Moondrop Chu

[julian_hughes]

I mentioned upper bass bloat. You can look at the FR graphs if in doubt. You can see emphasised bass all the way to 400 Hz. The area between 100 and 300 is *very* noticeable when you listen. It's not terrible or huge but is in an area where it makes things sound a bit thick. As it's an excess it's easy to dial down. Also don't necessarily trust reviewers. Lots of them are chasing clicks for ads and they want free stuff from vendors and manufacturers. They are not impartial and gain most by publishing positive reviews. That's one of the reasons that measurements matter and why audiosciencereview is unusual.

 

[mvnchies]

I haven't heard the Aria but people say, and measurements suggest, that it is bassier and darker than the Kato. I know I wouldn't like it. The Kato already has overcooked upper bass. Yes, the seal on the Kato is difficult. In ergonomic terms the design is quite poor, whereas the Chu's design is surprisingly good. Not ideal, but well above average. I've done a lot of hours listening today and I like the sound of the Kato a lot. Without eq it is sometimes a bit bloated but usually OK. With the upper bass tamed by eq it is a remarkably good IEM in terms of sound quality. Listening to some modern orchestral works I was taken aback by the naturalness and depth and realism of the sound. I also listened to some old school rock - Jimi Hendrix, Wings, Beatles, and the sound was beautiful, vocals were eerily real. But in terms of isolation and convenience and comfort i.e. all the other stuff which matters when you try and use them every day, it is overall average at best. The Chu is a nice compromise, a good all rounder. The location of the cable on the Chu is a little odd but does work. I think Moondrop need to really work more on ergonomics and a bit less on buzzwords and marketing. They have the essence of great products but with some poorly thought out execution. The spring tips are just nonsense. All the shaping and "magic" is on the outer part of the tips, *outside* of the audio path! There are a million not special tips which are just as good and which come in sizes which might fit people in Europe, North America, Africa who are normal size. The current range of spring tips is ridiculously tiny.

I have to say for me the spring tips was just something I wanted to try because my friend said they are much more comfortable than the stock Aria tips. I have very dry ear canals so it has been hard finding something soft. so far, the spring tips have been the best I also thought the wide opening of the tip would be better than a tiny opening of some other tips I saw.
they also don’t seal as much as some other tips I tried which made the bass sound extremely bloated.

I don’t use them to block out sound personally, I just needed something for listening to music when away from home.

 

[AndyG]

I've been waiting for a decent review of the Aria Snow, and Joshua Valour just posted one. I'd much rather hear real life experiences from members in this community, so has anyone been able to compare the Aria (original vs Snow edition)? I'm thinking I will buy a set soon......

 

[Matias]

I've been waiting for a decent review of the Aria Snow, and Joshua Valour just posted one. I'd much rather hear real life experiences from members in this community, so has anyone been able to compare the Aria (original vs Snow edition)? I'm thinking I will buy a set soon......

There is the Crinnacle Graph Comparisson Tool to help.

Crinacle's IEM Graph Comparison Tools | Hangout.Audio

The world's largest public database of IEM measurements.

crinacle.com

I mentioned upper bass bloat. You can look at the FR graphs if in doubt. You can see emphasised bass all the way to 400 Hz. The area between 100 and 300 is *very* noticeable when you listen. It's not terrible or huge but is in an area where it makes things sound a bit thick. As it's an excess it's easy to dial down. Also don't necessarily trust reviewers. Lots of them are chasing clicks for ads and they want free stuff from vendors and manufacturers. They are not impartial and gain most by publishing positive reviews. That's one of the reasons that measurements matter and why audiosciencereview is unusual.

Indeed but not only above 100 Hz: the more pronounced bass from Kato continues down to 20 Hz.

Crinacle's IEM Graph Comparison Tools | Hangout.Audio

The world's largest public database of IEM measurements.

crinacle.com

 

[julian_hughes]

Indeed but not only above 100 Hz: the more pronounced bass from Kato continues down to 20 Hz.

I think that is where bass boost belongs - maybe from 100Hz down, perhaps a little higher or lower depending on the headphone. I'm not one of those who wants absolute neutrality as a little emphasis is required for a headphone to sound natural as it can't reproduce the physical sensation of bass from speakers or live performance. When it's still very boosted at 300Hz it just sounds thick. Luckily dialling down a frequency range is much better than trying to boost one (no danger of adding distortion). Anyway the Kato is not terrible in this respect but I was surprised at how easily I noticed the extra bass. Even a male voice (audiobook) sounded thick. There is plenty of music where it won't matter too much and anyway people do seem to like this upper bass bump, so it goes almost unremarked in reviews. After another day of listening I do like the Kato very much, despite not finding myself wanting to join the fan club.

