[Max Choiral]

Yes, for sure. This graph shows the Tonal Balance (FR) of the IER M7. First thing to consider is that the insertion depth of this IEM on the coupler isn't the ideal (the standard) because the graph is little moved to the left. It indicates that it was inserted a little shallower. Anyway, I can say something about it's FR.

1. Bass is elevated but not exaggerated (somewhat 8db above neutrality).

2. It lacks a little on the High-mids (2,5-4k), so, you will feel the voices/guitars and pianos, for example, a little more smooth and distant than neutral.

3. Treble are a little bit less than neutral quantity, but are very good, in general.

4. The overall Tonal Balance, although not neutral, seems to be very good and it will sound smooth and "musical".

5. About the cymbals: Will sound very good, correctly, but a little smoother and less present than neutral.

Cymbals sound good, but not entirely correct. There is some kind of colouration over base tone, it is very apparent on hi-hats. I heard a very similar thing on MDR-Z7, XBA-Z5. And the tone of the drums is more rounded up than it supposes to be.
Do you think it's related to frequency response?

 

[guicnovaes]

Cymbals sound good, but not entirely correct. There is some kind of colouration over base tone, it is very apparent on hi-hats. I heard a very similar thing on MDR-Z7, XBA-Z5. And the tone of the drums is more rounded up than it supposes to be.
Do you think it's related to frequency response?

Yes, I think it's related to the frequency response. This graph below is a little more accurate and shows it better.
PS: I look for the faded gray line (Raw FR), beacuase the compensated curve isn't based on the Ety's DF (although alike):

You can see that there's some dip at 6 and 8K, that's why there's colocation on cymbals. About the more rounded is tone of the drums is because of the increment on bass and the dip on the High-mids (presence region). It's smooth out the sound.

 

[Gorktastick]

Do you have the mediums? How do they compare in size to the stock triple flange tips?

I use the small size, despite the fact that pretty much every other IEM that I have ever used, I need a large! I actually use medium and large EarFills on my BLON BL-03. But the Etys are the deepest insertion IEMs that I own, which is why I think the small size EarFills work with them. I prefer these double flanges over the ones that come with the Etymotics, and I find the triple flanges to be rather itchy.

 

[castleofargh]

@guicnovaes you keep using DF in ways that troubles me.
Here is what I think about when I read DF target on the forum: a given dummy head is used under conditions that we can consider to be diffuse field(speaker, and room with a lot of reverb, or something along those lines). The resulting FR under such conditions can now be used as DF reference for that dummy head(doesn't matter if we later measure an IEM or an airplane, that reference will not change!). We can show it as a target response, which is its raw uncompensated frequency response graph. Or we can use it as a compensation to show other measurements that we'd label as "DF compensated".

But you stick DF everywhere while meaning very different things. Like how Ety's target curve is inspired by the DF reference of their dummy head and then tweaked in the treble based on more assumptions. That to you becomes Ety's DF target... Except it's not. If it was DF it would be called that and would not be Ety's target curve. And if it's something different, well then it isn't the DF target and I'm fairly sure they do not call it that either.

Yes, there are some versions of the DF Target. About it there are some interesting points to discuss: 1. DF Target for IEMs and Headphones (although visually alike) can't be the same, because there are differences on the way the sound works on the ear Chanel, depending of the type of phone.

2. I personally believe that Ety Target (along with Hammershoi & Moller) is most accurate for some reasons: The Ety's DF Target (One type of CORFIG) is used on Deep insertion Hearing aids.

Besides that, the CORFIGS (targets various types of hearing aids) were all standardized by Mead C. Killion Ph.D., who is the founder and actual president of Etymotic.

The most recent version of the In Ear's DF is the Hammershoi & Miller curve, Wich was obtained with the bigger number of measuring samples (HATS and real human's ear chanels). Besides that, the Ety Target, even after more than 30 ears of existing, is almost identical to the Hammershoi & Moller version (2008).

this post makes little sense to me. For example: "1. DF Target for IEMs and Headphones (although visually alike) can't be the same, because there are differences on the way the sound works on the ear Chanel, depending of the type of phone." whatever you're trying to say here, has nothing to do with DF or a DF target.

