[sithjedi333]

  Quote:

  James444, can you elaborate on how the sound from Philips tips differs from stock?
 
Thanks.

 
The most striking difference is that the Philips tips sound less intimate and more open. This, and their thin silicone is hardly felt inside the ear canal, which adds to perceived transparency.
 
I haven't done an in-depth comparison, but the two aforementioned things, plus the fact that Joe used them for tuning, makes it an easy recommendation.

 
 
Thanks James. That's interesting, usually I thought shallow wide tips give the biggest soundstage.
 
Is there a good source for them, or do you have to buy the IEMs to get the tips?

 

[gnarlsagan]

Thanks James. That's interesting, usually I thought shallow wide tips give the biggest soundstage.

Is there a good source for them, or do you have to buy the IEMs to get the tips?

The iem is only 8 or 9 bucks.

 

[vwinter]

Are you sure you're talking about forward projection, not depth? I feel that forward projection has a lot to do with how vocals are placed in the mix.

Edit: just for illustration, in my understanding forward projection is independent from actual soundstage dimensions width/depth/height:

I was positive when I said forward projection.

Forward projection is independent from stage size as far as I'm concerned, but a stage of equal dimensions will feel larger regardless if projected forward because the listener will associate that gap between them and the stage as part of the stage, what some might call the 12 rows in front of them, and add it to the dimensions.

The 1plus2 does something a bit different and because you've inspired me to go back to my 1p2 EQ Project, I think I may have hit upon a few things today.

Mainly, that I both agree and disagree with you. Here's my diagram:



The area within the orange space is the stage. The pink boxes are the general positions of most images on the 1p2.

What it does uniquely is instead of just projecting the whole stage up, it creates a sort of faux void right in that center area in front of the listener where mainly bass sits atop, having that more omnidirectional quality.

What I didn't realize when i was playing around with this long ago, is how deep the dips at 3k and 6k on the 1p2 are. It's not just the midrange that we see on the measurements scooped out before 2k that does it. Everything above 2k is critical.

IMO, the trick is that it pulls important sections of the FR back and allows the bass and areas where a lot if harmonics reside get emphasis. This way we get that forward projection, but then we also get the harmonics flying up at is because of the treble peaks, giving the illusion of distance of the midrange.

I couldn't get enough distance in my EQ until just now when I pulled 3k and 6k waaaay back like 700Hz.

Then having the images that only hit mainly one side waaaay up front near the ear adds to this illusion.

And the treble peaks create that more oblong stage shape nearer the listener, pulling it in and up toward having more height.

The tuning of the 1p2 is brilliant to me, with absolute purpose.

Obviously there is more to it with other factors leading to a good starting point (what those are I do not know), but the FR is a marvel of ingenuity to go with whatever magic Gavin's team concocted.

When you get the Rockets, I'll send you the EQ so you can see what I mean.

I'd actually love for Joe Bloggs to take a crack at it

 

[james444]

When you get the Rockets, I'll send you the EQ so you can see what I mean.

I'd actually love for @Joe Bloggs to take a crack at it

 
Thanks, and +1! 

 
Wow, I've never thought about soundstaging that in-depth. My formulas are comparatively simple: lead vocals = usually front of the stage. Close / intimate sounding vocals = little forward projection (front row seat). Distant sounding vocals = more forward projection (back row seat). Perceived distance between lead vocals and backing musicians = stage depth.
 
I personally believe that the illusion of forward projection requires slightly veiled vocals, because this is what we get in real venues as a result of reflection and reverb.

 

[Gladzilla]

So, from what I gather is that the bass is worse without the EQ than SE 215?

 

[shotgunshane]

Did a little comparing with the Tenore this morning.  The EQ'd Somic is very comparable to my more reference set of Tenores, however it does best in a couple of different aspects.
 
The EQ'd Somic is thinner sounding with better clarity throughout; faster, more nimble bass that has an excellent balance of mid and sub bass.  The Tenore sounds a little tilted towards sub bass with more decay.  The Tenore's bread and butter is its excellently smooth but detailed treble that has very, very good tonality.  The EQ'd Somic bests it to me.  It's not quite as smooth as the Tenore, but along with a little more presence, has slightly better sparkle and even slightly better tonality and timbre somehow.  The Tenore is of course not EQ'd and makes me curious to try and EQ the last bit of performance out of it.
 
I think I have the iOS Equalizer app set up pretty close to the EQ on the Samsung.  I can't really pick up a difference when switching between the two.  I definitely need to acquire a MH412 now.

