TRUTHEAR x Crinacle Zero Red

[Music1969]

as long as you are somewhat close to the average for diffuse field to ear canal blocked entrance

How would you know if the earphones are somewhat close or not?

Measurement??

It goes in circles

 

[isostasy]

I think all this is almost two sides of the same coin. I could imagine a hypothetical IEM which sounds better to one person because the treble peaks and dips line up perfectly with what they hear in a diffuse field. i.e. one of the turquoise lines on the graph @Sharur shared.

On the other hand this would be even more likely to then sound terrible to someone else because those peaks and dips for them could be in the wrong place, or even the complete opposite.

In this case I'm inclined to appreciate a 'smooth' response because at the very least it creates less uncertainty.

But then @markanini is right that this notion of 'smooth' isn't really anything but the visual perception of the line not having peaks in it.


@Music1969 just summed it up better, it's circular logic either way.

 

[Sharur]

How would you know if the earphones are somewhat close or not?

Measurement??

It goes in circles

I'm talking about your ears, not the earphones

 

[Music1969]

I'm talking about your ears, not the earphones

Ears have even more variable frequency response

But if you really want to believe plots over 10kHz are accurate , no problem

 

[Moonhead]

Stupid question… but can you run these zero straight out of a phone/tablet or would it require an apple dongle?

 

[asrUser]

Stupid question… but can you run these zero straight out of a phone/tablet or would it require an apple dongle?

To get the best dynamics out of them you need an desktop amp. Of course you will get them loud enough out of a phone, but how much will you enjoy it compared to dongles?

 

[Zim]

Stupid question… but can you run these zero straight out of a phone/tablet or would it require an apple dongle?

It should be fine. Apple dongle works great though. It's been reviewed here.

To get the best dynamics out of them you need an desktop amp. Of course you will get them loud enough out of a phone, but how much will you enjoy it compared to dongles?

What. No you don't need a desktop amp. These IEMs would be easy to run. A desktop amp would be overkill.

 

[lewdish]

This comparison of a $55 IEM and a $1000 IEM does not look very favorable for the expensive one (which happens not even to have smoother treble for the extra $945)

I mean not all the information can be interpreted for the Monarch. Crin puts the Monarch as a highly technical IEM, but he also said Red wasnt the most detailed or technical performing IEM. Theres certain things that still cant be measured or interpreted w/ the measurement data we have currently. The only real useful IEM metric we have is in the FR, and arguably the distortion measurements arent that useful yet. Detail isnt really something that can be measured currently and is considered a subjective concept.

 

[GaryH]

Crin puts the Monarch as a highly technical IEM

Uh huh.

Theres certain things that still cant be measured or interpreted w/ the measurement data we have currently.

Yeah, it's called pricing bias. But even that's measurable.

 

[GaryH]

 

[Chyżwar]

Well, for example in this work: Sean E. Olive, Todd Welti, and Omid Khonsaripour: A Statistical Model that Predicts Listeners’ Preference Ratings of Around-Ear and On-Ear Headphones (2018), the retails prices varied between $80 and $3000.

They didn't compare headphones in the $80 - $3000 price range! They compared different EQ settings for the AKG K712! They didn't test the "quality" of the headphones, only differences in the frequency response.

 

[Chyżwar]

Maybe you want to have a look at fig. 6?

No offense, but did even you read those papers or did you just look at the pictures? This is the result of a "virtual headphone listening test method", which means that they just used different EQ settings for the AKG K712 to simulate other headphones.

 

[Chyżwar]

No offense either, but did YOU read the paper?

"This current study also found little correlation between headphone price and sound quality based on listener preferences. Fig. 6 plots the headphone preference rating versus its retail price. The price in USD is plotted on a logarithmic y-scale for better clarity since most of the headphones fall in the $100 to $500 category. A regression line shows a poor fit between headphone price and preference rating (r = 0.17). This poor correlation is similar to what Breebaart reported in his study of 283 headphones, and similar to what we reported in our in-ear headphone study [2]. Together these three studies provide further confirmation that the headphone industry is not following best engineering practices when designing headphones for best sound, even in cases where there are fewer cost constraints. Based on the headphone samples tested in this study, the sound quality of headphones doesn’t improve much beyond a $300 price point."

Yes, I've read it. The methodology of these tests is described in detail.

"2 Listening Tests
2.1 Headphone Selection
A total of 31 models of AE/OE headphones from 18
different manufacturers were selected for these tests
(see appendix 1). The chosen headphones covered
a broad price range from $60 to $4000 USD, and
included both open and closed-back designs with
either dynamic (n = 26) or magnetic planar (n= 5)
type transducers. Ten of the 31 headphones were
wireless (Bluetooth) and 5 models had Active Noise
Cancellation (ANC).
2.2 Virtual Headphone Method
A virtual headphone listening test method was used
to provide rapid multi-way comparisons among the
different headphones in a controlled, repeatable and
double blind manner. The method has been
successfully used in previous papers for virtualizing
both AE/OE headphones [7, 14] and IE headphones
[3,4,11]."

etc

 

[Chyżwar]

Well, in the section I have cited it is not 100% clear if they are referring to the virtual headphones or the headphones itself.

