[spook76]

Not to disrespect or impune ohotonge, but there are always uncertainties in measurements. Even with accurate measurements, there are a zillion ways to compute and present FFTs from time-domain data. Check out those headphone measurements common to both seeko.co.kr and innerfidelity. There are some significant differences, particularly in the higher-frequency resonance peaks that cannot, IMHO, be purely attributed to the use of 24th octave-band bin averaging. They can't both be right. These graphs might be good, but there's no way of knowing that just by looking at them. 

Forget the graphs. The issue is every reviewer both on Head-Fi and in the audio press has described the KSE1500 as neutral or richly neutral. Then along comes one measurement that makes the KSE1500 look like the JH Roxanne and we immediately discount all the reviews to the benefit of one graph. The way I see it either all the reviewers are deaf or the graph for whatever reason is flawed.

 

[bmichels]

Forget the graphs. The issue is every reviewer both on Head-Fi and in the audio press has described the KSE1500 as neutral or richly neutral. Then along comes one measurement that makes the KSE1500 look like the JH Roxanne and we immediately discount all the reviews to the benefit of one graph. The way I see it either all the reviewers are deaf or the graph for whatever reason is flawed.

 
100% agree.  don't care at all about graphes

.  Only listening impression count.  
 
We are here to enjoy music, not to analyse frequency tables      Don't worry, be happy.............

 

[arnaud]

I agree the judging of graph in itself typically makes little sense. I thought for instance the 10kHz peak was perhaps related to the measuring rig (it says diffuse field equalized but who knows this is a proper calibration).

When revisiting the page a 2nd time, I compare the KSE1500 to SE846 and SE315, both of which I owned before. The differences / similarities in voicing make sense from looking at the differences between the 3 models response curves at least. The 10kHz peak seem to be occuring in some of the models of the brand not the others (315 has it, 846 not).

Arnaud

 

[Danz03]

The problem is that all our ears are shaped differently and create different resonance effects inside the ear canal. Just push the IEM inwards or pull outwards by 1 mm can produce very different sonic results, that's why it's hard to trust the graphs and tests for IEMs.

 

[M Coupe]

I have no desire to argue sound.  I can say without reservation the KSE is the finest IEM I have ever owned.  I don't pretend to know the science behind FR or THD or Decay models but I do know what I think sounds good to me.  The KSE does it.  I am interested in looking at charts to explain why I like what I like. Hopefully there is some predictive value in that.   However, If you really study the graphs you will find IEMs that plot similar.  However, when you give them a listen they don't sound the same necessarily.  It could be the way they were measured or any number of things.  The one variable none of us can get past is our own ears.  No matter the chart, if we don't like them they should be sold.  So if you like your apple ear buds great!  If you love Beats or Bose great!  Use your own ears (instruments) and figure out what you like. I don't mean to sound like Dennis Miller but, "End Rant."

 

[harmonix]

Now that I am finaly Ready ro buy it.... I can't find any dealer in Europe that has inventory of KSE1500 !

Anyone can help me to find one set ?

Thats the true test if its any good

 

[ohotonge]

Wow, guys, the measurements are not bad at all for iem.

 

[holden4th]

Decay is dependent on the acoustic environment which could be naturally or artificially created.
 
A simple test of decay is to walk into a room that is acoustically active. In other words it has a number of reflective surfaces.
 
Clap your hands and you will hear the sound bounce off the surfaces. Try the same test in an acoustically inert room and the decay is minimal if there is any at all. The clap will sound dead
 
Do the same with the lowest string of a double bass and in the inert room there will be some decay, probably quickly truncated  and possibly overemphasised (read 'saturated' as the sound waves clash with each other) in the room with all the bare walls and windows.
 
Now let's translate this to a recording and I'll use classical music as an example. Toscanini did a lot of his recordings with the NBCSO in studio 8H which had a reputation of being 'dry acoustically' In other words the sound didn't reflect very well off the room surfaces. You can hear it in these now 50 - 60 year old recordings with a really good set of headphones
 
Amsterdam's Concertegebouw Hall is the opposite and is quite beautifully acoustic in many recordings. Murray Perahia's Beethoven Piano Concerto recordings in this venue are simply marvellous sound wise. You can feel the decay of the lower notes of the piano and the double basses.
 
A very good set of headphones will reproduce the acoustic qualities of the recording venue and you should be able to hear the acoustic qualities of the venue - because of the way the sound decays.
 
So this is why, when I want to audition a new set of headphones, I always use well produced piano recordings.  I also use that other instrument that is hard to reproduce on recordings, the human voice. String instruments, with their complicated harmonics, are a third choice.
 
So measuring decay graphically doesn't make sense to me unless you take the recording into consideration.
 
I haven't heard the KSE1500s but if I did get an opportunity to audition I would certainly make sure to use the right recordings.

 

[truckdriver]

Wow, guys, the measurements are not bad at all for iem.

That's what I was thinking. The chart looks like what I would have expected. I wonder what is the basis of disapproval?


Saying the KSE1500 is somehow "not neutral" because of where the energy is throughout the frequency range is nonsense to me. "Neutral" relative to what? A flat line? Who cares about a line? You should want your IEM to be balanced according to human hearing not some stupid idea of a straight line on a graph. IEM makers are not dumb enough to tune to a straight line.


If you have the KSE1500 and feel that you are hearing all there is in the music then that is what counts. No post on a forum should upset you. If you enjoy the IEM, who can take that away from you?

