Probably because you're using the foam tips which muffle the treble. The EQs you mentioned were developed based on the response with the silicone tips.I don't feel these are sibilant in any way that I felt planar headphones are out of the box. Maybe I lucked out? But either way, I feel no need to EQ these as I don't notice any meaningful improvements from it.
It's weird how we perceive these so differently. Stock, these sound nothing like my neutral speakers in the room. They're bright, but in a tinny sort of way rather than a Klipsch sort of way. And the bass contour is all wrong - they lack low bass and the overall bass boost extends past 150 Hz, creating a dirty sound on tracks that should sound clean.Personally, I find the frequency response is phenomenal straight out of the box. I EQ my over-ear headphones to the Harmen target ever since finding ASR (with a bit of a bass boost, as I love listening to contemporary rock, hip hop, pop, and experimental music the most), and these immediately felt like a fit and I had no impulse to quickly search up an EQ setting.
Really? I'm using about 30-40% of the volume from my Pixel 4a 5G's stereo mini jack. If I get to 50%, it's too loud. I would have thought that dongle should be more powerful?As far as power, cranking these to max streaming Qobuz off my phone with an Apple USB-C dongle reaches a comfortable level of loudness for me
I'm in the same boat on the loops, they are too large. I also wear glasses but I don't feel they get in the way. However I do find the IEM comfortable. Here's a tip: the silicone is a lot more comfortable than the foam and is much less likely to irritate on repeated insertion and removal. They stay cleaner, too.As my first IEMs, I'm noticing they're not the most comfortable fit. I've never been a big fan of IEMs/earbuds in general (growing up when Apple was putting out those ****** earbuds with their iPods scared me off from them, as they cut the inside of my ears multiple times), so perhaps I have a bit of an adjustment to make. The around-the-ear loops also are a bit large for my ears, so they don't help that much, especially given the fact I wear glasses.
I will listen to these later.
Echoed my thoughts to the dot. By the way, I've tried your EQ for a couple hours, I still get an ear rape and a half in most tracks where those tracks sounded blissfully wonderful on my HD660S. I just think IEMs are not for me.It's weird how we perceive these so differently. Stock, these sound nothing like my neutral speakers in the room. They're bright, but in a tinny sort of way rather than a Klipsch sort of way. And the bass contour is all wrong - they lack low bass and the overall bass boost extends past 150 Hz, creating a dirty sound on tracks that should sound clean.
We either have different ears or sample variation. Or both! Very frustrating. I hope the EQ at least puts the compass in the right direction? Are you getting a solid seal? Does it give you an earplug-like effect?Echoed my thoughts to the dot. By the way, I've tried your EQ for a couple hours, I still get an ear rape and a half in most tracks where those tracks sounded blissfully wonderful on my HD660S. I just think IEMs are not for me.
Just got my Zero IEMs yesterday and gave'em a good listen. I do like their sound, although treble energy might need to be a bit boosted through an EQ to match my personal prefferance.Anyone having KZ ZSX bought these ? Curious to have them as point of comparison. For what's worth, tried several cheap KZ which were not great : too much V shaped, and the 1more triple (recommended on many sites) which was bass muddy and lacking airiness. Settled for the ZSX which ticked everything even the low bass. However, the bass are a bit strong but always punchy.
Hello,Yes you can add some bass in the EQ and get it to sound better for sure. Acceptable, but then I swapped back to the Truthear with reduced bass and that was still better. More full sounding. $50 is better than $80 so my choice would be Truthear, although the Aria fit my smaller ear canals better. The sound you hear does not always match the frequency graphs when comparing these IEMs. Like on the Chu for example. And you have to try different songs because some IEMs always sound better on some songs than others that's for sure. I will try my Starfield tonight and let you know. Unfortunately I already sent my Aria Snow back, but I can still compare to Truthear.
I also tried out an AutoEQ from the @crinacle IEM graph, and I found it to add a lot of sibilance in the higher treble area
In terms of judging the likely deviation from the Harman target, Crinacle's measurements are probably a better bet. The reason why they found that EQ to be sibilant isn't because of Crinacle's measurements, it's because AutoEQ's algorithm erroneously increases the peak at 8 kHz, to ~5 dB above the Harman target:Crinacle's data base is not the best for the equalization of the treble and beyond against the Harman target reference. Not useless, but manual tuning is often necessary. ASR's measurements are more accurate and it's pinna gain seems more correct.
Hello,
I use Moondrop Starfield on a daily basis. Could someone briefly compare it to the Zero please? I do find Moondrop to be too harsh on the top. Strings can sound a bit grating and tiring - especially on "dry" recordings. I would also prefer a bit more bass and midbass.
I listen to lots of classical music and use EQ for Moondrop.
Thanks for reading, cheers!
In terms of judging the likely deviation from the Harman target, Crinacle's measurements are probably a better bet. The reason why they found that EQ to be sibilant isn't because of Crinacle's measurements, it's because AutoEQ's algorithm erroneously increases the peak at 8 kHz, to ~5 dB above the Harman target:
Thanks for reply. It could be that I am sensitive to the lifted upper mids and treble. I prefer iBasso 00, but that one has a bit blurry bottom. It is better for longer sessions though. I guess zero is not for me.To me, the Zero has less bass than the Starfield. This is borne out by the measured frequency response, but some of the difference could also be attributed to differences in the ear tips i'm using (stock foam on the Zero and Comply Tx-200's on the Starfields). I think the Zero more likely to sound harsh than then Starfield, but overall, I don't think there is a huge difference between them. I like the sound of both IEMs, but if I had to pick one i'd go for the Zeros as they are physically lighter and don't have the terrible paint finish that chips off the Starfields so easily.
Since Crinacle himself demonstrated that his old 711 clone coupler while still good likely has a less accurate pinna gain representation, let alone beyond the 10k hz mark, I would surprised to learn that the his older rig is more compatible to Harman's research than his new rig which is also more compatible with ASR's rig.
In-Ear Fidelity Acquires GRAS Setup for Headphone Measurements – In-Ear Fidelity (crinacle.com)
Ah ok, I thought he switched to the RA0402 for IEMs too when he made the upgrade to the GRAS for headphones, but you're right he decided to stick with the old one for IEMs. Depending how good a clone it is, it still might produce measurements that are a closer approximation of the RA0045, which Harman used to develop their target, than a RA0402, for a particular IEM. Here are the response errors (including unit variance though) for various IEMs of his clone relative to Oratory's measurements using a genuine RA0045 as calculated by AutoEQ's Jaakko Pasanen:@GaryH just making sure we're on the same page:
For IEM measurements, Crinacle is using a cheap RA0045 clone from AliExpress/Taobao, not his RA0402 that he uses for headphone measurements.
Ah ok, I thought he switched to the RA0402 for IEMs too when he made the upgrade to the GRAS for headphones, but you're right he decided to stick with the old one for IEMs. Depending how good a clone it is, it still might produce measurements that are a closer approximation of the RA0045, which Harman used to develop their target, than a RA0402, for a particular IEM. Here are the response errors (including unit variance though) for various IEMs of his clone relative to Oratory's measurements using a genuine RA0045 as calculated by AutoEQ's Jaakko Pasanen:
Compare this with the difference between (response 'error' of) the 'hi-res' RA0402 compared to the 'standard' RA0045 as measured by GRAS (only for one, unnamed IEM mind):
View attachment 235607
That's a significant difference above around 6 kHz. We'll just have to wait for Oratory to measure the Truthears with his RA0045 to get a more accurate approximation of their deviation from the Harman target.