[LuckyNat]

I did several hours of direct comparison between 2HD and Gold and I was considering the Gold to be more neutral whilst the 2HD had more prominent midrange (not by massive amounts).

I dont consider there to be a peak in the Gold that needs to be tamed at all, in fact there appears to be something to the sound missing when I compared to either the 2HD or Pro2. It's a slight loss of atack. Therefore I concluded that it's the others that roll-off more in the upper treble. It could also be the source that is prominent in upper treble but requires a rolled off upper treble to sound neutral. I'm using a AK320.

How can one say which is neutral? One can only make comparisons.

Are you sure the foam you put in would have to be before the acoustic lens? Wouldn't it have a similar effect anywhere in front of the driver?

As a point of interest, the acoustic lens goes right up to the driver housing on the 2HD, although the gap between the driver and acoustic lens on the Gold is a fraction of a milimetre.. Although remember that the driver itself is a mm or so behind the metal grill that forms the driver casing.

 

[chickenmoon]

I put the foam between the driver and the acoustic lens on the Pro, there is a few mms of space between the two. On the Gold, as you say there is only a fraction of a mm and so no room for inserting anything.

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

It's obvious to me there is a peak in upper treble in the Gold. it's less elevated than in the pro but it's definitely there, the 8khz peak is gone however and this certainly greatly contribute, along with the toned down bass, to the overall feeling of smoothness I get with the Gold.

It's possible to kill the upper treble peak of the Pro by stuffing some foam between the driver and the acoustic lens. Unfortunately, no such thing is possible with the Gold as there is no free room between the driver and the acoustic lens.

If the Pro 2 HD does away with this peak, then it's certainly a winner in my book. As it stands for me now I prefer my foam modded Pro over the Gold for it's more engaging sound and lack of upper treble peak.

You mean in your perception there’s a peak in the upper treble. Unless you can show some measurements to prove it I don’t think you can make that a statement of fact!

You’re clearly way more sensitive in the upper treble region than a lot of people which is a shame.

I personally would hate to put anything in between the driver and my ears, as that just seems to be the wrong approach. But obviously you can do what you want with your IEM’s its your call. I would have thought though that it would be better finding an IEM that offers the balance in the treble that suits you, rather creating a filter which is going to mask other detail too and potentially changing aspects that aren’t designed to be.

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

I did several hours of direct comparison between 2HD and Gold and I was considering the Gold to be more neutral whilst the 2HD had more prominent midrange (not by massive amounts).

I dont consider there to be a peak in the Gold that needs to be tamed at all, in fact there appears to be something to the sound missing when I compared to either the 2HD or Pro2. It's a slight loss of atack. Therefore I concluded that it's the others that roll-off more in the upper treble. It could also be the source that is prominent in upper treble but requires a rolled off upper treble to sound neutral. I'm using a AK320.

How can one say which is neutral? One can only make comparisons.

Are you sure the foam you put in would have to be before the acoustic lens? Wouldn't it have a similar effect anywhere in front of the driver?

As a point of interest, the acoustic lens goes right up to the driver housing on the 2HD, although the gap between the driver and acoustic lens on the Gold is a fraction of a milimetre.. Although remember that the driver itself is a mm or so behind the metal grill that forms the driver casing.

I'm with you in your opinion that there isn't a peak in the Golds, but clearly Chickenmoon doesn't agree! We all perceive things differently though, and without some measurements of these its hard to tell which of us has the correct perception. I do know though how much I like the balance of the Golds as they are.

I am fascinated with the layout of the front of these Flares options, as I'm willing to bet that its only really this part which affects the balance (and sound stage perception) we've been discussing here. I know there's a rubber insert in front of the driver in the Pro but can see the driver is closer to the metal of the enclosure in the Gold. The driver to ear distance is very similar though on both. The Gold's aperture shape is one continuous flare from the driver, whereas the Pro has a parallel section before the shorter flare. I'm assuming its this area where Chickenmoon is stuffing his foam to change the treble response on his.

Do you know what the shape of the Pro 2HD looks like in the aperture, is it similar to the Gold?

I'm going to get one of my Pro enclosures machined at the front to see if I can get it the same as the Gold and then will be able to prove my theory about the front enclosure shape. But I'd like to know more about the 2HD enclosure before I did that. Maybe I will have to get a pair on approval after all, though I can't take them apart obviously!

 

[chickenmoon]

You mean in your perception there’s a peak in the upper treble. Unless you can show some measurements to prove it I don’t think you can make that a statement of fact!

You’re clearly way more sensitive in the upper treble region than a lot of people which is a shame.

