[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The same with any speaker I guess, like minimal mechanical noise, low distortion, and maybe one unique to earphones would be chassis vibration/chamber resonances as it's physically on/in your ear. It would be basically eliminating any ques that would bring your attention to the hardware itself.

Ear canal resonances are already being considered if you measure at the ear drum. Lack of distortion (and noise) is obviously desired. As for mechanical vibrations that aren't interpreted as sound (and hence are accounted for), I don't think it's very plausible. I've never been annoyed by headphones physically vibrating on my head or felt that it impedes the transparency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not really sure what answer you're trying to get from me. Are we even using the term transparent in the same context?

Saying "the headphone isn't there" isn't a useful technical definition.

The answer I'd be expecting is something like "linear frequency response at the eardrum (modulo sound field equalization etc.), minimal distortion and noise, good transient response" and maybe some other things.

Of course, you're free to associate transparency with things that have nothing to do with sound. An ideal headphone should of course be infinitely light, infinitely small, add no pressure to the ear canal, have no vibrations, no smell, be cordless, etc., but I think it's more useful to differentiate between sound and comfort issues. I'm not talking comfort issues here, I'm talking sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't get where frequency response comes to play in your context. Frequency response is useful to bringing information forward or moving it rearward in the presentation. Decrease intensity, decrease awareness. Increase intensity, increase awareness. One can pick out certain instruments or voices even by manipulating frequency response. You have some control over the presentation, but it has no part in my definition of transparency.

With sufficient equalization, I can definitely hear that something is wrong with the tonal balance, that voices and instruments sound wrong. Of course, if you add very wide peaks, as in a 5-band EQ, you won't destroy the tonal balance as much, and you'll say it's just "control over the presentation".

 

[66645]

RE0, only RE0...

 

[qusp]

not doable in your budget. i'd suggest UE10

reference grade, transparent; AWESOME!!! also $1000 so sorry. even most high end IEMs do not have a flat response, although as you stated you dont mind a touch of EQ you will probably find one that comes close. problem is i'm no expert on 100 phones. i've never owned anything in that bracket. you are getting some good responses though. I can actually recommend the shure SLC4 as I heard a friends and they were quite pleasing.

 

[mvw2]

Transparency isn't the idea of me not knowing the hardware is there. You can have a big, bulky headphone that is annoyingly noticeable, and it can be transparent. It's not that the physical hardware itself isn't transparent. Transparency is having it play music and me not being able to distinguish it is the source of that sound.

I'll go back to the Denon as an example. You shove it in your ear. You know it's physically there. You play music through it. Tonality is a little off overall and the bass is constrained and peaky. However, when I hear the sound, I can not perceive the source point/device of that sound. It is there, it has breadth, it has depth, but it has no distinguishable source point. I can go back to my DIYMA sub. All the sound that is emitted from it has no perceivable source. Yes, there's directionality because of physical location, but I can't tell the sub is making the sound.

You don't hear the speaker playing the sound. You just hear the sound. That's the compleity of my context.

I don't know. I'm just repeating myself. In my mind, it's a simple, child-like concept. No offense there, it's just an uncomplicated concept in my context.


Montell, the SA6 does look like a very intereting earphone. I've looked at some reviews/comments on them. It's a neat earphone. Reviews/comments are quite favorably, and I have partially leaned towards it as a good candidate.

lelek45, I've read a number of reviews/comments about the RE0 too. I agree, the RE0 seems to have the closest description to what I want, and the pricing isn't terrible either. The more I read about it, the more it seems like the right earphone for me. I've tried to compare it with everything else everyone's suggested for me so far too, and descriptions of it seem to indicate it's a better fit for me then everything else so far. It's good enoough where I'll just go ahead and buy it and see if it meets what people say. If not, up for sale, and I'll look at another option. At this time, I've sort of made up my mind on this earphone.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Transparency isn't the idea of me not knowing the hardware is there. You can have a big, bulky headphone that is annoyingly noticeable, and it can be transparent. It's not that the physical hardware itself isn't transparent. Transparency is having it play music and me not being able to distinguish it is the source of that sound. I'll go back to the Denon as an example. You shove it in your ear. You know it's physically there. You play music through it. Tonality is a little off overall and the bass is constrained and peaky. However, when I hear the sound, I can not perceive the source point/device of that sound. It is there, it has breadth, it has depth, but it has no distinguishable source point. I can go back to my DIYMA sub. All the sound that is emitted from it has no perceivable source. Yes, there's directionality because of physical location, but I can't tell the sub is making the sound.

