[Brooko]

What do you mean "how reliable are the measurements" - they are measuring with a microphone, the frequency response of the actual earphones when played a 20hz-20 kHz sine wave.  As long as the mic has been calibrated well, and the coupling is good, then its reliable.  Different measuring set-ups are different though, so you have to know what you're measuring, and its best to put it relative to a reference point you know - that way it has better meaning.
 

The graphs below are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget. 

 
But here is a prototype (early release) of the Duke from my rig (calibrated to the closest I can get to an IEC711 standard)
 

 
 
As you'll see - Tyll's raw data and mine is not far away.  His graph is elongated - hence the shallower looking peaks etc.  But same data presented.  Mid bass hump, recession at 1 kHz, minor peak in presence area at 3 kHz, and big spike at 7 kHz.
 
I'd say its pretty reliable.
 
And the Duke's frequency isn't all over the place.  I think if you EQ's that 7 kHz sike down a bit you'd find a pretty nice sounding IEM.
 
 
Quote:

  How reliable are measurements when something like that Duke can sound good once you tame the sibilance (no success yet on my end, will find those foams) even though its FR is all over the place?

 

[laxtrax]

But the downward slopes are supposed to be smooth and gradual for good-sounding headphones, right? Duke has those massive drop-offs and yet it should sound fine except the treble peak. What should FR graphs tell us, then?

 

[Brooko]

  But the downward slopes are supposed to be smooth and gradual for good-sounding headphones, right? Duke has those massive drop-offs and yet it should sound fine except the treble peak. What should FR graphs tell us, then?

 
Nope - not necessarily - some have lots of peaks and valleys, and some still sound pretty good with those too.  Frequency response shows us where the frequency curves are high or low.  If you know your own preferences, you can pretty much tell if you are likely to enjoy something.
 
But you have two graphs now showing same trouble area. Please do what I suggested.  EQ 7 kHz down by about 5 dB and see what you think. Take it down further if you need to - but I think 5dB will probably do for starters.

 

[golov17]

dispute unproductive in the questions of faith, imho

 

[kydu]

In that case I suggest you ask Lee directly. He's someone who I have immense respect for, cutting through a lot of the myth and audiophile BS many claim that they hear - yet are unwilling to prove (which can de done ridiculously easily) by measurement. Lee will tell you exactly what I have. Burn in will affect the Duke no more than any other of his earphones.

Manufacturers who claim it should be ashamed of themselves - or they should put up the measurements. These are not full sized speakers with a spider. We can (as you say) agree to disagree - but I would strongly suggest you conduct some experiments (properly controlled), measure the output, and then you might just change the way you're thinking.

Appreciate the advice. I have had my personal experiences and tests with enough equipment and cables to know that with some designs, burn in yeilds positive effect. Last type of debate I'll have with you. I won't quote someone else, but I'll say that Lee has streamed on YouTube about how he feels about break in. As we both respect the man greatly, like I said, we can agree to disagree on the importance of burn in ( with some designs). Have a good News Years, I owe VE a lot since it's because of their Monk Plus I just had my first review published for Tone Audio. If you have time check it out since you're a fan of VE and the great contributions they have made to a flooded market of B.S.

 

[laxtrax]

The most convincing argument against burn in is, why are the effects always positive? Outside the objectivity vs. placebo debate, I think that one is iron-clad.

 

[yacobx]

In that case I suggest you ask Lee directly. He's someone who I have immense respect for, cutting through a lot of the myth and audiophile BS many claim that they hear - yet are unwilling to prove (which can de done ridiculously easily) by measurement. Lee will tell you exactly what I have. Burn in will affect the Duke no more than any other of his earphones.

Manufacturers who claim it should be ashamed of themselves - or they should put up the measurements. These are not full sized speakers with a spider. We can (as you say) agree to disagree - but I would strongly suggest you conduct some experiments (properly controlled), measure the output, and then you might just change the way you're thinking.

Lee always suggests 50 hours of burn in

 

[Brooko]

Lee always suggests 50 hours of burn in

Not in the direct conversations I've had with him. The only burn-in he's mentioned to me is both Tubes and Caps on the Enterprise. I cud prove it to you by setting up a station on a brand new Monk Plus. Measure it. Play music for 100 hours. Re-measure. The plots won't change. But it won't make a bit of difference to the people who claim it exists. They'll still hear it - even when it doesn't exist.

 

[kydu]

The most convincing argument against burn in is, why are the effects always positive? Outside the objectivity vs. placebo debate, I think that one is iron-clad.

No need to arugue something which no one ever said was "always" a fact.

 

[kydu]

Not in the direct conversations I've had with him. The only burn-in he's mentioned to me is both Tubes and Caps on the Enterprise. I cud prove it to you by setting up a station on a brand new Monk Plus. Measure it. Play music for 100 hours. Re-measure. The plots won't change. But it won't make a bit of difference to the people who claim it exists. They'll still hear it - even when it doesn't exist.

I was clear the changes cannot be measured, second, I'm forwarding information from the manufacturer which you say is irrelevant. I'm done wasting my time.

 

[Brooko]

I was clear the changes cannot be measured, second, I'm forwarding information from the manufacturer which you say is irrelevant. I'm done wasting my time.

Don't bother - I've already measured in the past. I know there is no change.

 

[kydu]

Don't bother - I've already measured in the past. I know there is no change.

Maybe you read that incorrectly, the information I gave, is the information the manufacturer gave me. I'm not talking about personal opinions or measurements, since I've said more than a few times, the change is too small to be measured by a properly calibrated mic. Similar to tube or SS components, which usually improve with proper burn in. I have had more gear than not which requires burn in to sound its best, and that's a fact. So why wouldn't I, along with most good reviewers, make this a regular practice for all designs. Then I can say, well, "XYZ was previous run for 100-200 hours", before I made my conclusions. It's a good common practice in my home theater builds, so yes I follow that approach with my head gear as well.

 

[peter123]

Maybe you read that incorrectly, the information I gave, is the information the manufacturer gave me. I'm not talking about personal opinions or measurements, since I've said more than a few times, the change is too small to be measured by a properly calibrated mic. Similar to tube or SS components, which usually improve with proper burn in. I have more gear than not which requires burn in to sound its best, and that's a fact.

Just so that I understand correctly:

The changes are a fact because of something that I don't understand and they're too small to be measured but they're significant enough to tame the peaks. Also the fact that all burn in is positive is not a fact can't be used as valid argument against burn in because it's not a fact.....


Your time is no the only time you're waisting here I'm afraid....

 

[kydu]

Just so that I understand correctly:

The changes are a fact because of something that I don't understand and they're too small to be measured but they're significant enough to tame the peaks. Also the fact that all burn in is positive is not a fact can't be used as valid argument against burn in because it's not a fact.....


Your time is no the only time you're waisting here I'm afraid....

Hahah I know! every time I comment on burn in on headfi this happens since people take burn in out of context. It's common practice with all my review gear. Lastly, if the manufacturer in question recommends it, then yes, I do as well. This isn't a debate just my opinion of what you can do before critical listening. The fit is what will justify the outcome more than anything, with spinfit tips I have zero issue with Duke or Duke AE, I use them for what they were designed to do.

 

[golov17]

If the burn does not make mines worse, then what's the point of this discussion ?? I have not seen Jesus Christ, but I believe him, and that ?? I have faith to live and love, this helping me and I do not have to deny, for that someone could relax from your.. reasons, lolz