CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => IEM Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on November 12, 2012, 07:05:36 PM
-
Frogbeats C4 Measurements.
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=626.0;attach=2578;image)
(right channel was NOT intentionally reduced 1db per older measurements. Cut-off at 9kHz intentional. Read IMPORTANT NOTES (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,397.0.html).)
Couple of observations:
- I did not hear the dip at ~3.5k. Only had it for a short time and I had to jam LFF's custom C4s into my ears. Best to ask LFF on the audibility of this dip. It's very possible it could a measurement artifact. I initially thought it could have been a mis-wired crossover, but the C4 is using one of those Knowles units with a combined M/T.
- Very clear sounding. More clear than the UERM. Has that purity that the ER-4S has.
- No lack of bass extension perceived. I think it's more a matter of a little mid-bass which I feel most IEMs, especially of the ba type could use.
DECAY MEASUREMENTS: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,626.msg13669.html#msg13669
-
I'd like to spend more time w/ them for sure. They sounded good. If that dip from 3-4khz is real its far less trouble than the Heir trough on the 4ai.
-
The Heir 3 and 4s were weird. The 3s were less weird.
-
LFF reports the 3.5 drop out in this hf review. I was a little concerned reading it. I wonder why it's there? Won't some soprano/violin notes and resonance get eaten a bit?
-
Follow up: Is this drop out part of how Knowles is engineering new armatures?
I remember a conversation with a ciem designer who was talking about how the use of various acoustic filters was necessary with BAs or they were ear-piercing. The trade off was that filters are sensitive to moisture and wear out. Also, they can eat some of the detail resolution. Having said that the ER4 is filtered to hell and nobody compalins about the detail...
Perhaps newer armatures like those used in the se5 and C4 get around that at the cost of having troughs built right into the treble.
By the way, could we see the 4.ai charts for comparison?
-
According to the graph the C4 doesn't extend to 10KHz. Isn't this very concerning? Do you hear the lack of treble extension?
-
Purrin cuts off the graph at 10Khz as he feels the data collected there is unreliable.
-
That chart, if I take into account for purrin's graph responses to typically have that thingy at 2k, and translate it into something that's more along the lines of an Zwislocki coupler response, it looks really similar to the 4.Ai. Perhaps things look a little different due to the custom shell vs. universal/silicone, but it looks really, really similar, honestly.
I also took a look at the pictures Rakan posted in that other forum, and the C4 uses the same stuff as the 4.A/Ai; it's a TWFK and DTEC --- I'm almost absolutely sure. Sure, there are many variants of both the TWFK and the DTEC, but the amplitude of that notch at 3.7k tells me that the TWFK used in the C4 is more similar than not to the 30017 generic version used in the 4.A/Ai, as well as the peak forms of the area from 5-8k.
Knowles has been working hard to improve that 3.7 notch, so no they're not 'building it in' the TWFK; I interpret it as a difficulty in aligning the impedances of the FK and the WBFK without showing the steep drop in output below 4k in the WBFK or introducing a huge phase difference between the two drivers. Its latest versions have much less of a notch and less of a strident response in the highs, but it becomes more sinusoidal in response. Anyhoo, the notch becomes much more apparent when you apply any simple 1st order RC high pass.
-
You'd need to look the 4ai graph on the same rig. The 4ai is the most overpriced, under-performing FoTM I'm seeing on the threads over at the other place today. It's suckout is massive and the overall signature is something I would not pay over $100 for. As many problems as I had w/ the UM Merlin demo unit, the 4ai loaner was much worse. The only way for me to enjoy the 4ai is to listen to music that avoids 1-5khz.
-
I'll dig up an unofficial measurement and hide it in this thread.
-
You'd need to look the 4ai graph on the same rig. The 4ai is the most overpriced, under-performing FoTM I'm seeing on the threads over at the other place today. It's suckout is massive and the overall signature is something I would not pay over $100 for. As many problems as I had w/ the UM Merlin demo unit, the 4ai loaner was much worse. The only way for me to enjoy the 4ai is to listen to music that avoids 1-5khz.
