64 Audio tia Trió IEM Review

[staticV3]

Jaakko of AutoEQ has the Olina as his seventh most Harman compliant IEM in existence with 84, he has the Buds Plus way down with only 76 but I have no idea why as it is extremely close to Harman.

Don't focus that much on the score numbers, they're really not very precise.

 

[IAtaman]

With in-ears though it is initially impressive what it does for clarity, but with longer listening often tends to get a bit too much and become fatiguing.

That is also very much my experience. There is also the additional challenge of finding and maintaining a good fit with IEMs. When I got the 7Hz Zero, I really did not like it thought it's garbage. Reading all the praise online made me give it another try, and I found with different tips it sounds a lot better. I have a Spinfit order I am waiting for, will try to see if they make any improvement. Form factor is so convenient, would love to be able to use them for longer periods really.

 

[markanini]

@IAtaman I find Harman in-ear too intense in the gain region as well. A lot of people do. And even stuff like the Dusk, Variations, Monarch Mk2, which are among the most Harman compliant IEMs in existence, pull it back a bit in that region. I don't find Harman too intense there at all with over-ears, it's fine there.

With in-ears though it is initially impressive what it does for clarity, but with longer listening often tends to get a bit too much and become fatiguing. Not "totally unbearable", but just a bit too much, too shouty. This is a very common sentiment with Harman IE, much more than with the over-ear target which has far wider acceptance without modification. I wonder if this is part of the issue so many people have with Harman's research for the IE curve, because I like the curve at first listen too, it's a sort of Coke vs Pepsi Challenge situation, it sounds better initially but only becomes fatiguing with extended listening.

Two example IEMs I find a bit too shouty, that are highly compliant with Harman in this region, are the Tripowin Olina and Samsung Galaxy Buds+. Again, not intolerable, I still think both of these are good IEMs. But a bit more than my ideal. Tripowin revised this with the Olina SE which reduces that region and it's much better for it. A very popular mod with the OG Olina was to put a different filter on it (from the Tanchjim Tanya), this also reduced that region. There seems to have been this very widespread feeling from the community that it was too much, and I agree with that personally. Samsung also reduced the region in their Buds series after the Buds+, which I also found positive in the Buds Pro and Buds 2. Buds 2 Pro has similar above 3kHz but less 1-3kHz, I don't think I find this particularly problematic so far but I suspect I could take a little less.

Jaakko of AutoEQ has the Olina as his seventh most Harman compliant IEM in existence with 84, he has the Buds Plus way down with only 76 but I have no idea why as it is extremely close to Harman.
View attachment 268745

The only the Harman curves that have been thoroughly blind tested are the 2017 ones. There some evidence of questionable math used to deal with insertion depth variability if you look at the range between 3-8kHz. If this is the cause of reported shout it has been carried over to the 2019 curve, which is a smoothed version of 2017-1, not blind tested and actually comes from Listen Inc. The preliminary Harman IE 2016 target shows a 3-8kHz response that's is closer with to how well regarded sets by Moondrop and the like are tuned, though it simply disregards so quarter wave resonance, you have to do the same when using it for comparisons. Basically there are issues before even talking about subjectivity, and they are unique to Harmans In-ear target.

 

[GaryH]

In that case I am misunderstanding you or him, or both. If I understand you correctly you are saying compliance to target is the ultimate measure of flatness and what he is saying is that flatness might mean different FR to different people. Where do I go wrong?

No, I said Harman target compliance is a measure of perceived neutrality (what you call flatness) to the majority.

 

[GaryH]

not blind tested and actually comes from Listen Inc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/dnliv4/_/f5jbk4l

It would be naive to think a curve an acoustic scientist like Sean Olive developed and currently displays as the target on his measurements hasn't undergone internal blind testing at Harman to verify its superior (or at least equal) performance to previous targets.

 

[markanini]

It would be naive to think a curve an acoustic scientist like Sean Olive developed and currently displays as the target on his measurements hasn't undergone internal blind testing at Harman to verify its superior (or at least equal) performance to previous targets.

It would also be prudent to want to see published data of said blind tests, before making asumptions.

 

[GaryH]

Yet you yourself made an assumption that Sean's latest target hasn't been blind tested based on no evidence. Absence of published evidence is not evidence of absence. Good luck expecting Harman to publish the results of every blind test they conduct.

