[xnor]

Quote:

MMM's won't match HD650 in highs. Not ever. The > 20 dB difference in highest end (beyond 14 kHz) is huge and impossible to correct without introducing major distortion.
 
It also seems that they have more resonance by looking at the step responses. And these do provide plenty subbass, but in both cases the decay is subpar. So you end up with "headphone" bass.

Who knows, maybe a simple mod fixes that?

 

[kiteki]

 
[/]
So you end up with "headphone" bass.

 
I thought all headphones did that.

 

[AstralStorm]

Nope, quite a few higher end IEMs have perfect bass decay.
I think some headphones do too - LCD-3, Senn HD800, Beyerdynamic DT1350 among others.

 

[kiteki]

It's just a random picture of diffraction. What I mean is sound doesn't 'like' to travel down echoey plastic tunnels, I think the CK10 might use Titanium but I don't have a picture or blueprint of the nozzle.
 
It will depend on the matter, having a metal nozzle isn't always going to give you substantial gains, tuning of the driver itself is a lot more important. I would dare someone to take out that damper on the CK10 and see if the nozzle is truly metal inside, if anything a replacement damper can be bought and placed inside.
 
The FR, THD and IR are only important if you're looking for an IEM with flat FR, low THD and fast IR decay........ I'm not sure if that's all we're actually looking for in an IEM.
 
That's the whole point of using better materials, to reduce resonance which will result in a more even response and low THD, etc.
 
Even if two IEM's have identical THD levels, or one is higher, or similar impulse response, perhaps they just have different time envelopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSR_envelope#ADSR_envelope, overtones or harmonics, which in turn result in a different and unique tone in each one..... after all there is no perfect IEM in THD, IMD or IR.
 
Overtones and harmonics are of the recording, the IEM's work is just to present what's given. Sure an IEM does add a tone as purity is impossible, but the parameters are mostly set by the main criteria in FR, THD, etc. in trying to get close to the source as possible, that's fidelity.
 
If IEM's all had perfect IR, perfect square waves and 0.00001% THD, IMD... well then they'd all sound nice and transparent, open windows to the recording without any tone of their own (apart from the soundspace size and related 3D perceptions), in reality they all sound slightly 'different' and we can't really anlyze 'how' they sound different.
 
That's assuming perfection, which isn't a reality, even stuff with very outstanding technicality can be slightly different because of certain small characteristics. We can realize how they're different, one just has to analyze every detail.
 

---

 
Here is an example, lots of THD and choppy square waves - http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/hifiman-re-262-and-re-272-ear-headphones-measurements, neither graph relates to human perception, and neither graph can tell me the differences between the RE262 and RE272
 
Which makes perfect sense, since graphs like that can't really tell me the difference between a clarinet and flute either, only show me a nonsensical difference.
 
Sure it can, they share the driver but the RE262 has more laid back midhighs and treble, focuses more on bass and midrange. I can deduce that by just looking at the FR graphs, HRTF will relate it to human perception. If you can't make sense of it, that's another matter, if you're expecting it to tell you how you will perceive the sound and all the subjective factors involved, you're making ridiculous requests.
 

 
 
Answering your part in purple.
 
The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.
 
IR and SWR look extremely close.
 
So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?
 

 
 
Answering your part in blue.
 
Faithfulness to the recording is fidelity, yes, which we perhaps can find in linear FR to the diffuse field, low THD and fast IR.
 
If that's all we strived for - the Etymotic ER-4S would still be a very popular IEM.
 
Not touching the topic of custom IEM's or multi-drivers, there are single driver IEM's today which surpass it and looking at your signature, you have two of them?  The Sony MDR-EX1000 and the Final Audio FI-BA-SS?  Care to explain?

 

[Inks]

Answering your part in purple.
 
The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.
 
IR and SWR look extremely close.
 
So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?
 
They should be very similar, it's the same driver with different damping. To note the RE262 needs an amp, otherwise it will lack the dynamic range of the RE272. The extent in which how those small differences are going to be perceived are the subjective factors, not illusions just perception.
 
 
Faithfulness to the recording is fidelity, yes, which we perhaps can find in linear FR to the diffuse field, low THD and fast IR.
 
If that's all we strived for - the Etymotic ER-4S would still be a very popular IEM.
 
Not touching the topic of custom IEM's or multi-drivers, there are single driver IEM's today which surpass it and looking at your signature, you have two of them?  The Sony MDR-EX1000 and the Final Audio FI-BA-SS?  Care to explain?
 
