[willyvlyminck]

I own only a few other old top tiers I admit. I haven't kept up with upgrading partly due to financial reasons but mostly due to sentimentality. I had a Shure SE530, but still own the TF10 and Westone 3. I was merely remarking on the IE8 having remarkable detail despite the heavy bass. Not that it had remarkable detail for the price. The TF10 will easily outperform in detail, same goes for the Shure SE530. But the IE8 has gobs of bass, so much so that I can't imagine having as much detail for the amount of bass particularly since it's a single dynamic driver model. I wouldn't be as surprised if the earphone was a multi-driver setup like the W3. The W3 has lots of bass and good detail as well. But the IE8 is rather special in that it has adjustable bass and very wide sound stage. One of the few that has the big can sound IMHO. Other IEMs that I own are the KEF M200, Fidue A83, Shure SE535 (had). 

Intresting! How does the KEF M200 do in bass and specially soundststage compared to the IE8/80?

 

[OwOOwO]

Quote:

 
you think the IE80 isn't V shaped enough? ^_^
I understood kind of the opposite from his posts in fact. , but as always, the difficulties of interpreting sounds with words.

 
IE80 is definitely V-Shaped. Its lacks transparency and the bass is a ted loose so it sounds warm, dark and laid-back.
BlackDog wanted something "sharp, forward, electrifying, fast, harsh", something similar to CX 5.0.
 
Therefore I think what he needs is still a V-shape sounding IEM, but with a brighter sound signature; something with better transparency and a tighter bass.

 

[james444]

  I have read your earlier post, it seems to me you are looking for a V-shaped sound signature.
http://theheadphonelist.com/earphone-buyers-guide/
this may help a bit. Give the ones in the V-shape section some audition.

  you think the IE80 isn't V shaped enough? ^_^
I understood kind of the opposite from his posts in fact. , but as always, the difficulties of interpreting sounds with words.

  In my opinion, not quite. The IE8 and 80 are distinguished by their bass performance, wide sound stage and remarkable detail despite the heavy handed bass. But I personally find the IE8 to have a good amount of mids, tons down low, but lack the overall high extension to make it quite V sound. The IE8 is closer to a V shaped sound, but isn't exactly the definition of V shaped sound. Not sure what is, but I think the IE8 isn't quite it. Perhaps the IE800?

 
Imo the IE80 are less-than-ideal for fast-paced music and crunchy guitars. I'll try to explain by comparing it to the Ortofon e-Q8, which are great rock IEMs in my book.
 
First, let's look at the lower part of this frequency chart where it says "Crunch". We see this is associated with the high mids, particularly the 2-4kHz range:
 

 
Now, here's the IE80's (raw) frequency response:
 

 
It's obvious that the IE80's response is well below target in the region that defines crunch.
 
Here for comparison, the Ortofon e-Q8's (raw) frequency response:
 

 
It's easy to see that these IEMs are noticeably better at rendering crunchy guitars.
 
Next, let's take a look at the IE80's bass decay:
 

 
There's an abundance of rather slow decaying bass energy, not an ideal choice for fast-paced music.
 
Now by contrast, the Ortofon e-Q8:
 

 
Very fast decaying bass, much better suited to retain low range clarity and detail even with fast paced music.
 
(All pictures are linked to their source pages)
 
Just my 2c.

 

 

[willyvlyminck]

Imo the IE80 are less-than-ideal for fast-paced music and crunchy guitars. I'll try to explain by comparing it to the Ortofon e-Q8, which are great rock IEMs in my book.

First, let's look at the lower part of this frequency chart where it says "Crunch". We see this is associated with the high mids, particularly the 2-4kHz range:




Now, here's the IE80's (raw) frequency response:




It's obvious that the IE80's response is well below target in the region that defines crunch.

Here for comparison, the Ortofon e-Q8's (raw) frequency response:




It's easy to see that these IEMs are noticeably better at rendering crunchy guitars.

Next, let's take a look at the IE80's bass decay:




There's an abundance of rather slow decaying bass energy, not an ideal choice for fast-paced music.

Now by contrast, the Ortofon e-Q8:




Very fast decaying bass, much better suited to retain low range clarity and detail even with fast paced music.

(All pictures are linked to their source pages)

Just my 2c.  

