• 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!

Truthear Gate

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,520
Likes
12,194
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Truthear Gate was announced, no pricing yet 18.99 USD without mic and 19.99 USD with mic. I guess it may be It is the Hola successor as entry level 1DD IEMs. Graphs very close to a Red, which is great news imo.

FB_IMG_1717028950513.jpg


FB_IMG_1717028930830.jpg


graph (13).png



graph (14).png



graph (15).png


 
Last edited:
Shy of +10dB bass rising from 180Hz for myself, looks a very boring and tame iem (for my liking)
 
Too much variation between measurements to have a good idea but to me looks a bit bass shy (bad) and with a bit more pinna gain and extension (good), I am ordering one out of curiosity unless is way more expensive than the Hola.

Just a suggestion for anyone posting measurements, expand them to show 1dB makers, differences are much more noticeable and quantifiable this way.
 
Believe it's $20 or thereabouts. And yes, Hola successor
 
vs Hola via Crinacle. Mostly within 1-2db of Hola, slightly more neurtal? I like the Hola tuning, so I'll probably pass on the Gate.

graph.png
 
Does anyone know how to assure consistency on the 5128 with respect to insertion depth? I know that with the 711 one has to align the 8kHz resonance or else the measurements are not apples to apples (this is a big problem on squig.link that results in a lot of misinformation depending on the measurer). I understand that the 5128 does a better job with the resonances so they won't look the same so I wonder about one goes about this. Use a higher frequency resonance?

graph (13).png
 
Does anyone know how to assure consistency on the 5128 with respect to insertion depth? I know that with the 711 one has to align the 8kHz resonance or else the measurements are not apples to apples (this is a big problem on squig.link that results in a lot of misinformation depending on the measurer). I understand that the 5128 does a better job with the resonances so they won't look the same so I wonder about one goes about this. Use a higher frequency resonance?

View attachment 372174

I don't think that this is the right way to look at the issue. Aligning the resonance at 8kHz on 711 couplers + canal extension is a convenience, but not necessarily the best way to compare "apples to apples", given that different IEM designs, whether because of the eartip design, bore size, mesh, etc. will, in a realistic "average" ear, result in a different average resonance to being with. And even if we consider a sample of realistic, more or less long ear canals, while an IEM may in that sample result in a resonant frequency spanning 7-11kHz, another one may very well result in a 5-9kHz range, for example.

The 5128 claims to have a better representation of the average ear canal than previous couplers, including the canal entrance and concha bottom. There is no point in trying to match the resonant frequency in that fixture (or GRAS' anthropometric pinna as well, for example), you just put the IEM in there as realistically as possible, and measure them wherever the resonant frequency falls. Ideally you may do a number of seatings with different eartips.

If we assume that a coupler's damping is realistic (and it might not perfectly be the case in regards to the RA0045 / RA0402, or a clone coupler - maybe even the 5128), and if we assume that for most IEMs the resonant frequency will fall in real ears between 6-10Hz or so, you may find that way of showing data a more honest way of expressing how much confidence one can have in an IEM measurement for different parts of the spectrum (at least insofar as the ear canal length is concerned - there's another factor missing in particular here I think) :


may canalext not norm.jpg
may canalext  norm500.jpg


Ideally we'd measure IEMs (or headphones for that matter) in a sample of ear canals / pinnae / heads that represent well enough a larger population. This project seems quite interesting in that regard : https://humanshape.org/index.html#models
Some companies (like Harman) have used publicly available databases of ear canal scans (ex IHA database) and compared simulations with measurements performed in 3D printed parts, and some others such as Apple probably have their own internal databases.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that this is the right way to look at the issue. Aligning the resonance at 8kHz on 711 couplers + canal extension is a convenience, but not necessarily the best way to compare "apples to apples", given that different IEM designs, whether because of the eartip design, bore size, mesh, etc. will, in a realistic "average" ear, result in a different average resonance to being with. And even if we consider a sample of realistic, more or less long ear canals, while an IEM may in that sample result in a resonant frequency spanning 7-11kHz, another one may very well result in a 5-9kHz range, for example.

The 5128 claims to have a better representation of the average ear canal than previous couplers, including the canal entrance and concha bottom. There is no point in trying to match the resonant frequency in that fixture (or GRAS' anthropometric pinna as well, for example), you just put the IEM in there as realistically as possible, and measure them wherever the resonant frequency falls. Ideally you may do a number of seatings with different eartips.

