What justifies high-end IEM pricing?

[beautyisasleepingcat]

Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to get some insight from the community. If an IEM exhibits near-perfect minimum phase behavior, excellent channel matching, and a well-targeted frequency response (like the 7Hz Salnotes Zero 2), and its primary limitation is limited treble extension, then what exactly justifies the price jump in higher-end IEMs?

From what I understand, if a transducer in an iem is minimum phase, then frequency response essentially defines its perceived sound — assuming distortion and resonances are at a negligible threshold. So in theory, a well-engineered $20 IEM should be functionally equivalent to something far more expensive, aside from bandwidth limits in the upper treble.

I’m aware of the factors that justify high-end headphones (like interaction with the pinna, improved spatial perception, etc.), but IEMs bypass most of that. So I’m wondering: are listeners primarily paying for better treble extension, or are there other measurable or perceptual benefits that justify flagship pricing?

Not trying to be a troll — I’m 14 and still learning. Just trying to understand how much of high-end IEM pricing is science versus perception. Appreciate your thoughts!

 

[Jimbob54]

what exactly justifies the price jump in higher-end IEMs?

The most obvious and main one is that people will and do pay. Repeatedly.

The pitch is usually around driver count and type- more and different usually commands higher price. How much of that is due to increased BOM and how much is because they can depends.

I have many IEMs that are in the £00s and quite a few sub £50 and sub £100. After EQ the sound difference isnt really a factor for most- just different flavours of a similar theme. But I would rather have some of the £00s in my ears than most all of the sub £50s. But again, is that a justification for paying it- YMMV

 

[beautyisasleepingcat]

Interesting thoughts. I acknowledge that driver count and type are often marketed as key selling points for higher-priced IEMS, and that this can drive up the price.

It's really nice to see how much performance is price perceptual or based on individual needs versus measurable performance. I agree that for the average listener, sub-50 USD IEMS can be extremely competent, but I'm still trying to figure out where the law of diminishing returns really kicks in.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on treble extension on IEMs, and its effect on perceived quality. Do you think that's one area where higher-end models actually provide a meaningful difference, or is the difference easily solved by EQ?

 

[markanini]

Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to get some insight from the community. If an IEM exhibits near-perfect minimum phase behavior, excellent channel matching, and a well-targeted frequency response (like the 7Hz Salnotes Zero 2), and its primary limitation is limited treble extension, then what exactly justifies the price jump in higher-end IEMs?

From what I understand, if a transducer in an iem is minimum phase, then frequency response essentially defines its perceived sound — assuming distortion and resonances are at a negligible threshold. So in theory, a well-engineered $20 IEM should be functionally equivalent to something far more expensive, aside from bandwidth limits in the upper treble.

I’m aware of the factors that justify high-end headphones (like interaction with the pinna, improved spatial perception, etc.), but IEMs bypass most of that. So I’m wondering: are listeners primarily paying for better treble extension, or are there other measurable or perceptual benefits that justify flagship pricing?

Not trying to be a troll — I’m 14 and still learning. Just trying to understand how much of high-end IEM pricing is science versus perception. Appreciate your thoughts!

It’s a valid question, but also a leading one - because, right or not, you’ve already framed it in a way that leans toward a specific conclusion. To fully understand what’s going on, you'd need to address more than just the technical side. Your question sits at the intersection of engineering and consumer behavior. Looking at it purely through minimum phase theory and frequency response won’t explain why the high-end IEM market exists, or why people keep buying into it.

Technically yes, if an IEM is minimum phase and keeps distortion and resonances low, frequency response dominates. But that model leaves out other real-world factors like enclosure design, in-situ FR, and listener habits and biases - which aren’t fully measurable, but aren’t irrelevant either. So the real question is-how deep do you want to go? Because the answer depends on how narrowly or broadly you define what "matters."

 

[Sebby]

One thing I have noticed from my experience is that more expensive IEMs have better handling of high frequencies (5kHz and above). Cheap IEMs already handle lows and mids very well because they are easy to tune, but highs are another story. Many times it is not necessarily true that an expensive IEM is better, but simply different and with a tuning that satisfies a smaller portion of the market.
I personally do not look at the number of drivers and there are single drivers that cost over 2000 euros.
There is also the issue of quality control and materials used or R&D that is invested in a product. I can give you some examples of IEMs that I own or have the possibility to get my hands on at my discretion because I have friends who own them: Final F7200 if you like vocals or small acoustic groups and I have hardly heard other IEMs do better, but otherwise they are total garbage. The IE600 is a refined IE200, nothing more, but those two dips in the high frequencies of the IE600 achieved through resonating chambers, make the absolute difference in terms of sibilance, while still being higher than the IE200, which is darker but more fatiguing. The IE900 has a signature that is not found in other IEMs and is excellent for orchestral music and if you want that, it is either buy it or don't, simple as that.
Another example is the Dita Perpetua, which has an exquisite signature, but no "WOW" effect and does not work with all genres of music.

