64 Audio U12t Review (IEM)

[PeteL]

Yes I have seen that. EVERYONE has seen that. All the "serious" reviewers have seen it, I'm not talking about the 2m sub youtubers who cover tech - I'm talking about the ones on that squidly link and Crinacle, etc. All the manufacturers have seen it too.

Consider this:

All of the manufacturers are familiar with the Toole/Olive research and the Harman curve.

Most of the manufacturers have a line of 5-10 IEMs, different models and usually at least one of their models (past or present) conforms very closely to the Harman curve.

If the research was an accurate representation of consumer preference then by now the market would have spoken very clearly; IEMs which matched the Harman curve would dramatically outsell those that did not and the only remaining models would be those that matched this research.

We have data points from millions of consumers and tens or hundreds of thousands of "serious" IEM users - those obsessively into it as a hobby who all own many sets, and musicians and DJs who use them professionally.

The Harman curve conforming IEMs are NOT the best selling ones. The research doesn't match the real world data generated across vastly larger sample sizes as shown by purchasing decisions over the last couple of decades.

Why hasn't JBL simply dominated the IEM market and driven all the other manufacturers out of business? Do you really think Sony, Sennheiser, etc. haven't done their own research?

You can't escape this fact by deriding "stupid" consumers either, they were the source of the data that fed into Harman curve in the first place.

At the very least you don't seem to understand that manufacturers of $2,000 IEMs are not aiming at the general consumer target market, in the same way as Ferrari don't pay slavish attention to the research which drives the development of the Toyota Corolla.

The hobbyist/professional IEM market (as distinct from the general planet-wide market) has room for variation, different models appeal to people who may find themselves not exactly aligned with the Harman preference curve. This market is easily in the tens of thousands, likely many hundreds of thousands of units shipped annually, the majority in China.

So a review of a $2,000 set complaining about deviance from the Harman curve as though they simply don't get it is like a review of a Ferrari complaining about the difficulty of getting a child seat fitted.

If it was the purchasing decision that was the determining the real measure of accuracy in reproduction, there would be only one valid curve, that would be the Apple Curve. The represent more than 80% of the earphone market. They are outrageously dominant. But we all know that's because of Marketing, not because it's the "right" sounding ones.

 

[sq225917]

Yup, people like all sorts of weird sounding shit, especially when the sponsored trade press tells them what to like...

And any reviewer who gets given gear is sponsored press.

 

[Wegi76]

depending on your budget, a few of the thieaudio iems are similar in FR like the clairvoyance, which was loosely trying to mimic the u12t tonality, but with a different driver configuration, from what i recall speaking with the designer.

View attachment 197715

Or if you are willing to spend the same money but want ultra-detailed, highly resolving sound without the 3.x KHz dip, one should give the RS10 a try... I had the Clairvoyance, Monarch, RS10 and RSV here to comare also against my own U12Ts and the RS10 was highly impressive!

 

[amirm]

Yes I have seen that. EVERYONE has seen that. All the "serious" reviewers have seen it, I'm not talking about the 2m sub youtubers who cover tech - I'm talking about the ones on that squidly link and Crinacle, etc. All the manufacturers have seen it too.

Doesn't look like you have any idea what that reference was. I suggest you actually watch that video before posting again.

 

[MayaTlab]

the Apple Curve.

Which probably isn't that different from Harman's own target anyway. The only difficulty being the respective brands' capacity to deliver it for a majority of individuals, Apple working within very difficult, constrained designs (either because of their format, ex : Airpods 3 - earbuds, or because their design team made the engineers' life harder than it needed to be, ex : Airpods Max), and Harman being historically rather incompetent when it comes to ear simulator to humans translation (still just as bad at preventing leakage to be an issue as they were when they published their article on leakage years ago, for example).