 

[159650]

Intresting! How does the KEF M200 do in bass and specially soundststage compared to the IE8/80?

As I remember it, the bass is looser and can reach nice and low on the M200. The sound stage is expansive, but definitely dwarfed by the IE8/80. I could describe it as V shaped but has nice and more upfront mids. Overall, it's a nice pair and I didn't have any issues with it other than driver flex. I had them sent in for repair and haven't received them back yet. 
 
I don't have them with me so this is all just off the top of my head. I haven't have much time with them either. Apparently, they're not as robust and typically suffer from driver flex. Odd in that my Martin Logan Mikros 90 had the same issue and they too have been sent in for replacement at the same time as the KEF. Quality control is definitely not what it could be these days. Lol. 

 

[willyvlyminck]

As I remember it, the bass is looser and can reach nice and low on the M200. The sound stage is expansive, but definitely dwarfed by the IE8/80. I could describe it as V shaped but has nice and more upfront mids. Overall, it's a nice pair and I didn't have any issues with it other than driver flex. I had them sent in for repair and haven't received them back yet. 

I don't have them with me so this is all just off the top of my head. I haven't have much time with them either. Apparently, they're not as robust and typically suffer from driver flex. Odd in that my Martin Logan Mikros 90 had the same issue and they too have been sent in for replacement at the same time as the KEF. Quality control is definitely not what it could be these days. Lol. 

I'll stick to my IE80 definitively, no issues at all and super sound( at least for me)

 

[BlackDog]

  I have read your earlier post, it seems to me you are looking for a V-shaped sound signature.
http://theheadphonelist.com/earphone-buyers-guide/
this may help a bit. Give the ones in the V-shape section some audition.

 
I have never understood the V-shaped sound for Rock (and heavy metal for that matter). You see, before the IE80 (assuming the last isn't v-shaped) I always used to boost the mids because the bass and treble kept overshadowing guitar.Not once I have set my EQ's on a V-shaped sound (neutral headphones), and one of the main reasons to get the IE80 was to obtain an IEM with a somewhat neutral response (and it seems I ended up with he exact same opposite I have always looked for). I have heard and read countless times that the ideal rock/metal IEMs (or sound signature of any headphone) is a V-shaped response, but from quite some time I have been refused to believe that.
 
Also, Rock and Heavy Metal are apples and oranges in terms of sound. I dare to say that headphones that sound gorgeous with the Rolling Stones will not shine with Megadeth and viceversa.
 
 

 
you think the IE80 isn't V shaped enough? ^_^
I understood kind of the opposite from his posts in fact. , but as always, the difficulties of interpreting sounds with words.

 
At this point, I might rather choose the best neutral IEM with the best clarity and instrument separation.
With this IE80, I can no longer afford to take the risk and try every top of the line IEM in order to satisfy my heavy metal needs. Sure, neutrality and flatness will take much of the fun in listening music, but at least I can't go wrong on that category. (I already mentioned that I thought IE80 was neutral). 

 

[yangian]

Lol. 

Sun, could you give a comparison of the soundstage of HAvi B1 and IE8? I'm really curious of B3's soundstage. I wondwer can it really approach the size of IE8/80. Thanks!

 

[BlackDog]

Super long post warning.
 
Quote:

   
Imo the IE80 are less-than-ideal for fast-paced music and crunchy guitars. I'll try to explain by comparing it to the Ortofon e-Q8, which are great rock IEMs in my book.
 
First, let's look at the lower part of this frequency chart where it says "Crunch". We see this is associated with the high mids, particularly the 2-4kHz range:
 

 
Now, here's the IE80's (raw) frequency response:
 

 
It's obvious that the IE80's response is well below target in the region that defines crunch.
 
Here for comparison, the Ortofon e-Q8's (raw) frequency response:
 

 
It's easy to see that these IEMs are noticeably better at rendering crunchy guitars.
 
Next, let's take a look at the IE80's bass decay:
 

 
There's an abundance of rather slow decaying bass energy, not an ideal choice for fast-paced music.
 
Now by contrast, the Ortofon e-Q8:
 

 
Very fast decaying bass, much better suited to retain low range clarity and detail even with fast paced music.
 
