android
  #1  
Old 11-24-2010, 11:23 AM
suyan's Avatar
suyan suyan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7
Default most accurate iem?

What's the most accurate iem? I'd like to see measurements to support as well if possible.

I previously owned the er-4S, which measures pretty flat beyond a treble spike. I ultimately found them sibilant and bass light (in terms of bass-feel) and "upgraded" to the ck100, which has quite forward mids, and accurate treble and bass from my perception (but I haven't seen a ck100 fr a graph). The bass has noticeably more feel than the er-4S, and the er-4S is flat so I'm guessing bass is less accurate here? The ck100 has a soundstage about 1.5 times the size of the er-4S and does imaging quite well.

For my next purchase, I'm considering the ck10 which is supposedly pretty accurate (more accurate than the ck100 regardless), but with a smaller soundstage. Of course, this next purchase is in the very long term (I'm poor).

In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts and any evidence you bring to the table.

Last edited by suyan; 11-24-2010 at 11:30 AM.
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 11-24-2010, 11:38 AM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suyan View Post
The bass has noticeably more feel than the er-4S, and the er-4S is flat so I'm guessing bass is less accurate here?
A flat frequency response curve doesn't mean that the IEM is "accurate". The human hearing doesn't interpret a ruler flat response as natural at all, see Equal-Loudness Contour. A somewhat boosted bass response is realistic, also spikes in the treble are needed to counteract deficiencies in the average human's cochlea. The human hearing is most sensitive in the regions of speech frequencies, and less sensitive in extreme treble and bass regions. A ruler-flat IEM is a measuring instrument, but not a listening device, so to speak.

Accuracy certainly is determined by other, more important factors than the frequency response as well, such as instrument separation, transient response, attack/decay speed of the driver, etc.

My favorite "neutral/accurate" IEM is the EarSonics SM3. The CK10 are fine, the CK100 less so, in my opinion.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 11-24-2010, 11:44 AM
suyan's Avatar
suyan suyan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
A flat frequency response curve doesn't mean that the IEM is "accurate". The human hearing doesn't interpret a ruler flat response as natural at all, see Equal-Loudness Contour. A somewhat boosted bass response is realistic, also spikes in the treble are needed to counteract deficiencies in the average human's cochlea. The human hearing is most sensitive in the regions of speech frequencies, and less sensitive in extreme treble and bass regions. A ruler-flat IEM is a measuring instrument, but not a listening device, so to speak.

Accuracy certainly is determined by other, more important factors than the frequency response as well, such as instrument separation, transient response, attack/decay speed of the driver, etc.

My favorite "neutral/accurate" IEM is the EarSonics SM3. The CK10 are fine, the CK100 less so, in my opinion.
Interesting, yeah the mids are definitely not neutral on the ck100 in experience. So I guess the lauded er-4 is not as accurate as it is made out to be? Very interesting about loudness contour, sad that's never discussed on head-fi.

I've heard the sm3 described as having rolled off treble, do you find it dark compared to the ck10 (I'm hoping the ck10 sounds close the ck100 since I've never heard it).

Edit: Also, are frequency response graphs available for any of these phones?
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 11-24-2010, 02:37 PM
Confispect's Avatar
Confispect Confispect is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
A flat frequency response curve doesn't mean that the IEM is "accurate". The human hearing doesn't interpret a ruler flat response as natural at all, see Equal-Loudness Contour. A somewhat boosted bass response is realistic, also spikes in the treble are needed to counteract deficiencies in the average human's cochlea. The human hearing is most sensitive in the regions of speech frequencies, and less sensitive in extreme treble and bass regions. A ruler-flat IEM is a measuring instrument, but not a listening device, so to speak.

Accuracy certainly is determined by other, more important factors than the frequency response as well, such as instrument separation, transient response, attack/decay speed of the driver, etc.

My favorite "neutral/accurate" IEM is the EarSonics SM3. The CK10 are fine, the CK100 less so, in my opinion.

Your a good man dfkt there needs to be more of you over at head-fi. Let them tell it the Reo/Ck10 is accurate, accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Gosh I gotta get the Earsonics, hopefully you'll just give me yours for free

Also to suyan on the search for 'accuracy' post and or say natural. People call accuracy all type of different things. I say natural, I used to think the Phonak's where accurate now I know there not, to my ears. This is a point you have to reach, can't just jump there not having heard anything esle to base it off of. But yeah accurate is in the eyes of the beholder, some say accurate is flat, some say accurate is natural, some say neutral, warm, cold, analytical. Just depends.
__________________
Some people are just more stupid then others, no no no what I'm talking about is the people always being affected by whats going on around them.
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 11-24-2010, 02:43 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Well, the PFE sure are "accurate" in that they're very fast, very precise, very detailed - their frequency response is on the flat-ish side of course, but less so than the ER-4 (even with grey filters). Both PFE and ER-4 are on the "lean" side, though, which takes some of the "accuracy" away, for my tastes - compared to more "lush/natural" sounding phones like the SM3, e-Q7, UE11, and such.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 11-24-2010, 04:36 PM
Confispect's Avatar
Confispect Confispect is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Well, the PFE sure are "accurate" in that they're very fast, very precise, very detailed - their frequency response is on the flat-ish side of course, but less so than the ER-4 (even with grey filters). Both PFE and ER-4 are on the "lean" side, though, which takes some of the "accuracy" away, for my tastes - compared to more "lush/natural" sounding phones like the SM3, e-Q7, UE11, and such.
My type of phone Yeah lean is not searched for these days lush is more like it in my book.
__________________
Some people are just more stupid then others, no no no what I'm talking about is the people always being affected by whats going on around them.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 11-24-2010, 08:40 PM
Xinz Xinz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Singapore
Posts: 336
Default

Westone UM3X
__________________
I have my C2!!!
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 11-24-2010, 08:41 PM
suyan's Avatar
suyan suyan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Well, the PFE sure are "accurate" in that they're very fast, very precise, very detailed - their frequency response is on the flat-ish side of course, but less so than the ER-4 (even with grey filters). Both PFE and ER-4 are on the "lean" side, though, which takes some of the "accuracy" away, for my tastes - compared to more "lush/natural" sounding phones like the SM3, e-Q7, UE11, and such.
I want an sm3 now, but 325 euros converted to dollars is going to hurt I suspect, ha.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 11-25-2010, 12:49 AM
g.711 g.711 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Another vote for UM3x here. But can't this all be mute due to EQ'ing. Its hard for another user to give you their experience when their EQ setting can be so drastically differant from your setup. Is it not true that different IEMs handle the EQ frequency response in a different manner?
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 11-25-2010, 03:04 AM
esanthosh's Avatar
esanthosh esanthosh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: India
Posts: 207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suyan View Post
I want an sm3 now, but 325 euros converted to dollars is going to hurt I suspect, ha.
If you are in the US, then get it from Soundearphones (Listed @ $379) with a 20% off code (Code: 20BF) from 26th to 29th. Works out cheaper @ $303.20
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:55 PM
suyan's Avatar
suyan suyan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esanthosh View Post
If you are in the US, then get it from Soundearphones (Listed @ $379) with a 20% off code (Code: 20BF) from 26th to 29th. Works out cheaper @ $303.20
Wow not too bad. I'd consider that, but I'm too broke still (I'm a student). I guess I'll look into them when my ck100s break.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM.