Tanchjim Origin IEM Review

[USER]

I would love to know the sales numbers for all of these "boutique" iems and headphones. There is so much self-seriousness involved, thanks in large parts to the narcissism engendered by youtube channels, with everyone throwing out their own target curves, belittling each other, and never really doing their own homework.

I wonder if Harman/JBL just laughs at all of this.

JBL Hits 200 Million Headphones Milestone

STAMFORD, Conn. – December 8, 2022 – HARMAN International, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., focused on connected technologies for automotive, consumer and enterprise markets, is delighted to announce that it has achieved a tremendous new milestone. The...

news.harman.com

 

[Honken]

You ever participated in a controlled test to verify your preference? I remember not believing in their research for speakers either until I sat through their blind test and voted just like the majority did in their research.

I consider this to be a bit unfair. Even with IEMs that have a lower pinna gain than Harman IE I find highs to be piercing to the point of hurting. Personally I do like the peak to be ~around where the Harman curve is, but to have a much faster and steeper slope down from it's peak around 3200 Hz.

Personally, I find the Harman curve to be a great yard stick however. Most of the time I can look at the pinna gain and judge whether or not I will like the IEM without EQ, and while my observations are more than a little bit sighted, I do find the correlation to be overwhelmingly true when I actually listen to the IEM myself.

Personally, other than how far the pinna peak goes in the Harman 2019 IEM curve goes, I agree with it. I don't think they arrived at it willy nilly, but I won't swear by it no matter how useful I find it.

As for this IEM, what's the point of it? If nothing else there is (lot) cheaper sets that to me seem to do the same thing, but better. I do laude it for being a single dynamic driver IEM however. Esoteric IEM drivers seem pointless to me considering how well a single DD performs when executed well.

 

[Resolve]

I'm not sure how you manage to wilfully misinterpret the Harman research so hard and so long.

100%. Thankfully... Dr. Olive liked the video, and he even found similar results when testing HRTFs, in particular the treble overestimation. But let's not let that get in the way of the narrative here. The headphone illuminati that doesn't really focus on IEMs is hard at work denigrating the category.

...oh wait.

 

[markanini]

I would love to know the sales numbers for all of these "boutique" iems and headphones. There is so much self-seriousness involved, thanks in large parts to the narcissism engendered by youtube channels, with everyone throwing out their own target curves, belittling each other, and never really doing their own homework.

I wonder if Harman/JBL just laughs at all of this.

JBL Hits 200 Million Headphones Milestone

STAMFORD, Conn. – December 8, 2022 – HARMAN International, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., focused on connected technologies for automotive, consumer and enterprise markets, is delighted to announce that it has achieved a tremendous new milestone. The...

news.harman.com

Wouldn't the same delusion be equally capable of inflating the perceived performance of inexpensive IEMs? I'm pointing this out as a big hyper of inexpensive IEMs for many years, before you assume any bias on my part.

 

[USER]

Wouldn't the same delusion be equally capable of inflating the perceived performance of inexpensive IEMs? I'm pointing this out as a big hyper of inexpensive IEMs for many years, before you assume any bias on my part.

I am still in awe of and grateful for the sound quality of inexpensive IEMs these days so I don't think performance is inflated. I spent the majority of my life blindly trying out the latest and greatest headphones so I am grateful and know not to take this for granted. Things are so much better now across the board. We can't throw out history.

I mostly have a problem with amateur reviewers making grand statements about target curves and preferences, working against standardization, and seemingly and oddly making themselves sound like they believe that measurement technology works perfectly even if unintentionally so. Things are still a bit muddy. I've always found it funny how people throw out "harman-tuned iems" for a lot of things I myself wouldn't consider Harman-tuned. For instance, the first Truthear Crinacle Zero. To me its Harman-ish. And it isn't slightly bright to me because it is Harman-tuned. If I EQ it to Harman following malky's EQ I think it's fabulous. Those 2 or so dB between 1-6kHz make a big difference to me. We undersell this and I know that here it is partly because measurements aren't 100% reliable and the unfinished work is to build toward something. (I measure phono cartridges and for the large part cartridges after 1980 are all plus-minus 2dB. Now think about all the bullshit said about how wildly different they are! There are worlds whether real or not in those 2 dB.) I tried other EQs offered as alternatives by some on this thread and I didn't care for them at all. But at least I know my one anecdote doesn't mean anything. I certainly think that they were an exciting iem for the price at the time and that overall they sounded better than most others I tried. I just wish the ear insert was thinner so that I would want to use them.

