ARTTI T10 - PLANAR IEM

[OK1]

Finally got round to EQing the T10 with AutoEQ.app using convolution impulse response files as my EQ method. There are two T10 measurements on AutoEQ, and up till about 5.5 Khz, they are almost identical - i.e there is consistency. I used both measurements to create different corrections, which I can switch in and compare.

Compared to my own manual correction efforts, based on looking at measurements on Squig.link, I prefer the AutoEQ corrected results. Whats the difference? Some of the slight scratchiness in the treble has been corrected, and dips and bumps in the frequency have been better attended to. Notably there is a bit of a lower mid suck out centered about 6/700 hz has been much better corrected than I could via manual EQ.

Clearly algorithms and computers do a better job, at certain things, such as computing headphone correction using EQ, and I sincerely think this is one task best left to automation, if one has a good measurement that most likely correlates to one's own copy of an IEM. i.e if there is manufacturing consistency, which I think the T10 has.

The differences/improvements over the stock sound, via Auto EQ, and also compared to my own manual EQ efforts, are just a hint of more cohesiveness, more natural sounding voices, smoother stereo. Improved stereo balance - prior to Auto EQ, there was a bit of uncertainty about some vocal placement, especially lead vocals. And the impact of the crossfeed I have applied with Resonic Meier, just sounds better now. Just more refined presentation. Smoother, yet more detailed. Bass, mids, highs, taken up a notch - with better definition., more 3Dimensional, like a veil has been lifted - definitely worth the effort. The emotional goose pimples reaction to emotion in vocals, like Whitney Houston - I look to You, are taken to another level. Definitely better. Accurate is another word I would use. Now I cannot go back to listen without one of the AutoEQ based corrections.

Credit to the T10, some people may not be able to hear the difference, cos they are not night and day, but upon extensive listening and comparing, the EQ'd effort via AutoEQ, does do a better job than anything I could do, and certainly improves, what is already a respectable result of the stock T10 sound. AutoEQ makes small changes in all the right places, which add up to a better result. The one word that sticks in my mind is "crisper".

Net result is an improvement in clarity and listening pleasure. Just better with EQ, via Auto EQ.

 

[OK1]

More planar magnetic temptation - Hidizs MP 143

 

[Bob from Florida]

Received my T10's yesterday. About 4 hours listening with them burning in overnight at moderate volume. First impression - very smooth detail, bass is not present as in the Zero 2's. I do not use EQ, although my new JDS Element 3 does have a 2 band EQ. Using the medium black insert tips. Do these improve in the bass region with use? I can leave it on continuous loop for as long as needed if they will "loosen up".

 

[Mr Swing King]

Received my T10's yesterday. About 4 hours listening with them burning in overnight at moderate volume. First impression - very smooth detail, bass is not present as in the Zero 2's. I do not use EQ, although my new JDS Element 3 does have a 2 band EQ. Using the medium black insert tips. Do these improve in the bass region with use? I can leave it on continuous loop for as long as needed if they will "loosen up".

There is no real evidence of burn in other than tips/pads degrading and changing the presentation slightly. Has nothing to do with the drivers though.
The whole process is more of an acclimatisation. If you’re used to X sound, Y will take some time for your ears to wrap themselves around. The more you listen, the more you get used to the new presentation.

 

[Bob from Florida]

There is no real evidence of burn in other than tips/pads degrading and changing the presentation slightly. Has nothing to do with the drivers though.
The whole process is more of an acclimatisation. If you’re used to X sound, Y will take some time for your ears to wrap themselves around. The more you listen, the more you get used to the new presentation.

I do understand "getting used to the new sound". If they don't change with regards to bass, then I have concerns. The additional detail I hear versus the Zero 2's may simply be a tonal balance issue - ie "no bass = more speed and detail". I like bass, so unless this is a ear-tip/seal issue, so far I like the $25 Zero 2's better.

 

[OK1]

Received my T10's yesterday. About 4 hours listening with them burning in overnight at moderate volume. First impression - very smooth detail, bass is not present as in the Zero 2's. I do not use EQ, although my new JDS Element 3 does have a 2 band EQ. Using the medium black insert tips. Do these improve in the bass region with use? I can leave it on continuous loop for as long as needed if they will "loosen up".

Bob, congratulations.

I'll try to be brief, but forgive me, if I go on a bit, cos there's a lot to unpack here. I apologise for repeating what may be obvious, especially to anyone who has had an interest in audio for a while.

1. Ear Burn in. Every change in our listening devices, or listening space, has a period of familiarity, so some of the biological "burn in" is partly due to us becoming familiar. A good example is when one moves into a new space, such as a new home, and within weeks, one becomes familiar with the echoes/reverberation in the space, and our ears learn to zone this out, and still hear clearly.

2. Physical Burn in. I am convinced that physical burn in is also a real thing. There is evidence in the case of speakers, based on scientific controlled tests, that this is possible - I've seen a video on Youtube, that confirms this - but this was with speakers. I have also watched a Youtube video from a reviewer I respect, of burn in, on a KZ PR3, whose sonics were alleged to have improved over time. I have no tools to measure this, but it is NOT foolish to think there could be a need for burn in. At the very least, it does no damage to the IEM, and can only improve it, or it stays the same. Unfortunately if burn is - the physical kind, on the IEM is real, by the time it has happened, our ears have also "burned in" to the new sound. It may not be significant, who knows.

3. Level/Volume Matching

If there was only one thing I would change, or suggest, would be to make sure that one has an easy to adjust, easy to reach volume control. A huge chunk of our perception of anything we hear, is affected by how loud it is. Whenever we change our listening device, because of the change in frequency response, it can be a bit difficult to compare with what we are familiar with, because it is difficult to approximate the same loudness, in a device with a different frequency response.

Spoiler: More details on Level/Volume Matching

I give an example. When I enable EQ, in an audio chain - for example, with a headphone or IEM, if it makes things louder or quieter, I am not comparing like for like, and it becomes difficult to truly evaluate the EQ. I typically then also have to add or subtract gain, with the EQ, so that I can bring the loudness to about the same as the unequalised audio.

So as we change headphones, or connection (I say this cos my other IEM's are connected via unbalanced 3.5mm, while the T10 used the balanced 4.4mm on my TempoTec Sonata BHD dongle), it has become so important that I address the level.

This is not an easy thing to do, listen to two different IEMs or headphones, which have differences in :

3.1 Sensitivity
3.2 Input Impedance
3.3 Frequency Response
3.4 Possibly using a different connection (e.g balanced against unbalanced)
3.5 Loudness which, is the result of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4

And there are really almost no proper tools, available to the average Joe, for us to reliably match these differences, except by lots of human effort, which has its own inaccuracies, cos our aural memory is temporary, within the time it takes us to change from one IEM to another, our aural memory no longer has a good recall of what we have been listening to.

The other issue with volume matching is that the perceived difference in volume, and any frequency response differences we may perceive, is also a function of the audio were are listening to. We are not listening to pink noise, which cuts across all frequencies, but to real music which may not cut across all frequencies equally, so for example, if a new device adds lots of high frequencies, but there are relatively few high frequency highlights in the audio, that may not be easy to hear, cos teh new device only amplifies what is present in the audio. Same for bass, same for mids.

Therefore it would take a fair amount of listening to be pretty certain of exactly what frequency changes, a new IEM introduce, to the audio. So please give it a few more days.

4. Bass Response - Solution - Fit/Ear Tips. And a very good air seal. Because the distances to the ear drum are pretty small, for IEM's, compared to speakers or larger headphones, the tolerances are very very small. Every single millimeter closer or further out from the ear canal, has huge changes in frequency response.