I don't know if it's just an abuse of language or if there is a more profound misunderstanding, but something isn't right.

 

[guicnovaes]

@guicnovaes you keep using DF in ways that troubles me.
Here is what I think about when I read DF target on the forum: a given dummy head is used under conditions that we can consider to be diffuse field(speaker, and room with a lot of reverb, or something along those lines). The resulting FR under such conditions can now be used as DF reference for that dummy head(doesn't matter if we later measure an IEM or an airplane, that reference will not change!). We can show it as a target response, which is its raw uncompensated frequency response graph. Or we can use it as a compensation to show other measurements that we'd label as "DF compensated".

But you stick DF everywhere while meaning very different things. Like how Ety's target curve is inspired by the DF reference of their dummy head and then tweaked in the treble based on more assumptions. That to you becomes Ety's DF target... Except it's not. If it was DF it would be called that and would not be Ety's target curve. And if it's something different, well then it isn't the DF target and I'm fairly sure they do not call it that either.


this post makes little sense to me. For example: "1. DF Target for IEMs and Headphones (although visually alike) can't be the same, because there are differences on the way the sound works on the ear Chanel, depending of the type of phone." whatever you're trying to say here, has nothing to do with DF or a DF target.

I don't know if it's just an abuse of language or if there is a more profound misunderstanding, but something isn't right.

I find it reasonable that you have questions about these things I said. I think maybe I wasn't clear enough when I few said some things so I better try to clarify some of my points of view.

There are some "versions" of DF for In ear, which were obtained in different experiments, but the result is very similar (the curves are very similar).

However, this researches aren't limited to measurements with Dummy Heads. The thing is much more complex and there are several other factors, minimally researched in several other academic papers to consider when obtaining a curve like this. To obtain the Etymotic DF version, for example, in addition to the use of Dummy Heads, measurements were made with real people, with microphones positioned in their ear canal, to take into account on average the natural differences between the ear canal. .

Due to the very high level of detail on the research, among other reasons, I believe that Ety Target (Ety's DF or whatever ...) is the most accurate curve in relation to neutrality. Another reason, for example, is simply that this curve is used as a reference in the production of hearing aids.

It is for reasons like these that I always refer to Ety's DF as the neutrality standard for in ears. It is simply my opinion. Nevertheless, know that I am not an expert or professional (I'm a Lawyer), however, I read a lot about it and try my best not to spread information without having a reference.

Regarding the difference between IEMs and Over Ears, there are articles on the about it. I've read it, but I don't remember where. Anyway this story about the Sony MH1C brings some explanations about it:

http://www.inearmatters.net/2012/10/behind-scene-sony-mh1-r-story.html?m=1

Anyway, @JohnYang1997, for example, was involved in the development of some In Ears and probably knows a lot more than me. It would be interesting to know something that he or @csglinux have to add (or bash me... haha).

Merry Christmas!

 

[JohnYang1997]

It's pretty easy to understand. No matter from what source, the response at ear drum should be the same. It can apply to iem, over ear, on ear, even speakers. Usually we take flat speakers in treated room as standard so we don't normally use it that way, but it's possible.
Now, there are er4s and er4b. Er4b is the one that directly takes the DF target. Er4s actually added a room gain in consideration. So they attenuate 5db at 10khz starting 2khz. The approach and idea is almost perfect. The only downside is the selection of 2khz and the shape of the curve being no very precise. It's overall very good. It can be fine tuned to decrease a bit 1.6-2khz (0.5db to 1db).
The issue with harman target is the weird high frequency roll off after 8khz/10khz which shouldn't be that aggressive. This results in the increase of 6khz region(because subjective tuning) and too much high frequency roll off. Also they chose 3khz(gradually increasing even) as the ear canal gain frequency which should actually be more like 2.7khz (and this is also different depending on individual but 3khz+ is rare).

 

[castleofargh]

I find it reasonable that you have questions about these things I said. I think maybe I wasn't clear enough when I few said some things so I better try to clarify some of my points of view.

There are some "versions" of DF for In ear, which were obtained in different experiments, but the result is very similar (the curves are very similar).

