• 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!

My First High End IEM - 64 Audio U12t

Status
Not open for further replies.

thecheapseats

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
727
Likes
776
Location
Los Angeles refugee
BTW, I just remembered that I read an article by Mitch Barnett (@mitchco on ASR). He is a retired mixing engineer and he does sound consulting these days. The article is a review on the Audeze LCD-4 and LCD-5, but he goes into reasons why he thinks the Harman curve does not sound neutral. To him there is too much bass and top end and he describes it as "boom and screech".
to that end, it was always a scramble - taking mixes from room to room across town to listen - and checking to hear that we hadn't screwed up before being politely lectured by a great mastering engineer... ) ... too much bass or top end where you mixed had the inverse effect on the mix... tough lessons sometimes...
 

AdamG

Debunking the “Infomercial” hawkers & fabricators
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,685
Likes
15,397
Location
Reality
and is the Audeze based on the Harman curve ?
With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.

Here is one of the biggest databases for EQ/PEQ implementation:
 
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.

Here is one of the biggest databases for EQ/PEQ implementation:
To me, it defeat the purpose because if its PC or Mac based, how am I suposed to do when I have 4 different output and I need to cross reference.

That's what I find beautiful about the Neumann interface, you are limited to a 4 band PEQ but each are applied to a specific output. So whenever you change an output, you have your pre applied PEQ curve on it.

Thaty is night and day with Sonarwork for me because when I was using it, you couldnt choose what to EQ and it was also applying the EQ curve to your whole DAC. Not gonna lie, it really sounded bad as well.

But with that sort of EQ onboard, hey, Im really tempted to sell my Twin-X and buy that one.
 

AdamG

Debunking the “Infomercial” hawkers & fabricators
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,685
Likes
15,397
Location
Reality
To me, it defeat the purpose because if its PC or Mac based, how am I suposed to do when I have 4 different output and I need to cross reference.

That's what I find beautiful about the Neumann interface, you are limited to a 4 band PEQ but each are applied to a specific output. So whenever you change an output, you have your pre applied PEQ curve on it.

Thaty is night and day with Sonarwork for me because when I was using it, you couldnt choose what to EQ and it was also applying the EQ curve to your whole DAC. Not gonna lie, it really sounded bad as well.

But with that sort of EQ onboard, hey, Im really tempted to sell my Twin-X and buy that one.
It holds 20 eq sets for different IEMs. Plenty of storage and you can have multiples at $100 bucks each. I run two of them myself. Just giving you options to consider.
 

thecheapseats

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
727
Likes
776
Location
Los Angeles refugee
With the above linked Qudelix you can shape any IEM/Headset to your liking/preference. PEQ like this is a game changer and there are plenty of sites that test IEM’s and provide PEQ filters to meet various curves. You just find the headset you’re using and import the filter sets.

Here is one of the biggest databases for EQ/PEQ implementation:
that's true - tweaked for a purpose, whether for listening or monitoring - both with eq as well as the 'fit' itself if you are a vocalist... never had to buy a pair personally but had to be fitted four times since they became a 'thing' years ago... and I was always asked if I was an instrumentalist, a singer, or both - as they get tweaked a bit differently for vocalists for live monitoring, so I was told... still have the last two pairs somewhere in a drawer around here...
 
Last edited:
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
It holds 20 eq sets for different IEMs. Plenty of storage and you can have multiples at $100 bucks each. I run two of them myself. Just giving you options to consider.
Wait a minute, is it a software or a hardware ?

As I said, I have 4 different outputs. I will and cannot cchange outputs physically then also open a software and change the profile because im losing the momentum when I need to cross reference fast in a song.

I dont know if you guys understand the challenge for me of the idea of getting an eq applied before my DAC!?
 

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,611
Likes
5,975
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I dont know if you guys understand the challenge for me of the idea of getting an eq applied before my DAC!?

