I don't know. I don't use his tool. I was reacting to the graph posted where the alignment was incorrectly put at 2 kHz, making it look different than mine. I predicted, as you are showing, that if alignment point was correctly lowered to 500 Hz, it would then resemble mine.Isn't his tool let you normalize at any Hz you want?
View attachment 267589
He (Crinacle) hasn't lined up anything. That graph was created by @Keith_W using the cringraph tool that you can find here: https://crinacle.com/graphing/tooliemfree.phpWhy hasn't he aligned the measurement at a low frequency with target? Standard is around 500 Hz (I use 425) He has is lined up at 2 kHz which doesn't make sense as that point can be highly variable.
He measures at 94dB SPL. The dB scale in the cringraph tool is relative and doesn't reflect absolute SPL.As a side point, has he ever expressed if those dB numbers are correct? I hope he doesn't measure at just 55 dBSPL as that would cause issues with noise and such. And certainly not generate usable distortion figures.
You can't buy anything comparable to RR even 2-3 times cheaper. And you can barely buy any new car 50 times cheaper.A cheap Rolls Royce
True, at the same time no product or brand that claims to be premium and exclusive is cheap, which is my point.Price alone doesn't make anything premium or luxorious or whatever
As a side point, has he ever expressed if those dB numbers are correct? I hope he doesn't measure at just 55 dBSPL as that would cause issues with noise and such. And certainly not generate usable distortion figures.
I would argue that pricing at that level, in Audio, should mandate that you provide, something, anything audio related. e.g. Dan Clark's Expanse and Stealth headphones or perhaps , for its "spatial qualities" the Sennheiser HD800S... Not the case here, audio-wise, this IEM, is surpassed by the $50.oo IEM champion named TCZ. It fails, not only on the value proposition but also on performance.A lot of people say an IEM this expensive should perform better, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, including myself. But I think it is also important to remember that price tag is part of the product's unique selling proposition as well - 64Audio is supposed to be the expensive and exclusive IEM brand. A cheap Rolls Royce anyone can buy is not a Rolls Royce anymore.
There's too be much variation to entertain the idea fully. It's possible they could do that, however the product would perform in a recording dependent way. Only someone irrationally invested would see past the drawbacks of a set that fails at general listening.There's also potential that 64Audio's in house response is relative to some in ear HRTF curves, which are measurements that Harman's published research didn't deal with.
Predictability of the target of was verified in later tests using real headphones.I don't thing many people understand that this is/was done. They think that the Harman Target was derived from people listening to different headphones and IEMs.
This is a good point. 64 Audio would fail at competing with Chinese brands with any chance of breaking even. Maintaining their brand on subjective values is the only way they survive. I know this will rile some people up but that's the reality of how people and the market works.A lot of people say an IEM this expensive should perform better, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, including myself. But I think it is also important to remember that price tag is part of the product's unique selling proposition as well - 64Audio is supposed to be the expensive and exclusive IEM brand. A cheap Rolls Royce anyone can buy is not a Rolls Royce anymore.
Predictability of the target of was verified in later tests using real headphones.
How is this a big fail I don't see it. Although it is quite high, if I am reading the graph correctly, distortion seems to be 50db below signal level across the range. Assuming you haven't actually heard it, do you think it would make an audible difference?A big fail in my opinion...
When performance and (subjectively) looks, do not surpass those of a$50.oo product.How is this a big fail I don't see it. Although it is quite high, if I am reading the graph correctly, distortion seems to be 50db below signal level across the range. Assuming you haven't actually heard it, do you think it would make an audible difference?
Or it is the FR? Because that does not look like a big fail to me either. What makes this IEM A big fail, could you please elaborate?
Cringraph (the software used for Crinacle's graph tool as well as all the squig.link sites) on initial load dynamically aligns the graph and target according to the average level across the whole response. So it's not aligned at a fixed point for each graph. You can re-align it at a frequency of your choosing.Why hasn't he aligned the measurement at a low frequency with target? Standard is around 500 Hz (I use 425) He has is lined up at 2 kHz which doesn't make sense as that point can be highly variable. If he did align it at 500 Hz, then it would look very close to mine. Bass would come down and show the same deficiency as I do.
Objective, measurable values will pale in light of market demands, were talking hard money. All you can do as a consumer is decide what matters to your individual needs. I'd rather have companies like 64 Audio stay afloat than not. Their chances of doing so by catering to objectivists is a global economy is slim to none. What will be the impetus for research and innovation in the future without a thriving industry consisting of big and small players?We can delve into sociology , economics or politics. In each case we can find some kind of fluff rationalization for the existence of this product. In the discussion here at ASR , my (our?) focus is about performance and, yes, price, thus Price to Performance ratio... Within this frame of reference: What justifications can we find for this product?