[Evoke]

A review of sony m9 will be nice

 

[aminus]

A review of sony m9 will be nice

I’ve reviewed it alongside the M7. Check the index.

 

[Evoke]

I’ve reviewed it alongside the M7. Check the index.

I happened to miss that. Nice music taste btw.
I am aiming for the M9 but the relaxing nature kinda worries me for the stuff I listen to. I have to audition it again

 

[aminus]

I happened to miss that. Nice music taste btw.
I am aiming for the M9 but the relaxing nature kinda worries me for the stuff I listen to. I have to audition it again

It’s something that I picked up on only after several sessions with it, so there’s always the chance that I’m just being hypercritical and it may turn out to be a nonissue for you. It’s definitely a damn good IEM, especially for a full BA that lacks any sort of fakeness or plastic-ness. I wonder if more companies can tackle this sort of approach to BA design.

 

[BananaOoyoo]

Is the Oriolus Percivali available in Singapore?

 

[aminus]

Is the Oriolus Percivali available in Singapore?

It appears to be, although I’m not sure if there’s a unit for audition. I’ll have a look around.

 

[aminus]

Aminus Rants: Burn in
This will be a mid-week intermission where I write on my opinions on various topics, be they controversial, mundane, popular, esoteric, or somewhere in between.

Burn in is something I’ve always struggled to agree with. Simply put, I find it hard to agree with the notion that a transducer’s performance can genuinely change over time. First, we have to understand the concept of burn in. The idea behind it is that, through regular mechanical force, a transducer can change characteristics over time, perhaps “loosening up” or “getting tighter”.

Here’s the problem with that: drivers actually move miniscule amounts when used. When you hear an in ear monitor dynamic driver, the actual vibration the driver makes is practically invisible. Chances are, if you were to pour enough wattage into a dynamic driver to actually see it move, you’d blow it, and lose your hearing too. With this minimal amount of actual movement during operation in mind, there’s also the fact that diaphragms, generally speaking, are not so low in tolerance that they bend or change in shape so easily. Diaphragm materials are all actually fairly stiff, especially in the center, as is necessitated by the engineering behind a good dynamic driver. This is enough to cast doubt on the whole theory; there’s simply not enough mechanical locomotion for a driver to get physically modified on a scale that burn in believers subscribe to.

On top of that, there’s also a large factor of the brain adapting to the sound signature of a transducer, especially if it’s one that’s not quite to the listener’s taste. This phenomena, described as brain burn in, is one that’s quite more noticeable, especially if one has a daily driver, auditions something with completely a different sound signature, and returns to said daily driver. And herein lies a problem: burn in is always used as a copout argument to justify why a buyer who dislikes a blind purchase should keep theirs, or why someone who dislikes a certain transducer in auditioning is actually wrong. It’s not because you actually dislike it, no, it’s because it’s not burnt in yet! And this segues into the next issue with burn in: it’s always positive.

Not once have I ever seen, in the many reviews I’ve personally read, research I’ve done, an account where purported burn in is actually negative. Which is odd, because, if you think about it, how burn in is described as functioning is actually mechanical deterioration. While desirable deterioration is actually a thing (we’ll get to that later), you’re telling me that not a single person has ever found this to not be to their taste? All the differing opinions on audio in the world, yet no one who thinks burn in is negative exists? I’ve read arguments that this is because burn in allows a transducer to match the manufacturer’s intentions more closely, but who’s to say that a listener should agree with a manufacturer’s intentions in the first place? The very long and storied history of modifying IEMs or rolling tips, cables and sources to acquire a desired sound, likely beyond what the manufacturer intended, is a testament to that.

But Aminus, why can’t we just prove burn in by comparing a burnt in unit with a fresh one?
Because unit variance is a far larger factor than many realize. Measurements (while not telling the full story in audio) can reasonable prove this. And that’s just in the frequency domain, I have heard of cases of unit variance in the time domain as well. This makes the direct comparison above an invalid option.

