Sensaphonics, Supermacro 627, iPod, and Treble Booster!

[jlingo]

After I have moved from Ety to Sensaphonics, I find that Sensaphonics doesn't have as good clarity. I miss the clarity and detailed in ety. Sensaphonics sounded coloured(In Hall Sound) to me. What should I do? I have tried to turned on the treble booster, it helped but it still missed something in Ety. I got fatigue a lot faster with sensa, supermacro 627, and ipod setup. May be too much mid and upper bass?
Or I should have gone to Ultimate Ears for the clarity? I don't know what's wrong with my ear, but I find Ety to be sweeter and preferable sound, more relaxed.
I like Sensa for Dance and R&B, Piano music though.
Or may be Sensaphonics is even more sensitive with music recording?
Or may be I don't like the feeling my ears being vacuumed?

 

[toaster]

wow.

well, you're the first to say something like this.

the sensas are capable of being infinitely more detailed than the etymotics in every aspect.

if i recall, you just got your sensas recently and i think you have yet to truly get a proper seal.

i actually had my sensas for a little while before i got them remolded twice. i realized that after two remolds, they were molded as good as they could be, and were sealing far better than before they were remolded. after receiving the remolded pair, i finally was able to fiddle around with them and realize how to insert them to achieve a perfect seal. this resulted in a literal sound epiphone. i wrote about it in this thread:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=85985

anyway, anyone else i know with the sensaphonics will tell you that what you are hearing is definitely not representative of what the sensaphonics are capable of.

consider if your seal could be better, and maybe go the doctor to get your ears cleaned or something. i believe it has to do with the current fitting you are getting with your sensaphonics, that is leading you to not hear them for what they really are.

good luck.

 

[jlingo]

Thanks Toaster22,

I have had a very good seal, because I have experimented with vaseline too, and it's really vacuumed my ear. Ears really got sucked out. I have also had my ears cleaned with water injection by GP believe it or not. But you see, I got a perfect seal with ety and foamies, It's indeed sound soo clean, and sterile, sparkling. Ety ER-4S with SM 627, and iPod, is just magnificent, I think. The sound is so sweet.

I can't hear such sparkling sound with Sensaphonics, Ipod, supermacro 627.
I will be sending my supermacro to try out AD8610 hopefully, it improves clarity. I have waited for one week before posting something like this. I would like to praise Sensaphonics since I have also Spent AUD$1000.- but unfortunately for the time being I dislike the character. I will definitely play around with different Amp. Could ipod also be the one lacking brightness?

Anyhow, I'm still experimenting and hoping for the best otherwise, hmm, my AUD$1000.- Oh No!

But i'm sure it's a matter of matching the source and Amp altogether. I miss the clarity and high, sterile sound, ER-4S, and therefore UE10-pro would probably suit me best.

Sensaphonics has an awesome bass, thicker mid than ety. So I'm basically complaining about the high. The high feels filtered. I can tell you the bass is sooo deep, like my dynaudio subwover hehehe. But honestly, it's the best bass sound production that I have heard in Canalphone. So I think I have gotten a good seal.

I remember someone mentioned UE10-Pro and Sensaphonics 2X-S is like comparing ER-4S and Shure e5c. I think although both IEM are remarkable, I would say the sound characters of Sensa and UE10-Pro are different. Unfortunately, Sensa character is not for me. It's just a preference I guess. If Sensa has clarity and high extension like ER-4S and combined with the mid and bass of Sensa, would be the best of my world.(it's my world).

But I have paid a lot for it, so I will try to match with proper Amp and EQ to get the most out of it. And probably get UE10-Pro next year.

 

[lindrone]

Interestingly enough, there's a somewhat similar thread here:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105191

There's more than a few times where people refer to Ety ER-4's as "hyper-realistic", because it produces sound results that doesn't really happen in real life. There's a lot of ways to look at it, some would say that ER-4's treble seems sharper because of lack in everything else. Some will say the ER-4's treble simply is more enhanced and has more "tizz" on top. There are even people who said that you can't match the apparent detail of the ER-4 unless you go to electrostatic headphones.

