64 Audio tia Trió IEM Review

[IAtaman]

Do you believe the cables come with a price tag attached that the public sees? No one know how much someone's cable costs-as most look alike from a distance. People buy $2000 cables because they're told it will "lift veils" not because someone on the subway will become green with envy.

No I don't, I don't think the social circles "audiophiles" were trying to impress with expensive cables is train goers. But you already knew that didn't you?

 

[IAtaman]

Sorry but that's what came to mind:
View attachment 268106

Beat me to it!

 

[IAtaman]

I feel that you're overcomplicating & overthinking things

Not unlikely, there have been occasions in the past that I have done both of these It's just when people call a product objective failure looking at 2 graphs and an inconclusive listening test, I feel like "wait a sec, aren't we were supposed to be the ones to try and understand better before we make a judgement?" Surely now that the TxC exists, its not like the rest of the IEM market is obselete, is it? Anyway, I think I made my point

 

[oscar_dziki]

Apparently, they need to put more effort into creating 3000$, 30-driver earphones that will finally match the performance of 50$ truthear zero. Except for distortion - they will still fall behind in distortion with those BA drivers.

 

[oscar_dziki]

I performed AB tests between the two and did not at all detect such a difference. What I heard was that the Zero sounded so much better without EQ. And was more resolving, cleaner to boot. The zero has much lower distortion which may explain, together with proper balance, why it sounds better.

Please, Please, Please - review new Truthear iems: HEXA. https://truthear.com/products/hexa It's still quite cheap.

 

[MyCuriosity]

That is not possible. Larger tips don't fit in the fixture. And smaller tips as I noted, don't provide a seal in my ear.

Noted and you have a valid point. The drawback is that measurements and listening comparisons shall be taken with a pinch of salt

 

[Keith_W]

I am not a car guy but I take an inordinate amount of pleasure and a smidgen of smugness when in my humble Barina sit in standstill traffic jams behind the driver of a Porsche or a Roller for instance while negotiating peak hour mayhem to and from work. All that matters then is the aircon

That Roller may not be going any faster than you, but he sure is a lot more comfortable. A bit like Business Class vs. Economy. You arrive at your destination at the same time.

 

[IAtaman]

That Roller may not be going any faster than you, but he sure is a lot more comfortable. A bit like Business Class vs. Economy. You arrive at your destination at the same time.

I'd say maybe Economy and Economy plus. As Warren Buffet put it, super rich do air travel a lot better than the rest of us, but the difference in cars is much less.

 

[Blorg]

Noted and you have a valid point. The drawback is that measurements and listening comparisons shall be taken with a pinch of salt

It would be better to listen and measure with the same type (model) of tip, the same type of tip should give more or less the same frequency response regardless of size. The variance you get from different sizes is mostly going to be insertion depth. Most measurebators standardize the insertion resonance at 8kHz (with a 711 coupler- GRAS 45C is different) just for consistency and comparability. My own actual ear insertion resonance is around 7.5kHz with most IEMs, but can be much higher for ones I insert deeply, like Etymotic or the Sony IER-Z1R. Smaller tips will insert deeper into your own ear than larger tips, and this absolutely affects the FR, but this is entirely personal depending on the ear, and if you keep the same insertion depth into a coupler you should get more or less the same measurement from a M or L tip (if you think about it- why wouldn't you).

So, measuring with medium silicone and listening with large silicone of the same model, I think that's pretty comparable, and I usually measure myself with medium even if I listen with large as it's easier to get a seal on the coupler, Spring Tips will seal fine on my coupler in either M or L size but they are sized small, most common L tips will push themselves out of the coupler.

This is an example of my own Trio measured with different tips, Spring Tips M and L measure identically (S won't seal on the coupler). But foam tips measure pretty different in the treble. Foam tips generally do sound different, darker and they tend to muffle the treble, which is what Amir reported subjectively listening with them on this as well. I can't stand them personally and never use them. As much for the faff putting them in and the way they degrade as the sound.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

At least you apparently tried to do so. Look it up, if you are not sure what it is. The reasoning goes like this: If 'a' then 'b', but 'b' cannot be true, so 'a' must be false.