 

[Blorg]

@GaryH and from that very thread, the very guy you quote, Oratory1990 points out he tweaks Harman with his in-ear target to have "reduced energy at 3k and increased energy in the low-mids". So you can add him on the big pile of people with this exact issue with Harman IE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/dnliv4/_/f5p6748

Out of interest, do you know what the rationale for having the upper mids and treble in Harman in-ear boosted way over Harman over-ear? I think I understand the general rationale for more bass, "more bass is needed on in-ear headphones than on over-ear headphones in order for the perceived amount of bass to be the same"- and I do find that, for sure. But they did it with the upper mids and treble as well. And all these people who have a problem with the shoutiness of Harman in-ear don't, in general, have any issue with Harman OE. Because the over-ear target has less shout.

 

[VQR]

@GaryH and from that very thread, the very guy you quote, Oratory1990 points out he tweaks Harman with his in-ear target to have "reduced energy at 3k and increased energy in the low-mids". So you can add him on the big pile of people with this exact issue with Harman IE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/dnliv4/_/f5p6748

Out of interest, do you know what the rationale for having the upper mids and treble in Harman in-ear boosted way over Harman over-ear? I think I understand the general rationale for more bass, "more bass is needed on in-ear headphones than on over-ear headphones in order for the perceived amount of bass to be the same"- and I do find that, for sure. But they did it with the upper mids and treble as well. And all these people who have a problem with the shoutiness of Harman in-ear don't, in general, have any issue with Harman OE. Because the over-ear target has less shout.

I personally find Harmam IE to be fine, but I agree. Many do find there to be too much emphasis around 3k, and that's completely valid.

When I started trying several sub-$100 IEM's in the past couple months, I referenced Crinacle's measurements a lot to determine what kind of sound I like. I ended up most liking the Harman target. Do note, the IEM's I tried were the Moondrop Chu, Aria, and Aria SE, also the Truthear Hola, Zero, and Hexa.

I tried EQing some IEF neutral IEM's like the Moondrop Aria to Harman. I kind of preferred Harman EQ on the Aria, but on another similarly tuned IEM, the Truthear Hexa, I preferred the stock tuning over Harman EQ.

If you compare the Hexa to the Harman target, there is lower midrange emphasis on the Hexa, also less pronounced bass too. I still liked the Hexa more than all but one IEM I tried, the winner being the Truthear x Crinacle Zero. I ended up keeping the Zero for at home and the Hexa for on-the-go given the Hexa has more friendly impedance for my phone.

Both those Truthear IEM's have different tuning in the midrange and bass, yet both sound excellent to me. For those who EQ'd for a lower emphasis around 3k on the Zero to get it less shouty, the Hexa might be better than the Zero overall. Given my experience and how some prefer the same tweaks to certain tunings, I personally just use targets as a guide and reference of some people's tastes, not as an absolute measure of preference for myself.

 

[GaryH]

@GaryH and from that very thread, the very guy you quote, Oratory1990 points out he tweaks Harman with his in-ear target to have "reduced energy at 3k and increased energy in the low-mids". So you can add him on the big pile of people with this exact issue with Harman IE.

I've gone over all this before. As Oratory says the Harman target comes out on top on average over USound in non-noisy environments when a large number of listeners are blind tested. Individual cherry-picked sighted-listening anecdotes are not going to change that. There's a large pile of people who think silver cable 'upgrades' sound better than copper. That hasn't been borne out in blind listening tests either.

Out of interest, do you know what the rationale for having the upper mids and treble in Harman in-ear boosted way over Harman over-ear? I think I understand the general rationale for more bass, "more bass is needed on in-ear headphones than on over-ear headphones in order for the perceived amount of bass to be the same"- and I do find that, for sure. But they did it with the upper mids and treble as well.

The majority preference of listeners in blind tests doesn't have a 'rationale'. The perceptual cause of this preference is likely to balance out the increased bass in order to maintain a perceived flat overall spectral tilt. And it's hardly 'way over' Harman over-ear.

 

[markanini]

Oh I understand perfectly, pricing bias and post-purchase rationalization are rife in this hobby. But that's just why we need to keep calling out these companies and expose their products for the rip-offs they are using objective data, to prevent other unsuspecting potential customers from falling into the same fallacious higher price = better audio quality trap perpetuated by marketers, dealers and reviewers.

Reference Audio Analyzer

reference-audio-analyzer.pro

I quite resent the idea that being for objectivity in audio must also must come with the burden of being an activist, in a sense, beyond providing resources for those that ask for it. It's 100% going too far to question voluntary individual choices, that's also shooting yourself in the foot, and being naive about how the global market works and being uninformed about unclear longevity of local audio industry in parts of the world that don't rely on slave labor.

 

[posvibes]

Advertising and marketing is corporate and enterprise activism, hobbyist activism in contrast in a niche interest like audio fidelity may make a tiny difference at the margins, but I can't personally see it bringing down the industry.

