[Koolpep]

So - all the criticism and responses so far are about the way the information was communicated and not the information itself?
I found the stream extremely helpful and the visual live demos have helped me understand the concepts way better than a just text and graphs.
 
I really find the whole premise very promising and am more likely to purchase an IEM from a company that seems genuinely concerned about damaging my hearing as little as possible.
 
Cheers.

 

[Canyon Runner]

  The problem is this product makes not just product claims, but underlying scientific claims. If a prophylactic  cure for cancer came out, I'm not going to watch a two hour video about it to see if I might be convinced to take the pills.  I'm going to wait for a proper article reviewed by doctors. THEN presumably a news source will pick it up and do a two hour video and then maybe I would watch that.  Not every tech company will openly publish all their tricks.  That's fine.  But it doesn't mean skeptics should be expected to watch two hour videos or they're just unreasonable and insulting (I knew that exchange was coming).  If you really want to convince people, clean up those proceedings drafts and posters, write them properly, and submit them for publication in regular edition of a high impact journal, with clear conclusions relating directly to the product claims.  If not, it's just marketing claims and peoples' experiences, which is all most products are, and so that's fine, but that's what it is.  With some products the product benefits are more obvious and those  experiences are more clear cut and rely on previously well known science or effects, but that's not the case here.
 
 
I would like to strongly encourage you to consider writing more and video less though.  There's a reason books are better educational tools than TV, and they are also more considerate of your audience's time. People can skim writing.  Well written writing is easy to skim because conclusions are highlighted up front, at the end, and by section, and details are expanded within compartmentalized sections.  A transcript is harder to skim, but still far easier than video. It's up to you though.  I'm not the one with a claims to prove.

I had only said that one user was insulting in his tone for not wanting to watch it, since he was the one pushing for so many things to be answered, so when we took the time to do that, he said he couldn't be bothered to watch the answers. That's all. Other users that do not wish to take the time, no worries there, two hours can be a good chunk of time to sink into a video. That's totally understandable.

That comment was directly at one user, who was very vocal about things. We went over his questions directly in the video, but then wanted Stephen & I to post directly to him on here, rather than acknowledging the time we spent already to answer his list of questions. It was totally not aimed at anybody else, he seemed to understand how it came off and now we're all good.

I see how that could be taken as a bit less than professional and for that, I'm sorry. It was not to come off as we will be insulted by other people not taking the time to watch a video, not at all.

 

[Ruben123]

Well I have to agree an explanation of all of the questions on paper wouldve been much easier and less time consuming for everybody. But at least we have some answers now and Im sorry for letting you think I was insulting you. I do admire the fact that you took time for it. I do have to say though that everybody would understand, including you, that watching a 2 hours movie -instead of some minutes a day on the head-fi forum here- takes lots more time than simply answering the questions. Even if they were my questions, it still is a lot of time. I do like the effort you all took for it. no offense.
 
At some time in the video, frequency (or was it phase, I dont remember) was being demonstrated to change when the IEM was sealed by a finger or not. But I think everybody here knows how much a seal on an IEM can do. Also, an IEM has a sound signature based on how it should sound. He claims IEMs can never sound perfect because they are not made to do that, because of the pressure built up. That is just silly I think since you can alter the frequency response of the IEM however you want it to sound. What the ADEL seems to do is let a lot of pressure go when the built up is too much. Well why not build a tiny little hole in the IEM itself, without it having a diaphragm? Vented IEMs exist for a long time and again: they can sound however you want them to, because you can EQ them to compensate for the bass lost. Which brings us to the next question, which might already be answered in the video (not watched it completely): why not EQ an IEM to sound less bassy and thus having less bass energy and pneumatic pressure?
 