In my opinion, a combination of a few of those factors give ER-4 this hyper-detailed, unrealistic sound, that once someone becomes accustomed to, will expect out of every single high-end sound experience. That simply isn't "correct". There are headphones that sounds natural, realistic, and portrays a more life-like and accurate characteristic than the ER-4 with significantly less treble reproduction.

2X-S is simply truer to the source, if the source doesn't have treble (whether that be the playback source or the recorded media), it will not accentuate what isn't there to begin with. ER-4 and UE-10 Pro will both enhance treble to a point where it was never really meant to be. It could even be argued that UE-10 Pro's treble will feel softer than ER-4's, because it does have better sibilance control (although not as good as 2X-S), and it has more other characteristics (decay, other type of microdetail, more bass) that makes treble not necessarily the only focus of the sound itself.

There's a lot of audiophile quality headphones that simply sounds "real", and that's a much harder concept to grasp and appreciate than tremendous amount of unrealistic detail or any other special characteristic otherwise.

There is an opportunity to get more treble in your 2X-S by using different opamps in your amp, or using different amp and source altogether. Using my iPod with my HR-2 against using my CE775 produces dramatically different sound, of course the CE775 have much crisper and better trebles, but that's simply because iPod doesn't reproduce that.

You might also consider file format, are you using lossless encoding with your iPod? Or are you using MP3 compression? Often lossy compressions will cause you to some of the expanded dynamic range in either treble or bass regions of the music, and you might not have found it that way because ER-4 stretches the treble anyway.

In the end, the main point is that the ER-4 sound isn't "real", and people who gets accustomed to that and think that should be the expectation of all high-end sound is really misled. I think ER-4 has its merits in its price range, and it made obviously sacrifices to provide an unique experience; but it is by no way, anywhere near a "reference" and "neutral" platform for sound reproduction.

 

[jlingo]

Hi Lindrone,
Thank you for your opinion.
I'm using Apple Lossless compression.
And probably, iPod doesn't have a good treble to start off with. I tried to use other source, like my laptop, and the high has improved a lot.

At the moment I set my ipod with Treble booster and Bassboost in Supermacro 627, which I think the best setting that I have achieved at the moment. I will keep tweaking though. Perhaps, AD8610 will compensate with ipod treble shyness.

ER-4S was very harsh without Amp, but somehow, with SM 627, and iPod, it's just very ideal, thick, rolled off high(I think it's about right to my ears), good mid range, thicker bass.

Sensa with SM627, and iPod, I don't think I'm used to this sound character. The high is just way to recessed. A little bit more spark in high, would be sufficient. I have heard better high than this.

I agree with you that ER-4's treble would appear sharper because of lack in everything else.

That's why it would be ideal to my ear if Sensa has Ety high clarity.

I still find that Sensa mid and bass, is waay better than Ety. But the clarity in Ety really sounds refreshing and relaxing.

" Using my iPod with my HR-2 against using my CE775 produces dramatically different sound, of course the CE775 have much crisper and better trebles, but that's simply because iPod doesn't reproduce that." Yeah, I think iPod is the culprit. but I have to try to change Opamp in supermacro to enhance high, I like crisper sound, it's refreshing.

 

[toaster]

based on my listening experience, the highs on the sensas are more detailed than that of the etys.

in their ability to reproduce high frequencies, as well as present texture in the high frequency output, the sensas simply are superior based on what i have heard.

i think this whole idea of "hyper-realism" with the etys, is not so much because the ety's presentation of detail is so great (it is very good), but moreso because it is a tendency of the phone to cater to the high frequencies. in other words, i think if you looking for treble most, (as opposed to looking for a more balanced phone where all frequencies are presented more equally and realistically) because the ety puts it above all else (far above all else) and does a decent job at presenting it, you will fall in love with the etys.

but, in reality, phones like the sensas will present far more detail than the etys ever could, but because they do so in tandem with equally detailed mids and lows, it is possible for a pure treble-head to be unable to appreciate the sensas as much as the etys.

if you listen to the sensas enough, and their ability to present high-end detail (or any detail for that matter) i think you will come to find that the only thing the sensas do not do is accentuate a certain frequency range...which is really all that the etys are doing.

the actual high-end detail of the sensas is actually much better than that of the etys.

i think you'd like the ue's better...but then you reintroduce sibilance, which is something i've been having a great time living without.