They are doing that themselves by going into competition with each other with equally weak product with no consequences because sites such as ASR are not (yet) mainstream.

 

[markanini]

hobbyist activism

No thanks.

 

[MyCuriosity]

Is the benchmark for good vs bad, distortion and compliance with a target that some might like and some might not? I just find it hard to understand any of the above if there are no comparisons with other products. I think it will be better to remove all together the subjective listening from future tests. Your thoughts guys?

 

[markanini]

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/dnliv4/_/f5jbk4l

It would be naive to think a curve an acoustic scientist like Sean Olive developed and currently displays as the target on his measurements hasn't undergone internal blind testing at Harman to verify its superior (or at least equal) performance to previous targets.

Why not proceed with some careful skepticism as with any unproven statement? A quick glance att Jude of Head-fi's soicial media makes him out to be the biggest fan of Sean Olive. It doesn't look reciprocal to be honest but that doesn't really matter. One reason could be that he produced an IEM target that fails at providing as satisfactory experience to many listeners. You may feel the urge to argue against that point using circular logic. At the same time the outcome of a failed objective target is the biggest win subjectivists could hope for.

 

[moosso]

I'm not so agree with the criticism of this IEM and 64 Audio.
Personally I think frequency response and distortion (THD+N, IMD, phase distortion) doesn't tell us the whole picture, it's the only thing we can measure now and it only represents the relatively change of air pressure at eardrum. It may not be the only thing transmit to cochlear (consider BC) and there are much more nerves connected to our brain not only the inner ear.

But.. Assume frequency response is all which most people in this forum believe, that mean earphones and headphones can sound identical to flat speaker in anechoic chamber if their frequency response matched to your HRTF, thus they can have perfect "soundstage", "details" and "dynamic".
One thing I wonder is why some "audio scientist" in this thread saying "IEM doesn't have good soundstage", it doesn't make sense. What is soundstage? Isn't it frequency response??? If soundstage is frequency response IEM can have soundstage as big as headphone and speaker.

I saw people give this IEM high marks even they do a lot of measurement like ASR:

• Precog: He put Tia Trio at 4th place of his rank, and U12T stting at 2rd
• Bad Guy: He gave Tia Trio and U12T 34/50 which is pretty high in his rank
• Crinacle: He put Tia Trio at S- and U12T at S

And musicians like Jason Richardson, Alanis Morissette, Jay-Z, Joe Walsh and Beyonce also using 64 audio products.
I can see why people want to buy their products:

• It matches their HRTF more close to other IEMs
  • Harman is only an averaged response
  • Close to harman on a measurement rig != Close to HRTF of a specific person
  • In ear response can be very different even for IEM
• It's more comfort
  • As I tried most 64 Audio IEMs are very comfort
• People trust this company and want to support products made in USA

Just my point.

 

[IAtaman]

There should be very good arguments for this.

No, not really. This is an internet forum, people are entitled to their subjective opinions.

Well for IEMs that these two quantities (FR and distortion, add noise) seem really to be sufficient to capture the sound completely.

Is this a fact or an opinion? If it is a fact, what is your source proving this insight?

No, soundstage is not FR, at least mostly not. But on the other hand, NO IEM has considerably large soundstage, there you have to use over-ear headphones or speakers.

But it is not.

Again, is this a fact or your opinion you are serving as fact? If fact, could you share your source please.

Nothing convincing, sorry to say that.

And we care about your subjective opinion more than what moosso thinks about this IEM because?

 

[MayaTlab]

No, soundstage is not FR, at least mostly not. But on the other hand, NO IEM has considerably large soundstage, there you have to use over-ear headphones or speakers.

But it is not.

Yeah, I'm going to +1 this : sources ?

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I always find it funny that some folks never worked a second with the topic they talk about, yet are somehow more confident and conclusive than the ones who have been in the industry for a long time.

 

[Blorg]

No, soundstage is not FR, at least mostly not. But on the other hand, NO IEM has considerably large soundstage, there you have to use over-ear headphones or speakers.

Unique Melody MEST is an example of an IEM with a huge soundstage for me, ahead even of some open back over-ears like the HD600 / HD650 (which has a relatively poor soundstage for an open-back). Soundstage is ultimately an illusion, the perception of which varies a lot between people, you can't make blanket statements about this. It's never "considerably large" for me (outside of binaural recordings), not like speakers in the sense of sounding like something is measured in the metres spread out ahead of me, but it's not not huge like that even on the HD800S. This Trio for that matter also has above average soundstage, I'd put it over the HD600 / HD650 as well.