[Danthrax]

Thanks for the input, I ended up going with Savants due to a few factors: favorable comparisons to the K10, faster shipping (I did something stupid that resulted in the death of my IE80s), and their relatively low price for the universals (the CIEM model is double which leads me to believe the universal is marked down to draw people into the brand as these are very impressive). I actually already have them, they arrived yesterday and I'm blown away by how good they are. I'm of the opinion that the Adel universal line is a bit pricey due to the cost of Adel and being a thrifty person I would have ended up having to buy a much more expensive Adel model to get the frequency profile I wanted based on the graphs/impressions I've read. Their CIEMs are far more price competitive though so when I make the jump to CIEM I'm going to have a much tougher choice. I wish I could have heard all of my options before making the decision but strictly based on reviews and pricing I feel that the savant was for my the intelligent choice. To get a comparable sound signature I would probably be looking at the U6 or U8 maybe (purely based on the graphs provided) and those are $300-400 more and take 1-2weeks to ship, so if anyone from 1964 ears is looking at this thread those are some of the factors that went into my decision making, and also due to the Savant popularity if I didn't like them I saw them as an easier headphone to sell later. So all in all nothing negative to say about 1964 and I can't give anyone advice based on sound but from a purely I need new headphones now, and a perceived value perspective I went with Savants.

 

[Lunatique]

As an audio professional, I want to share my experience with the U5 and U10. 
 
I had high hopes because 64 Audio market the U5 and U10 as very neutral and accurate, tuned specifically for audio professionals who need to do mixing and mastering. That is unfornately NOT the case. Not even close. Below are some of the emails I sent to 64 Audio regarding the frequency response of the U5 and the U10:
 
"I just got the U5, and have been testing it. There is a sharp peak at around 6~8 KHz, and it's excessively bright and sibilant. On all songs that have slightly brighter mastering, it's unbearably sibilant. I tried all the tips including tips from other IEMs, and I can't get rid of that sibilant peak. What do you advise?"
 
"After some in-depth testing with log sweep tones, sine wave tones, pink noise, and a large variety of musical material, this is the custom EQ curve I created in order to get the U5 close to sounding more neutral and accurate (see attached image). 
 

 
 
When you recommended the U5 to me, you claimed it is neutral/accurate, but it is far form being that, and I cannot imagine any audio professional who would listen to it and think they sound neutral. The upper-mids region is so bright and sibilant that it's like sharp daggers stabbing the eardrums. The bass is bloated and way too thick. And there's a strange downward slope starting at around 1000~2000 Hz that makes the mids sound recessed, and then starting at around 6 KHz, it suddenly gets unbearably bright and remains so past 10 KHz and on. 
My reference is a mastering grade 2.1 system (Klein + Hummel O 300Ds and Neumann KH805) in an acoustically treated studio, and I've also compared it to other headphones like the Stax SR-007MK2, Audeze LCD-2, Sennheiser HD650, Audio-Technica M50, JH Audio Angie, Noble Audio Kaiser K10U, Westone 4, Westone W60, Hifiman RE-600/RE-400, Ultimate Ears UE900, etc. The U5 is one of the worst offenders in terms of excessive brightness--to the point of being excruciating. 
 
I'm willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that there's nothing wrong with the manufacturing, so I'm going to have to assume your tuning of the drivers is the problem. I don't know how you guys arrived at the conclusion that the U5 is neutral/accurate, but I'm extremely disappointed. After all that marketing effort, I can't believe this is what the actual product sounds like.
 
I'm at a complete loss here. In fact I'm dumbfounded by how bad the U5 sounds. 
 
I think I need to speak to one of your engineers about this, because I cannot understand why this is happening. And if the U5 is indeed supposed to sound like this, then I must say I feel duped by your marketing. The product sounds nothing like what was promised. "
 
When 64 Audio asked about my source, this was my reply:
 
"My sources are PC with high-end pro audio interface, or high-end soundcard, or Samsung Galaxy Note 3, going through Objective O2+ODAC amp (which has .05 impedance and reference quality sound). 
 
I've tried all the tips, and I always make sure the tips are fully seated on the stems all the way to the housing.
 
I always insert as far as I can in order to get the best seal, but I've also tried using more shallow insertion too.
 
