• 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!

Moondrop LAN Review

julian_hughes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
901
View attachment 289299

Edit 1: Actually, I find the later parts of the review do not sound like advertising. In general I think it's good to give a bit of background to a review, not just whether one received something for free, but also personal preferences, prejudices, personal interest, that kind of stuff. Maybe that was a bit lacking, initially.

Edit 2: Now I had to re-read the review, even though I'm not in the market for these little in-ear gizmos. Here's my meta-critique, if that's allowed: After the a bit flowery opening the reviewer gets nicely into the technical details (freq.response, distortions, insertion depth), but then it gets a bit flowery again after "Let’s enter the Cuckoo Studio mixing space"; it almost sounds subjectivist there, although one could argue the reviewer tries to pick descriptive words that have more broadly accepted meaning. Does it help? I don't know. The big balloon graphs that follow remind me of not so well received attempts to improve high energy physics event displays in the 90s. Think jets depicted as huge colorful arrows with even bigger hats. I think the designer was very disappointed with the (lack of) reception.
There are books on data visualization, I remember attending a lecture once and getting a free copy. Of course I remember neither the author nor the title. I think he invented the little one-line squiggle graphs that unfortunately also didn't catch on.
Edit 3: Found it: The author is Edward Tufte, and he wrote several books. I think the one I remember is 'Beautiful Evidence', but more famous is probably 'Visual Display of Quantitative Information' https://www.amazon.com/Visual-Display-Quantitative-Information/dp/0961392142 .

Ok, I think I better go back to trying to measure my tube amp now.
I like your "meta-critique", as to me it seems very fair. Yes, the reviewer gets into some technical details. But one issue I have is how can we compare his results with the other results here at ASR? Or any place? They are done in a unique way and presented such that they cannot be repeated or directly compared. In the end how is this distinguishable from opinion? And, as the reviewer confirms, some these reviews may be done as part of a financial relationship with the manufacturer. Well, we all have to eat but if someone is paying you to eat are you going to tell the world it doesn't taste good?
 

Gruesome

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 21, 2023
Messages
177
Likes
181
Location
California
Well, as I tried to say above, I think as long as Anzol gives us the background info, we should be able to 'calibrate out' any bias in the subjective parts. Where it gets tricky is if the selection of technical findings were biased. That's where it helps to have a standard set of measurements and plots, so that we are not simply dependent on having to blindly trust the reviewer. Just the same as for Amir and other reviewers.
Of course, in my limited (or wrong?) understanding, agreeing on a standard technique is a particular problem with headphone and in-ear device measurements, so the 'standard' might just apply to Anzol's measurements only, assuming he always uses the same technique.

So, yeah, I think I'd allow quite a bit of 'artistic license' in the presentation as long as the standard set of measurements and plots are there.
In the end it's Amir's decision.
 
OP
Cuckoo Studio

Cuckoo Studio

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
97
Likes
870
Well, as I tried to say above, I think as long as Anzol gives us the background info, we should be able to 'calibrate out' any bias in the subjective parts. Where it gets tricky is if the selection of technical findings were biased. That's where it helps to have a standard set of measurements and plots, so that we are not simply dependent on having to blindly trust the reviewer. Just the same as for Amir and other reviewers.
Of course, in my limited (or wrong?) understanding, agreeing on a standard technique is a particular problem with headphone and in-ear device measurements, so the 'standard' might just apply to Anzol's measurements only, assuming he always uses the same technique.

So, yeah, I think I'd allow quite a bit of 'artistic license' in the presentation as long as the standard set of measurements and plots are there.
In the end it's Amir's decision.
I use a IEC 60318-4 ear simulator, its data is very accurate. I have compared the differences between 20+ IEMs of its data and the one made by GRAS. I will add this clarification in future content to alleviate concerns about the data.
 