As iems are now a super cheap commodity the money's going to have to come more and more from advertising and views. So expect people to be louder than ever. But that's one side of things. My real concern is if companies like Moondrop are going to be around in 10 years. All I know is that JBL will. There is no value to be had from a basic iem over $100 no matter how perfectly tuned it is. The technology moved on years ago already. Clearly Moondrop know this as they are expanding capability with their app as an example. I don't think they have a choice. But still, JBL offers noise reduction, EQ apps, ever-improving Bluetooth, and even super fancy charging cases. Why on earth would anyone want this Tanchjim headphone instead? (I'm willing to bet that they resoundingly don't.) At least this is the case for the US and I apologize if I am Western-centric here. And I hope that $20 iems can keep companies afloat if we consider global markets.

Despite this, aren't the most used iems those that come with phones anyways? Isn't this why Apple still has the largest share of the US market? If people want to seriously talk about user preference, it's still no real preference other than for convenience.

 

[markanini]

I am still in awe of and grateful for the sound quality of inexpensive IEMs these days so I don't think performance is inflated. I spent the majority of my life blindly trying out the latest and greatest headphones so I am grateful and know not to take this for granted. Things are so much better now across the board. We can't throw out history.

I mostly have a problem with amateur reviewers making grand statements about target curves and preferences, working against standardization, and seemingly and oddly making themselves sound like they believe that measurement technology works perfectly even if unintentionally so. Things are still a bit muddy. I've always found it funny how people throw out "harman-tuned iems" for a lot of things I myself wouldn't consider Harman-tuned. For instance, the first Truthear Crinacle Zero. To me its Harman-ish. And it isn't slightly bright to me because it is Harman-tuned. If I EQ it to Harman following malky's EQ I think it's fabulous. Those 2 or so dB between 1-6kHz make a big difference to me. We undersell this and I know that here it is partly because measurements aren't 100% reliable and the unfinished work is to build toward something. (I measure phono cartridges and for the large part cartridges after 1980 are all plus-minus 2dB. Now think about all the bullshit said about how wildly different they are! There are worlds whether real or not in those 2 dB.) I tried other EQs offered as alternatives by some on this thread and I didn't care for them at all. But at least I know my one anecdote doesn't mean anything. I certainly think that they were an exciting iem for the price at the time and that overall they sounded better than most others I tried. I just wish the ear insert was thinner so that I would want to use them.

As iems are now a super cheap commodity the money's going to have to come more and more from advertising and views. So expect people to be louder than ever. But that's one side of things. My real concern is if companies like Moondrop are going to be around in 10 years. All I know is that JBL will. There is no value to be had from a basic iem over $100 no matter how perfectly tuned it is. The technology moved on years ago already. Clearly Moondrop know this as they are expanding capability with their app as an example. I don't think they have a choice. But still, JBL offers noise reduction, EQ apps, ever-improving Bluetooth, and even super fancy charging cases. Why on earth would anyone want this Tanchjim headphone instead? (I'm willing to bet that they resoundingly don't.) At least this is the case for the US and I apologize if I am Western-centric here. And I hope that $20 iems can keep companies afloat if we consider global markets.

Despite this, aren't the most used iems those that come with phones anyways? Isn't this why Apple still has the largest share of the US market? If people want to seriously talk about user preference, it's still no real preference other than for convenience.

Let's assume as a fact that exceptional performance at a low price is not only good but factual reality. To make an empirical conclusion, wouldn't that require self-scrutiny equal to that of the opposite assumption, that performance increases with price? If not then it seems that either side is starting from a conclusion, does it not?

 

[USER]

Let's assume as a fact that exceptional performance at a low price is not only good but factual reality. To make an empirical conclusion, wouldn't that require self-scrutiny equal to that of the opposite assumption, that performance increases with price? If not then it seems that either side is starting from a conclusion, does it not?

Can you clarify this for me? I don't really understand.

 

[markanini]

Can you clarify this for me? I don't really understand.

You said self-importance and narcissism by social media causes a false reality about pricy IEMs. How are cheap IEMs immune to that?