Wow, that's strong... I mean, for full disclosure I have the 4.A and I heard the other set of the 4.Ai that circulates around Asia, but I can't really see how you'd think that way... I'm not here to start any wars, but I've heard a lot of stuff as well, and it can't possibly be that bad? Unless there's a problem with the unit you guys heard, I'm truly baffled by this response. By the way, I hold you in pretty high regard, too.
I beta-test for a CIEM company, and I've heard quite a few variants of the TWFK+DTEC combination actually, with different TWFKs, and they actually all sound fairly similar. With a strong 1.5-1.8 uF cap, the suckout is stronger on the 30017, but it's not unlistenable in my estimation.
I'd appreciate seeing those measurements on the same rig, but I've seen quite a few of purrin's measurements of stuff that I'm pretty familiar with, so I have a good idea of how his coupler corresponds to an IEC711 or 2cc...
-
Believe me, no one was more surprised than myself. FWIW, Inks heard and reviewed the same set. Last I talked to him we did not hear the 3ai or 4ai differently.
Appreciate the kind words btw. Until I hear a second set, I can't rule out a defective unit. Though it would have to be flawed in both channels....
Or, it could be a difference in perspectives as to 'bad' and 'unlistenable' in relative perspective to price/performance/tastes. I had issues w/ the EX1000 treble spike but I'd rather listen to that limiting myself to 55dB or less than the 4ai on the west coast tour. While the 3ai was less 'refined' sounding and a bit 'interesting' it was far more coherent than the 4ai for me. I definitely don't respond well to what I consider incoherent signatures that present blatant anomalies especially beyond $200. Under $150, pretty much anything can present an argument in its favor. I am getting really belligerent to some of the gross errors of commission that many new IEMs and headphones seem to be making in the $400-$1000 price range. It's getting crazy. So take that into consideration as well wrt my rant.
-
I definitely take into account for people's standards with regard to price/performance ratio, as well as tastes, and I'm still a little baffled, but enough of that (PM'd you)...
Back to the C4, that's a ~16 dB drop between 2.7 and 3.7 kHz... I was talking to someone else who was familiar with IEM design, and he was also suspecting weird phase cancellation possibilities around there. It's tough to have that ridiculous a gap between the two drivers, even with the widening caused by a high pass and its analogous low pass.
However, the K3003 is by far the most electrically linear and phase linear TWFK-equipped earphone I know, and it too has that dip.
All I know is that I've been working on my own custom-design IEM, and I've completely moved away from the TWFK precisely because of this problem.
-
My customs (from UM) that use TWFK and CI drivers also exhibit this problem. I could hear it, but I was never able to pinpoint what exactly the problem was, just that it sounded "flat" or sucked out when it came to those frequencies with the dip. I suppose I should be criticizing UM now for never showing that in their included FR graph. All it showed was a dip of abut -5db which starts after 1.5khz (lowest point is at 3khz), then a peak at 5khz followed by steep treble roll off from there. Obviously, the dip is much more than just 5db. Honestly I think they don't sound very good at all but I only use them for casual listening in noisy environments so they do their job.
-
On the TWFK, I am suspecting that the internal crossover between the mid and treble is first order and hence 90 degrees apart in terms of phase shift. In conjunction with the how a bass driver is implemented - or how it's crossed over with the TWFK unit, that 90 degree phase shift between the mid and treble could be doing some funky stuff interacting with it. This is assuming all crossovers are first order = very slow roll-off = high interactions between drivers. (I highly doubt second order because there's just not enough room to cram in so many crossover components, especially for a 3-way.)
The distances / bore lengths are too small to play a difference at audio frequencies to make any difference in terms of phase differences via time alignment. I've taken a look at the step responses the few IEMs I've measured and they are all perfect relative to speakers. It occurred to me "doh". A few millimeters (at most) is not gonna matter. It's not like delaying the main speakers 80ms so the subwoofer placed farther out in the corner of the room isn't delayed.
I don't have enough data, but I'm sure there are other IEMs using the TWFK without such a extreme dip.
-
The westone 4 uses the dtec+twfk combo just like the heir 4.ai. Don't think the W4's twfk dip runs that deep , narrow as it is. But I don't know how the 4.ai sounds myself.