However, this researches aren't limited to measurements with Dummy Heads. The thing is much more complex and there are several other factors, minimally researched in several other academic papers to consider when obtaining a curve like this. To obtain the Etymotic DF version, for example, in addition to the use of Dummy Heads, measurements were made with real people, with microphones positioned in their ear canal, to take into account on average the natural differences between the ear canal. .

Due to the very high level of detail on the research, among other reasons, I believe that Ety Target (Ety's DF or whatever ...) is the most accurate curve in relation to neutrality. Another reason, for example, is simply that this curve is used as a reference in the production of hearing aids.

It is for reasons like these that I always refer to Ety's DF as the neutrality standard for in ears. It is simply my opinion. Nevertheless, know that I am not an expert or professional (I'm a Lawyer), however, I read a lot about it and try my best not to spread information without having a reference.

Regarding the difference between IEMs and Over Ears, there are articles on the about it. I've read it, but I don't remember where. Anyway this story about the Sony MH1C brings some explanations about it:

http://www.inearmatters.net/2012/10/behind-scene-sony-mh1-r-story.html?m=1

Anyway, @JohnYang1997, for example, was involved in the development of some In Ears and probably knows a lot more than me. It would be interesting to know something that he or @csglinux have to add (or bash me... haha).

Merry Christmas!

To quote Inigo Montoya on diffuse field:
"you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
I'm not puzzled by good old CORFIG, the hypothesis that a DF response at the ear could be perceived as neutral by most people, or even by the changes in resonance from in ear insertion.

But when you write something like:

There are some "versions" of DF for In ear

I go

trying to figure out what you're talking about.

 

[guicnovaes]

It's pretty easy to understand. No matter from what source, the response at ear drum should be the same. It can apply to iem, over ear, on ear, even speakers. Usually we take flat speakers in treated room as standard so we don't normally use it that way, but it's possible.
Now, there are er4s and er4b. Er4b is the one that directly takes the DF target. Er4s actually added a room gain in consideration. So they attenuate 5db at 10khz starting 2khz. The approach and idea is almost perfect. The only downside is the selection of 2khz and the shape of the curve being no very precise. It's overall very good. It can be fine tuned to decrease a bit 1.6-2khz (0.5db to 1db).
The issue with harman target is the weird high frequency roll off after 8khz/10khz which shouldn't be that aggressive. This results in the increase of 6khz region(because subjective tuning) and too much high frequency roll off. Also they chose 3khz(gradually increasing even) as the ear canal gain frequency which should actually be more like 2.7khz (and this is also different depending on individual but 3khz+ is rare).

Yes, This Graph shows this little more energy about 1.6-2k, compared to the Target:

But I still think it's the best in the market.

About the Room gain, Mead talks about it on his interview:

To quote Inigo Montoya on diffuse field:
"you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
I'm not puzzled by good old CORFIG, the hypothesis that a DF response at the ear could be perceived as neutral by most people, or even by the changes in resonance from in ear insertion.

The Ety's Target isn't limited to CORFIG. CORFIG is only the starting point. Other elements are taken into account. An example is the Room Gain that @JohnYang1997 talked about.

But when you write something like:
I go

trying to figure out what you're talking about.

I'm talking about things like these:

 

[Ocelitgol]

Symbio gives more noticeable isolation compare to triple flanges. Is this correct or am I wearing triple flange incorrectly?

 

[castleofargh]

The Ety's Target isn't limited to CORFIG. CORFIG is only the starting point. Other elements are taken into account. An example is the Room Gain that @JohnYang1997 talked about.

Yes, so it's not really a DF target anymore.

I'm talking about things like these:

And yes, the human head, or dummy head will affect the DF measurement. I think I described it exactly like that and mentioned how a given model of dummy head would have its own DF reference. But this is about the measurement rig and maybe the room and speaker used in the process of getting that reference. It is not about IEMs and is not IEM dependent. Because an IEM isn't used to get DF reference. We clearly agree on most things so I don't get where the issue comes from, I only know that it's there.