This isn't my first pair of IEMs. I've been using them for almost a decade and have owned several of them, as well as tested many more. I'm also an audio professional and experienced audiophile, so I'm well aware of all the issues related to IEMs such as getting a proper seal, insertion depth, source, impedance, etc."
 
64 Audio then asked me to send the U5 back to them to check the tuning, and I did, and I asked them to keep me informed on what the problem was in this email:
 
"Please keep me updated on the issues you guys discover and how you fix them. I want to know if it was indeed a tuning issue with the drivers or some other problem, and I need to know for sure that the frequency response it perfectly neutral before you send it back to me. And if you cannot get the tuning to measure perfectly neutral, I'd rather you just refund me."
 
They then sent it back to me without any correspondence. But they actually sent me the U10 without telling me first, and I had no idea it was the U10 since the IEMs look pretty much identical, and it's only on the barcode sticker that you can identify the model number, and I had no reason to check the barcode sticker. After testing it, I sent them this email:
 
(Keep in mind that when I wrote this next email, I had no idea they sent me the U10 instead of sending back the U5).
 
"I just received the U5 you sent back to me after retuning the drivers, and it is still NOWHERE near sounding neutral and is not in any way acceptable for professional audio work. There's a little bit of change in the upper-mids in individual frequencies, but the overall sonic signature remains the same, with way too much sub-bass and lower-mids that sounds bloated and muddy, and the entire upper half of the frequency range is sunken and dull, with individual frequencies in the upper-mids and treble being way too sharp and bright. 
 
When your office assistant (Jessica Ilkevich) emailed me on December 28th telling me that you received the U5 I sent back, I had specifically given her this instruction in my reply:
 
'Please keep me updated on the issues you guys discover and how you fix them. I want to know if it was indeed a tuning issue with the drivers or some other problem, and I need to know for sure that the frequency response it perfectly neutral before you send it back to me. And if you cannot get the tuning to measure perfectly neutral, I'd rather you just refund me.'
 
I never got a reply, and then the U5 was sent back to me without any notice, as if my entire instruction was completely ignored. 
 
Then when I tested the retuned U5, it pretty much sounds very similar to before the retuning. I have attached two screenshots showing my EQ correction for both before and after versions and how they largely are the same. 
 

 
I have to wonder how your audio engineers are measuring and tuning the headphones, because this is NOT what neutral/accurate sounds like--not by a long shot. Do your engineers even test the IEMs using logarithmic sinewave sweeps, individual frequency sinewave test tones, pink noise measurements, and professional headphone measurement equipment? I can't imagine that they do because if they did, it'll be clearly obvious how far from neutral/accurate the U5 is, yet you are advertising it as something for audio professionals. 
 
At this point, I doubt any additional effort to get what you advertised/promised is necessary, as I don't feel it's even possible, so please just give me a full refund."
 
64 Audio then informed me that the U5 I had sent back to them didn't have tuning issues and it sounds as they intended, and they had sent me the U10 to try but forgot to tell me about it. If I liked the U10 they'd give me a discount. 
 
And finally, everything concluded with me sending back the U10 and getting a refund for the U5.
 
Now, my main point here is this:
 
I'm sick and tired of audio product companies claiming that their products sound neutral/accurate and are designed specifically for audio professionals that do mixing and mastering, when the products sound nowhere near neutral/accurate in frequency response. And it's not as if it's impossible to achieve frequency response that's very close to neutral/accurate, because it's been done before. Even if those attempts by the other companies weren't perfectly neutral/accurate, they were at least within an acceptable range of neutrality/accuracy that I would not raise an eyebrow if those companies claimed their products are suitable for audio professional who need neutral/accurate audio reproduction. 
 
The problem here is that companies that don't produce products that are neutral/accurate yet advertise them as so, and it really, really pisses me off. That is false advertising, and it wastes our time and energy when these products don't perform anywhere near what the companies promised. I have no doubt that their audio engineers know their products don't actually measure neutral/accurate, and I have to believe that they do test and measure their products properly. The problem here, I think, is overzealous marketing deparments trying to sell the products as something they are not, in order to appeal to wider range of customers who would otherwise not be interested in their products. When you make a claim that your products are neutral/accurate and meant for professional audio engineers doing mission critical mixes and masters, you better be able to back it up with the performance of your products, otherwise you're just another consumer audio company using hyperbolic marketing language/false advertising to sell your products as something they are not.
 
64 Audio is far from being the only offender in this, as we all have seen similar behavior from other companies. It is my hope that we can do something about it--to force these companies to change their behaviors and be more honest about their products. But the consumer audio industry is notorious for being opaque, and to ask them to show actual measurements of their products would be met with nothing but silence. Pro audio industry is better in this regard, but it's usually the high-end products that provide measurement data for their products. 
 
Anyway, I'm sharing this for those of you who need neutral/accurate frequency response and are hoping to find it in the U5 or U10. The bottomline is, you won't find it in those products. 
 
Also, I want to say that I'm not specifically angry with 64 Audio or anything--I'm just disappointed in the entire consumer audio industry (and also some pro audio companies) for how common this type of behavior is. 64 Audio is not worse than other companies, since many other companies are the same way, and we the consumers simply need to fight against it and force them to change their ways. 
 
And one more thing--none of this has anything to do with the wonderful ADEL technology or the work that's done by the folks behind that technology. I'm only talking about the frequency response.

 

[ken6217]

I'm not a musical professional and so this doesn't other me. I actually rather have some coloring and not be neutral. With all of that said, I don't think you should be surprised. It seems to me that most literature I see for audio equipment state that their equipment are neutral, but of course they're not. Just like reviews. It is rare to see a review where the equipment isn't rated very good. Maybe that due to advertising dollars. 
 
The bottom line for me is to audition and see how it sounds to you and trust yourself.

 

[willywill]

After 60 hours the U6's are starting to come alive.

 

[badwisdom]

  I'm not a musical professional and so this doesn't other me. I actually rather have some coloring and not be neutral. With all of that said, I don't think you should be surprised. It seems to me that most literature I see for audio equipment state that their equipment are neutral, but of course they're not. Just like reviews. It is rare to see a review where the equipment isn't rated very good. Maybe that due to advertising dollars. 
 
The bottom line for me is to audition and see how it sounds to you and trust yourself.

As the OG post says, its up to us to call them out on their false marketing so the industry stops lying so blatantly.
 
A great post btw in which i learned a lot and will certainly not buy CIEMs without testing the Universals first. Were talking +1K products here (U12).

 

[drkp80]

  As an audio professional, I want to share my experience with the U5 and U10. 
 
I had high hopes because 64 Audio market the U5 and U10 as very neutral and accurate, tuned specifically for audio professionals who need to do mixing and mastering. That is unfornately NOT the case. Not even close. Below are some of the emails I sent to 64 Audio regarding the frequency response of the U5 and the U10:
 
"I just got the U5, and have been testing it. There is a sharp peak at around 6~8 KHz, and it's excessively bright and sibilant. On all songs that have slightly brighter mastering, it's unbearably sibilant. I tried all the tips including tips from other IEMs, and I can't get rid of that sibilant peak. What do you advise?"
 
 

 
I own U5 and mine don't sound anything like you describe. The highs on mine are smooth and not at all sibilant. I use them with the stock double flanges and my source is Chord Mojo or iBasso DX80. They have very clear mids and great bass that's never bloated. I've never posted anything about it as no one really seems interested in this model. Not trying to argue with your findings and I'm not a professional, I just found your post very surprising.

 

[Lunatique]

   
I own U5 and mine don't sound anything like you describe. The highs on mine are smooth and not at all sibilant. I use them with the stock double flanges and my source is Chord Mojo or iBasso DX80. They have very clear mids and great bass that's never bloated. I've never posted anything about it as no one really seems interested in this model. Not trying to argue with your findings and I'm not a professional, I just found your post very surprising.

You'd be surprised what you can uncover when you use professional audio's scientific methods for assessing audio gear, and know exactly what to listen for to uncover all the problems that are easily covered up with musical materials that are not suitable for doing critical listening tests. 
 
