[Stoney]

Your first point is the more plausible, although I checked and determined they weren't measurably further out.  I bet they were by roughly 1 mm.  Furthermore, the angle at which they sit and aim clearly has made a difference as I have experimented in the past with these and other IEMs.  Bigger tip probably changes the angle.
 
The second point doesn't ring true, though.  First, speed of sound doesn't depend appreciably on pressure.  Second, once settled, the air pressure is actually equalized on both sides.  The eustachian tube due this -- unless you actively resist allowing it (I'm a free diver and know the feeling), but the seal is not that strong to hold much pressure.  I find on airplanes taking off that, if I actively resist equalizing the pressure, it does it by itself by leaking, albeing in fits and starts.  Temperature rise after inserting them are much more likley to produce a drift in velocity.  But that effect has never been noticeable to me.  
 
But I do still maintain the possibility that, with larger tips (they aren't longer though), it is possible to expose more tip to the outer ear volume.  And, it might pinch inward a tad more, cutting of a bit of sound coming directly from the drivers.  
 
And in-ear vs circumaural vs speakers vs live -- there are tons of reasons that we would judge "equal" the response of each, if we could select from an infinite range of ideal transducers.  Most notably, the pinnae.  Also, subjective or psychological effects of many types, such as the feeling that bass is louder if you can feel it also.  
 
In any case, bottom line is to experiment with tips at length!  Don't think you've sized up the drivers -- it is also the tips, and your anatomy, interaction of the three, expectations and acclimation, that make considerable differences.  

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

I've spent more time experimenting with foamies.  In my ear canals, at least, the silicone tips reflect too much and give unnatural and slightly sibilant lower treble.  
 
What is new: I compared the medium foam (fits me easily) with the large foam (also fits, but less comfortable).  I definitely heard the "dampen[ing of] the treble and midrange a bit."  
 
I had also commented that the black filters, while recessing the midrange in a fairly valid/natural way (for those who prefer that), also reduce the lower treble enough to alleviate the small treble bump I hear there even with the medium foamies.  Well -- back to the gray filters, the large foamies took that lower-treble bump down.  And, the upper treble was not diminished.  Given the already-good extension of these babies, I found that a bit too much of a good thing (i.e., bad).  
 
So I'm back to the medium foams.  But interesting that the large make a difference, even though they "seemed" to fit in as far.  Possibly, the large foamies change the shape of my canal a bit, or more likely just leave a tad more foam in the canal to absorb a bit more reflection.  
 
Also, I tried them on different sources.  As a result, I no longer consider their overall signature to be bright or shy in the lower midrange.  That had been my view when comparing to the SE530s on my usual portable.  But using just the iPhone 4s output, it isn't really bright... in fact, quite nice (but not as detailed or solid as with my FiiO amp).  Then I tried it on my Woo Audio WA6, and found that it was more midrangy and less bright overall than my HE650s, which I find quite good in balance.  They aren't really very sibilant in comparison (recording is 95% of it).  I suppose there is something about in-ear that causes me to judge frequency response differently.  
 
Anyway, all good. 

Large foam is likely just more pinched at the tip.
 
 

 

[i2ehan]

Ever since my K3003 took a misfortunate turn of events, I've returned to the PFE232's, almost exclusively. Much like the K3003, the PFE232's low end is simply perfection! It's just the right blend of sub-bass and mid-bass, and is easily the best I've heard out of any universal BA I've owned to date.
 
How's your review looking dfkt? 

 

[Bokyung]

Quote:

Ever since my K3003 took a misfortunate turn of events, I've returned to the PFE232's, almost exclusively. Much like the K3003, the PFE232's low end is simply perfection! It's just the right blend of sub-bass and mid-bass, and is easily the best I've heard out of any universal BA I've owned to date.
 
How's your review looking dfkt? 

I am sorry to hear that, I know you feel. My UM3X's left driver died after playing 3 songs. Hopefully you can get that replaced under the warranty or get a refund. 

 

[i2ehan]

I am sorry to hear that, I know you feel. My UM3X's left driver died after playing 3 songs. Hopefully you can get that replaced under the warranty or get a refund. 

I've already spoken to Harman, whom I ordered through directly, and it's being taken care of. 

 Meanwhile, having to live with the PFE232 is no less enjoyable. 

 

[Bokyung]

Quote:

I've already spoken to Harman, whom I ordered through directly, and it's being taken care of. 

 Meanwhile, having to live with the PFE232 is no less enjoyable. 

Good to hear!
 
Haha, I love my PFE232 as well. Always a battle between EX1000 and 232. So I just decided to dedicate Monday for 232, Tuesday for EX1000, rest of the iems throughout Wednesday-Sunday.

 

[dogears]

^Battle between EX1000 and PFE232... how can the price tag of PFE232 be justified? How are they different or how is the PFE232 better than the EX1000? TIA!

 

[i2ehan]

^Battle between EX1000 and PFE232... how can the price tag of PFE232 be justified? How are they different or how is the PFE232 better than the EX1000? TIA!

Whether or not the price tag is justified, well, that's up to the individual of course. As far as I'm concerned, I don't ever regret purchasing the PFE232's, and am quite content with them, as they are hands down the best I've heard out of universal BA's. Similarly, the EX1000 remains the best single driver dynamic universal I've heard. Sure enough, if and when either one has met it's match, or has been dethroned of their respective titles, I'll be the first to admit it. Hasn't happened for me yet. Where all universals are concerned, I've never heard one as clear, natural, and refined as the K3003, so that'd surely sit at the very top, and at $1,300, it sure as hell ought to.
 