Spoiler: More.... on this subject

While they are not the most comfortable things in the world, and it took about three weeks to eventually adjust to them, I use the largest of the 3 white/black ear tips, so that I can get a good seal. The shell of the T10 may not look large, but the thick end of the inner shell, does put a bit more pressure on the ear, than some other IEM's I have used, which have a tapering (reduction)of the area where the shell sits next to the outer ear.

The T10 needs a really good seal, before you'll hear the bass. I had attempted for the 1st week or more to use the medium size of the 3 white/black ear tips, but it just was not good enough of a seal.

As you are not hearing the bass, I suggest you bump up to a larger ear tip, and this should deliver the bass. I assure you, the T10 has more than enough bass, it's there, just needs a very good seal, with the right size of ear tip.

Also experiment with depth of insertion.

Truth be told, the T10 when they fit properly, deliver the best sound, but for me that also comes with a bit of discomfort, which over time my ear is becoming more accustomed to and the pain factor is almost gone.

I'll say this also, when the T10 is properly fitted, with the right ear tips, it significantly cuts out the audio from outside. I have to take off my T10's at least from one ear, to hold a conversation with anyone else, they would make very good ear protection for a rock concert, cos they behave like noise protection ear plugs., especially in the low frequencies.

If you have other ear tips, try these out also to see which gives you the best seal, and the most balanced presentation of bass.

Do let us know, after trying out the suggestions above, what you think of the outcome.

 

[OK1]

I do understand "getting used to the new sound". If they don't change with regards to bass, then I have concerns. The additional detail I hear versus the Zero 2's may simply be a tonal balance issue - ie "no bass = more speed and detail". I like bass, so unless this is a ear-tip/seal issue, so far I like the $25 Zero 2's better.

You've hit on the issue - ear-tip/seal. That is about the most important change needed, to boost the bass.

 

[OK1]

I do understand "getting used to the new sound". If they don't change with regards to bass, then I have concerns. The additional detail I hear versus the Zero 2's may simply be a tonal balance issue - ie "no bass = more speed and detail". I like bass, so unless this is a ear-tip/seal issue, so far I like the $25 Zero 2's better.

To an extent, the design and manufacture of an IEM, is only partially responsible for the aural result. Ear tips, and fit can significantly change the frequency response of an IEM.

And EQ can also be a further factor in arriving at a desired frequency response.

Frequency response aside, what I would like to know from you, is - how do the Zero 2's compare with the T10's, from a clarity and resolution point of view? Which is better. I know that frequency response is a factor in determining clarity/resolution, but for example if you compare the mids and highs between these two, how do they compare. And it would be interesting, if and when you have sorted out the sealing, to know how the bass compares between the T10 and the Zero 2.

Also which is better? Which gives you a more complete picture of the virtual image that a stereo recording is attempting to convey.

I do not own one, but like the Apple dongle, I consider the Zero 2 (or the original Zero) to be one of those "reference" IEMs that many are likely to own, as a relatively affordable IEM standard, against which one may compare other IEMs. It is on my wish list. Unlikely that I will buy soon, unless I find it on a really good sale.

 

[Bob from Florida]

To an extent, the design and manufacture of an IEM, is only partially responsible for the aural result. Ear tips, and fit can significantly change the frequency response of an IEM.

And EQ can also be a further factor in arriving at a desired frequency response.

Frequency response aside, what I would like to know from you, is - how do the Zero 2's compare with the T10's, from a clarity and resolution point of view? Which is better. I know that frequency response is a factor in determining clarity/resolution, but for example if you compare the mids and highs between these two, how do they compare. And it would be interesting, if and when you have sorted out the sealing, to know how the bass compares between the T10 and the Zero 2.

Also which is better? Which gives you a more complete picture of the virtual image that a stereo recording is attempting to convey.

I do not own one, but like the Apple dongle, I consider the Zero 2 (or the original Zero) to be one of those "reference" IEMs that many are likely to own, as a relatively affordable IEM standard, against which one may compare other IEMs. It is on my wish list. Unlikely that I will buy soon, unless I find it on a really good sale.