All of these are single driver models and no, with EQ you will never get that kind of signature. It is up to you to decide if that type of product is worth the money. As I write this, I am using the Rose Technics Star City Pro, a 70€ 3-driver IEM, through an Apple dongle and a parametric EQ, and I assure you that I am having a lot of fun anyway.
I have had a Final E3000 for 45€ for about 7 years and it is the only one that can lull me to sleep and that is why I am in love with it. A 20€ Gate or a Zero 2 are objectively better, but they are gathering dust in a drawer: after 30 minutes of use I got tired of the Gate.

You don't have to spend a lot of money to have fun, but when you switch to more expensive IEMs the differences are noticeable and you can get many particular sounds that are difficult to get exactly with an EQ. I can EQ the IE200 and Zero 2 however I want and try everything with the EQ, but the IE200 always feels more open and resolving - there is no way for the Zero 2 to have the same soundstage and separation as the IE200.
I also have a Final A5000 and it is a little HD800 because it has a huge soundstage and even if you play with the EQ, it stays big. This is not to say that all expensive IEMs are subjectively and objectively beautiful, and many of those expensive IEMs I have tried over the years I hate.
One thing that many people are looking for is this supposedly closest to the original file sound, but I don't care what the artist intended and I have no real sonic preference. There are many different types of sonic signatures and if well implemented they can be beautiful. If you want Harman you don't have to go over 150 €, because just tune based on sound research done by an external body and you can't go wrong.
If you want to be like the IE900, you have to figure out how to get that signature sound (Sennheiser has some unmistakable common features across all of its products) without stumbling into potential flaws and that comes at a cost, a cost that separates failure from success, to the point that Sennheiser sells more IE900s than IE600s. I personally even prefer the IE200 to the IE900, but the IE900 with classical and orchestral music is an IEM that gives you goosebumps, in a good way. If it were the same price as the IE600 I would buy it in a heartbeat, but for me it costs too much for what it offers and you can get 95% of the result by EQing the IE200. Everyone values things a lot and expensive IEMs have a lot of reasons to exist.
The plastic-bodied IE900 might have been less than half the price, but damn, once you have them in your hand you fall in love with them even before you put them on and I think that's perfectly fine.

 

[DVDdoug]

Not trying to be a troll — I’m 14 and still learning. Just trying to understand how much of high-end IEM pricing is science versus perception. Appreciate your thoughts!

It's great that you are learning about audio science while you're young and before you fall into the audiophile cult!

But there is also science in perception. The important thing is to take-out the bias, which can be done with blind listening (without knowing what you're listening to). The starting-point is usually a blind-controlled ABX test which simply tells you if you can statistically-reliably hear a difference.

But an ABX test is not useful with headphones or IEMs because you can tell by the feel if X is A or B. Plus there almost always IS a difference with headphones, IEMs, and speakers so it's easy to "pass" an ABX test. But it's still helpful if you don't know the brand, price, or even the appearance of whatever you are evaluating.

It's also helpful to understand & identify the REAL characteristics of sound quality. Regular (non-scientific) audiophiles use LOTS of words like "detail" that don't have any real definition. Most of the real characteristics can be measured, but again headphones, IEMs and speakers can be tricky to measure. Headphones & IEMs interact with the ear and speakers interact with the room so a speaker will sound and measure differently in different rooms and at different places in the room.

Audiophoolery discusses the real characteristics of sound character/quality.

 

[Curupira]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on treble extension on IEMs, and its effect on perceived quality. Do you think that's one area where higher-end models actually provide a meaningful difference, or is the difference easily solved by EQ?

IME more expensive hybrid models (and they often are more expensive because BAs/ESTs and their integration are more expensive, specially brand BAs like Sonion's and Knowles') tend to have better extension in MY ear canal while also being definitely more malleable in EQ, but that's my ear.

I agree that for the average listener, sub-50 USD IEMS can be extremely competent, but I'm still trying to figure out where the law of diminishing returns really kicks in.

While coughing up an arbitrary mark, I'd say the diminishing returns start once you already have more or less consensual targets (Harman, IEF, JM-21 etc) being met, so, today, around 20 USD. Everything from there is prone to heavy consumer bias and rationalizing, which none of us are immune to: for instance, I do have a 7hz Zero and a TRN Conch that are very performant FR wise, but my favorite IEM is still the Thieaudio Hype 4 (400 USD) with EQ.

 

[Gitfiddle]

Everything from there is prone to heavy consumer bias and rationalizing, which none of us are immune to

This is true in pretty much any hobby. Think of all the tables people have that use sub-standard wood that cant hold as much weight, and pay a huge sum of money anyway, simply because of who built it. At a certain point some things become more like art where all logic and reason no longer need to exist. I can see that with some audio equipment and especially understand it with woodworking.

I don't mind that overpriced goods like that exist. I do mind that people get scammed with promises of superior fidelity; instead of marketing such items as simply what they are.

