[fonkepala]

You have forced me to order the Datura Pro (Lucky Bag). I had resisted since it was announced....but for $19.69...

Haha. First purchase of the new year?

As a side note, can someone compare the Datura Pro to the EA buds?

 

[mbwilson111]

Haha. First purchase of the new year?

As a side note, can someone compare the Datura Pro to the EA buds?

...or maybe my last?

 

[csglinux]

US $4.75 5%OFF | Earphone ear pads Rubber ring of headset size 14.5mm
https://a.aliexpress.com/2ljTaG52

PM me and I can mail you some spares if you want.

Thanks for the offer @antdroid - pm on its way....! Do you use these over the top of a full foam?

BTW, I understand your comment about the difficulty in measuring these earbuds. I use one of these canal extenders. The earbuds rest on the opening in much the same way they'd rest
against the ear-canal opening:

 

[robar]

Thanks for the offer @antdroid - pm on its way....! Do you use these over the top of a full foam?

BTW, I understand your comment about the difficulty in measuring these earbuds. I use one of these canal extenders. The earbuds rest on the opening in much the same way they'd rest
against the ear-canal opening:

Could you share raw uncompensated measurements in the future? I find it really hard to decipher these kinds of compensated graphs (above 1khz) when the actual compensation curve is unknown to me. Or do you have a graph of the actual compensation itself? This would be really useful to me, thanks

 

[baskingshark]

Thanks for you quick answer! So is there any advantage of the Datura Pro over the BK2? You said a bunch of things that the BK2 does better, but is there any selling point of the Datura Pro in terms of sound quality? These roughly cost the same at the moment so they are very interesting alternatives to each other for me.

By QC I was thinking more about actual manufacturing consistency from unit to unit. About the BK2 I read quite a number of complaints from loose mmcx connectors to inconsistent tuning between multiple units etc. Also I had two B40s and none of them were in useable condition when I received them, and I wasn't the only one with problems. I found a number of QC problem feedback about eb2 too. So I would be more comfortable with buying a Faaeal which feels like a more serious/trustworthy manufacturer for me. I have zero problem with fixed cables so that's not a big deal for me.

I've only had a day with the Datura Pro, but if I had to choose one, I'll still take the BK2 due to:
1) BK2 has better bass quantity/extension (I'm basshead).
2) The Datura Pro doesn't seem to fit me as well as the BK2.
3) The technicalities (instrument separation, clarity, details, imaging) are better on the BK2, but I suspect I'm also not getting an optimal fit with the Datura Pro.

I think if u want a more midcentric focused tuning, the Datura Pro is better in this area, the lower mids are more forward than the upper mids to me, so it is excellent for male vocals in general. Datura Pro may not be very versatile due to the midcentric focus with bass roll off, BK2 is more suitable for most genres.

QC wise, I read some feedback in the CHIFI thread on headfi that the Hibiscus had some defects on the shell. As for inter unit variation, it is not surprising at the budget CHIFI pricing, so it really is quite luck dependent on what you will get.

The Datura Pro is non detachable, but it does look well built and the cable is very thick and well braided, shell looks sturdy enough for me.

You have forced me to order the Datura Pro (Lucky Bag). I had resisted since it was announced....but for $19.69...

I'm pretty sure you own something higher end than the Datura Pro. Or maybe u can save money by borrowing @HungryPanda 's set to have a listen haha.

 

[robar]

I've only had a day with the Datura Pro, but if I had to choose one, I'll still take the BK2 due to:
1) BK2 has better bass quantity/extension (I'm basshead).
2) The Datura Pro doesn't seem to fit me as well as the BK2.
3) The technicalities (instrument separation, clarity, details, imaging) are better on the BK2, but I suspect I'm also not getting an optimal fit with the Datura Pro.

I think if u want a more midcentric focused tuning, the Datura Pro is better in this area, the lower mids are more forward than the upper mids to me, so it is excellent for male vocals in general. Datura Pro may not be very versatile due to the midcentric focus with bass roll off, BK2 is more suitable for most genres.

