Poll: Do you like Harman In-Ear target curve?

[TimW]

I voted for the first option. Idk about perfect but the Truthear Zero is the best sounding ear/headphone I've ever had.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Your understanding of couplers and acoustic impedance is confused. Read this.

Evidently you do not, or at least are not knowledgeable to understand what I was trying to get at with the discussion of the sub-bass, and this is important as the IEM has audible boost prior to its response rolling off at low frequencies. This will impact the overall tonal signature of the IEM, and would easily explain why the boost is there to begin with. Amir has the same comment as me, in that IEMs generally do not have much sub-bass. The boost above is almost certainly to compensate for it, and is my biggest complaint, here. It can give some tubbiness or muddiness to things with relatively pure tones that fall in that region. Again, minor, but in the big picture its potentially quite relevant. You mentioned you got this IEM, but made no mention of how you deal with the fact that the response drops below about 50-60 Hz. Cant EQ lower frequencies up, as it wont work. It just sounds bad for me, even on the Heresy 3 op-amp based amp with multiple unity gain followers with a very low output impedance I grabbed to try it again with. Same issue, which I actually suspect is more fundamental to the function of the IEM at low frequencies, but this has eluded you. If at very low frequencies the ear drum moves at all in any significant amount relative to the IEM's transducers and with a similar order of magnitude displacement volume-wise without good transmission of motion to the cochlea, it will start to unload them as it will no longer be fully pressurizing the ear canal, but working to deform/displace the ear drum and load the ossicular chain instead of driving the stapes and actuating the cochlea. I have not to date seen any meaningful investigations into whether its a potential issue. Maybe its been done via probing and taking measurements and there's no evidence for it and the lack of perceptual low bass is something else like simply not having a large enough transducer, but if yes then this means it wont have as much subjective deep bass, which will hurt the subjective preference as Dr. Toole points out in that the bass is 30% of our preference with respect to speakers, as I'm sure you know as you would regurgitate it when prompted. You did when quoting his research on TILTS which is completely different since its not an offset. Its cumulative and results in greater and greater deviation from the target. You know, its a TILT and not an OFFSET. An offset isn't cumulative, and is likely closer to around 1 dB for the JND.

Also in the thread where you discuss getting the IEM, you did not provide at any time anyone with the information they were trying to extract from you on how this IEM deviates from the Harman target subjectively for you. Just your usual ramblings while clearly demonstrating you don't have any actual fundamental understanding, just that you are so tediously pedantic that you slavishly read things others publish to use as ammunition in arguments. A great example is you failing to understand the significance of this family of responses posted as a response to you. Its significant if you are familiar with acoustics and resonances. For myself with this IEM its just over 8 kHz, with a more subtle rise around 11 kHz, which is the general trend seen in the plot.

Instead you get called out for bull****ing your way through the conversation with the following: "I would like to see the insert microphones you use to measure the resonant frequencies of the IEMs you own in your ears. It is specialist equipment which @Dazerdoreal and the rest of us are not lucky enough to own, so sine sweeps are a compromise to demonstrate roughly where the resonant peaks are for us."

The only meaningful reference to an actual EARDRUM in your link regurgitations above is the following, which without looking at the IEC standard is almost certainly a reference to high frequencies where the ear canal will be acting as a resonant cavity or transmission line:

• A more accurate approach takes into account the acoustic impedance of the ear, ear canal and especially the ear drum. Since the ear drum is not the same hardness as the diaphragm of the microphone, it will reflect sound differently. A well designed measurement rig will feature small groves and well designed volumes so that the ratio of sound pressure p and sound velocity v will have the exact value as it would in an actual ear with an actual eardrum. This is important because otherwise the acoustic load that the ear provides against the headphone would not be the same - and even if you manage to measure 1 set of headphones exactly like on a real ear, it could differ a lot for a different set of headphones because the acoustic impedance of the ear is not the same. The acoustic impedance of the average human ear is specified in IEC60711 (current version: IEC60318-4). Measurement couplers that fulfill this spec are called "711-coupler". For the nerds: I use a Gras RA0045 in configuration 43AC/43AG.

But here the bass and sub-bass I'm brining up because we both agree on that part by your metrics, and its the most logical explanation for the offset seen in the treble, namely subjective balance which you have not acknowledged. If the IEM can have meaningful low frequency response then the upper bass hump and treble lift can be confidently dispensed with via EQ. If, however, there are some oddities with acoustics and such down there that preclude that, then more care is needed in removing it. But, like the other thread you link to where you "review" this IEM after getting it and others proposed EQs, its going nowhere fast with you just obfuscating and providing everything else but what people ask of you. You know, like you have an agenda to push or are just being deliberately obtuse for your own amusement.

Either way, without anything more than copy pastas and line-by-line objections, I don't think there's much more to be said, here. I'm not the only one who says this IEM is fairly compliant to a reasonable accuracy, Sean Olive had the same comment as well based on measurements when it was released. Granted, this isn't the thing falling right on top of the target like you think it should for compliance, and expecting only excellent compliance to be a valid qualifier for subjectively conveying the overall Harman sound. But that just shows your general lack of feel for how things translate into the real world.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Yet another straw man. You'll have built a while army of them for you to attack soon enough. I've pointed out all the significant deviations of the Truthear's response from the Harman target and how they likely affect eachother perceptually from the beginning, including in the (sub)bass, not just the upper midrange / treble. I've focused mainly on the Truthear's and Harman's upper mids / lower treble and differences between them in this thread because, you know, that's what this poll is about.

After getting over your laziness of making other people try and reconstruct your posting history here at ASR to get the replies you should have typed for you, I took a trip down the mouse-click rabbit hole you provided, we finally have some useable information from you:

Yeah, I mostly use EQ though so that cancels that advantage. Also, it matters where the response is more accurate. For example, the Truthear is a bit over target bettween 1 and ~3 kHz, which can make for a somewhat 'shouty' sound, and can be particularly bothersome compared to inaccuracies in other parts of the frequency response. And this shoutiness is just what @Resolve heard with them, likely also exacerbated by the slight lack of energy between 125 and ~225 Hz ('warmth'), and possibly the lacking sub-bass too:

Ok. Cool. While I don't think its somewhat "shouty" it can have a slight brightness to it, on the order of what Amir's measurements show. BUT, you then state the EQ you tried from someone else:

This is LITERALLY the same thing I did, and the sub-bass was an issue, regardless of the device. With content like classical it did provide a better overall tonality, but with more bass-heavy content it was an issue. Not only is the sub-bass not really there perceptually, but it sounds off, and it doesn't sound as good as the stock tuning. We are still where we started, but only after about 20,000 words because you can't be bothered to do anything more than just post links with little context and leave it to others to interpret for you. If you had simply posted the above comment and EQ curve to begin with, this conversation would have never happened, but then you don't get the dopamine hit from arguing with people. This is further evidenced by you being quite elusive and not bothering to mention that you do have this IEM, and only chose to mention it when it suited your argument and made your interlocutor look foolish in your mind.

Anyhow, I think this conversation has reached its terminus.

 

[markanini]

Another thing being ignored here by you in your references to a pressure chamber is the fact that the IEM doesn't go into a GRAS fixture, which is a true pressure chamber as far as I know with the coupler at the end. Instead it goes into an ear canal with an eardrum at the end of it that is a flexible membrane. This will likely pose a complex and varying acoustical impedance to the IEM at low frequencies.

It's Greek to someone who only quotes authoritive texts when it supports him, and lacks desire to understand the physics behind it. I also noted the fallacy to treat chamber pressure as a constant which isn't true for real world conditions.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

It's Greek to someone who only quotes authoritive texts when it supports him, and lacks desire to understand the physics behind it. I also noted the fallacy to treat chamber pressure as a constant which isn't true for real world conditions.

