[Origin89]

Just ordered a pair. I've always wanted a Hifiman in my collection, and these seem promising. 

 

[Tympan]

I like your wise man's quote. Another wise man once said: "surround yourself with people searching for truth and keep away from those who have found it" : )

 

[Oof Oink]

It'll be between these, and the new Cardas in-ears for me, which are the two I'm currently most interested in. While I'm sure that the RE-600 will aim to please many listeners, I'm under the impression that expectations will be unrealistically high, especially since the RE-400 makes for a tough act to follow. On the other hand, while it's not unimaginable for the $99 RE-400 to perform many times it's price point, for the $399 RE-600 it won't be nearly as easy. Not saying it isn't possible, of course. Just that it'll be quite the challenge, as HiFiMan has really raised expectations with the RE-400's aggressively competitive price.

 

[FieldingMellish]

That sound like the IEM's markets in general. Sell to the value conscious at a low price point and sell to those looking to squeak out every bit of quality for a premium.

 

[Oof Oink]

Drool.

Source: http://audio-head.com/t-h-e-show-newport-2013-headphonium/

 

[tomscy2000]

The new packaging looks good. They finally look like a company ready to shed their OEM-like image and step out as a true premium audio brand, even though they've been one for years. I'm most impressed with their new logo and typeface. It's clean and all business, but exudes a sense of precision and class as well.
 

​

 ​

On the topic of the RE-600, however, why does the cable look the same as the one on the RE-400? I know it's not the same, as it's SPC as opposed to whatever's on the RE-400, but I found the sleeving/insulation of the cable on the RE-400 to be its weakest link and it'd be a shame if the RE-600 carried over the same type of wrapping to its cable.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/478568/multi-iem-review-274-iems-compared-hifiman-re-400-added-03-14-13-p-650/9735
 
 
Joker's review on the RE-400
 

 
Quote:

Exactly what I thought he'd give them. Not on the same level as the R-50, RE-262 and GR07 but within striking distance.

That's just one person's opinion. lol With all due respect to Joker, he also rated the SM3 a 9.4, which I would rate a 7 at best. If I shop around enough I can probably find a $20 pair of buds that I will choose over the SM3. No disrespect to Earsonics or Joker at all, but I'm just pointing out that SQ is a very subjective thing.
 
Very late reply, I know.

 

[tigon_ridge]

Delivery Estimate: Thursday June 13, 2013 - Saturday June 15, 2013 by 8:00pm
 
I shall see how this goes within a week.

 

[vwinter]

That's just one person's opinion. lol With all due respect to Joker, he also rated the SM3 a 9.4, which I would rate a 7 at best. If I shop around enough I can probably find a $20 pair of buds that I will choose over the SM3. No disrespect to Earsonics or Joker at all, but I'm just pointing out that SQ is a very subjective thing.

Very late reply, I know.

To be fair, SQ isn't really subjective as long as you know what is being qualified as an indicator of quality. Sound preference is.

And to be fair to Joker here, it's said that he tends to like brighter signatures and the SM3 isn't exactly bright from what I've read so that kind of undermines your subjective theory about his SM3 rating, if only a bit.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

To be fair, SQ isn't really subjective as long as you know what is being qualified as an indicator of quality. Sound preference is.

And to be fair to Joker here, it's said that he tends to like brighter signatures and the SM3 isn't exactly bright from what I've read so that kind of undermines your subjective theory about his SM3 rating, if only a bit.

 
That's still subjective.  Who gets to decide who's "qualified".  The thing with objectivity, everyone is "qualified" so long as they do it in that fashion.  That said, when reading a review, know the standard, what are they reviewing against.  While some may review based on personal flavors or tastes, others will review based on set criteria (I personally do it against being able to present different aspects of music), and others will require straight neutrality (set to their standard), and others will say it's crap unless it matches a certain curve from the 1000 Hz on up. 

 

[Inks]

All reviewers that just listen are biased when trying to put a rating, whether price bias, group discussion, etc.


