[Edric Li]

I read a few forum reports/graphs from others that there's lots of unit variations for the Final E500 (possible QC issue), so that might be a possible explanation for the differing graphs too?

My 3 old pairs of E500 sound more or less the same. They all developed noticeable channel imbalance, especially in the upper-mid / lower-treble, which is why I purchased a new pair. One of the 3 actually has one side completely quiet. The new pair is the one that sounds distinctively more bass-light and upper-mid-forward. So yes, I believe QC can be a reason for the difference in upper-mid and treble quantity, but doesn't explain the difference in bass quantity.

 

[baskingshark]

My 3 old pairs of E500 sound more or less the same. They all developed noticeable channel imbalance, especially in the upper-mid / lower-treble, which is why I purchased a new pair. One of the 3 actually has one side completely quiet. The new pair is the one that sounds distinctively more bass-light and upper-mid-forward. So yes, I believe QC can be a reason for the difference in upper-mid and treble quantity, but doesn't explain the difference in bass quantity.

Good info!

Well the ears take the entire frequency spectrum as a whole, and not just a particular frequency in isolation. So there's something called the see-saw effect. Ie if something has less quantity in the upper frequencies, the ears perceive the bass to be more forwards. And vice versa.

 

[Edric Li]

Good info!

Well the ears take the entire frequency spectrum as a whole, and not just a particular frequency in isolation. So there's something called the see-saw effect. Ie if something has less quantity in the upper frequencies, the ears perceive the bass to be more forwards. And vice versa.

Am aware of this. To the best of my hearing ability, I do hear what the graph suggests: there is an increase in upper-mid relative to the lower mid, and there is a decrease in bass relative to lower-mid.

I'd also add that this new pair of E500 sound much more similar to my B3 than my other pairs. According to the measurements I can find online, they *should* sound nearly identical. So I tend to conclude that this new pair of E500 is what the reviewers heard at the time of their measurements.

Comparing this new E500 to B3 (C112 cable) using eartips of the same size, I hear B3 has more bite in the treble, whereas E500 has more sub-bass kick. The midrange is basically identical. However, I usually wear E500 with eartips 2 sizes smaller than when I wear over-the-ear-type UIEMs, since bullet-shape allows for deeper insertion. The deeper insertion makes E500 a shade warmer than shallower insertion, and the soundstage wider. This difference in sound caused by insertion depth is usually omitted by measurements (for good reasons.) New E500 vs B3 (C112 cable), I still take the E500.

 

[WilliamCruz]

E5000 (Left), E500 (Right)

Bought a couple more of those tips. They allowed special orders through aliexpress so I was able to order for just one size. Got them for my E500 too

 

[Edric Li]

E5000 (Left), E500 (Right)

Bought a couple more of those tips. They allowed special orders through aliexpress so I was able to order for just one size. Got them for my E500 too

I was pretty disappointed with the SS20. They look, feel and sound like a pair of generic TWS eartips. Thin and soft bores. To me the sound lacks definition, especially in the bass. But the wide bore does fix some uppermids resonance in the Final E tips.

 

[Edric Li]

More on B3 (C112 Cable) vs E500:

I've been listening to them back and forth for weeks, and trying to pin down exactly why I prefer the E500 to the B3, other than the more obvious reasons (comfort, insertion depth, etc). I'm still very interested in the B3 since many new Harman-neutral reviewers claim to enjoy this SE535/TG334/UE18-type-neutral IEM.

Here's my reasoning
- Both IEM simulates the proximity effect, but B3 does it to a higher extent. B3 has less uppermids. Therefore human voice, for example, would sound as if it is closer to the microphone than E500.
- However, B3 has less 5k-6k, the frequency of the attack of the sibilance of S's and T's. This sounds odd, because if a human voice is closer to the microphone, its sibilance should also be louder.
- With a relatively recessed 5k-6k but excessive 6k-10k, B3 reproduces more decay ("glare") of the sibilance than (the attack of) the sibilance itself.
- As a result, B3 manages to sound more dull (because of the lack of sibilance) and more piercing (because of the excess of treble glare) than E500 at the same time.

 

[WilliamCruz]

I was pretty disappointed with the SS20. They look, feel and sound like a pair of generic TWS eartips. Thin and soft bores. To me the sound lacks definition, especially in the bass. But the wide bore does fix some uppermids resonance in the Final E tips.

I did have the same first impressions. Here's a summary after using it for about a year.

