What is the flattest target curve?

[dasdoing]

ok, this totally doesn't seam to make sense,
but your target gets my KZ IEM closest to what my Superlux overear sounds like with the iso diffuse field target.
I just spent ours testing targets and will stick with this one for now. thanks a lot

I think the range above 1K, and especially the bump at 3 K, is just plain wrong in all IEM targets.
I just got the Galaxy Buds Fe, already knowing they would get close to "my IEM target," and they were closer than I expected.
I checked https://autoeq.app/ and all these targets loose to the house target of these buds

and this comes from a guy using diffuse field targets for over ears. the (measured) sound is so different I can't even explain it

 

[dasdoing]

and again, if I align my new Bud's measurement with the @markanini target (at ears most sensible frequences) it is the closest:

all others are much farer away

 

[markanini]

and again, if I align my new Bud's measurement with the @markanini target (at ears most sensible frequences) it is the closest:

View attachment 400167

all others are much farer away

The four Buds FE measurements on squig.link all look a bit different from each other, so I don't know. TWS measurements can be suspicious because of how their additional processing works. But assuming the one you referenced from ReganCipher is correct, it's a closer match in the midrange to WIP-H Target, AKA ISO+Harman Target

WIP-H vs. Harman 2019

 

[Vamp898]

After using them for a few weeks for professional mixing and mastering, i can assure that the Westone Mach 80 are as close to perfectly flat as I ever heard. I trust them blindly and everything I mix/master just sounds exactly how it should when confirming the result with my calibrated Neumann KH 120 II

So this (smoothed)


Sounds perfectly flat to my ears in direct comparison with the above mentioned reference and I am able to use them as an 100% replacement of such speakers doing my work exclusively with these.

But only with the TrueFit foam, not the silicon eartips

IEM I can also use without any issues for Mixing, sounding very flat are the Vision Ears VE7



And the Shure SE846 (White) (the Bass is slightly too strong sometimes, but that is very easy to fix)



I think those are some good candidates on how flat looks like in IEM measurements compared to calibrated, flat, Studio reference monitors and it's no surprise that all of these are professional IEM for musicians

 

[Vamp898]

I created my own target based on the experience with Studio Reference IEM, i posted the result on Head-Fi but i t hink its as relevant here (if it is allowed to post something from head-fi here. Yes... i know what kind of people are there...)

New Flat/Accurate IEM Target

I crated a new IEM Target that tries to be as close to flat/accurate as possible. It is still in the middle of development but i would love to share the current state to get feedback and enable people to share their impressions on it and test it with your favorite IEM. First of all, this is how...

www.head-fi.org

 

[someguyontheinternet]

No matter the level of experience, if the sample size is 1 there is no scientific conclusion to be had beyond one person finding their own personal target. To get scientific insight you need to have reproducible results and consequently people willing to replicate your experiment as well as confirm or deny your findings under controlled experimentation setups.

 

[Vamp898]

No matter the level of experience, if the sample size is 1 there is no scientific conclusion to be had beyond one person finding their own personal target. To get scientific insight you need to have reproducible results and consequently people willing to replicate your experiment as well as confirm or deny your findings under controlled experimentation setups.

That is correct. But to be fair, it would be insanely hard to find the "truth" with IEM.

A lot of Studios (especially in Japan) use the VE7, MACH 80 (or other IEM, but in my experience, these are the most common) for their daily work and use them to replace speakers. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively correct. People who use them swear they are, but they can't proof it either.

You can of course, transfer an Master from the IEM to the Speaker and re-listen and check if everything is correct. But nobody but the Mixing/Mastering Engineer knows how it is supposed to sound, and if he doesn't hear a difference doesn't mean, there is non. Could be possible that there is a 2db difference in the mids of an guitar and he just doesn't notice it when transferring it from IEM to Speaker. And if he doesn't notice/hear it, nobody can know if the Guitar, as it sounds, is supposed to sound exactly like that or not.

In the end, this will be impossible to find out. The amount you drank before the mastering influences how you master because it slightly changes the perceived frequency response. Also, especially with the TrueFit Foam earpieces, if you wear them for a few minutes and take them out, the perceived frequency response is changed too. (I notice that especially when wearing earplugs for a longer time.)

The only real way to be sure would be to directly capture the electrical signal that is sent from the ear to the brain and interpret it. Would be insanely cool and not completely unlikely that this is going to be possible in the future. But for now, in case of IEM, all we can rely on are so-so ear simulators and target curves based on theoretical experiments without any proof that the result of these are even remotely correct and if we perceive an difference, we can not explain why but only guess and assume what causes that.