If we assume that a coupler's damping is realistic (and it might not perfectly be the case in regards to the RA0045 / RA0402, or a clone coupler - maybe even the 5128), and if we assume that for most IEMs the resonant frequency will fall in real ears between 6-10Hz or so, you may find that way of showing data a more honest way of expressing how much confidence one can have in an IEM measurement for different parts of the spectrum (at least insofar as the ear canal length is concerned - there's another factor missing in particular here I think) :


View attachment 372225View attachment 372226
From what I understand, the 8kHz resonance was chosen in order to maximize accuracy given how screwy things get near and especially after 10kHz. This has lead to complaints that 711 results don't reflect well what humans hear, especially in the treble region (a fair complaint). This then certainly underlines the limitations of the respective measurements, but even so I do put value in standardization even at such costs. I really do think that inconsistency in squig.link sites with respect to the resonance frequency reflect poor measurement practice rather than a showcase of the grand variety of IEM design. I mean I often don't even see the right and left channels match with the worst offenders! So it is still to me a useful tool to ascertain the quality of the measurer and there is value in that alone.

In terms of what I have seen from resonant frequencies produced by the 711 clones, I haven't come across such ranges as those mentioned, but then ear tips and IEM design have become much more homogenized these last few years and I have been limited to around 25 different IEMs. Examples such as those Etymotic IEMs are becoming increasingly rare (and obsolete, if I can be frank). Plus, due to the size of the ear tips there is only so much insertion affordance before one loses the seal, which constricts the possible results further. I just checked on the Artti R1 and the range that I can get is from around 7.3 to 8.5kHz. I'll double check a few other choice ones.

Again, this shows more the limits of the coupler I am using and its canal length than anything. That one can generally reach that 8kHz resonance shows me that it is not a terrible standard for that coupler. From what I have done in practice, I don't think that I can reach 6 or 9kHz without tube extensions on the IEMs that I have measured. I do know that at least one measurer uses foam tips for everything as it is easier to hit 8kHz but I think this not the right approach as that tip can misrepresent the intended fit.

One other thing that I find interesting is that software such as the JBL headphone app on my phone tells me that I am inserting my IEMs wrong more often that I want to admit. (I believe that it measures the attenuation of the low end frequencies.) This also tells me about the other side of the coin, which is the limits of humans and their expectations and ability to properly insert their IEMs. It would be great if we could integrate something like that to the couplers so that measurements better reflect "proper fit."

Still, for the 5128, the put it in and see what you get attitude leaves me a bit uneasy even if the coupler should extract more consistent and precise results. It would be great to know more about the general practice of the measurers. Even something simple like, "I mark the tips and insert them both the same depth" would make me rest a little easier.

Now your last part I totally agree with. And indeed I have considered offering similar results and or even averaging the results from measurements centered around 3 or 4 specific resonance peaks, though I wouldn't go up near 9kHz for the reasons mentioned above including my general inability to and the fact that it is likely discouraged by the creators of the coupler.

Do you have a link to the source of the graphs? It would be interesting to find out more information about how these results were generated. Were the IEMs reinserted each time? Were the canal extensions changed with the IEM remaining still? This all makes a difference.
 
From what I understand, the 8kHz resonance was chosen in order to maximize accuracy given how screwy things get near and especially after 10kHz. This has lead to complaints that 711 results don't reflect well what humans hear, especially in the treble region (a fair complaint).

Crin is the one that seems to have started this trend of aiming for a resonance at 8kHz. The reason was mainly convenience, most IEM designs can hit that resonance fairly easily in a 711 coupler + canal extension.

711 aren't "screwy" above 10kHz per se. It's rather more correct to say that they're designed to adhere to a standard that's specified at a specific reference plane up to 10kHz only.
Type 4.3 fixtures also are specified at a specific reference plane, but the way the eardrum simulator is designed means that in practice the notion of a "reference plane" doesn't really have much significance.

This then certainly underlines the limitations of the respective measurements, but even so I do put value in standardization even at such costs. I really do think that inconsistency in squig.link sites with respect to the resonance frequency reflect poor measurement practice rather than a showcase of the grand variety of IEM design. I mean I often don't even see the right and left channels match with the worst offenders! So it is still to me a useful tool to ascertain the quality of the measurer and there is value in that alone.

That seems less like a Squiglink issue rather than an operator issue to me, regardless of the fixture they use.
I can see value in a standard, so what if the standard was to measure IEMs with a set of standardised ear canal extensions of a different length ? Would you find that problematic ?
I'd suggest separating the notion of poor measurement practices from the notion of which resonant frequency to hit. I would even suggest that comparing a pair of AirPods Pro 2 and a pair of Moondrop Chu at the same resonant frequency could be considered "poor practice" given the different nozzle / eartip / body designs (the APP2 is likely to hit a slightly lower resonant frequency than a Chu in a given person's ear).

In terms of what I have seen from resonant frequencies produced by the 711 clones, I haven't come across such ranges as those mentioned,

The ranges mentioned concern variance in real ear canals' length, not variance in what you can get with different IEMs / eartips in a 711 coupler.

One other thing that I find interesting is that software such as the JBL headphone app on my phone tells me that I am inserting my IEMs wrong more often that I want to admit. (I believe that it measures the attenuation of the low end frequencies.) This also tells me about the other side of the coin, which is the limits of humans and their expectations and ability to properly insert their IEMs. It would be great if we could integrate something like that to the couplers so that measurements better reflect "proper fit."

I'd love to have more data on how effective people are in putting IEMs in their ears to minimise leakage issues. Companies that put microphones in the front volume of their IEMs, whether a wired add-on for research purposes, or because they're using TWS earbuds with a feedback path, may have an easier time accessing this data (although for the latter as these earbuds are often designed with copious built-in venting they're less sensitive to leakage in the first place).

Still, for the 5128, the put it in and see what you get attitude leaves me a bit uneasy even if the coupler should extract more consistent and precise results. It would be great to know more about the general practice of the measurers. Even something simple like, "I mark the tips and insert them both the same depth" would make me rest a little easier.

This seems to me less like a 5128 issue than a pinna simulator issue. GRAS' anthropometric pinna should concern you just the same I think ?
It's a lot easier to get repeatable measurements in a coupler finished with a circular extension indeed, which is why I'd love to see a fixture roughly adhering to type 4.3/4.4 impedance in such a format, to provide a complementary set of data.

But why feel uneasy about an ear simulator that's designed to physically represent the entrance of the ear canal in a more accurate way compared to an average ear canal ? If one wants to know exactly what resonant frequency a specific IEM is most likely to hit, it's this, isn't it ?

Personally I'd like to see IEM measurements in both types of fixtures : a fixture (or several) that aim at representing the average ear canal (or a small sample of ear canals representative of a wide population), and a fixture designed to provide easier, more repeatable measurements, as a way to characterise the behaviour of an IEM when varying a specific variable.

Do you have a link to the source of the graphs? It would be interesting to find out more information about how these results were generated. Were the IEMs reinserted each time? Were the canal extensions changed with the IEM remaining still? This all makes a difference.

I measured them. I've 3D printed a set of ear canal extensions with a varying length :

Screenshot 2024-05-31 at 17.22.27.png
Screenshot 2024-05-06 at 14.13.03.png
Screenshot 2024-05-06 at 14.12.35.png


For that set I inserted the May at several insertion depths for each canal extension length (typically four-five times, this results in a bit of overlap across neighbouring extension lengths), and measured the IEM several times at each of these positions, with at least three different seatings (sometimes more) for each extension / insertion depth combination.
Ex here :
May var ex.jpg

I've also occasionally done it with a different approach (try to insert the IEMs at exactly the same physical insertion depth in each extension).

I'd love to be able to measure how an IEM behaves when continuously vary one specific variable (for example with a screw-like design), while keeping the IEM's seating the exact same throughout the course of the test run, but alas that's not easily done given the way ear simulators are designed in the first place.
 
I can see value in a standard, so what if the standard was to measure IEMs with a set of standardised ear canal extensions of a different length ? Would you find that problematic ?
I'd suggest separating the notion of poor measurement practices from the notion of which resonant frequency to hit. I would even suggest that comparing a pair of AirPods Pro 2 and a pair of Moondrop Chu at the same resonant frequency could be considered "poor practice" given the different nozzle / eartip / body designs (the APP2 is likely to hit a slightly lower resonant frequency than a Chu in a given person's ear).

This seems to me less like a 5128 issue than a pinna simulator issue. GRAS' anthropometric pinna should concern you just the same I think ?
It's a lot easier to get repeatable measurements in a coupler finished with a circular extension indeed, which is why I'd love to see a fixture roughly adhering to type 4.3/4.4 impedance in such a format, to provide a complementary set of data.