The ER4 series are still popular IEMs, still among the best. 4S/B are very neutral, but need amping nowadays a lot of people just use a standalone DAP/Smartphone. 
 
The EX1000 and FAD SS don't surpass the ER4S or ER6, they do certain things better yes. EX1000's bass response is better though a tad too mellow in transients, but treble of the ER6/4S are a lot better, more even and a bit more extended. The imaging of the ER6/ER4 trump the EX1000's soundstage size strenght IMO. 
 
SS bass is a lot more extended, but I prefer the ER4/ER6's tighter bass response than the more midbassy SS. The SS's treble is nice, a tad sharp, but still pretty flat, no more extended than the ER4S/ER6, I'll say it's a tie. The SS has better soundstage size and imaging is on par, but the midbass makes sound a bit cloudier at times. The SS also has audible distortion, just a bit, the ER4S/ER6 is clean in comparison.  I only own the HF3s, the rest are loaners and/or stuff I plan on selling.

 

[kiteki]

Answering your part in purple.
 
The RE262 is a notch up from 10Hz to 750Hz, then a notch down at 4.5kHz, a notch down at 9kHz.  Talking 2dB differences here.
 
IR and SWR look extremely close.
 
So you're saying the rest is all subjective illusion is that correct?
 
They should be very similar, it's the same driver with different damping. To note the RE262 needs an amp, otherwise it will lack the dynamic range of the RE272. The extent in which how those small differences are going to be perceived are the subjective factors, not illusions just perception.

 
I don't think the graphs are accurate in this case, you have no evidence that they are, anyway.  Just because hardware can't lie, doesn't mean it's always telling the truth.
 
 

/
i really like the 272 , while the 262 never really won me due to its muffled, rolled-off highs
 
the 262 has great mids and decent bass , but highs...nope.plus they need an amp to shine.
the 272 has AMAZING highs , great mids , decent bass.no complain whatsoever

 
 
Almost everyone says the RE262 has rolled-off highs, and amazing mid-centric vocals.  Likewise, people say the RE272 has great excellent highs, and very light bass.  Lol.
 

 

[Inks]

I don't think the graphs are accurate in this case, you have no evidence that they are, anyway.  Just because hardware can't lie, doesn't mean it's always telling the truth.
 
Almost everyone says the RE262 has rolled-off highs, and amazing mid-centric vocals.  Likewise, people say the RE272 has great excellent highs, and very light bass.  Lol.

   Lots of evidence backing the accuracy Tyll's simulator, coincides with industry standards and gear by Phonak and Etymotic. Tyll's ID equalization is iffy though and I don't agree with it,the raw graph themselves are accurate though. Rin will graph the RE272 soon, expect same raw results but Rin's DF equalization is more accurate IME. see this and this
 
RE262's treble does roll off a bit early after 10k, but has still has very good extension though, capability is not as well portrayed. The RE272's tuning which bumps the treble from 10k> in comparison gives listeners a much better feel of how far the driver actually extends, since both have about the same bandwidth. The RE262 is already a bit bass light to many listeners, the 4db reduction in the RE272 will give those impressions I would think, bass levels are close to that of Etys. RE262 does have a midcentric response based on those graphs and RE272 seems to have a sparkly, non-sibilant and extended treble. 
 
I will be listening to the RE272 soon as well, should be fun ; ]

 

[kiteki]

RE262, RE272 and HE300 on sale here, black friday specials.
 
http://www.head-direct.com/Products/?cid=1
 
 

---

 
I've been researching speakers lately and found this paper which is interesting - http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf
 
If you read up on the Yamaha NS10 studio monitor, it was one of the most popular monitors used in studios for a long time, yet it's said to have an approx +7dB spike at 1.7kHz.  Why?  The studio engineers said something like a lot of instruments have important information in that area, they collide there, or something, so when it's spiked it's more revealing.  That makes sense, right?  If you want a 'vocal monitor' the FR should emphasize important vocal areas, if you want an 'electric guitar monitor', the speakers should reveal important information on the electric guitar.
 
 
If you want to see heat, you use an infrared camera...
 

 
 
If you want to see in the dark, you use a night-vision camera...
 

 
 
Light is very similar to sound, it operates in wavelengths (frequency) in the visible spectra, at varying intensity (SPL). 
 
"night vision is made possible by a combination of two approaches: sufficient spectral range, and sufficient intensity range." 
 
 
Naturally if these specific spectral ranges are intensified (volume) then they show more information (revealing) in that sector.
 
 
This applies to the transmitter (light / sound), receptor (lens / microphone), transmitter (screen / transducer) and receptor again (eye / ear).
 