If you have not done really serious listening tests before but have the time and the interest, you might want to do some objective scientific tests such as using logarithmic sweep tone, pink noise, sinewave test tones at regular intervals, and musical material that specifically test for potential problems in frequency response (such as bright recordings that will sound sibilant and fatiguing if the speaker/headphone is not neutral enough, or expose other issues such as bass articulation, overall tonal balance using full-range arrangements that utilize lots of different timbre and textures and frequencies, naturalness of speaking and singing voice, naturalness of high treble detail, etc.).
 
I can put together an instructional thread that teach people how to do critical listening step-by-step, if there's enough interest. Maybe I can even do an in-person workshop if enough people are interested in learning at a meetup or something. I can teach not just how to critically assess audio gear, but also how to properly do surgical EQ to make your speakers/headphones sound as neutral/accurate as possible. And by neutral, I don't mean the way people often misuse the term, where they think neutral means sterile, boring, anemic, cold, etc. People who say that have no idea what neutral/accurate actually sound like and have never heard it before. True neutrality/accuracy has powerful and authoritative bass that's very detailed and balanced, very smooth and natural sounding mids, with detailed and open treble that has no hint of excessive brightness, and you can play a logarithmic sweep and hear perfect smoothness and evenness from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. In my estimation, there are probably less than 1% of headfiers that have heard true neutrality and know what it sounds like. 

 

[vtkc]

You'd be surprised what you can uncover when you use professional audio's scientific methods for assessing audio gear, and know exactly what to listen for to uncover all the problems that are easily covered up with musical materials that are not suitable for doing critical listening tests. 

If you have not done really serious listening tests before but have the time and the interest, you might want to do some objective scientific tests such as using logarithmic sweep tone, pink noise, sinewave test tones at regular intervals, and musical material that specifically test for potential problems in frequency response (such as bright recordings that will sound sibilant and fatiguing if the speaker/headphone is not neutral enough, or expose other issues such as bass articulation, overall tonal balance using full-range arrangements that utilize lots of different timbre and textures and frequencies, naturalness of speaking and singing voice, naturalness of high treble detail, etc.).

I can put together an instructional thread that teach people how to do critical listening step-by-step, if there's enough interest. Maybe I can even do an in-person workshop if enough people are interested in learning at a meetup or something. I can teach not just how to critically assess audio gear, but also how to properly do surgical EQ to make your speakers/headphones sound as neutral/accurate as possible. And by neutral, I don't mean the way people often misuse the term, where they think neutral means sterile, boring, anemic, cold, etc. People who say that have no idea what neutral/accurate actually sound like and have never heard it before. True neutrality/accuracy has powerful and authoritative bass that's very detailed and balanced, very smooth and natural sounding mids, with detailed and open treble that has no hint of excessive brightness, and you can play a logarithmic sweep and hear perfect smoothness and evenness from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. In my estimation, there are probably less than 1% of headfiers that have heard true neutrality and know what it sounds like. 

I think it has something to do with the ADEL Module. I think the module does affect the frequency response graph if it is not in the ear. This lead me to think that the drivers are tuned to the frequency response graph that you measured was to compensate for the ADEL Module affecting the sound sig. Is the module working well for your pair of iem when you tested it?

And if you are looking for a very neutral iem then get the Dunu 2000. According to earfonia, he took a measurement of the frequency response graph of the dunu 2k and it is extremely flat, like ruler flat. The following graph is by earfonia:



Dunu 2000 is in green.
Dunu 2000J is in red.

 

[borez]

A little off topic from above's topic, but need some advice:
 
I ordered a pair of A12s, and sent in my impressions via my local distributor during the BF sale. Unfortunately after two months, just got a call that my ears are too small for the A12s, and I can only choose up to the A6s with no recessed sockets. A couple of questions:
 
1) How's the EQ difference on the A6 versus A12? (saw some first impressions, but couldn't find them anymore)
2) Should I choose to get a refund (and try other brands), would the other CIEM manufacturers find similar issues? Note that I've demoed Fitears and JHs, and they seem quite big in footprint.
 
I'll make a trip to the local distributor tomorrow, but pretty peeved that this was communicated so late. I'll have to re-compare the A6s to other demos I've had (assuming Point 2 holds for me).

 

[ken6217]

 
As the OG post says, its up to us to call them out on their false marketing so the industry stops lying so blatantly.
 
