[MattDotZeb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalithian /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you listen to genres where bass makes it sound more fun then they're not the best for that. Rap and other genres are not the only ones it's nice to have solid bass in, either.

I listen to a lot of EDM and Hardstyle, so I require my bass.
It was posted the NE-7Ms are better than/equal to the ERs in sound quality anyway, with stronger bass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a pair of Ne-7m's on the way though.

When you receive them would you mind posting your findings?

Also, off topic, my GF went to Pasadena in 2007 to participate in a Drum Core show, said it's a very nice place.

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalPenguin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quite simply, nothing will beat an ER 6i in isolation. Their sound is not bad by any means if you just give them some time and listen rather than shake your head to the bass. They're honest phones rather than whatmostpeoplewanttohear phones. If you listen to them for a couple weeks you ought to grow to enjoy them unless your music is repeated bass notes with occasional whoooooops and continuous rhythmic speaking containing great amounts of slang and profanity. If you get what I mean. But if isolation is important for you, if you want super drooly bass, you'll have to spend a bit more on some Image X10s or something.

Honest phones reveal the bass section in the source when there is, in fact, a bass line. I'm not talking about boomy bass beats. The Er-6i's fail in this way most significantly when the bass line is soft.

Try them with well recorded choral music or jazz with a subtle string bass. A good headphone, like the DT880 (which is not at all bass heavy) gives you all the details - across the entire frequency curve - including the bass line, however soft. With the Er-6i's, string bass is virtually lost and the bass section in choral recordings is often altogether absent despite the fact that it would be plainly audible if you were there for the live performance. Choral music without the foundational, resonant bass line isn't just unexciting, it is sad and incomplete. This is the antithesis of hifi.

Please don't pretend that the Er-6i's are better than they actually are. You're simply misleading other readers.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honest phones reveal the bass section in the source when there is, in fact, a bass line. I'm not talking about boomy bass beats. The Er-6i's fail in this way most significantly when the bass line is soft. Try them with well recorded choral music or jazz with a subtle string bass. A good headphone, like the DT880 (which is not at all bass heavy) gives you all the details - across the entire frequency curve - including the bass line, however soft. With the Er-6i's, string bass is virtually lost and the bass section in choral recordings is often altogether absent despite the fact that it would be plainly audible if you were there for the live performance. Choral music without the foundational, resonant bass line isn't just unexciting, it is sad and incomplete. This is the antithesis of hifi. Please don't pretend that the Er-6i's are better than they actually are. You're simply misleading other readers.

Bass is made by moving air. The reason DT880s can reproduce those low notes is they can move a lot more air than tiny drivers in IEMs. No headphone will ever reproduce the bass a loud speaker can. Real bass is felt and heard.

Your are simply misleading readers if you are suggesting any headphone can reproduce real deep bass.

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bass is made by moving air. The reason DT880s can reproduce those low notes is they can move a lot more air than tiny drivers in IEMs. No headphone will ever reproduce the bass a loud speaker can. Real bass is felt and heard. Your are simply misleading readers if you are suggesting any headphone can reproduce real deep bass.

This is nonsense.

The bass of the bass section in a choir is heard, not felt - and many transducers are perfectly capable of reproducing such frequencies with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Decent speakers and headphones (both full sized and in-ear) can handle this simple task, but to my ears, and to the ears of many others on this board, the Er-6i's fall short.

The post I was responding to attempted to belittle any criticism of the Er-6i's by dismissing their de minimus bass output as something that would only bother a listener whose, "music is repeated bass notes with occasional whoooooops and continuous rhythmic speaking containing great amounts of slang and profanity."

This is false, and just as you have felt more than free to repeatedly bash the ne-7m's in a reiterated chorus of self-aggrandizing criticism, I feel free to share my opinion on the Er-6i's in a thread where such opinions have been requested by the OP. Have you actually heard the Er-6i? If so, maybe you could share a comment that would actually be germane to this discussion...

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattDotZeb /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you receive them would you mind posting your findings? Also, off topic, my GF went to Pasadena in 2007 to participate in a Drum Core show, said it's a very nice place.

Just noticed your edit Matt. Yes, I'll be sure to share my thoughts once my ne-7m's arrive, and after I give them a night or two to burn, as recommended.

