[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by random person From both your descriptions I'm inclined to think of the UE10Pro vs Sensaphonics discussion the way one might think of fine chardonnay. There is the lean, tight, "minerally" quality of really fine French wine which many would argue is the best chardonnay in the world, the cleanest-tasting of them all. Think of French chard as the UE10Pro. Then there is the American school of big, oaky, buttery chardonnays -- warmer, more complex, arguably more drinkable, thoroughly engaging. Think of the American chard as the Sensaphonics. Both are gorgeous. Some of us may have a clear preference for one over the other at all times; others of us enjoy both depending on the mood and the food. But they can be equally great. BTW I had a wierd dream last night. My beautiful translucent blue UE5cs were turning clear right before my eyes! WHAT can it mean!!??

Heheheh.. as good of an analogy as any

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Minimum Oh, forgot to mention that I think the loss of some of the detail from 'S' to 'P' is due to the increased bass which is notorious in driver systems for causing chaotic harmonic resonances.

Well, you're missing the key point... the reason why I brought it up is not to track down why ER-4P sounds worse than ER-4S in terms of detail.. but the "reason" as to why that happens.

The important issue is that ER-4P and ER-4S has absolutely no differences in their driver design whatsoever. The only difference is the resistor used in the y-joint, hence shaping the sound differently. This is also the reason why you can get a P=>S adaptor, which is simply a resistor that adds the resistance to match that of the ER-4S.

The decrease of the resistance allowed the driver to be more "active" by picking up more bass resonance as well as other resonance, which in terms will increase the perceived decay as well (since resonance is a part of the equation). Which in term also made people think they sound muddy as well. Overall though, ER-4P was a retrofit of a finely tuned earphone for its specific purposes, and retrofit never work quite as well as what was originally designed to do certain things.

This goes to prove the point that sound shaping can easily be done using a variety of methods, as simple as presenting extra resistance in the signal pathway will change the sound signature. Which also means such issues as decay can be controlled using a variety of methods as well.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggie Just curious, how does all this talk of decay fit in with notions of speed and prat?

Another interesting point. 2X-S's decay is longer and more detailed, textured than the UE-10 Pro. However it doesn't really drag on all that long in comparison to say.. Sennheisers. So the relative speed is still pretty fast. Although in reality, I don't think either UE-10 Pro nor 2X-S is as fast a Grados driven out of Gilmore amps.

Usually increased decay will always relate to the headphone sounding "slower". Not enough decay will make it sound unnatural.. it's a game of balance.


Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Then again, maybe UEs are too dampened? It's certainly not what I hear with my ears but... one has to be open to everything.

All a matter of perspective... I think they're too dampened, but they still have more decay than ER-4S.

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Bah! -- whatever minimal credibility is now lost. No need to read on.

Why do I have "minimal credibility" to start with before you read that comment. I have expressed my honest opinions and my person preference is for the E2 over the E5. As a sound signature it is more neutral and better to my ears.

From this thread:

http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94313

You prefer more bass than even the E5 provides and I don't want that excess bass.

Me thinks it's your credibility that is in question with your thread crapping.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big D Maybe it is something to do with "critical damping". In any system there is a critical damping level (related to the range of frequencies that the system produces and then amplifying these, while trying not to amplify interference) which will reduce resonance but prevent overdamping. Maybe the triple driver design allows this better than the dual driver design of the Sensas?

I don't think that has much to do with it at all... I think it's rather a conscious decision on Sensaphonics's part (actually, I've talked to Michael, it's definitely a conscious decision) to make a pair of IEM that's pleasurable to listen to and critically competent at the same time. They wanted to achieve a balance between musicality and detail.

UE's are probably more fitted for monitoring use due to its detail oriented approach... There's no reason why you can't tune a dual-driver into sounding just as clean as UE's triple driver approach. All of UE's IEM has that "cleaniness" to the way they're tuned. Even though UE5c has a more consumer-friendly sound, the textural quality is still definitely towards that "UE house sound" as much as any other headphone company that has their own house sound. I would bet UE5-Pro would sound just as "clean" as UE-10 Pro sounds, and that's a dual-driver model.

