Hey there!
Does anyone know what IEMs there will be at Munich High End 24 (this year in a month). I know the focus isn´t IEMs, but I guess there will be some at least.
Appreciate your help!
So, after about 5 months or so on the Truthear Hola. I just noticed that while I get a spike at 9.5kHz on the BLON BL-03, I get a spike at about 11kHz on the Hola. I wonder how much this is influenced by the ability to insert the Hola deeper than the BL-03.
To anyone who has a personal target curve. How much of a factor are fit, HRTF and equal loudness contour combined? Does your preference target state a preferred listening volume? Does your preference curve state a preferred insertion depth (approximate or exact mm)?
I do remember Crinacle saying he averages 81dB and HBB averages 78dB. So I can probably assume their preferences revolve around those averages?
To anyone who has a personal target curve. How much of a factor are fit, HRTF and equal loudness contour combined? Does your preference target state a preferred listening volume? Does your preference curve state a preferred insertion depth (approximate or exact mm)?
The depth of the fit is everything, IMHO. Ear tips make is possible or prevent certain fit depth, completely changing the sonic presentation. Thus, they are even more important than DAC/amp and cable.
Regarding fit:
It is well known and objectively measurable that the resonance peak moves around depending on how deep you fit an IEM. Due to the way Crinacle measures, most if not all of us who use the same 711 clone coupler tries to align the peak at 8kHz. Some IEM has that peak at a shallower fit, some requires a deeper fit.
However, we don’t fit IEMs into our ear holes the way we fit IEMs into coupler. Thus, that peak would move around.
Deeper fit = moving the peak up into the treble air = “good treble”
Shallower fit = moving the peak down into 5kHz to 12kHz region = “pain treble” (sometimes)
Manufacturers likely design their IEM with different fitting intention. For example, all 64 Audio requires DEEP insertion of the nozzle. Whenever I use longer tips or larger tips that prevent the optimal fit, these IEMs sound tizzy and annoying. Some say this is “15kHz” tizziness but I personally believe that it comes from 10-12kHz instead.
AFUL has exactly the same fitting problem.
Some IEMs seem to demand shallow fit. For example, Symphonium Meteor has a big dip around 4-6kHz. Shallow fit pulls the treble peak down to around this region, giving the energy and snappiness back.
An advantage of shallow fit is artificially stretching out of the soundstage. Meteor also takes advantage of this trick.
All of these are not hypothetical. Final Audio F series offers two different fitting position so that you can adjust the sound to your liking.
Regarding loudness:
I strongly believe that trying to measure loudness at 1kHz before comparing to IEM to “remove loudness bias” is a wrong approach because:
IEMs are tuned for different expected loudness!
Change in frequency response in one part can change the overall balance when volume comes to play (objectively measureable, such as with the CCA Trio. The effect after balancing volume is different from the real effect of the switches)
IEMs with “flat” response, moderate ear gain boost demand higher volume (not deafening).
Example: something like Meteor is designed to be a bit louder. Not ear splitting loud, but a few notches higher than you would expect. At the right volume, the stage is filled, the depth is shown, and the muddiness disappears.
IEMs with deep V demand lower volume
Assuming that drivers are good and there is no technical problems, the detail retrieval of IEMs with a flat response tend to be better because you can hear every frequencies with minimal masking.
Some V-shaped IEMs like Effect Audio Gaea seems to use the loudness trick to “hollow out” the space between notes, making the stage illusion feels spacious. Interestingly, Helios seems to be able to do the same
The loudness is further complicated by the expected operating environment of an IEM. Example: many TWS are tuned bassy because they need to overcome the droning bassy noise of the outside (source: Sennheiser interview), plus they need to deal with the interference from ANC as well (source: FiiO notes on TWS development).
Regarding target:
Nope, I’m not aware of any audio geek being that meticulous to note down the expected fit and loudness of their target.
Ultimately, target should be there to provides a frame of preference, but one should not tune to the target blindly, IMHO. What if the target was designed for louder listening when you want to listen at a whispering level?