With measurements, you work wiith numbers and facts so you can actually do a better job of establishing an objective hierarchy. Problem is, all iems have their share of flaws and it can get to a point where it's hard to say which graphic flaw is worse or better.

Point of the matter, research and learn...

 

[tigon_ridge]

Quote:

To be fair, SQ isn't really subjective as long as you know what is being qualified as an indicator of quality. Sound preference is.

And to be fair to Joker here, it's said that he tends to like brighter signatures and the SM3 isn't exactly bright from what I've read so that kind of undermines your subjective theory about his SM3 rating, if only a bit.

I have no doubt Joker was trying to be as objective as possible. I'm just saying that you really may not like at all what someone else holds in high regard. Joker's 8.9 iem may or may not be your 9.8 iem.

 

[Inks]

You can only try with factual measurable guidelines, otherwise he's just changing the subjective standard not being more objective l. See why rating are insignificant? His sound descriptions are far more helpful

 

[vwinter]

That's still subjective.  Who gets to decide who's "qualified".  The thing with objectivity, everyone is "qualified" so long as they do it in that fashion.  That said, when reading a review, know the standard, what are they reviewing against.  While some may review based on personal flavors or tastes, others will review based on set criteria (I personally do it against being able to present different aspects of music), and others will require straight neutrality (set to their standard), and others will say it's crap unless it matches a certain curve from the 1000 Hz on up. 

I knew I was going to get hit for this one lol. In my defense, I said "what" and not "who" is qualified, which I pretty much meant the portion bolded above in regard to reviews that are not purely based on measurements. Think of it as compensating raw data.

I have no doubt Joker was trying to be as objective as possible. I'm just saying that you really may not like at all what someone else holds in high regard. Joker's 8.9 iem may or may not be your 9.8 iem.

Yea, that's fair. I was just trying to say what I typed to tinyman above.

You can only try with factual measurable guidelines, otherwise he's just changing the subjective standard not being more objective l. See why rating are insignificant? His sound descriptions are far more helpful

I agree with the Bolded but even so, you can use his "ratings" generally to get a sense as long as you understand how to translate his number to yours. Listening only, it's important to understand what you put value on. He even says that, especially at the top, things are a lot closer than they seem from his numbers.

Anyway, quick question guys, compensating to a target curve, that's not just a simple average is it? If either of you have a few moments, I'd like to understand.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Anyway, quick question guys, compensating to a target curve, that's not just a simple average is it? If either of you have a few moments, I'd like to understand.

 
Our ears are more than just tubes and mics.  There is a complex system that is highly involved.  When you insert an IEM into your ear, you actually bypass lots of mechanisms of your ear that changes sound.  There are also differences between how you hear in a free pressure system, one that allows your ear drum to go in and out, vs a closed pressure system which doesn't allow this sort of freedom.  As you can guess, the eardrum won't move with the same resistance throughout.  So we have to compensate for this. This was, to my understanding, the main reason why we compensate.  I may be off though. 
 
There are 4 or 5 compensation curves out, some of them more recent, others older.  These curves are your standards for compensation.  Which curve is used is also important to know from the reader's standpoint.  A raw graph should be given with the compensated curve to be able to compare from different sources. 
 
Even further each coupler will have unique ways it does sound.  Some do add additional boost while others do have resonances.  All of these should be noted and explained somewhere (where they are, etc.).  Going one step further, different sources will use different measuring techniques. 
 
Pink noise is a standard for speaker measurement, some companies still use pink noise to measure headphones with (one recently got chewed out by a certain someone for doing it).  A newer standard is a sine sweep that can give you a little more information about resonances and time information.  Pink noise on the other hand will give you a more holistic approach as it incorporates all frequencies.  It can't give you the time information a sine sweep does (a sine sweep can't give you the holistic information though). 
 
Averaging is done to each graph to get rid of some of the random little bumps.  It's referred to as smoothing.  This isn't really compensation, nor should it be taken as such.  It's to make the graphs look a little more readable.  Sometimes, this smoothing is inserted into the standard as well.