To be fair I think you have even sooner hearing loss with the ADEL and here is why I think so: lower frequencies turn on the acoustic reflex which causes to let less dB reach the inner ear. When you take away those bass frequencies, the reflex is much later triggered although the treble is of the same energy! And: mids and highs cause sooner hearing loss. But this is also just a claim and a thought

 

[Koolpep]

I thought the whole point of Adel technology is to have the same sound with the same impact minus the pneumatic pressure on the eardrum. Similar to normal speakers or open headphones. I also do wonder though why not have open headphones. Like the JVC HA-FX850 which don't isolate that great and have a glorious bass impact. Of course if you need the isolation they suck.

 

[Canyon Runner]

  Well I have to agree an explanation of all of the questions on paper wouldve been much easier and less time consuming for everybody. But at least we have some answers now and Im sorry for letting you think I was insulting you. I do admire the fact that you took time for it. I do have to say though that everybody would understand, including you, that watching a 2 hours movie -instead of some minutes a day on the head-fi forum here- takes lots more time than simply answering the questions. Even if they were my questions, it still is a lot of time. I do like the effort you all took for it. no offense.
 
At some time in the video, frequency (or was it phase, I dont remember) was being demonstrated to change when the IEM was sealed by a finger or not. But I think everybody here knows how much a seal on an IEM can do. Also, an IEM has a sound signature based on how it should sound. He claims IEMs can never sound perfect because they are not made to do that, because of the pressure built up. That is just silly I think since you can alter the frequency response of the IEM however you want it to sound. What the ADEL seems to do is let a lot of pressure go when the built up is too much. Well why not build a tiny little hole in the IEM itself, without it having a diaphragm? Vented IEMs exist for a long time and again: they can sound however you want them to, because you can EQ them to compensate for the bass lost. Which brings us to the next question, which might already be answered in the video (not watched it completely): why not EQ an IEM to sound less bassy and thus having less bass energy and pneumatic pressure?
 
To be fair I think you have even sooner hearing loss with the ADEL and here is why I think so: lower frequencies turn on the acoustic reflex which causes to let less dB reach the inner ear. When you take away those bass frequencies, the reflex is much later triggered although the treble is of the same energy! And: mids and highs cause sooner hearing loss. But this is also just a claim and a thought

You have the right thinking, but if you lose that seal and make a hole for pressure relief, then the bottom end dumps. So you need the membrane to let the pressure through, while maintaining the seal. This means there's no need for that EQ adjustment. If those are more your thing, then that's cool too.

And as I mentioned in an above post, yeah two hours can be a hefty chunk of time to sit down and watch something. Especially with times of echos and other technical glitches, that can get irritating fast. I totally get that people might not even want to watch something in the first place. In our exact exchange, I was simply irritated that you were all for us doing a video, giving us a lengthy list of stuff you wanted answered, but then once it was done, decided you didn't care enough to watch it. That's all. I shouldn't have said anything about being insulted, I was just frustrated by the exchange. I think we totally see eye to eye now and I can say that at least on this side of the screen, there are zero ruffled feathers. So we can let it get buried in a sea of posts of questions and answers. 

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Was anything said about the effect of ADEL on high frequency response? Looking at the original cited paper it seems the biggest change to the measured frequency response was actually in a redistribution of the treble?

 

[Canyon Runner]

Was anything said about the effect of ADEL on high frequency response? Looking at the original cited paper it seems the biggest change to the measured frequency response was actually in a redistribution of the treble?

It makes the highs less tinny, a bit fuller. But if you're looking for that in words, I can't remember where that gets addressed (paper or video). 

 

[jazzfan]

@Canyon Runner, I'm concerned about the detrimental effects of pneumatic pressures produced by IEMs/earbuds, and as a parent, I'm very interested preserving children's hearing beginning at an early age. I believe an affordable ADEL universal could be a solution that would allow hearing preservation in children and young adults to become a reality for many parents with similar concerns.
 