I personally would hate to put anything in between the driver and my ears, as that just seems to be the wrong approach. But obviously you can do what you want with your IEM’s its your call. I would have thought though that it would be better finding an IEM that offers the balance in the treble that suits you, rather creating a filter which is going to mask other detail too and potentially changing aspects that aren’t designed to be.

I'm not the only one hearing it, @sodesuka mentions this too in a post on the the previous page.

FWIW I measure a 9kHz and 14kHz peak on one side of my Golds and only a 9kHz one on the other side. It's likely the 14kHz one that bothers me just like it's the more prominent 12kHz one that bothers me in the Pros, I measure 8 and 12kHz peaks in the pros. Both Pros and Golds also have a significant 3kHz bump. After foam treatment of the Pros, I can't measure a 12kHz peak anymore and the 8kHz one is only just very slightly less sharp, no other changes are visible. I am 53 years old and my hearing is fine up to 15kHz, above that it doesn't matter anymore as I can't hear it. Gimme another few years and I won't hear that Gold peak anymore.

Many IEMs have dampening materials inserted in order to fine tune the sound signature and detail retrieval remains mighty fine after that reversible procedure, I don't see what's so wrong with it in your eyes, certainly nothing as drastic and destructive as your planned remachining of the Pro acoustic lens.

How much more am I likely to have to spend in your opinion in order to find something that sounds as good and pleases me as much as those foam moded Pros?

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

I'm not the only one hearing it, @sodesuka mentions this too in a post on the the previous page.

FWIW I measure a 9kHz and 14kHz peak on one side of my Golds and only a 9kHz one on the other side. It's likely the 14kHz one that bothers me just like it's the more prominent 12kHz one that bothers me in the Pros, I measure 8 and 12kHz peaks in the pros. Both Pros and Golds also have a significant 3kHz bump. After foam treatment of the Pros, I can't measure a 12kHz peak anymore and the 8kHz one is only just very slightly less sharp, no other changes are visible. I am 53 years old and my hearing is fine up to 15kHz, above that it doesn't matter anymore as I can't hear it. Gimme another few years and I won't hear that Gold peak anymore.

Its great that you've measured the Pro and the Gold IEM's. Can you post your FR curves for them here please, so we can all benefit from the information presented in them?

I'd also be keen to know what equipment and methods you use for these measurements.

 

[LuckyNat]

Don't quote me on this (haven't made a proper AB yet), but I feel that Gold has better 3D soundstages, more (mid) bass and prominent highs (aka more likely to sound peaky) than 2HD, while 2HD has better mids/vocal, less peaky highs and overall more versatile than Gold which I think probably excels for classical. For everything else, I'd take 2HD though.

(Here I am quoting sodesuka) I tend to agree with this whilst disagreeing with the idea that the Gold has a prominent peak that stands out in the treble. It's a matter of interpretation of other people's descripion of sounds which will likely be of a different meaning to our own use of the same words..

As I hear it, the highs have more attack (faster, perhaps not smeared) than the 2HDs or Pro2s which then gives me a better and more airy 3D soundstage. This is all subjective from my point of view. It's tricky to measure response of the iem coupled with our soft and individually different shaped ear canals... so it would be interesting to know how you've made the FR response measurements Chickenmoon - not to over analyse the method, more to know how people go about it.

I'm also of the opinion that flat frequncy response isn't so critical for something to sound realistic as the brain very quickly adjusts. But of course when some resonance interacts with our hearing or frequncy peak takes our attention, realism quickly collapses!

 

[chickenmoon]

Its great that you've measured the Pro and the Gold IEM's. Can you post your FR curves for them here please, so we can all benefit from the information presented in them?

I'd also be keen to know what equipment and methods you use for these measurements.

I can only show one Pro graph because it's the only one I ever saved and don't take it too seriously but it should give a relatively decent approximation of the upper part of the spectrum. Due to the current limitations of my setup, it's hard to avoid microphonics affecting the lower part so I am not quite sure of either the overall bass elevation accuracy or the shape of the bass response curve. It doesn't feel too far off to me however.

I am using the usual Dayton IMM-6 mic with a DIY coupler. Playback and recording device is the Audiotrack Prodigy Cube which has a 3dB roll off between 10 and 20kHz on its line in (should have used my Juli@ soundcard for recording but was too lazy). Software used is an old version of Voxengo SPAN VST. I playback white noise, SPAN is set to show real time analysis, when things seem stable enough I put it in averaging mode and after about 30s I do printscreen to capure the whole desktop. A bit of minor editing later is the above pic.

