Best IEMs identified in Harman (Olive) research paper

[nyxnyxnyx]

I might not fully understand this so I will ask for confirmation:
Is this about the "best" IEMs, defined and categorized by the harman target. Or is it that the "best" IEMs are definitely harman-tuned, and the list above is like a ranking of the very best?

I tried 3003 the first time 6 years ago, I kept it it until last year and it was great but nothing that remotely made me like it more than so many other IEMs in the current market.

 

[GaryH]

I might not fully understand this so I will ask for confirmation:
Is this about the "best" IEMs, defined and categorized by the harman target. Or is it that the "best" IEMs are definitely harman-tuned, and the list above is like a ranking of the very best?

I tried 3003 the first time 6 years ago, I kept it it until last year and it was great but nothing that remotely made me like it more than so many other IEMs in the current market.

This particular thread is about identifying which of only the IEMs tested in this research paper by Harman were given the highest average preference ratings by listeners in the double-blind studies it was based on. To me it looks like these were the AKG K3003 and N20. Note however that the scores even these IEMs received were not incredibly high, at an average of 61 and 59.2 respectively (the Harman target receiving an average score of around 70). This is partly due to contraction bias in listener ratings (reluctance to use the extremes of a rating scale). Once scaled, with the Harman target set to 100, these two IEMs score around 80. So great but still not amazing, which would explain why you might prefer other IEMs now currently available which come closer to the Harman target.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

This particular thread is about identifying which of only the IEMs tested in this research paper by Harman were given the highest average preference ratings by listeners in the double-blind studies it was based on. To me it looks like these were the AKG K3003 and N20. Note however that the scores even these IEMs received were not incredibly high, at an average of 61 and 59.2 respectively (the Harman target receiving an average score of around 70). This is partly due to contraction bias in listener ratings (reluctance to use the extremes of a rating scale). Once scaled, with the Harman target set to 100, these two IEMs score around 80. So great but still not amazing, which would explain why you might prefer other IEMs now currently available which come closer to the Harman target.

I haven't checked if all IEMs I love the most are tuned based on the Harman target or diffuse field, or another revision of either target. With that being said, could you explain to me what's the best interest(s) for IEMs manufacturers to tune their IEMs close to a certain target (f.e in this case: Harman). Does this target achieve certain scientific and clear benefits in comparison with other individuals' target(s)? I'm talking strictly about IEMs, as I do read more about headphones and speakers, but I never spent too much time reading IEMs insights.

Lastly, the FR target(s) and the overall outcomes still depend greatly on the technicality involved, right? I'm talking about aspects like the construction of the driver, proper crossovers, filters, and much more.

 

[GaryH]

I haven't checked if all IEMs I love the most are tuned based on the Harman target or diffuse field, or another revision of either target. With that being said, could you explain to me what's the best interest(s) for IEMs manufacturers to tune their IEMs close to a certain target (f.e in this case: Harman). Does this target achieve certain scientific and clear benefits in comparison with other individuals' target(s)?

Yes. I'd suggest watching this presentation by Dr. Sean Olive of Harman which should answer your questions (he starts talking about IEMs around 20 mins in, but discusses why diffuse field is the wrong target earlier on):

Lastly, the FR target(s) and the overall outcomes still depend greatly on the technicality involved, right? I'm talking about aspects like the construction of the driver, proper crossovers, filters, and much more.

These factors affect FR, but the target is the same no matter the design of the headphone/IEM.

 

[HRTF_Enthusiast]

Get a Moondrop Kato. Infinitely better than these.

Only real issue is bass isn't flat enough. It's also slightly muddy.

 

[HRTF_Enthusiast]

Get a Moondrop Kato. Infinitely better than these.

Got Kato today and this is how it sounds:

 

[Earfonia]

Got Kato today and this is how it sounds:

The graphs not shown. Pictures error?

 

[Earfonia]

Only real issue is bass isn't flat enough. It's also slightly muddy.

My bass requirement is more or less Harmanish, so to me the bass level is fine. But bass attack and punch a little too weak for me.
Clarity is good enough for me and I won't call it muddy, but treble sparkle and sharpness are a bit lacking and the transient may sounds a tad dull.

After getting used to the Symphonium Audio Helios this Kato sounds a bit lazy and dull. Kato tonal balance is pretty good but the transient and attack are a bit too slow for me.

 

[HRTF_Enthusiast]

The graphs not shown. Pictures error?

It bugged out for some reason

 

[Earfonia]

It bugged out for some reason
View attachment 185431

Thanks!

Here is FR measurement of my Moondrop Kato:

It tracks my EITC-2021 pretty well but the treble lacks a bit of sharpness and sounds a bit too polite. Transient doesn't sound fast enough me.