Misunderstanding “the point” of an IEM seems to be a major source of disappointment.
My guess: it's a problem with the nozzle filter mesh due to condensation* issue and ear wax maybe (* - because of the metal shells). Most likely, the left driver speaker is perfectly fine.
The depth of the fit is everything, IMHO. Ear tips make is possible or prevent certain fit depth, completely changing the sonic presentation. Thus, they are even more important than DAC/amp and cable.
Regarding fit:
It is well known and objectively measurable that the resonance peak moves around depending on how deep you fit an IEM. Due to the way Crinacle measures, most if not all of us who use the same 711 clone coupler tries to align the peak at 8kHz. Some IEM has that peak at a shallower fit, some requires a deeper fit.
However, we don’t fit IEMs into our ear holes the way we fit IEMs into coupler. Thus, that peak would move around.
Deeper fit = moving the peak up into the treble air = “good treble”
Shallower fit = moving the peak down into 5kHz to 12kHz region = “pain treble” (sometimes)
Manufacturers likely design their IEM with different fitting intention. For example, all 64 Audio requires DEEP insertion of the nozzle. Whenever I use longer tips or larger tips that prevent the optimal fit, these IEMs sound tizzy and annoying. Some say this is “15kHz” tizziness but I personally believe that it comes from 10-12kHz instead.
AFUL has exactly the same fitting problem.
Some IEMs seem to demand shallow fit. For example, Symphonium Meteor has a big dip around 4-6kHz. Shallow fit pulls the treble peak down to around this region, giving the energy and snappiness back.
An advantage of shallow fit is artificially stretching out of the soundstage. Meteor also takes advantage of this trick.
All of these are not hypothetical. Final Audio F series offers two different fitting position so that you can adjust the sound to your liking.
Regarding loudness:
I strongly believe that trying to measure loudness at 1kHz before comparing to IEM to “remove loudness bias” is a wrong approach because:
IEMs are tuned for different expected loudness!
Change in frequency response in one part can change the overall balance when volume comes to play (objectively measureable, such as with the CCA Trio. The effect after balancing volume is different from the real effect of the switches)
IEMs with “flat” response, moderate ear gain boost demand higher volume (not deafening).
Example: something like Meteor is designed to be a bit louder. Not ear splitting loud, but a few notches higher than you would expect. At the right volume, the stage is filled, the depth is shown, and the muddiness disappears.
IEMs with deep V demand lower volume
Assuming that drivers are good and there is no technical problems, the detail retrieval of IEMs with a flat response tend to be better because you can hear every frequencies with minimal masking.
Some V-shaped IEMs like Effect Audio Gaea seems to use the loudness trick to “hollow out” the space between notes, making the stage illusion feels spacious. Interestingly, Helios seems to be able to do the same
The loudness is further complicated by the expected operating environment of an IEM. Example: many TWS are tuned bassy because they need to overcome the droning bassy noise of the outside (source: Sennheiser interview), plus they need to deal with the interference from ANC as well (source: FiiO notes on TWS development).
Regarding target:
Nope, I’m not aware of any audio geek being that meticulous to note down the expected fit and loudness of their target.
Ultimately, target should be there to provides a frame of preference, but one should not tune to the target blindly, IMHO. What if the target was designed for louder listening when you want to listen at a whispering level?
Misunderstanding “the point” of an IEM seems to be a major source of disappointment.
I don't really know how to illustrate this better but...
Does it look like I could have arrived here by blindly following someone's preference?
And yes. I mainly use IEMs on the go at this point, hence the bass boost.
But I mainly asked the above because I'm not sure how the above 1kHz arrived at that... I just like it that way. And yes, the treble is very clearly audible to me despite what the graph may show.
Chipping + Rusting after 3 months use of my Aria II. As a victim of the Aria One, I am speechless, and the volume of the left unit is diminishing too ! How on earth this company still survive !?
i mean this is bad Moondrop QC for sure, but you should start packing desiccants for moisture and alcohol wipes to clean after every use in your carrying case.