They described the methodology and then showed the results. I think it's clear.
And sorry, but there is a big difference between testing headphones and "virtual headphones". Especially if you use this test to prove statements like "sound quality and price correlate only extremely weakly".
By the way, they didn't test "sound quality", these papers are about listeners preferences.

And they provided sufficient reasearch to back up that claim.

Can you show me where they proved it?

 

[isostasy]

They described the methodology and then showed the results. I think it's clear.
And sorry, but there is a big difference between testing headphones and "virtual headphones". Especially if you use this test to prove statements like "sound quality and price correlate only extremely weakly".
By the way, they didn't test "sound quality", these papers are about listeners preferences.



Can you show me where they proved it?

Your assertion that 'there is a big difference between testing headphones and "virtual headphones" ' is not borne out by the research:

A prior validation study confirmed that subjective ratings of
virtual versus actual headphones (with the listener unaware
of the headphone brand, model or appearance) had a cor-
relation of 0.86 to 0.99 depending on the headphone type
(Olive et al., 2013b). A limitation of the method is that it
does not reproduce nonlinear distortions in the headphones.
However, the high correlations between virtual and actual
headphone comparisons and evidence from other studies
indicate that these distortions are generally below masked
thresholds (Temme et al., 2014).

There is a small to negligible difference depending on 'the headphone type'.

If you two really want to argue this there are already many threads already open on the topic. Every product thread seems to be inevitably drawn into arguments over Harman research.

 

[Chyżwar]

Your assertion that 'there is a big difference between testing headphones and "virtual headphones" ' is not borne out by the research:

Yes, I've read those papers. Even Harman doesn't deny that there are audible differences between headphones and "virtual headphones".

 

[Chyżwar]

"had a correlation of 0.86 to 0.99". Yeah, that sounds like really big differences. On the other hand, the correlation between price and preference is 0.17. What exactly is your point? That the virtual headphone method is not making a 100% copy of the original phone? Granted. But it is good enough for all the subsequent research, that is what matters. Otherwise you should say what your criticism is, or, remain silent.

I've done this type of testing with several headphones and IEMs, including the K701 and HD800S. If you equalize the K701 to the curve of the HD800S they will sound similar (90% the same or 0.86 or whatever you want to call it) but not the same. And the HD800 can give the illusion of a bigger "soundstage", "separation of instruments", "detail" that the K701 cannot. I don't want to judge whether these differences are worth the price, but they exist, people hear them and pay for them.

If you use "virtual headphones" you lose the differences that (some) more expensive headphones offer.

 

[markanini]

Well, I assume you are aware of the fact that the big assumption of the Harman research is that listeners preference (especially if these are trained listeners) is basically the same as (or at least strongly correlated with) sound quality? You don't agree with that?

I don't get it, you chose to use a different term, but expect it to convey a same meaning, after the fact?

 

[isostasy]

Yes, I've read those papers. Even Harman doesn't deny that there are audible differences between headphones and "virtual headphones".

Yes, of course, but the point is still 'that subjective ratings of virtual versus actual headphones ... had a correlation of 0.86 to 0.99 depending on the headphone type'.

I've done this type of testing with several headphones and IEMs, including the K701 and HD800S. If you equalize the K701 to the curve of the HD800S they will sound similar (90% the same or 0.86 or whatever you want to call it) but not the same. And the HD800 can give the illusion of a bigger "soundstage", "separation of instruments", "detail" that the K701 cannot. I don't want to judge whether these differences are worth the price, but they exist, people hear them and pay for them.

If you use "virtual headphones" you lose the differences that (some) more expensive headphones offer.

Sure, but I'm assuming you haven't used industry standard equipment to measure your own individual copies of those headphones? This is one example, which is interesting, but not conclusive and certainly not enough to refute the conclusion 'that subjective ratings of virtual versus actual headphones ... had a correlation of 0.86 to 0.99 depending on the headphone type'. I'm not saying you're wrong about there being particular differences, and you're obviously right that people 'hear them', whether they exist or not, and do 'pay for them'. It just appears as though, in a blind test, these differences might not have a great impact on subjective ratings.

This is all besides the point though, because it is about subjective rating. Of course some aspects might be discernible, e.g. soundstage for the sake of argument, but the subjects aren't even asked specifically whether they can discern any differences, all that is being tested is the subjective rating. Whether or not you're right about the fact that some aspects of a headphone's sound are only accessible at certain price points is not relevant to the fact that the preference rating was highly correlated between actual and virtual headphones. Note this doesn't distinguish between whether the actual headphone was rated higher or lower than its virtually EQed counterpart: it could have actually been rated lower, the point still is that the ratings are close enough that it was a solid enough foundation for the further research and, following this, that purely based on subjective rating alone, there is little correlation between price and preference.

Just to reiterate, I'm still not saying that certain features are not limited to a certain price bracket. Neither of us have the data to refute or support this, but even if you did prove right now that only headphones above $xx.xx have some particular feature, be it soundstage, 'technicalities', whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that subjective ratings of actual vs. real headphones had a high correlation.

All this is still besides the point because I think all someone said is that a $5 earphone or headphone might be good enough for someone.

 

[markanini]

Sure, but I'm assuming you haven't used industry standard equipment to measure your own individual copies of those headphones?

This goes both ways then. Those that used EQ matching functions with measurements using clone couplers are wrong to refer to Harman, instead of doing their own validation.