Sorry, I am not sure where you take all that from my statement. You don't have to extrapolate on stuff I didn't say or suggest. Nothing wrong with statistical method, what it says is that you are more likely (a lot more likely) to be presented with a pleasing tonality if it follows a certain frequency response. It says that a sufficient "sample size", statistically would find such response balanced and neutral, enough so to say that it is the most accepted correct response. It's different than "this is the mathematically exact correct response" I am not saying anything else than that. No woo talk there, no suggesting anything about Crinacle, that I have no knowledge of his work beside that he measures headphones, no fear of statistics, and no overlooking how it got involved in many scientific developpment. I don't know where you take all that.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
64 Audio U12t Review (IEM)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #142
I think he is saying that there is no precise formula involved here which is correct. We will be doing good if we are right 80% of time given the vagaries of measurements, the measurement fixture, filtering of the measurements, unit to unit variations, etc. Of course 80% is great given how tough this problem is to solve and so many bad choices it can eliminate.
Ambient384
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 65
- Likes
- 26
A lot of Lossy audio codecs will even add in distortion to compress further at 80 ~ 160kbps.
SmackDaddies
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 173
- Likes
- 353
20 people voted this great. Nothing that requires EQ is great. Nvrmind the price
ryaneagon
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2022
- Messages
- 27
- Likes
- 13
I just finished up a demo of a few 64 Audio models, which included U12t, Trio, A4's. My daily go-to is the Unique Melody MEST MKII CIEM. I demoed the U12't a few years back, before really getting into in-ear headphones. Also demoed some JH Audio and Empire Ears models.
In short, I ended up liking the 64 Audio Trio's out off all. Demoing the Trio and u12t's again, recently I didn't like the Trio's at all, actually, I ended up liking the A4's over the Trio. My ears really enjoyed the u12's though. They are a very pleasing set of in-ears, with great detail. I'm really surprised how much impact and slam they have with BA drivers, pretty amazing. After owning the MEST MKII customs for nearly a year and using them on a daily basis It was nice to get a new sound signature in my ears. I prefer the laid-back treble of the u12's, but I do think the MEST is a bit more resolving. Mids I'm split on. The MEST has a more forward sound, vocals are better imagined, where the u12's are further away, maybe more v-shaped in this area? Both are good though. Bass, I prefer the MEST, with more quantity, and slam. The bone conductor driver is pretty cool, not sure how to describe it. The u12's have great bass and extend down to sub-frequency. I just feel the MEST does a better job. Soundstage. Both are really great here. I feel the MEST has a slightly larger scale, wider. where the u12's are more centered, or true to the music. The MEST is also more forgiving to poorly mixed and recorded music. Given that the u12's were universal and not customs I feel, it's not a perfect comparison. I hope to be an owner of a set of custom A12t's, soon. And will share my thoughts, again. Anyway, figured I'd share my experience. Cheers.
In short, I ended up liking the 64 Audio Trio's out off all. Demoing the Trio and u12t's again, recently I didn't like the Trio's at all, actually, I ended up liking the A4's over the Trio. My ears really enjoyed the u12's though. They are a very pleasing set of in-ears, with great detail. I'm really surprised how much impact and slam they have with BA drivers, pretty amazing. After owning the MEST MKII customs for nearly a year and using them on a daily basis It was nice to get a new sound signature in my ears. I prefer the laid-back treble of the u12's, but I do think the MEST is a bit more resolving. Mids I'm split on. The MEST has a more forward sound, vocals are better imagined, where the u12's are further away, maybe more v-shaped in this area? Both are good though. Bass, I prefer the MEST, with more quantity, and slam. The bone conductor driver is pretty cool, not sure how to describe it. The u12's have great bass and extend down to sub-frequency. I just feel the MEST does a better job. Soundstage. Both are really great here. I feel the MEST has a slightly larger scale, wider. where the u12's are more centered, or true to the music. The MEST is also more forgiving to poorly mixed and recorded music. Given that the u12's were universal and not customs I feel, it's not a perfect comparison. I hope to be an owner of a set of custom A12t's, soon. And will share my thoughts, again. Anyway, figured I'd share my experience. Cheers.