Stock tips have plenty of bass. The soundstage could also get congested with crowded tracks, especially if they were already bass-heavy. This is probably due to the stock tips having a narrow opening and longer stem.

SS20 does help open up the soundstage. With a larger opening and shorter stem, the sound directly goes into the ear canal in an unaltered fashion. However, an increase in spaciousness might not be everyone's cup of tea as nuances in instruments become less pronounced. It's still there, just kind of subtle.

Anyway, I have to mention that I use the smallest SS20 tips. Those gave me the best seal and insertion compared to the type-e and other sizes of ss20 tips. When wearing any of the larger-sized tips, I did not have the same experience due to the larger ones having a longer stem length, which prevented the IEMs from inserting as deep.

As for material, it wasn't as rigid and felt more comfortable in the ears due to the softer and pliable material.

YMMV.

 

[Edric Li]

I did have the same first impressions. Here's a summary after using it for about a year.

Stock tips have plenty of bass. The soundstage could also get congested with crowded tracks, especially if they were already bass-heavy. This is probably due to the stock tips having a narrow opening and longer stem.

SS20 does help open up the soundstage. With a larger opening and shorter stem, the sound directly goes into the ear canal in an unaltered fashion. However, an increase in spaciousness might not be everyone's cup of tea as nuances in instruments become less pronounced. It's still there, just kind of subtle.

Anyway, I have to mention that I use the smallest SS20 tips. Those gave me the best seal and insertion compared to the type-e and other sizes of ss20 tips. When wearing any of the larger-sized tips, I did not have the same experience due to the larger ones having a longer stem length, which prevented the IEMs from inserting as deep.

As for material, it wasn't as rigid and felt more comfortable in the ears due to the softer and pliable material.

YMMV.

I too find the Final E tip congested, but not for that it has much bass. I find the Final E tip to have more upper mids than it has bass, and it will throw midrange info more aggressively in your face, which makes a busy track sound congested.

I find tips like SS20, Final E TWS, Spiral Dot to do most of the good things you need with the E series: a deep insertion for good bass, a wide bore for less uppermids resonance. But they lack what made Final E great in the first place: a firm, glossy sound bore for a good bass definition.

 

[WilliamCruz]

I too find the Final E tip congested, but not for that it has much bass. I find the Final E tip to have more upper mids than it has bass, and it will throw midrange info more aggressively in your face, which makes a busy track sound congested.

The congestion is partly caused by the quantity of bass decay as well. I can't have that at all though.

On type E, there was actually energy loss during transitions in the upper mids, which can be seen around the 3KHz mark in the graph (circled in green). Also, notice how the upper mids with other tips did not fall off as much.

The chart below shows the type e (blue line) losing energy during transitions in the upper mids region.

Blue line = Final Type E

Although there was an elevation, the FR transitions (from low-mids and mids region) before the first circle were pretty similar. This explains the final type E having the same amount of energy when transitioning to upper mids but quickly losing presence in certain parts of the upper mids. That was one of the things that actually caught my attention.

I find tips like SS20, Final E TWS, Spiral Dot to do most of the good things you need with the E series: a deep insertion for good bass, a wide bore for less uppermids resonance. But they lack what made Final E great in the first place: a firm, glossy sound bore for a good bass definition.

Those tips do noticeably tame the bass, so you won't be getting that in-your-face definition at that region like before. It's subtle, but 100% still there as far as my hearing ability goes. Overall, it has helped strike a tonal balance and better soundstage, making it suitable for use with more genres. I find with Final Type E tips the detail it is trying to produce in the bass regions could be too pronounced at times, maybe I'm just hearing a little more sensitive in those regions.

 

[Edric Li]

The congestion is partly caused by the quantity of bass decay as well. I can't have that at all though.

On type E, there was actually energy loss during transitions in the upper mids, which can be seen around the 3KHz mark in the graph (circled in green). Also, notice how the upper mids with other tips did not fall off as much.

The chart below shows the type e (blue line) losing energy during transitions in the upper mids region.

Blue line = Final Type E

Although there was an elevation, the FR transitions (from low-mids and mids region) before the first circle were pretty similar. This explains the final type E having the same amount of energy when transitioning to upper mids but quickly losing presence in certain parts of the upper mids. That was one of the things that actually caught my attention.



Those tips do noticeably tame the bass, so you won't be getting that in-your-face definition at that region like before. It's subtle, but 100% still there as far as my hearing ability goes. Overall, it has helped strike a tonal balance and better soundstage, making it suitable for use with more genres. I find with Final Type E tips the detail it is trying to produce in the bass regions could be too pronounced at times, maybe I'm just hearing a little more sensitive in those regions.