Seriously! The horse is dead and the stick is in pieces.

Quote:

You don't hear the speaker playing the sound. You just hear the sound. That's the compleity of my context. I don't know. I'm just repeating myself. In my mind, it's a simple, child-like concept. No offense there, it's just an uncomplicated concept in my context.

You have multiple responses corroborating that they understand your "child like" concept.

Looks like you have made the decision to get the RE0. Lets us know if they meet your expectations when you get them.

 

[mvw2]

Yes, the horse is a bloody pulp now.

I just like mutual understanding, and mape and I don't seem to be on quite the same page. Because of the length of this tangent, I'll just let it go from here on out. No more comments on transparency, I swear!

Yeah, I'm settled on the RE0. I'll post up comments and a review after I get a little listening time on them.

 

[mape00]

Ooooooh, the horse is a bloody pulp

. Good one! (condescending retard laugh)

You still haven't addressed a single point I've made, but I guess it's because we don't speak the same language.

 

[mvw2]

Yeah. Apparently I'm unable to, and I'm not sure how to fix that.

But since we're at

and

I'm done with it.

 

[66645]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif lelek45, I've read a number of reviews/comments about the RE0 too. I agree, the RE0 seems to have the closest description to what I want, and the pricing isn't terrible either. The more I read about it, the more it seems like the right earphone for me.

I can confirm that my impressions from RE0 were very close to reviews posted here on head-fi by several members. From negative side I want to add that they are don't have big sound (like IE8 or OK1) but I prefer them to IE8 and OK1 anyway.

 

[mvw2]

Just got my RE0s today. I also grabbed a Fiio E5 as well. It came with an E3, but I like...um...features. The output quality is also noticeably better with the E5.

Just to keep on track with amp talk, the RE0 does seem to prefer being amped for anything above quiet/quiet-medium volumes. The amp is a definite improvement on dynamics once you get to medium or higher volumes. It's not a massive improvement, no, but it is noticeable. One fault I am finding with the amp is that it does seem to reduce the stereo separation some and makes everything a little more monotone. I just get a better sound stage without it.

Initial setup:
I took off the double flanged tip. My ear canal is small, and I don't make use of it. As well, the low frequency response seems to lack using that tip versus another. I opted for one of the small, black tips similar to what I have with my V-Moda Vibe.

After some initial listening, I opted to do the mid/high frequency mod by pulling the foam out of the earphone. With it, yes, it does tame the high end and make the earphone more forgiving to listen to. However, the sound is noticeably veiled in this configuration. I pulled off the fiber earwax filter, took a small tweezers and pulled the foam out, and put a fresh fiber filter on. Ah, much better. A word of warning, to some, the highs might be a little overbearing after doing this mod. The upper end has a lot of detail and is not forgiving. A useful compromise might be to cut the foam in half and only use some of it or find a different material that is less dense to block a touch of the highs but, say, only have as much as the stock configuration. The earwax filter does do a small amount itself too but far, far less so. The foam mod opens up the midrange and high end a lot and makes the earphone a good deal more detailed. Frequency response remains good with a slightly strong top end, hense why the addition of foam to roll off the top end. The foam used is just a bit much and cuts out a little too much. If you've got an EQ, cut out a couple dB on the top end and you're good.

Initial listening impressions:
The frequency response isn't too bad. It's relatively broad and flat. They're still quite new with only an hour or so of listening. A short pink noise test with some EQ fiddling shows a relatively flat frequency response with a very slightly hot top end. I cut a very shallow slope starting from around 1kHz up to about -2dB at 12kHz, very shallow, with 16kHz cut sharp at -7dB to soften the top.

The level of detail is decently high but it lacks a little bit of crispness/edge/articulation of note for my taste. It's a little soft/laid back in presentation, kind of akin to running a soft coned paper or poly woofer. Something like the Yuin PK2 and Denon C700 fairs better in edge/articulation. The RE0 doesn't really miss a beat anywhere else though. It doesn't get sluggish on the top end and doesn't muddy up on the the bottom end. The frequency response is very good and relatively (ear) flat. Stage presence is pretty normal for what I'd expect from an earphone. Transparency is good, good enough where you can ignore that you're listening to earphones, but you always know you're still listening to a pair of earphones. Overall output capability is pretty high and can get annoyingly loud without distorting if amped and is pretty content even unamped. The driver is pretty capable for output.

I'll spend some days with it and provide more feedback.