 

[Fregly]

To try to be fair, I'd like to think individual physiology affects perception of neutral. I am suspicious though the majority of the population is basshead to greater and lesser degree. For me then, Harman is just market research and nothing to do with neutral. Just looking at the higher most bassy curve of the test....so did they have the Trailer Park Boys in for that one......sheesh

 

[julian_hughes]

To try to be fair, I'd like to think individual physiology affects perception of neutral. I am suspicious though the majority of the population is basshead to greater and lesser degree. For me then, Harman is just market research and nothing to do with neutral. Just looking at the higher most bassy curve of the test....so did they have the Trailer Park Boys in for that one......sheesh

Well you can measure neutral quite successfully. Yes, most people prefer a bass boost with headphones that they don't want with loudspeakers, hence the Harman curve. The Harman research demonstrated that people do prefer neutral loudspeakers but a slightly bassy headphone. It's not just PR or marketing.

 

[Fregly]

Well you can measure neutral quite successfully. Yes, most people prefer a bass boost with headphones that they don't want with loudspeakers, hence the Harman curve. The Harman research demonstrated that people do prefer neutral loudspeakers but a slightly bassy headphone. It's not just PR or marketing.

I just read it as a compensation of the lack physicality in headphones vs speaker bass, and a false trick of perception, assuming I do not have a bass sensitivity. The Senn and Ety curves are more or less accurate to instruments to me. What people "prefer" does not mean anything, other than what they like.

 

[julian_hughes]

I just read it as a compensation of the lack physicality in headphones vs speaker bass, and a false trick of perception, assuming I do not have a bass sensitivity. The Senn and Ety curves are more or less accurate to instruments to me. What people "prefer" does not mean anything, other than what they like.

It is exactly that compensation but it is not a "false trick". In effect the Harman curve is a description of how most people, not all, appreciate a little bass boost in headphones in order to make up for the lack of physicality of air being moved by speakers. This is not false and not trickery, but an interesting and useful insight into how we perceive sound, and a nice illustration that sound is not perceived only via the ears, and that "inaudible" frequencies are perceptible and experienced in ways other than via the ear. But that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[xnor]

Well, different people perceive bass from in-ears differently. I can't stand the static pressure build-up that a lot of cheap in-ears and in-ears with boosted bass down to 20 Hz produce.

Also, I don't see how the curves would apply to most people. The curves are averaged preferences on standardized HATS and ear simulators, which are based on some averages themselves. Actually, I'd say that the curve does not match anyone.

I got the Chu's a while ago, giving in-ears another chance. With my ears, if I apply any of the above EQ presets, or even none at all, it sounds like crap.

For fun, I can see adding a bit of a boost below 100 Hz and a little cut at ~250 Hz makes sense, though I also have a cut-off at 20 Hz for the reason mentioned above.
But the real issue is this: with my ears there's too much energy around ~4 kHz, and then there's a dip at roughly 6k. I also don't have a ~10 dB ~11 k dip.

To the people who are no happy with the sound signature/equalizer presets: you probably have the same non-average hearing and non-average ears.
Instead of blindly applying averaged presets that technically don't fit anyone, I suggest sweeping through bandlimited noise and equalizing problem areas by your ear. Takes some trial and error to find the right parameters (also of the test tones) but if you've got some experience and idea what it should sound like, then this is still far easier and cheaper than doing measurements in your ears.

 

[RHO]

presets that technically don't fit anyone

They don't fit anyone 100%. But they fit many reasonably close. So, you can assume that many will like it. So it's a safe bet to start from that in contrast to just guessing something.

 

[xnor]

They don't fit anyone 100%. But they fit many reasonably close. So, you can assume that many will like it. So it's a safe bet to start from that in contrast to just guessing something.

It sounds a bit like a technical point, but it's really not. I don't think it gets close for most people.
It gets you in the ballpark when it comes to overall balance. Measurements also show the general (mis)behavior of the headphones. But you're on your own beyond that point.

Just applying an average preference curve based on a coupler is more guessing than even just listening for a minute and doing adjustments accordingly, if you know what you're doing.
We're not talking about grossly misdesigned headphones here where you'd need tens of decibels of corrections, but a few dB (which in my opinion is still enough to decide between excellent and crap sound). And the coupler alone is going to be a few dB off here and there, so even if you matched the average preference perfectly* applying a curve that contains corrections of the same magnitude based on such a coupler is kinda ridiculous.

*) That's not going to happen either and you'll again be a few dB off here and there. If you sum up both then you're very likely so far away from good sound that you might as well take a guess.

 

[RHO]

if you know what you're doing.

Most people don't when it comes to EQing headphones/IEMs.

We're not talking about grossly misdesigned headphones here where you'd need tens of decibels of corrections, but a few dB (which in my opinion is still enough to decide between excellent and crap sound). And the coupler alone is going to be a few dB off here and there, so even if you matched the average preference perfectly* applying a curve based on that is kinda ridiculous.

