[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Didn't I just say I preferred a slightly boosted lower midrange? Furthermore, did I ever say I that I did prefer a boosted upper midrange? What I did say was that, in terms of sheer amount, no IEM matches the ER4 for upper midrange (above 1kHz) presence. Whether or not this sounds good to an individual is a matter of personal preference. I equalize the upper midrange out of my ER4s, and boost the bass and lower midrange. It's darker than an unEQ'd ER4, but still brighter than a Shure. I think it is just perfect. I wish someone would produce an IEM that sounds like this intrinsically. Also, the ER4s (S) actually have a high-frequency rolloff engineered into them, about 5dB down at 10kHz.

easy fella i didnt want to upset anybody lol

its all a debate,were all here to ave a banter relax yaself

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, the ER4s (S) actually have a high-frequency rolloff engineered into them, about 5dB down at 10kHz.

thats an interesting point tho i didnt know that,something to use against those ety fan boys now lol

 

[xnothingpoetic]

for those who say the e500 don't have a treble roll off...

All armatures (I believe) drop off at 20,000hz

but the e500s begin to drop off wayyy before then.

NOTE: this graph is not saying which is "better", because that changes from person to person, but I am trying to show that it DOSE have a big roll off from around 2,000 to 20,000hz

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Also, that ER4 readout is incorrect. The ER4B graph is correct.

 

[jinx20001]

yep we all knew it rolled off,some say its bad some say its ok,i love it personally,less fatigue,less sibilance and still beautiful at about 4khz

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Well, I'm not sure I accept that one graph as THE authority.

I would like to know about thse graphs in general:

(1) what do we know about the frequency curve after it passes into the real ear canal? i.e. have we placed mic's in a real ear canal just next to the TM, or have we only used fake ear models which may have different resonances?

(2) How do loudspeakers with flat 20hz-20khz frequency curve (ok, +/- 3db to be fair) look to the same microphone inside the fake ear?

(3) How does the frequency curve/timing/phase accuracy affect the way our brain interprets the sound we hear? We know that sound entering the ear will be complex - direct into the canal, reflected off the pinna, reflected off the walls, louder to one ear than the other, and timing to one ear different than the other. Room acoustics also play a big roll.

Somehow, the way the SE500's are built or designed enhances the experience to make it more "lifelike" or real. Do we know the SE500's roll-off doesn't in some way contribute to that?

This is true curiosity, not disagreement or denial.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

(1) what do we know about the frequency curve after it passes into the real ear canal? i.e. have we placed mic's in a real ear canal just next to the TM, or have we only used fake ear models which may have different resonances?

I don't know about headroom, but Etymotic has done a great deal of research with real human ears. It is their business, after all. As for HeadRoom's measurements, the dummy head's own HRTF and resonances are subtracted from the measurement to get the final result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadRoom The material is designed to have the same acoustic absorption characteristics as human skin and bone. Wolfie has ear canals, too. At the bottom of each is a calibrated instrumentation microphone. When we place a pair of headphones on this head, the overall acoustic coupling to the microphones is just like it would be on the “average” human. The acoustic response of each head is measured before leaving the factory and calibration curves are sent along with each head. We use these curves to subtract from our measurements to get our reference for “flat”.

Quote:

(2) How do loudspeakers with flat 20hz-20khz frequency curve (ok, +/- 3db to be fair) look to the same microphone inside the fake ear?

The readout would probably have peaks and dips all over it.

Quote:

(3) How does the frequency curve/timing/phase accuracy affect the way our brain interprets the sound we hear? We know that sound entering the ear will be complex - direct into the canal, reflected off the pinna, reflected off the walls, louder to one ear than the other, and timing to one ear different than the other. Room acoustics also play a big roll.

Time delay from one ear to another is the primary way we determine the direction a sound came from. There are also things like normal treble roll off with distance.

Quote:

Somehow, the way the SE500's are built or designed enhances the experience to make it more "lifelike" or real. Do we know the SE500's roll-off doesn't in some way contribute to that?

Personally, I think shure products roll off a little too harshly. Sound doesn't have that kind of treble attenuation unless you're fairly far away from the source.

 

[xnothingpoetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif (1) what do we know about the frequency curve after it passes into the real ear canal? i.e. have we placed mic's in a real ear canal just next to the TM, or have we only used fake ear models which may have different resonances?

Headroom uses a $50,000 dummy head with life-like ears and it also has ear canals like we do, but at the end is a mic.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Accentuated highs aren't more detail. It's treble brightness. There are details to be portrayed at all frequencies. <snip>

+1

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Somehow, the way the SE500's are built or designed enhances the experience to make it more "lifelike" or real. Do we know the SE500's roll-off doesn't in some way contribute to that?

Quote:

Personally, I think shure products roll off a little too harshly. Sound doesn't have that kind of treble attenuation unless you're fairly far away from the source.

So, the "roll-off" could explain some of the Shure's improved imaging that tells the brain that the musicians are 10 feet away and not inside your head?

 

[Stoney]

I can't exactly call what the Shures do as "imaging."

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't exactly call what the Shures do as "imaging."

well the E500s do have some of the best imaging, but so do the other triple drivers I have tried. What is special in the shures, is their soundstage, is much more lifelike.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Accentuated highs aren't more detail. It's treble brightness. There are details to be portrayed at all frequencies.

but it's not that er-4 has accentuated highs as much as other iem's have rolled off highs

 

[Mr Iriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellsprout /img/forum/go_quote.gif but it's not that er-4 has accentuated highs as much as other iem's have rolled off highs

Nope not really. The ER4 have this accentuation no other thing i know of has. I see people claiming the UE10 to be an improved ER4, and the truth is the UE10 and SE530 are close to each other than they are to the ER4. The shure SE530 many claim to be rolled off, yet it extends much more before starting to roll off than a lot of headphones (not just IEMS but anything). Lacking bass, plus innacurate decay seems to me is responsible for that illusion of extra detail.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

To me, now that I've had more experience, the ER4s really do seem to have a very strong high-frequency emphasis.

As for the inaccurate decay, well, to me that's a dumb thing to say, but whatever.