Yes if I take an er4 and measure it at different insertions I will get different frequency responses. Because insertion is affecting the internal volume, and moving resonances at other freqs. It's very real and very obvious when I measure mine. But that has nothing to do with a DF target which is a reference following a form of measurement standard(that again, does not involved headphones or IEMs). Ety IEMs go deep. They need to account for that when they design their IEM so they end up measuring and sounding the way they want when inserted deep. It's a design problem that's not related or affecting the DF target or whatever target response they aim for while using their dummy head. The dummy didn't use an IEM to get the DF reference, and it doesn't know how the IEM is inserted, so how could that DF target be affected by the IEM or insertion depth? What's affected by the IEM is the FR measured from it. That response only defines the IEM's response on that rig, not the DF target! They're simply different things.
Am I making any sense?

 

[guicnovaes]

Yes I understand everything you said and I agree with everything. I also know that the way I use the term "Ety's DF" isn't very accurate, but I have already tried to explain that I refer to Ety's target, as it is a DF with some modifications. Now I don't understand where the disagreement is going on. I have not said at any time that Ety's target will change, for example depending on the depth of insertion. I know very well that Target is fixed and the IEM should try to reproduce it with its FR, applications, features...

What I meant about IEM DF being different from Over Ear DF is something like this: Etymotic's neutral target for Over Ears, for example, would be different from the current target for in ears, simply because Over Ears and IEMs cause distinct influences on sound within the ear canal.

These are words from Sead Smailagic, the engineer responsible for the Sony MH1C.

Look at this:

When using Headphones, some of these elements are taken into account; but some are not taken into account when it comes to designing Target from an IEM.

An example is the "Concha": when you hear something through a Headphone, the sound goes through the Concha of your ear, before entering the ear canal. When you hear something with an IEM, the sound will not pass through the Concha, as the earphone is inserted directly into the ear channel. This causes differences with respect to the resonance points.

Sources: http://www.inearmatters.net/2012/10/behind-scene-sony-mh1-r-story.html?m=1

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0fkvRDsO-6R01b_VSEp_j-

 

[episiarch]

Symbio gives more noticeable isolation compare to triple flanges. Is this correct or am I wearing triple flange incorrectly?

It's not surprising that it's more isolating – even on Etys, foam and foam-filled tips isolate better. But tri-flanges should still be very isolating on their own. For me, tri-flanges block absolutely all noise from a home or office setting unless, I don't know, a door slams or something, and even then it would be pretty quiet. This is with the Etys all the way in so that the cable bend is flush against my earlobes. If yours aren't in similarly deeply, then I expect you're not getting the expected level of isolation, nor the designed frequency response.

 

[Ocelitgol]

It's not surprising that it's more isolating – even on Etys, foam and foam-filled tips isolate better. But tri-flanges should still be very isolating on their own. For me, tri-flanges block absolutely all noise from a home or office setting unless, I don't know, a door slams or something, and even then it would be pretty quiet. This is with the Etys all the way in so that the cable bend is flush against my earlobes. If yours aren't in similarly deeply, then I expect you're not getting the expected level of isolation, nor the designed frequency response.

Thank you. I checked and I can feel a tiny part of bottom of the tips (clear large triple flanges) right in the entrance of the ear canal. I assume this is deep enough?

I think a medium size triple flanges from Ety might be a perfect fit for me. The small frost ones are too small and the big ones I feel like they are too big that they fold themselves.

 

[drMuse]

Myself (maybe I'm just lucky?) have never fretted about the fit of Ety supplied tips. I tried the foam(s) a time or two, didn't like them, didn't give them 5 minutes. I liked the silicone supplied, and AFAIK they always supplied them in only one size. I've bought ~1/2 dozen ER4S/ER4P over 18+ years, use no other headphones for portable or in the house. I find that shoving them deeper increases the isolation (bye bye gym noise, well, most of it), increases the volume and seems to increase the bass response. In the gym, I have gloves on, my smartphone is in a pocket, it's a hassle to have to adjust volume by getting the phone out of pocket, remove gloves, adjust volume -- so just adjusting the fit of the Etys in my ears more often than not accomplishes my mission (make my music louder of quieter).

 

[episiarch]

Thank you. I checked and I can feel a tiny part of bottom of the tips (clear large triple flanges) right in the entrance of the ear canal. I assume this is deep enough?

I think it ought to be.