OK, for IEMs like these it's not THAT difficult to take an educated guess and apply some filters that take you in the right direction. But in general cheap IEMs don't measure this well.
And you need to know what you are doing. See my previous remark. (I would even put myself in the "don't know what I'm doing" category.)

 

[xnor]

OK, for IEMs like these it's not THAT difficult to take an educated guess and apply some filters that take you in the right direction. But in general cheap IEMs don't measure this well.

Sure, as I said it will get you in the ballpark.
But unless the corrections boost or cut like a couple dB in bass and, let's say, 10 dB in upper mids/lower treble or higher, then it makes little sense to apply such a preset because the total tolerances in the preset will be bigger than the corrections.

So you will be moving in the wrong direction on average.

Take a step back and think about what y'all are doing.
You want your headphones to sound good to you. But instead of just listening with your ears and adjusting to your preference you rely on an averaged preference that does not match yours based on a measurement using a coupler that doesn't match your ears.

It's like going to the gym but instead of lifting the weights that match your personal training plan you use the averaged weight of all training plans averaged over age, gender and country and even different exercises.

You know who this makes sense for? Manufacturers. They produce headphones that a wide range of customers will use, so it makes sense to aim for a datum that was modeled based on averages and standard equipment.
But it doesn't make much sense for a consumer, except when the manufacturer failed designing their product.

 

[NTK]

It sounds a bit like a technical point, but it's really not. I don't think it gets close for most people.

The average Harman used was the average preference rating. Can you explain how it gets the highest average preference rating if it "doesn't get close for most people"?

 

[xnor]

The average Harman used was the average preference rating. Can you explain how it gets the highest average preference rating if it "doesn't get close for most people"?

That is a comparison of headphones with significantly different equalization curves.
Ignoring the tiny sample size of 4 and other metrics like distortion, the preference would show that the 3 other headphones have worse FR on average, or in other words, that there would be merit in Harman's target curve.

Note that I'm not saying that that's not the case. I'm not saying that it's impossible to come up with an average target curve that on average will be preferred over what some manufacturers did not too long ago and still do today: some engineers tuning the headphones by (their own) ear.

And that's proving my point. To those engineers, the perfectly tuned headphones sounded excellent to them. Consequently, it's more likely to sound worse on average to a large set of consumers than a headphone tuned for an averaged target.


Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "getting close" and the magnitudes of equalization I'm talking about. I'm not talking about getting in the ballpark (like general lows/mids/highs balance, huge peaks/dips ...). I'm talking about the last couple of dB. But to me that's enough to make or break a headphone's equalization, as I mentioned in #172. I don't think I'm too particular, considering I'm posting on a forum where people complain about some pixels over 100 dB down on amp distortion graphs.


If it's still not clear what I'm saying: give those ~240 listeners the tool to equalize HP1 to their own preference given their own choice of music. They'll come up with equalization curves that will fit their own preferences better than Harman's curve. That's my point. And ironically, iirc, that's (part of) what Harman did to derive their averaged target curve!

 

[Walter]

Harman curve for IEMs is pretty much dead on for me. I've tried various tweaks, including no EQ at all on 3 different ones, including Chus and CCA CRA, both of which are already close, and find using Crinacle's auto EQ up to 8kHz to beat anything else. So it does fit some people really well.

 

[xnor]

Maybe you're one of the lucky few that have a preference that matches the average and ears that match the measurement rig, or both are mismatched but the errors mostly cancel. While that could be the case, I kinda doubt it. When listening to music it's not that easy to spot the issues without a reference to compare to. But when you find the issues (which can be a lot easier with special test tones) and fix them, A/B-ing the result with music always make me think: "how could I listen to music like that?"

If it's really dead on then different in-ears would all sound more or less the same to you with those generic EQ presets applied. From my experience and from what I've read in threads like these, that's almost never the case. Neither for full-sized headphones nor for in-ears. It always takes individual equalization to get there.

Don't get me wrong. For a lot of headphones/in-ears with wonky FR and for a lot of people who don't care, don't want to or can't eq themselves, just applying these generic presets still results in an improvement. And often dramatically so since FR dictates the sound.
But beyond that point (which, I guess, is where a lot of people are here on ASR) it seems futile if not outright counterproductive to just blindly apply generic presets.

 

[Walter]

If it's really dead on then different in-ears would all sound more or less the same to you with those generic EQ presets applied.

Yep, they do--but with a sample size of 3 pairs that is most likely not statistically significant. And I don't doubt that with enough testing and tweaking I could make small impovements, especially in the 5-14kHz range. I'm just saying the Harman curve is just about exactly perfect for me. That fits well with the fact that I generally prefer Revel speakers to any others I've heard in the same price ranges. I'm apparently Harman's exact target listener.

 

[Palladium]

As soon as I saw the price, I bought them immediately

It's 3 pairs of nice foam earpieces that comes with a very nice pair of IEMs for free.