The Zero 2's are outstanding with regards to overall tonal response. I ordered the T10's primarily because they were planar's and inexpensive. Compared to the Zero's, the T10's appear to have a better sound stage. But, this could be totally coming from "bass lacking" perception.
The Zero's play okay directly from IOS, but sound significantly better using an external DAC/Amp. The bass is pretty good. Currently, the T10's are being played while not on my head. Either the bass will sound better next time I listen because of burn-in between sessions and or I will get a better seal.... If still deficient in bass then will consider returning to Amazon.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Just did a direct comparison between the T10’s and the Zero 2’s. There is simply no comparison- Zero 2’s win by huge margin. Bass extension, overall tonal balance, and imaging. I think this pair of T10’s must be defective.

 

[Ste_S]

I have Zero 2 and T10 and certainly don’t have anything like the night and day difference you describe. I’d make sure you’re getting a good seal with the eartips you’re using as bass response is the first thing to drop off otherwise.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I have Zero 2 and T10 and certainly don’t have anything like the night and day difference you describe. I’d make sure you’re getting a good seal with the eartips you’re using as bass response is the first thing to drop off otherwise.

I tried manipulating the seal manually and while I can change the bass a bit by doing so, it does not fix the root problem. I am thinking this pair needs to go back because they might be broken. This thread shows a clear majority of positive's and I am looking at a sample set of one…..

 

[OK1]

Just did a direct comparison between the T10’s and the Zero 2’s. There is simply no comparison- Zero 2’s win by huge margin. Bass extension, overall tonal balance, and imaging. I think this pair of T10’s must be defective.

Really sorry to hear about your not positive experience with the T10's. Your decision to return them, is in order. I am likely to order a Zero 2, someday, when next I find it on a sale offer which is difficult to refuse.

 

[OK1]

Just did a direct comparison between the T10’s and the Zero 2’s. There is simply no comparison- Zero 2’s win by huge margin. Bass extension, overall tonal balance, and imaging. I think this pair of T10’s must be defective.

Especially when the imaging is sub par, then I absolutely agree, something must be wrong, cos imaging is one of the key advantages of planar magnetics, from the literature on planar magnetics, reviews and from my own experience.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Fortunately, it is easy to return stuff to Amazon - it is going back for sure now.

 

[mc.god]

I tried manipulating the seal manually and while I can change the bass a bit by doing so, it does not fix the root problem. I am thinking this pair needs to go back because they might be broken. This thread shows a clear majority of positive's and I am looking at a sample set of one…..

T10 and Zero 2 bass response should be pretty close, while the "more details" you perceive are due to the substantial elevation in the entire 5k-8k region:

It clearly seems a seal issue, maybe you just need to use bigger or differently shaped tips, but sometimes you cannot get decent seal no matter how much you try, the specific iem shape, nozzle angle, length and size simply don't fit to you ears. I experienced this with Truthear Hexa, that i returned indeed.

 

[Bob from Florida]

T10 and Zero 2 bass response should be pretty close, while the "more details" you perceive are due to the substantial elevation in the entire 5k-8k region:

View attachment 385552
It clearly seems a seal issue, maybe you just need to use bigger or differently shaped tips, but sometimes you cannot get decent seal no matter how much you try, the specific iem shape, nozzle angle, length and size simply don't fit to you ears. I experienced this with Truthear Hexa, that i returned indeed.

I did try the mediums and large tips with the same results. Like you mentioned, it just may not be compatible with my ear canal. Probably will try some closed back Aeon RT's to see if that will get me a happy planar "fix".

 

[OK1]

While researching IEMs, there was an opinion on RTINGs.com from about a decade ago, that planar magnetics were difficult to manufacture, so there was the risk that each earpiece could vary, in comparison with earphones which use dynamic drivers. The justification for this opinion was that manufacturers have a lot more experience with making dynamic drivers.