I think most of us don't. Speaking for myself, I am only an audio enthusiast and not a mixing engineer. Now that you have pointed it out, along with your earlier posts about the importance of portability, I am beginning to see how difficult it would be for you. Applying EQ before the DAC is no problem for most of us because we only have 2 channels and we listen at home. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it would be to have to handle 16 channels and sitting in a hotel room.

The reason I posted the article written by Mitch is to provide you with reassurance that there are some other mixing engineers who feel the same way that you do. If you are used to mixing with a ruler flat frequency response, and if that is a requirement for a headphone for your profession, then any headphone tuned for mass market preference will have too much bass for you. So perhaps the problem with the U12t is that it is a product aimed for the mass market, and tuned to the Harman curve which is the preference of the mass market, and does not have tuning which is applicable for you as a mixing engineer.

As for your other question, whether they are tuned to the Harman frequency response, the answer is contained within the article:

image5.png.05eba20740cbe2d2d0d63ec9295c4b5f.png


The answer is a no. This kind of FR would earn it a headless panther on ASR and there would be the usual ASR pile-on about expensive and inferior products, which is quite unfair in my opinion. You saw a bit of that in this thread. Amir hasn't reviewed it, but there is a separate discussion on ASR here. I have heard the Audeze LCD-4 but not the LCD-5, and again it is not to my preference. To me they sound too thin. But then I am a mass market consumer who likes the Harman curve.

I am not suggesting you buy an Audeze LCD-4/5, or a HD800S, because there may be other considerations besides frequency response (e.g. portability, sensitivity, etc). I am suggesting that your preference might be different to the rest of us given your profession. Maybe you should seek out headphones with a similar ruler flat frequency response and see what you think.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
I think most of us don't. Speaking for myself, I am only an audio enthusiast and not a mixing engineer. Now that you have pointed it out, along with your earlier posts about the importance of portability, I am beginning to see how difficult it would be for you. Applying EQ before the DAC is no problem for most of us because we only have 2 channels and we listen at home. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it would be to have to handle 16 channels and sitting in a hotel room.

The reason I posted the article written by Mitch is to provide you with reassurance that there are some other mixing engineers who feel the same way that you do. If you are used to mixing with a ruler flat frequency response, and if that is a requirement for a headphone for your profession, then any headphone tuned for mass market preference will have too much bass for you. So perhaps the problem with the U12t is that it is a product aimed for the mass market, and tuned to the Harman curve which is the preference of the mass market, and does not have tuning which is applicable for you as a mixing engineer.

As for your other question, whether they are tuned to the Harman frequency response, the answer is contained within the article:

image5.png.05eba20740cbe2d2d0d63ec9295c4b5f.png


The answer is a no. This kind of FR would earn it a headless panther on ASR and there would be the usual ASR pile-on about expensive and inferior products, which is quite unfair in my opinion. You saw a bit of that in this thread. Amir hasn't reviewed it, but there is a separate discussion on ASR here. I have heard the Audeze LCD-4 but not the LCD-5, and again it is not to my preference. To me they sound too thin. But then I am a mass market consumer who likes the Harman curve.

I am not suggesting you buy an Audeze LCD-4/5, or a HD800S, because there may be other considerations besides frequency response (e.g. portability, sensitivity, etc). I am suggesting that your preference might be different to the rest of us given your profession. Maybe you should seek out headphones with a similar ruler flat frequency response and see what you think.

I have 4 stereo output when I am home (8channel). I am currently home

3x Stereo Monitor output
1x Stereo Headphone output.

When I am away, I use 2 stereo output:
2x Stereo headphone output

So to make it clear, in total count and location, 16 output in a hotel room never happen. I actually never live in a hotel room. I rent apartments when I'm out of the country.

I have an appointment tomorrow for my ear print. I'm starting to think that it's a lost of time and to just advertise them here and other website for sale.

I keep on pushing on them in my left ear for it to sit tight and even then, I don't find them particularly revealing. I think I'll ghost my appointment tomorrow (I'll call them at the first hour in the morning) at the audiologist and forget about the IEM all together as you suggest.

