[willowbrook]

Graph can tell the general signature if you know the measurements of something that you've extensively listen to.

 

[Brooko]

How does it compare with dunu 2000J?

 
Comparative graph here (as an illustration)
 

 
Bass is similar, DN2000J is a little fuller in lower mid-range (esp male vocals).  It is a lot brighter in the lower treble - and comparatively quite tizzy when quick swapping one to the other.  Hunter is a bit leaner with this setting (in fact I probably prefer the gold set-up better) - vocals are more present and cleaner, upper end is smoother (less peaky).

 

[Brooko]

I promised I'd try and get a matching set of undamped filters, and right earpiece with silver combined with left and gold actually came out a lot closer than many other manufacturers.
 
Using same scale as last couple of graphs cos I haven't reverted to normal yet.
 

 
Very clean and clear - if you're sensitive to brightness you could find this a bit too much.  Vocals are quite forward if you like things a little brighter (esp female vocals).
 
Probably a little too much for me - but it is a pretty good combo.
 
I'm going to PM Bob - I do think that some minor tweaks might help the final tuning.

 

[pietro77]

Comparative graph here (as an illustration)




Bass is similar, DN2000J is a little fuller in lower mid-range (esp male vocals).  It is a lot brighter in the lower treble - and comparatively quite tizzy when quick swapping one to the other.  Hunter is a bit leaner with this setting (in fact I probably prefer the gold set-up better) - vocals are more present and cleaner, upper end is smoother (less peaky).

Thank you, appreciate it.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

 
Personally I think the graph is pretty good - but remember the whole measuring set-up is under $200.  It's calibrated to mimic an IEC711 and its pretty consistent.
I guess different strokes for different folks.  Personally I thought the XBA series sounded good - but overly smooth (boring even).  And by playing around with smoothing and scale, I can make a graph look very different.  Here is the same one:
 

 
Pretty different eh.  I simply used the a little closer to the scale as your ARTA graph and smoothed it.

 
Rest assured I wasn't referring to the visual look of the graph, I was looking at the scale, even when smoothed the graph still shows the exact same information as before, being the two large dips at 8khz and 11khz which I was referring when I said "rocky ride", I wasn't concerned with treble sibilance etc, from the graph the upper mids are the area to be concerned about regarding sibilance, I was only concerned with treble detail and resolution, large peaks and valleys are not conducive to detail, I see no reason why the hunter should not have a flat response between 6-13khz, given that the treble at 7khz and 9khz is already 10dB lower in volume than the upper mids, it makes the treble at 8khz and 11khz 20dB lower in volume than the upper mids. I preferably want to see only 10dB variance between any two points on the graph in a high end iem. Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't wan't an overall flat line frequency response, that would sound boring as hell. So to me 10dB variance is enough to achieve a boost in bass, mids or treble for the desired sound signature while maintaining overall balance and resolution, but I see no reason to have 20dB variance in the audio range, that is taking it too far for me, going from boring sound to coloured sound. Just to be clear I think the hunter FR is fine, I'm just saying it's not what I was looking for in terms of FR balance, I'm sure it still sounds great.

 

[Brooko]

I've already suggested to Bob to drop the upper-mids back by about 6-8 dB.  But I disagree with you on the lower treble variance.  I just EQ'd the upper mid-range back, and its more cohesive and still butter smooth whilst retaining detail. Each to their own though.
 
And I just showed one example of a high end IEM (or at least I think an $800 IEM is high end anyway), and I could show examples of many more with peaks and valleys in the lower treble.  None of the IEMs have even been described as peaky or grainy or rough by reviewers.  So I guess its open to individual interpretation.
 
