[spleisher]

I just made a comment in another thread that might, if the masses deem it worthwhile, be worthy of some further discussion/analysis.

We were discussing the Westone 3 sibilance "issue" (don't know that it's really a big issue, but that's beside the point) and it was mentioned that it is not the job of an IEM to color the sound. Basically, the point was that the term "monitor" suggests that the job of the IEM is to present sound exactly how it is, without any color one way or the other to make it more pleasing, in the expert opinion of the company/developers of the IEM to listen to.

Put simply, since we are talking about "monitors", the one that produces the sound of the recording most "accurately" is basically the best.

I won't argue with that, but I will say this, and pardon me if this seems like I am focusing too much on semantics. I really don't think I am:

Are most of the "In-Ear" earphones we're talking about really "monitors" at all, or is that a term that WE on head-fi are using, perhaps OVER-USING to describe them? Normally, it wouldn't matter, it would just be a term. But when we start using the word "monitor" to make the argument as to how they should sound, I think it matters.

I checked out Shure's website, and they describe the SE530 as "Sound Isolating Earphones". Klipsch describes the Image X-10 as an "in-ear earphone". Even Westone uses the term "True-fit Earphones" under the "Universal Fit Earphone" section of their site.

If you go to the "Musicians" section on Westone's site, THERE you will find them describing their products as "monitors".

That's all the research I've bothered to do at the moment, but I think everyone gets my point. I think it would be smart to be a little more careful about our terminology, especially if we're using that terminology to make an argument for what the proper sound should be. Because, while it may not be good for a "monitor" to color sound in some way that a manufacturer thinks would be pleasing to their target consumer, I would argue that it would be perfectly appropriate to do so with an "In-Ear Earphone" or "Sound Isolating Earphone".

 

[Bonthouse]

I disagree, you just gave the word "Monitor" the definition of having a flat frequency response.
In my eyes THAT is faulty.
I got a CRT monitor and a TFT monitor. The colors on the TFT are less vivid and black.. well, it isn't really black.
So I shouldn't call my TFT monitor a monitor?

Each manufacturer has a different perception of (sound)quality they want to achieve with a specific product.
I say, let them. If it wasn't for the differences, there would be no competition in the market.

And those names you gave, like "Sound Isolating Earphones", "In-Ear Earphones" and such... dude. It's called "Marketing".

And further on. I looked it up in the dictionairy:

[size=small]mon⋅i⋅tor [mon-i-ter][/size] [size=xx-small]–noun [/size]

Radio and Television.
a. a receiving apparatus used in a control room, esp. to provide a steady check of the quality of an audio or video transmission.
b. a similar apparatus placed in various parts of a studio so that an audience can watch a recorded portion of a show, the performer can see the various segments of a program, etc.
c. any such receiving apparatus used in a closed-circuit system, as in an operating room.

Note that it doesn't say a flat EQ, flat color response or anything in that order.

 

[spleisher]

That wasn't my definition of what a "monitor" should do, it was what others were suggesting. I want my headphones to sound good to me, that's pretty much all I want. Maybe something was lost in the translation in my post, but I was attempting to relay what others were arguing about what a monitor should do (That it should present the sound as-is, and not color it at all). I did say that I would not argue with that definition of a monitor, but it was not my definition.

That got me curious about the term "monitor", and whether it was being accurately applied to high end in-ear earphones.

In suggesting that the terms companies use to describe their products is just "marketing", are you saying that there is no difference, and we're just talking about wording here? If so, that's cool, I stand corrected.

Or, is there a difference (a real difference, not "marketing") between the high end earphones most of us are buying and talking about here on this forum and the ones the manufacturers actually refer to as "monitors". If there isn't, I stand corrected. If there IS a difference, and that difference is more than just names andactually has something to do with function, then I'd like to know, for the sake of my education.

Also, if there is a difference (as Westone suggests on their website), I would suggest that my point is pretty much validated.

Defining "monitor" for me in the literal sense is not helpful. What IS helpful is defining "monitor" as it applies to audio, most specifically in-ear audio equipment. It is so silly when people copy and paste Webster's definitions in forums to correct people. A definition of a word like "monitor" in a dictionary CAN NOT possibly provide every industry-specific context or meaning of a word. That's not what a dictionry is supposed to do. If you think about it, similar examples are EVERYWHERE, and you just can't simplify it like that.