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone I don't think that has much to do with it at all... I think it's rather a conscious decision on Sensaphonics's part (actually, I've talked to Michael, it's definitely a conscious decision) to make a pair of IEM that's pleasurable to listen to and critically competent at the same time. They wanted to achieve a balance between musicality and detail. UE's are probably more fitted for monitoring use due to its detail oriented approach... There's no reason why you can't tune a dual-driver into sounding just as clean as UE's triple driver approach. All of UE's IEM has that "cleaniness" to the way they're tuned. Even though UE5c has a more consumer-friendly sound, the textural quality is still definitely towards that "UE house sound" as much as any other headphone company that has their own house sound. I would bet UE5-Pro would sound just as "clean" as UE-10 Pro sounds, and that's a dual-driver model.

Now you mention it I think back to the time I received the remade UE-7 Pro instead of the UE-10 Pro. The cable was obviously identical and from what I gathered from UE the drivers are the same, but the circuitry is different.

As far as I can tell from looking at the innards of the 2X-S there is only a resistor and the 2 drivers.

I agree that there is an element of compromise with both of these phones and how they achieve their sonic qualities will probably remain a mystery. Personally I can't see Sensa or UE coming on here and giving away their secrets!!

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big D Why do I have "minimal credibility" to start with before you read that comment. I have expressed my honest opinions and my person preference is for the E2 over the E5. As a sound signature it is more neutral and better to my ears. From this thread: http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94313 You prefer more bass than even the E5 provides and I don't want that excess bass. Me thinks it's your credibility that is in question with your thread crapping.

You had minimal credibility at that point because you disagreed with Lindrone. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I was expecting some reasoning. Then you say you prefer the E2 to the E5 -- BAM! no credibility left.

Equipment wise, I'm following in Lindrone's footsteps and everything he describes is exactly what I'm noticing. Maybe I'm wrong, but hell, there are people that say the EX71 are better sounding than the E3 and people that say the E2 are better than the E5. I also know people that prefer those $50 desktop speakers to high-fi level >$10k systems. At that point, it is no longer "preference" but lack of understanding.

One thing is prefering over emphasized bass, another is not noticing major absence of detail. You dont like the bass on the E5? -- reduce it (not that its more than on the E2). Also, I dont prefer over emphasized bass most of the time -- but if you want "groove" sound thats extremely punchy, the bass is truly amazing on those equalizer settings. What I use it for is to not lose the bass impact from low volumes -- and <50hz bass doesnt drown anything out on the E5.

 

[Big D]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron You had minimal credibility at that point because you disagreed with Lindrone. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I was expecting some reasoning. Then you say you prefer the E2 to the E5 -- BAM! no credibility left.

Well if you'd read on rather than stopping as you mentioned before then you'd have seen my reasoning. In actual fact I agree with much of what Lindrone has said to a point and I make that clear. I am talking about preferences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Equipment wise, I'm following in Lindrone's footsteps and everything he describes is exactly what I'm noticing. Maybe I'm wrong, but hell, there are people that say the EX71 are better sounding than the E3 and people that say the E2 are better than the E5. I also know people that prefer those $50 desktop speakers to high-fi level >$10k systems. At that point, it is no longer "preference" but lack of understanding.

Well I think there is a severe lack of understanding on your part. I have explained my sonic preferences so that people can better judge how my opinions will be like theirs. I have said that both the 2X-S and UE-10 Pro are better than any generic fit IEM I have used before. At no point have I commented on a $50 vs $10000 system so I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here??

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron One thing is prefering over emphasized bass, another is not noticing major absence of detail. You dont like the bass on the E5? -- reduce it (not that its more than on the E2). Also, I dont prefer over emphasized bass most of the time -- but if you want "groove" sound thats extremely punchy, the bass is truly amazing on those equalizer settings. What I use it for is to not lose the bass impact from low volumes -- and <50hz bass doesnt drown anything out on the E5.

Personally I like listening to a canalphone on a neutral setting. If I have to EQ a canalphone then I consider that a deficiency in the design. A lot of portable devices only allow bass boost rather than reduction so it sometimes isn't possible to do this. Sadly the higher frequencies are reduced on the E5 before any EQing.

My personal opinion is that you are trolling and if you don't want to offer a constructive opinion on the 2X-S or UE-10 Pro then go find another thread to crap on. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big D Well if you'd read on rather than stopping as you mentioned before then you'd have seen my reasoning. In actual fact I agree with much of what Lindrone has said to a point and I make that clear. I am talking about preferences.

Now that I've read the rest, I maintain, there is no reason to.

Quote:

Well I think there is a severe lack of understanding on your part. I have explained my sonic preferences so that people can better judge how my opinions will be like theirs. I have said that both the 2X-S and UE-10 Pro are better than any generic fit IEM I have used before. At no point have I commented on a $50 vs $10000 system so I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here??