Exactly. There's just so many variables to consider. In terms of pressure chambers the unambiguous issue will be leakage, which probably swamps out any other potential effects, which will increase proportionally as the frequency goes down, causing bass droop. Out of curiosity I took a wet Q-tip and put a film of water around the ear canals so the tip could get a perfect seal, and this alone raises the bass response enough that there's no need to do anything to the treble. Additionally, there is now useable extension since the low frequency region is likely nearly flat since its no longer hemorrhaging air. Taking out the upper bass hump, and adding about 2-3 dB of boost in the lower bass region to raise it a bit I now have an IEM that sounds as good as a large set of headphones with nice, authoritative bass down to 20 Hz! The distortion is gone, too, since the drivers are now seeing a more uniform load and not just flopping around uselessly. Of course, in practice things are never this nice and getting a perfect seal has the hidden consequence that the volume of air is completely trapped in the ear canal, and even small pressure changes are uncomfortable. Since most people would not like the idea of having to have slimy, wet IEMs in their ears or the feeling of someone shoving toilet plungers on the sides of their head, the tuning makes sense as its to optimize around the eventualities of using an IEM in everyday conditions. Still, I wish they were ideal, these just sound so much better! Of course, I could compromise with other types of tips to get something in-between, but then it won't be as comfortable to wear.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

How can there be so much Sturm und Drang in a thread that simply asks, "do you like?" It's a matter of opinion, you either like it or you don't. The hairsplitting over whether one can fairly judge the Harman curve from an IEM that deviates from it in the 3kHz region by 1.5dB hardly seems worth so much angst. As I stated, I find the roughly 10dB peak in the Harman curve about 5dB too high. Truthear Zeros seem to measure 1.5 dB higher than that, so in my estimation the "Zero" IEM is about 6.5dB hot in that region for my taste. It might be preferable to some chunk of the population, but not to me, and no one's going to talk me out of that. I want what sounds to my brain, "natural." That's my preference. And this curve, to me, is far from it. Forget "shouty," it makes everyone sound like Bugs Bunny.

 

[dasdoing]

it's not very hard to evaluate the neutrality of Harman. create a very small stereo triangle with your speakers, something like 50cm (far from all boundaries). REW correct it to totaly flat. now you can compare reliably with your Harman corrected phones

 

[Jimbob54]

it's not very hard to evaluate the neutrality of Harman. create a very small stereo triangle with your speakers, something like 50cm (far from all boundaries). REW correct it to totaly flat. now you can compare reliably with your Harman corrected phones

No subs?

 

[jcarys]

I voted I like a little less mids, which we seem to now have narrowed down to the 3k peak. But the over-ripe bass is even more of an issue for me. I tame them both a bit flatter than the Harman preference curve. But the issue is really dependent on what you're playing. Some older pop recordings that have slightly anemic bass sound great with that added boost. Most classical also doesn't suffer with a bit extra bass, but the mid brightness really jumps out. I just keep my equalizer handy and adjust by a couple db as needed when it bothers me. Still love the Truthear - it's a no brainer at $50.

 

[dasdoing]

No subs?

if you bring them into the triangle....you don't want the room to interfere.
anyways, Harman bass rises below 200Hz, no sub needed for the test.
best test is with deep male voice anyways, since we are so used to how it sounds.

 

[GaryH]

Oh joy. Yet another incoherent spluttering of regurgitated audiophile myths and misconceptions, now replete with caps-lock shouting and expletives.

Evidently you do not, or at least are not knowledgeable to understand what I was trying to get at with the discussion of the sub-bass, and this is important ast he IEM has audible boost prior to its response rolling off at low frequencies

That's called the Helmholtz resonance of the front volume+vent. This should really be well below 20 Hz, but Truthear's poor design choices means it's in the audible band. The Helmholtz resonance frequency f_H is defined as:

where v is the speed of sound, V_0 is the volume of the air cavity, and A and L_eq relate to the (total) dimensions of the 'neck' (vents) of the resonator (cross-sectional area and length respectively). As the Helmholtz resonance frequency f_H is proportional to the square root of A/L_eq, the Truthear Zero's vent is likely too wide or too short, or both.

IEMs generally do not have much sub-bass

Wrong:

You mentioned you got this IEM, but made no mention of how you deal with the fact that the response drops below about 50-60 Hz. Cant EQ lower frequencies up, as it wont work.

Works ok for me. You might not be getting a good seal. Of course the extension below 20 Hz won't be as good as a closed front volume IEM which can extend to ~0 Hz with perfect seal and so full pressure chamber conditions.