 

[iamdone]

I actually am starting to feel the same way jlingo does about the sensas. This has more to do with me purchasing of the RS-1 than the etys (since I haven't listened to them for so long). I feel the RS-1 has the same level of detail as the etys (if not more) but also has a very balanced energenic sound. When you listen to the sensas, it does seem like the highs have a slight rolloff and the sound is definately smoothed over. This smoothness is not only in the high but in the mids as well. I thought the hd650/zu also had better highs.

You can get into the whole arguement that the ety and the RS-1 don't present the details correctly but I don't really care. The RS-1 have the wow factor not only for the energenic sound but also how well they do details. I heard things I've never even heard with the etys. The same cannot be said the sensas.

I've tried to correct this problem with the sensas using the treble boost on the ipod. This brings out more detail and the highs have more sparkle. I haven't heard any distortion yet. While I like the sound I'm getting, I feel that headphones shouldn't need eq to sound good.

Maybe I'll let jlingo make the crossover to the ue10 before I think about it. I also think if I really considering the ultimate ears, I'd give them a listen in Las Vegas first before spending a $1000.

 

[toaster]

hmm, well i can not relate at all to what is being said here.

i think the sensas have absolutely incredible highs, at least when it comes to representing what music "actually sounds like." maybe it is true, that some people are just obsessed with this accentuated high-frequency stuff, but to me it's shrill, harsh, and deflated, at least in the case of the etys.

and i'll say again that i do not think the etys have any more detail than the sensas. in fact i think they have far less detail. but because the high frequencies are just focused on so much, the etys appear to have more detail to some.

i have never heard the rs-1, but if there is one thing i remember hearing about them more than anything else, it is the fact that they are harsh, and this is the reason i remember reading many people ditching them...which leads me to this:

the sensas not only present high frequency detail that is nearly identical to real-life, but they also do so in a non-fatiguing way. and this is not due to a roll-off in my opinion, as i hear absolutely nothing missing up top, but because the sensas are engineered to not create any kind of sibilance or fatiguing sound.

basically what this means, is that even if there was another phone out there that had "better highs;" as in more detail, or greater range, (aside from the fact that i see absolutely no need for this) there would be the introduction of sibilance. once you have sibilance, the phone is basically rendered useless as far as i am concerned.

i think the sensas present all frequencies with the utmost clarity, detail and realism. i suppose it is safe to say, that if you are looking for something else, you will be disappointed.

i can see how someone looking for accentuated highs, and "hyper-realism" could be disappointed by the sensas. but the choice of what phone to get is crystal clear and light on the wallet: ety er-4s for under 200 dollars.

 

[Blitzula]

It's kind of interesting to read this thread. For a long time, the UE products were unassailable, everyone liked them. Then the 2X-S was viewed as better than the UE10 to a number of people. Now we see some crumbling of that idea.

It's nice to see that there is a universal 2X-S in more than one area, it would be great to have the same thing for the UE10 so that we could listen to both.

Anways...just a side thought.

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula It's kind of interesting to read this thread. For a long time, the UE products were unassailable, everyone liked them. Then the 2X-S was viewed as better than the UE10 to a number of people. Now we see some crumbling of that idea. It's nice to see that there is a universal 2X-S in more than one area, it would be great to have the same thing for the UE10 so that we could listen to both. Anways...just a side thought.

UE has universals of all their models at their Las Vegas headquarters.

While I agree that the sensas are great headphones, they are not the end all of headphones. I don't know if the ue's are better but if not, if just means that canalphones are not my ultimate headphone.

I don't find the RS-1 harsh at all. Also, their detail does not come at the expense of the rest of sound spectrum. I do feel that sensas do have some very high end rollup off. It is at a much higher level than the E5 but it is still there.

 

[Blitzula]

It's interesting that there there seem to be more UE 10 owners who think their canalphone is the be-all, end-all, and have stopped upgrading.

I'm finally going to listen to the 2X-S universal this week and see how they are. I may get them just on hearing preservation alone, that is starting to be a huge issue for me.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 i have never heard the rs-1, but if there is one thing i remember hearing about them more than anything else, it is the fact that they are harsh, and this is the reason i remember reading many people ditching them...which leads me to this:

Often times the treble of the Grado series are bright and fatiguing, some less than others. Although RS-1 is the lesser offender than some other Grados, this characteristic still bothers me.

