[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif i'm yet to see a woodied iem

THat wood be hot though.

Im guessing noone wants to try it as it would be extremely hard to design that while keeping them light, and small which is really important.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver /img/forum/go_quote.gif THat wood be hot though. Im guessing noone wants to try it as it would be extremely hard to design that while keeping them light, and small which is really important.

i think it's more because it would not make a difference. i think armatures are too weak to model room effects full stop

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think it's more because it would not make a difference. i think armatures are too weak to model room effects full stop

How would they be weak. They are producing sound waves. Now the housing will play a role on how this sound comes out no matter what. In fact there is proof with the different tip materials absorving certain frequencies. THe housing is very important. And if you listen to speakers, which is what most recordings are done for, you will notice that the ER4 are the furthest out of the high end IEMs as far as matching a speaker sound. The shure E2c for example is muddy and all, but its got a frequency response very reminiscent of what the ears hear with speakers and acoustics.

 

[edwardsean]

The Triple.fis are such a great middle ground between the warm fullness of the Shures and the precise clarity of the Etys.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

THe housing is very important. And if you listen to speakers, which is what most recordings are done for, you will notice that the ER4 are the furthest out of the high end IEMs as far as matching a speaker sound.

Well, it depends on what type of speakers you're talking about. The ER4s sound a lot like near-field monitors, but not so much like the average (or even above average) speaker in a room.

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, it depends on what type of speakers you're talking about. The ER4s sound a lot like near-field monitors, but not so much like the average (or even above average) speaker in a room.

Well all of these high end IEMS do. WHat im saying is the other high end IEMs sound closer to studio monitors.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I really don't think so, because I have some good monitors right here, and the ER4s sound almost exactly like them (slightly darker). Other IEMs are much fuller and more colored, especially in the bass and upper mids. Not a bad thing, certainly, but not at all monitor-like.

 

[Stoney]

Guys, these things sit IN your canals. It cuts out your whole pinna. So, comparisons between people will differ significantly. Anything your pinnae do is going to bias you one way or another.

Not to mention what I already said, the issues of tips, angulation, depth, and resonances in our widely varying canals.

There is no right answer. You can look at those graphs by Tyll and get an idea of which is "more" full or "more" bright, but even with the simpler case of circumaurals, it is hard to say which is more right.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver /img/forum/go_quote.gif How would they be weak. They are producing sound waves. Now the housing will play a role on how this sound comes out no matter what. In fact there is proof with the different tip materials absorving certain frequencies. THe housing is very important. And if you listen to speakers, which is what most recordings are done for, you will notice that the ER4 are the furthest out of the high end IEMs as far as matching a speaker sound. The shure E2c for example is muddy and all, but its got a frequency response very reminiscent of what the ears hear with speakers and acoustics.

armatures don't move a lot of air. there needs to be enough air pressure to make the housing resonate. speakers do it to a great extent, headphones do it to a lesser extent, iem's don't do it at all. have u ever felt the barrel of ur iem shake?

i really don't think iem's housing really makes a difference. even if they aren't woodied, have u ever seen an iem manufacturer claim their iem's sound better because of the way they designed the barrel?

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronin74 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've tried to stay out of the fray on this one but... I'm listening to the Shostakovich Cello Concerto #2 right now and Rostropovich' cello sounds great through my E500s. There's a short percussion section that was an out of head experience, had to look to see that nothing was there. I have not heard the ER4s but if you took away the warmth and the rumbling undertones of the cellos and double bass you have nil.

Agreed - the bass and midrange are very well done. But the strong highs of the soaring violins are not there and need to be to really get the true experience.

The double basses and Cello (again the high squeel of the chello is missing) are represented very well in the bass and midrange.

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif armatures don't move a lot of air. there needs to be enough air pressure to make the housing resonate. speakers do it to a great extent, headphones do it to a lesser extent, iem's don't do it at all. have u ever felt the barrel of ur iem shake? i really don't think iem's housing really makes a difference. even if they aren't woodied, have u ever seen an iem manufacturer claim their iem's sound better because of the way they designed the barrel?

i have to go with mr Iriver on this one,ofcourse the housing makes a difference because it shapes the sound, what your basically saying is the armatures will sound the same without a housing which is just bonkers,all speakers whatever design need a housing to shape sound.

i also have experienced my iems shaking indeed only takes a good amount of power and believe me them armatures are moving a serious amount of air straight down your earcanal to the point of discomfort.

maybe i didnt understand your statement but i read it as if your saying iem's dont move air, thats a bonkers statement lol all speakers move air wether they dynamic or armature or whatever

 

[PiccoloNamek]

The difference between an armature and a speaker is that a speaker is creating pressure waves that propagate through the air, whereas an armature is directly pressurizing a sealed ear canal. Think about it. In a well-designed IEM, the housing should have little effect on the sound coming out of the armature unit/s.

 

[jinx20001]

no think again,its not the design and job it does that is the debate the fact is air must move to create sound,that air is indeed inside your ear canal

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I made some revisions to my post. The very nature of the differences between a large speaker and a tiny armature and how they function means that there will be less vibration and resonances in the housing of an IEM compared to a speaker. The armature is not sending out waves of sound against the inside of the housing; it is sealed within the ear canal and moves the ear drum directly by changing the pressure of the sealed air. The diaphragm and eardrum are connected, in a sense.

 

[jinx20001]

i dont think you understand what the debate is,i know what your saying believe me but what im saying its not how the air is moved its the fact air IS moved,if there was no air there is no sound thats called a vacuum effect,the fact that its moved in a totally different way is beyond the point,the point i was making is air is moved and the air moving inside the earphone creates resonance when enough power is given an the air is vibrating through your canal quicker