[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif IIRC others also had that impression from reading the thread (IIRC Hayduke as well as direcow, flargosa). But then Hayduke - after trying both - thought the MM was more neutral. But wquiles has tried both and EQs everything but the mids up a little for the MM but flat for the MM (which sounds like the MM has a little more mids). I think I also mentally filed away Todd's comments that you quoted back on the impressions thread: That could mean a number of things in relation to the low-mids, so perhaps I misinterpreted it. Technically it's NOT a comparative statement with regard to the ML crossover - but if it's not that would mean that the ML crossover is "very warm" or warmer still. There was also: Again, not a comparative statement and slowth hasn't heard the ML crossover (as was recently reiterated). Slowth later clarified it wasn't meant to imply "super pronounced"...and later still that the seal wasn't "that great". And slightly OT, but killkli said the FreqShow had more controlled bass and more restrained treble than the SuperFreqs (which if anything allows more mids to be heard, at least in comparison). Killkli later said he (?) has the MM crossover (and that compared to Livewires the mids were a little more forward - but still not comparative to SuperFreqs.) The treble comment is interesting because I find I want 1-2dB more at the top end with my SuperFreqs, even after I EQ down the offending mids. Then EyeAmEye said ...but didn't say which crossover, and I may have assumed it was the MM. It's very late here in Sydney. Now that I've finished reading the second half of the impressions thread I'll come back and read my posts tomorrow and see if I can make any sense of the situation

Sorry about the EyeAmEye confusion if you read his impressions on the front page. I thought EyeAmEye had the MM crossover too, but it ends up he has the ML crossover.

Maybe there is some confusion as to what is a forward midrange. Personally, I think a forward midrange is one where the 350hz-5000hz (vocals -> violins and pianos) range is unnaturally prominent. By unnatural, I am comparing the sound to a live orchestra or jazz performance. I only use live orchestral or jazz performances as benchmarks because they don't use any amplification that can synthetically emphasize a frequency range (for example microphones for rock or vocal concerts). In this comparison, my mention of the distance of Krall's voice was purely for comparison because she is singing directly into a microphone, so the sound engineer can make her voice as "forward" as he wants. Sometimes, the emphasis on a certain frequency range can depend on the recording. In order to minimize the variables as much as possible, I like to use orchestral music, which is also recording dependent, but I can compare it to live performances with no amplification. A forward midrange doesn't simply mean the midrange sounds louder than another range - maybe that's how it sounds live. I think it's difficult to say something has a forward frequency range on an absolute scale.

Also, I don't think I've said anything about the MM's midrange on an absolute scale. All I've done is compare the MM with the ML. I was saying that the ML has more of a forward midrange compared to the MM. There's a possibility I'm wrong about some things, but what I can say with confidence is that the ML has a more forward midrange compared to the MM.

I don't know if I'm making any sense

 

[e_resolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting...interesting. I only have my SuperFreqs to play with, and unEQ-ed they sound a bit congested/muddled on some music (as reported on the main thread). Todd has suggested I try the MM crossover (and work on improving the fit, which may have something to do with it too). I'm trying to figure out what to do (as I'd like to minimize the number of times I send them from Australia to The Freq).

I'm 100% with you Mazz : same concerns (but sending them from France)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the MM crossover was even more mid-forward than the ML crossover, but powertoold and Headphone Addict were the two posters who had written descriptions of sound that reminded me most of my experiences. And both now have the MM crossover with a much better experience than before...although we have a couple of people saying the MM puts you "closer" to the mids/vocals.

A possible explanation might be that the MM has also forward mids but perhaps less than the ML (and more than UE11 as EyeAmEye said)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazz /img/forum/go_quote.gif So...perhaps the MM crossover is worth a try? Decisions, decisions...

Yes hard decision. I would'nt be disapointed a second time...

I made more listening tests with an mp3 file that changes the frequency from 20Hz to 20kHz (by 1/3 octave step every 2 seconds). Of course it is very subjective but I confirm that I hear a big peak at 1500 Hz with the ML crossover. This might not be a big issue since the Etymotics ER4 also have the same kind of pronouced mids (you can have a look at the frequency response on their website)

The main concern I have with my Superfreq is this resonance issue which seems to occur at lower frequency than the 1500 Hz peak : I can decrease the resonance with the EQ bars around 500Hz (low mids). It might be were the low and mid balance armature drivers have a an overlap. This is just an hypothesis...

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure that the MM crossover could solve my issue. Perhaps the solution for me could be the Tour De Freq (2 drivers)

Maaz, I can't wait for your upgrade to MM (if you decide to do it) because my 30 days return will end in about 20 days. I have to speak with Todd. Hope he can give me a good advice.

 

[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_resolu /img/forum/go_quote.gif A possible explanation might be that the MM has also forward mids but perhaps less than the ML (and more than UE11 as EyeAmEye said)

Just for clarification again, EyeAmEye has the ML crossover also.