I am in the market for a new modular cable that I plan on (hopefully) pairing with my Dusk. I typically just purchase cables like the ARTTI Wave and call it a day but I figured I'd bump up the budget a little more.
While searching, I came across this Hakugei cable called the Soaring Dragon and am sort of intrigued. Can't seem to find any impressions on it, so it might be some discovery material. Anybody have any experience with it? I might pull the trigger on it purely out of curiosity.
The Trios showed up. Everything that has been said is true about these tarts. I can't add anything to those assessments. KZ/CCA stepped up their game with these. 4 CCAs and 10 KZs in the stash and these are demonstrably mature.
The posed question, "why buy anything more expensive?, is a poignant one indeed. If I could only afford, or had no desire for whatever reason, to own just these, I wouldn't know the difference the other IEMs in my collection bring to my ears, and could live with these and be completely happy. Comparing to the Kefine Delcis I just received, which are $50 more and superb at their price point, "which is better?" They both have excellent qualities: the Delcis for late night listening and the Trios for daytime listening. The Trios are more up-front and intense compared to the Delcis but they are both excellent sounding. I actually fell asleep with the Delcis in my ears where the Trios are grabbing and holding my attention. The Delcis are more refined from bottom to top whereas the bass on the Trios is satisfyingly impactful for Hip-Hop and more intense music listening. The treble is a touch sharp, but thankfully no sibilance, so I all I may have to do is drop a dip switch to attenuate. I rather like the midrange for its intensity and will leave those switches as is (I think). They may ameliorate themselves with time though. I may look into dropping a switch on the bass but my sense is I'll kill their character. I'll try the other recommended options. One dip down on top outta do it if not.
That's all for the differences . They are both staying put. 73 IEMs. Jeezuz... Oh, and I agree with the comment that the value proposition in IEMs is in the midrange, up to @ $300. The bang for the buck value sector in the up to $50-ish range cannot be denied. These Trios are a testament. My first were the CHUs and I listen to those to remind me of just how good they actually sound. I have a bunch of under $50 IEMs I discovered here on Head-fi. My collection is almost evenly divided between the two. I listen to a different two sets in each category every night interspersed with the new arrivals. Life is good!
I am in the market for a new modular cable that I plan on (hopefully) pairing with my Dusk. I typically just purchase cables like the ARTTI Wave and call it a day but I figured I'd bump up the budget a little more.
While searching, I came across this Hakugei cable called the Soaring Dragon and am sort of intrigued. Can't seem to find any impressions on it, so it might be some discovery material. Anybody have any experience with it? I might pull the trigger on it purely out of curiosity.
Chipping + Rusting after 3 months use of my Aria II. As a victim of the Aria One, I am speechless, and the volume of the left unit is diminishing too ! How on earth this company still survive !?
Personally, I would say maybe the $150 - 300ish USD range is the sweet spot?
The $500 - 700 range seems a bit of an orphan child. There aren't that many releases at that price range, and if you just top up a bit of cash, you can actually get a legit TOTL IEM. Or just shave off a bit from here and go back to the $100 - 300 bracket which has arguably better price-to-performance ratio than a $700 IEM per se.
But definitely yeah diminishing returns are a real thing and we are really blessed to have lots of kick-ass gear now. I recall with a tear in my eye that I have some Westones that cost me $400 - 500 in my drawer that sound no better than a $50 CHIFI!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Oh, and I agree with the comment that the value proposition in IEMs is in the midrange, up to @ $300. The bang for the buck value sector in the up to $50-ish range cannot be denied. These Trios are a testament. My first were the CHUs and I listen to those to remind me of just how good they actually sound. I have a bunch of under $50 IEMs I discovered here on Head-fi. My collection is almost evenly divided between the two. I listen to a different two sets in each category every night interspersed with the new arrivals. Life is good!