Finding enough people to confirm my findings would be no issue, but if that result is from any use is the better question^^

 

[markanini]

After using them for a few weeks for professional mixing and mastering, i can assure that the Westone Mach 80 are as close to perfectly flat as I ever heard. I trust them blindly and everything I mix/master just sounds exactly how it should when confirming the result with my calibrated Neumann KH 120 II

So this (smoothed)
View attachment 400232

Sounds perfectly flat to my ears in direct comparison with the above mentioned reference and I am able to use them as an 100% replacement of such speakers doing my work exclusively with these.

But only with the TrueFit foam, not the silicon eartips

IEM I can also use without any issues for Mixing, sounding very flat are the Vision Ears VE7

View attachment 400233

And the Shure SE846 (White) (the Bass is slightly too strong sometimes, but that is very easy to fix)

View attachment 400234

I think those are some good candidates on how flat looks like in IEM measurements compared to calibrated, flat, Studio reference monitors and it's no surprise that all of these are professional IEM for musicians

It tracks JM-1 with 10dB slope quite closely. Whether or not this frequency curve represent a mixing space is debatable, but a decent start. I'm inclined to believe that even a treated space has some propogation of low frequencies tha would reflect an extra 2dB boost vs. JM1-10dB. Either way, have you looked at Truthear Hexa? It should be a more up to date representation of that tuning style and overall very well regarded.

 

[Vamp898]

It tracks JM-1 with 10dB slope quite closely. Whether or not this frequency curve represent a mixing space is debatable, but a decent start. I'm inclined to believe that even a treated space has some propogation of low frequencies tha would reflect an extra 2dB boost vs. JM1-10dB. Either way, have you looked at Truthear Hexa? It should be a more up to date representation of that tuning style and overall very well regarded.

View attachment 401515

In a completely different context, i just recently had an message conversation with Dave where i was told, that this peak from the MACH 80 is not fitting the reference.

In this single area, this peak, makes the 80 diverge from reference and the Mach 60 is actually closer to reference in this area (Upper Mids, Lower Treble. Says the guy who developed them)



And the 60, again, almost hits my target (in that specific area).

So the 80 is closer to reference overall, except for this peaky area in the upper mids/lower treble according to the person who developed them.

 

[OK1]

I created my own target based on the experience with Studio Reference IEM, i posted the result on Head-Fi but i t hink its as relevant here (if it is allowed to post something from head-fi here. Yes... i know what kind of people are there...)

New Flat/Accurate IEM Target

I crated a new IEM Target that tries to be as close to flat/accurate as possible. It is still in the middle of development but i would love to share the current state to get feedback and enable people to share their impressions on it and test it with your favorite IEM. First of all, this is how...

www.head-fi.org

Please, where can we download this target, as a text file, so it can be used to correct IEM's to that target?

 

[lordearl]

What set of headphones (and/or IEMs) comes closest to this target curve without needing EQ?

(noting of course EQ will almost always be needed, so a better phrasing might be "which heapdhones/IEMs need the least amount of EQing"!)

 

[Vamp898]

Please, where can we download this target, as a text file, so it can be used to correct IEM's to that target?

I am not sure if "correct" is the right word^^ in my experience, earphone are usually tuned with an intention and they are supposed to sound the way they sound^^

The Target is not finished yet, i am still working on it but you can download the current status here: https://ignaz.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/DYCPLYbNbaQcPt5

But the intention of this target was not to ""correct"" earphone by EQing them to it but to check if the IEM is suitable for its intended purpose.

 

[Vamp898]

What set of headphones (and/or IEMs) comes closest to this target curve without needing EQ?

(noting of course EQ will almost always be needed, so a better phrasing might be "which heapdhones/IEMs need the least amount of EQing"!)

This curve was created exclusively for IEM and i am pretty sure it can't be used for headphones out of the box.

Before telling you which IEM hits this target best, big disclaimer!

It is important that insertion depth and lot of things matter unrelated to the measured frequency response. Graphs can contain artifacts that will not be audible in real life. There are IEM that do not seem to hit the target at first, but inside the ear, there is no issue at all. Also the volume that was used when measuring the IEM and especially what volume you use it at is very important too.

Also seating is important. Some IEM go deeper into the ear, but you might not be able to put them as deep as they are supposed to be put for ergonomic reasons.

No IEM measurement we have currently will ever be able to replace the process of putting the IEM into your ear and check for yourself.