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
It does look like a huge advertisement. Does any review need so many highly stylised product images? It *is* a huge advertisement. For the author. I don't get why this guy's reviews get approved and promoted here. He's using a different curve than Amir, presenting information in ways (3D mixing space?????) that are so odd as to entirely rule out the reader's ability to compare with other items tested here, or anywhere so far as I can tell. If the review measurements are impossible to compare with the other technical reviews on this site then what is the point? After reading the review I know the reviewer likes the product but I can't find a way to assess that in the context of the database of reviews here or elsewhere. It's more like reading a subjective opinion than a technical review and not really any more useful to me.
You are totally allowed to not like paid reviews, but the data is the data. You got the frequency response, you got the distortion characteristics, everything else is subjective and biased. You can simply ignore it. Hey what Amir is doing is great, but it's not Gospel. If it is impossible for you to read these charts because they use a different target, well it is probably a good thing that it is showed here, it means that there is room for more knowledge to be shared and it's a good thing. In the long term it may bring you to be able to read measurements reports from different sources and get the information you need. To maybe look at manufacturers data sheet and understand what it means when testing conditions are clearly laid out. The more measurments data points we have for a larger pool of products, the more intelligence is out there, the more knowledge. In this case, the testing conditions are clear. The reviewers is clear about his model, you take that and draw your own conclusions. The 3D mixing space is a way for him to express what he hear. You may not have confidence on what he hears but the process itself, is his own. There is no official measurements based method to quantify sound stage, yet even Amir consider these characteristics as important to the overall experience. Cuckoo is functioning that way. Don't trust what his assessment on the validity of how he describe it, Instead try it with your own headphones, and see for yourself it makes sense. Now about the fact that you feel like no paid review should belong here, well take this to Amir, don't blame the reviewer. ASR decided to publish these reviews because they contain the data. Amir's also provide subjective assessments, they are his own.
 

julian_hughes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
901
You are totally allowed to not like paid reviews, but the data is the data. You got the frequency response, you got the distortion characteristics, everything else is subjective and biased. You can simply ignore it. Hey what Amir is doing is great, but it's not Gospel.

Yes, thank you so much for allowing me not to like paid reviews, AKA marketing material and advertising and, when presented as objective, as astroturfing.

What frequency response? What distortion characteristics? Measured how? And by a person with a financial interest or not?

This is simple stuff. "the data is the data" doesn't apply when the results can't be reproduced. And then there is the fact that these data cannot be directly compared with any the other IEM tests on ASR. There are really good reasons that people precisely describe their testing apparatus, method and choose to adhere to commonly accepted standards. It's so others can *compare* those results and do so *reliably*. That is what makes technical reviews actually useful . Otherwise we might as well give up and simply accept the laughable figures and graphs printed on the product boxes and marketing puff on aliexpress, amazon and so on. There is a difference between *impartial* technical assessment and *marketing*. Once you're taking money to publicise products then you are doing marketing, not real reviewing. It is that simple. This is not some subtle and esoteric objection.
 

julian_hughes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
901
Well, as I tried to say above, I think as long as Anzol gives us the background info, we should be able to 'calibrate out' any bias in the subjective parts. Where it gets tricky is if the selection of technical findings were biased. That's where it helps to have a standard set of measurements and plots, so that we are not simply dependent on having to blindly trust the reviewer. Just the same as for Amir and other reviewers.
Of course, in my limited (or wrong?) understanding, agreeing on a standard technique is a particular problem with headphone and in-ear device measurements, so the 'standard' might just apply to Anzol's measurements only, assuming he always uses the same technique.

So, yeah, I think I'd allow quite a bit of 'artistic license' in the presentation as long as the standard set of measurements and plots are there.
In the end it's Amir's decision.
When people are being supplied the product by the manufacturer and being paid to publicise it then how can it not be biased?
 

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
Yes, thank you so much for allowing me not to like paid reviews, AKA marketing material and advertising and, when presented as objective, as astroturfing.

What frequency response? What distortion characteristics? Measured how? And by a person with a financial interest or not?

