[milford302009]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew.C /img/forum/go_quote.gif True, ive heard other saying that too, but i trust my ears more.. definitely and upgrade to me. Matthew

i agree with you use your ears... well from an engineering point of view... it may seem stupid.. (engineering people allow for huge errors in my opinion) but from a solid state physics point of view the mobility of the electrons do vary through different metals(and concentration... for example a small dope of atoms in an insulators gives our transistors today...
tho the thing is i have no idea if the extra/less current driving the magnets would be sufficient to change the sound...really depends on the material the magnets hit to produce the sound and how sensitive the magnets are i guess...

 

[Spyro]

Depends on the music IMHO. For rock, pop and hip hop SE530 is preferrred. It is a bit more forced and aggressive which is good more these types of music. With classical, jazz, chamber orchestra, etc. I would always take the Triples. It sounds more layered, multi-dimentional and refiined sounding to me. The very forward midrange of SE530 can be annoying with some music. More of a personal preference versus one being better than the other.

 

[mvw2]

Multi-genre function requires good frequency balance. There is too much variation and created musical bias from the frequency response curve.

Flat response equal no bias. Certain songs may not have the same sound you were used to, but it's more true to the original recording(although that in itself will have some bias).

The only way I've found that you can do to give a good representation of one headphone to another is to equalize both in frequency response. I'll EQ any earphones I have and get as close to a (ear) flat response as I can. I can then compare product A with product B without the frequency response bias towards specific music. Smaller details show through and provide the smaller details, smaller differences between each product. In some cases, balancing an earphone can be rather dramatic.

The downside is this industry is heavily dependent upon out of the box sound. Many folks don't have an EQ or at least one extensive enough to be all that useful. Many folks don't run their hardware with amps, so there is bias with that as well, and some earphones suffer from this.

I have to EQ the Triple.Fi. They bug me just enough to get annoying if I don't. It's not even that much, just a few dB cut on the low end, but not doing so gives just enough overemphasis to offend. I cut the top end a few dB too, although this is less offensive. The treble on the Triple.Fi is mild enough not to annoy easily. The low end however is robust enough to cause problems, at least for what I'm looking for.

 

[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Multi-genre function requires good frequency balance. There is too much variation and created musical bias from the frequency response curve. Flat response equal no bias. Certain songs may not have the same sound you were used to, but it's more true to the original recording(although that in itself will have some bias). The only way I've found that you can do to give a good representation of one headphone to another is to equalize both in frequency response. I'll EQ any earphones I have and get as close to a (ear) flat response as I can. I can then compare product A with product B without the frequency response bias towards specific music. Smaller details show through and provide the smaller details, smaller differences between each product. In some cases, balancing an earphone can be rather dramatic. The downside is this industry is heavily dependent upon out of the box sound. Many folks don't have an EQ or at least one extensive enough to be all that useful. Many folks don't run their hardware with amps, so there is bias with that as well, and some earphones suffer from this. I have to EQ the Triple.Fi. They bug me just enough to get annoying if I don't. It's not even that much, just a few dB cut on the low end, but not doing so gives just enough overemphasis to offend. I cut the top end a few dB too, although this is less offensive. The treble on the Triple.Fi is mild enough not to annoy easily. The low end however is robust enough to cause problems, at least for what I'm looking for.

When i test products against each, i completely turn off the EQ and use the same songs. Why? because though players have a difference in sound reproduction and sound signature, it keeps the performance of the earphones equal. If the 530 perform better than the TF10 in mids, then they are going to no matter what player you use. However, when you EQ for that "listening style" you are used to to test the earphones, then i find that rather unaccurate.


However, if equalizing to your personal preference to see what to buy, then that's a different story

 

[mvw2]

I EQ to no music. I use a pink noise test and tune to flat, well at least what my ears consider as even in intensity across the frequency spectrum. It's something I started doing a few years ago. It's the only way I've found where I can run and tune a pile random equipment together and get good results quick and easy each time. Way back, I tried tuning to music, but it simply varies too much, and you just end up building in bias towards however the particular song was tuned or at least what you think the song is supposed to sound like.

 

[Spyro]

I wouldn't necessarily agree. Some IEM's EQ better than others and some are very source dependent.

It would be like comparing two cars driving at a steady 55mph down a straight flat road. I don't think it tells the whole story.

 

[mvw2]

The pink noise is just the setup. In car terms, it's like setting suspension similar between two cars where they have equivalent spring frequency and relative damping. Effectively, it gets set up where it should react about the same for given inputs. I still use music, and a very wide variety, to test how they vary. It's akin to driving each car on a variety of test courses and road surfaces. This is what highlights the various differences. However, frequency response alone can overshadow smaller variations.

Two cars driving steady at 55mph down a specific road is more like playing a single note from a single instrument and asking which headphone is holistically better just from that information.

I agree some are more sensitive to EQing and some limited by the EQ you do have. For example, the PFE has a couple distinct EQ spikes, very specific in frequency and narrow in width. One would need an EQ with points specific to the spikes and with an adjustable or narrow enough bandwidth to be useful. I just have a 10-band EQ on my PC, and it's not as ideal as it could be in some cases such as with the PFE. A parametric EQ would better suit that instance or a higher band graphic with more points that actually fall into those ranges. Sometimes the EQ just isn't useful for specific problems. Even with a 10 band graphic EQ, I do find it is barely enough to handle the wide variety of responses various products have.

I'll make a small note that the EQ curve I added is surprisingly Etymotic like(not intentional), although only around a 4dB bump in the midrange.