Within the limits I have pointed out (relatively smooth FR, no big resonances, low enough distortion, matching the target with a maximum error of 1-2 dB) this is true. And yes, we are living in very favorable Hi-Fi times, at least what amps, DACs and IEMs are concerned. Never was high level sound quality so cheap and so prove- and measurably good.

I looked it up when it was quoted to me, I don't see how it's A or B at all. I've been addressing one and one thing only (FR target). The debate was whether if it's true that a certain FR target equal fidelity, and we can only say something is true if we have evidences, just like how we'd want someone who shares wild subjective claims to back it up with a proper blind test. So far all I've seen is speculations, not evidence.

I agree with you about the last part. Nowadays great measuring headphones and source components are so easily accessible. Years ago I was surprised I could not distinguish a $100 headphones amplifier (Atom) versus a way more expensive, widely beloved one (GS-X MK2) in a blind test.

 

[FrantzM]

Not unlikely, there have been occasions in the past that I have done both of these It's just when people call a product objective failure looking at 2 graphs and an inconclusive listening test, I feel like "wait a sec, aren't we were supposed to be the ones to try and understand better before we make a judgement?" Surely now that the TxC exists, its not like the rest of the IEM market is obselete, is it? Anyway, I think I made my point

However much you want to defend the product. I ask you, honestly what is there in it to justify its price: $2300.oo, versus another IEM that happens to cost to the consumer $50.oo. We need to put the galactical difference in prices in context: You can buy 46 (!!) of the cheaper but not lesser TCZ IEM with this cash outlay. Surely, this is exactly what we are doing, we made a judgement:
Trying to understand what objective advantage does this , from that point, absurdly priced IEM, offer? Can you provide us a few? Please? That, would support your points, if any, better.
The IEM market may not be consequential enough for general market analyst to notice, but this is what a disruptive product is. The TCZ makes it very difficult , once you know, and understand, to buy an IEM for $300.oo, let alone, $2 3 0 0.oo. Two Thousands three hundred US Dollars.

We are at that point where many audio products have become commodities: You need an headphones amp capable of pushing 1.2 watts at, measurably microscopic amount of distortion? Do not spend more than $150.oo. Countless examples, among these, the JDS Labs Atom. You want a DAC that clears the audible SINAD threshold? $9.95 (!!).. Can you justify on those grounds spending $500, for such? That is what we have here: This $2300.oo IEM, doesn't look better (I know this is subjective), and now let's be objective and measurable :
It doesn't adhere to a reasonably well documented and accepted curve.
It doesn't present less distortion than its $50.oo counterpart...
...

What does it bring to the table?

Please?


Peace.

 

[OnLyTNT]

We need seal (some provides but need to be tested) and failure rate data, especially failure rate is crucial in my opinion since 64 Audio products are said being used by stage performers right?

By the way, price positioning is also affects greatly, there are tons of products sold that they don't justify their prices. Marketing, eeh!?

 

[IAtaman]

However much you want to defend the product. I ask you, honestly what is there in it to justify its price:

I said multiple times I don't care about this product and do not want to defend it. If you honestly want to have a conversation, ask me a question that I have not answered before please.

 

[FrantzM]

I said multiple times I don't care about this product and do not want to defend it. If you honestly want to have a conversation, ask me a question that I have not answered before please.

ok


Peace.

 

[MyCuriosity]

It would be better to listen and measure with the same type (model) of tip, the same type of tip should give more or less the same frequency response regardless of size.

Thanks for the detailed reply. From my experience the type of tip can alter the sound in a way that an IEM can sound completely different. I don't like foam tips either.

 

[Blorg]

For me, it's quite different. The Zero is much thinner sounding and the bass less full and impactful. It can sometimes be shouty in the upper mids. It has much less upper treble air and sparkle. Trio to my ear has better spatial effects. There could be some unit variation, my Zero has a lot less bass, most measurements including Amir's do show the Trio with quite a lot more bass particularly sub-bass than the Zero but it's even more pronounced on my one. These are my own units, not Precog's:

On the flip side, the bass while fuller and more impactful can also sound less clean, more muddy or congested (relatively- it's not overly so). While the mids I really do think are not half as bad as they look on the graph, but I would not consider this IEM to be a standout for mids. I think what it's going for with the 1-2kHz recess is for soundstage, similar to the dip you find on Hifiman over-ears. The recess at ~5-7kHz I imagine is to eliminate sibilance, certainly there is no hint of that with this, it's an extremely forgiving IEM. This isn't the only IEM to diverge from Harman with a dip in this region, it's quite common, but it is particularly pronounced on the Trio. Having said that, I honestly don't notice a huge difference EQing this flatter.