With that disclaimer out of the way

Its probably the Vision Ears VE7



But tons of IEM are very close too. Just today i checked the CW-U77 which is the Studio Reference IEM from Canal Works and its very close too

 

[heraldo_jones]

This curve was created exclusively for IEM and i am pretty sure it can't be used for headphones out of the box.

Before telling you which IEM hits this target best, big disclaimer!

It is important that insertion depth and lot of things matter unrelated to the measured frequency response. Graphs can contain artifacts that will not be audible in real life. There are IEM that do not seem to hit the target at first, but inside the ear, there is no issue at all. Also the volume that was used when measuring the IEM and especially what volume you use it at is very important too.

Also seating is important. Some IEM go deeper into the ear, but you might not be able to put them as deep as they are supposed to be put for ergonomic reasons.

No IEM measurement we have currently will ever be able to replace the process of putting the IEM into your ear and check for yourself.

With that disclaimer out of the way

Its probably the Vision Ears VE7

View attachment 402487

But tons of IEM are very close too. Just today i checked the CW-U77 which is the Studio Reference IEM from Canal Works and its very close too

View attachment 402488

do you know any affordable iem ( maybe two options in the <200$ & <100$ ranges) that may fit that curve?

 

[Vamp898]

do you know any affordable iem ( maybe two options in the <200$ & <100$ ranges) that may fit that curve?

That is a tough question. As they are intended to be used by musicians, they are usually not available at such price points.

One of the cheaper ones that fit the target pretty well is the Shure SE535 depending on the country you life in, it might be available quite cheap.



It could be absolutely possible that there is an IEM tuned towards flat/accurate at that price point i am just not aware of.

 

[OK1]

I am not sure if "correct" is the right word^^ in my experience, earphone are usually tuned with an intention and they are supposed to sound the way they sound^^

The Target is not finished yet, i am still working on it but you can download the current status here: https://ignaz.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/DYCPLYbNbaQcPt5

But the intention of this target was not to ""correct"" earphone by EQing them to it but to check if the IEM is suitable for its intended purpose.

Thanks

 

[heraldo_jones]

That is a tough question. As they are intended to be used by musicians, they are usually not available at such price points.

One of the cheaper ones that fit the target pretty well is the Shure SE535 depending on the country you life in, it might be available quite cheap.

View attachment 402493

It could be absolutely possible that there is an IEM tuned towards flat/accurate at that price point i am just not aware of.

I'm trying to upload your target to Squig but it only allows into the Hangout, what is need to uplaod to any other Squig site? (Gizaudio, Tonedeaf ...)

 

[Vamp898]

I'm trying to upload your target to Squig but it only allows into the Hangout, what is need to uplaod to any other Squig site? (Gizaudio, Tonedeaf ...)

I have no idea to be honest. I always download the FR Graphs from the other ones and import them to hangout to use them there.

I assume (just guessing) i need to add more points. If you look at the target, its rather simple and i assume i just have to add more frequencies (even if they contain the exact same gain)

right now its

20,3
30,3
40,3
50,3
60,3
80,3

I assume you need something like

20,3
21,3
22,3
23,3
24,3

and so on. But currently i have no time for that, but i might fix that anytime soon.

Or someone with good excel skills knows how to automate that

 

[Vamp898]

Because this came up in another thread/context, i wanted to add a big disclaimer here.

You can 'not' make an IEM sound Flat/Accurate by AutoEQ to my target, that is not how the target is intended to work and no measurement is correct enough, that this will work.

The intention of this target was to roughly check if the IEM goes towards Flat/Accurate, but you _have_ to put it into your ear.

I just tried to AutoEQ 3 different IEM to the target as accurate as possible and the result was that all 3 of them sounded completely different and non of them correct. This approach does not work.

 

[markanini]

Because this came up in another thread/context, i wanted to add a big disclaimer here.

You can 'not' make an IEM sound Flat/Accurate by AutoEQ to my target, that is not how the target is intended to work and no measurement is correct enough, that this will work.

The intention of this target was to roughly check if the IEM goes towards Flat/Accurate, but you _have_ to put it into your ear.

I just tried to AutoEQ 3 different IEM to the target as accurate as possible and the result was that all 3 of them sounded completely different and non of them correct. This approach does not work.

I've had similar experiences matching multiple IEM I own to the same target and experiencing very different results for each IEM.

There's an explanation for that. These measurement systems can not be aware of anthropometric variation that lead to different insertion points. And other fitment variation factors exist that have to do with coupling effects to the outer ear. It all contributes to significant individual FR differences which can't be controlled for, therefore failed FR matching.