I don't consider 4k-6k uppermids; to me that's lower-treble. What I hear is that Final E is more dark than it is warm. Notice the distinct dip in the lower and mid-treble. When the tip is dark enough, you will inevitably hear a more forward bass (relative to treble).

It is known that a narrower sound bore will result in a higher resonance frequency, in our ears it is the uppermids. This is called end correction. A good example that demonstrates this is Acoustune AET07 vs AET08, or Tanchjim T300T vs T300B, varied sound bored width in otherwise identical form factor.

The "definition" of the sound, on the other hand, IMO is determined by the material/surface of the sound bore, not the width of it. It functions much like room dampening. When a room is under-dampened, you get nasty bass and treble reflections; when a room is over-dampened, you get no bass at all, and no imaging to speak of. I find that SS20 and spiral dot sound like a over-dampened room, but perhaps the lack of bass reflection sounds just right to you. A good example that demonstrates this is Sednaearfit short vs Tanchjim T300T, varied sound bore surface with identical width.

 

[o0genesis0o]

I don't consider 4k-6k uppermids; to me that's lower-treble. What I hear is that Final E is more dark than it is warm. Notice the distinct dip in the lower and mid-treble. When the tip is dark enough, you will inevitably hear a more forward bass (relative to treble).

It is known that a narrower sound bore will result in a higher resonance frequency, in our ears it is the uppermids. This is called end correction. A good example that demonstrates this is Acoustune AET07 vs AET08, or Tanchjim T300T vs T300B, varied sound bored width in otherwise identical form factor.

The "definition" of the sound, on the other hand, IMO is determined by the material/surface of the sound bore, not the width of it. It functions much like room dampening. When a room is under-dampened, you get nasty bass and treble reflections; when a room is over-dampened, you get no bass at all, and no imaging to speak of. I find that SS20 and spiral dot sound like a over-dampened room, but perhaps the lack of bass reflection sounds just right to you. A good example that demonstrates this is Sednaearfit short vs Tanchjim T300T, varied sound bore surface with identical width.

Wow you guys know a lot about tips.

My two cents: Final Type E to my ears tend to intensify or add peaks in mid-treble region. It works beautifully with the smooth sound of E series, nightmare with A series, also not good with something borderline spicy like Meze Advar.

Wide bore soft core tips like Spring fit (moondrop) seems to flatten the treble peaks instead, so I use it for something slightly peaky like a modded S12. No help for A4000 though. That one needs EQ or full retuning.

 

[Edric Li]

Wow you guys know a lot about tips.

My two cents: Final Type E to my ears tend to intensify or add peaks in mid-treble region. It works beautifully with the smooth sound of E series, nightmare with A series, also not good with something borderline spicy like Meze Advar.

Wide bore soft core tips like Spring fit (moondrop) seems to flatten the treble peaks instead, so I use it for something slightly peaky like a modded S12. No help for A4000 though. That one needs EQ or full retuning.

My wallet wish I don't lol. Are you sure you are talking about treble peaks and not uppermids? I am surprised that we hear that much differently.

 

[o0genesis0o]

My wallet wish I don't lol. Are you sure you are talking about treble peaks and not uppermids? I am surprised that we hear that much differently.

Which frequency range are you talking about when you talk about upper midrange? I consider upper midrange to be up to 3k. 4 to 8k is mid-treble.

Regarding Final tips, I did not hear the center image pushed forward when using them with Advar, which means there is no noticeable shift in upper midrange. However, cymbals and hi hats are spicier, and some sibilance appears. Therefore I say I hear more mid treble.

 

[Edric Li]

Which frequency range are you talking about when you talk about upper midrange? I consider upper midrange to be up to 3k. 4 to 8k is mid-treble.

Regarding Final tips, I did not hear the center image pushed forward when using them with Advar, which means there is no noticeable shift in upper midrange. However, cymbals and hi hats are spicier, and some sibilance appears. Therefore I say I hear more mid treble.

I consider 1k-3k upper mid, 3k-5k lower-treble, and 5k-ish mid-treble. So yeah we are talking on the same frequency (pun-intended).

That is really interesting. I have not yet heard the Final E giving any IEM more treble. It is consistently, distinctively the darkest tip in my experience, shallow or deep insertion. Maybe there is something special about the Advar or the Advar's tips. I'll be sure to try them at Canjam!

 

[AnalogEuphoria]

what's the difference between black E tips and clear E tips?