The Zero a very good IEM, but I don't find Harman quite ideal as a target for IEMs. For over-ears, I am 100% on board, and EQ all my over-ears to Harman. But it doesn't sound quite right to me for IEMs.

- too sharp a dip from the sub-bass through the mid-bass to the lower mids
- slightly too lean in the mid-bass
- actually lower at 250Hz vs 1khz, and then slopes up, this "suck" leads to a thin sound with music lacking sub-bass
- too shouty in the upper mids, gets fatiguing
- rolls off the treble too quickly, unnecessarily cutting air and sparkle

I prefer IEF neutral with a bass shelf, typically a bass shelf slightly less sharp than in Harman IE and with a little more mid bass. Oratory1990's USound IEM target is also a good alternative and fixes all these issues with Harman, more gentle transition, a touch more mid bass, flat rather than upsloping in the lower mids, not quite as shouty, not quite as quickly rolled off in the treble. I'd take a bass shelf halfway between it and Harman.

I get there is a lot of adherence to Harman on ASR and I am 100% Harman for over-ears. But in-ears, it's just not quite there, and I am far from the only one with this opinion, most reviewers have similar criticisms of Harman, and almost no IEMs are tuned exactly close to Harman. Most reviewers diverge from it, particularly in the upper mids. Oratory1990 doesn't think it's quite right. Jermo Köhnke, Sennheiser's IEM product manager, has also said he believes IEF neutral to be more tonally neutral than Harman for in-ears. So while Harman has near-universal acceptance for over-ears, outside of ASR very few people think it's quite right for in-ears. Even Harman themselves diverge from it quite a bit in the actual physical products they put out, and they diverge from it in the exact same ways that everyone criticizes it, they don't do the mid-bass "suck", they keep the lower mids flat, they ease off a little bit on the upper mids. It's nearly there- the other good targets are all along the same general lines- but not quite.

The Trio certainly isn't the one I'd take if I had to pick one IEM. I consider it more genre/niche than all rounder. Monarch Mk2 would be my overall preference for one all-rounder IEM. It's closer to Harman than this is, and my "general" preference is closer to Harman than this. Trio is more a particular mood IEM, really for the bass response, that's what it does best.

I can appreciate straight Harman IEMs too, the Moondrop Variations which is bang on Harman from sub-bass to 3kHz is one of my favourite IEMs and for the music it works with, like any electronic music with sub-bass, it's great. But I prefer it less for genres like rock, stuff that has bass but bass that doesn't go low into the sub-bass, it's just not the best. It's still a great IEM, even for these, but it wouldn't be my first pick.

The Moondrop Blessing2 Dusk is another of my favourite IEMs and is also very close to Harman, according to AutoEQ's Harman list, the closest wired IEM in existence to Harman. But even it fixes basically all the issues I have with Harman, it has a smoother transition from the sub-bass, it doesn't do the dip, it is flat rather than upsloping to 1kHz, it is below Harman from 3-7kHz and it doesn't totally murder the treble (although this is the Dusk's weak point, there are IEMs with much better treble extension, such as the Variations and Monarch Mk2 - or indeed, the Trio).

So it's not that I'm totally against Harman in-ear, I think it's almost there. Some of my favourite IEMs are tuned to Harman or very close to Harman. But it's not quite perfect or what I want 100% of the time either, and I don't think an IEM is necessarily a disaster because of slight deviations from Harman, in fact deviations from Harman are often a positive.

As to whether it's somehow "objectively" worth it, of course it's not, it's not 50 times better. There are massive diminishing returns.

 

[Robbo99999]

Hi,

Sorry but did you even read the post?

