unless we have very different ideas of what "bright" means, surely you've gotta have something swapped...And yet…
Are you sure you entered the filters correctly? It looks like one of the filters isn't working correctly.
Are you sure you entered the filters correctly? It looks like one of the filters isn't working correctly.
Here is mine viewed from PEACE:
View attachment 241735
And here it is viewed within Wavelet:
View attachment 241737
Well, now I've tried it as well out of curiosity. Sounds very smooth indeed, similar to AM radio.(Curiously, I tried it out and my independently tuned-to-my-idea-of-neutral EQ is sonically nearly identical to Chromaticism's in the treble... )
I do indeed. Keywords: innumerable, unpredictable. Anyway, unless you got someone else to read and enter in the EQ profiles, you're not blinding yourself to the relative frequency response between the profiles, which is what actually would matter when comparing EQs.What? You do understand that viewing frequency response can easily bias one if done before listening tests, right?
Sounds about right, as AM radio only reproduced sound frequencies up to 5 kHz. So it's a great EQ if you want all your music to sound like it's coming out of an old lo-fi radiosimilar to AM radio
Subjectively, I perceive about the same amount of treble with my Senn HD600 EQd to Oratory's Harman curve preset - which does sound more-or-less neutral to me.Well, now I've tried it as well out of curiosity. Sounds very smooth indeed, similar to AM radio.
Best to look at AutoEQ's rankings (scroll down for IEMs) for this, as they use Sean Olive's predicted preference rating, which is not only a metric that signifies adherence to the Harman target, but actually has scientifically demonstrated correlation (91%) with actual preference ratings given to frequency responses by listeners in blind tests (what is it with people using metrics that don't have demonstrated correlation with audibility/preference?). Unlike the above link, it includes Oratory's measurements which use the same coupler as Harman used when developing their IEM target, and so will result in a more accurate estimation of the preference rating (and so adherence to the target) then Crinacle's, who uses a knock-off coupler.According to this tool
Rohsa's Workshop | Find Similar IEM/Headphones
The iems that are most closely tuned to the Harman target are:
Softears RS10
Truthear Zero
ThieAudio Monarch Mk2
View attachment 241730
I am not sure what kind of conclusions we are supposed to draw from that, but it is interesting nevertheless.
Yeah. I guess it will depend on the program being used. With both PEACE and Wavelet, it is simply loading a file and flipping a switch. You will see the filters appear, which you could blind yourself to I suppose, but you don't have to enter them.I do indeed. Keywords: innumerable, unpredictable. Anyway, unless you got someone else to read and enter in the EQ profiles, you're not blinding yourself to the relative frequency response between the profiles, which is what actually would matter when comparing EQs.
Lol, I don't get the AM radio comparison. There is still a neutral extension to 15 kHz.Sounds about right, as AM radio only reproduced sound frequencies up to 5 kHz. So it's a great EQ if you want all your music to sound like it's coming out of an old lo-fi radio![]()
? What's the point of your response to me?Exhibit A and B that you need to just chill and let people try it. People are exploring something new with these IEMs and it's great for them to have options if the sound doesn't work for them.
Where is the crossfeed setting? I have one and haven't seen it.I've reading more about the capabilities of this dac/amp and my head is spinning. I just found out they also implemented crossfeed which is a feature I love for iems.
That blown me away. Along with the PEQ that makes it 100% platform/source agnostic for me. With this I don't need platform specific software to get what I want.
I think it's ok that people try your EQ but they shouldn't expect it to be an improvement, and you shouldn't push it as one either for the reasons we've been discussing time & again - there might be some people that prefer it, but don't be saying bluntly that "it's an improvement" or "an improvement for most people" as there's no founding or logic in you saying that and misleading people, again as we've already discussed time & again.Hmm...
There are people who seem to be ok with the stock sound as well (maybe they like brighter speakers?), but since you seem to be on a mission to proclaim that no one, zero, other than myself, will benefit from EQ to knock down the excessive highs of this IEM, I wanted to pull these examples up as Exhibit A and B that you need to just chill and let people try it. People are exploring something new with these IEMs and it's great for them to have options if the sound doesn't work for them.
Yeah, that did make me try to rack my brain for how he might be experiencing that!This is very funny as this EQ cuts a ton of high frequencies compared to Maiky’s which is 100% Harman.![]()
Yeah, could well be!Cognitive bias claims its latest victim![]()
Ha, that's a good one!Sounds about right, as AM radio only reproduced sound frequencies up to 5 kHz. So it's a great EQ if you want all your music to sound like it's coming out of an old lo-fi radio![]()
That was for Robbo. Thank you for sharing your impressions, they align with mine and were helpful.? What's the point of your response to me?
I just put my subjective impressions.
Best to look at AutoEQ's rankings (scroll down for IEMs) for this, as they use Sean Olive's predicted preference rating, which is not only a metric that signifies adherence to the Harman target, but actually has scientifically demonstrated correlation (91%) with actual preference ratings given to frequency responses by listeners in blind tests (what is it with people using metrics that don't have demonstrated correlation with audibility/preference?). Unlike the above link, it includes Oratory's measurements which use the same coupler as Harman used when developing their IEM target, and so will result in a more accurate estimation of the preference rating (and so adherence to the target) then Crinacle's, who uses a knock-off coupler.
Interesting to note the breakdown of the variables as calculated by AutoEQ contributing to the Truthear Zero's predicted preference rating of a very good, but not excellent 81%, in particular the slope of the logarithimc regression fit of the error (i.e. overall spectral tilt) of 0.31, which indicates a brightish tilt (0 being neutral, <0 warmer, >0 brighter), which chimes (ouch!) with many people finding them somewhat 'shouty'.