 

[Tks]

Wow, quite a rant... I totally may understand some of your critics as justified, on this particular product, but dismissing the whole IEMs market, frankly? It's an extremely alive segment, True wireless are everywhere at many prices, fidelity for decent price is more available than ever, IEMs are everywhere look around! All that gripe because everybody is using round sillicon tips that have been proven to work well? Me I am amazed every day that you could get this level of fidelity and bass reproduction out of drivers this size. Not everybody need to reinvent the wheel. Musicians have been using these types of earhook style assembly and multi drivers for years and keep buying them, for a good reason, if you pull one off it don't fall on your guitar, not everybody needs the same features. Not all manufacturers design stuff for you specifically.
You make this sound as Apple are the greatest of the great, just because they use Oval tips? Did you actually listen to their earpods? They are certainly not the pinacle of hifi... try them, listen to them, compare them... This site is about fidelity and the IEM market has reached height in fidelity that did not seem in the scope of what was possible just 10 years ago and still you complain because eartips are round shaped... that's silicon, or memory material... I can assure you the are not round anymore once inserted, that's beauty of it.... What about driver material design and materials, that develops at lightning speed with performance to boot. You are some tough to please client!

The rant wasn't aimed toward you, it was the other guy I was talking with trying to explain my stance.

Also im not dismissing the whole IEM market, I have IEMs. Also wireless IEM's isn't included in this critique because many of them are actually half decent. It's these silly little audiophile ones that always have these few issues I mentioned.

Also, you're not paying attention, when I critiqued the earhook style, it wasn't due to the style, it was due to the cable weave itself, some cables have a terrible weave (usually the more expensive ones with more cores), and by the time the pre-formed hooked area is enveloped, they have hotspots. Most thin/inexpensive IEM cables are actually light and great. I actually prefer pre-formed hooks, I don't like the non hooked ones at all due to microphonics being a disaster on all of them.

Apple isn't the greatest though? They and other non strictly-audio companies with money seem to be the only ones actually coming up with anything new in the space. And especially the only sorts of companies that would pony up for R&D for said differences. Their sound is more than good enough given that they're wireless and so seemless to use. No more holding up my ear to properly insert IEMs that aren't comfortable anyway (this can be rectified with foam tips, but those just leave your ears incredibly itchy if you like to keep them in your ears all day). But even there, getting a fit is still not ideal due to circular shaping. Also the part where you tell me this is an audio site.. Did you think I missed that bit when I made an account here?

As far as driver material design, that has nothing to do with IEM makers, and almost everything to do with OEMs they get the drivers from. I never had a problem with sound from IEMs, in my view IEMs are even cleaner than basically most headphones. I'll repeat myself once more, normal wired IEMs from these small companies are all basically the same thing. Their pricing also is laughable when companies like Apple that can't wait to gouge folks at any turn they can, can offer a wireless IEM for $200 that functions and sounds just about as good as any other.

I'm not hard to please, I actually don't need much since the market already provided me with the a few that I enjoy regularly. I thinned by IEM collection to a pair of KZ's, Moondrop Kanas Pro's (which I bought precisely because I wanted to hear what basically a distortion-free IEM sounds like), and Airpods Pro's. I just don't understand why these strictly IEM companies are asleep at the wheel, in the same way I don't understand how a dedicated DACs still keep getting sold even though we have 120dB SINAD products. Look at what the RME ADI 2 is, and compare that to dedicated DACs of the same price or even half the price. Beyond fidelity, you at best can get streaming capabilities and nothing else. In the IEM sphere, there is a similar issue. Brainless design is the problem, not fidelity.

 

[Deleted member 22141]

No. I always, always perform listening tests with EQ correction to the target and evaluate whether that is an improvement or not. If it is, then it is prima facie evidence that the target is correct and headphone response as measured is correct.

No one else is doing this verification path.

No one else is doing it? That is such absurdly ignorant nonsense it's hard to know where to begin.

Really I'm beginning to be embarrassed for you, you have no idea about the IEM enthusiast market at all.

Anyway I'm done here. I'd suggest you pause your IEM reviews until you figure out how far behind you are.

You have unwittingly stumbled into the sharp end of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

Because I'd rather not have to be stuck between two volume settings (iPhone sucks balls), and also I'd like to actually use some of the output power available and not feel like digital volume being so low and having that contribute to crushed SNR. But mostly, low impedances are scary, many times I've had loud content play on IEMs because it was 4/16 volume level set.

They can make the IEM sensitive, but I'd rather have higher impedance. Nothing less than 50, and more preferably something like 100. I hear this is trivial to do in design when making audio products, and it's mostly a decision, and not some sort of technical barrier or something that would -impede- performance.