So how would one verify the effects of burn in? If it’s not measurable, if auditory memory is too short to be reliable, then how can one prove verifiably that it exists? Well... you can’t. There’s only hearsay and rumor that supports this idea. And that’s my problem with it. I can personally observe cable changes. I can personally observe DAC/amp changes. Tip changes. All of this is possible to compare directly. I can’t observe burn in. If one is unable to observe something, and unable to prove its existence through objective fact, does it really exist? Hence my answer: no.

What about cables and sources? Those can burn in too!
Cable burn in is another concept which I find pretty silly. On one hand, you can actually compare a “burnt in” cable with an unburnt one, as long as they use the same solder, plugs, core count, etc. On the other hand, how many shops or even individuals actually have multiple exact copies of a cable for demo or for comparison? Even the ones who do often have the same cable in different terminations, in which scenario confirmation bias can handwave what’s really caused by source or transducer differences. In either case, cables don’t (from my understanding at least) deteriorate the same way plenty of other things do. So I find the argument and logic behind it fairly inane.

Regarding sources, I’m stuck with treating it like a Schrödinger’s cat of sorts. For one, you can’t prove it, arguably even more so than transducer burn in, through objective data. And unit variance in electrical components is, to my understanding, very much a thing as well, making direct comparisons futile. However, here’s the catch: there are actual reputable manufacturers who endorse burning in their products. This puts the whole thing in a spin: should one disregard these claims and judge an “unburnt” unit? Or should one give benefit of the doubt and play along? After all, there is argumentation behind capacitors deteriorating, is this genuinely a case of desirable deterioration? I would say that I do think that benefit of the doubt does apply here, and that it’s reasonable to give a manufacturer benefit of the doubt and give them the best possible conditions in auditioning a product.

Rating: Light your cables on fire/10

 

[TooPoorForHiFi]

InEar StageDiver SD-5 vs Sony M9 please?

 

[Kitechaser]

JVC HA-FW10000:
The polar opposite of the Z1R. Where one is wood, the other is metal. Where one is a single DD, the other is a hybrid. Where one is V shaped, the other is comparatively flat. And both are Japanese, alongside being basically the same price too! There’s some sort of poetry in this.

The FW10000 has been lauded as a successor to the legendary EX1000 from Sony, and I can see where that comes from. Both are single DDs, both are somewhat openback, both are aiming for a level of neutrality. The hype around this has certainly been built up quite a bit.

Well, I can’t say it’s warranted. The FW10k’s bass suffers from a similar flaw to the Solaris: it’s “technically” flat but I don’t find it satisfying. There’s a lack of rumble to it. On top of that, from the bass up there’s instantly a problem in the time domain: the attack feels blunted. It’s in the midrange as well but it’s especially apparent with the lowend. I’ve talked to other people about this, some don’t hear anything, some interpret it as a decay issue. Me personally, I find that there’s definitely something wrong with the attack. This is especially apparent on kickdrums, like the one on PiL’s Albatross. The punch of it just feels slow compared to the faster DDs I’ve heard.

The midrange of the FW10k is where a lot of stuff gets wonky. There’s an extremely strong upper midrange boost, almost enough to match the DF curve. It doesn’t make the lower mids sound thin but it certainly makes the FW10000 an intense listening experience. Close to the Edge by Yes has obnoxiously loud guitar, synth and vocal parts compared to the rhythm section, and Jon’s voice can get particularly consonant at times. Not what I’d call a relaxing listening experience. It’s also very crunchy with distorted electric guitars, take Obscura by Gorguts. It’s not quite as dry and harsh as the Solaris but it’s again, very intense. Schoenberg’s first quartet performed by Arditti is not spared by this either, the cello noticeably has a hard time keeping up in terms of volume with the already loud violin parts. I have a feeling that JVC was trying to match the DF curve’s mids somewhat here (considering the similarities between the two), but fell flat at the bit where the DF curve isn’t really all that flat.

The treble on the FW10k continues the midrange trend of intensity. While not being nearly as difficult of a listen as the upper mids, it’s still a very lower treble oriented sound that can be fatiguing to a lot of people. The strong lower treble boost somewhat obscures extension which is actually present too, which messes with decay in cymbals. Ascension Day by Talk Talk makes this very apparent, although the electric guitars overpower the mix anyways.