 

[amirm]

100%. Thankfully... Dr. Olive liked the video, and he even found similar results when testing HRTFs, in particular the treble overestimation.

So? Sean is a researcher. His interest and goals are not necessarily the same as mine. He may have found tidbits of information he likes in your video. That doesn't mean I am supposed to. We do have a ton in common however including the top goal of wanting standardization in headphone/IEM industry. See this paper by him:

The Perception and Measurement of
Headphone Sound Quality: What Do
Listeners Prefer?
Sean E. Olive

"The reaction from the headphone industry to this new
research has been largely positive. There is evidence
that the Harman target curve is widely influencing the
design, testing, and review of many headphones from
multiple manufacturers, providing a much needed
new reference or benchmark for testing and evaluating
headphones. Several headphone review sites provide
frequency response measurements of headphones showing
the extent to which they comply with the Harman
target (Vafaei, 2018; Audio Science Review, 2020); in
cases where they fall short, corrective equalizations are
often provided."

Not seeing your site or efforts acknowledged like ours. My role here is to right the industry of its mistakes as much as I can. Above is the most important goal in that regard. Videos like yours, and your general activity in bringing haze around standardization goes counter to that. It shows lack of wisdom and leadership experience. The Internet gives everyone a big microphone. You have such. Learn to use it more responsibly. Think of what you are doing.

 

[amirm]

5. Apply confirmation bias during EQ process for subjective self-congratulation.

Did you forget to post the results of your bias controlled research backing whatever opinion you have? Or are you doing #5 but think your poo is too golden to be considered anything else?

But no, I don't just do uncontrolled testing with EQ. I routinely perform blind tests there if I am unsure of the value of a correction. And in many instances, leave out the correction if I am not confident it made things better. I also routinely mention that the final EQ may still have some issues. I have also liked products that don't measure well.

Ultimately, as a reviewer, I get to express my opinion and that is what a recommendation is. That is, whether I personally would or would not buy a product. It is totally out of line to say that I am supposed to use your opinions in making my conclusions. My conclusions are mine by definition. Data is provided for membership and readers to examine and opine as they see fit.

 

[USER]

You said self-importance and narcissism by social media causes a false reality about pricy IEMs. How are cheap IEMs immune to that?

I think it is much more difficult to create a false reality about any IEM whether pricey or cheap as measurements have become almost mandatory for the market we are discussing. That is a sort of self-corrective--but only if we can at the very least translate measurements if different equipment is used (though this is not always the case).

I was trying to get to the point that it is becoming more and more about the reviewers themselves. Amateur reviewers who are not doing any real work other than simply buying expensive equipment are much too vociferous, like we see in this thread.

 

[amirm]

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.

So you are relying on work not yet done? Some logic there.

That aside, I am fully aware of the weaknesses in all of the research. You don't see me including preference scores in either headphones/IEMs or even speakers where it is more instructive. I find issues with them. I measure at higher resolution than research used. I find value in that in finding specific design issues. Research didn't include role of distortion, I do.

I have personally evaluated huge number of IEMs/headphones using Harman targets. I find it to be very close to where we need to be considering that there are no standards in music production so no absolute can be had for all content and all people. But to do nothing and believe in random ideas from people like you would be hugely wrong. Nothing in the world is perfect. We use good enough in many things. And Harman research has proven to be incredibly useful and more than good enough.

So come back when you have some data to back your opinions.

 

[Rhamnetin]

I'm not sure how you manage to wilfully misinterpret the Harman research so hard and so long.

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.

You can always just ignore any Harman preference based recommendations if you know they aren't for you, and focus on the entirety of the objective data in these reviews which are extremely insightful. It sounds like you're focusing far too much on the subjective.

I for one have very little interest in any subjectivity in audio component reviews - I look at the frequency response (I generally know what I prefer), the THD at volume levels more relevant to me, the group delay, the CSD and impulse response if they're there, and notes about build quality and fit. I pretty much skip past the subjective listening portions and whether or not it is recommended by the reviewer.

With that said, it is wise to plot FR against the latest Harman preference curve, since it's the best research that we have. In this regard, for the sake of convenience I only wish headphone reviewers also included the Harman linear in-room FR on the same graph, as that's another useful reference.