With the EQ in place (to lower the mid-range), I'd be pretty OK if someone told me these were the only IEM I had for the rest of my life.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

I've already suggested to Bob to drop the upper-mids back by about 6-8 dB.  But I disagree with you on the lower treble variance.  I just EQ'd the upper mid-range back, and its more cohesive and still butter smooth whilst retaining detail. Each to their own though.
And I just showed one example of a high end IEM (or at least I think an $800 IEM is high end anyway), and I could show examples of many more with peaks and valleys in the lower treble.  None of the IEMs have even been described as peaky or grainy or rough by reviewers.  So I guess its open to individual interpretation.
With the EQ in place (to lower the mid-range), I'd be pretty OK if someone told me these were the only IEM I had for the rest of my life.

 
Really my 10dB variance rule is just an ideal, which essentially guarantees me a balanced sound, Oh and peaky or grainy is not what I have a problem with, it's just the simple fact that having 20dB variance means you won't be hearing much of whats going on at the bottom of that FR dip, it's altering the sound to a degree I deem excessive, like we've said that doesn't stop the iem from sounding great, but it does go against logic for audible resolution, but again like you say it's open to interpretation, I've just set myself what I think is a decent target, reminds me to take another look at the olive welti target.

 

[duracek]

 
Here are the graphs for 4 very different earphones ranging from £40 to £800. What does this tell me exactly? 
As I said previously you really need to listen to earphones, no graph can help you decide which sounds better.

 

[ajaxender]

It tells you that the klipsch and shure will likely be perceived as having more bass than the other two? That the grado will probably sound the brightest?

That chart is not pertinent to the discussion because (I will assume) those IEMs have been measured and graphed consistently. What has bugged me about Trance's comparison from the start is using graphs from potentially very different sources.

It seems like some of us are going all or nothing here for what a frequency graph means and that just seems silly to me. They're useful within context. It's not rocket science and I do mean that in two ways.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

It tells you that the klipsch and shure will likely be perceived as having more bass than the other two? That the grado will probably sound the brightest?
That chart is not pertinent to the discussion because (I will assume) those IEMs have been measured and graphed consistently. What has bugged me about Trance's comparison from the start is using graphs from potentially very different sources.
It seems like some of us are going all or nothing here for what a frequency graph means and that just seems silly to me. They're useful within context. It's not rocket science and I do mean that in two ways.

 
Yes, an accurate FR graph only along with spectral decay will tell you the bass-mids-treble ratio, which is for me very useful, as I do know the range of my preferred FR ratio based on experience, and only after I have a ratio I know I enjoy can I then hope for other things like naturalness and sound stage etc which aren't shown in a graph. If you don't have much experience in the way of what FR you enjoy then a graph is useless, and one should not try to accurately read into a graph to determine anything without a reference point from the same source (having heard an iem that is graphed by the same source to compare to).
 
And just to be clear I was not in fact comparing the hunter graph to the sony graph's, I made sure to point out that one cannot accurately compare graphs from different sources. I was merely showing a close to ideal (for my tastes) FR, represented by the sony. The bulk of my comments were purely based on the hunters graph alone, after seeing comparison graphs of DN2000j and U6 from the same source being Brooko, (and having heard DN2000j).

 

[PL4Y3R 0N3]

Hey Brooko, did I miss your impressions of the PM6? I'd love to hear about them.
*Edit* went back in the thread and I see you have not. Sorry about that. Just really want to get my hands on some.

 

[andy335touring]

Hey @Brooko, did I miss your impressions of the PM6? I'd love to hear about them.
*Edit* went back in the thread and I see you have not. Sorry about that. Just really want to get my hands on some.

 
I'd love a review as well because i've just pulled the trigger on a pair of PM6's.
 
They're my first decent set of phones to go with the Shanling M5 i've just ordered.

 

[audio123]

   
I'd love a review as well because i've just pulled the trigger on a pair of PM6's.
 
They're my first decent set of phones to go with the Shanling M5 i've just ordered.

i dont think pm6 is decent

it is extraordinaryy

 

[andy335touring]

 
i dont think pm6 is decent

it is extraordinaryy

They certainly will be compaired to my old ones ! 

 

 

[peter123]

i dont think pm6 is decent it is extraordinaryy

Where did you get a chance to hear them?