- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 4,111
- Likes
- 1,336
Quote:
Duh! Well I'm a lysdexic moron, and you're right: SE it is. Will a mod please change my goof in the thread title? Thanks.
I have spent some significant time listening now and have been able to parse some of the finer details in the differences in the product line. I compared the new cans with the E4C as that's the can I it seems most have had access to and was, in me view, their strongest value offering previously.
To me the E4C has a dynamic punchy sound with good tonal balance though somewhat rolled off in the highest octave.
The new SE210 has a similar sonic signature with the highs slightly more rolled off than the E4 making them a slightly warmer sounding can. Measurements show significantly lower distortion in the 210 over the E4, though the ratio between odd and even harmonics leans significantly more towards the odds, none-the-less the 210 does sound a bit more liquid than the E4. The 210 seems and excellent low cost IEM for most younger enthusiasts who like strong bass and who might use the cans without an amp.
The SE310 is an EXCELLENT performer. I very much enjoy the tonal balance of these cans. They are better extended in the highs than the E4, and measurements show a smoother transition from mids to highs. Distortion measurements show that the E4 and 310 are very nearly alike, with the 310 showing slightly less higher order harmonics. I hear both cans as having about the same amount of "smoothness" or lack of "grain" as a result. The only "problem" I see with the 310 is that some will find them thin in the bass. I think they're pretty dead on, but I acknowledge that there is probably ample justification to believe that the bass in IEMs should be somewhat stronger than what neutrality would require to compensate for the fact that headphones in general, and IEMs in particular suffer from not having bone conducted low-frequency reach the listener. So, if you like a little more "umph" in your audio, you might be a little dissapointed in the 310s; but if you're like me and have learned to dissascociate yourself a bit from the need for extra bass to compensate for the lack of visceral impact from your cans, you'll love these. I think I should reiterate that these cans are not light on bass and measure virtually identically with the E4 up to about 3kHz, so the bass you hear on the E4 is about what you get on the 310.
The tonal balance of the 420 is very nearly the same as the 310, with a slightly improved transition through the mids and roughly 3dB stronger through the mid-bass. Highs are identical within the measurement systems repeatability. I think these are the cans that most folks will love. There's just enough bass to offset most folks need for compensation in the lows. They are smooth and organic sounding; definately a strong taste of the "juice" you get with the super high-end IEMs like E500s, UE10s, and Sensaphonics ProSoft 2X. Distortion measurements are significantly lower than the 310 and E4 (and about the same as the 210!). This is a very nice can and is likely to be the can for those on a budget wanting a taste of the world class performance available in the >$500 catagory.
Here's where I'm going to get in trouble. Measurement shows that the E500 is about 5dB stronger at 100hZ than the already warm 420. (It's my understanding the 530 and 500 are identical. Please correct me if that's not the case, Sugarfried, and feel free to say anything you want in my thread here, especially if it contradicts my objective or subjective observations.) This seems to me is an overemphasis in the lows. As I said earlier, I'm somewhat uncertain about what should be considered neutral in the lows as it's not as simple as just saying acoustically flat as that doesn't take into account the loss of bone conduction and nasal and chest cavity compression which is part of the normal listening experience. Still, to me, the bass in the 530 is slightly exagerated. Other than that, the 530 is silky smooth all the way up and luxuriantly enveloping to hear. Distortion measurement show that it has a strong family resemblance to the 420 but with moderatley reduced higher order hamonics.
I'll conclude by saying that it has taken me many hours and $20,000 worth of test equipment to pry out differences between these cans. Peoples first impressions are likely to be just like mine: What a great line-up of cans! How am I going to stop myself from sliding up the scale to better and better performance? Thank goodness there's a hundred bucks between each; if they were spaced $50 apart, everyone would find themselves with 530s in thier ears and a black hole in thier wallet.
| Originally Posted by kuden /img/forum/go_quote.gif it's the SE series not the ES series 
|
Duh! Well I'm a lysdexic moron, and you're right: SE it is. Will a mod please change my goof in the thread title? Thanks.
I have spent some significant time listening now and have been able to parse some of the finer details in the differences in the product line. I compared the new cans with the E4C as that's the can I it seems most have had access to and was, in me view, their strongest value offering previously.
To me the E4C has a dynamic punchy sound with good tonal balance though somewhat rolled off in the highest octave.
The new SE210 has a similar sonic signature with the highs slightly more rolled off than the E4 making them a slightly warmer sounding can. Measurements show significantly lower distortion in the 210 over the E4, though the ratio between odd and even harmonics leans significantly more towards the odds, none-the-less the 210 does sound a bit more liquid than the E4. The 210 seems and excellent low cost IEM for most younger enthusiasts who like strong bass and who might use the cans without an amp.
The SE310 is an EXCELLENT performer. I very much enjoy the tonal balance of these cans. They are better extended in the highs than the E4, and measurements show a smoother transition from mids to highs. Distortion measurements show that the E4 and 310 are very nearly alike, with the 310 showing slightly less higher order harmonics. I hear both cans as having about the same amount of "smoothness" or lack of "grain" as a result. The only "problem" I see with the 310 is that some will find them thin in the bass. I think they're pretty dead on, but I acknowledge that there is probably ample justification to believe that the bass in IEMs should be somewhat stronger than what neutrality would require to compensate for the fact that headphones in general, and IEMs in particular suffer from not having bone conducted low-frequency reach the listener. So, if you like a little more "umph" in your audio, you might be a little dissapointed in the 310s; but if you're like me and have learned to dissascociate yourself a bit from the need for extra bass to compensate for the lack of visceral impact from your cans, you'll love these. I think I should reiterate that these cans are not light on bass and measure virtually identically with the E4 up to about 3kHz, so the bass you hear on the E4 is about what you get on the 310.
The tonal balance of the 420 is very nearly the same as the 310, with a slightly improved transition through the mids and roughly 3dB stronger through the mid-bass. Highs are identical within the measurement systems repeatability. I think these are the cans that most folks will love. There's just enough bass to offset most folks need for compensation in the lows. They are smooth and organic sounding; definately a strong taste of the "juice" you get with the super high-end IEMs like E500s, UE10s, and Sensaphonics ProSoft 2X. Distortion measurements are significantly lower than the 310 and E4 (and about the same as the 210!). This is a very nice can and is likely to be the can for those on a budget wanting a taste of the world class performance available in the >$500 catagory.
Here's where I'm going to get in trouble. Measurement shows that the E500 is about 5dB stronger at 100hZ than the already warm 420. (It's my understanding the 530 and 500 are identical. Please correct me if that's not the case, Sugarfried, and feel free to say anything you want in my thread here, especially if it contradicts my objective or subjective observations.) This seems to me is an overemphasis in the lows. As I said earlier, I'm somewhat uncertain about what should be considered neutral in the lows as it's not as simple as just saying acoustically flat as that doesn't take into account the loss of bone conduction and nasal and chest cavity compression which is part of the normal listening experience. Still, to me, the bass in the 530 is slightly exagerated. Other than that, the 530 is silky smooth all the way up and luxuriantly enveloping to hear. Distortion measurement show that it has a strong family resemblance to the 420 but with moderatley reduced higher order hamonics.
I'll conclude by saying that it has taken me many hours and $20,000 worth of test equipment to pry out differences between these cans. Peoples first impressions are likely to be just like mine: What a great line-up of cans! How am I going to stop myself from sliding up the scale to better and better performance? Thank goodness there's a hundred bucks between each; if they were spaced $50 apart, everyone would find themselves with 530s in thier ears and a black hole in thier wallet.
