Then you're also experiencing quite a bit of imbalance in the low frequencies on those IEMs, with the side the vent is blocked on outputting (sometimes much) more (sub-) bass than the other. In your case, I'd recommend blocking the vents (with tape or modelling clay) altogether.
On a personal note, I really don't like it when IEM manufacturers place the dynamic drivers' front cavity vents on the shells' inner halves as this will obviously lead to different people experiencing way different bass quantity due to whether the vents are naturally blocked when the IEMs are placed in their ears or not. Some manufacturers deal with that by relocating the front cavity vents either towards the sides or the faceplates (which is definitely not that trivial, but some have done it (e.g. Sennheiser on the IE 8/80/80S)) where one would usually expect the dynamic drivers' rear cavity vent.
Awesome! You get the frustration. Yep, it usually manifests in a channel imbalance issue, most noticeably in the upper midrange and low frequency extension.
I'll keep driver blocking in mind as a corrective technique. Worked fairly well for the budget Tin stuff I've got in the stable. Thanks!
With such bulk in the body, I got a feeling it won't insert as deep as the classic housing. I am however curious how a triple or multi-driver sounds with a deep insertion. I seem to have better luck with sound of deeper insertions with multiBA or dynamic driver iems.
So, this is two-way configuration like triple fi, but with better ergonomics of today's standards. Although Tiple-fi was early in adopting multi-driver, their fit design was terrible.
Quick question guys, two-way means two separate acoustic outlets from sets of drivers for their respective frequency ranges, correct? I always thought it was a number of ranges separated by cross-overs. I guess both would refer to each other.
Awesome! You get the frustration. Yep, it usually manifests in a channel imbalance issue, most noticeably in the upper midrange and low frequency extension.
True, some IEMs with dynamic drivers are also affected in their (usually upper) midrange (and lower treble) response depending whether the rear cavity vent is blocked or not. Definitely not something I like ("how did the manufacturer want us the IEMs to hear?") and much worse than if only the sub-bass is affected.
Quick question guys, two-way means two separate acoustic outlets from sets of drivers for their respective frequency ranges, correct? I always thought it was a number of ranges separated by cross-overs. I guess both would refer to each other.
So, this is two-way configuration like triple fi, but with better ergonomics of today's standards. Although Tiple-fi was early in adopting multi-driver, their fit design was terrible.
Quick question guys, two-way means two separate acoustic outlets from sets of drivers for their respective frequency ranges, correct? I always thought it was a number of ranges separated by cross-overs. I guess both would refer to each other.
The EVO is a two-way, triple driver configuration. It has a mid/high driver and a dual bass driver.
In general, balanced armature drivers all have individual outputs, but (as CK mentions above) they often share a single output spout. It can be done multiple ways. For example, an 8 driver earphone might use 4 dual packages, resulting in 4 spouts and corresponding sound channels. From there, some or all of the sound channels are combined as 4 exit tubes would make the stem of the earphone rather unwieldy.
One of the design goals for the EVO was that we wanted it all to terminate in a single output tube because dual (or more) sound channel solutions tend to be a bit large in the canal for our particular tastes.
One of the design goals for the EVO was that we wanted it all to terminate in a single output tube because dual (or more) sound channel solutions tend to be a bit large in the canal for our particular tastes.
I think saying "our requirements" or "our tastes" would both work here. There are a lot of different approaches to earphone design form factor (particularly as it applies to insertion depth). There is an element of opinion on what is the best mechanical approach to design so I phrased it in a way that implies that it is our preference rather than being *correct* in an absolute sense.
I think saying "our requirements" or "our tastes" would both work here. There are a lot of different approaches to earphone design form factor (particularly as it applies to insertion depth). There is an element of opinion on what is the best mechanical approach to design so I phrased it in a way that implies that it is our preference rather than being *correct* in an absolute sense.
Well said Dave. And that's why there's never ever gonna be one fits all solution. Myself I am just upset that I will never ever be adjusted to Grado styling due to issues with actual pain waring them, despite loving their exciting sound. And on the other hand find absolute comfort in the most unlikely of candidates, my AKG K52 with velour pads being able to stay on my head literally all day long.
.....an now I just need to find the perfect tips to allow me wear my ER4SR for 8 hours straight. SpinFit CP800 so far doing decent job on it for up to 5 hours.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