I actually liked the HP-1 a lot more than the RS-1, I think HP-1's sound signature is a lot more neutral, although it also somewhat sounds sterile and emotionally uninvolving for some reason as well. RS-1 has a warmer tonality, but its highs are definitely less "tamed" than HP-1. There's a reason why there's an universal high regard for HP-1, even though it is terribly overpriced at the rate which you can find them.


Quote:

the sensas not only present high frequency detail that is nearly identical to real-life, but they also do so in a non-fatiguing way. and this is not due to a roll-off in my opinion, as i hear absolutely nothing missing up top, but because the sensas are engineered to not create any kind of sibilance or fatiguing sound.

I have to agree with this fully.


What I also find interesting, is that iamdone went from loving his HD650, now into the RS-1, which is totally opposite end of the spectrum. Most Sennheiser lovers really can't get used the RS-1 sound.. perhaps the transition from the Sennheiser, to Sensas, slowly coax you into accepting the sound of RS-1 more easily than you would've before?

I think what's also interesting, is have you reconsidered CD3000 as an option as a result of this? I remember that you had issues with the way CD3000 handles trebles (along with other issues... that's not the only one, as I recall), but perhaps now you'll find CD3000 energetic and acceptible as well.. like a RS-1 with much larger soundstage.. hmm..

 

[Zanth]

I think it would be prudent for people to downplay their hyperbole or just forget about it altogether when commenting on detail/resolution. Certianly Ety's have a ton of detail, lots and lots of low lever resolution. There are folks who sold off their Omega II's and R10's (one head-fier sold off both of those phones in favour of Ety's) for a myriad of reasons, one of them being that Ety's simply had more detail. I can't see how the 2x-p's have "infinitely more detail than the etymotics in every aspect." This is simply a ludicrous statement. First the word infinite is completely misused here and is impossible to qualify. Secondly, Ety's already offer such fastastic information retrieval that anything more would be like listening to the alvioli expanding and contracting in between blood vessels filling their outer walls. Does anyone really WANT to hear that deep into the recording, even if it is possible (which it is not, but would be if the 2x-p's were infinitely more detailed...).

As for the "fake" treble detail of the Ety's, I can buy into that, rather easily actually. I think the R10's fall into this category as well, not so much the RS-1's, though they certainly have an overly energetic treble as well. If the 2x-p's have a more relaxed treble (I do not mean rolled off, just not bumped) then they would fall more in line with HP-1000's which would be much to my liking. I'm also very interested in the comfort and fit issue as I have been wearing my Ety's for 8+ hours lately and they are starting to hurt. I would pay the extra cost of the 2x-p's for the comfort alone. Now then, I suppose the real issue regarding sound would be to compare with the UE's top offering, and since they are said to not even be close to the comfort of the Sensaphonics...well, for more money and less comfort, I'll stick with the Sensas.

Anyhow, I'm pleased to read some not-so-positive impressions of the 2x-p's. This is how we learn on this board. When someone pipes in with a less than glowing impression, sure the fanboys will always jump in and defend (I'm sure as heck guilty of that especially regarding RS-1's) but when folks really try to get to the bottom of what they perceive as an erroneous impression, real data comes out, and people are permitted to make a more informed decision, particularly regarding phones with no demo'ing.

 

[jlingo]

Well I don't want to attack anyone or defend anyone. Sound is an art, it can suit people in different ways. Some like Picasso drawings, others don't.
Aside from that, I'm a drummer, electric guitar player, bass guitar player. To my ears, the guitar, drum, and piano sound, sounds a lot better than the Ety, a lot closer to real life. But The cymbal sound, in real life when you are listening to live music should be more attack, not too much rolled off.
Sensa, is shy in the high area.

But With iPod Treble Booster, and combined with Bassboost in Supermacro, really unleash the high and the depth Bass of Sensa.