(All pictures are linked to their source pages)
 
Just my 2c.

 

 
Wonderful information james444. Although you break my heart when you tell the IE80 are anything but good at guitars, It is nice to have such detailed acoustic information about the IEM itself.
But anyway...
 
Dear IE80 Entuthiasts.
 
Today marks my almost second month anniversary with the IE80, and I must say I'm not as displeased with the IE80 as I was in my last breakdown.
Trough many experimentation with digital EQ, tips and tape; I have finally achieved a similar sound to what I'm looking for. Still, there is something I find lacking on this (quick bass decay) tat makes the IE80 sound still slow (although the EQ I use make them sound faster).
 
With this post I also intend to figure out what kind of sound signature I am looking for from modifying the sound signature of the IE80. So allow me to elaborate a little bit further. The following are the steps I took to modify the sound signature from this IEM:
 
1. I maxed out the bass boost screws.
2. I changed the tips to a V type silicon tips.
3. I applied one layer of black tape on the back of the headphones. 
4. I applied the following EQ:
 

 
The first step I did it not because I was in need of more bass, but because somewhere among this topic I've read that maxing out such screws help fix the mid bass hump and provide a better noise isolation (this is because the air that enters the housing gets reduced). The second step was made in order to ensure exact fit an insertions (even if my ears hurt badly). The third step needs no introduction, its the famed tape mod everyone keeps talking about. However, I applied it in order to reduce soundstage and to bring everything closer to the sound signature. With this, rhythm guitar and voice no longer hears in the back of the IEM. The last tep however is where my confusion starts. The fourth step is quite tricky to describe, as I didn't followed any logical or scientific reason. It was just to suit what I want to make more presence in a heavy metal song.
 
On the EQ, I lowered 32,64,125,250  and 500 in order to digitally reduce the sound of the closed valves. Up to that point I have no doubts, however past the 1K is where my confusion begins. You see, both in the CX 5.0 and the IE80 (and I even dare to say the Sony XBA4 that sadly passed away a year ago) I always end up boosting the 1k, 2k, and 8k frequencies. This type of sound is what I normally describe as electrifying, fast and harsh. Although new research in the subject of "sound description" proves that the adjective I'm looking for is dry, as indeed they sound pretty dry when compared to other EQ settings. 1k brings the rhythm guitar and the 2k adds more body to it. Finally, the 8k adds more body to it and puts it in a sort of even relation with the lead guitar. If I had to describe it in terms of adjectives, the 1k, 2k and 8k frequencies are my pedals to speed up the sound of the IE80. However, one thing that puzzles me is the 4k frequency. By some reason, as soon as I boost it slightly, the whole sounds gets really harsh, and the crunchiness gets of out control; but if I lower it, it feels as if things have gone completely dry. I don't know if its my setup or the IE80, but the 4k frequency feels uber sensitive for the sound signature. With the new information james444 provided, there are even more things that puzzle me with the EQ I've made. He states that the guitar occupies the 2k-4k range, however why does the 1k feels so damn important to rhythm guitars? Why does the 4k frequency "burns" all the sound?
 
If I caught your attention and now you are whiling to help me, try steps 1 and 4 to get a glimpse of what is the sound I'm looking for. This goes for willyvlymink and everyone who were wondering what would I define as a metal sound. Nevertheless, I want to thank everyone who has been helping me. I know it isn't ideal to post this kind of things in a appreciation thread, but I don't know where else to go. 

 

[yangian]

Intresting! How does the KEF M200 do in bass and specially soundststage compared to the IE8/80?

 


To be honest, I found M200 is a very special phones. It cannot work well with most of sources. The best player is Nesus 7 with Neutron player through NX1 amplifier. On that, 200 sounds very neutral, clear, best imaging and separation. Soundstage is pretty large, though cannot reach the level of IE80. Bass is much less than 80, but more detailed and maybe slightly better imaging than 80.

 

[repposponk]

Still in doubt what to do.

I own a pair of shure se215 and se315. I find that the se215 has a bit more bass than the se315 which I enjoy. However, I also enjoy the crisper/clearer sound of the se315 in the mids/highs, which is very noticeable to me. The se215 sound a bit muddy or blurry in comparison. It also seems like the volume is a bit less with them when I use the same cable. I am looking for the same clarity/crispness of the se315 but with maybe a slightly more punch in the bass.