A great post btw in which i learned a lot and will certainly not buy CIEMs without testing the Universals first. Were talking +1K products here (U12).

I was agreeing with him and expounding on it.

 

[shotgunshane]

The Dunu iems aren't close to flat. Not sure what was used in those measurements but IEC compliant simulators, with both reference plane and shallow fit, will show them to be V shaped with boosted bass and treble. Doesn't mean they don't sound good or perform well; they just aren't close to any established reference for flat sound.

 

[AudioBear]

Let's hold on a minute here.  I am not an expert on cans or IEMs although I do know a but about speakers and I read. One of the things I have read is:
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one#ZcOq2DzRDDErjrKH.97
 and http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-two#TPmOy1ojJtAVTfco.97
 
If you haven't read these two articles you should.  They helped me a lot.
 
The simplified take home message is that a flat frequency response curve is exactly what you don't want in a headphone or an IEM.  That's why there is active research on the best curve to provide psycho-perceptual neutrality.  It's one of the major challenges of all developers in this industry.    If they had to do flat it would be a lot easier to build a good IEM.  What they must do is boast the base and introduce a complex set of peaks and valleys in the treble in order for our ear to hear flat which I am interpreting to be neutral. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
As an aside, from having built and equalized speakers I totally agree that a flat frequency response need not be clinical, sterile, lifeless or dead.  It can be as musical as it gets. There are many variables other than frequency response that determine apparent audio quality and user happiness.  There are speakers with very wanky frequency responses that sound great.
 
So if the Dunu were really flat it would probably be awful.  I am not going to argue with @Lunatique who obviously knows a lot more about what he is talking about than I do.  I would love to have him start a forum thread as he suggests.   I would, however, ask the Lunatique to comment on his observations in light of the Harman Target Response curve as modified by Tyll at Innerfidelity.  At first glance his equalization curve bears a resemblance to a cancellation curve for the Harman Target Response curve.  Am I missing something?  Have I not had enough coffee yet this morning?
 
Let me close by saying that I love my A12s.  I am not interested in any other cIEM.  I enjoy it immensely and could give a rats tail if it's accurate or flat.  An A10 might be a better sound professional's cIEM but I don't even find the A12 to have exaggerated bass.  It just delivers the bass with authority when it's there.  There are IEMs and then there are 64 Ears ADEL IEMS. The response to their Kickstarter has caused some growing pains at 64 Ears.  I have always had very quick and complete responses to my questions and their service has been great.  I hope that when they clear out the Kickstarter backlogs that becomes the 100% norm once again.
 
Afterthought:  The response curve of an IEM needs a special measurement set up.  Some Hi-Fiers are equipped to measure responses but most are not.  The results of different measurement set-ups can easily produce different curves.  Perhaps some of you who do measurements can comment on that.  Could be part of Lunatique's seminar thread: measuring in ear response.

 

[LoryWiv]

I've had my A6's several months and enjoy them immensely. Over the last few days I've noted intermittent cutout of the left channel, reproduced in both DX90 and iDSD so not a source issue. I suspect it may be a cable / connector issue and it does resolve within 5 minutes upon my re-inserting the plug and applying gentle forward pressure to the connectors to shell. Hoping to avoid an RMA. Should I ask 64Audio replace my cable or are there other things I should try 1st?
 
Any ideas appreciated. Thanks!

 

[shotgunshane]

There is a difference between RAW flat measurements and COMPENSATED flat measurements.  Indeed a flat RAW measured IEM would sound quite bad. This is because an IEM is missing the effects of the outer ear and torso.  This is what compensation is for. There are 2 main competing compensation methods in the industry: diffuse field compensation and the harman target (which is still under development and research). And of course there are a few others that are really hybrids of diffuse field and the X-room curve. Those linked IF articles are great for understanding the basics of measurements. As if all that isn't complicated enough, people are posting measurements in a vacuum of unknown measurement rigs with unknown parameters,compensation methods and tools; which, quite frankly, do more harm than good and cloud interpretations and preconceptions, making it murkier for deriving accurate and useful information. 
 
In other news, my U10 should arrive on Monday.  Looking forward it!

 

[AudioBear]

@shotgunshane 
 
That's sort of what I was politely trying to say. You said it much better.
 
Enjoy those U10s!