What dont you get? -- If you are willing to choose the E2 over the E5, you are one of the people that prefer consumer grade equipment to audiophile equipment. You cannot be concidered an audiophile or an audio critic. You just had a lot of money to spare so well done on your financial situation.

Quote:

Personally I like listening to a canalphone on a neutral setting. If I have to EQ a canalphone then I consider that a deficiency in the design. A lot of portable devices only allow bass boost rather than reduction so it sometimes isn't possible to do this. Sadly the higher frequencies are reduced on the E5 before any EQing.

Now you are talking about a source deficiency as a reason to buy worse headphones? -- hmmm

An equalizer doesnt add distortion, it doesnt have any negative effects, it just pushes or reduces the volume of certain frequency ranges to your personal preference (well, provided you use a good equalizer and the headphones are technically capable).

While there are several factors like decay duration, artificial treble detail, detail in general, etc that an equalizer cant fix, certain things like amplifying frequencies it certainly accomplishes with flying colours. Just why would you expect a pair of headphones to come with a sound signature that you will love out of box? -- sure the higher end headphones try to meet the preference of the general public, but look at the frequency response graphs, they are not flat at all, so if you want to hear life like sound, you'll equalize anyway and listen to strictly binaural recordings

Also, not like most portable devices dont have an equalizer on the market these days, at very good prices. And while not strictly related to headphones, any speaker system you buy is designed to be equalized to the room's acoustics and personal preference.

Quote:

My personal opinion is that you are trolling and if you don't want to offer a constructive opinion on the 2X-S or UE-10 Pro then go find another thread to crap on. Welcome to my ignore list.

I dont have either -- I just have the E5 and moved up from the E3 (had the E2 briefly), just pointed out something many missed.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron What dont you get? -- If you are willing to choose the E2 over the E5, you are one of the people that prefer consumer grade equipment to audiophile equipment. You cannot be concidered an audiophile or an audio critic. You just had a lot of money to spare so well done on your financial situation.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. There are legimate reasons to why one would prefer E2c over E5c. I don't think you can use that reason alone to damage Big D's credibility. Obviously he can discern the differences between high quality and low quality audio, he has his own justification as to why he liked the E2c over E5c.

It could be some technical quality, it could be some tonal quality; it could be a sacrifice of some technical aspects for tonal aspects, vice versa. Whatever the reason is, it is fully justifiable, you can't simply dismiss it and compare it to someone who doesn't understand how to appreciate higher quality sound.


Quote:

Now you are talking about a source deficiency as a reason to buy worse headphones? -- hmmm An equalizer doesnt add distortion, it doesnt have any negative effects, it just pushes or reduces the volume of certain frequency ranges to your personal preference (well, provided you use a good equalizer and the headphones are technically capable).

Actually, I too, do not like equalizers (I think I've said this before). Yes, equalizer can be used to make little adjustments here and there to make the music sound the way you want it. At the same time, it is a "distortion" of the original, even if it doesn't sound distorted, you are in fact taking frequencies that was fed into the equalizer and manipulating it into what you want it to be, not how it was recorded.

Of course, one could argue that no source, amp, headphone is 100% neutral, they all add their own color and flavoring to the sound. However equalizer is abused and used to that extreme more than anything else. The design of all amps, headphones and source is to aim to be as neutral as possible without sounding dry and boring; which leads to addition of slight coloration, and to an extent, just a different interpretation of the source material.

Equalizer is designed to completely distort the source signal and make what you want to do with it... which is something I don't personally ever want to do.

To equate one's desire to do without an equalizer with "source deficiency" isn't the right way to look at it. A good source, amp and headphone system should not *need* an equalizer at any point. It's your personal choice that you want to equalize everything you have, it's some of ours that we don't ever want an equalizer to "taint" our sound

In the end, these postings that you made are just very mean spirited, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if you don't agree with it, you should not run around name calling and attempt to discredit another with your own opinion. After all, what's to stop anyone from doing the same to you?

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone I don't agree with this line of reasoning. There are legimate reasons to why one would prefer E2c over E5c. I don't think you can use that reason alone to damage Big D's credibility. Obviously he can discern the differences between high quality and low quality audio, he has his own justification as to why he liked the E2c over E5c. It could be some technical quality, it could be some tonal quality; it could be a sacrifice of some technical aspects for tonal aspects, vice versa. Whatever the reason is, it is fully justifiable, you can't simply dismiss it and compare it to someone who doesn't understand how to appreciate higher quality sound.