 

[shotgunshane]

So, from what I gather is that the bass is worse without the EQ than SE 215?

 
From what I remember of the SE215, I'd say yes.

 

[castleofargh]

  Did a little comparing with the Tenore this morning.  The EQ'd Somic is very comparable to my more reference set of Tenores, however it does best in a couple of different aspects.
 
The EQ'd Somic is thinner sounding with better clarity throughout; faster, more nimble bass that has an excellent balance of mid and sub bass.  The Tenore sounds a little tilted towards sub bass with more decay.  The Tenore's bread and butter is its excellently smooth but detailed treble that has very, very good tonality.  The EQ'd Somic bests it to me.  It's not quite as smooth as the Tenore, but along with a little more presence, has slightly better sparkle and even slightly better tonality and timbre somehow.  The Tenore is of course not EQ'd and makes me curious to try and EQ the last bit of performance out of it.
 
I think I have the iOS Equalizer app set up pretty close to the EQ on the Samsung.  I can't really pick up a difference when switching between the two.  I definitely need to acquire a MH412 now.

we all seem to reach the same conclusion that it's a great sonic value for the money. but Joe didn't seem to be sure if the final version of the MH412 would sound the same. all I know is that it made me very curious to hear other stuff Joe EQed with the same signature in mind. if I could get that sound in a slightly more isolating IEM, I would be very very happy.

 

[shotgunshane]

but Joe didn't seem to be sure if the final version of the MH412 would sound the same. 

 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

 
Did a little comparing with the Tenore this morning.  The EQ'd Somic is very comparable to my more reference set of Tenores, however it does best in a couple of different aspects.

The EQ'd Somic is thinner sounding with better clarity throughout; faster, more nimble bass that has an excellent balance of mid and sub bass.  The Tenore sounds a little tilted towards sub bass with more decay.  The Tenore's bread and butter is its excellently smooth but detailed treble that has very, very good tonality.  The EQ'd Somic bests it to me.  It's not quite as smooth as the Tenore, but along with a little more presence, has slightly better sparkle and even slightly better tonality and timbre somehow.  The Tenore is of course not EQ'd and makes me curious to try and EQ the last bit of performance out of it.

I think I have the iOS Equalizer app set up pretty close to the EQ on the Samsung.  I can't really pick up a difference when switching between the two.  I definitely need to acquire a MH412 now.

we all seem to reach the same conclusion that it's a great sonic value for the money. but Joe didn't seem to be sure if the final version of the MH412 would sound the same. all I know is that it made me very curious to hear other stuff Joe EQed with the same signature in mind. if I could get that sound in a slightly more isolating IEM, I would be very very happy.

I was told the sound tuning would be final while the actual retail units would carry a mic and remote as well.

 

[james444]

  Did a little comparing with the Tenore this morning.  The EQ'd Somic is very comparable to my more reference set of Tenores, however it does best in a couple of different aspects.
 
The EQ'd Somic is thinner sounding with better clarity throughout; faster, more nimble bass that has an excellent balance of mid and sub bass.  The Tenore sounds a little tilted towards sub bass with more decay.  The Tenore's bread and butter is its excellently smooth but detailed treble that has very, very good tonality.  The EQ'd Somic bests it to me.  It's not quite as smooth as the Tenore, but along with a little more presence, has slightly better sparkle and even slightly better tonality and timbre somehow.  The Tenore is of course not EQ'd and makes me curious to try and EQ the last bit of performance out of it.
 
I think I have the iOS Equalizer app set up pretty close to the EQ on the Samsung.  I can't really pick up a difference when switching between the two.  I definitely need to acquire a MH412 now.

 
Excellent impressions and approval of Joe's tuning skills from one of the pickiest pairs of ears I know.

 

... while the actual retail units would carry a mic and remote as well.

 
Not everyone will be happy about that. I personally would love to have both (mic / no mic) options.

 

[FlySweep]

Sorry to go slightly off topic here.. but can V4A be used with streaming services (Google Play All Access, Spotify, MOG/Beats Music, etc.)?

 

[gnarlsagan]

Sorry to go slightly off topic here.. but can V4A be used with streaming services (Google Play All Access, Spotify, MOG/Beats Music, etc.)?

Yes.

 

[sithjedi333]

.

 

[FlySweep]

  Sorry to go slightly off topic here.. but can V4A be used with streaming services (Google Play All Access, Spotify, MOG/Beats Music, etc.)?

Yes.