Tuning is irrelevant in totality of ergonomics aren't on point in my view. This goes for both headphones and IEMs.

As far as what's "interesting", it would simply be something novel, or against the grain with respect to features provided. Usually when a feature that isn't provided commonly is present within a product, that's an example of interesting engineering as it requires more effort than not when including said feature.

As far as 64 audio, they should worry more about their cables, and the pointless use of tons of drivers before they start adding bass switches (which isn't novel, it's been done by other IEMs in some form or another at the high end).

As far as ergonomics, they don't change anything because they don't want to bite the bullet on the cost with respect to R&D, nor paying for proprietary tip designs. Also tuning is seemingly easier with a straight tube going right in your ear that can be rotated as it's all a circle. To go oval, you have to have confidence your ergo's make sense. Their priorities are skewed unfortunately.

IEM's are in a boring place in terms of design (full metal IEM's are stupidity btw, heavy for no reason, and are prone to condensation that can damage/corrode some, while others suffer SPL issues after meshes get humidity forming on them when you take a metal IEM from listening outside, and setting inside a nicely warm room). The prices don't make sense from a value perspective in the slightest. They're literally testing the waters with how far they can push it without doing any work that remotely reflects the production cost. Any IEM costing more than what Meze put out doesn't really make sense to me. So anything universal around the cost of $1000 is about the limit (no IEM was better finished than that one). Unfortunately that IEM supposedly had bad tuning (the stem is hilariously massive and would be a nightmare to keep clean with no filter for some stupid reason), are made of metal thus heavy, and also like virtually every other IEM maker (aside from folks like SONY or Sennheiser that do their own designs and contract truly custom cables for their products), they all use cables that can be picked up pretty easily on AliExpress for a fraction of the cost. These ridiculous multi-weave multi-core "OFC" cables are all seemingly made by a source or two, don't really use some form of rubber jacket (instead use these stupid clear-view plastics) and weigh more than they have any right to. Some have a weave so thick, that the earhook area forms hotspots on the ear. Pair that up with a generally heavy-for-no-reason metal IEM, and you have the current crop of silliness.

So tbh, I think IEM's are in a horrible spot. There are a few nice ones. Most perform well enough. But it's just weird seeing the only movement come out of non-audio companies like Samsung and Apple (and Sony recently with their open ring IEM of sorts). Everything else on the market is just aesthetic pandering. Like you say, the hype makes no sense, nor does the cable worship. For headphones you have people using paracord to build custom cables. I cannot fathom on anyone can tolerate such material given how great the microphonic effects are (not audio microphonics, but actual microphonics that occur as a cable rubs your shirt or whatever). I see Sennheiser also doing this stupidity when offering their more expensive XLR cables for the HD800 for example. I'd literally pay them more money if they could just get rid of the paracord and make the cable as basic, soft, supple, and plyable as their HD600 line (you know, the cable that costs less than $20 if I recall).

Just makes no sense to me. This market makes one scratch their heads.

I wholeheartedly agree about the cables. They hype them up so much but don't even provide any reasonable marketing (marketing, not real hard facts) except the whole purity thing and "you can only experience them by trying". When a person buys a top-of-the-line grade IEMs, he already paid quite a hefty lot for it, but many users won't just stop at using stock cable because they seemingly want better, so he buys another cable which adds up to the total cost. I think we just need durable cables, less microphonic as possible, solid solder work and connection points and reasonably priced.

Maybe in the big picture I can agree with you about IEMs are boring in term of designs. But take a closer look there are many options one can go with just one aspect alone, from building a crossover system to actually not having one, filter choices and driver placements and many more... There are actually quite many things one can do in that tiny, limited housing. I believe some brands posted their progress and host talk shows on head-fi or youtube if you wanna take a look at it.
I don't have problems with ergonomic of most IEMs, but I understand your point, in many cases it has to do with the number of drivers going up (therefore the shape is changed -> sometimes end up less wearable). The easiest, most ergonomic IEMs you can imagine years back probably have only a few drivers at best, and they often have smaller housing with straight nozzle, we can actually wear them without inserting the cable all the way to the back our ears.