Also, if you've followed the UE11 thread for a while, many people found that the UE11 mids were "recessed" when they first got their UE11s. Over time, they got used to it and found that was rather pleasing.

Before concluding that the crossover is at fault, I recommend doing the Sensaphonics / Seal Test one ear at a time to see if you have a proper seal. The 50hz should sound pretty loud and shake your head.

 

[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_resolu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I made more listening tests with an mp3 file that changes the frequency from 20Hz to 20kHz (by 1/3 octave step every 2 seconds). Of course it is very subjective but I confirm that I hear a big peak at 1500 Hz with the ML crossover. This might not be a big issue since the Etymotics ER4 also have the same kind of pronouced mids (you can have a look at the frequency response on their website)

I'm not sure how good of a test this is because at the same volume level, a 50hz tone will sound quieter than a 2khz tone.

Would you mind posting the mp3 or PMing it to me? I want to see how it sounds

 

[Mazz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowth /img/forum/go_quote.gif hope this doesn't become hostile... =)

Not from me - I appreciate all the info (including EyeAmEye reporting which crossover), and powertoold's question was a very good one. I did need to revisit the thread to see if my impressions were not consistent with the reports.

 

[e_resolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by powertoold /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure how good of a test this is because at the same volume level, a 50hz tone will sound quieter than a 2khz tone.

Actually, what you mean is that with the same acoustic energy the human ear will better perceive 2kHz than 50 Hz (that's why loudness function on sound player systems typically compensate for that). This is also a function of the acoustic level (difference is enhanced at low volumes)

The crossover will separate the frequencies for each individual driver and also will modify the sound level according to the company (UE, Etymotics, The freq ...) development target.

As I said the mp3 test I did is a very subjective test (we don't all have the same ear frequency response) and it takes into account the ear response, the crossover separation and coloration, and the driver response.
You could easily imagine a crossover that fully compensate the average ear response. Then playing the 20Hz-20kHz mp3 file could give you the "feeling" of a global flat response which is actually not the case with the Superfreq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powertoold /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would you mind posting the mp3 or PMing it to me? I want to see how it sounds

I will try to find how to share this file.

 

[slowth]

+1 for the explaination =)

 

[small.solar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_resolu /img/forum/go_quote.gif ......Then playing the 20Hz-20kHz mp3 file could give you the "feeling" of a global flat response which is actually not the case with the Superfreq.....

I can assure you that non of the existing sound system can achieve this FULLY. at least not as I know. But some of them can definately give you those "FEELING" via recessed mids.

And I guess that why we relatively compare IEMs. my .02

 

[powertoold]

Here's what I posted in anthonyfirst's thread about frequency response testing with your own ear Equal loudness contours and audiometry - Test your own hearing

Quote:

I don't think this is a good way to test frequency response. How "loud" we hear different frequencies is subjective and also not a good measure of frequency response. For example, you would need to crank up the 30hz tone very high in order to match the perceived volume of a 4khz tone. This is because the 30hz tone doesn't really produce any noise; rather, it produces a lot of vibration. It's like trying to tell a bass to produce the some "volume" as a violin. It simply can't do it. Also, even if someone gets a frequency graph that is straight, that doesn't mean the sound is "balanced" for the reasons I just stated. Even worse is the fact that all of us probably hear different volumes. At best, this test would be good with an SPL meter. If you're interested, this is what the FreQ Show looks like (I basically went from the bottom of the graph until I could barely hear the tone): The two graphs look fairly similar, but I consider the MM crossover to have a more balanced sound with bigger soundstage. I'm not sure what on the graph you can associate with those

 

[Hayduke]

I was reading that thread just the other day

When I get my FreqShows back, I plan to do the test too.

While it may not provide very valuable information, it is certainly interesting. I want to compare my SFs to my HD580s.

 

[powertoold]

I'm just throwing this out - not doing any comparisons, but I think the bass on the FreQ Shows is insanely fast! I never had this impression with the SuperFreQs.

Everything is really fast with the FreQ Shows. I love it.

Anyone else having this impression?

 

[slowth]

erm... wat does fast mean? I've read the headfi definitions but i'm not too sure how to discern tht.. cos i've no comparison to slow ones...

 

[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowth /img/forum/go_quote.gif erm... wat does fast mean? I've read the headfi definitions but i'm not too sure how to discern tht.. cos i've no comparison to slow ones...

It's difficult to describe it, but basically, the bass feels sharp and tight. It does its thing and then doesn't stay around to annoy you.

When the bass is flabby or slow, it feels like you just ate a fatty and greasy meal

You would need to hear slow and fast bass to understand the difference, I think!

 

[slowth]

ha what an interesting description!

mmm true a side by side test wud be bad..
what would be considered slow? I've the Um1s.. are those slow?

 

[flargosa]

Can you visually tell which crossover is installed?