This is simple stuff. "the data is the data" doesn't apply when the results can't be reproduced. And then there is the fact that these data cannot be directly compared with any the other IEM tests on ASR. There are really good reasons that people precisely describe their testing apparatus, method and choose to adhere to commonly accepted standards. It's so others can *compare* those results and do so *reliably*. That is what makes technical reviews actually useful . Otherwise we might as well give up and simply accept the laughable figures and graphs printed on the product boxes and marketing puff on aliexpress, amazon and so on. There is a difference between *impartial* technical assessment and *marketing*. Once you're taking money to publicise products then you are doing marketing, not real reviewing. It is that simple. This is not some subtle and esoteric objection.
Testing "Apparatus": IEC 60318-4 ear simulator. It is a standard.
Browse the web and you will find that there is not one single "commonly accepted standards". I think you meant to say Amir's standards. Amir's measurements are no more, nor no less exactly reproducible on other test equipment.
 
Last edited:

mc.god

Active Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
280
Likes
395
Location
Roma, IT

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,348
Likes
1,804
I use a IEC 60318-4 ear simulator, its data is very accurate. I have compared the differences between 20+ IEMs of its data and the one made by GRAS. I will add this clarification in future content to alleviate concerns about the data.
Let's see this 'very accurate' comparative data with proper GRAS measurements then. And importantly, for this specific IEM. Here's analysis by AutoEQ's Jaakko Pasanen of the varying response errors of Crinacle's fake clone RA0045 measurements that people blindly trust relative to Oratory's professional measurements using a genuine GRAS RA0045 for many IEMs (which yes, includes unit variation, but that's unlikely to explain all this variance):

index.php
 
Last edited:

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
@Cuckoo Studio Your data would be appreciated, if you want to share. Don't pay too much attention to the tone of the previous poster.

@GaryH @oratory1990 uses Crinacles measurements for some of his PDFs, for what it's worth. But it's good to know to what extent each device differs from RA0045. @jaakkopasanen considers Crinacles coupler "solid" per prior correspondance @amirm uses a different GRAS RA0402 coupler, which would also be interesting to see difference data for. (This used to be easier when compiling resolves data was allowed for third parties)
 
Last edited:

Peafowl

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2021
Messages
20
Likes
22
Location
Germany
It's a bit mean, but is ok. In fact, the most important thing is that the picture needs to show some other content, such as high-frequency attenuation at different ages, differences in HRTF, etc., so this has nothing to do with the 'design contest'. I have posted the original data chart of REW in the second post, and I will continue to do so in the future. You can choose according to your own needs.
My goal wasn't to be mean, but in my option, graphics should be kept as simple as possible.
Even my sceenreader can no longer capture this.

In charts like this, there is a lot of "white - gray" which makes the white text in the middle or the text at the lower right edge difficult or impossible to read. -> contrast too low or resolution not high enough.

With all the unused space, you could enlarge the graphs and use the space if it is already there.
 

Hayatepilot

Member
Joined
May 31, 2023
Messages
7
Likes
12
Excellent review @Cuckoo Studio !

Could you measure the nozzle diameter?
Narrow part and the flange would be of interrest to me since I have narrow ear canals.
 

Gruesome

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 21, 2023
Messages
177
Likes
181
Location
California
@Cuckoo Studio Your data would be appreciated, if you want to share. Don't pay too much attention to the tone of the previous poster.

@GaryH @oratory1990 uses Crinacles measurements for some of his PDFs, for what it's worth. But it's good to know to what extent each device differs from RA0045. @jaakkopasanen considers Crinacles coupler "solid" per prior correspondance @amirm uses a different GRAS RA0402 coupler, which would also be interesting to see difference data for. (This used to be easier when compiling resolves data was allowed for third parties)
What does this mean, or refer to (the part I highlighted in bold?)
 

Svensson

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2022
Messages
78
Likes
78
@Cuckoo Studio Thank you for the review which I really appreciated. I would encourage you to keep going and if you are minded, to produce more for our interest.
I have read the various responses and comments which are generally helpful and encourage you to carry on. There are some more critical as your reviews didn't quite meet expextations for those forum members. My view is that you have spent your time and energy to produce your assessment and to display it with your own style, which is refreshing. The "heat" in the comments appears to driven by a desire to achieve mandatory consistency. As you can imagine, there are differing views about that with some people are more zealous than others. My thought is that so long as you are transparent about any sponsorship or support, and provide your measured findings, we members can take our own views as to how we wish to read those. Some will be happy and some will not. I hope to see more of your reviews here.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom