[tinyman392]

Quote:

I'd have thought all the same color and size filters the same so as to not cause confusion. Is it possible that your old ones aren't as clean?

That might possibly be it, some dirty filters will definitely tweak the sound a bit.  In general thicker filters will push the low-frequencies a little more.  Even if it doesn't look dirty, it can still be at the microscopic level
 
Got my 232s today   Absolute nirvana right now

 

[piotrus-g]

Quote:

I'd have thought all the same color and size filters the same so as to not cause confusion. Is it possible that your old ones aren't as clean?

I loled. First of all I do keep my earphones clean.
Second - filters look very different. 232 has smaller inside filter diameter.
Remember that they needed to adopt filter to new frequency response.
 
@dfkt oh and BTW.
What are your thoughts on no-filter 232

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

I loled. First of all I do keep my earphones clean.
Second - filters look very different. 232 has smaller inside filter diameter.
Remember that they needed to adopt filter to new frequency response.
 
@dfkt oh and BTW.
What are your thoughts on no-filter 232

According to Phonak, the filters included with the 232s are the same ones that are included with the lower-end PFE models (1xx and 0xx).
 

 

[piotrus-g]

Quote:

That might possibly be it, some dirty filters will definitely tweak the sound a bit.  In general thicker filters will push the low-frequencies a little more.  Even if it doesn't look dirty, it can still be at the microscopic level
 
Got my 232s today   Absolute nirvana right now

While I didn't even mention that there's low frequency boost on 111 filters.
 

 

[piotrus-g]

Quote:

According to Phonak, the filters included with the 232s are the same ones that are included with the lower-end PFE models (1xx and 0xx).
 

Ok than I'll take a close-up when I get back home. You'll see by yourself
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

While I didn't even mention that there's low frequency boost on 111 filters.
 

That's why I said in general, that's what tends to happen...  I didn't say it did, or that you said it... 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Ok than I'll take a close-up when I get back home. You'll see by yourself
 

OK, you take your pictures; I'll trust Phonak's rep's word
 
EDIT: I do see what you mean by smaller diameter...  I don't know how big of a difference that'll make...  I think they added that extra amount of filter edge to protect the filter from breaking upon insertion and removal (EG, an updated design). 

 

[dfkt]

My 012, 112, 122, and 232 filters all look the same, no visible difference. I'll give them a try later on.

 

[piotrus-g]

Quote:

My 012, 112, 122, and 232 filters all look the same, no visible difference. I'll give them a try later on.

LOL then why my filters look different?
 
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

My 012, 112, 122, and 232 filters all look the same, no visible difference. I'll give them a try later on.

Look inside the rim of the filter...  The 232s have slightly more green/grey/black than the 022s that I have.  It's a tiny little detail.  

 

[piotrus-g]

Quote:

It's a tiny little detail.

In IEMs world "tiny" means sometimes huge.
1mm difference in soundbore diameter makes significant change in sound. The same goes to lenght and even damper's placement in soundbore.
 

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

In IEMs world "tiny" means sometimes huge.
1mm difference in soundbore diameter makes significant change in sound. The same goes to lenght and even damper's placement in soundbore.
 

However, the canal leading up to the filter has the same diameter as the smaller diameter'd filter, so the sound won't change as it just creates a small extention of that said canal.  I will diagram you what I'm talking about after lunch.
 
For now, this is what Piotrus-g was talking about:
 

​

 ​

Notice how the first filter (ones included with the 232s) have a smaller opening that the second one (ones included with the 022s I have).  However, the actual opening for the canal of the IEM is the size of the first filter's hole.  So there shouldn't be any audible differences.
 

 

[tinyman392]

OK, this is what I meant by the canal opening size in comparison to the filters.  See the Diagram below:
 

​

 
Notice how the actual opening for the bore/canal on the new filter matches up size wise while the old filter doesn't match up.  However, the same amount of sound is expelled in both images, and the actual amount of filtered sound is unchaged despite the change in filter size.  Hope this clears things up.

 

[piotrus-g]

Thanks for puting it up.
However I do hear a difference in the sound and it's actually quite noticable.

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

Thanks for puting it up.
However I do hear a difference in the sound and it's actually quite noticable.

No problem, hopefully I got what you were trying to say right.  The only thing I can see that would create a difference in sound would be dirty filters.  Microscopic dirt can theoretically clog up the filters.