I have not to date seen any meaningful investigations into whether its a potential issue.

Because it's not. The acoustic behaviour of the ear is characterized by its acoustic impedance, so that's what the coupler needs to emulate. It doesn't matter that it does this with carefully chosen volumes and vents rather than a flexible membrane. Listen to the professionals in the field:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/jd86qr/_/g9gaagf https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/jd86qr/_/gi64nxn And to our resident headphone technical expert:

for sound pressure at the eardrum emulating acoustic impedance at the eardrum is considered sufficient

As an analogy, a camera doesn't have to be built exactly like a human eye in order to produce comparable images.

the lack of perceptual low bass is something else like simply not having a large enough transducer

I've already shown you that's a myth with Oratory's explanation. I don't know why you're continuing to run with it.

TILTS which is completely different since its not an offset. Its cumulative and results in greater and greater deviation from the target. You know, its a TILT and not an OFFSET. An offset isn't cumulative, and is likely closer to around 1 dB for the JND.

A tilt is an 'offset', just one with an infinitesimal Q factor. You had the same problem with your previous invented distinction between 'part of the response lifted' relative to the Harman target and a 'tonality defect'. For the last time, look at how the JND of a deviation is lower with lower Q (i.e. more audible) from Toole's research. That's why the broadband (very low Q) deviation of the Truthear Zero above the Harman target in the upper-midrange / lower treble is significant and audible despite its relatively low amplitude.

Also in the thread where you discuss getting the IEM, you did not provide at any time anyone with the information they were trying to extract from you on how this IEM deviates from the Harman target subjectively for you.

You sure about that?

the (sub)bass was lacking. And the bass to mids transition isn't very cohesive, with a disconnected feel between them, likely due to the 'sub in an IEM!' gimmick, with the resultant mid-bass hump followed by a slight upper-bass dip and lower-midrange hump

All my subjective comments are in relation to the Harman target, because that's my preference and what I find neutral, just like the majority of listeners as found by Harman's research.

A great example is you failing to understand the significance of this family of responses posted as a response to you.

You sure about that?

An acoustic cavity blocked at both ends (in this case by the ear drum on one end and the IEM on the other) will form a half-wavelength resonator with the resonance frequency dependent on the length of the cavity (here affected by IEM insertion depth).

The only meaningful reference to an actual EARDRUM in your link regurgitations above is the following, which without looking at the IEC standard is almost certainly a reference to high frequencies where the ear canal will be acting as a resonant cavity or transmission line

So close, all you had to do was read a bit further than your last red-for-angry highlighted line:

A well designed measurement rig will feature small grooves and well designed volumes so that the ratio of sound pressure p and sound velocity v will have the exact value as it would in an actual ear with an actual eardrum. This is important because otherwise the acoustic load that the ear provides against the headphone would not be the same

As he states earlier, having the same acoustic impedance (defined over frequencies including bass, no idea why you'd think that just applies to high frequencies) is sufficient for the coupler to emulate the acoustic behaviour of the ear canal.

I'm not the only one who says this IEM is fairly compliant

Indeed you're not:

I've repeatedly said its compliance is very good

Granted, this isn't the thing falling right on top of the target like you think it should for compliance

Oh hello again Mr Straw. Man, thought you'd decided to skip this one, but you made it after all.

I took a trip down the mouse-click rabbit hole you provided, we finally have some useable information from you

It's called citing sources and claims backed with evidence, you should try it sometime, instead of reeling off endless unfounded speculations and baseless accusations.

BUT, you then state the EQ you tried from someone else

It's from the algorithmically generated AutoEQ.

This is LITERALLY the same thing I did

Except that's not what I did:

Even better is a modified AutoEQ EQ (which it looks like is calculated based on an average of all 9 samples Crinacle measured, so will likely be a better match for the average user with any one random unit), after increasing the bass by ~3 dB to get up to Harman levels, and skipping the 10 kHz filter which unnecessarily reduces upper treble extension and the filter at ~8 kHz which can cause a bit of bothersome sharpness.

Because by default AutoEQ does not actually EQ to the Harman target, but to 3 dB below it in the bass for IEMs. So all of this could be due to you carelessly overlooking this fact.

If you had simply posted the above comment and EQ curve to begin with, this conversation would have never happened, but then you don't get the dopamine hit from arguing with people. This is further evidenced by you being quite elusive and not bothering to mention that you do have this IEM, and only chose to mention it when it suited your argument

Hahaha this is priceless. You get exposed for making the groundless accusation that I've never heard this IEM, then you blame me for not psychically telling you what you want to hear? Then have a hissy fit and rage-quit. Hilarious. I wonder why you never told me which smartphone model you used with the Truthear. So elusive...I didn't mention I have this IEM because I don't place much importance on individual anecdotal impressions, like for example yours of the Truthear's bass, which ridiculously you seem to think is valid 'evidence' for something fundamentally wrong with IEMs and/or the measurements thereof.

and made your interlocutor look foolish

I've played no part in that.

Anyhow, I think this conversation has reached its terminus.

Indeed, I don't see why I should spend anymore of my time trying to help someone who has a fundamental lack of knowledge in the area and highly confused misconceptions learn the actual science behind all this, when they're just refusing to listen and spew nothing but nonsensical 'hypotheses' and baseless accusations in return.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

I'm going to bypass all of that and say that the actual issue was rather unexpected, namely the very fine structure of hairs within the ear canal itself. I'm not talking about when you get old and end up having your ears look like Don King popping the hatch on a submarine. These are there, in varying degrees between individuals, to help keep debris out of the ear canal, and detect the entrance of foreign objects. Given that my parents are medical doctors, I have some knowledge of anatomy and knew they were there, but never thought much of it. That was until I decided to try a set of foam tips, which I had yet to use and they had a somewhat tacky surface, and did a good job of picking up dander from the ear canal. When I took them out, they showed a clear pattern of where they had come into contact showed one area that had a light dusting of dead skin, but this was only over about 30-35% of the tip circumference, and both IEMs showed the same pattern of contact. However, the remaining circumference of the tip was completely free of debris, indicating it is not making actual contact with the ear canal, but being stood off slightly by the hairs. This is to be expected since they fold over and stack on top of each other when you stick an IEM tip in. Grabbing a borescope out of the tool box showed that the pattern on the IEM tips was an exact match to the part of the ear canal that was relatively free of hair. The practical upshot is that the layer of fine hairs was forming a semi-porous gap. Since it did a fairly good job of blocking out sound via the occlusion effect, the IEMs give the impression of being fully sealed, but they are not, but not for the reasons one would assume like the tip not conforming to the ear canal.

Now, checking the literature shows that my thoughts of there being some deviation from the function of the ear at very low frequencies were largely unfounded and does not factor into the loss in very low frequency bass. There is good coupling to the cochlea across the audible range which itself is quite stiff since its filled with lymph, and thus very little physical travel of the ear drum regardless. The only place were there is any significant increase in displacement is where the ear canal resonates at around 1 kHz. The rest is pretty flat. This is good. Electrically, the IEM and ear form the equivalent of a low-Z source driving a high-Z load. It will be largely the same as when it is in a GRAS fixture and provided its looking into a constant acoustical load in the ear canal will translate to similar performance in use. Nice to confirm. Edit: For the pedantic, Mad_Economist had this to say: "Depends on what you want to be accurate, but for sound pressure at the eardrum emulating acoustic impedance at the eardrum is considered sufficient. Note that conventional (60318-4/IEC711) couplers only emulate the impedance of real ears to about 8khz; the main feature of the new sims on the 5128 is extending that to 20khz." Looking at the transfer function of the eardrum relative to SPL at various frequencies shows its largely invariant with frequency, which is what I was wondering to begin with. Combined with it being fairly stiff means we can treat it as the terminus and not worry about it's own function having some outside effect on the IEM.

Now, getting back to the issue with the hairs. When they are trapped between the tip and the ear canal, they give a porous channel that does allow air to pass thru, regardless of insertion pressure as once they stack together, they cannot be compressed much more, and the internal voids means that the IEM tip cant be of much help in fixing it. What this translates to is that at frequencies in the upper bass region the path thru poses too much resistance to allow any significant fraction of the volume of air confined in the ear canal to escape, so there is good coupling between the IEM and the ear. However, as the frequency decreases, the ear canal spends longer and longer periods of time in compression and rarefaction, which means that the leakage is no longer negligible, and progressively more and more air can bypass the tip and unload the drivers, resulting in not only reduced output, but likely the additional distortion heard.

The "easy" fix was to add a film of water to each area of the ear canal where the tip sits. Since its relatively viscous and incompressible it does a good job of filling in all the remaining voids and providing a perfect seal. Now I can try EQing them to the Harman target using Amir's data. Given they now have a perfect seal, it should in principal have some added bass already which means I can start by removing the bass hump, and providing some low frequency boost that culminated in about 3 dB at 20 Hz and then taking it from there. The transformation was dramatic! I now had an IEM that had the same tonality and bass performance of a large headphone. It provided clean, undistorted bass right down to the lower threshold of hearing and beyond. No need to monkey much with the treble as it was clear for all intents and purposes the IEM was now essentially sitting on top of the target response, giving phenomenal tonality and a nice satisfying rumble with very low frequency content, just like a nice large pair of circumaural headphones.

The bad part is this level of seal is not possible in practice for many just due to anatomical differences and preferences in insertion depth and tip type. The ear canal is not a smooth silicone wall like the pinnae in a test fixture, it has structure to it that poses varying degrees of difficulty sealing wise that result in differing levels of leakage. As such, in normal circumstances for some users EQing to the Harman target may not work for a number of users. For me, with the set of tips I like using the stock tuning is the most optimal as all the equalization ends up doing is just causing distortion with no perceived increase in bass. As a matter of fact, this just makes the IEM brighter as well since the spectrum is now shifted towards the treble region. Maybe using a tri-flange tip I could get better and actually apply EQ, but then the IEM would not be as comfortable to use.

Either way, the stock response is likely the most optimal one for the IEM to have outside of an entire design change. It should be sufficiently conformant to the Harman target for most users. It was for Amir, it is for me and many others.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Except that's not what I did:

Because by default AutoEQ does not actually EQ to the Harman target, but to 3 dB below it in the bass for IEMs. So all of this could be due to you carelessly overlooking this fact.

Yes it is. See below:

Now, of course the actual value is closer to 2.5 dB, but its still on the same order of what I applied. Edit: Removed after some more digging. Double-edit: Even more damning is what you posted above:

the (sub)bass was lacking. And the bass to mids transition isn't very cohesive, with a disconnected feel between them, likely due to the 'sub in an IEM!' gimmick, with the resultant mid-bass hump followed by a slight upper-bass dip and lower-midrange hump

All my subjective comments are in relation to the Harman target, because that's my preference and what I find neutral, just like the majority of listeners as found by Harman's research.

My god... How long have I been saying this? The fact that IEMs in general wont have much sub-bass is the core issue. Maybe some designs can address this, but as I stated above the leakage rates are quite variable. I thought this overall issue would be obvious, but it wasn't since I stated this over and over and over and over... Only to find that you have the same impression in regards to the sub-bass despite saying otherwise that IEMs automatically can have good sub-bass. Take out the bass hump, and what do you have left? Subjectively your observations are a bit exaggerated, but this is a real-world design with optimizations. And with a good seal it does perform very well, but that seal, tho? Can't really get around that without going down some other path, but you have yet to convince me that the tuning here is too far away from the Harman target to not be a good indicator of its overall tonality. For most people who don't squint on purpose to find discontent it will. Others the inherent deviations in said target with regards to preferences will cause issues in their own right.

Triple-edit:

Wrong:

Uh, did you not miss the part about fixtures not being people? You said it yourself, it doesn't have much sub-bass despite there only being a small shortfall there in the measurements of around 2-3 dB. Its not a little under the target like my floor system subjectively. It PLUMMETS like a rock due to leakage since I don't have GRAS ears. You can go on about design and physics and leakage and planar drivers or whatever, but until we come with calibrated ears its a moot point since you have no control over the greatest variable, namely evolutionary biology.

QUAD-EDIT: Oratory sez...

That is indeed wrong in closely coupled systems (like headphones, earphones, in-ear headphones).

It's somewhat true for free-field applications (large loudspeakers, studio monitors, PA speakers), but not for headphones where the pressurized volume of air is so small, it's better described as a pressure chamber (pressure depending on diaphragm excursion as opposed to diaphragm acceleration).

Right, for an IEM that has a perfect seal. Out here in meat-space the coupling is complete s*** at low frequencies. Turns out the seal is NFG down there. Doesn't have deep bass.

Ok, enough edits.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Because by default AutoEQ does not actually EQ to the Harman target, but to 3 dB below it in the bass for IEMs. So all of this could be due to you carelessly overlooking this fact.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you actually remembered to ADD the indicated 3 dB shortfall of AutoEQ back into the PEQ parameters you used to actually ensure the IEM is on the Harman target as you indicate. If you did, then what you posted is confusing. You are correcting me on overlooking a bias between two different IEM target responses while simultaneously removing that bias for your listening comparisons to get to the same target I am using. Which is it? If you pulled the PEQ up to the Harman target, then this is a pointless response correcting me on something that, by your own definition, are doing as well. Either way, the conversation over the treble is a continuing to be meaningless due to aforementioned variations. Its perfect imperfection.

Edit: Engaging in some more recursive post-tracing, yes that was already taken into consideration in that I assumed that you had done what was necessary. Again, this is information you provided in your links. If its not actually what you did. Please post that, instead directly rather than the link. How am I supposed to know otherwise after I have gone two or three layers into your post to get the information? This is the core issues with your posts to begin with and likely why this has devolved into what it is. You slather them with links, quotes from others, and organize it into tedious PowerPoint-style replies that go line by line rather than form a cohesive argument. Nobody wants to think for you, nor do they want to have to go down one rabbit hole after another trying to reconstruct what you are saying. That EQ is a good example. I assumed you had taken that eventuality into account and that the overall shape of the bass region was what I was targeting, not absolute levels. In your zeal to correct me, you then assumed, otherwise.

Anyway, I've had my fill of this for good... Its the holidays. Hope everyone has a merry Christmas.

 

[markanini]

Maybe using a tri-flange tip I could get better and actually apply EQ, but then the IEM would not be as comfortable to use.

Probably not as comfortable, more used for deep insertion with some exceptions.

I'm rather impressed when I come by a well fitting tip in shallow insertion IEMs. They use a specific round shape, large enough that it stops the IEMs from falling out the ear canal on it's natural course of pushing out a foreign object. In the end every user is at the mercy of their individual anatomy even if the manufacturer did succeed in providing a good range of tip dimensions.

In contrast tri-flange tips, in a deep insertion context, work by increasing surface area and friction to keep it immobile. If you attempted deep insertion of a shallow insertion tip it would compress and lose it's shape ruining the FR, and given some time move to it's intended position on it's own.

Deep insertion will exert a higher PSI in the ear canal. Anyone familiar with the physics knows this changes the properties of a membrane in an enclosed space. A IEM for deep vs shallow insertion would also be tuned differently in the upper-mids to trebles on account of a shifted half-wave resonance. A quarter-wave resonance tuned to 3kHz normally, is rather stable on a coupler regardless of insertion depth. The trend for deep insertion IEMs is a higher measured 3kHz elevation.

It's hard to use in ear microphones, like with over-ears, to quantify all possible effects of fit and seal. Because the seal break is not-so-negligible in an IEM context. So it's a bit disingenuous to conclude, like some do, that the effects don't matter, it's just unknown how much. Fun fact we know the speed of light despite not being able to measure it.

At the same time it's not strictly necessary to have a deep understanding of all variables for the purposes of producing a good preference curve through a statical study. Those carrying out a study should just be aware enough to control for the effects in order to reduce erroneous data.

 

[Dazerdoreal]

(I lost a bit the plot of what this debate is about.)

According to Amirs measurements the Truthear Zero is slightly shoutier than the Harman target, it has slightly less subbass and a slight hump in the lower mids. So while it rather close, it is not "the" Harman Target.