I think if you look back at the growth of IEMs in recent years it would be convincing to agree how many nice (and above nice) options we have now, in comparison with like half a decade ago, I think it's quite similar with the rocket race of SINAD in desktop components too.
It's true that the price is reaching more and more ridiculous levels, but most of those are "flagships", the lower octave of this market is much more tolerable.
For example, 4 years ago I cannot buy a $20-$30 IEMs (no matter what driver config) that comes with a highly durable stainless steel housing, also arrives with a pouch, plenty of eartips, properly insulated cable. Something like that could have easily been like $300 or more in the past. If one is more of a measurement guy, he can still be satisfied because more and more IEMs are tuned closer to certain "community accepted" targets like Diffuse Field, Harman (both versions), or recently Crinacle's own target.

There are still certain shortcomings in the market as a whole, but if things can keep up at the current flow I believe it'll still get better.

 

[PeteL]

Also im not dismissing the whole IEM market, I have IEMs. Also wireless IEM's isn't included in this critique because many of them are actually half decent. It's these silly little audiophile ones that always have these few issues I mentioned.

Also, you're not paying attention, when I critiqued the earhook style, it wasn't due to the style, it was due to the cable weave itself, some cables have a terrible weave (usually the more expensive ones with more cores), and by the time the pre-formed hooked area is enveloped, they have hotspots. Most thin/inexpensive IEM cables are actually light and great. I actually prefer pre-formed hooks, I don't like the non hooked ones at all due to microphonics being a disaster on all of them.

Apple isn't the greatest though? They and other non strictly-audio companies with money seem to be the only ones actually coming up with anything new in the space. And especially the only sorts of companies that would pony up for R&D for said differences. Their sound is more than good enough given that they're wireless and so seemless to use. No more holding up my ear to properly insert IEMs that aren't comfortable anyway (this can be rectified with foam tips, but those just leave your ears incredibly itchy if you like to keep them in your ears all day). But even there, getting a fit is still not ideal due to circular shaping. Also the part where you tell me this is an audio site.. Did you think I missed that bit when I made an account here?

As far as driver material design, that has nothing to do with IEM makers, and almost everything to do with OEMs they get the drivers from. I never had a problem with sound from IEMs, in my view IEMs are even cleaner than basically most headphones. I'll repeat myself once more, normal wired IEMs from these small companies are all basically the same thing. Their pricing also is laughable when companies like Apple that can't wait to gouge folks at any turn they can, can offer a wireless IEM for $200 that functions and sounds just about as good as any other.

I'm not hard to please, I actually don't need much since the market already provided me with the a few that I enjoy regularly. I thinned by IEM collection to a pair of KZ's, Moondrop Kanas Pro's (which I bought precisely because I wanted to hear what basically a distortion-free IEM sounds like), and Airpods Pro's. I just don't understand why these strictly IEM companies are asleep at the wheel, in the same way I don't understand how a dedicated DACs still keep getting sold even though we have 120dB SINAD products. Look at what the RME ADI 2 is, and compare that to dedicated DACs of the same price or even half the price. Beyond fidelity, you at best can get streaming capabilities and nothing else. In the IEM sphere, there is a similar issue. Brainless design is the problem, not fidelity.

"IEMs are in a boring place in term of design"
"The IEMs is in an horrible spot"
"This market makes one scratch his head"
Sounded to me like you where talking the whole market besides a few exception.

As far as earpods being good sounding that really wasn't my impression, but I will try to give it a second shot if I get a chance, I am not fully immune to bias, as anybody, but honestly I didn't like them. And yes, Wireless can sound very good. My Grado's GR10e powered by a Bluetooth amp sound very very good to me. Pods are not exactly cheap neither, there are plenty of 100$ True Wireless, I still don't get what's so magical to these, maybe your ears particularly agree with this design, not sure, but I don't see the huge problem you make a fuss about about round eartips. Just take your silicone eartips, squeeze them a bit between your fingers. Seeeeee? they are now oval, not only they are now Oval, but they can be oval, or many shapes, in al directions. I really don't see how can this be a design flaw, me I think that everybody use this design because it works, granted you pick the right size and the earphone design itself works too. And yes, not everyone will work for you, nor for me.... Damn, if you ask me my Grados are more confortable than my custom AEW... Yes you heard this, what design can possibly be more optimal to my ears than ones that's molded to my ears, still, It's heavier, all hard plastic, inserting and taking off is harder, etc. This exemple just show that if this don't satisfy me in term of design, you can't expect that an IEM will work well with everyone. Even Apple.