Glad to hear your GF enjoyed Pasadena! It's not too bad a place at all if you're living and working in/around LA

 

[Zalithian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattDotZeb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I listen to a lot of EDM and Hardstyle, so I require my bass. It was posted the NE-7Ms are better than/equal to the ERs in sound quality anyway, with stronger bass. When you receive them would you mind posting your findings? Also, off topic, my GF went to Pasadena in 2007 to participate in a Drum Core show, said it's a very nice place.

I have some coming either today or tomorrow hopefully so I will post my thoughts as well. I have a pair of ER6i's too, broken now but I did use them extensively for a while so hopefully I can come up with a valid comparison.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is nonsense. The bass of the bass section in a choir is heard, not felt - and many transducers are perfectly capable of reproducing such frequencies with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Decent speakers and headphones (both full sized and in-ear) can handle this simple task, but to my ears, and to the ears of many others on this board, the Er-6i's fall short.

You said " A good headphone, like the DT880 (which is not at all bass heavy) gives you all the details - across the entire frequency curve - including the bass line, however soft. "

Which lead to my response. Comparing a full size open headphone's low frequency response to an IEM is dubious and disingenuous. That is all I was pointing out.


Quote:

This is false, and just as you have felt more than free to repeatedly bash the ne-7m's in a reiterated chorus of self-aggrandizing criticism, I feel free to share my opinion on the Er-6i's in a thread where such opinions have been requested by the OP. Have you actually heard the Er-6i? If so, maybe you could share a comment that would actually be germane to this discussion...

What is false? My having heard the er6i has nothing to do with mechanism of bass reproduction. It is fact that bass is reproduced by moving large volumes of air. You need a large driver to do it accurately. A point you brought up first by using a large driver "open" full size headphone as an example compared to the er6i. Which is pretty misleading.

Please explain why you think the Dt880 makes a good example for bass reproduction in IEMs and why it is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Also explain why you think what I claimed about bass reproduction is false.

Try and lay off the ad hominem attacks. It is in very poor taste.

I gave my opinion on the NE-7M. If people hadn't tried to tell me 1) it must be your ear canals 2) Or a defective pair or whatever they felt needed to convince me that the NE-7Ms were faultless. I wouldn't have mentioned anything about my background with audio. I am not the only person who didn't like the NE-7Ms.

In fact I kept them and did everything I read about to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong. I sent the NE-7Ms back today because it wasn't worth all the work. I have remained objective about them and even recommended them to people who I thought might like the sound signature.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif You said " A good headphone, like the DT880 (which is not at all bass heavy) gives you all the details - across the entire frequency curve - including the bass line, however soft. " Which lead to my response. Comparing a full size open headphone's low frequency response to an IEM is dubious and disingenuous. That is all I was pointing out. What is false? My having heard the er6i has nothing to do with mechanism of bass reproduction. It is fact that bass is reproduced by moving large volumes of air. You need a large driver to do it accurately. A point you brought up first by using a large driver "open" full size headphone as an example compared to the er6i. Which is pretty misleading. Please explain why you think the Dt880 makes a good example for bass reproduction in IEMs and why it is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Also explain why you think what I claimed about bass reproduction is false. Try and lay off the ad hominem attacks. It is in very poor taste. I gave my opinion on the NE-7M. If people hadn't tried to tell me 1) it must be your ear canals 2) Or a defective pair or whatever they felt needed to convince me that the NE-7Ms were faultless. I wouldn't have mentioned anything about my background with audio. I am not the only person who didn't like the NE-7Ms. In fact I kept them and did everything I read about to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong. I sent the NE-7Ms back today because it wasn't worth all the work. I have remained objective about them and even recommended them to people who I thought might like the sound signature.

IEM produce bass by moving a small amount of air within the ear canal. Many of them produce deep bass just fine. I can easy hear 16Hz notes with my NE-7M but not on my more expensive Westone 3 with 3-drivers.

 

[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try and lay off the ad hominem attacks. It is in very poor taste.

It's more than a little humorous that you attempt to assume a moral high horse with respect to ad hominems right after calling me misleading, dubious, and disingenuous based on an analogy that I never made.