Who says it requires EQ?
99 voted the FD5 great and I don’t think it’s closer to target. Not that I disagree, just pointing it out.
dc655321
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,597
- Likes
- 2,235
In the context where acoustic transducers meet human listeners, that statement is nonsense.
Maiky76
Senior Member
Here are some thoughts about the EQ.
Notes about the EQ design:
- The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
- The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
- A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
- The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constrains) with a fixed complexity.
This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral. - The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
- The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
- I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
- With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
- Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regards to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
- I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-5#post-989169 NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.
- Occluding IE devices generally must have very good fitting/seal in the user's ear canal for best performance.
please spend a few minutes to pick up the best ear tip... Be sure to perform this step otherwise the FR/Score/EQ presented here are just worthless. - 1. more bass = better seal
2. More isolation from the outside world = better fit
3. Comfort
Good L/R match.
Score no EQ: 71.2%
Score Amirm: 83.6%
Score EQ: 92.6%
Score Full: 95.3%
Code:
64 Audio U12t Score APO EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
April062022-131719
Preamp: -1.2 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 396.47 Hz Gain 2.24 dB Q 2.21
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 732.28 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 0.33
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1876.78 Hz Gain -1.57 dB Q 1.38
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3238.93 Hz Gain 6.00 dB Q 2.75
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5081.22 Hz Gain -4.17 dB Q 4.87
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9167.25 Hz Gain 6.00 dB Q 1.01
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 14013.07 Hz Gain -10.53 dB Q 6.00
64 Audio U12t Full APO EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
April062022-131855
Preamp: -3 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 402.47 Hz Gain 2.30 dB Q 1.71
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 880.55 Hz Gain -1.74 dB Q 0.33
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2074.96 Hz Gain -1.87 dB Q 2.75
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3232.93 Hz Gain 6.50 dB Q 2.25
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5067.22 Hz Gain -4.37 dB Q 4.12
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9342.09 Hz Gain 8.00 dB Q 1.31
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 13994.57 Hz Gain -11.28 dB Q 6.00Full:
I opened a new thread on this same thought, but just to repeat it here: given iems are so small and 'shippable', reviewers like amir and crinacle should start sending a few iems to each other to measure and see whether there's any difference in their rigs. It will provide some hard data to back up future comparisons and help everyone draw more reliable conclusions.
Last edited:
Tks
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 3,221
- Likes
- 5,496
I was going to bring this up before but I think I should do it now since you're doing it again. I'm making general statements in my replies, and then getting specific with what I am talking about.
Look at what you say for instance near the end. "All the same really? You make it sound easy..."
And then you start talking about sound, when for two posts now I've stressed design, and not fidelity aspects (but decided to touch on them since you seemingly really wanted to bring the conversation there for some reason). I've drawn comparisons to the current state of desktop DACs for example, but like most of the descriptive parts of my posts, you're simply glancing over what I am precisely saying, and you seem to want to stick to your own construal of what you think I'm trying to say. This is apparent when you thought I was against earhooks. You're doing it again by talking about squeezing eartips when I already spoke what the problem is even with foam ones that somewhat mold to the ear. You're either not reading what I'm saying, or simply ignoring it.
Let me make myself clear by speaking definitively and generally. The majority of the IEM market is plagued by tired and unergonomic design choices. The choice of metal material for instance is one said stupid choice. Circular stems and tips is another. And multi-core super thick "audiophile grade" cables, and I'm not saying those cables are a fail because they don't deliver on their audio claims, I'm saying they're a fail more so because of pragmatic concerns. There is very little movement in terms of these aspects, and just general innovation entirely (until we cross into the wireless realm). On the other hand there seems to be an asymmetry with pricing. That, for some reason, has increased drastically in the high end realm without seemingly any customer-relevant justification in my view.