I also watched a video oby Akros on Youtube, which asserts that he bought three copies of a planar magnetic , the KZ PR3, and all three were different in frequency response, and one of the copies was really bad.

It does beg the question. On the budget end of the market, how much quality control is done. I'm thinking of professional high end speakers, and microphones, where I would expect that these would be individually tested, contributing a bit to the higher cost. Akros is about the only reviewer who I've known who does purchase or receives multiple copies of the same IEM model, and is able to give an opinion on their consistency/quality control.

It is a much cheaper product, a Sony earbud, and I recall buying three copies at different times within about three months, from the same store, and each of them had a different perceptible frequency response.

His review is here, which compares the T10 with at least 4 other planar magnetic IEM contenders :

 

[OK1]

I did try the mediums and large tips with the same results. Like you mentioned, it just may not be compatible with my ear canal. Probably will try some closed back Aeon RT's to see if that will get me a happy planar "fix".

An excellent review here. Definitely NOT in the same price bracket as ALL the "mid priced" planar magnetic IEMs I am aware of.

Dan Clark Audio AEON RT Review (closed headphone)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Dan Clark ÆON RT closed back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by the company for testing and costs US $500. In a sea of similar looking headphones, the ÆON RT manages to distinguish itself with a uniqe shape: This makes the cup smaller...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It was my dissatisfaction with the consistency of two other KZ/CCA IEM's (which were noted to have undisclosed revisions, in design after the product had been reviewed by many) which led me to up my game and invest a bit more, in the T10. I just got tired of not being sure of what I was buying, typically tempted by their low prices during sales. A youtuber once said - buy once, buy right. It's unfortunate that many of us have had to experience product inconsistencies.

Unfortunately I am a bit late to the IEM measurement party, and in particular to AmirM's IEM measurements. I'm extremely pleased with my T10, and could not wish for more, cos it has saved me having to shell out for far more expensive IEMs and Over the ear headphones. At least I can defer such ambitions, until I can comfortable afford them. In comparison to my AKG K702, I am far more satisfied with the T10, just a much more intimate and enveloping experience.

Based on the review here, I still think the Zero 2, is still a worthy addition, to everyone's collection, based on objective measures here, and I will most likely also get one, as soon as I find a good price, on a discounted sale. We only live once... AmirM's review of the Zero 2 was spectacular., especially in its low distortion.

7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEM Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the 7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEM. It was kindly donated to me by a member and costs US $24.99. The cable is soft and longer than typical which I like. They take fair amount of effort to push it but then they make a reassuring...

www.audiosciencereview.com

As I have found the use of AutoEQ positive with the T10's, as a more reliable way to improve the sonics of listening devices, with algorithmically generated correction, before I buy any headphone, I'd want to check if there are trusted measurements in the AutoEQ database, or trusted measurements available outside of its database, which I could upload to AutoEQ. Much better than any manual EQ approach, it does such a good job by default, and it has lots of options for modifying many aspects of the correction, to one's personal preferences.

Browsing the list of IEMs reviewed on ASR, found this, which has had a very good review - 1st IEM planar magnetic review I have read on ASR, so if one was going by measurements alone, this would be one to buy, if searching for a planar magnetic IEM. Still not inexpensive (for me, but definitely cheaper than any over the ear headphones I may have had in my wish list, except the Hifiman HE400SE).

Hidizs MP145 IEM Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Hidizs MP145. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $150. The immediate impression of the shells is one of jewelry with its machined aluminum case. As you see, the included cable has 4.4mm balanced connection even...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Bob from Florida]

Based on the review here, I still think the Zero 2, is still a worthy addition, to everyone's collection, based on objective measures here, and I will most likely also get one, as soon as I find a good price, on a discounted sale. We only live once... AmirM's review of the Zero 2 was spectacular., especially in its low distortion.

I don't know if better than $25 with a $2 off coupon is possible....

Amazon.com

[/QUOTE]