[Ref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by setmenu I think how well the 'compensation' works depends on one own ear canal dimensions to some extent.[and sonic tastes/experience] Personally I find the peak a bit hot most of the time. I run my own ER4's with a number of tweaks by way of an inline passive filter network. .

the compensation works right IMO if you have a right seal... you may think you have, but you may not have... i thought i had for 4 months and then i discovered the right one and was in ety-heaven

i suggest you view my recent posts, i posted a guide on how to get a good seal...
etys with proper seal is MUCH better experience

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref the compensation works right IMO if you have a right seal... you may think you have, but you may not have... i thought i had for 4 months and then i discovered the right one and was in ety-heaven i suggest you view my recent posts, i posted a guide on how to get a good seal... etys with proper seal is MUCH better experience

Well everyones ear are different, so I guess some people do have issues with fit.
Myself I have tried all manner of fitting depths etc.
My favorite tonal balance is when using the foamies deeply inserted.
I agree they are very sensitive to positioning.
But, I did have still had some issues with a 'hot' region.
Perhaps my regular Stax 4040 headphone setup has clouded my views of
of what I think sounds right....



.

 

[halcyon]

Ear canal is a half-open tube, with a self-resonance frequency at around c. 2.8kHz, when NOT blocked (i.e. natural listening, no headphones - no canalphones).

This varies according to each person (ear canal is not standard size/length from human to human).

When a listener uses IEMs, he is closing the tube fully and shortening it's length to less than half (tube is effectively measured at entrance to concha, not the actual ear canal entrance).

All this raises the resonance up to c. 12-13 kHz (again, varies according to listener and insertion depth).

Now, Etymotic has wisely understood that they need to make the IEMs themselves have the ear canal resonance, because wearing IEMs effectively removes it (or to be more precise, moves it up to past 12 kHz).

Why did they do this? Because they also designed Ety's for audiometric use and it has to simulate natural ear pressure at the tympanic membrane as accurately as possible.

So, Ety has equalized their IEMs to have a self-resonance at c. 2.8kHz, BUT they have failed to take into account the moved canal resonance at above 12 kHz (take a look at the Ety graph: reference vs. ER-4).

This is one source of additional treble energy on the Ety and it should be in deed be tamed.

Also, Etytomic probably understands better than any of us that the 2.8kHz emphasis is a trade-off. It's a crude estimation of what must be compensated for, when IEMs are worn. It's not a 100% accurate fix for naturality and accuracy.

Now, back to the Linkwitz corrective eq for Etys.

The corrective EQ is actually removing part of ears innate canal resonance. This I find a rather odd approach-

Maybe this sounds "good" to Mr. Linkwitz, but a universal correction it surely is not.

If you want to follow his advice, you should try and find the right amount of correction at that frequency. And if you do, try to remove the extra resonance at above 12kHz.

As for his 7.2kHz correction, I find it rather odd, unless he has only slightly inserted his Etys (i.e. not deep enough insertion), in which case the first resonance could occur at roughly that point.

In summary:

- Ety's have a wisely chosen 2.8kHz in-built emphasis (to mimic natural ear canal resonance)
- That emphasis may not be "ideal" for everyone
- Neither is Linkwitz's corrective
- if correcting Ety with EQ, meddle with emphasis / reducing the 2.8kHz emphasis and reducing the above 12kHz canal resonance (although trying to fully compensate for that with an EQ is probably not a good idea)

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon Ear canal is a half-open tube, with a self-resonance frequency at around c. 2.8kHz, when NOT blocked (i.e. natural listening, no headphones - no canalphones). This varies according to each person (ear canal is not standard size/length from human to human). When a listener uses IEMs, he is closing the tube fully and shortening it's length to less than half (tube is effectively measured at entrance to concha, not the actual ear canal entrance). All this raises the resonance up to c. 12-13 kHz (again, varies according to listener and insertion depth). Now, Etymotic has wisely understood that they need to make the IEMs themselves have the ear canal resonance, because wearing IEMs effectively removes it (or to be more precise, moves it up to past 12 kHz). Why did they do this? Because they also designed Ety's for audiometric use and it has to simulate natural ear pressure at the tympanic membrane as accurately as possible. So, Ety has equalized their IEMs to have a self-resonance at c. 2.8kHz, BUT they have failed to take into account the moved canal resonance at above 12 kHz (take a look at the Ety graph: reference vs. ER-4). This is one source of additional treble energy on the Ety and it should be in deed be tamed. Also, Etytomic probably understands better than any of us that the 2.8kHz emphasis is a trade-off. It's a crude estimation of what must be compensated for, when IEMs are worn. It's not a 100% accurate fix for naturality and accuracy. Now, back to the Linkwitz corrective eq for Etys. The corrective EQ is actually removing part of ears innate canal resonance. This I find a rather odd approach- Maybe this sounds "good" to Mr. Linkwitz, but a universal correction it surely is not. If you want to follow his advice, you should try and find the right amount of correction at that frequency. And if you do, try to remove the extra resonance at above 12kHz. As for his 7.2kHz correction, I find it rather odd, unless he has only slightly inserted his Etys (i.e. not deep enough insertion), in which case the first resonance could occur at roughly that point. In summary: - Ety's have a wisely chosen 2.8kHz in-built emphasis (to mimic natural ear canal resonance) - That emphasis may not be "ideal" for everyone - Neither is Linkwitz's corrective - if correcting Ety with EQ, meddle with emphasis / reducing the 2.8kHz emphasis and reducing the above 12kHz canal resonance (although trying to fully compensate for that with an EQ is probably not a good idea)

I tried the linkwitz filter/values and did not like it much.
What are your thoughts on adding some lift to compensate for the phones HF roll off?
I found doing the above helps balance the hot region by highlighting it less.



.

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halcyon So, Ety has equalized their IEMs to have a self-resonance at c. 2.8kHz, BUT they have failed to take into account the moved canal resonance at above 12 kHz (take a look at the Ety graph: reference vs. ER-4).

As I read the graph, this treble bump is there regardless of any ear canal related effects and seems to correspond to the resonance that speaker drivers exhibit close to the upper end of their working range.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgrossklass As I read the graph, this treble bump is there regardless of any ear canal related effects and seems to correspond to the resonance that speaker drivers exhibit close to the upper end of their working range.

??

Do you mean it's a etymotic's amarature driver side-effect?

Could be, but the canal resonance is also in that range (when IEMs are worn properly), whether there's a driver emphasis or not.

BTW, I'm not aware of all the speaker drivers (treble), but the ones I know measure very cleanly up to 18-22 kHz with no added emphasis.

Maybe you meant something else and I misunderstood you?