Disclaimer: this sample was purchased at my own expense
After a sudden discontinuation of their introductory model RE-0, HiFiMAN comes up with a new pair of IEMs, RE-400. This model features new innovations, such as an OFC-copper cable, a magnesium housing, and most notably, a titanium-absort diaphragm. Coming with a price tag of $99, RE-400 is slightly expensive than its predecessor, which was $79.
As
previously stated, HiFiMAN RE-0 is one of the IEMs with stunning electroacoustic characteristics. If RE-400 turns out to be overwhelming RE-0's performance, it will surely be considered as a very successful transition done by the manufacturer.
PRO: Enhanced transient characteristics, distortion-free, small form-factor.
CON: A slight mid-range mismatch possibly due to the difference in stratum of titanium.
ON SECOND THOUGHT #1: Unlike RE-0, which performs better when shallow-inserted, RE-400 is linear when it's fully inserted up to the reference plane. Indeed, this is not a good news for users with smaller ear canals, even though the IEM itself is quite compact.
ON SECOND THOUGHT #2: Applying additional acoustic impedance at the output of an IEM is a proven technique to control harshness. However, it is important to note that the frequency that is most affected by such damping is 5.5 kHz, at which a deep-null(anti-resonance) is located.
ON SECOND THOUGHT #3: Thanks to the diaphragm made of titanium, the frequency response of RE-400 is more dependent on the acoustic interaction of ear sleeves due to increased acoustic output impedance, thus choosing right sleeves is critical for optimal acoustic reproduction. Among three different types of stock sleeves, the sleeves with an obstruction at the center of the bore, such as
this one, perform the best. (I call them filtered sleeves)
ON SECOND THOUGHT #4: This IEM is ported at the bottom of the housing, and quite interestingly, the vent controls bass up to 6 dB, while dampening the response @ 2 kHz. FYI, reducing the size of the vent to a tiny pinhole gives a nice thumping sensation in the sub-bass range and more presence in the mid-range.
ON SECOND THOUGHT #5: Measured at the same insertion depth, the ultimate result of HiFiMAN's technological innovations applied in the development of RE-400 is clearly shown above. RE-0 has wider frequency range bandwidth, but with more "harsh dynamics" in the high frequency range. RE-400 is definitely more controlled, perhaps due to its unique titanium driver: As the driver's motion-break up and distortion are reduced, better linearity has been gained. However, while RE-0 performs best with shallow-insertion, RE-400's strength lies in deep-insertion. Finally, it all comes down to this: Is RE-400 a successful evolution from RE-0? Or is it a disastrous devolution?
Rin, how would you categorize the tonal/spectral balance of the RE-400?
ReplyDeleteRE-400's tonal balance is quite neutral, but feels slightly watered down. I'd prefer little more presence in the sub-bass and the high frequency above 2 kHz range.
DeleteInteresting. I'd like to tell you about my situation. I bought the Rock It Sounds R-50 a month ago, and loved the detail retrieval, clarity and the treble extension and sparkle, but felt the bottom-end was unrealistic in terms of body and decay. The presentation sounded a bit unnaturally thin to me. Not what I'd consider to be neutral sounding at the bottom.
ReplyDeleteI'm now looking for something to replace the R-50.
Something with good extension on either end, with great clarity and detail retrieval, tonally neutral but capable of supplying the bass body and fullness when the track and production calls for it.
Do you have any suggestions for me? I should add that I have to work within a budget of roughly 200 dollars, though.
"Something with good extension on either end, with great clarity and detail retrieval, tonally neutral but capable of supplying the bass body and fullness when the track and production calls for it."
DeleteThat sounds like a perfect IEM.. IMHO modified MH1, modified ER4, modified UE900 do exactly what you described. Also, JVC FXD70 & UE TF10 & Sony XBA3 & RE272 & Yamaha EPH-100 come close.
Big job! Thak u from all russians hifiman re-400 owners! I like large biflange sleeves most of all especially with hm-601 and Myst 1866 OCUB.
ReplyDeleteThanx!
Delete" Is RE-400 a successful evolution from RE-0? Or is it a disastrous devolution?"
ReplyDeleteBeing melodramatic are we? By your own measurements they are so little different from each other as to be not worth quibbling about. Looks just like a RE0 re-released with a snazzy new shell and snazzy buzzwords to me. Neither better nor worse.
Sounds fair enough. Well, IMHO the deep-insertion is a big loss for RE-400, as you have to go as deep as ER4 for linearity.
DeleteInteresting findings! I'm not sure its a catastrophe even if you NEED deeper insertion for linearity though, unless you consider linearity the objective. The other design changes over the RE0 are nice.
DeleteI actually found the stock tips didn't fit so well in my ears, so I ended up using Sony hybrid tips. It seems bassier. I was actually concerned that as you say, the filtered tips would introduce transient issues. I'd be curious whether the difference is significant enough to be perceptible.
I liked the RE0 and definitely like the RE400 for sure.
Absolutely. If linearity is not an ultimate goal, there is nothing wrong with RE-400's performance. Sony hybrids should cut off some bandwidth, leaving more emphasis in the bass.
DeleteI doubt filtered sleeves would cause any harm though.
My Samsung EP-450 also has an obstruction, but in the center of the tube. They sound better than average, I like them. Surprisingly, the one on ebay doesn't sound as good as the old, boxed one. After I bought them, I realised that they where to bassy, as if they added a woofer to them. That's why I took them (the new one) apart. Picture about the tube: http://www.myimg.de/?img=00422bf0.jpg
ReplyDeleteCan you make a simple explanation about these graphs, for people who aren't engineers? Or these things can only be interpreted with engineer knowledge?
Maybe the newer version is fake from China.. I've had similar experience with Sony MDR-EX85 that I bought on Ebay. Completely different sound LOL
DeleteBTW the filtered sleeves tend to disperse the direct sound radiated from the acoustic output of the IEM, so such obstruction might change the transient characteristics.
I like to cut the blah and get to the point, so how I present data can be unintuitive for some. If you tell me what is exactly puzzling you, I'll do my best to answer your question. Or you can send me an email at udaudaudauda at yahoo dot com!
I'm curious in seeing a graph of these with the Olive-Welti target if it's not too much to ask.
ReplyDeleteI think you accidentally put the df target because it looks exactly like the graph provided in the op
DeleteOh snap, that's right. My bad- been busy lately.
DeleteHere you go again: http://i.imgur.com/Hlz12pM.png
It looks like the olive target has a more accurate representation of real world linearity than the df target. Interesting
DeleteIndeed, that is what the curve was meant for, though the df reference is vital for representing an accurate orthotelephonic gain of a headphone.
DeleteHi ! Thanks for all the great work, Rin!
ReplyDeleteA question:
I have a service nearby that makes custom, medical-grade sleeves for headphones and such.
Would it be worthwhile to buy custom sleeves for RE-400 ?
If I decide to order custom sleeves for the RE-400, should I point out the need for deeper insertion when ordering the custom sleeves ?