Ofcourse, as do those who prefer the EX71 to the E3c and $50 Logitech desktop speakers to high end high-fi speakers. Appart from price difference and their opinion of value for money, please enlighten me to some valid reasons apart from not being able to apreciate detailed sound?

Quote:

Actually, I too, do not like equalizers (I think I've said this before). Yes, equalizer can be used to make little adjustments here and there to make the music sound the way you want it. At the same time, it is a "distortion" of the original, even if it doesn't sound distorted, you are in fact taking frequencies that was fed into the equalizer and manipulating it into what you want it to be, not how it was recorded.

Its no more a "distortion" of the original than the headphones distort the sound already. If anything its a de-"distortion".

Quote:

Of course, one could argue that no source, amp, headphone is 100% neutral, they all add their own color and flavoring to the sound. However equalizer is abused and used to that extreme more than anything else. The design of all amps, headphones and source is to aim to be as neutral as possible without sounding dry and boring; which leads to addition of slight coloration, and to an extent, just a different interpretation of the source material.

An equalizer is abused as well as its used to overcome the unbalanced sound of all audio equipment

Quote:

Equalizer is designed to completely distort the source signal and make what you want to do with it... which is something I don't personally ever want to do.

Wrong, an equalizer was originally designed to equalize speakers to room acoustics or in other words to balance sound to overcome enviromental, recording and equipment flaws. -- later adopted in recording to colour the sound.

Quote:

To equate one's desire to do without an equalizer with "source deficiency" isn't the right way to look at it. A good source, amp and headphone system should not *need* an equalizer at any point. It's your personal choice that you want to equalize everything you have, it's some of ours that we don't ever want an equalizer to "taint" our sound

Why are you refusing to see its the /Other Way Around/. It doesnt "taint", it "fixes". The right way to look at is, "I dont use an equalizer because I dont have one" -- get one then! -- I dont think I'm the one thats illogical

Quote:

In the end, these postings that you made are just very mean spirited, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if you don't agree with it, you should not run around name calling and attempt to discredit another with your own opinion. After all, what's to stop anyone from doing the same to you?

I will gladly accept criticism from anyone and will edit out my post if what I said is inaccurate. There is a reason why audiophile grade equipment exists, and no consumer level equipment can compete on any levels but price. If someone says otherwise, its only fair to point out the information is false. There is enough bull**** floating around on this forum, lets not promote more

 

[dmt1]

Hackeron, questioning Big D's credibility on the grounds that you disagree with him is simply ridiculous. I have no problems following his line of reasoning, and for that matter never have. He's the only one that has taken the time to compare the UE10's and Sensa's directly other than Lindrone, and although he doesn't agree with Lindrone 100%, it comes down to sound signature/personal preferences more than anything else. You enjoy the same sound signature as Lindrone--good for you, it gives you a good reference point. I lean more toward Big D's preference in sound signature, so his reviews have been interesting to me from that standpoint, and I think his approach and personal tastes are just as valid (although different) as Lindrone's, and I'll bet Lindrone would agree with this.

Lindrone, as for the eq, I like to go light on it myself, but what I've come to realize with more and more critical listening, is that there is a tremendous amount of variability in how music is mastered. Smashing Pumpkins--bass, bass, and more bass--it's like someone went to the left of the mixing board and pushed all the levers up. And for other artists, it's like the old Wendy's commercial--"Where's the bass" (or maybe it was beef). The point is, most, but not all, music is mastered so that I don't need an eq--but many songs sound better with eq'ing, at least to my ears--you're really at the mercy of whomever mastered the CD with regard to wether or not it will sound great or not so hot. It's the second variable that I've realized cannot be overcome by any headphone.

 

[hackeron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmt1 Hackeron, questioning Big D's credibility on the grounds that you disagree with him is simply ridiculous.

2 + 2 = 5 -- I disagree with that statement or with anyone using it without irony. -- no wait, according to dmt1 thats rediculous.

Are you actually debating if the E5 sound better than the E2? -- Thats like debating if a blowjob is adultery --- the answer is *YES*! yet it takes some people a while to figure it out and if some dont (that means you Big D), then hell, atleast dont let the rest repeat the garbage.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Why are you refusing to see its the /Other Way Around/. It doesnt "taint", it "fixes". The right way to look at is, "I dont use an equalizer because I dont have one" -- get one then! -- I dont think I'm the one thats illogical

Isn't this exactly the same logic you're using to argue "against" Big D? You refuse to see his point of view, and refuse to see it his way. Why do we have to agree with your way anymore than you do with Big D's? It's more than a bit hypocritical, isn't it? I don't want an equalizer in my system, ever, period, that's all there is to it. I hold the same belief as Big D, that if my headphone needs equalizing to sound good, it isn't what I really wanted in the first place.