QC wise, I read some feedback in the CHIFI thread on headfi that the Hibiscus had some defects on the shell. As for inter unit variation, it is not surprising at the budget CHIFI pricing, so it really is quite luck dependent on what you will get.

The Datura Pro is non detachable, but it does look well built and the cable is very thick and well braided, shell looks sturdy enough for me.



I'm pretty sure you own something higher end than the Datura Pro. Or maybe u can save money by borrowing @HungryPanda 's set to have a listen haha.

Thanks for your detailed impressions I'll probably skip the datura pro then, I prefer a full sound signature that somewhat resembles the experience of headphones/speakers. The mids/highs might be excellent, but if the lower third is lackluster it won't suit my preferences.
Does anyone know if there is something around 20-30usd that is better or at least viable alternative to BK2 that doesn't lack bass and not high impedance? How is the he150pro compared to it btw? Maybe willsounds? Has anyone tried this red black version? http://www.rholupat.com/willsound-mk2-nv1.html

 

[antdroid]

Thanks for the offer @antdroid - pm on its way....! Do you use these over the top of a full foam?

BTW, I understand your comment about the difficulty in measuring these earbuds. I use one of these canal extenders. The earbuds rest on the opening in much the same way they'd rest
against the ear-canal opening:

Where did you find the extender? As you probably know, I have the same coupler. I have done some measurements on EARS with earbuds but I don't think they totally work out right.

 

[csglinux]

Could you share raw uncompensated measurements in the future? I find it really hard to decipher these kinds of compensated graphs (above 1khz) when the actual compensation curve is unknown to me. Or do you have a graph of the actual compensation itself? This would be really useful to me, thanks

Those graphs are raw. No compensation of any kind.

Where did you find the extender? As you probably know, I have the same coupler. I have done some measurements on EARS with earbuds but I don't think they totally work out right.

I just happened to get one included in one of the clone 711 couplers I bought. I think they're available separately on Taobao.

 

[ClieOS]

BTR5 balanced out + Maria = Happy camper.

 

[GREQ]

Could you share raw uncompensated measurements in the future? I find it really hard to decipher these kinds of compensated graphs (above 1khz) when the actual compensation curve is unknown to me. Or do you have a graph of the actual compensation itself? This would be really useful to me, thanks

Uncompensated graphs won't make it any easier to read, as the results will still greatly differ from any other measuring system.
The whole point of compensation is to bring the measuring systems closer together. Using uncompensated graphs only sets them further apart.
Realistically, the only comparison you can ever make is from multiple graphs made by a single system.

 

[robar]

Those graphs are raw. No compensation of any kind..

Interesting, aren't you using the measurement system's own compensation or something? I see that the overall the graph looks quite natural not skewed like those with the popular compensations, or with "vacuum mics". It's quite similar in the lower and higher regions to what I see usually. But a raw graph should show a big slow bump from 1-2khz peaking at around 3-5khz, we should see something in the middle that resembles the harman curve, a big hump of 5-12dB concentrated on the upper mids/lower treble. I measure with a simple field recorder (tascam dr05) and I get the expected shapes (like Tyll's raw graphs etc) Is it this hump that your gear eliminates? That would be nice actually, but still messes up my mind haha, and the exact amount + range is still unknown.

Uncompensated graphs won't make it any easier to read, as the results will still greatly differ from any other measuring system.
The whole point of compensation is to bring the measuring systems closer together. Using uncompensated graphs only sets them further apart.
Realistically, the only comparison you can ever make is from multiple graphs made by a single system.

I have to disagree, random compensations that are not disclosed and not used purposefully are just misleading and don't help anybody. Most types of trendy compensation curves just make a false sense of the actual curve by distoring it heavily, and people who don't have an idea about the processing behind it completely took it for an actual representation of the sound signature. A raw response is the universal language which could be understood easily, just compare it to your favorite target curve like one of the harman curves or the rtings curve. Alternatively the best method would be to compensate with the inverse of an ideal target curve, but in most places they use something completely different like diffuse field or something bundled with the mic. I can quote Tyll's thought on this from innerfidelity, he actually find the raw graphs the most useful and he has a long article analyzing the raw graphs of classic headphones against the harman curve. You can't do anything like this with a vacuum measured plus heavily distorted graph.
"Over time I've come to look much more at the raw, uncompensated curves than the compensated plot, primarily because I know the ID (or DF or FF) compensation curves are not quite correct. When I look at the frequency response plots above with an eye towards understanding its tonal balance, I am primarily looking at the raw response plots and mentally comparing them to what I understand of the Harman Target Response. "
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-two