But today, even the lowest price ADEL universal ($399) is priced as a luxury item for the majority of consumers. I realize the ADEL technology is currently being used in IEMs/CIEMs targeted for the high-end market; however, it would be a shame to exclude a large percentage of the population from having access to this beneficial technology strictly due to cost.  That said, I was wondering if 64Audio has any intention of making the ADEL technology available in the future to the mass market at an affordable price point (perhaps $99 or less, or the lowest price point that manufacturing costs will allow).
 
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on this topic.

 

[RRod]

  @Canyon Runner, I'm concerned about the detrimental effects of pneumatic pressures produced by IEMs/earbuds, and as a parent, I'm very interested preserving children's hearing beginning at an early age. I believe an affordable ADEL universal could be a solution that would allow hearing preservation in children and young adults to become a reality for many parents with similar concerns.

 
My feeling as a parent is that IEMs aren't for children, and that a volume lock should be a requirement on all devices that might be reasonably expected to be used by children.

 

[jazzfan]

@RRod, While I completely agree IEM use by young children should be discouraged, many kids initially use some form of earbuds, which I understand, can also have negative effects. My hope is that a safer move affordable transducer with ADEL technology can be made available to the general public. I also agree volume locks should be set by all parents, but I'm sure there are some that do not. Early on, I set volume limits on my kid's devices, and they used to complain that the volume was too low. I told them it was to protect their hearing. As they became older, the volume restrictions were removed, and they actually continued to listen at lower than normal volumes. Now as young adults, they wear ear plugs to concerts. I firmly believe the best way to prevent hearing loss is with education beginning at an early age. If the ADEL technology is effective at preventing hearing loss, my hope is it will be made available to as many people as possible who value their hearing.

 

[ken6217]

  @Canyon Runner, I'm concerned about the detrimental effects of pneumatic pressures produced by IEMs/earbuds, and as a parent, I'm very interested preserving children's hearing beginning at an early age. I believe an affordable ADEL universal could be a solution that would allow hearing preservation in children and young adults to become a reality for many parents with similar concerns.
 
But today, even the lowest price ADEL universal ($399) is priced as a luxury item for the majority of consumers. I realize the ADEL technology is currently being used in IEMs/CIEMs targeted for the high-end market; however, it would be a shame to exclude a large percentage of the population from having access to this beneficial technology strictly due to cost.  That said, I was wondering if 64Audio has any intention of making the ADEL technology available in the future to the mass market at an affordable price point (perhaps $99 or less, or the lowest price point that manufacturing costs will allow).
 
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on this topic.

The module sells for $99.00 by itself. How can they make and sell an IEM with the module for $99.00?

 

[jazzfan]

 
The module sells for $99.00 by itself. How can they make and sell an IEM with the module for $99.00?

 
That's the challenge and question better left to the smart people at 64Audio to answer. But in my limited view, many factors affect the cost of production - labor, materials, manufacturing technologies to name a few. If the ADEL technology becomes widely recognized as beneficial for preventing hearing loss, increased demand for the product will drive production output which can lead to economies of scale which will further reduce per unit production costs. Also, think about the precipitous drop in the price of most leading edge technologies over time. As an example, several years ago the Smyth Realiser A8, a unique revolutionary product in the industry, retailed for over $3000, but recently it was announced that a new A16 model with similar or slightly better functionality is soon to be available at half the price.
 
So although I can't answer your question directly, over time, I am hopeful that the good people at 64Audio are looking at ways to make the ADEL technology available to a wider range of consumers at a lower cost thereby benefiting not only the high-end IEM community but the general public as well.

 

[ken6217]

That's the challenge and question better left to the smart people at 64Audio to answer. But in my limited view, many factors affect the cost of production - labor, materials, manufacturing technologies to name a few. If the ADEL technology becomes widely recognized as beneficial for preventing hearing loss, increased demand for the product will drive production output which can lead to economies of scale which will further reduce per unit production costs. Also, think about the precipitous drop in the price of most leading edge technologies over time. As an example, several years ago the Smyth Realiser A8, a unique revolutionary product in the industry, retailed for over $3000, but recently it was announced that a new A16 model with similar or slightly better functionality is soon to be available at half the price.