 

[amirm]

100%. Thankfully... Dr. Olive liked the video, and he even found similar results when testing HRTFs, in particular the treble overestimation. But let's not let that get in the way of the narrative here. The headphone illuminati that doesn't really focus on IEMs is hard at work denigrating the category.

View attachment 354363


...oh wait.

None of those reviews of IEMs have your name on them. That was my critique of your video. I have reviewed 16 IEMs. I have probably 20 more here which I have been reluctant to test. I turn down their reviews all the time since they have random targets with high prices to boot. Having found four budget IEMs that have out of this world performance and compatibility with the standard, I am not too anxious to test more.

 

[Resolve]

None of those reviews of IEMs have your name on them. That was my critique of your video. I have reviewed 16 IEMs. I have probably 20 more here which I have been reluctant to test. I turn down their reviews all the time since they have random targets with high prices to boot. Having found four budget IEMs that have out of this world performance and compatibility with the standard, I am not too anxious to test more.

Just so you're aware, most of those go through me for testing, on both the GRAS and B&K systems. I then send them to folks on our review team to write about - some of them also have their own rigs as well, in which case they also do testing. Regardless, one has to be quite the silly goose to play a numbers game like that, particularly since it seems you've only tested a handful. And by the way, that's fine. But saying "can't trust this guy on IEMs, he hasn't tested many" when you yourself have tested fewer is kind of a weird line of reasoning.

 

[isostasy]

At risk of putting my foot in it...

@taotone I never really understand this line of argument which has been brought up before. I think if @amirm was misinterpreting the research then those behind the research itself wouldn't be referencing his measurements.

I'm also always interested to know what not "completely ignoring how poor the current state of the science is when it comes to IEM and headphone measurements" would actually look like in practice? So Amir is quite single-minded in his use of the Harman targets... well it makes the reviews extremely consistent and even if not perfect (which he has never claimed it is) it still is the best we have right now. He's very up front about this - to the point of driving some people round the bends apparently.

"Dr Toole in interviews is obviously embarrassed that you are misusing his research so badly." That sounds like a very spicy point if you have a source?

More to the point of the video by @Resolve , I actually found it very interesting and not sure I recognize the agenda that others are seeing in it. I don't think the questions he brings up necessarily have to be seen as antithetical to the work Amir does. Just because it doesn't provide any answers doesn't mean it's not relevant or raise any good points, though the title is expectedly click-baity as is the way on YouTube.

My current view is that there are 2 sensible approaches being taken (discounting throwing crap and seeing if it sticks): aiming for Harman, as with the Zero and other IEMs reviewed here, or trying to average out the expected variances in ear canal effects etc. to make a sound that will sound less bad for more people. It looks like this is what Sennheiser do with their recent IEMs as a few are close to Harman for large portions of their frequency response but have a big dip in the mid-range as if they have decided this bit sounds particularly bad when very far off the mark. I'm not convinced this is a great approach as ear canal effects can be so extreme above 1kHz that other diversions impacting preference might override this, but who knows.

In future I expect there will be a single target as Amir and many of us hope for, but there will be a methodology for compensating for individual in-ear differences. Since we don't have this yet I'm not sure what could possibly be better than what Amir is doing right now.

n.b. what I'm referencing above:

from https://danishsoundcluster.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Olive_DSD_2022.pdf

 

[deadkrillin]

At risk of putting my foot in it...

@taotone I never really understand this line of argument which has been brought up before. I think if @amirm was misinterpreting the research then those behind the research itself wouldn't be referencing his measurements.

I'm also always interested to know what not "completely ignoring how poor the current state of the science is when it comes to IEM and headphone measurements" would actually look like in practice? So Amir is quite single-minded in his use of the Harman targets... well it makes the reviews extremely consistent and even if not perfect (which he has never claimed it is) it still is the best we have right now. He's very up front about this - to the point of driving some people round the bends apparently.

"Dr Toole in interviews is obviously embarrassed that you are misusing his research so badly." That sounds like a very spicy point if you have a source?

More to the point of the video by @Resolve , I actually found it very interesting and not sure I recognize the agenda that others are seeing in it. I don't think the questions he brings up necessarily have to be seen as antithetical to the work Amir does. Just because it doesn't provide any answers doesn't mean it's not relevant or raise any good points, though the title is expectedly click-baity as is the way on YouTube.

My current view is that there are 2 sensible approaches being taken (discounting throwing crap and seeing if it sticks): aiming for Harman, as with the Zero and other IEMs reviewed here, or trying to average out the expected variances in ear canal effects etc. to make a sound that will sound less bad for more people. It looks like this is what Sennheiser do with their recent IEMs as a few are close to Harman for large portions of their frequency response but have a big dip in the mid-range as if they have decided this bit sounds particularly bad when very far off the mark. I'm not convinced this is a great approach as ear canal effects can be so extreme above 1kHz that other diversions impacting preference might override this, but who knows.

In future I expect there will be a single target as Amir and many of us hope for, but there will be a methodology for compensating for individual in-ear differences. Since we don't have this yet I'm not sure what could possibly be better than what Amir is doing right now.

n.b. what I'm referencing above:

View attachment 354433

from https://danishsoundcluster.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Olive_DSD_2022.pdf

Thanks for posting this, I just read the papers that Sean cited in that slide and they both have pretty fascinating stuff in terms of how canals vary.

 

[markanini]

I think it is much more difficult to create a false reality about any IEM whether pricey or cheap as measurements have become almost mandatory for the market we are discussing. That is a sort of self-corrective--but only if we can at the very least translate measurements if different equipment is used (though this is not always the case).

I was trying to get to the point that it is becoming more and more about the reviewers themselves. Amateur reviewers who are not doing any real work other than simply buying expensive equipment are much too vociferous, like we see in this thread.

I can't really relate to hating reviewers, I never took their words as gospel in the first place, I don't think anyone should.

Where can the vociferous activity be seen exactly? Anyone that has something good to say about an IEM pricier than $20 gets dogpiled in these threads if anything. One obvious troll doesn't count to me.

We seem to agree with the basic premise that quality doesn't correlate with price. Taking a moral high ground never convinced me though. It's out of place for the side that's supposed to represent facts. If someone explained how audiophile delusions work by pointing out blatant incentive and socialization it would click with more people, because it's logically consistent and doesn't give room for unconscious bias, whereas moralizing creates nothing but unconscious bias.

 

[JaMaSt]

I could not agree more with this statement. Headphones for me were always just OK. Nothing special and I would rather listen to my Speakers. But low distortion and well made IEM’s were a complete wake up call. The fidelity they are capable of is incredible and creates a new journey listening to music that you know and love, but all of a sudden, via the IEM’s you start to hear details and dynamics that are not present in headphones. I don’t even use my Headphones anymore. Maybe I will sell them here soon.

Again thanks for the Review Amir. Sunday is not a Funday for the Amir “Automaton”.

I agree. When I ripped my CD collection and started using a DAP, my 9 year old Senn HD800, with their long cable, were just a pain. Instead of buying a shorter cable, I tried an IEM and I never looked back. I sold the Senn's.

 

[Chromatischism]

So Amir is quite single-minded in his use of the Harman targets... well it makes the reviews extremely consistent and even if not perfect (which he has never claimed it is) it still is the best we have right now.

I agree it makes them consistent, but I disagree that Harman IE 2019 is the best we have.

In Amir's defense, I like that he tries EQ to taste so we can get an idea how close the target gets him. With that said, it is a fairly quick EQ and he's not able to spend days or weeks on each item.

In future I expect there will be a single target as Amir and many of us hope for, but there will be a methodology for compensating for individual in-ear differences. Since we don't have this yet I'm not sure what could possibly be better than what Amir is doing right now.

Statistically speaking we should be able to derive such a target, but I believe it will end up being more refined than HIE 2019.

To be clear, I think the research was solid. Interestingly, the chart you posted shows the necessity of a sharper drop off below the peak, which mirrors my own findings in using EQ to level out my own personal resonances. It is a wonder why the Harman target does not echo this?

Interestingly, when I survey the other targets out there--granted there are probably some I have not yet seen--I don't find a single one that has as much upper mid and treble gain as Harman (yes there are some ridiculous IEMs out there, but these don't seem to match any preference target I've seen). As in, Harman appears to be an outlier. As I mentioned previously, I don't believe that as much fine-tuning and refinement as there could be went into it for the practical reasons of the study. What's worse is that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) no one is tweaking and updating it over time, so it is becoming outdated. Indeed, it appears many of the later IEM releases with a mass-appealing sound (read: closer to the average person's neutral) are not strictly following the Harman target.

My two cents, of course.