Because it leads to different forum and twitter threads, it would be helpful if you could summarize.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily 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?
- Thread starter FINFET
- Start date
Oh no please ring Harman immediately, Sean Olive is indulging in pseudoscience and massaging the data !
*roll eyes*
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.
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
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,482
- Likes
- 6,654
Yeah, that's because the human brain just isn't wired for comparing two semi-parallel lines to each other. See here:
So the more we can put the lines exactly on top of each other, the easier a graph will be to read.
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.
staticV3
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,482
- Likes
- 6,654
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:
Exactly for the reasons shown in the image above.
Put another way, if an IEM measures like this:
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.
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:
Exactly for the reasons shown in the image above.
Put another way, if an IEM measures like this:
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:
Well how about aligning at the average over a range of frequencies in & around 500Hz, which is what @MayaTlab was talking about here & here:
What IEMs do you consider significantly better than the beloved Truthear Zero IEMs?
See the post I linked in my previous comment. Because it leads to different forum and twitter threads, it would be helpful if you could summarize.
www.audiosciencereview.com
What IEMs do you consider significantly better than the beloved Truthear Zero IEMs?
See the post I linked in my previous comment. Because it leads to different forum and twitter threads, it would be helpful if you could summarize.
www.audiosciencereview.com
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:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 5,762
- Likes
- 13,182
That definitely makes more sense both from visualisation and psychoacoustics point of view and is also what Oratory does:Well how about aligning at the average over a range of frequencies in & around 500Hz, which is what @MayaTlab was talking about here & here:
What IEMs do you consider significantly better than the beloved Truthear Zero IEMs?
See the post I linked in my previous comment. Because it leads to different forum and twitter threads, it would be helpful if you could summarize.That seems like the best of both worlds.What IEMs do you consider significantly better than the beloved Truthear Zero IEMs?
See the post I linked in my previous comment. Because it leads to different forum and twitter threads, it would be helpful if you could summarize.
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.
Some popular sets that show a similar trend:
kurin.squig.link
Some popular sets that show a similar trend:
Squiglink - IEM frequency response database by Kurin
Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between IEMs and earphones from manufacturers like Moondrop, Sony, 64 Audio, Fiio, and more.
kurin.squig.link
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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.
Similar threads