 

[GREQ]

Interesting, aren't you using the measurement system's own compensation or something? I see that the overall the graph looks quite natural not skewed like those with the popular compensations, or "vacuum mics", similar in the lower and higher regions to what I see usually. But a raw graph should show a big slow bump from 1-2khz peaking at around 3-5khz, we should see something in the middle that resembles the harman curve, a big hump of 5-12dB concentrated on the upper mids/lower treble. I measure with a simple field recorder (tascam dr05) and I get the expected shapes (like Tyll's raw graphs etc) Is it this hump that your gear eliminates? That would be nice actually, but still messes up my mind haha


I have to disagree, random compensations that are not disclosed and not used purposefully are just misleading and don't help anybody. Most types of trendy compensation curves just make a false sense of the actual curve by distoring it heavily, and people who don't have an idea about the processing behind it completely took it for an actual representation of the sound signature. A raw response is the universal language which could be understood easily, just compare it to your favorite target curve like one of the harman curves or the rtings curve. Alternatively the best method would be to compensate with the inverse of an ideal target curve, but in most places they use something completely different like diffuse field or something. I can quote Tyll's thought on this from innerfidelity, he actually find the raw graphs the most useful and he has a long article analyzing the raw graphs of classic headphones against the harman curve. You can't do anything like this with a vacuum measured plus heavily distorted graph.
"Over time I've come to look much more at the raw, uncompensated curves than the compensated plot, primarily because I know the ID (or DF or FF) compensation curves are not quite correct. When I look at the frequency response plots above with an eye towards understanding its tonal balance, I am primarily looking at the raw response plots and mentally comparing them to what I understand of the Harman Target Response. "
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-two

I have to disagree with your opinion.
Compensated graphs are neither misleading or unhelpful.
The biggest problem is understanding that there is no standard way to measure earbuds. No existing rig correctly fits an earbud.
Then the following questions arise:
• Do you measure with foam or without form, or both?
• Should there be multiple rig types to account for different methods of how earbuds are worn?
Both of which exponentially spawn more questions that nobody has the answer to.

Also, comparing uncompensated graphs between systems is actually even more misleading, because each system/rig has their own unique faults, leading to different problems in the graphs that make them even less comparable.
There is no 'actual' representation of the sound signature even in the most expensive systems. The only thing the high-end systems offer is much more accurate repeatability of measurements and higher accuracy of measurements.
How you chose to read them, compensated or uncompensated is purely subjective to your own experiences and what you are used to. There is no right or wrong.

The best solution is one where the earbud foam, pressure around the 'canal'/opening and positions can be tested with accuracy, and a database of measurements created based on this strong foundation of repeatability.
Then it matters little if the graphs are compensated or uncompensated, because graphs will be comparable to a database. Unfortunately, no such solution or database yet exists.

Remember that graph compensation, especially on these 'hobbyist' level rigs has more to do with 'fixing' microphone, dummy-canal and rig problems than 'distorting the truth' of a measurement.

 

[robar]

I have to disagree with your opinion.
Compensated graphs are neither misleading or unhelpful.
The biggest problem is understanding that there is no standard way to measure earbuds. No existing rig correctly fits an earbud.
Then the following questions arise:
• Do you measure with foam or without form, or both?
• Should there be multiple rig types to account for different methods of how earbuds are worn?
Both of which exponentially spawn more questions that nobody has the answer to.

Also, comparing uncompensated graphs between systems is actually even more misleading, because each system/rig has their own unique faults, leading to different problems in the graphs that make them even less comparable.
There is no 'actual' representation of the sound signature even in the most expensive systems. The only thing the high-end systems offer is much more accurate repeatability of measurements and higher accuracy of measurements.
How you chose to read them, compensated or uncompensated is purely subjective to your own experiences and what you are used to. There is no right or wrong.