-
Okay, so if we're looking at some of the same basic set-up as the 4.A/Ai or even possibly the w4 then why would people be saying the C4 is so detailed versus other customs while the 4.A isn't getting that sort of hype? I mean, other than different price points?
-
Okay, so if we're looking at some of the same basic set-up as the 4.A/Ai or even possibly the w4 then why would people be saying the C4 is so detailed versus other customs while the 4.A isn't getting that sort of hype? I mean, other than different price points?
Most of the impressions I've seen on the quad heir custom have generally been positive.
The market for CIEMs is smaller than the universal market at equivalent price brackets (finding an audiologist to take a good impression and the worries about a refit, ease of demo and resale). I would think this would prevent most FOTM from bubbling over. I don't know if anyone is familiar with that model and the C4.
-
Okay, so if we're looking at some of the same basic set-up as the 4.A/Ai or even possibly the w4 then why would people be saying the C4 is so detailed versus other customs while the 4.A isn't getting that sort of hype? I mean, other than different price points?
Most of the impressions I've seen on the quad heir custom have generally been positive.
The market for CIEMs is smaller than the universal market at equivalent price brackets (finding an audiologist to take a good impression and the worries about a refit, ease of demo and resale). I would think this would prevent most FOTM from bubbling over. I don't know if anyone is familiar with that model and the C4.
Yes, the 4.A has gotten good reviews on HF, but shouldn't the detail be very similar for earphones that have the same basic armatures? I'm thinking choice of acoustic filters plays a role as well.
As for FOTM, that definitely exists with ciems. Look the JH3A debacle where Jerry Harvey lied and used head-fi'er pre-order money to develop a vaporware product.
-
Well, okay, got that.
What got cut out of the jh3a from the promised spec? The active cross over in a box?
-
Yes, the 4.A has gotten good reviews on HF, but shouldn't the detail be very similar for earphones that have the same basic armatures? I'm thinking choice of acoustic filters plays a role as well.
I can confirm from the pictures that the damper filtering the DTEC is the same red 2200 ohm damper as the one used in the 4.A. I can't be sure as to the damper choice in front of the TWFK, because it's possible that it's grey (330 ohm), white (680 ohm), or even green (1680 ohm) as the shell is green so I can't tell. I'm willing to make an educated guess that it's white, though.
Regarding detail, I think it's less about the articulation of the drivers themselves and more about the crossover enabling linear phase response and a frequency response that enables transparent sound. A more advanced driver would definitely change the sound, but judging from the notch recorded and the relative levels of the peak amplitudes, I still say they look similar.
It'd be nice to see a CSD plot of the C4, and hopefully the 4.Ai as well. That'd give us a good idea of how close together the two are, though variances will happen because of the universal tip vs. custom sound bore, etc.
-
Burst decays (sort of like CSDs, but in cycles instead of milliseconds). I prefer to use burst decays instead of CSDs for IEMs.
Little bit of ringing at 3k, but I think his behavior adds a little bit to the edge and clarity of the C4. It actually works well with the slightly rising mid-bass response. It should be noted that overall behavior is still quite excellent.
-
Heir 4ai for comparison
-
I've noticed quite a few BA IEMs tend to ring around 3k -- something about mechanical compression of the diaphragm, I dunno.
Wow, that US-tour 4.Ai does have pretty terrible L/R matching... but like I said, with the exception of probable variances in the upper frequencies due to tip variance vs. custom bore, the C4 and 4.Ai match up fairly similarly... expected for two IEMs that use the same drivers and are tuned for the same type of sound. I'm willing to bet if a 4.A were measured on the same rig, it'd look even more similar to the C4.
-
Actually they were measured on the same rig. I took both measurements on the same day I think. Just sat on them for a variety of reasons. They did sound very different though. The 4ai sounded more rolled-off and uneven in the mids in comparison to the C4. I'll let Anax comment on it since I didn't take any notes.
-
Oh, I meant a 4.A, not 4.Ai... meaning if the sound bore was also a custom acrylic tip.
Yeah, FR isn't the whole story when it comes to sound, but it does confirm that the C4 and 4.A/Ai are using extremely similar drivers (not unexpected).