Scroll back up and make sure you read carefully this time since I know your urge is just to hit reply and blast me with a bunch of unwarranted invective yet again.

My post referencing the 880's was with respect to the issue of what does or does not constitute "honest phones," as TacticalPenguin characterized the Er-6i's. However, at no point did I state or suggest that any IEM was going to match the sound signature or experience of listening to the 880s.
Rather my position is that: "many transducers are perfectly capable of reproducing [audible bass] frequencies with a reasonable degree of accuracy." The Er-6i simply is not one of them, at least to my ears.

What I referred to as "false" - as plainly stated in my last post - is the notion that the de minimus bass output from the Er-6i's is "something that would only bother a listener whose, 'music is repeated bass notes with occasional whoooooops and continuous rhythmic speaking containing great amounts of slang and profanity.'" (See again the post by TacticalPenguin.) This disparaging hyperbole is clearly inaccurate. Choral music, classical music, and jazz all suffer from the deficient bass of the Er-6i.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Or have I been correct in assuming that you have never actually heard the Er-6i?

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalithian /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have some coming either today or tomorrow hopefully so I will post my thoughts as well. I have a pair of ER6i's too, broken now but I did use them extensively for a while so hopefully I can come up with a valid comparison.

Dont forget these have dynamic drivers and they benefit from 50-80 hours of burn-in.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif IEM produce bass by moving a small amount of air within the ear canal. Many of them produce deep bass just fine. I can easy hear 16Hz notes with my NE-7M but not on my more expensive Westone 3 with 3-drivers.

That's because the NE-7M is probably not really reproducing the 16Hz note but the driver is reproducing something higher. Bass notes I expected to be lower were reproduced at a higher frequencies. Which is why I have been claiming they are inaccurate.

Humans can't hear below 20Hz. If you are hearing it then it certainly isn't 16Hz. Anything below 20Hz is infrasonic and felt rather than heard.

I suspect the more expensive 3 driver IEM is working correctly here.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's because the NE-7M is probably not really reproducing the 16Hz note but the driver is reproducing something higher. Bass notes I expected to be lower were reproduced at a higher frequencies. Which is why I have been claiming they are inaccurate. Humans can't hear below 20Hz. If you are hearing it then it certainly isn't 16Hz. Anything below 20Hz is infrasonic and felt rather than heard. I suspect the more expensive 3 driver IEM is working correctly here.

All humans have a body temperature of 98.6 degrees farenheit, so if I take the temperature of one of my patients and it's 98.0 then that must not be possible either? There are variations among humans. Don't try telling a doctor he's wrong about that without proof.

Frequency Range of Human Hearing

Bibliographic EntryResult (w/surrounding text)Standardized Result

Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1998: 466."Experiments have shown that a healthy young person hears all sound frequencies from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz."20-20,000 Hz

"Ear". Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 2000."The maximum range of human hearing includes sound frequencies from about 15 to about 18,000 waves, or cycles, per second."15-18,000 Hz

Acoustics. National Physical Laboratory (NPL), 2003."The general range of hearing for young people is 20 Hz to 20 kHz."20-20,000 Hz

"Body, Human." The New Book of Knowledge. New York: Grolier, 1967: 285.
"The human ear can hear vibrations ranging from 15 or 16 a second to 20,000 a second."15 or 16-20,000 Hz

Caldarelli, David D. and Ruth S. Campanella. Ear. World Book Online Americas Edition. 26 May 2003."The full range of human hearing extends from 20 to 20,000 hertz."20-20,000 Hz

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's more than a little humorous that you attempt to assume a moral high horse with respect to ad hominems right after calling me misleading, dubious, and disingenuous based on an analogy that I never made. Scroll back up and make sure you read carefully this time since I know your urge is just to hit reply and blast me with a bunch of unwarranted invective yet again.

Calling some one misleading is not ad hominem, which BTW you called tacticalpenguin first without provocation. Calling some one self-aggrandizing is ad hominem. I think you are the one that needs to read my reply to you carefully.

Quote:

My post referencing the 880's was with respect to the issue of what does or does not constitute "honest phones," as TacticalPenguin characterized the Er-6i's. However, at no point did I state or suggest that any IEM was going to match the sound signature or experience of listening to the 880s.

