[atomikn00b]

OK. OK.
I have my own thoughts on this but I'm curious.
Quite often I see that iems or headphones with good bass and good highs and non-recessed mids are described as U or V shaped.
Should this be the case?
Is this one of those "noob myths" that keep spreading without a check?
 
Just because it extends on both the low and high end doesn't equate to a U or V signature does it?

 

[rammlied69]

Well how else can we describe what we are hearing??i dont know bass hump???treble hump???i am having issues with subbass,bass,and midbass also????i agree there are many terms thrown about which simply tell me nothing. i can tell you one thing i did a test with tf10 vs R1 playing pink floyds speak to me where the heartbeat begins now  tf10 sound to my ears was more like a thwack!!!but R1 produced a more real sounding rounded thump like a heartbeat to my ears!!!. they both picked up the sound early in the track when its barely audable but i prefer R1 rendition on the sound ymmv

 

[rammlied69]

At the moment listening to dubstep with  sony mh1c and i really like it better than tf10 the sony $30 iem is what tf10 should sound like without all the recabling and tip selection not to mention comfort and fitment issues imho. Cosmic Dreams is the song on my dell laptop fwiw.

 

[vc1187]

Quote:

OK. OK.
I have my own thoughts on this but I'm curious.
Quite often I see that iems or headphones with good bass and good highs and non-recessed mids are described as U or V shaped.
Should this be the case?
Is this one of those "noob myths" that keep spreading without a check?
 
Just because it extends on both the low and high end doesn't equate to a U or V signature does it?

In my experiences of music listening, sound signature doesn't really depend on the frequency chart too much.
Let's take the HD650 for example.  There is no possible way you can tell by reading a frequency chart that it has a very seductive vocal presentation which somewhat shoves all instruments into the background while making the vocals the center stage.  Frequency chart in no way describes soundstage, which is a very strong point when describing sound signature.  
Always remember 'good bass' and 'good highs' are subjective, as is sound in general.  A pair of headphones can have great bass without having a huge bump in the frequency chart.  Take the LCD-2 for instance.  It's touted to be a pair of headphones with some of the best quality bass.  Bassheads may disagree due to the fact they enjoy a large quantity of bass over a higher quality of bass, which extends into the low ends of the spectrum.

 

[rammlied69]

I get what saying and in general agree with your point.

 

[atomikn00b]

I'd love to hear more thoughts and opinions on this.
Really am curiuos

 

[Reomero]

Quote:

Quite often I see that iems or headphones with good bass and good highs and non-recessed mids are described as U or V shaped.
 

 
Wait.. I thought a "V" or "U" shaped sound signature usually entitles a recessed or less-pronounced midrange, hence the "dip" in the middle of the "V" or "U". And I guess if something has enhanced bass and treble relative to the mids, in short it is "V" or "U" shaped.

 

[atomikn00b]

Quote:

 
Wait.. I thought a "V" or "U" shaped sound signature usually entitles a recessed or less-pronounced midrange, hence the "dip" in the middle of the "V" or "U". And I guess if something has enhanced bass and treble relative to the mids, in short it is "V" or "U" shaped.

ok. so. If we take an mid-centric iem (one so mid-centric that it's more of an "n" or "inverse u" shape) and equalize it with a bass boost and treble boost so that the mids are still pronounced (since that was it's concentration anyway),
does this mean the new chart is U or V shaped?
or is it balanced with a prominent bass and treble end?

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

ok. so. If we take an mid-centric iem (one so mid-centric that it's more of an "n" or "inverse u" shape) and equalize it with a bass boost and treble boost so that the mids are still pronounced (since that was it's concentration anyway),
does this mean the new chart is U or V shaped?
or is it balanced with a prominent bass and treble end?

 
Actually, the midrange will sound more recessed in contrast to the lows and highs.  And yes, you did just force a V/U shape into the headphone.  The thing is, the induced V/U shape may now be too loud, forcing the user to turn down the volume (thusly causing the mids to be less pronounced). BTW, what's an example of a headphone with "good bass, good highs, and non-recessed mids" but still called a "v or u shaped".

 

[ZARIM]

The sondsignature also cover whether IEMs are warm, rich, textured, or neutral like Klipsch X10 IEMs has signature warm sound. I found recessed is different than less pronounce like TF10Pro mids are less pronounce compare to SE535 but not recessed because mids are still very detailed on TF10Pro. Also if both end are extended like on EX1000, FX700 and mids are still detailed without being v shape.JVC FX500 has extended highs and deep reverbing bass and mids are recessed(miss details) and it's clearly v shape .

 

[TubeNube]

This is a very interesting subject and as a first post having just joined Head-fi I'd like to make some observations on the helpful glossary of terms which I was asked to read as a newbie.

The ways to describe sound signature seem to me to fall into five categories:

1. Describing frequency response variations from a flat signature - often very specific frequency ranges that are emphasised or describing an overall profile. Usually these observations are criticisms of the sounds but in other respects this is a subjective matter. e.g. aggressive, boomy, dark, fun, hard, harsh, full, mellow, thin, strident.
2. Indication of something wrong with the sound reproduction - noise, distortion, slow response, lack of detail etc. e.g. blurred, grainy, muddy, veiled.
3. Descriptions of the sound stage. e.g. airy, closed, focus, separation, spacious, depth.
4. Positive observations of a successful sound reproduction. e.g. articulate, clear, musical, detailed, transparent, grip, juicy, natural, liquid.
5. Subjective observations which are difficult to relate to any real, observable characteristic of the sound. e.g. rhythm, wet, dry, gentle and anything which suggests one can perceive the height of a soundstage as well as it's width and depth!

I'm a scientist by background and I guess having read a great deal of reviews of audio gear I'm trying to work out the differences between subjective and objective. Would be interested in any other views out there.