-
Ahh!. Yeah, this is all very interesting. I'm glad you pointed the the specific characteristics of the TWFK and how that dip varies according to how the bass driver is crossed over. I wish I could take measurements independent of the crossover...
-
It seems like the channel differences could be a significant contributing factor to the weirdness in the mids. Clearly the C4 implements it's drivers and crossover much better. Seems the immediate behavior of the C4 before and after the narrow 3.25k-4k dip provides a much more favorable, neutral sound to my ears compared to the 4ai. I presume the right channel is not working as intended accounting for the perceived weirdness from 1khz-3khz.
I had contemplated confronting Heir about the loaner unit as I did the UM Merlin demo but decided to just pass it on and see what others heard. I figured they would have measured them before sending out a loaner unit....
-
Ah, is that wha' happen'd to the UM Merlin Demo? facepalm
-
Frogbeats HD. Typical BA distortion measurement.
-
I think I may get these in the future. Good? I read LFs review as well we PMed back and forth. If its similar to the UERM I think I'll like the sound.
-
Similar to UERM. A little more clarity. A little more warmth.
-
More warmth and more clarity? That impresses me! Not often you see that.
-
I can't wait until I get the C5. If I really like the C5, I'll try to get the C4 as well for comparison
-
I know LFF said that the dip really wasn't audible unless he was doing sweeps. I guess thats a good thing since it isn't very evident when music is played. Or has anyone heard a difference? In any case, it will be my future CIEM. :boom:
I know some people have felt that it was lacking in the treble department but if its clearer than the UERM how can it have less treble?
I know by the graphs the UERM may be about 13dB where as the C4 was at about possible 11dB? Is the treble that evidently less?
-
I know some people have felt that it was lacking in the treble department but if its clearer than the UERM how can it have less treble?
I'm talking out of my ass here, so don't give it too much credit, but I vaguely hypothesize that the C4 may be clearer on account of being subtly colored and the dip may actually play a part here. That is, I'm wondering if the C4 clarity is somewhat 'artificially enhanced'.
-
I know LFF said that the dip really wasn't audible unless he was doing sweeps. I guess thats a good thing since it isn't very evident when music is played. Or has anyone heard a difference? In any case, it will be my future CIEM. :boom:
I know some people have felt that it was lacking in the treble department but if its clearer than the UERM how can it have less treble?
I know by the graphs the UERM may be about 13dB where as the C4 was at about possible 11dB? Is the treble that evidently less?
I didn't think so.
You have to keep in mind that the human ear doesn't prioritize treble that much. The ear is most sensitive in the mid-range followed by the lows. Under ideal circumstances, engineers can hear differences of .5db in most of the frequency spectrum. In real life, I have seen people not notice a difference between 0 and -5db in the MIDS! :-00 If you are over 20 and can hear above 13kHz, consider yourself lucky as many young people have quite a bit of hearing loss thanks to loud iBuds.
As for the dip...it's really narrow and you can't hear it while listening to music at all.
Conclusion: C4 still kicks ass.
-
Would others say that 'clarity' is something that exists because of how much treble there is? For me clarity is something that applies to the entire spectrum and tends to be most noticeable in the mids.
-
Would others say that 'clarity' is something that exists because of how much treble there is? For me clarity is something that applies to the entire spectrum and tends to be most noticeable in the mids.
I would agree with you.
Clarity, as well as detail, is something that extends throughout the entire frequency range...not just the highs.
-
Thanks guys! I never thought of it that way. What I gathered from the responses is that its through out the entire spectrum of sound, mids playing a large factor. Would that mean a flatter FQ the clearer? Or would a slightly elevated mid offer more clarity. Also the BA's vs Dynamic plays a big part also wouldn't it?
Haha I like that conclusion LFF. Kick Ass!
-
Thanks guys! I never thought of it that way. What I gathered from the responses is that its through out the entire spectrum of sound, mids playing a large factor. Would that mean a flatter FQ the clearer? Or would a slightly elevated mid offer more clarity. Also the BA's vs Dynamic plays a big part also wouldn't it?