As far as to appreciate E2c more than E5c... E5c's bass can be overpowering, overshadowing its midranges and making the midrange vocals recessed. E2c's bass is definitely not as powerful, overall the definition is not as good as E2c, however the midrange is forward and present at all times. If you like a lot of deep, rich female vocals, E5c's midrange may not be a very good way to present those specific type of sounds. I'm just naming one reason that one may like E2c more than E5c. Big D may have other reasons as well, but you see from example how that line of logic perfectly makes sense.


Quote:

Originally Posted by dmt1 Lindrone, as for the eq, I like to go light on it myself, but what I've come to realize with more and more critical listening, is that there is a tremendous amount of variability in how music is mastered. Smashing Pumpkins--bass, bass, and more bass--it's like someone went to the left of the mixing board and pushed all the levers up.

Point well taken.. it's just that personally, I have that slight purist point of view... if the record is messed up when it was mastered, I leave it the way it is. I don't adjust it to make it sound better so I will like it, I just won't like it.. hahaha..

At a certain point, either the producer or the musician themselves must have thought, "Hey, I like the way that sounds, pump up the bass." Even if the mastering is bad, it's a part of the record production process... I think it's an integral part of the music, or even the learning process for the musicians themselves.

For example, Ben Folds, one of my favorite artist, admitted when he made his recent album, "Rockin' the Suburbs", that when he had Ben Folds Five, they didn't understand anything about production. They just got together in a room, mic'd everything and recorded everything. Their old albums, however great the music itself is, is obviously lacking in production value.

When he made "Rockin' the Suburbs", he got a real producer; and although they didn't always agree on how the album should be produced, it was a brand new learning experience for him to understand how important it is to master the music to most accurately present what he wanted it to sound like. Subsequently, in his new EP releases, he's been experimenting and learning about the production side of music to ensure the next album will be just what he wants to present in the world.

So when an artist makes great music, and has horrible production, I just leave that the way it is... and listen to it the way it is.. part of the experience for me.

 

[dmt1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron Are you actually debating if the E5 sound better than the E2?

No. I'm debating the fact that some people may prefer the sound of the E2 to the E5. I have no problem with that; Big D's reasoning is perfectly solid, wether I, or you, agree with his sound signature preference or not has no bearing on his credibility.

You automatically assume that everyone will consider the E5 "better" than the E2, and if they don't, then they don't know what they're talking about. With any phone, beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Granted, I think most (but not all) people would take the E5 over the E2, but I completely understand how sound signature could ruin the E5's for Big D to the point where he'd prefer the E2. It makes perfect sense to me, sorry if it doesn't to you--but it doesn't give you the right to insult him. You really do owe him an apology. Alright, enough said on this (at least by me).

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackeron 2 + 2 = 5 -- I disagree with that statement or with anyone using it without irony. -- no wait, according to dmt1 thats rediculous. Are you actually debating if the E5 sound better than the E2?

Uh, the value of the sum of the numbers 2 and 2 added together is a mathematical equation. It has only one result (at least in this plane of existence). Whether the E2 sounds as good or better than the E5, or the E3 sounds similar to a sea shell held up to the ear, are matters inherently much more subjective. If someone "prefers" the E2 over the E5, I would take the statement at face value - it is what it is. You simply cannot even disagree with the statement at all.

 

[dmt1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone For example, Ben Folds, one of my favorite artist, admitted when he made his recent album, "Rockin' the Suburbs", that when he had Ben Folds Five, they didn't understand anything about production. They just got together in a room, mic'd everything and recorded everything. Their old albums, however great the music itself is, is obviously lacking in production value.

Understood--I really don't like to mess with the eq myself, but there are times I just have to. And that Ben Folds story reminds of something--Nirvana, when they recorded "In Utero", basically put microphones all over the place and recorded the album--it really gives you a weird experience, listening to it with IEM's, can't even begin to put it into words, but worth trying if you haven't listened to that CD before.

We should do a thread and come up with a list of epiphany CD's and songs that the IEM's bring a totally different experience to. It could be pleasant (Such as "In Utero) or unpleasant (some Beatles songs are almost unlistenable to me with IEM's because of some of the stereo experimentation they did--sometimes it can be overdone. Fortunately these are few and far between).