The best solution is one where the earbud foam, pressure around the 'canal'/opening and positions can be tested with accuracy, and a database of measurements created based on this strong foundation of repeatability.
Then it matters little if the graphs are compensated or uncompensated, because graphs will be comparable to a database. Unfortunately, no such solution or database yet exists.

Remember that graph compensation, especially on these 'hobbyist' level rigs has more to do with 'fixing' microphone, dummy-canal and rig problems than 'distorting the truth' of a measurement.

this is what I'm not agreeing about - 99% of the compensations I see in review sites, hobbyist etc. doesn't use a compensation that fixes the resonances in the mic, but a compensation that is totally arbitrary or trendy at the moment. (or use mics for iems to measure earbuds) And even with compensation the faults/resonances of the measurement system are often propagated. But in a raw graph with natural seal in my opinion 1-2dB of difference at lets say 10khz is not a deal breaker issue, the general sense of soundsig is preserved. I highly suggest to read the two articles I linked. I don't talk about 100% repeatable and widely comparable scientific measurements, I talk about the kind of measurement graphs that actually say something worthwhile about the sound signature of an earphone - a reviewer's measurement. There will never be a universal solution for earbuds because it's too dependent on the individuals ears etc, but a general sense of how it sounds could be easily achieved. Just by pushing my earbuds with foam against the mic of my tascam I get fairly nice and repeatable results (type of foam has only slight effect here because it's pushed against a flat surface not inside an ear - the seal is formed by pushing) I've just read a comment in another thread where somebody tried to compare the compensated graphs of his favorite iems to a harman curve and didn't understand what's going on - now this kind of facepalm moments it would be nice to avoid.

 

[GREQ]

this is what I'm not agreeing about - 99% of the compensations I see in review sites, hobbyist etc. doesn't use a compensation that fixes the resonances in the mic, but a compensation that is totally arbitrary or trendy at the moment. .

The problem here, is that I see no evidence of it.
Can you please provide some proof?

 

[robar]

The problem here, is that I see no evidence of it.
Can you please provide some proof?

The proof is that you can see very few graphs of earbuds that resembles a proper raw response, or any ideal target curve. They look nothing like measurements from iems/headphones which have well designed mic setups.

I added that probably many people use iem/vacuum (don't know what's the proper term) setups to measure earbuds and that's the main problem, even if the graph itself is raw. Just look at any graph that has a perfectly flat bass response then a heavy roll off towards the treble. Adding an additional compensation on top (which was intended to be used with natural seal measurements) makes things even worse. For example look up the graph of the datura pro on the aliexpress page. Please nobody think that it has a ruler flat bass response like an audeze lol, then a 20dB dip in the midrange, total nonsense to show these kinds of graphs to consumers imho. That's a technical spec but has nothing to do with how it will sound in our ears (in contrast to proper graphs of headphone manufacturers, like massdrop graphs of hd58x) Or compare measurements of iems and earbuds from audiobudget. He is transparent about his process and his raw iem graphs looks nice (similar to rtings raw graphs, apart from the constant dips around 7-8khz) but probably uses the exact same iem setup with earbuds, and you can see that they look nothing like iem graphs. I can speak of experience that not only the proportions but the landmarks and unique characterestics of the qian69 are totally disappeared from his graph. Of course he stated that his graphs are only comparable to one another etc, but it's still misleading and not useful at all to be honest. And then people start to treat these graphs as proper headphone measurements and start to analyze it at face value, based on skewed data.

So in my opinion a very important step in the earbud field would be to adopt a measuring setup that provides with a natural seal.
Innerfidelity raw graphs are nice and csglinux's graphs are pretty nice too, I just don't understand what happened between 2-6khz haha (I guess it naturally compensates for the bump if it simulates a real ear canal, but it would be nice to reverse engineer exactly what effect it has on the raw response.) I think this is the way to measure buds, to push them against a cylindrical mic about the same diameter as the bud itself or putting it in an artificial ear and posting averaged raw graphs.