[tomscy2000]

Isn't the SM64v1 revised == SM64v2? That's what the modification was, right? To turn the v1 into a v2?
 
Channel imbalance has to do with driver matching (or rather, the lack thereof). Earsonics has never had the best QC, unfortunately.

 

[Mimouille]

Us French are more poets than engineers

Isn't the SM64v1 revised == SM64v2? That's what the modification was, right? To turn the v1 into a v2?

Channel imbalance has to do with driver matching (or rather, the lack thereof). Earsonics has never had the best QC, unfortunately.

 

[rudi0504]

Quote:

If iam not wrong....we are talking 3 different sm64 in this thread....
1. Sm64v1 - this is what rudi and audiowood preferred.
2. Sm64v1 revised - this is what tom yam gung preferred.
3. Sm64v2 - this is what rudi said about channel imbalance.

--- i will confirm with jaben about this channel imbalance before they sent me one.

Yes it's correct Yono 
You can not know before you open the box and hear it by you self 
yesterday my friend has the v2 since Sunday , he has the same like mine Chanel imbalance too.
now he got the new one replacement from another Jaben store .
if you want let Nico open it and try for you , before he send to you .
this the only way to get the right ones .
if you like more forward mid and better mid bass impact than v2 is the right ones for you 
if you want to sell your v1 please let me know , one friend looking for v1
i am now very happy with my v1 replacement sound so good 

Quote:

chanel unbalance X --> channel imbalance O

Thank you for the correction 

 

[muzic4life]

Yes...i think i better go with v2. V1 may has better detail and clarity because of its sparkling highs. But to me the mids is a bit laid back. I need something like sm3v2 but better. I guess sm64v2 will do for me.

-- thanks rudi for your advice. I'll make sure Nico get the right one for me.

 

[TheMarkRemains]

Quote:

Yes...i think i better go with v2. V1 may has better detail and clarity because of its sparkling highs. But to me the mids is a bit laid back. I need something like sm3v2 but better. I guess sm64v2 will do for me.

-- thanks rudi for your advice. I'll make sure Nico get the right one for me.

It's over simplification, but the SM64 is an improved SM3. The "thick" mids are tamed, better extension at both ends, better imaging. Honestly it deserves its own position and not the comparisons, but if that helps you in your considerations...

 

[AmberOzL]

Guys, this summer I am going to France for a little holiday. I am also thinking about buying something from EarSonics. Is it the most neutral/flat/analytical piece from them?
 
I prefer Universal IEM series since CIEMS cost very high and I will not be able to afford it. I can go up to SM64 but I don't want to buy it because it has the highest price. I would buy it if it is rather flat/neutral iem. If not, which ES iem has this sound charecteristics.
 
Thank you in advance and a little note I couldn't read much in the thread (no time for a master student) so please forgive my questions if there is an already answer in the thread.
 
EDIT: I am going to pair it with Fiio X3 DAP which can drive up to 150 ohm cans easily. I believe SM64 wouldn't create any problem with that.

 

[midnightwalker]

I dont think the SM64 is neutral/flat/analytical. It is warm/relax/smooth. If you want neutral/flat/analytical go for the etymotic

 

[AmberOzL]

Quote:

I dont think the SM64 is neutral/flat/analytical. It is warm/relax/smooth. If you want neutral/flat/analytical go for the etymotic

Their fit is a great problem for me I need over the ear hook design.

 

[TheMarkRemains]

Try the SM1. It's 1/3 the price and pretty neutral. Forward mids and bass on the north side of neutral compared to Etymotic. But they're pretty darn nice

 

[midnightwalker]

Their fit is a great problem for me I need over the ear hook design.

Fortunately, it fits me perfectly with the bi-flange tip. Isolation almost 90% compare to my JH16.

 

[Tom Yum Goong]

Here is a french review of the SM64 with some frequenzcy graphs (for the people who care).
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/earsonics-sm64-p15053/test.html#test-complet

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

Here is a french review of the SM64 with some frequenzcy graphs (for the people who care).
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/casque-audio/earsonics-sm64-p15053/test.html#test-complet

Those graphs don't mean anything to anyone without a context (what equipment it was measured on, etc.)

 

[applehead]

I think you can find a headphone (IEM) you're familiar with among those already reviewed and then use that as a general reference point compared to say Purrin or Tyll's graphs though?

In any case, the FR seems to generally match my listening impressions except for the bass, I don't think its boosted that much even with a good seal. There also seems to be a fair amount of distortion (around 1%) in the mids which might be worth looking into.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

I think you can find a headphone (IEM) you're familiar with among those already reviewed and then use that as a general reference point compared to say Purrin or Tyll's graphs though?

In any case, the FR seems to generally match my listening impressions except for the bass, I don't think its boosted that much even with a good seal. There also seems to be a fair amount of distortion (around 1%) in the mids which might be worth looking into.

 
No, that's not how it works.
 
Tyll uses an industry-standard ear simulator (IEC711-style) connected to a manikin. Purrin uses some kind of DIY tube-coupler setup. This, I have no idea. It doesn't look like 2cc, because I know how the various sound signatures look on a 2cc, and that graph definitely doesn't fit right. It's probably just a tube connected to a microphone, which means that these measurements can't be compared to anything else. Besides, the microphone used matters, as well. It needs to be a straight-up pressure-field microphone, not a field-equalized (free, diffuse) microphone. I can't even tell whether or not these graphs are before equalization or after. That's why I stated that these graphs make no sense without knowing what they used and how they measured.

 

[vrln]

Perhaps the distortion is the key to the (reported, never heard Earsonics gear myself unfortunately) euphonic midrange? Just a wild guess though. Looking at Rin´s blog it seems some niche audiophile oriented companies like Final Audio Design are intentionally keeping distortion high in critical areas.
 
If Earsonics are reading this: please try to get your products sold by Thomann.de. That would increase your EU market presence a lot and make it easier for people to try out your products safely. Their warranty service is also superb. It´s very risky to pay 400 euros (+40 euros shipping heh) on a product with little market presence and a reputation for build quality issues. I hope I´ll get the chance to listen to the SM64 someday, but for now I decided to go for the Sony EX-1000 instead. Less risk and I´m happy with them so far.