Haha I like that conclusion LFF. Kick Ass!
No...not always. It depends on the EQ of the song too! That's why a neutral signature is best.
If you bump the mids on an headphone, some songs will sound muffled, some will sound clearer and some will sound normal...depends on the band, the Q and the amount you increase or decrease.
-
I see. So recording will also affect the sound too, hence the more transparent the HP/IEM/CIEM is the more reveling it will be to the recording.
-
I see. So recording will also affect the sound too, hence the more transparent the HP/IEM/CIEM is the more reveling it will be to the recording.
Exactly...the best way to upgrade your systems sound is to find a properly mastered version of your music. Mastering makes a HUGE difference.
-
Hey LFF, what do you say about this guy here? http://www.head-fi.org/t/658214/frogbeats-c4 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/658214/frogbeats-c4)
Apparently he wanted something Neutral and this wasn't the sound he was looking for
-
uelover told me the treble on their pair was more rolled off than they liked. Said the mids and bass were spot on though.
-
Ahh I see, I wonder if the UERM would be a better choice for him and people like him that find the treble to be rolled-off? Either way, still very intrigued with the stuff Frogbeats has to offer
-
uelover is leaning towards the UERM. I was too but the C4 came along. Not saying either is better, I just don't mind the dip.
From what I understand the C4 is a little easier to push if it can be used from the ipods or iphones. I'm not too sure about the UERM.
Either way, uelover is on change star also, you could ask him his thoughts between both CIEMs.
-
uelover is leaning towards the UERM. I was too but the C4 came along. Not saying either is better, I just don't mind the dip.
From what I understand the C4 is a little easier to push if it can be used from the ipods or iphones. I'm not too sure about the UERM.
Either way, uelover is on change star also, you could ask him his thoughts between both CIEMs.
I ordered the UERM yesterday and ear impression was shipped out today. If the C4 is still not sold when the UERM arrive, I can do a comparison between them.
-
uelover is leaning towards the UERM. I was too but the C4 came along. Not saying either is better, I just don't mind the dip.
From what I understand the C4 is a little easier to push if it can be used from the ipods or iphones. I'm not too sure about the UERM.
Either way, uelover is on change star also, you could ask him his thoughts between both CIEMs.
I ordered the UERM yesterday and ear impression was shipped out today. If the C4 is still not sold when the UERM arrive, I can do a comparison between them.
Yes please do. Wow...UE sends out kits? I thought most of the CIEMs were done by an audiologist. We don't have one here in my little town in Hilo Hawaii so a fit kit would be my rout.
-
uelover is leaning towards the UERM. I was too but the C4 came along. Not saying either is better, I just don't mind the dip.
From what I understand the C4 is a little easier to push if it can be used from the ipods or iphones. I'm not too sure about the UERM.
Either way, uelover is on change star also, you could ask him his thoughts between both CIEMs.
I ordered the UERM yesterday and ear impression was shipped out today. If the C4 is still not sold when the UERM arrive, I can do a comparison between them.
Yes please do. Wow...UE sends out kits? I thought most of the CIEMs were done by an audiologist. We don't have one here in my little town in Hilo Hawaii so a fit kit would be my rout.
No. We don't have UE authorized audiologist here so I gotta independently visit an audiologist myself and then handle the shipment to UE.
-
uelover is leaning towards the UERM. I was too but the C4 came along. Not saying either is better, I just don't mind the dip.
From what I understand the C4 is a little easier to push if it can be used from the ipods or iphones. I'm not too sure about the UERM.
Either way, uelover is on change star also, you could ask him his thoughts between both CIEMs.
I ordered the UERM yesterday and ear impression was shipped out today. If the C4 is still not sold when the UERM arrive, I can do a comparison between them.
Yes please do. Wow...UE sends out kits? I thought most of the CIEMs were done by an audiologist. We don't have one here in my little town in Hilo Hawaii so a fit kit would be my rout.
No. We don't have UE authorized audiologist here so I gotta independently visit an audiologist myself and then handle the shipment to UE.
Oh I see. That sucks. I guess they don't allow people to send in their own impressions?
