Qudelix finally released their (AME?) T71 multi channel IEM....Do we care?

[tjf]

Hi - since I use a T71 I care - I might go for this - will anyone else on ASR go for this concept?

T71 IEM

Qudelix Bluetooth Qualcomm QCC512x ES9218P ESS DAC USB SONY LDAC Headphone Amp HiFi Audio aptX

www.qudelix.com

 

[frix]

interesting concept

 

[kemmler3D]

It's interesting, but it depends most of all on how well they implement BRTF / HRTF so that it actually sounds like surround. Also, it is not totally clear to me why they need separate wires for each driver in each ear. I guess they decided to do the crossovers in the box instead of the IEM?

 

[tjf]

Yes - that's my main interest - DSP xovers for bass/mids/highs "Tri-amping" the IEM, rather than multi channel surround effects, which will likely be minimally effective at best...

Not sure how well an 8mm DD driver will do for Bass, and not sure the BA drivers will be to my liking - but with the way the world is these days - music and relatively inexpensive (for me at least - for some not) hardware to listen to music is a good escape from reality...

 

[Phorize]

Hi - since I use a T71 I care - I might go for this - will anyone else on ASR go for this concept?

T71 IEM

Qudelix Bluetooth Qualcomm QCC512x ES9218P ESS DAC USB SONY LDAC Headphone Amp HiFi Audio aptX

www.qudelix.com

I have the t71 which is great as a 2 channel desktop device but I can't get my head around this iem. I don't see how they can accomplish something that approximates 7.1 sound when the sound source is positioned in one place. I use headphones mainly but have a few iems and won't be buying this one anytime soon.

 

[DVDdoug]

It's unlikely to work very well... One of the main ways we locate sound is to turn our head, sometimes subconsciously, and sometimes to "look" where the sound is coming from and that allows use to get multiple triangulations.

With headphones or in-ears, of course the whole "band" or "soundstage" moves. There are head-tracking headphones, but I've never tried them.

Most people don't even get a realistic stereo soundstage illusion with headphones/IEMS.

 

[tjf]

That's why I'm more interested in the DSP based active xover Tri-amped scenario for 2 channel music - curious how the dynamics and separation of frequency ranges will be, as well as overall definition and reduction of distortion - for stereo content...as long as the BA drivers don't cause issues...

 

[staticV3]

Do we care?

Not with this kind of marketing material (2nd paragraph, specifically):


Complete nonsense.

 

[tjf]

Perhaps sacrificing the IEM by hacking off the IEMs to use the "Special 10-wire cable" to connect to wiring for a 4 way DSP based xover system w/PEQ???

Assuming you're ok with the task and can kiss off $232...

Wonder if Qudelix could get AME to make a version of the "Special 10-wire cable" with 8 x RCA female ends - or a DB25 connector????

 

[staticV3]

Perhaps sacrificing the IEM by hacking off the IEMs to use the "Special 10-wire cable" to connect to wiring for a 4 way DSP based xover system w/PEQ???

Assuming you're ok with the task and can kiss off $232...

Wonder if Qudelix could get AME to make a version of the "Special 10-wire cable" with 8 x RCA female ends - or a DB25 connector????

In theory, no need to sacrifice an IEM. The pinout for 8ch analog audio via USB-C is known and the T71's DSP capability should be plenty.

Qudelix is developing a MiniDSP destroyer.

I think this is strictly a DAC, no ADC

www.audiosciencereview.com

All that's potentially missing is software support.

 

[tjf]

In theory, no need to sacrifice an IEM. The pinout for 8ch analog audio via USB-C is known and the T71's DSP capability should be plenty.

Qudelix is developing a MiniDSP destroyer.

I think this is strictly a DAC, no ADC

www.audiosciencereview.com

All that's potentially missing is software support.

Given that software support for up to 8 channels of DSP x-over capability has at least been hinted at the Qudelix's promotional literature for the T71, actually making use of 4 DSP x-overs per channel for separate amplifiers (rather than just for the IEM) will require adapting a USB-C plug to create the wiring path - IF you're trying to adapt the T71 to become the "Mini DSP destroyer" that another forum member had named the T71...

From a practical standpoint, I would think if Qudelix actually does offer a configurable DSP x-over suite rather than just being preset for the T71 IEM, as they did for the "QX-Over" IEM (the hardware would allow this: the ARM processor, the 8 channels of DACs and buffer amps) that can adapt to other transducers - not just the T71 IEM...That would be super special, but it's unlikely to happen...

I would think that sacrificing a T71 IEM to use the cable as the path to connect to separate amplifiers is the most likely way to make this work - rather than building from scratch an 8 channel cable that connects to a USB-C plug to interface with the cables to connect to 8 channels of power amplification - that I would think would be rather difficult...

Anyway - I think Qudelix and the maker of the T71 IEM - Korean company AME - probably won't go down this path...If a 8 channel x-over capability does become reality -- it'll likely be just for the T71 IEM and not configurable, as the did for the "QX-Over" IEM...

 

[oratory1990]

I don't see the benefit of using separate loudspeakers for each channel when they are all being coupled directly to the ear canal anyway.
The individual speakers don't carry any directional cues, as they bypass the head and pinna entirely.

You may argue that separate speakers for separate signals will reduce intermodulation distortion - and I would agree, though of course due to the close coupling, we really don't need a lot of excursion to reach high enough sound pressures, and hence we don't really run into distortion problems anyway.

 

[InfiniteJester]

I don't see the benefit of using separate loudspeakers for each channel when they are all being coupled directly to the ear canal anyway.
The individual speakers don't carry any directional cues, as they bypass the head and pinna entirely.

You may argue that separate speakers for separate signals will reduce intermodulation distortion - and I would agree, though of course due to the close coupling, we really don't need a lot of excursion to reach high enough sound pressures, and hence we don't really run into distortion problems anyway.

Maybe applying different DSPs to the channels?

DSPs work reasonably well for me in certain tracks.

 

[tjf]

Maybe applying different DSPs to the channels?

DSPs work reasonably well for me in certain tracks.

Exactly, I think using DSP x-overs as well as the PEQ of the T71 and elimination of the passive xovers in this DD/BA hybrid IEM would offer audible benefits beyond reduction of IM distortion...

 

[oratory1990]

Maybe applying different DSPs to the channels?

DSPs work reasonably well for me in certain tracks.

Sure - but you can just as well apply different processing to different channels and then sum them all up and play the resulting sound over a single speaker.

Since the loudspeaker in an in-ear headphone carries no directional cues, no information is lost that way.

 

[tjf]

Sure - but you can just as well apply different processing to different channels and then sum them all up and play the resulting sound over a single speaker.

Since the loudspeaker in an in-ear headphone carries no directional cues, no information is lost that way.

For the sake of this conversation, rather than focusing on the "7.1 surround" capabilities that Qudelix is suggesting (which in my mind won't work and seems to be a promotional gimmick) , wouldn't a 2 channel scenario using DSP x-overs and multi amplification be a more valid use of the T71 IEM and T71 USB DAC device?

And if this functionality became reality, would it not offer greater audible benefits than just reduction of IM distortion - since the T71 IEM apparently has no passive xovers built-in as other hybrid IEMs do?

 

[InfiniteJester]

Sure - but you can just as well apply different processing to different channels and then sum them all up and play the resulting sound over a single speaker.

Since the loudspeaker in an in-ear headphone carries no directional cues, no information is lost that way.

That is what HeSuVi does, right? But is there anything on Android that does something similar? Because I'm kind of stuck experimenting with Impulse Responses from 2014 loaded in the Convolver script of JamesDSP.

BTW, thanks for your EQ profiles and your posts, I have enjoyed a lot of your work and I have learned a lot from it.

 

[oratory1990]

That is what HeSuVi does, right?

HeSuVi, and also every other software that creates 3D audio over stereo headphones.
This includes Smyth Realizer, Apple's 3D audio and every "7.1" gaming headphone.

 

[tjf]

For the sake of this conversation, rather than focusing on the "7.1 surround" capabilities that Qudelix is suggesting (which in my mind won't work and seems to be a promotional gimmick) , wouldn't a 2 channel scenario using DSP x-overs and multi amplification be a more valid use of the T71 IEM and T71 USB DAC device?

And if this functionality became reality, would it not offer greater audible benefits than just reduction of IM distortion - since the T71 IEM apparently has no passive xovers built-in as other hybrid IEMs do?

Well - just ordered the T71 IEM from Qudelix, hopefully it won't be too much of a disappointment -it'll also be my 1st experience with BA drivers and a Hybrid IEM...

I'm interested to see how it works with my T71 for stereo content via it's DSP 3 or 4 way x-over system - fingers crossed and visa card charged....

 

[mhardy6647]

Not with this kind of marketing material (2nd paragraph, specifically):
View attachment 380054

Complete nonsense.

Oy.
I mean, they did this with quad headphones in the seventies. I don't think our pinnas (pinnae?) or ear canals have evolved much since then -- and I am pretty sure we still have two ears - above-ground nuclear testing in days of yore notwithstanding.