This is my main gripe, and if you want to specifically address anything said in this last paragraph, I'd love to hear your thoughts. What I don't want to hear is orthogonal things about "if I think it's easy". Sorry but it seems you might've confused me with someone who cares? And yes I can say I would think it's easier for some IEM maker to produce a better product, if they are indeed charging more for it. And since that is precisely what is happening on the high-end, I would expect them to have an easier time producing a better product, otherwise what is the aspect of being paid more money even allowing these companies to then do?
All other tangential aspects you want to touch on the edges of the conversation isn't something I am concerned with. I don't want to talk about subjective sound qualities, especially for IEM's given the particulars of how sound propagation aspects can vary widely in virtue of being IEMs, and just people's ears in general. To me, if you can EQ and IEM, and the IEM has low enough distortion. After a few minutes of listening my hearing adapts well enough to where both IEMs sound similar enough for me to not care about the differences. Many IEMs perform well enough. But not many IEM's are taking ergonomics and material choices all that seriously (as evidenced by even TOTL makers tossing a bunch of tips a a single or handful of OEM companies provide to the entire industry at pennies cost, likewise with cables for most of these audiophile IEM companies). Yet the prices they charge for TOTL products they make, are quite serious, yet the asymmetry between price and the product on offered, keeps growing.
I hear you. I indeed did not touch all aspects of what you are saying, just the parts I was in disagreement. Stuff I had an opinion on. I agree with you that the ear hook comment was a side track I took that was not aimed about a gripe of yours and may I have made it sound like it. Apologies. Wanted to use images to talk more generally about design considerations by showing every use case is different.
Wanted to point that, with my limited experience, I do not agree that circular tips are a problem to be solved, you just did not convince me that it's unergonomic.
I have no IEMs in my collection that use exotic cables, and did not address that simply because I have no expertise on that or simply that the cable debates in general have been, in my opinion, solved and it's a fight I choose not to be part of. In other words, sure, like you, I like my cable reliable, supple, non microphonic. I did not know it was a widespread problem. I did not come across it. OK.
I am also not an acoustician, Or an ergonomist. I won't pretend to be one. You say metal is a bad choice, OK, you might be right, maybe, there is plenty of non metal IEMs to choose from if you think metal is problematic. I don't know.
About sound... You don't want to talk about it, but still you do... that's fine if it's not your main concern. It's one of mine. One of mine. Not the only one. Along, as you, with the ergonomics, I would choose an Iem with the two in mind. Fortunately, I believe, that there is a little something for everybody in this blooming market.
Last edited:
It begs the question because it's a strange objective in the context. No one would object to me pointing that out unless they lacked a basic understanding. Also test conditions make an important variable. For instance if the IEM had exceptionally poor seal the results won't be useful for the average listener, even with a large sample size.
What objective? I am not sure I understand where you are going with this, on your first answer, you seemed to be trying to convince me that statistical data was relevant and reliable, which I agree with, and now, on this one, you seem to try to tell me that they can't be trusted because testing conditions may not fully be controlled. What is it exactly that I lack in "basic understanding"? I am trying hard to follow your thoughts.
Last edited:
I don't know if Amir or Crinnacle is more "right". But the attitude that if everyone else believes it, it must be true, especially with a single "guru" at the core, is the very foundation, the inner core of not only elite audiophile cultism (viz PS Audio), but also investing crazes (tulips, crypto), and even war (fill in the many blanks). Sure, it's nice to have guidelines that say this year's maroon is the new black, but beware the consequences with any delusion or madness of the crowd that has more weight than mere fashion. Amir may be 'wrong' along the way on this or that, but the lonely voice is far more to be trusted than the emotional insecurities that lead many of us into confirmation bias; that is, the belief that truth is what we want it to be, rather than what it is, and the reflex rejection of contrary evidence. Most advancement comes from contention of ideas, not conformity,, combined with a willingness to accept evidence that validly contradicts your own preconceptions. Argue with Amir's conclusions on the merits of the evidence, not based on the elite audiophile consensus.