-
Oh I see. That sucks. I guess they don't allow people to send in their own impressions?
I think you misread my post.
People in the States could let the audiologist handle everything.
However, in Singapore, there exists no such audiologist or distributor that has any dealings with UE.
So, I have to place an online order with UE myself, find an audiologist to make the ear impression for me, and then go to the post office to post the ear impression over to UE.
-
I meant we won't have an audiologist and I'd need to make my own impressions.
It seems they don't accept self impressions unless its been through an audiologist. Meaning they made it for you like you mentioned and you send it.
We don't have one so I don't think I could just make my own impressions and send them in without the consent of an audiologist.
-
I meant we won't have an audiologist and I'd need to make my own impressions.
It seems they don't accept self impressions unless its been through an audiologist. Meaning they made it for you like you mentioned and you send it.
We don't have one so I don't think I could just make my own impressions and send them in without the consent of an audiologist.
You gotta do it like a pro that they won't know that it was not done by an audiologist :)p15
-
I meant we won't have an audiologist and I'd need to make my own impressions.
It seems they don't accept self impressions unless its been through an audiologist. Meaning they made it for you like you mentioned and you send it.
We don't have one so I don't think I could just make my own impressions and send them in without the consent of an audiologist.
You gotta do it like a pro that they won't know that it was not done by an audiologist :)p15
lol ya I'll have to practice to get it right.
-
I found it interesting, that lately people seems not so wowed by C4.
Nevertheless I'm going to order them next week, hopefully my impressions will be closer to LFF. :)
-
No. We don't have UE authorized audiologist here so I gotta independently visit an audiologist myself and then handle the shipment to UE.
A good audiologist will handle the shipping for you, for a nominal fee. That's what I've always had mine do.
-
No audiologist in my town unfortunately. "Sad face"
-
There should be an audiologist over in Kona, right?
-
Not I know of. I think only available in oahu. If your aware of a name please let me know!
EDIT: I just facebooked an audiologist in kona to see if they would do impressions. Crossing my fingers. They are named Island Audiology.
-
I'll check with ohana and see if they know.
-
Thanks a lot. NO reply from them on FB.
-
Just playing around in google... This lady does hearing aids so she should be able to do impressions easily. No web site, so you'd have to call. There appear to be a few others possible as well.
http://www.wellness.com/dir/1971672/audiologist/hi/kailua-kona/suzanne-f-gillam-aud (http://www.wellness.com/dir/1971672/audiologist/hi/kailua-kona/suzanne-f-gillam-aud)
-
OK I'll give her a call. Thanks!
-
I had been reading about this CIEM and looks very interested. I´m looking for a IEM which sounds like LCD-2, so I´ve read about Spiral Ears Se-5, but response chart doesn´t appear as similar to them like the frogbeats c4 one.
What do you think is the best option if I like LCD-2 sound signature?
-
Frogbeats is going out of business.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/636716/frogbeats-custom-iem-appreciation-thread/855#post_9722192
-
No wonder it's been 10 weeks and counting since they received my impressions...
I hope they get around to it, just so I can try it. Been REALLY curious about the sound... Hope it's actually finished.
Sad news to hear that Frogbeats is closing down. I'm not sure if it's their entire site closing or just their CIEM department, it's difficult to say really.
Shame... David seems like a really nice guy. Sort of angers me how companies like JH and UM are making hunks of dough while smaller companies like Frogbeats find it difficult to push through the ice.
-
Thanks for your reply. I was going to buy a pair of C4 to reshell them, but now I think it´s better looking for other option.
-
Sad news to hear that Frogbeats is closing down. I'm not sure if it's their entire site closing or just their CIEM department, it's difficult to say really.
Shame... David seems like a really nice guy. Sort of angers me how companies like JH and UM are making hunks of dough while smaller companies like Frogbeats find it difficult to push through the ice.
The rich get richer, as usual. JH, UM and especially Logitech/UE have serious marketing - and pretty good products.
The market for CIEMs is small too - they're actually high cost and plenty of hassle to get made even with a local distributor.
The real problem with CIEMs is that the process of making a pair is pretty labor intensive. Universals can be churned out in a chinese factory.