One thing I find quite interesting is that the upper treble remain steady up to 20khz, there is no roll-off. I haven't done too many measurements but of all those I did, and this includes the Sony MDR-EX1000, all but the Flares strongly roll off in upper treble and hit near bottom before 20kHz.

Obviously this doesn't look at all like the graph shown multiple times in this thread and presumably supplied by Flare Audio themselves. I am wondering whether that graph is actually a Flares Pro measurement because it doesn't really says so, it's only labeled Flares and what I hear seems closer to the graph I posted.

Final disclaimer: This is only unscientific amateurish joke measurement provided solely for entertainment and mockery purposes and shouldn't be taken with any kind of seriousness.

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

I can only show one Pro graph because it's the only one I ever saved and don't take it too seriously but it should give a relatively decent approximation of the upper part of the spectrum. Due to the current limitations of my setup, it's hard to avoid microphonics affecting the lower part so I am not quite sure of either the overall bass elevation accuracy or the shape of the bass response curve. It doesn't feel too far off to me however.


I am using the usual Dayton IMM-6 mic with a DIY coupler. Playback and recording device is the Audiotrack Prodigy Cube which has a 3dB roll off between 10 and 20kHz on its line in (should have used my Juli@ soundcard for recording but was too lazy). Software used is an old version of Voxengo SPAN VST. I playback white noise, SPAN is set to show real time analysis, when things seem stable enough I put it in averaging mode and after about 30s I do printscreen to capure the whole desktop. A bit of minor editing later is the above pic.

One thing I find quite interesting is that the upper treble remain steady up to 20khz, there is no roll-off. I haven't done too many measurements but of all those I did, and this includes the Sony MDR-EX1000, all but the Flares strongly roll off in upper treble and hit near bottom before 20kHz.

Obviously this doesn't look at all like the graph shown multiple times in this thread and presumably supplied by Flare Audio themselves. I am wondering whether that graph is actually a Flares Pro measurement because it doesn't really says so, it's only labeled Flares and what I hear seems closer to the graph I posted.

Final disclaimer: This is only unscientific amateurish joke measurement provided solely for entertainment and mockery purposes and shouldn't be taken with any kind of seriousness.

Thanks for posting this, very interesting.

So if I'm interpreting what you've posted properly, you're showing the raw measured FR of the Pro, and not using any target curve compensation for headphones? If so, then I don't think you'll hearing that FR at your eardrums, as the frequencies in the 5Khz plus range will overall be down by a good few dB. For example, taking Inner Fidelity's curve for the EX1000 (since you quoted it) looks like this.

You can see the difference in curve between the raw and the compensated FR. Your comments though about the Pro not falling off like most after 12khz or so seems to be borne out in comparison as above. But what I'd say about your FR is that those peaks at 8k and 12k aren't really that bad if you apply a normal compensation! A lot of other IEM's are far worse than that and the EX1000 is probably one of the smoother ones out there.

I would agree with you over the other published Pro FR posted in this thread. I didn't think it looked very convincing either, though it does look like they're using some kind of compensation curve at least. But the broad rise in the 6k -10k range doesn't look right to me at all, and is certainly highly smoothed.

 

[chickenmoon]

Thanks for posting this, very interesting.

So if I'm interpreting what you've posted properly, you're showing the raw measured FR of the Pro, and not using any target curve compensation for headphones? If so, then I don't think you'll hearing that FR at your eardrums, as the frequencies in the 5Khz plus range will overall be down by a good few dB. For example, taking Inner Fidelity's curve for the EX1000 (since you quoted it) looks like this.

You can see the difference in curve between the raw and the compensated FR. Your comments though about the Pro not falling off like most after 12khz or so seems to be borne out in comparison as above. But what I'd say about your FR is that those peaks at 8k and 12k aren't really that bad if you apply a normal compensation! A lot of other IEM's are far worse than that and the EX1000 is probably one of the smoother ones out there.

I would agree with you over the other published Pro FR posted in this thread. I didn't think it looked very convincing either, though it does look like they're using some kind of compensation curve at least. But the broad rise in the 6k -10k range doesn't look right to me at all, and is certainly highly smoothed.

Yeah, it's all raw measurements obviously, here is how I measured EX1000, same caveats apply.

I don't find the EX1000 particularly smooth btw.

Also, it's a bit surprising there's no other Flares measurements out there.

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

Many IEMs have dampening materials inserted in order to fine tune the sound signature and detail retrieval remains mighty fine after that reversible procedure, I don't see what's so wrong with it in your eyes, certainly nothing as drastic and destructive as your planned remachining of the Pro acoustic lens.

Just answering the other part of your earlier post.