I have a couple of crinacle reviewed iems, I've tried his peq, I prefer the harman target in every case.
On the thieaudio oracle's I don't even think he's listening to the same iems as I am. I guess we have wildly different views of what neutral is
On the thieaudio oracle's I don't even think he's listening to the same iems as I am. I guess we have wildly different views of what neutral is
That's an argument based on the merits, and it's a good issue. I would agree that on Amir's side, it's sort of a given that is not often discussed, that comparisons proceed from the Harman curve as a baseline. That may be practically necessary as a basis for measurement, in the absence of any clear alternative benchmark. But using the benchmark shouldn't be the same as endorsing it, and perhaps that does happen here. Nevertheless, I think that happens because Harman already allows that 25% of listeners will like more bass and 25% will like more treble. And Harman is research based. Each listener can decide what they prefer, but the Harman curve provides a commonly-defined starting point for comparison. "Neutral" has a measurable definition as a pragmatic starting point.
It's better to have a common reference point than to just rely on the mish-mash of subjective opinions about neutrality. And I seriously object to repeated invocations of consensus opinion or capricious guru authority. That's just sloppy thinking and blind assertion, and is the first step toward mere ideology. And have you noticed?: even if you disagree with Amir on something, recognize that his opinions get raked over the coals here just like anyone else's, and often enough by critics with serious training and experience.
someguyontheinternet
Active Member
Interestingly Crinacle's IEM projects seem closer to Harman tuning up to about 3kHz than his IEF neutral target. 3kHz - 7kHz seems to track the IEF neutral target and there seems to be a preference for more energy after 15kHz which he seems to relate to "detail" (mentioned in his video on the See Audio collaboration).
crinacle.com
In-Ear Fidelity – IEM Graph Comparison Tool
Easily compare industry-standard frequency response measurements of hundreds and hundreds of IEMs.
crinacle.com
Interestingly Crinacle's IEM projects seem closer to Harman tuning up to about 3kHz than his IEF neutral target. 3kHz - 7kHz seems to track the IEF neutral target and there seems to be a preference for more energy after 15kHz which he seems to relate to "detail" (mentioned in his video on the See Audio collaboration).
In-Ear Fidelity – IEM Graph Comparison Tool
Easily compare industry-standard frequency response measurements of hundreds and hundreds of IEMs.
For the most part, these "target" curves generally have similar mid-range and treble across the board. The amount of bass is where preferences most lie. Some like more and some like less, and that could be dependent on musical choices.
I think if you look at several preference-based targets from various reviewers, as well as Harman research, and the Listen Inc graph, you'll see this trend, generally, especially if you smooth out the curve to avoid dips and peaks. I just used my own personal target, with some of the others below (crinacle, harman, listen inc, sonarworks, oratory)
This is probably more the case with headphones, but its not too far off for iems too. I think the harman research supports this.
Headphones:
iems:
as since someone brought up Crinacle's iems. I've tried all of them and measured them all:
And finally, back on topic, here's my U12t graphs with the M15 and M20 modules. The one Amir measured was the M20, and relative to the Harman 2017 IE target. I use a different coupler, as mine is a clone of the IEC-60318-4 GRAS 43AG, though with IEMs I removed the artifical ear/cheek simulator and its more like a 43AC clone at that point. This is closer, but not exactly the same as Crinacle and others who dont use the couple with a base, but instead its a stick rod. And this is also different than Amir's, which I'm assuming is using the artificial pinna. While they can all get the same-ish values in the end, the very very small difference can affect the distance from the iem to the mic, and these very subtle and minute differences in insertion depth can alter the FR, especially in the treble range. That is most likely why you see Amir's treble range look different than others. That, and the mics on newer systems are just improved (depending on who you ask), and do not have a resonance frequency at 13KHz.
BA Drivers in general tend to have higher distortion than the typical Dynamic driver, if you go over the datasheets w/ the BA drivers from Sonion/Knowles the max distortion on most models are max 5-7% THD at peak frequencies so this is pretty in line w/ what their specifications say.