I listen to techno mostly, but also indie bands (bon iver) or pop/indie stuff (m83, empire of the sun).

Would the ie80 be a good option or is it just totally different? Or maybe the shure se425? I do like the shure se315 fit wise and the way they sound in general.

 

[castleofargh]

Still in doubt what to do.

I own a pair of shure se215 and se315. I find that the se215 has a bit more bass than the se315 which I enjoy. However, I also enjoy the crisper/clearer sound of the se315 in the mids/highs, which is very noticeable to me. The se215 sound a bit muddy or blurry in comparison. It also seems like the volume is a bit less with them when I use the same cable. I am looking for the same clarity/crispness of the se315 but with maybe a slightly more punch in the bass.

I listen to techno mostly, but also indie bands (bon iver) or pop/indie stuff (m83, empire of the sun).

Would the ie80 be a good option or is it just totally different? Or maybe the shure se425? I do like the shure se315 fit wise and the way they sound in general.

the mids on the IE80 are a good deal lower than on the se215, so if you already find it "blurry", forget about the IE80.
cyan is my se215, the other one my IE80. as always don't really mind the curve in itself as I don't have pro measurement gear, but the differences between the 2 IEMs should be reliable.

 

[159650]

  Sun, could you give a comparison of the soundstage of HAvi B1 and IE8? I'm really curious of B3's soundstage. I wondwer can it really approach the size of IE8/80. Thanks!

Happy to. The B3 does not compete with the IE8/80 in terms of sound stage. The B3 is wide, yes, but in a very IEM sort of way. The IE8 on the other hand is wide. Very much in a full-sized headphone kind of way. I found that when I listen to my IE8, they always sound like I have much larger headphones on. The overall imaging is much wider than even some open headphones. But this isn't the case with the B3 which definitely has a smaller overall image when it comes to the stereo image. The IE8/80 are much more musical, while the B3 are more linear and neutral. Can sound a bit lean or dry at times, but most of the time, they're quite a nice listen. Hope this helps.

 

[yangian]

  Happy to. The B3 does not compete with the IE8/80 in terms of sound stage. The B3 is wide, yes, but in a very IEM sort of way. The IE8 on the other hand is wide. Very much in a full-sized headphone kind of way. I found that when I listen to my IE8, they always sound like I have much larger headphones on. The overall imaging is much wider than even some open headphones. But this isn't the case with the B3 which definitely has a smaller overall image when it comes to the stereo image. The IE8/80 are much more musical, while the B3 are more linear and neutral. Can sound a bit lean or dry at times, but most of the time, they're quite a nice listen. Hope this helps.

I see. Thank you! I believe that's because 8/80 have not only great width, but also depth and height, especially height. It make the whole soundstage a sphere. So... Cool!

 

[james444]

  However, one thing that puzzles me is the 4k frequency. By some reason, as soon as I boost it slightly, the whole sounds gets really harsh, and the crunchiness gets of out control; but if I lower it, it feels as if things have gone completely dry. I don't know if its my setup or the IE80, but the 4k frequency feels uber sensitive for the sound signature. With the new information james444 provided, there are even more things that puzzle me with the EQ I've made. He states that the guitar occupies the 2k-4k range, however why does the 1k feels so damn important to rhythm guitars? Why does the 4k frequency "burns" all the sound?

 
Without going into much detail, if you wear an IEM, your ear canal turns into a closed tube that will resonate. The main resonant frequency depends on the tube's length, i.e. your anatomy and the IEM's insertion depth, but is typically somewhere around 3.5 to 4kHz. Click this link if you want to read more about it. Your experience at 4k may relate to such a resonant peak and you might want to try a shallower or deeper seal to see whether a change in tube length has an effect on the 4k phenomenon you experience.
 
As for guitars and your 1kHz question, take another look at the first chart I posted. A guitar's fundamentals range up to around 1k, with harmonics ranging from 1k-5k. Now, if you look again at the IE80's measured response and compare it to the dotted curve, you'll see that actually the entire range between 1k and 4k is below target. I was specifically addressing the range that defines "crunch" (2k-4k), but you're absolutely right in boosting 1k too.