• 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!

What IEMs do you consider significantly better than the beloved Truthear Zero IEMs?

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,348
Likes
1,804
My linked post (on this very forum) and the quotes from Sean Olive therein are as concise as it gets. Just read them.
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
That would be normalizing pseudoscience, allow anyone to massage the data to fit their subjective narrative, and do more harm than good.

Oh no please ring Harman immediately, Sean Olive is indulging in pseudoscience and massaging the data !
Screenshot 2023-02-09 at 06.41.37.png

*roll eyes*
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
924
Likes
1,512
@GaryH I could imagine a few, but what are the reasons to normalize to 500Hz?

You just normalise - or don't - where it makes the most sense for what you're trying to assess, that's all.

For headphones 500Hz is convenient as it's in a range where leakage effects are less prevalent than at lower frequencies, where ear simulators are the most representative of one's experience, and where seatings to seatings variations are lower. But as @staticV3 showed, for some headphones models with a high-Q feature at that frequency, it can make comparisons harder than easier (this is where the idea of normalising at an average level across a span of the FR comes from).

But most authors aren't stupid and normalise where it makes sense for the task at hand. If you want to assess how a pair of headphones' feedback mechanism works and affect the FR, it's not unreasonable to normalise above the range where it operates, for example.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
I know you like your standards, but honestly, a fixed 500Hz nomalization frequency does more harm than good.
It produces graphs like this, which are just difficult to read:
View attachment 263420
View attachment 263412

Instead, can we please normalize contextualized normalization? Simply look for plateaus in the error curve and align those to the target:
View attachment 263421
View attachment 263411
The easier the graph is to interpret, the better.

Same deal with Amir's method imo. What good does it do to stubbornly use 425Hz for every review?
View attachment 263413 View attachment 263414
I agree with this approach, it makes sense from an EQ'ing starting point of view, but also does make it simple to read the frequency response in terms of what it would sound like.
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,534
Likes
12,000
I agree with this approach, it makes sense from an EQ'ing starting point of view, but also does make it simple to read the frequency response in terms of what it would sound like.
Yeah, that's because the human brain just isn't wired for comparing two semi-parallel lines to each other. See here:
image.png

So the more we can put the lines exactly on top of each other, the easier a graph will be to read.
 

GaryH

Major Contributor
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
1,348
Likes
1,804
That's not a good argument for aligning at different frequencies each time, often turning out to be in the treble which perceptually we do not anchor at. It's rather an argument for using target- (or another comparator headphone-) compensated graphs (which I'm fine with), but still aligned at 500 Hz for the reasons stated by Sean. Of course aligning for ease of EQing is an entirely separate case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VQR

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,534
Likes
12,000
Yes, I'm all for compensated graphs, but while we're still torturing people with Raw measurements, why torture them even more with the hard-mode graphs that aligning IEMs at 500Hz often brings.
I just don't see the advantage that brings.

For manufacturers, sure. Enforcing 500Hz may prevent them massaging the graphs, but for reviewers, the aim should be to make measurements and graphs as simple to read and understand as possible, and this is just not the way:
graph (16) (1).png
Exactly for the reasons shown in the image above.

Put another way, if an IEM measures like this:
graph (20) (2).png
Will you really advocate for alignment at 425/500Hz like in the graph, saying the IEM "tracks the target well from 400 to 500Hz, but with excess response both in bass and treble" or something along those lines?
Because that's just plain misleading.
 
Last edited:

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
That's not a good argument for aligning at different frequencies each time, often turning out to be in the treble which perceptually we do not anchor at. It's rather an argument for using target- (or another comparator headphone-) compensated graphs (which I'm fine with), but still aligned at 500 Hz for the reasons stated by Sean. Of course aligning for ease of EQing is an entirely separate case.
Yes, I'm all for compensated graphs, but while we're still torturing people with Raw measurements, why torture them even more with the hard-mode graphs that aligning IEMs at 500Hz often brings.
I just don't see the advantage that brings.

For manufacturers, sure. Enforcing 500Hz may prevent them massaging the graphs, but for reviewers, the aim should be to make measurements and graphs as simple to read and understand as possible, and this is just not the way:
View attachment 267741
Exactly for the reasons shown in the image above.

Put another way, if an IEM measures like this:
View attachment 267742
Will you really advocate for alignment at 425/500Hz like in the graph, saying the IEM "tracks the target well from 400 to 500Hz, but with excess response both in bass and treble" or something along those lines?
Because that's just plain misleading.
Well how about aligning at the average over a range of frequencies in & around 500Hz, which is what @MayaTlab was talking about here & here:
That seems like the best of both worlds. Or maybe you don't even need to go to the lengths of calculating an average mathematically, you could do it by eye using your intuition & experience to align it around that range to where it just makes most sense when compared against the Target. I'd say at the very least try to avoid situations like this one that Static pictured earlier:
index.php


EDIT: additional thought, what about the same algorithm that REW uses to align a Target on a measurement, I think that takes the whole frequency response into consideration. That seems to produce sensible results when I remember doing that for various headphones. (although it didn't work well for one I've tried after typing this, lol)

EDIT #2: or just manually choosing a point flexibly somewhere between 300-800Hz based on that individual headphone measurement.
 