But why feel uneasy about an ear simulator that's designed to physically represent the entrance of the ear canal in a more accurate way compared to an average ear canal ? If one wants to know exactly what resonant frequency a specific IEM is most likely to hit, it's this, isn't it ?

Personally I'd like to see IEM measurements in both types of fixtures : a fixture (or several) that aim at representing the average ear canal (or a small sample of ear canals representative of a wide population), and a fixture designed to provide easier, more repeatable measurements, as a way to characterise the behaviour of an IEM when varying a specific variable.

I think that we are in agreement overall and differ on smaller things that related more to how the measurements relate to extraneous things. Your example and concern is entirely correct here and is something clear to people that actually measure these things. But I also think that measurers have to be more vocal about these things and explain when something is incompatible with their measurement rig. For example, this IEM does not work with my 711 clone.

Untitled.jpg


I can't hit the 8kHz with this. It is just not compatible with what I have. It is up to the measurer to figure out the placement that best represents a proper fit on the coupler. (Perhaps the point closest to the center that provides a good seal.) But as I mention if you look at the majority of IEMs being measured today something like this is an outlier. I still think that for the 711 system it is better to adopt a standard that the vast majority of modern IEMs can hit and separate out ones that scream for one to do so. It's seldom subtle I have found, hence my seeming lack of concern. But in the end measuring with standardized canal extensions is a great way to begin to mitigate such issues and I would be completely for it. This would be a great way to extend the usable life of the 711 coupler during the next 5 years. And it would be interesting to see what issues pop up from there.

But I think there are other things of great value that you can extract from these 711 measurements with the limitation of a standard resonance. This includes the ability to look at channel matching and manufacturing consistency. Without such a standard this is much, much more difficult to ascertain. These things are very important in the world of IEM measurements today, which is one where every measurement is in conversation with multiple others. I think it is incorrect to separate them. Much like the picture frame is an integral part of a painting in a museum or how the archive itself is a part of a collected item, measurements exist in a sort of wild west. (And, yes, operator issues are important as no measurement is of the object itself, it is of the measurement system including the operator. I just can't separate them.) I mean you and I both know that even Amir's measurements are riddled with inconsistency issues and those of bad measurement hygiene. (Such as the low end resonances in most of his results!) Now think of my attitude in approaching some random reviewer. Or even Crinacle or oratory. This is why I got my own damn coupler. I only trust myself to be as OCD as I like for these sorts of things. If it wasn't for something like the 8kHz resonance I would not be able to make my own conversion that helps me understand my own and his measurements better. If this comes at the expense of some accuracy or a less honest view I really have no problem with that because of everything gained (that is but one important step in the history of measurements as measurements are being pushed forward and these 711 measurements become more dated each day.) Indeed, I fully believe that modern IEM manufacturing is so much better than we give it credit for and this can be obscured without such standards that really let me at times get incredibly similar results to those of others.

Hopefully such issues become less and less important. And learning how this can come about is precisely why I asked about the 5128. I'd love to see extensive testing results to see how dependable they are. It would be good to know before someone clones it and hundreds of people start using them in a race to get views.
 
And yes, Hola successor
So, is it official? the Hola is discontinued?
Is the Gate identical to the Hola, as the Zero red is to the blue, just different tuning?
I have had the Hola for a while now and I like it very much, it plays great music, the cables are the best.
 
So, is it official? the Hola is discontinued?
Is the Gate identical to the Hola, as the Zero red is to the blue, just different tuning?
I have had the Hola for a while now and I like it very much, it plays great music, the cables are the best.
Despite being still advertised on their site Hola seems discontinued for some times now, since it's unavailable almost everywhere.
Gate doesn't seems to be just a re-tune, it's advertised for using a 10 mm driver instead of the 11 mm on the Hola, even though same LCP+PU type and same 28 ohm impedance. A bit strange since usually a smaller driver can be seen as a downgrade.

Honestly I'm almost surely going to buy the Gate, graph appears very very appealing to my taste and for 15.5 € at the ongoing promo it would be a shame not to getting it.
 
Last edited:
Ordered with mic, whatever. Let's see / hear.
 
Ordered with mic, whatever. Let's see / hear.
Yeah, placed my order too.
White no-mic, since i already have mic cables from Hola and 7Hz Zero and white masks better that gigantic GATE logo that seems to me totally out of place lol.
 

The first 5 minutes have interesting info about construction, shape and nozzle size.
 
Back
Top Bottom