If you want to record vocals with high... vocal quality?, then a "vocal microphone" is best for the application, they tend to have a tailored frequency pickup.
 
 
Shure had some interactive recordings here - http://www.shure.com/americas/support/tools/mic-listening-lab
 
Click on "vocals", click around a little, I liked the KSM44A.
 
An article on dozens of vocal microphones, jeez... http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/vocalmics.htm
 
 
So I think what I can hypothesize with this is...
 
1 - It seems like an extended spectral range of equal intensity (in audio terms, a flat FR) is not revealing, in neither the receiver nor the transmitter.  A tailored FR will effectively 'zoom in' and reveal more information.
 
2 - The technology of a microphone influences the sound quality a lot.  They can have near-identical FR and still sound different.  It seems intuitively very unlikely that transducers of different material and technology, open-air vs closed, et cetera, could sound identical with identical FR.
 
 
...on the notes in point 2, I think this new app http://accudio.goldenears.net/ (Accurate Audio Player), from the most comprehensive measurement database of headphones and IEM's in the world (http://en.goldenears.net/), will shine some light on the perception of FR.
 
This iPhone app will ideally equalize your IEM's and headphones to flat, for you, by selecting which IEM / HP you're using, fetching the accurate data from their server, and sending the EQ settings to your phone.
 
 
So in essence, you can then tailor five of your products (via the parametric EQ compensation) to all have near-identical FR, and listen for yourself, should be fun. =]
 
It also plays .FLAC and .OGG.
 
 
They made an index of how well the products respond to parametric EQ and reach flat.  Interesting looking at the scores of Audio Technica versus Beyerdynamic.
 
 

Apple	New In-Ear	5.0 / 5
Apple	EarPods	4.0 / 5
ATOMIC FLOYD	Super Darts	3.0 / 5
ATOMIC FLOYD	AirJax Titanium2	2.0 / 5
AUDEZE	LCD-2	5.0 / 5
Audio Chi	W-Series	2.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-CM700	2.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-CK9	3.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-CM7	2.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-ES55	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	W1000	3.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-M50	4.5 / 5
audio-technica	ONTO	2.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-SJ11	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-ES7	3.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-ESW10	3.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-EW9	2.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-A950LTD	4.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-PRO500	4.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-PRO700 Mk2	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-ESW9	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-PRO500 Mk2	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-A900X	4.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-SJ3	3.0 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-PRO700	3.5 / 5
audio-technica	ATH-A2000X	3.0 / 5
Beats by Dr.Dre	Tour	3.0 / 5
Beats by Dr.Dre	Studio	3.5 / 5

 

beyerdynamic	DTX11iE	2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DTX100	3.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT880 (32 Ohm)	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT880 (250 Ohm)	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT880 (600 Ohm)	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT250	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT990 PRO	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	T50p	2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	T70p	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DTX300p	2.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT770 PRO	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT231 PRO	4.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	T5P	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	T1	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT440	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT860	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT1350	5.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	DT235	4.0 / 5
beyerdynamic	T90	4.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	DTX501p	3.5 / 5
beyerdynamic	CUSTOM ONE PRO (BASS2)	3.5 / 5

 
 
 
However, even a 3.5 / 5 score looks pretty accurate here, this is the Ortofon E-Q5.
 

 
 
 
Here are the IEM's in their database with scores of 4.0 or higher...
 
Altec Lansing inMotion 616
Altec Lansing inMotion 716 (HD mode)
Apple EarPods
Creative Aurvana InEar 2
Cresyn C510E
Etymotic EtyKids5
Future Sonics Atrio M
Hidition NT1
Jays q-Jays
JVC HA-FX3X
M-Audio IE40
Motorola MOTOROKR EH20
Philips SHE9750
Plantronics Backbeat Go
Rooth LS8+
Sony MDR-500SL
Sony MDR-EX310S
Altec Lansing InMotion 716 (BASS mode)
Creative Aurvana InEar 2 (GE Edition)
Denon AH-C560R
Etymotic ER-4P
Etymotic ER-4S
Etymotic ER-4B
Etymotic HF5
Hidition NT6
JVC HA-FRD80 / HA-FXD80
Logitech UE200
Phonak PFE232
Samsung S2 bundle
Samsung S3 bundle
Sony JIENNE MDR-EX40LP
UE TF10
Apple New In-Ear
Hifiman RE0
JVC HA-FXC80
Phonak PFE112
Sony XBA-3
Sony XBA-4
T-PEOS H-100