Why bring up a full size phone as an example of an honest phone when we are discussing IEMs? By making that comparison you implicitly implied as such.

Quote:

Rather my position is that: "many transducers are perfectly capable of reproducing [audible bass] frequencies with a reasonable degree of accuracy." The Er-6i simply is not one of them, at least to my ears.

Not in tiny earphones. There is a reason why subwoofers used 10"-18" transducers.

Quote:

What I referred to as "false" - as plainly stated in my last post - is the notion that the de minimus bass output from the Er-6i's is "something that would only bother a listener whose, 'music is repeated bass notes with occasional whoooooops and continuous rhythmic speaking containing great amounts of slang and profanity.'" (See again the post by TacticalPenguin.) This disparaging hyperbole is clearly inaccurate. Choral music, classical music, and jazz all suffer from the deficient bass of the Er-6i.

You were responding to my post. Nothing in my post talked about Hip-Hop or Choral music. So try and keep context.

Quote:

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Or have I been correct in assuming that you have never actually heard the Er-6i?

Again besides the point. Go read the thread again. I didn't claim that the er-6i produced deep bass. If I did please be kind enough to point it out.

I found your use of DT880 to contrast with an IEM objectionable and dubious.

I really am not interested in a long drawn out discussion. So I apologize if I offended you.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif All humans have a body temperature of 98.6 degrees farenheit, so if I take the temperature of one of my patients and it's 98.0 then that must not be possible either? There are variations among humans. Don't try telling a doctor he's wrong about that without proof.

That's a non sequitur. Body temperature is not a human capability. Unless humans can regulate their temperature at will you example isn't a good one.

For example, Most humans can run. It is safe to say humans can't run at 40 mph. The fastest measured is 27-28 MPh. That is a capability and it has a limit.

Hearing is a capability. Something that has been measured and also has limits.

Quote:

Frequency Range of Human Hearing Bibliographic EntryResult (w/surrounding text)Standardized Result Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1998: 466."Experiments have shown that a healthy young person hears all sound frequencies from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz."20-20,000 Hz "Ear". Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 2000."The maximum range of human hearing includes sound frequencies from about 15 to about 18,000 waves, or cycles, per second."15-18,000 Hz Acoustics. National Physical Laboratory (NPL), 2003."The general range of hearing for young people is 20 Hz to 20 kHz."20-20,000 Hz "Body, Human." The New Book of Knowledge. New York: Grolier, 1967: 285. "The human ear can hear vibrations ranging from 15 or 16 a second to 20,000 a second."15 or 16-20,000 Hz Caldarelli, David D. and Ruth S. Campanella. Ear. World Book Online Americas Edition. 26 May 2003."The full range of human hearing extends from 20 to 20,000 hertz."20-20,000 Hz

Most of that says 20-20,00Hz. The oldest of which says 15Hz. So more recent studies prove my point. Thanks.

You forgot to read about the fact that age and other factors have a huge affect on hearing. From what I have read infants can hear 16Hz but average human adults 20-20,000Hz. With high frequency hearing declining with age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound
"Infrasonic 17 Hz tone experiment
On May 31, 2003, a team of UK researchers held a mass experiment where they exposed some 700 people to music laced with soft 17 Hz sine waves played at a level described as "near the edge of hearing", produced by an extra-long stroke sub-woofer mounted two-thirds of the way from the end of a seven-meter-long plastic sewer pipe. The experimental concert (entitled Infrasonic) took place in the Purcell Room over the course of two performances, each consisting of four musical pieces. Two of the pieces in each concert had 17 Hz tones played underneath. In the second concert, the pieces that were to carry a 17 Hz undertone were swapped so that test results would not focus on any specific musical piece. The participants were not told which pieces included the low-level 17 Hz near-infrasonic tone. The presence of the tone resulted in a significant number (22%) of respondents reporting anxiety, uneasiness, extreme sorrow, nervous feelings of revulsion or fear, chills down the spine and feelings of pressure on the chest.[14][15] In presenting the evidence to the BA, the scientist responsible said, "These results suggest that low frequency sound can cause people to have unusual experiences even though they cannot consciously detect infrasound. Some scientists have suggested that this level of sound may be present at some allegedly haunted sites and so cause people to have odd sensations that they attribute to a ghost—our findings support these ideas."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...nfrasound.html
"The term "infrasonic" applied to sound refers to sound waves below the frequencies of audible sound, and nominally includes anything under 20 Hz."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eqloud.html#c2


I know you like the NE-7m but please try and be a little pragmatic. If 700 people in a concert couldn't "hear" a 17Hz tone generated byt a long stroke subwoofer. I am sure you can't hear 16hz tones produced by an IEM.

