jgariepy
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Posts
- 1
- Likes
- 0
[size=26.0pt]What do you really need?[/size]
With the advent of the iPhone and other smartphones, many of us have found ourselves merging the roles of portable music players and phones. Many of these new devices on the market have improved their sound quality substantially. When I was initially buying my gear I had trouble deciphering what was really necessary. Hopefully this thread will help others who are just starting out.
Goal:To informally compare in-ear monitors and circum-aural headphones in hopes of shedding light on amplification and sources. To show whether or not the iPhone/iPod needs amplification for these headphones.
Equipment Used (And reason for use): In this comparison I tried to use gear that represented the variety on this website. I chose two headphones with completely opposite approaches to music and budgets. I also chose the Pico dac+amp to eliminate some variables in sound representation.
iPhone 4 (Popular Phone. Good Internal Amp.) 800$
iPod Nano 5th Gen. (Consumer Music Player) 150$
iMac (Basic Consumer Computer) 2000$
Shure SE535 In-Ear Monitor 500$
(In ear high performance, high sensitivity, low-impedance monitor) (noted for: liquid mids, neutral presentation)
Beyerdynamic DT770 80 ohms 200$
(Circumaural Headphones: Dynamic Sound, Good instrument separation, impressive soundstage for price point, good bass resp.)
Pico DAC+Amp 500$
(Popular Amp in the community. Good Neutral Response. Portable.)
Foreword: This is an informal test. But I have attempted to remove as many variables as possible. This review represents only a test of the gear used. However, in my experience much of this review can be applied to other similar setups.
Test Music & Setup:I tried to be exhaustive with the selection of music to appeal to everyone. Unfortunately, that becomes a pretty long list and worst of all I barely scratch the surface of musical taste. However, I feel that each of these 18 songs push the headphones and sources very differently. I tested each song on a different day, listening to the song on each medium during one session. The source order was random and done blind. (Obviously I knew what headphones I was listening to, but not what they were plugged-into). The computer control setup was an iMac running iTunes 10.1.1, using the Pico DAC+Amp as converter and source. The equalizer on iTunes was turned off and the volume was maximized.
Results:The results are broken up by song. Different source bit rates/quality were used to give a better impression of the average music library.
1) [Acoustic] JACK JOHNSON: Rodeo Clowns [On and On] (C) 2003 Technical: AAC 128 kbps, 44.100 kHz
This is an instrument isolation test. The shures lack bass regardless of source. Beyers need to be amped. The beyers have a deep bass response and wide sound stage amped. Shures also have better soundstaging when properly amped (the difference is subtle to say the least). Both show clipping when unamped. The shures sound great unamped on the iPhone (only subtle clipping). Winner: Beyers
2) [Classical] YO-YO MA & EMANUEL AX: Beethoven: Cello Sonata #1 In F, Op. 5/1 - 2. Rondo: Allegro Vivace [Beethoven: Cello Sonatas 1 & 2] (C) 1982 Technical: Apple Lossless 488 kbps, 44.100 kHz
This is a space test. The beyers once again have more sense of space amped. The cello sits very far forward on the shures and has great acutance. On the beyers, you can almost feel the air in the body of the piano and the wooden floorboards beneath the musicians. The sound is more artificial and polished on the shures. Winner: Beyers
3) [Orchestral] Herbert Von Karajan: BERLIN PHILHARMONIC: Overture to "Die Fledermaus" [The Johann Strauss Super Concert] (C) 1971 Technical: Apple Lossless 898 kbps, 44.100 kHz
This is a resolution test. The Shures really do display amazing mids on the iPhone amped or not. The shures reveal considerable noise in the highs on the iMac’s headphone jack due to the high sensitivity of these headphones. A dac+amp is definitely recommended to avoid this problem on many computers. The beyers are not as neutral for classical, but still sound great amped. The highs sound distant on the beyers, but the bass is resonant and present. It’s like being at the symphony and standing by the bass/cello section. The brass section is very impressive on the shures. They sound very natural and nuanced. Winner: Shures
4) [Dance] CALVIN HARRIS: The Rain [Ready for the Weekend] (C) 2009 Technical: AAC 256 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This is a presentation test. This song has very strong pumping bass in the upper registers of the low frequencies. The shures excel at resolving the fast tempo synth rhythms and electronic noises. The very present quality of the sound on the shures makes the song feel more energetic. The extra depth and deep bass is under utilized on this song and the mids fall short. Winner: Shures.
5) [Electronica] MOBY: Porcelain [Play] (C) 1999 Technical: AAC 320 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This song tests the tonality of the sound. Unamped the beyers are limp and lifeless. Amped, the beyers produce amazing clarity and reproduce the feeling of the piece very naturally. They feel like you are listening to the sound of a rainy day. The shures I feel do better here unamped, although, they still sound over processed and artificial. Amped, the shures sound like they are being force fed the song. Winner: Beyers (Amped).
6) [Orchestral Pop] BJORK: It’s Oh So Quiet [Post] (C) 1995 Technical: Apple Lossless 756 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
Bright and experimental. This tests the fun of the system. The shures amped or unamped deliver uncompromising vocals that are pure and liquid. The bass is not overstated and the surrounding symphony of noise does not overwhelm Bjork’s voice. The beyers amped are less fun, but are also very interesting. The punch of the shures is replaced with texture and feeling on the beyers. Bjork’s voice is more recessed. Winner: Depends on your mood.
7) [Pop] BEYONCÉ: Crazy In Love [Dangerously in Love] (C) 2003 Technical: AAC 128 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
The shures are just fun. Radio friendly pop sings on the in-ear monitors. The beyers don’t do justice to the mids in this song. Winner: Shures.
8) [Psychedelic Pop] MGMT: Future Reflections [Oracular Spectacular] (C) 2008 Technical: AAC 256, 44.100 kHz.