So although I can't answer your question directly, over time, I am hopeful that the good people at 64Audio are looking at ways to make the ADEL technology available to a wider range of consumers at a lower cost thereby benefiting not only the high-end IEM community but the general public as well.

And they also need to protect their business model. They have a lot of models from $399 to $1999 that they have to protect. It wouldn't make any good business sense to offer a sub $100 IEM unless they intentionally made it sound like crap on purpose. Why takes sakes away from the rest of your line where your margins are better? In addition, do they want to loose some of their prestige by selling sub $100 IEM's?

So even if it "could" be done, would they really want to do it.

The question you shoild be asking is will ADEL Technology offer their technology to another low end IEM company.

 

[jazzfan]

And they also need to protect their business model. They have a lot of models from $399 to $1999 that they have to protect. It wouldn't make any good business sense to offer a sub $100 IEM unless they intentionally made it sound like crap on purpose. Why takes sakes away from the rest of your line where your margins are better? In addition, do they want to loose some of their prestige by selling sub $100 IEM's?

So even if it "could" be done, would they really want to do it.

The question you shoild be asking is will ADEL Technology offer their technology to another low end IEM company.

 
I understand the need for all businesses to protect their business models, and there are ways to do that without producing inferior products. Look at the Lexus v.s. Toyota lines. Toyota's are respectable, but also inexpensive and reliable vehicles. But now we are making assumptions about how something should be done, rather than whether or not it will be done.
 
64Audio is fully capable of deciding what is best for their company. I've asked the question I wanted to ask. It's clear that you are steadfast in your conviction, and our exchange is doing little to advance the discussion of ADEL Technology in this thread. So if you don't mind, I'd prefer waiting for a response from the source as I have no interest in debating or speculating on how 64Audio should run their business.
 
I'll close by stating my original question makes no assumptions about how the technology will be made available, it only asks whether or not this beneficial technology will be made available to a wider audience at a lower price point. Whether that be by producing a product in-house, or licensing the patented technology to a low-cost third-party provider, or even by some other means is interesting information, but it is secondary to a conscious decision to make the ADEL Technology available to the mass market. In my view, any option to make the technology available to a wider audience would be better than a decision to make the technology unaffordable for mass market thereby limiting the availability of the technology to a privileged few.
 
Given Stephen Ambrose's enthusiasm for bringing his technology to market, I'm confident that the parties involved will act in the best interest for all. For now, I'm happy to wait to hear from 64Audio for more news on this topic.

 

[ken6217]

I understand the need for all businesses to protect their business models, and there are ways to do that without producing inferior products. Look at the Lexus v.s. Toyota lines. Toyota's are respectable, but also inexpensive and reliable vehicles. But now we are making assumptions about how something should be done, rather than whether or not it will be done.

64Audio is fully capable of deciding what is best for their company. I've asked the question I wanted to ask. It's clear that you are steadfast in your conviction, and our exchange is doing little to advance the discussion of ADEL Technology in this thread. So if you don't mind, I'd prefer waiting for a response from the source as I have no interest in debating or speculating on how 64Audio should run their business.

I'll close by stating my original question makes no assumptions about how the technology will be made available, it only asks whether or not this beneficial technology will be made available to a wider audience at a lower price point. Whether that be by producing a product in-house, or licensing the patented technology to a low-cost third-party provider, or even by some other means is interesting information, but it is secondary to a conscious decision to make the ADEL Technology available to the mass market. In my view, any option to make the technology available to a wider audience would be better than a decision to make the technology unaffordable for mass market thereby limiting the availability of the technology to a privileged few.

Given Stephen Ambrose's enthusiasm for bringing his technology to market, I'm confident that the parties involved will act in the best interest for all. For now, I'm happy to wait to hear from 64Audio for more news on this topic.

Gotcha but it's an open discussion forum, even if you don't like where I was going with it. Maybe a PM to Stephen might suit you better?