This essentially amounts to a rather strange take on the DF curve. It doesn’t really sound like DF but at the same time it measures somewhat similarly to the target. It’s just far too intense and heavy on the 2khz mark to really be considered DF. It borders on giving me a headache with just how absurdly aggressive the whole listening experience is. I don’t get it.

Technicalities and soundstage are... mediocre. I’d argue that even the EX1000 surpasses them. Part of that may be due to the blunted attack but I’m certainly not hearing the claims of “EX1000 successor” with these technicalities. Layering isn’t anything to be impressed at either. It’s rather lacking compared to the other 2 competitors at this price range that I’ve compared. Oh well, at least it isolates about as well as the EX1000.

For reference all listening was done out of the 3.5mm jack of the WM1A.

Do I recommend this? If you enjoy getting battered to death with upper mids, sure. If not, stay away.

Score: 3/10

So you think the IER-Z1R is a great iem (couldn't disagree more), and this sucks . Means I now absolutely have to give the JVC 10K a try.
Thanks

 

[Tachikoma]

Not once have I ever seen, in the many reviews I’ve personally read, research I’ve done, an account where purported burn in is actually negative.

Actually, in my experience, the TFZ exclusive king did become really shrill after roughly a month of use, to the point I had to stuff it with toilet paper. A few weeks later, I removed the TP and it sounded fine again.

 

[aminus]

Actually, in my experience, the TFZ exclusive king did become really shrill after roughly a month of use, to the point I had to stuff it with toilet paper. A few weeks later, I removed the TP and it sounded fine again.

I would love to see measurements of that. Burn in for budget products is something I don’t hear much discussion for.

InEar StageDiver SD-5 vs Sony M9 please?

It’s been a while since I heard the SD series but I don’t think they hold up against the M7/M9. A lack of BA timbre in the latter pair give them an upper hand.

 

[Tachikoma]

So would I, but I don't even do reviews lol.

It doesn't seem too difficult to do this scientifically - rig up 10-20 IEMs to a measurement rig and keep running a gamut of measurements over and over for 100 - 200 hours.

 

[aminus]

So would I, but I don't even do reviews lol.

It doesn't seem too difficult to do this scientifically - rig up 10-20 IEMs to a measurement rig and keep running a gamut of measurements over and over for 100 - 200 hours.

That’s the thing see, many have tried it. The only one which I know measured any sort of changes was Tyll, and not in frequency response, THD or CSD, but in IMD.
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/measurement-and-audibility-headphone-break
This article is a very interesting read, because the conclusions are almost somewhat poetically centrist; sure, burn in may exist, but if it does, it’s not on the drastic extent described by many.

In either case, it does bring into question the claim that a product must be “fully burnt in” to appreciate, or to be even measured. Which is really one of the gripes I have with burn in, the use of it to handwave all but the friendlier of opinions.

 

[abimanyu]

Please continue your rants. It's very refreshing to see honest reviews.

 

[Tachikoma]

That’s the thing see, many have tried it. The only one which I know measured any sort of changes was Tyll, and not in frequency response, THD or CSD, but in IMD.
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/measurement-and-audibility-headphone-break
This article is a very interesting read, because the conclusions are almost somewhat poetically centrist; sure, burn in may exist, but if it does, it’s not on the drastic extent described by many.

In either case, it does bring into question the claim that a product must be “fully burnt in” to appreciate, or to be even measured. Which is really one of the gripes I have with burn in, the use of it to handwave all but the friendlier of opinions.

My only complaint about that study is that it has a sample size of 1 Its possible for burn-in to vary from one headphone to another, depending on the manufacturer's QC processes or lack thereof. It would be cool to repeat that on a larger scale, and maybe IEMs would not be as sensitive to diurnal shifts.

But yes, I understand the annoyance of having impressions being waved away simply because of "a lack of burn in". In any case, if something changes drastically within the first 100 hours, that's really the manufacturer's problem, not ours.