Ety is really really detailed in high and pronounced.
Sensa, thick and full, but rolled off high, thick and detailed Mid, thick and detailed Bass.(more Improved Shure e5c character), a little bit more attack in high, would be my taste. So I think the frequency is rolled at 16kHz? Other than that overall high is very defined and fuller than ETy. It seems that it's missing that extra high frequencies. Well it's more like some headphones sound missing at <30Hz bass? So you need to bass boost them, to get that extra dB in the low end bass. So let's say Sensa has 10db across 8kHz to 13kHz, but reducing down to 3dB at 16kHz? Therefore you need treble booster. So in otherwords, Sensa is technically sounded better and fuller in high than ety. It's probably only missing that extra kHz and edginess. 16kHz, is more spark I think? Isn't this the idea of SACD audio with supertweeter?

I noticed this in UE website:"The latest innovation from Ultimate Ears, Inc. is the UE-10 Pro. The UE-10 Pro is the first earpiece to have a 20Hz to 16k (1 or – 3db) truly useable frequency response. The new high frequency driver has extended frequency response out to 16k with no EQ. Sonically the UE-10 Pro is the most accurate earpiece available. That combined with the low frequency headroom of the dual low frequency armatures makes this earpiece a must for any application, especially ear monitor systems that do not offer the high frequency boost options."

Also, remember guys, you see this roll off in high when using iPod. You get better high, with different source. Sensaphonics is capable of producing a better high with different source or should I say with EQ. Which I think a good thing. Cheaper canalphone no matter how you EQ it, it won't make much difference, So at least Sensa can have good high and amazing bass with EQ and I mean that. Hopefully I will have a Supermacro AD8610(bright Amp) to improve it by. That's why Head-fi is here today. It's for hobbyist like us and therefore, keep tweaking and upgrading!! So I hope Xin keeps improving his Amps, and Sensaphonics keeps releasing better Canalphones. I don't want Canalphone quality to end here.

Blitzula,
If you have a chance to audition them, bring your ipod along with you, together with your favourite songs. I see you also have RS-1.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth As for the "fake" treble detail of the Ety's, I can buy into that, rather easily actually. I think the R10's fall into this category as well, not so much the RS-1's, though they certainly have an overly energetic treble as well. If the 2x-p's have a more relaxed treble (I do not mean rolled off, just not bumped) then they would fall more in line with HP-1000's which would be much to my liking.

I would agree with this statement as well.. I found the HP-1 much more pleasant in long listening session than RS-1's.. the RS-1's treble, although not anywhere near as bad as lower-end Grados, is very stressful to me.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jilingo Sensa, thick and full, but rolled off high, thick and detailed Mid, thick and detailed Bass.(more Improved Shure e5c character), a little bit more attack in high, would be my taste. So I think the frequency is rolled at 16kHz?

I think you have to be careful with the verbiage that you're using here. 2X-S's treble isn't "rolled-off" as much as it is accurately produced at that frequency. UE chose to boost the treble in a certain way to always get a certain type of treble regardless of what it's plugged into... same with Ety ER-4's. That doesn't mean it's accurate, it is simply "enhanced" on top of what came out of the source. A "rolled-off" treble would imply that treble is being pushed to the headphone, and it isn't being accurately produced.

Another interesting related topic was asked by Blitzula here:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1222548

Furthermore, you said here that "frequency is rolled at 16kHz?", well, UE-10 Pro's frequency response measurement is exactly the same as the 2X-S. From 5Hz to 16kHz. So obviously that statement is inaccurate.

What UE claims is that they have a "truly usable and audible" frequency at that range.. which means they boost the treble so it's always audible, and they boost the bass so the extension is always clearly audible and visible. The "enhancement" to the sound makes it easier to use as a monitor earphone, but lacking true accuracy as audiophile playback devices. The behavior of them being so unyielding to different source/amp combination is a testament to that.

It still doesn't mean you can't indeed like that type of a sound regardless. In the end, it doesn't matter which is technically more accurate, only which one you like more. However the assume such an "effect" is accurate reproduction would be the wrong perspective to take.

For example, I love the Sony CD3000, but in no way would I ever refer to it as a "neutral" and "real" sound under any circumstances. I rather appreciate it's huge soundstage, as unrealistic as it may be.. and it's fast-paced reproduction... It is important to recognize that what you like might not be "reference" or "neutral".. and that's okay.