I know other manufacturers do use damping materials, but whatever anyone says they are invasive. Someone will probably prove me wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen a physical filter used on a Sennheiser IEM, I'd trust them not resort to that but good design that didn't require it. That would be my preferred approach.

Machining my Pro enclosure is hardly drastic if all I'm doing is copying the flare on the Golds! Its physically more drastic of course because it needs some serious equipment to do it.

How much more am I likely to have to spend in your opinion in order to find something that sounds as good and pleases me as much as those foam moded Pros?

Good question. Since I'm not sensitive in those high frequency areas I can't really answer that. Though I can say that the most neutral, smoothest balanced IEM I've ever heard is the Shure KSE1500. So the answer in that case is a few thousand quid! ​

 

[Jonathan Dunham]

Yeah, it's all raw measurements obviously, here is how I measured EX1000, same caveats apply.



I don't find the EX1000 particularly smooth btw.

Also, it's a bit surprising there's no other Flares measurements out there.

No right understood, but looking at your measurements they're no worse. It depends on your own sensitivities I guess.

I'm surprised there aren't any other Flare measurements too. I'd love to know what equipment they use themselves in order to develop these things. As you may have seen from my posts before, I do have a healthy skepticism about their enclosure design and rationale, feeling there is more marketing hype than scientific research. Overall though I'm still very much in favour of the single dynamic driver approach for IEM's. As I also am in my main loudspeaker systems.

 

[chickenmoon]

Just answering the other part of your earlier post.

I know other manufacturers do use damping materials, but whatever anyone says they are invasive. Someone will probably prove me wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen a physical filter used on a Sennheiser IEM, I'd trust them not resort to that but good design that didn't require it. That would be my preferred approach.

Machining my Pro enclosure is hardly drastic if all I'm doing is copying the flare on the Golds! Its physically more drastic of course because it needs some serious equipment to do it.

I understand your point about dampening and obviously by much more drastic I meant that you can never go back to the original because your modification is absolutely destructive.

Good question. Since I'm not sensitive in those high frequency areas I can't really answer that. Though I can say that the most neutral, smoothest balanced IEM I've ever heard is the Shure KSE1500. So the answer in that case is a few thousand quid! [/COLOR][/SIZE]

Money well spent on the Flares I guess then as I don't think I'll ever be able to get one of them Shures.

No right understood, but looking at your measurements they're no worse. It depends on your own sensitivities I guess.

I'm surprised there aren't any other Flare measurements too. I'd love to know what equipment they use themselves in order to develop these things. As you may have seen from my posts before, I do have a healthy skepticism about their enclosure design and rationale, feeling there is more marketing hype than scientific research. Overall though I'm still very much in favour of the single dynamic driver approach for IEM's. As I also am in my main loudspeaker systems.

Having some (limited) background in fluid mechanics I think I understand the rationale behind at least some of the acoustic lens design including the highly polished surface the higher priced models have. You'll probably find some sound theoretical material about it by googling for Reynolds Number, Turbulence and Acoustics. Basically I think the whole point of much of the design is to minimize turbulences as to minimize distortion, a cone rather than an abrupt change in diameter as well as a surface with the least possible rugosity certainly contributing greatly to it.

 

[Jackpot77]

I understand your point about dampening and obviously by much more drastic I meant that you can never go back to the original because your modification is absolutely destructive.

​

Money well spent on the Flares I guess then as I don't think I'll ever be able to get one of them Shures.



Having some (limited) background in fluid mechanics I think I understand the rationale behind at least some of the acoustic lens design including the highly polished surface the higher priced models have. You'll probably find some sound theoretical material about it by googling for Reynolds Number, Turbulence and Acoustics. Basically I think the whole point of much of the design is to minimize turbulences as to minimize distortion, a cone rather than an abrupt change in diameter as well as a surface with the least possible rugosity certainly contributing greatly to it.

Interesting observation on the physics. The guys over at Stealthsonics are also doing something around reducing airflow turbulence in their IEMs in the path from driver to ear. Their main man was originally a NASA ticket scientist, so they are approaching it from an aerodynamics viewpoint. Might be something in it.

 

[barondla]

Interesting observation on the physics. The guys over at Stealthsonics are also doing something around reducing airflow turbulence in their IEMs in the path from driver to ear. Their main man was originally a NASA ticket scientist, so they are approaching it from an aerodynamics viewpoint. Might be something in it.

I've always thought the transition from IEM nozzle to eartip to ear canal is handled poorly. Sound shoots out the IEM nozzle into a rough transition to the tip and then a horribly abrupt jump from tip front to ear canal. Believe the nozzle should be one piece and stick out slightly in front of the tip. Think of a trumpet bell with a donut on the back side to seal the ear.