This is the second resolution test. This song is full of sound effects and synthesizer noises. While the shures do well at resolving the mids, the high and lows are better on the beyers when amped. The beyers give more contrast to the song and in turn the depth is portrayed better. Winner: Beyers (Amped).
9) [Orchestral Rock] ARCADE FIRE: No Cars Go [Neon Bible] (C) 2007 Technical: AIFF 1411 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This song is layered and complex. Both headphones do a commendable job at presenting the material. The beyers have a very musical presentation when amped. The shures edge out the beyers by out resolving the textures amped or unamped. The bass is well presented by both. Winners: Tie. Special Note: Listening to “The Suburbs (Continued)” on cans with deep bass response is a real treat.
10) [Jazz] BILL EVANS TRIO: My Man’s Gone Now [Sunday at The Village Vanguard] (C) 1961 Technical: 788 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This song is one of the most brutal tests. The bass, the piano, and the drums each present separate challenges to the headphones. The depth and character of the resonant bass can be heard beautifully in the beyers. The highs really stand out and are beautifully textured. The clatter of the crowd can be heard perfectly and the depth of the room is portrayed exquisitely. The shures do a decent job as well at portraying these sounds and the piano really shines through on the in-ear monitors. Winner: Beyers (Amped).
11) [Jazz] CHARLES MINGUS: Goodbye Pork Pie Hat [Mingus Ah Um] (C) 1959 Technical: AIFF 1411 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
A similar story here. Except the brass here is so smooth and effortless on the shures. Winner: Shures.
12) [Chamber Pop] GRIZZLY BEAR: Southern Point [Veckatimest] (C) 2009 Technical: Apple Lossless 881 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This song is textured and wild. Depth and space afforded by the beyers is key. Winner: Beyers.
13) [Hip-Hop] KANYE WEST: Monster [My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy] (C) 2010 Technical: Apple Lossless 862 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
Both headphones do a surprisingly good job here. The more recessed bass in the shures isn’t as much of a detriment as one would think. The shures are very punchy and bright and in your face. The beyers make you feel like you are surrounded. Monstrous indeed. Winner: Tie.
14) [Hip-Hop] BLACK STAR: Thieves in the Night [Mos Def & Talib Kweli Are Black Star] (C) 1998 Technical: AAC 256 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
The deep bass and stereo quality of the song are enhanced by the depth and space of the beyers. The brightness and resolved mids in the shures do very little for the song. The shures are out of their element. Winner: Beyers.
15) [Classic Rock] LED ZEPPELIN: Whole Lotta Love [Led Zeppelin II] (C) 1969 Technical: Apple Lossless 775 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This one comes down to personal preference. The shures feel more in the moment and fluid, whereas the beyers are more of a witness to the event. The beyers have a very nice way of depicting the wailing interlude in the middle of the song. Winner: Tie.
16) [Live Rock] NEIL YOUNG & CRAZY HORSE: Down By the River [Live at the Fillmore East 1970] (C) 1970: AAC 320 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
The beyers excel at live concerts. They are able to much better image the stage and the performers in a space. The shures are great at presenting the music in a consolidated processed form. Winner: Beyers
17) [Vocal] CAT POWER: Ramblin’ (Wo)man [Jukebox] (C) 2008 Technical: AAC 256 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
Vocals are the bread and butter of the shures. The speech is detailed and smooth. The mids come across very naturally. The beyers also do a great job, especially with the surrounding music. Winner: Shures.
18) [Metal] CHILDREN OF BODOM: Downfall [Hatebreeder] (C) 1999 Technical: AAC 320 kbps, 44.100 kHz.
This was the biggest surprise to me. I much preferred the sound of the shures. The sound is much more raw, despite the beyers generally being more natural sounding in most other types of music. I think this is due to the presentation of the shures. The mids sit far more forward and the attack is very powerful and bright. Winner: Personal Preference. If you like your metal to be very bassy, then the shures may disappoint.
//farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5354048300_9978c3cbe3_z.jpg
Conclusions:
The shure SE535s need far less amplification than the beyers. They are very portable and benefit very little from an external amp. They sound great on the iPhone 4 and new iPod nano unamped.
However, certain sources are too noisy for sensitive in-ear monitors like these. Earlier iPods (before 2nd gen nano) and even recent computers may need an amp and/or DAC to avoid high frequency noise. Definitely try out any in-ear monitor on your sources before purchasing.
Apple has worked hard to attenuate noise on their portable music players. The iPhone 4 excels at driving in-ear monitors natively. They are detailed in their response and have great soundstaging. The shures actually sounded worse amped via the line-out to pico (low-gain) on the iPhone. They sounded overdriven, compressed and had a narower soundstage.
The computer+Pico(DAC+amp)+Shures was only marginally better all around.
The beyerdynamic DT770 (80 ohms) require proper amplification. But with amplification they sing on both the computer and the iPhone. In my opinion, the bayers (amped) sound better overall than the Shures (amped or unamped). Unamped, they are not worth the money at all. They sound harsh and clipped without the amp.
What you will notice is that despite the variation in bit rates for all the sample songs, the headphones still made the most difference. From what I’ve heard from these tests, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference in sound quality above 256 kbps regardless of what people claim.
Overall, an amp is important for larger headphones with impedances greater than 60 ohms. At less than 60 ohms, the benefit of an amp is far more subtle. If you are in the market for in-ear monitors, listen for a good source rather than adding an amp if possible.
If I were starting out again from scratch and wanted to have an all around performer. I would probably choose to stick with just a high sensitivity in-ear monitor. They offer great sound quality without the need for a bulky amp and the compromises are smaller than most here want you to believe.
Hope this helps. What do you guys think about amps and in-ear monitors?
JM.