 

[drewdawg999]

What drives the cost up is branded drivers, namely Knowles and Sonion. I splurged twice on IEMs, once for the Kiwi x HBB Punch and once for the Ziigaat Odyssey. For the Punch, there are Knowles BAs and Sonion ESTs, and the DD is the same one used in the much more expensive HBB Jupiter. For the Odyssey, there are Knowles BAs for the mids and treble. It's the most I would spend on IEMs, but it's much more than the most popular ones here, the Zero Red and the Zero 2, both of which I have as well. Do the expensive ones sound better? I think so, I enjoy the Punch and Odyssey much more than the Zeroes, but they are tuned with more fun in mind.

I am still processing the quality of treble extension for the Sonion ESTs on the Punch, but they are of high quality and balance out the massive bass. The Odyssey have some magic sauce in the tuning that makes them oh so pleasurable, can't really put my finger on exactly what it is, but they do scale well with volume. I think I'm done though, with my 2 headed endgame that I baby in the bedroom. My beater portable sets are the KZ ZAR and the Zero 2, both of which do the job exceptionally well also. I have room for all my sets, it's nice to collect and have different flavors rather than just one Harman set and that's it. That's no fun. I love sub-bass and mid-bass in large quantities, but need vocal clarity as well, and a sparkling treble too. I believe the Odyssey achieves this, and the Punch achieves this even more.

 

[JanL]

You can EQ non minimum phase devices just the same as minimum phase devices and the response will scale linearly. It's is some sort of misreading of statements made by experts that leads to this misconception.
In the context of audio, a single transducer is minimum phase because its frequency response is mathematically equivalent to its phase response. If you know one, you can compute the other. The formula used is called the Hilbert Transform.
A system consisting of two transducers can be minimum phase, but it doesn't have to be. For example, a loudspeaker consisting of a woofer and a tweeter linked by a textbook 24dB/oct crossover is not minimum phase, but the same loudspeaker with a 6dB/oct crossover it is minimum phase.
In the first case, the combined frequency response might be flat, but the system phase will have a 360 degree rotation centered at the crossover frequency. Just knowing the frequency response and computing the phase from it, will lead to a wrong result. In the second case, the phase response of the loudspeaker will be identical to an equivalent single driver. That two driver system is minimum phase.
All that said, either of the loudspeakers will respond to EQ just the same. You add 3dB at 1kHz, both will reflect it just the same in the combined frequency response.

Multi driver IEMs are not all minimum phase. I just spent a couple of days measuring a bunch and some have flat phase response, but some roll the phase just like multiway loudspeakers do. All of them respond to EQ just fine.

I EQ'd inexpensive single driver IEM's to the same frequency response as the multi driver ones, and while they sound similar, they don't sound the same. For example the multi driver ones with dedicated high frequency transducers can reproduce the low level decays and reverbs better.

 

[kemmler3D]

I'm still trying to figure out where the law of diminishing returns really kicks in

Diminishing returns would technically mean you get less than 2x the quality when you spend 2x the money, and the ratio continues to decline as you spend more. In today's IEM market, that probably happens between $50 and $100 at most. You should regard pricing vs. quality as basically random. Judge the quality based on measurements or a demo, then decide if it's worth it to you. Don't think about quality being defined by price or vice-versa.

Also: welcome to ASR and good on ya for getting started gathering factual audio knowledge early. Since you are still in school I would recommend studying physics (especially anything relating to waves), electronics, and if any sound / audio classes become available to you, those should be high on your list. I took a Music Technology minor in college because I was interested, but that knowledge is still helping me sort out what's nonsense and what isn't in audio, 20 years on.

 

[sq225917]

Quality / technical competence is not defined by price, but mostly because of the existence of crappy expensive iems.

If you give a good designer more money to play with they will usually deliver a better result, at least if trying for the same quality target.

With iems fit is everything, if thry don't fit they'll never sound good, consistently. Then shoot for low distortion to allow for eq, and if you can, get one closest to your preferred eq naturally.

Ignore trends, fashion and the hype train.

 

[egellings]

Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to get some insight from the community. If an IEM exhibits near-perfect minimum phase behavior, excellent channel matching, and a well-targeted frequency response (like the 7Hz Salnotes Zero 2), and its primary limitation is limited treble extension, then what exactly justifies the price jump in higher-end IEMs?

From what I understand, if a transducer in an iem is minimum phase, then frequency response essentially defines its perceived sound — assuming distortion and resonances are at a negligible threshold. So in theory, a well-engineered $20 IEM should be functionally equivalent to something far more expensive, aside from bandwidth limits in the upper treble.

I’m aware of the factors that justify high-end headphones (like interaction with the pinna, improved spatial perception, etc.), but IEMs bypass most of that. So I’m wondering: are listeners primarily paying for better treble extension, or are there other measurable or perceptual benefits that justify flagship pricing?

Not trying to be a troll — I’m 14 and still learning. Just trying to understand how much of high-end IEM pricing is science versus perception. Appreciate your thoughts!

It's not really justified at all. It was about da money, is about da money, and always will be about da money. Sorry. Audio seems particularly susceptible to that disease, since audio is all about perception to most listeners, and the untutored listener is easily fooled by outrageous claims about audio products.