Yeah, they're going for sale tonight on different websites.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,611
Likes
5,975
Location
Melbourne, Australia
No! I suggest EQ first to get it close to a flat target response before you sell it. Use the FR measurements posted earlier in this thread as a guide to what you need to cut. This is as an experiment to see if you like a ruler flat target response. If this is what you like, then it will help guide your next headphone purchase.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
No! I suggest EQ first to get it close to a flat target response before you sell it. Use the FR measurements posted earlier in this thread as a guide to what you need to cut. This is as an experiment to see if you like a ruler flat target response. If this is what you like, then it will help guide your next headphone purchase.

It was already listed on 5 different website.
It wont sell over night anyways. so plenty of time to test this EQ thingy.

But I already know what I will buy so no worries.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
***SOLD***


Thank god it's over.
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,758
Likes
1,807
Location
Scania
The thing with absolutes.
I will not venture in the esoteric brand anymore. There's absolutely no way this will happen again in the near future.

Tonight I'm also testing a new monitoring system here. It's called VSX and it's a bundle that come with a set of Headphone with beryllium drivers and a spatial plugin to use in a DAW to simulate different mixing environment.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
Guys, it's over. Stop bickering. I'm completely out.

I will not go back to this stupid niche market ever again.

The disappointment was too great on the professional support side as much as the product rendering side.

That was trash at its finest.

I'm out.

Keep your energy for some other threads and let this one die.

That was shameful for the whole IEM community to say the least.
 

ThatSoundsGood

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 12, 2022
Messages
152
Likes
125
Let's see them then.

The FR measurements I posted were taken by Crinacle, and he uses a pinna-less set-up, so precision (i.e. positional repeatability in the centre of the coupler, at the same depth) will be high. If it wasn't he wouldn't be able to achieve measurements like these showing, in contrast to the so-called 'high end' U12t, very low channel and unit variance (at 1/40th the price):

View attachment 276208

View attachment 276209
I finally got a measurement on my 64 Audio custom 12T's. This measurement was done in an extremely noisy environment (a band was playing on stage). So, the low stuff that is different is because of that. The couple of spots that look different (250Hz-1.5K) are due to the angle of how they were measured in the miemi and when I angled it differently, they would come in line but the top end would go out. This is mitigated when they are in the ear canal since they aren't bouncing off of a wall and being changed on the way to the ear. This is why it's so important to have custom in ears made since they aim at the ear drum properly. It's similar to the difference of sitting on-axis to a speaker and sitting way below the speaker. Also, please excuse the bad quality picture. I didn't have time to download the frequency response to a USB stick so I just took a picture. Please note that it's incredibly zoomed in and the horizontal lines are 6db apart so any separation in them is probably around 1db and as I mentioned is a result of the angle that the in ears are being measured at.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0074.JPG
    IMG_0074.JPG
    217.2 KB · Views: 84

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,350
Likes
1,830
I finally got a measurement on my 64 Audio custom 12T's. This measurement was done in an extremely noisy environment (a band was playing on stage). So, the low stuff that is different is because of that. The couple of spots that look different (250Hz-1.5K) are due to the angle of how they were measured in the miemi and when I angled it differently, they would come in line but the top end would go out. This is mitigated when they are in the ear canal since they aren't bouncing off of a wall and being changed on the way to the ear. This is why it's so important to have custom in ears made since they aim at the ear drum properly. It's similar to the difference of sitting on-axis to a speaker and sitting way below the speaker. Also, please excuse the bad quality picture. I didn't have time to download the frequency response to a USB stick so I just took a picture. Please note that it's incredibly zoomed in and the horizontal lines are 6db apart so any separation in them is probably around 1db and as I mentioned is a result of the angle that the in ears are being measured at.
You said:
I have taken frequency response measurements of many sets of custom 12's and they match perfectly.
You've posted a measurement of one. With significant channel mismatch. (Which, despite your best attempts to excuse it, is not inevitable with customs.) Where's this 'perfect matching' you claimed?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom