Creating a bunch of FUD against IEMs and taking us farther and farther away from standardization is a huge disservice to audiophiles. You keep doing this and never get this larger picture. Or maybe you do and like the confusion that it creates. Unlike stuff you are throwing at the board, Harman's IEM research is backed by correlation to listening tests -- something you have never, ever done. That you then proceed to complain about their work while having never done yours, is stay the least, preposterous.
I'm not sure how you manage to wilfully misinterpret the Harman research so hard and so long.
The solution for all of this is simple: develop your own EQ starting with the measurements. Try what I and others produce. Then make small adjustments to taste. There is no solution other than this. It is absurd to chase this and that target, worry about this and that fixture as they are doing in that video.
And yet that is exactly what you do. You chase only the standard and statistically weak average PREFERENCE curve from the Harman research whilst completely ignoring all the caveats and inadequacies of the field as they develop new and better methodology. At some point (hopefully in the not too distant future) the updated research will show up many of the inadequacies with the original research.
The references about different targets and measurement fixtures/systems in that video show how ridiculously facile your process is, completely ignoring how poor the current state of the science is when it comes to IEM and headphone measurements and individual variance in experience.
Your IEM/Headphone review procedure is as follows:
1. Take an approximate measurement.
2. Compare it to some fairly weak research on consumer preferences.
3. If it matches => Recommend.
4. If it doesn't match => attempt to EQ to match, if successful without horrible distortion then Recommend, else do not recommend.
5. Apply confirmation bias during EQ process for subjective self-congratulation.
It's ridiculous, and Dr Toole in interviews is obviously embarrassed that you are misusing his research so badly.
How about doing your subjective tests and first round of EQ
FIRST? - then run it through the rig with that EQ applied. We will then see how closely and reliably your subjective preference curve actually matches Harman, and you can build up a database of how much role bias plays the subjective part of your reviews.
Also to the fools who think that the only thing you need is FR that matches the Harman preference curve and there is literally nothing else except cosmetics perhaps you should actually listen to a few different IEMs.
Crinacle has hard-gamed this site so much with his collabs its hilarious, and he's laughing all the way to the bank.
There is no magic in IEMs, it's all science, but the state of the science in this field is only just surface level and part of being a decent scientist is understanding how much is still not known and not zealously over-applying early results.