The EX1000 and PFE232 are completely different, especially in regards to their presentations, and it's for that reason the two compliment one another very, very well. The PFE232 is more intimate and engaging, while the EX1000, more open, airy, transparent, and quite headphone-esque in it's presentation. The PFE232's highs and lows are out of this world good, as compared to all other BA's I've owned. The highs are extremely crisp, yet highly resolving and refined, approaching the very limits of tolerance, yet never quite crossing said limits. The low end is just as admirable, and offers a downright perfect blend of sub-bass and mid-bass. Be it trance, jazz, or whatever it is that tickles your fancy, the low end delivers through and through. That said, their midrange isn't quite as resolving as the EX1000, and not as engaging as the highs and lows, yet the mids do fall right into place, with respect to the highs and lows. The mids could do with a bit more clarity and transparency (nothing is perfect, after all), though I'm nitpicking here, really. Overall, considering the complete picture, I personally find that the PFE232 offers the best of BA's, while the EX1000 offers the best of dynamics, and the K3003, the best of both worlds. As is expected, each comes at a price, and while my time with the K3003's was unexpectedly cut short, I wouldn't hesitate purchasing the PFE232's again, especially now that I've heard what they're capable of. 

 

[dogears]

Dang, you answered a lot of my other questions again. Thanks much for that very insightful reply.
And hope you get your replacement K3003 fast.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

That said, their midrange isn't quite as resolving as the EX1000, and not as engaging as the highs and lows, yet the mids do fall right into place, with respect to the highs and lows. The mids could do with a bit more clarity and transparency (nothing is perfect, after all), though I'm nitpicking here, really.

Would words like "lush" or "romantic" describe the 232's midrange and/or portrayal of female vocals at all or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[i2ehan]

Dang, you answered a lot of my other questions again. Thanks much for that very insightful reply.
And hope you get your replacement K3003 fast.

Take it with a grain of slat, my friend. What the EX1000/PFE232 is to me, it certainly may not be for you, or other listeners. Our good friend, lee, for instance, will tell you time and time again how horribly unbearable (

) the EX1000 was for his ears, and I respect that, as he is merely telling it like he hears it, just as I've done with the way I hear the PFE232. Those that are quite content with the EX1000's highs, sure enough, the PFE232 will leave them with an even bigger smile. I tried going back to even my e-Q5 and GR10, but it wasn't the same. Not to say the latter two deserve any less attention than the PFE232, because I find them both excellent in their own right, but one listen between them and the PFE232, and you'll know just what I mean. 

 

[i2ehan]

Would words like "lush" or "romantic" describe the 232's midrange and/or portrayal of female vocals at all or am I barking up the wrong tree?

They render vocals with a slight hint of warmth, though they lack intimacy, and no, I would not attribute the term lush to their midrange, since when I think of a midrange that's lush, the PFE232 doesn't come to mind, but instead in-ears such as the RE262, SE535, BA100, CK100, and SM3 (among others) do. As mentioned, I don't find the midrange recessed, and instead, I feel it falls right into place, with respect to the rest of the spectrum; though they could do with a tad more presence. As you approach the high mids and beyond, they'll leave you spellbound, as the highs are where they don't hold back in the least. As such, I find that they have no trouble portraying female vocals beautifully.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

They render vocals with a slight hint of warmth, though they lack intimacy, and no, I would not attribute the term lush to their midrange, since when I think of a midrange that's lush, the PFE232 doesn't come to mind, but instead in-ears such as the RE262, SE535, BA100, CK100, and SM3 (among others) do. As mentioned, I don't find the midrange recessed, and instead, I feel it falls right into place, with respect to the rest of the spectrum; though they could do with a tad more presence. As you approach the high mids and beyond, they'll leave you spellbound, as the highs are where they don't hold back in the least. As such, I find that they have no trouble portraying female vocals beautifully.

I can't really think of a good opposite for lush.  If there was a spectrum with lush on one end, transparent in the middle, and something like dry, cold, or clinical on the other which side would they be on?
 
I haven't heard as many IEMs as you but I have the SE530 and have heard the SE535 and I don't think I want or need them to be quite that lush.  Compared to my current SE530s I want something with more transparent mids but without crossing over into cold and clinical and with more and better quality treble but without becoming sibilant or harsh.  Does that make sense?

 

[tinyman392]

Quote:

I can't really think of a good opposite for lush.  If there was a spectrum with lush on one end, transparent in the middle, and something like dry, cold, or clinical on the other which side would they be on?
 
I haven't heard as many IEMs as you but I have the SE530 and have heard the SE535 and I don't think I want or need them to be quite that lush.  Compared to my current SE530s I want something with more transparent mids but without crossing over into cold and clinical and with more and better quality treble but without becoming sibilant or harsh.  Does that make sense?

They would be somewhere between transparent and lush.  The 232s do have a "fuller" sound to them.

 

[i2ehan]

I can't really think of a good opposite for lush.  If there was a spectrum with lush on one end, transparent in the middle, and something like dry, cold, or clinical on the other which side would they be on?
 
I haven't heard as many IEMs as you but I have the SE530 and have heard the SE535 and I don't think I want or need them to be quite that lush.  Compared to my current SE530s I want something with more transparent mids but without crossing over into cold and clinical and with more and better quality treble but without becoming sibilant or harsh.  Does that make sense?

As per that scale, I'd place them a third of the way between transparent and lush, hence they'd be much closer to transparent. The slight hint of warmth keeps them from sounding anything but dry/cold/clinical.
 
Hmm... more transparent mids than the SE530, but without crossing over into cold and clinical side of things, and with more and better quality treble, but without becoming sibilant or harsh? Sounds about right to me. In fact, I listened to my SE530's just yesterday (I switch back and forth between my in-ears, whenever the mood is right), and coming back to the PFE232's was just as you've described it.