So if someone finds this IEM okay overall but slightly too shouty or mid-bassy, chances are good he still likes the Harman Target. If it sounds totally off to him, he probably also doesnt like the Harman Target. Personally, I probably would not like the stock tuning of the Truthear Zero.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Probably not as comfortable, more used for deep insertion with some exceptions.

I'm rather impressed when I come by a well fitting tip in shallow insertion IEMs. They use a specific round shape, large enough that it stops the IEMs from falling out the ear canal on it's natural course of pushing out a foreign object. In the end every user is at the mercy of their individual anatomy even if the manufacturer did succeed in providing a good range of tip dimensions.

In contrast tri-flange tips, in a deep insertion context, work by increasing surface area and friction to keep it immobile. If you attempted deep insertion of a shallow insertion tip it would compress and lose it's shape ruining the FR, and given some time move to it's intended position on it's own.

Deep insertion will exert a higher PSI in the ear canal. Anyone familiar with the physics knows this changes the properties of a membrane in an enclosed space. A IEM for deep vs shallow insertion would also be tuned differently in the upper-mids to trebles on account of a shifted half-wave resonance. A quarter-wave resonance tuned to 3kHz normally, is rather stable on a coupler regardless of insertion depth. The trend for deep insertion IEMs is a higher measured 3kHz elevation.

It's hard to use in ear microphones, like with over-ears, to quantify all possible effects of fit and seal. Because the seal break is not-so-negligible in an IEM context. So it's a bit disingenuous to conclude, like some do, that the effects don't matter, it's just unknown how much. Fun fact we know the speed of light despite not being able to measure it.

At the same time it's not strictly necessary to have a deep understanding of all variables for the purposes of producing a good preference curve through a statical study. Those carrying out a study should just be aware enough to control for the effects in order to reduce erroneous data.

Regarding the tips absolutely. I don’t like deviating from what is normally recommended since it will alter so many parameters and throw the response off. I probably would not want to experiment too much without at least some capacity to measure and correct for deviations.

The effect of the quality of the seal is also an unknown too in that not every IEM will exhibit the same sensitivity depending on its design. Given this is a fairly small IEM, one would surmise it could show a fair bit of sensitivity to leakage and exhibit a good bit of droop in the bass response, but it’s still an unknown without knowledge of the acoustical design. Still if IEMs show varying degrees of sensitivity then naturally we can expect their spread in responses to differ quite a bit it’s respect to the effects of leakage, and this alone could cause a lot of misjudgment's on the overall tonality of the Harman target. It only says what the transfer function should be to get a neutral response that most people prefer without respect to any other parameters since those were carefully controlled during the study to limit their effects.

Still, the effects of seal leakage with respect to the IEM design would make for an interesting topic since it will be there always to some degree, not to mention all the other pitfalls one can encounter with IEMs.

 

[dasdoing]

in my experience tri-flange is just an option that fits more sizes. one of the three will make the seal. if you have enough mono-flange sizes available to try out you will find the perfect seal with them, too. but you defintly need 5-6 sizes or even more

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

in my experience tri-flange is just an option that fits more sizes. one of the three will make the seal. if you have enough mono-flange sizes available to try out you will find the perfect seal with them, too. but you defintly need 5-6 sizes or even more

The tri-flange would probably be the only option in my case that could get a good enough seal, but also have the largest potential negative impact on tonality. That is what sort of sucks about the tips is that they can alter the tuning as has been stated above. Fortunately with the stock tuning this IEM works well enough even though some leakage will inevitably be there even with the optimal tip. Looking back at Amir’s review I am using the same tips he did for listening. As long as they give a similar insertion depth relative to the measurements all should be well.

 

[GaryH]

Fun fact we know the speed of light despite not being able to measure it.

What are you on about now? There's nothing fun about misinformation. We have many ways of measuring the speed of light. In fact, it can even be done to reasonable accuracy by a college student with a simple table-top experiment. Please stop spreading pseudoscientific nonsense, whether it's about light, sound, or whichever other subject you think you know what you're talking about but in reality have an obvious lack of basic understanding.