Heir Audio - The Appreciation Thread - Page 406

Originally Posted by uchihaitachi 

If the ear impressions are perfect, is there a possibility of a refit requirement?

Originally Posted by DougofTheAbaci 


You can have perfect impressions and the Wizard do a perfect job and you'd still have the possibility of refits. That's just the nature of anything bespoke; so many variables come into play that, sometimes, things just don't work out as you'd like.

However, I get the impression refits are the exception and not the rule. If you're reticence for getting customs is that you'll have to do a refit then just make sure you get a good audiologist who knows what they're doing and you should be fine. Worst case scenario you have to wait a couple extra weeks for an amazing set of headphones that you're going to keep for a very long time.

Originally Posted by FullCircle 

I think there is far more to this than you think there is.

 

For example, jaw movement.  An ear mold impression can not account for this, as the impression is taken while the jaw in in a static position. Open or closed the jaw is still in a static postion.

 

Further more, the CIEM is static, while the ear canal is dynamic. The whole idea of trying to "cork" off a dynamic hole with a static object is really impractical and rather obtuse. The reality is in order to seal off a dynamic hole, more appropriately, a dynamic "cork" should be used. (IE the ear tip of an IEM) If you follow the Hearing Aid industry, the industry has really given up on custom hearing aids and are now focussing on produceing hearing aids with dynamic ear tips. (Which is also causeing the death of ear mold impression taking skills and killing off the art of building custom hearing aids.....  but that is a different topic)

 

As a result of the hearing aid industry shifting to dynamic style hearing aids they found:

 

1) An increase in sales

2) An increase in satisfied customers

 

We have customers that request refits due to the fact they can not lay down with their CIEMs in. Well honestly, that is really pushing the limitation of things, as in order to insure an optimal fit, the ear mold impression should be taken while the customer is laying down.   Or another customer, that says, "When I smile I lose the seal."  Again, same issue, a static ear mold impression can not represent the shape of the ear while "smiling." We have customers that say "when I push on them, they hurt." We also have customers that do not fully comprehend how to insert CIEMs, and send in their CIEMs without ever inserting them properly.

 

We do have an example of this on head fi, and it may be even on this thread, as I requested the owner to post pictures.  He did so, and it was obvious to me, and forum members, that the issue was the method of insertion.

 

So really "statistics" mean little, as the "human" factor throws every thing off.  

 

I will say this, for the year 2012, there was only once customer that I feel has ears that are essentially impossible to fit.

 

After attempting 3-4 times to rebuild his CIEMs, we offered to:

 

1) Continue to rebuild his CIEMs

 

2) Build his CIEM into a Ai style product

 

or

 

3) If he was to sell his CIEMs we would

 

A) Waive the owners transfer fee

B) All art requests would be done for free for the second owner

 

We offered this in order to maintian the resale value of the CIEM.

 

We can not offer a refund, obviously after sinking over 60 man hours into a single set of CIEMs  we are actually deeper in the hole as the value of the CIEMs themselves.

 

None the less, we will still maintain refit policy if required.

 

The end result is, understand that CIEMs are not for everyone, IEMs are obviously not for every one either. But ultimately, for the main, they do work for a lot of people. This is rather obviuos, as if they did not, there would be no demand for CIEMs or IEMs.

 

 

 

Wizard

Originally Posted by FullCircle 

I think there is far more to this than you think there is.

 

For example, jaw movement.  An ear mold impression can not account for this, as the impression is taken while the jaw in in a static position. Open or closed the jaw is still in a static postion.

 

Further more, the CIEM is static, while the ear canal is dynamic. The whole idea of trying to "cork" off a dynamic hole with a static object is really impractical and rather obtuse. The reality is in order to seal off a dynamic hole, more appropriately, a dynamic "cork" should be used. (IE the ear tip of an IEM) If you follow the Hearing Aid industry, the industry has really given up on custom hearing aids and are now focussing on produceing hearing aids with dynamic ear tips. (Which is also causeing the death of ear mold impression taking skills and killing off the art of building custom hearing aids.....  but that is a different topic)

 

As a result of the hearing aid industry shifting to dynamic style hearing aids they found:

 

1) An increase in sales

2) An increase in satisfied customers

 

We have customers that request refits due to the fact they can not lay down with their CIEMs in. Well honestly, that is really pushing the limitation of things, as in order to insure an optimal fit, the ear mold impression should be taken while the customer is laying down.   Or another customer, that says, "When I smile I lose the seal."  Again, same issue, a static ear mold impression can not represent the shape of the ear while "smiling." We have customers that say "when I push on them, they hurt." We also have customers that do not fully comprehend how to insert CIEMs, and send in their CIEMs without ever inserting them properly.

 

We do have an example of this on head fi, and it may be even on this thread, as I requested the owner to post pictures.  He did so, and it was obvious to me, and forum members, that the issue was the method of insertion.

 

So really "statistics" mean little, as the "human" factor throws every thing off.  

 

I will say this, for the year 2012, there was only once customer that I feel has ears that are essentially impossible to fit.

 

After attempting 3-4 times to rebuild his CIEMs, we offered to:

 

1) Continue to rebuild his CIEMs

 

2) Build his CIEM into a Ai style product

 

or

 

3) If he was to sell his CIEMs we would

 

A) Waive the owners transfer fee

B) All art requests would be done for free for the second owner

 

We offered this in order to maintian the resale value of the CIEM.

 

We can not offer a refund, obviously after sinking over 60 man hours into a single set of CIEMs  we are actually deeper in the hole as the value of the CIEMs themselves.

 

None the less, we will still maintain refit policy if required.

 

The end result is, understand that CIEMs are not for everyone, IEMs are obviously not for every one either. But ultimately, for the main, they do work for a lot of people. This is rather obviuos, as if they did not, there would be no demand for CIEMs or IEMs.

 

 

 

Wizard

Originally Posted by Yoga 

Anyone driven the 8.As with the Burson Conductor?

Originally Posted by sunninho 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience with the Violectric stack.  I still need to add the V800, using the V200's builtin DAC for now.  I like having two 1/4" jacks on the front of the V200, but then I'm also paranoid about leaving the volume knob at 12 to 1 or 2 o'clock from a session with the HD800 and plugging in the CIEMs right after 

 

I also wonder if anyone has had any experience with $149 CablePro extension cables, to add another 5 feet of "audiophile-grade" copper cable to your CIEM cable trail.  Yes, it's expensive so I'm wondering if it's, at all, a justifiable add-on?

 

http://www.thecablepro.com/cablepro-freedom-up-occ-headphone-extension-cable.html

Originally Posted by DougofTheAbaci 


I normally associate the Conductor with larger cans. I've seen it and the Soloist (which is basically just the amp-section of the Conductor) reviewed with HE-500's and LCD-2's.

The best thing I've seen that could possibly drive something of that scale as well as an 8.A is the WA7, which is why I'm considering it.