Last edited:

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
Well how about aligning at the average over a range of frequencies in & around 500Hz, which is what @MayaTlab was talking about here & here:
That seems like the best of both worlds.
That definitely makes more sense both from visualisation and psychoacoustics point of view and is also what Oratory does:

 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
I've spent about a month with Kiwi Cadenza now. I've attempted to improve it with EQ and ended up with two .5dB bands, hardly audible. These are very well tuned stock for me. In a graph the set resembles Oratory1990 in the bass, and Harman in the treble.
1677597361277.png


Some popular sets that show a similar trend:
Screenshot 2023-02-28 164027.png

Screenshot 2023-02-28 164000.png




 

hyperknot

Active Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
166
What IEMs would you recommend for me for the following criteria:
- I really like the sound of my Sennheiser HD650 with EQ (but not so much without EQ). I use it with Oratory's "Optimum Hifi" profile (+ desktop DAC + amp).
- I'm looking for an IEM which I can use with my M1 Macbook Pro's built-in 3.5mm output, no external DAC/amp.

I've read that the M1 Macbook Pro's output is quite powerful so IEMs shouldn't be a problem right? I listen to acoustic music mostly. What would you recommend? Should I start with an Aria? I'm only going to use it with my laptop so EQ is running all the time. Let's say I'd start with under $100 range.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
What IEMs would you recommend for me for the following criteria:
- I really like the sound of my Sennheiser HD650 with EQ (but not so much without EQ). I use it with Oratory's "Optimum Hifi" profile (+ desktop DAC + amp).
- I'm looking for an IEM which I can use with my M1 Macbook Pro's built-in 3.5mm output, no external DAC/amp.

I've read that the M1 Macbook Pro's output is quite powerful so IEMs shouldn't be a problem right? I listen to acoustic music mostly. What would you recommend? Should I start with an Aria? I'm only going to use it with my laptop so EQ is running all the time. Let's say I'd start with under $100 range.
Look for something without any bass hump, or virtually no bass hump, but following the treble of the Harman Curve. But be aware that it's not Oratory's target, he didn't create it, and just because it says "optimum" in the "Optimum Hifi" curve target it doesn't mean it is so, it's not optimum and it's also not Oratory's target curve, in fact he doesn't even use that as a target for his own listening. If I remember rightly it's a headphone curve that was ported over from some 1970's speaker research involving the measuring of different recording studios back in the 70's.
 

markanini

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,718
Likes
1,768
Location
Scania
What IEMs would you recommend for me for the following criteria:
- I really like the sound of my Sennheiser HD650 with EQ (but not so much without EQ). I use it with Oratory's "Optimum Hifi" profile (+ desktop DAC + amp).
- I'm looking for an IEM which I can use with my M1 Macbook Pro's built-in 3.5mm output, no external DAC/amp.

I've read that the M1 Macbook Pro's output is quite powerful so IEMs shouldn't be a problem right? I listen to acoustic music mostly. What would you recommend? Should I start with an Aria? I'm only going to use it with my laptop so EQ is running all the time. Let's say I'd start with under $100 range.
For some reason an IEM without bass suffers worse in enjoyment than an over-ear without bass, so it's hard to recommend something strictly by that criteria. But the MD Aria would probably be a good general recommendation, had I tried it. The other MD and Truthear 1DD sets I've actually owned had a treble that's clear and without hot spots, so getting the basics right where other brands seem challenged. A lot of brands have copied Arias response since it came out, if these other designs have bested it with or with compromises is a debatable, but many think Aria set the bar.
 

hyperknot

Active Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
166
OK, just for a start I ordered the 7Hz Salnotes Zero, which is one of those cheap ones which copied he Aria curve and is also on the top of the AutoEQ list. I might also buy a Chu just for fun, it also has super good rankings. Then I guess the sweet spot might be a Blessing 3 Dusk when it comes out.
 

phoenixdogfan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,294
Likes
5,070
Location
Nashville
As some have already said, the way they fit your ear is critical. To the point where an IEM that does not fit your ear just won't be any good for you, which is a big risk if you can't try it first (70 dollars is a risk I can live with). I am fortunate that the Truthear's fit me well and sound excellent. You are well into the zone of diminishing returns trying to top them.
Very true. I found it extremely important to find the right tip. Try all three sizes. You want something that fits into the ear canal an blocks it. Too big and it won't fit, too small and it won't block. The medium tips were perfect. When I initially got them I used the large tips and wondered what all the fuss was about, then I switched to the small, and it was appaarent I was not blocking the canal. Then I went to the medium, and it was a perfect, comfortable fit, and the bass improved dramatically. Also the over the ear routing of the cables makes a big difference. I hate wearing an IEM and feeling like the weight of the cable is pulling the drivers out of my ears. Even if they're not, the earphone never feels secure to me if I can't rout the cable over the ears.
 
Top Bottom