 

[Danz03]

Agreed. If it's a pair of speakers then yes, the frequencies response should be as flat as possible, but even so, having a pair of speakers with ruler flat FR doesn't mean flat listening response if the placement and the room condition wasn't perfect. With open headphones, the FR curve should be as flat as possible below 1k, but anything above doesn't mean that much, as the shape and size of our ears will change the FR of the higher frequencies. And with IEMs, the size and depth of the ear canal, the amount of wax inside, the fit and tips that are used all contribute to altering the FR. Even with custom IEMs, just a 1mm difference in the length of the sound tube can alter the FR hugely too, as there is no way the IEM manufacturer would be able to know how deep one's ear canal is just from the moulding.
 
Quote:

Saying the KSE1500 is somehow "not neutral" because of where the energy is throughout the frequency range is nonsense to me. "Neutral" relative to what? A flat line? Who cares about a line? You should want your IEM to be balanced according to human hearing not some stupid idea of a straight line on a graph. IEM makers are not dumb enough to tune to a straight line.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

ohotonge's measurements were never graphed with the intent for a flat horizontal line to be the ideal. Some graphs are graphed that way ("compensated"), but even then headphone and dummy head acoustics mean that no headphones ever hit that flat line and that should not be construed as unflattering to any headphones.

 

[truckdriver]

I was curious to know if the two Audeze EL8 (open-back and closed) at my local Apple Store had the same FR because the open-back was lacking in bass to me. In looking I ran across an article on Innerfidelity last month where Audeze talked about the difference in its internal FR measurements as opposed to Tyll's related to the LCD 4. They discussed the possible effects of different ear shapes among other things.


I total agree with Danz that fit, tips, and earwax matter. Ten years of using earphones at least 8 hours a workdays a week (going from a lot of earwax production to almost none) has led me to believe earwax is like acoustic absorbent (or something like that). I even think earwax affects tonality.

I also agree with Joe Bloggs. I just don't see that chart as being bad. I have no idea if it is accurate, but it doesn't look bad to me.


I'll say this, I don't care how the KSE1500 is tuned, it will (no doubt) sound different than other IEMs because of the technology used. The rapid response of the driver is noticeable. The goodness of the bass (with some sources) puts a smile on and its EQ-ability is crazy.

 

[Danz03]

It also depends if the ear wax is oily or dry too. I have a friend who loves Beats headphones because he thinks they are the only ones with enough bass response. About a month ago, he when to have his ears checked and apparently, a lump of ear wax was stuck on to one of his ear drums and after it was removed he could hear the bass much better than before. I haven't yet ask him whether his preference for headphones have changed but lots of things can affect our hearing, so we shouldn't blame the headphones right away. Incorrect use of cotton bugs pushes the ear wax into the eardrums while they normally get pushed out of the ears naturally.
 
Quote:

I total agree with Danz that fit, tips, and earwax matter. Ten years of using earphones at least 8 hours a workdays a week (going from a lot of earwax production to almost none) has led me to believe earwax is like acoustic absorbent (or something like that). I even think earwax affects tonality.

 

[goodvibes]

  Decay is dependent on the acoustic environment which could be naturally or artificially created.
 
A simple test of decay is to walk into a room that is acoustically active. In other words it has a number of reflective surfaces.
 
Clap your hands and you will hear the sound bounce off the surfaces. Try the same test in an acoustically inert room and the decay is minimal if there is any at all. The clap will sound dead
 
Do the same with the lowest string of a double bass and in the inert room there will be some decay, probably quickly truncated  and possibly overemphasised (read 'saturated' as the sound waves clash with each other) in the room with all the bare walls and windows.
 
Now let's translate this to a recording and I'll use classical music as an example. Toscanini did a lot of his recordings with the NBCSO in studio 8H which had a reputation of being 'dry acoustically' In other words the sound didn't reflect very well off the room surfaces. You can hear it in these now 50 - 60 year old recordings with a really good set of headphones
 
Amsterdam's Concertegebouw Hall is the opposite and is quite beautifully acoustic in many recordings. Murray Perahia's Beethoven Piano Concerto recordings in this venue are simply marvellous sound wise. You can feel the decay of the lower notes of the piano and the double basses.
 
A very good set of headphones will reproduce the acoustic qualities of the recording venue and you should be able to hear the acoustic qualities of the venue - because of the way the sound decays.
 
So this is why, when I want to audition a new set of headphones, I always use well produced piano recordings.  I also use that other instrument that is hard to reproduce on recordings, the human voice. String instruments, with their complicated harmonics, are a third choice.
 
So measuring decay graphically doesn't make sense to me unless you take the recording into consideration.
 
I haven't heard the KSE1500s but if I did get an opportunity to audition I would certainly make sure to use the right recordings.

The term decay has seemingly forever been used oddly here. It's become common enough that I understand that usage but it's been used to describe everything from Q in the bass to fine detail in the presence range (ambience retrieval).
 
I don't mind graphs except for the fact that many rely too strongly on something that is only one measurement of many. Useful but often overly interpreted and could be better understood. In this thread, it's already been stated that IEM graphs are rather unreliable above 5kHZ and there's more to this than frequency response.
 
I also haven't heard a better IEM than the Shure. That may apply to headphones in general and I've heard a lot including various full size Stax which while extremely detailed and open can sound a bit ethereal. It's a pick em situation which says a lot for an IEM. The Shures don't have much sig other than those associated with music not playing in the free space which still sounds more realistic but to achieve that better perspective with similar overall performance will cost many, many times more. It's worth it if you can afford and appreciate it (even if your neighbors don't, LOL). I just think it great that Shure have given folks something that is good enough, to what I feel may be as much as will ever be a available from the format other than maybe a tweak here and there, where source will determine its overall goodness in use. 

 

[Roscoeiii]

A sad, sad day for me folks. An overly sensitive right ear means I can no longer wear IEMs for long periods of time, so I am selling my KSE1500s.
 
Breaking my heart. You can see my ad in the For Sale section, and happy to help out international folks who have had a hard time getting their hands on them.