Now wheter they developp their driver in house or from OEM, use dynamic of multi BAs, I think that you are enormously minimizing, the science between acoustical desing, not just drivers but enclosure design that work acoustically too.

" I never had a problem with sound from IEMs, in my view IEMs are even cleaner than basically most headphones. I'll repeat myself once more, normal wired IEMs from these small companies are all basically the same thing."
All the same really? You make it sound easy.... They definitely don't all sound the same to me. And I'm not the one to think something should be pricy to sound good but they definitely not all going to give you high fidelity, and even beside that, come on, I know here people can argue about SINAD in electronic being more or less inaudible unless really broken, but differences between headphones and earphones are obvious, Even between the good ones, it's always a bit different, I think you know that. Personally I look for better than "Their sound is more than good enough".

 

[MZKM]

Yes I have seen that. EVERYONE has seen that. All the "serious" reviewers have seen it, I'm not talking about the 2m sub youtubers who cover tech - I'm talking about the ones on that squidly link and Crinacle, etc. All the manufacturers have seen it too.

Consider this:

All of the manufacturers are familiar with the Toole/Olive research and the Harman curve.

Most of the manufacturers have a line of 5-10 IEMs, different models and usually at least one of their models (past or present) conforms very closely to the Harman curve.

If the research was an accurate representation of consumer preference then by now the market would have spoken very clearly; IEMs which matched the Harman curve would dramatically outsell those that did not and the only remaining models would be those that matched this research.

We have data points from millions of consumers and tens or hundreds of thousands of "serious" IEM users - those obsessively into it as a hobby who all own many sets, and musicians and DJs who use them professionally.

The Harman curve conforming IEMs are NOT the best selling ones. The research doesn't match the real world data generated across vastly larger sample sizes as shown by purchasing decisions over the last couple of decades.

Why hasn't JBL simply dominated the IEM market and driven all the other manufacturers out of business? Do you really think Sony, Sennheiser, etc. haven't done their own research?

You can't escape this fact by deriding "stupid" consumers either, they were the source of the data that fed into Harman curve in the first place.

At the very least you don't seem to understand that manufacturers of $2,000 IEMs are not aiming at the general consumer target market, in the same way as Ferrari don't pay slavish attention to the research which drives the development of the Toyota Corolla.

The hobbyist/professional IEM market (as distinct from the general planet-wide market) has room for variation, different models appeal to people who may find themselves not exactly aligned with the Harman preference curve. This market is easily in the tens of thousands, likely many hundreds of thousands of units shipped annually, the majority in China.

So a review of a $2,000 set complaining about deviance from the Harman curve as though they simply don't get it is like a review of a Ferrari complaining about the difficulty of getting a child seat fitted.

My ~$100 Moondrop Starfields follow the Harman curve pretty decently and have a good amount of positive reviews.

The simple reason is that $2000 for an IEM is a luxury item; if you just cared about sound quality then one can spend a lot less.

 

[MZKM]

No one else is doing it? That is such absurdly ignorant nonsense it's hard to know where to begin.

Really I'm beginning to be embarrassed for you, you have no idea about the IEM enthusiast market at all.

Anyway I'm done here. I'd suggest you pause your IEM reviews until you figure out how far behind you are.

You have unwittingly stumbled into the sharp end of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Can you name a headphone reviewer that posts an EQ profile they create for each unit they review and state the performance of the IEM before/after? I'm sure there are a few, but the really popular ones don't do this (at least the last time I watched/read an IEM review).

With how the sound signature of IEMs changes based on the physical shape of your ear, I moreso pay attention to the average review from the [audiophile] masses, rather than 1 person whos ear shape is different from mine. Over-ear headphones are less dependent on ear shape, but still to a degree, and I wear glasses so I care about how good of a seal you get even with glasses (RTINGS measures this, so I find that useful).

 

[iMickey503]

Getting the feeling that some folks I.T.T. play Magic the Gathering as a competitive sport.

 

[amirm]

The hobbyist/professional IEM market (as distinct from the general planet-wide market) has room for variation, different models appeal to people who may find themselves not exactly aligned with the Harman preference curve.