Occam's razor, it is more likely that the NE-7M is inaccurate than you have superhuman hearing. Your own citations prove you wrong.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a non sequitur. Body temperature is not a human capability. Unless humans can regulate their temperature at will you example isn't a good one. For example, Most humans can run. It is safe to say humans can't run at 40 mph. The fastest measured is 27-28 MPh. That is a capability and it has a limit. Hearing is a capability. Something that has been measured and also has limits. Most of that says 20-20,00Hz. The oldest of which says 15Hz. So more recent studies prove my point. Thanks. You forgot to read about the fact that age and other factors have a huge affect on hearing. From what I have read infants can hear 16Hz but average human adults 20-20,000Hz. With high frequency hearing declining with age. I know you like the NE-7m but please try and be a little pragmatic. Occam's razor, it is more likely that the NE-7M is inaccurate than you have superhuman hearing. Your own citations prove you wrong.

Are you for real? I count at least 4 or 5 "strawman arguments" in your reply, and I'm not falling for it.

1. I make a claim that IEM produce bass by moving small amounts of air inside the ear canal, and you go off on 5 tangents and none of them address the original argument. And, each tangent latched onto something else I said and that too went in a different direction. Amazing.

2. variability in humans. Some can hear higher and some lower, some can run faster and others cant, some have a body temperature of 98.6 and some don't. You turn it into an argument about controlling running speed and not being able to control temperature. Using your own argument, you can't control what frequencies you hear any more than you can control your temperature. I don't get your point and I will not argue this with you. It's pointless. Some humans have different biometrics than the average.

3. The study in 2000 also found that hearing limits were 15-20KHz, which is newer than the one in 1998 that found it was 20-20KHz. besides, neither of us has read the full body of all these studies, yet you maintain the results of the newer studies refute the older ones. You say that and turn it into a whole different argument. I say it is more likely that different studies produced different results because of different subjects being studied, and that two of the 5 do confirm my claim that humans (and I) are able to hear 16Hz. By your reasoning - Humans could hear down to 15Hz from 1967 - 1998 when they couldn't hear below 20Hz in a study, then in 2000 they could hear 15Hz again, but by 2003 that ability to hear below 20Hz went away again. Sure, that makes a lot of sense, not. I haven't even looked up any newer studies, but it doesn't matter. There is proof there are humans out there that can hear 16hz.

4. You tell me I forgot to read about age factors. This wasn't about age, so I didn't mention it. It's about you telling me I can't hear 16Hz because I quote, "humans can't hear below 20Hz". If you had said, "Most humans can't hear below 20Hz we wouldn't be having this argument. I prove that statement isn't true and you tell me, well at least adults can't hear that low. You still haven't proven that I can't hear 16hz, or that it isn't possible. Find me a study that says it isn't possible to keep the ability to hear 16Hz.

5. Then you turn an argument about me hearing 16Hz into one about me being biased towards NE-7M. Anyone who reads my reviews might also say I am biased towards Westone 3, so why didn't I claim my $399 IEM can play down to 16Hz? Why would I pick a $50 IEM to use an my example? It's because that is what I heard.

6. You say the IEM I used were inaccurate. I know what harmonics are vs primary tones. I have Michael Knowles "Binks Audio Test CD" in WAVE files on my computer, so if there is anything inaccurate it could also be the wave files, or DAC or amp. I haven't heard anyone report the CD to be faulty.

So, back to the original argument. YOU DO NOT NEED HUGE DRIVERS TO MOVE HUGE AMOUNTS OF AIR TO MAKE BASS. All you have to do is get the air inside the ear canal to move, and smaller volumes moving at the right frequency will do the job.