah, I think the only reason that happened is because crin considers technicalities a RESULT of the driver mechanical behavior AND the tuning. It's a shame actually, because many readers will see this ranking and think the electromechanical properties are on equal footing between these two transducers.

Let's face it, the Ether2 has dipped upper mids where the portapro gets the pinna and canal gain correct to have a more natural sound. Tuning - for this reason alone - the Ether was knocked in the technicalities department. I understand that tuning does affect resolving ability, hence, technicalities. But I've always dileneated between the two very differently than crin. Here's how I've always rated units:

• Tuning - (how balanced is the driver's frequency response?) how closely matched the amplitude of the SPL at each 1/3rd octave band sounds to my ears/brain with my chosen tips (equal loudness at 80db)
  
  
• Technicalities - (what is a driver's potential?) - this is purely electromechanical. First correct for tuning deficiencies using a very transparent EQ - then observe resolution, speed, driver control, damping, reverberations, distortion, ringing.... aka impulse.

The Ether2 has much better performance from a purely mechanical perspective - it runs circles around the portapro - let's not kid ourselves here.

DCA/MrSpeakers historically had a certain "overdampened" sound to them (blunted, fuzzy edge to the notes) that some would describe as "compressed" or "lacking dynamics". It wasn't too bad with the original Ether series (which is why I ranked it accordingly) but in the Aeon series and newer Ethers the problem was most egregious.

I would give you the point that sometimes a really weird and wonky tuning makes it really hard to pinpoint technical ability (whether because the tuning is so strange that it's hard to look past that, or there is some big recession in the higher frequencies that obscure a lot of finer details despite the driver being capable of reproducing them), but I can assure you that this is not the case for the DCA cans.

 

[IEMusic]

While it seems to be the standard to match graphs at 1KHz, what would one do with a graph that is unusual at 1KHz?

 

[tgx78]

While it seems to be the standard to match graphs at 1KHz, what would one do with a graph that is unusual at 1KHz?

in this case I would normalize at 500hz

Edit: i3’s weird dip at 1kHz disappeared when I filled the mmcx gap on my sample.

 

[Raketen]

While it seems to be the standard to match graphs at 1KHz, what would one do with a graph that is unusual at 1KHz?

IIRC that's what the dB matching option is for, I belive it finds the volume mean of the curves? using that, appears tgx is pretty close with 500khz.

In terms of more subjective readings, I try to think about it in terms of where I'd be setting volume so it depends a on where the peaks are. I usually look at 2khz (for instance ety centers vocals at 2.5khz) and 5khz since they seem to give a pretty good idea of where vocals and brighter instruments will sit relative to the mix- but it's not a very good rule of thumb thumb either (as you find here w/ the 1khz dip)

Would be an interesting feature if you could set it to mean volume for a specified frequency range (like when using the bass/mid/treble zoom buttons).

 

[IEMusic]

Would be an interesting feature if you could set it to mean volume for a specified frequency range (like when using the bass/mid/treble zoom buttons).

That would be great. Maybe between 500Hz and 1KHz (often the flat region), or maybe 500Hz to 2KHz.

 

[Tristy]

@crinacle Do you have any plans to get your hands on the newly released campfire IEM's in the near future? Quite curious about their measurements and your impressions.

 

[Soundfalls]

Hi, everyone. I am rather new to this audiophile hobby. I just acquired the IER Z1R few months ago based heavily but not entirely on Crinacle's list -totally no regrets at all. Bass from the heavens and for me very good for rock, metal, most pop and electronic. I am now looking for IEMs or even headphones with a different sound signature for vocals and classical music. Hoping to get some recommendations and tips from you guys. Thanks

 

[IEMusic]

Hi, everyone. I am rather new to this audiophile hobby. I just acquired the IER Z1R few months ago based heavily but not entirely on Crinacle's list -totally no regrets at all. Bass from the heavens and for me very good for rock, metal, most pop and electronic. I am now looking for IEMs or even headphones with a different sound signature for vocals and classical music. Hoping to get some recommendations and tips from you guys. Thanks

What is your budget? I can think of some great ones ranging from around $150 to the thousands.

 

[Soundfalls]

What is your budget? I can think of some great ones ranging from around $150 to the thousands.

Up till about 4000 Usd.

 

[Spie1904]

Up till about 4000 Usd.

I'm not sure for vocals but for classical music, I think Senheisser HD800(s) is still one of the great options.

 

[IEMusic]

Up till about 4000 Usd.

Nice! In that price range, I would ask the question on this thread, which basically covers the high-end, TOTL IEMs.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fli...ortable-audio-discussion.826876/post-15941772