So what? My review shows the response of the IEM without any correction with Harman curve. You can choose then whether that is what you want or not. In addition I provide specific correction filters to bring the response closer to Harman curve so you can play with them to see which one you prefer.

As a reviewer I also provide my impression of whether that correction works for me as well or not.

If you are advocating a wild west scenario that anything goes, damn the research, then this place is not for you. We are not here to entertain random ideas from random individuals.

 

[amirm]

Consider this:

All of the manufacturers are familiar with the Toole/Olive research and the Harman curve.

Most of the manufacturers have a line of 5-10 IEMs, different models and usually at least one of their models (past or present) conforms very closely to the Harman curve.

Again, so what. I am not here as the advertising arm of manufacturers. What they do to sell colored IEMs is their business and is no proof of correctness of the response. Regardless I will review and both objectively and subjectively show their response errors if they exist.

You seem to be advocating anything goes response here which is absurd. You are confusing me with reviewers who are obligated to like all the expensive audio products they get as to not upset manufacturer or people like you. You are really in the wrong place with that expectation.

 

[Madlop26]

Quire honestly, no matter the reviewer, It's my firm believe that there is no such thing as "the best". Olive's Data is impressive but we are not at a point where prefferences are completely out thewindow and there is one single truth. its statistic based data collection, It shows a convergence, not a resolved equation.

If you have enough sample you can get “the best” or ”the perfect curve“ representing the general population preference, which gives you a factual true, and great achievement, now you have to understand this is an average curve, and gives you an approximation how a headphone may appeal the market. The best headphone for yourself is a quite different thing, and the curve will help you some, but since its conception it was not designed to tell the true for every individual person, I do not know why you think is trying to do that, or why you think we think it does.

 

[PeteL]

I do not know why you think is trying to do that, or why you think we think it does.

Sorry no offense but I don't understand fully your sentence.

 

[amirm]

Really I'm beginning to be embarrassed for you, you have no idea about the IEM enthusiast market at all.

Oh, I do. And their views, if made up by what they read online from others doesn't amount to anything. But let me give you the higher level picture of what needs to happen.

We need to encourage the industry to move to one target curve. Once there, users can then apply EQ to their taste. If you are not using EQ, then the Harman curve is the most suitable since it is closest to neutral that we know.

The above has more or less happened with speakers, especially in pro monitor space, where flat on axis is the target. Headphones and IEMs are behind because research into them is much newer. I am confident we will get there though, shouting and protests from likes of you protecting the old guard notwithstanding.

Using your car analogy, a stick shift needs to be in H pattern. Not W in one car, and Z in the other. Without a standard in reproduction, we are forever lost in audio. Video already has this. It is time for audio to step up as well.

 

[markanini]

It shows a convergence, not a resolved equation.

That's not a very clear objective. How do you quantify a resolved equation? Without knowing better it sounds like woo talk. I don't think crinacle would be happy about anyone suggesting that's what he does different from Amir. He would stay clear of saying anything sounding remotely pretentious.

Also it sound to me like some sort of irrational fear of statistical methods. Is it that easy to overlook or forget how statistics have been involved in almost all technological developments, independent of Harman?

 

[brandall10]

Using your car analogy, a stick shift needs to be in H pattern. Not W in one car, and Z in the other. Without a standard in reproduction, we are forever lost in audio. Video already has this. It is time for audio to step up as well.

I feel like the issue is less that multiple curves are being targeted, rather things are being tuned by 'ear' in the majority of cases... or perhaps there is some attempt to hit a target but the designer doesn't do the engineering to hit it or the design is compromised in some way. And they get a pass because 'audiophiles' are anti-sound science and various tunings are the spice of life, or something. This particular IEM does get knocked a bit for its treble being too attenuated, it's not an uncommon criticism.

That said, it certainly doesn't help when someone like Crinicle is using a target that sounds neutral to their ears rather than use some sort of standard - I mean, that's a sample of 1 that's even a bit detuned from IEF neutral. But I would take that as a baseline for some segment of IEMs rather than what seems like a wild west.

 

[amirm]

It is not clear that every company has the same measurement gear. So what they think is compliant, may not be and vice versa.