Saying that the definition of the word "monitor" does not specifically include a reference to a specific frequency response, so therefore it cannot mean that is kinda like saying that the word "bottle" does not specifically say it holds milk, therefore it mustn't. If you're talking about a daycare center, it probably does. If you're talking about a bar, it might hold rum.

What MATTERS here is whether or not the term "monitor" has a definition in the sound industry, and if it does, what that definition is.

 

[Zhdude]

How do you know what the artist wanted the music to sound like for his fans? Maybe your "true" monitor doesn't give the sound the artist wanted... I don't give a .... just get the sound signature you like, thats why I got the Klipsch Custom 3, sounds amazing. Just get the "Monitor" that'll suite your sound signature.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif What MATTERS here is whether or not the term "monitor" has a definition in the sound industry, and if it does, what that definition is.

Matters to whom, spleisher? I think you may be in danger of giving pedantry a bad name.

Come to think of it, I may tip a bit in that direction on occasion myself.

 

[csroc]

I agree that I find monitor generally used (and have such adopted it for myself for the most part) to mean a flat frequency response and as free as possible from any other effects which might alter the character of the reproduced sound.

Any headphone or speaker advertised as a "monitor" I would generally expect to see exhibiting such performance. I don't think twice however about the fact that IEMs might not exactly live up to that "monitor" performance.

 

[paara]

Maybe a little off topic
I own a pair of UE 10pro IEM, and I regard them as monitors, they sound terrible with almost all equipment I have used them with. They are terrible because of the fact that they are so analytical, nothing but the best can bring them to justice. At the moment I am using them to and from my university, bacause they are the only "plugs" I have, with my iTouch. (I know it is not a good source but that is the whole point) Because it does not add or remove anything it sounds dry and boring. If you want to buy IEM for a portable setup you really need to put some real mony into portable eqipment. I think the IEM sounds best with tubes, which is ironic. So my sugestion If you want IEM dont go for the analytical kind, chose one that add some life to the music. (which again is NOT an IEM, but an in ear "device"

 

[ClieOS]

I think the first two questions in my IEM guide cover all the OP concern. Do note that the term 'in-ear' (Inter Aural) doesn't specifies which part of the ear the earphone need to be in, so it includes earbuds as it is still 'in' your outer ear section. Also, remember that the term 'monitor' comes from the system it is originally intended to be used (In-Ear-Monitor-System), and in such system the earphones are very often tuned by sound engineer according to the musicians' preference, so they don't have to sound accurate at all.

 

[spleisher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Matters to whom, spleisher? I think you may be in danger of giving pedantry a bad name. Come to think of it, I may tip a bit in that direction on occasion myself.

Well, I guess the whole concept of discussing something like headphones in such detail as is done on these forums kinda feeds one's pedantic side. No agrument there, and I'm not offended by the suggestion.

How many people do you think are looking up "pedantry" in those online dictionaries I was talking about earlier?

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I guess the whole concept of discussing something like headphones in such detail as is done on these forums kinda feeds one's pedantic side. No agrument there, and I'm not offended by the suggestion. How many people do you think are looking up "pedantry" in those online dictionaries I was talking about earlier?

No offense intended, I assure you. Triple digit IQs are so becoming.

 

[spleisher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the first two questions in my IEM guide cover all the OP concern. Do note that the term 'in-ear' (Inter Aural) doesn't specifies which part of the ear the earphone need to be in, so it includes earbuds as it is still 'in' your outer ear section. Also, remember that the term 'monitor' comes from the system it is originally intended to be used (In-Ear-Monitor-System), and in such system the earphones are very often tuned by sound engineer according to the musicians' preference, so they don't have to sound accurate at all.

Thanks for that. Great guide, by the way!

So basically, the IEM term did sort of "evolve" from professional monitor systems to become, these days, a practical synonym for canalphone.

Basically, what I'm gathering is that we should not put to much stock in the word "monitor". I agree with that.

I guess what I was saying is that there are those who are using that word to describe what an IEM, or canalphone, In-Ear Earphone, whatever we're calling them SHOULD sound like.

Then again, people use all kinds of words on forums to try to let everyone know how they think things should be.

 

[spleisher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad /img/forum/go_quote.gif No offense intended, I assure you. Triple digit IQs are so becoming.

..... and quite rare it would seem, as are complete setences and some attention to grammar.

 

[leveller1642]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif ..... and quite rare it would seem, as are complete setences and some attention to grammar.

Not that rare- Around 50% of the population.

I find my UE super.fi.5 pro (the old twin driver) too bass heavy.