Hi, I don't appreciate the sarcasm thanks.....rather than aggressive belittling sarcasm you could instead have just replied that you'd included it in your post and then posted up a seperate graph showing the difference between the two in your reply so that others that had missed it could be enlightened too - but no you didn't do that. In your EQ post it wasn't overly clear in your wording preceding the graph, you could have praps said simply "Let's have a look at how the Knowles Target is different from the Harman Target" and then included a seperate graph after that, rather than lumping it in with your other graphs. Yes, I'm making excuses, but it wasn't overly clear in your post to me if you're trying to read it quickly, for those that missed it here's the Knowles Target vs the Harman Target, and the following graph is taken from a link to an article that you included in your post:

To be honest, with my experience with IEM's that is limited to Truthear Crinacle X Zero, no way on earth would I want to make that IEM brighter, which is what that Knowles Target is doing - for me I'd say that Knowles Target is dead on arrival thanks!

 

[Blorg]

@Robbo99999 the changes and increased brightness are mostly very high up. Often "brightness" that people find fatiguing is more in the upper mids and lower treble, the 2-6kHz region. The largest differences are over 10kHz where many feel Harman is too dark and rolled-off. A lot of this is preference and down to your age, if you are older you are more likely to want a boost over 10kHz to put get back air lost to age-related hearing loss.

My understanding, the Harman curve is only really valid to 10kHz and doesn't have any data-based prescription beyond that. Knowles is obviously in the business of selling BAs which are particularly used for high-frequency reproduction so they have a vested interest in this, and this isn't peer reviewed research, but they claim to have established this curve through listening tests with a similar methodology to Olive, building on his research below 10kHz and applying the methods to 10-20kHz.

 

[FrantzM]

@Robbo99999 the changes and increased brightness are mostly very high up. Often "brightness" that people find fatiguing is more in the upper mids and lower treble, the 2-6kHz region. The largest differences are over 10kHz where many feel Harman is too dark and rolled-off. A lot of this is preference and down to your age, if you are older you are more likely to want a boost over 10kHz to put get back air lost to age-related hearing loss.

My understanding, the Harman curve is only really valid to 10kHz and doesn't have any data-based prescription beyond that. Knowles is obviously in the business of selling BAs which are particularly used for high-frequency reproduction so they have a vested interest in this, and this isn't peer reviewed research, but they claim to have established this curve through listening tests with a similar methodology to Olive, building on his research below 10kHz and applying the methods to 10-20kHz.

Hi

If I am to read the provided graphs, the Knowles curve starts deviating from Harman around 2.5 KHz, that is "brightness" territory; from that I can also infer that I would not tolerate such a curve in an IEM. I seem to be quite Harman-compliant .
Subjectively, I find the TCZ, shouty and peaky. Tolerable, but a bit of EQ to reduce the treble, even a gentle (negative) high shelf around 3 KHz , say -1.5 dB can help... I don't care enough to EQ but have tried a few, in particular those from @Maiky76 and @Chromatischism and they address some of those issues.

Peace.

 

[Robbo99999]

@Robbo99999 the changes and increased brightness are mostly very high up. Often "brightness" that people find fatiguing is more in the upper mids and lower treble, the 2-6kHz region. The largest differences are over 10kHz where many feel Harman is too dark and rolled-off. A lot of this is preference and down to your age, if you are older you are more likely to want a boost over 10kHz to put get back air lost to age-related hearing loss.

My understanding, the Harman curve is only really valid to 10kHz and doesn't have any data-based prescription beyond that. Knowles is obviously in the business of selling BAs which are particularly used for high-frequency reproduction so they have a vested interest in this, and this isn't peer reviewed research, but they claim to have established this curve through listening tests with a similar methodology to Olive, building on his research below 10kHz and applying the methods to 10-20kHz.

That's quite a good point, and I did think about that, but the IEM certainly didn't need anymore sparkle. I've got very sensitive hearing locally between 8-12kHz which I've noticed from listening to sine tones/sweeps on various headphones and anechoic flat speakers, so I wouldn't want to have more energy in that region - I remember the Truthear Crinacle X Zero to definitely have enough sparkle up top there.

I don't really agree with EQ'ing headphones to compensate for natural hearing degredation, as that is what becomes normal sound for us as our brain is trained by that change in our hearing as we age & go about our daily lives. I think perhaps if you needed to wear hearing aids then it would be useful to try to somehow add in your severe hearing loss deficiency into a headphone EQ, as I imagine wearing hearing aids with headphones is not ideal.