[DaveStarWalker]

"Endgame" iem -> good headphoes
"Endgame" headphones -> good speakers
"Endgame" speakers -> live concert in one of the acoustically optimized venues

Thank you all for coming. (I am being intentionally silly)

Agreed

 

[Benesyed]

The interesting thing about the headphone/speaker dichotomy is that there are some things headphones can do with much greater ease than speakers, and vice versa. In that regard, one doesn’t necessarily obsolete the other. Both can translate directly into each other, because it’s possible to construct a headphone listening setup around a low powered speaker amp and have it perform dual duty on both headphones and speakers. There is a very real synergy between the two that can be taken advantage of by one who knows what they’re doing.

This is not the case for IEMs. There is nothing that IEMs do better than any other transducer type. They exist for portability and convenience and nothing more, which are not sonic aspects. This is not an inherently bad thing, in my opinion; constraints can often create greatness. That simply hasn’t happened yet with the relatively infantile IEM industry though, and it may be a long time coming until it matures enough for this to be possible.

As for live concerts — as if anyone alive today could play like Sviatoslav Richter. What a farce.

I don't really know what it is that headphones can do in terms of accuracy of musical representation that is better than speakers. perhaps I'm missing something but fundamentally headphones will be inferior to a multichannel set up that can better capture spatial distribution no? maybe I'm missing something very key.

As for live music, I meant for the same individual song, the live experience would be the ideal. obviously that's not possible for all things. luckily for me most of the music I listen to is modern so it's not an issue!

 

[aminus]

I don't really know what it is that headphones can do in terms of accuracy of musical representation that is better than speakers. perhaps I'm missing something but fundamentally headphones will be inferior to a multichannel set up that can better capture spatial distribution no? maybe I'm missing something very key.

It is extraordinarily difficult for an appropriately upfront, lively, and aggressive headphone setup to be immediately matched 1:1 by a speaker setup of similar building blocks. Many of the best amplifiers in terms of engagement and musicality are only capable of doing so at very low power (think 2-6W, single digit range), and the number of speakers you can really find that not only get loud enough, but sound properly fed off of that little voltage swing, is vanishingly few. Your chances become marginally better if you are willing to build your own (probably horns of some sort, maybe even field coils), but as a whole all your options are in the territory of exceedingly esoteric and extraordinarily time consuming to execute. It is a whole boatload of work that does not exist with headphones, where virtually any headphone short of planars and estats (which will kill said engagement and musicality anyways) will run off of that much power. Of course, none of this matters if one doesn't know what liveliness or engagement in music are, which sparingly few people do, especially not anyone espousing the benefits of studio monitors or any similar active speakers.

As for multichannel, it is simply adding unnecessary complication to the signal path that will inevitably sound worse than simply sticking to stereo or even mono would've to begin with. Spatial distribution in music is something most audiophiles cannot even comprehend relative to what real, physical music sounds like, only parlor tricks and gross facsimiles that sound flashy, and above all, unnatural. It really isn't even a topic for discussion since barely anyone in "audiophile" communities understands what real instruments sound like, projected from a stage into an audience.

As for live music, I meant for the same individual song, the live experience would be the ideal. obviously that's not possible for all things.

No one goes to live performances for some sort of audiophile nonsense (the notion itself is preposterous), you go there to experience real sound, in front of you, made by a real person. It does not matter how much "microdetail" or "soundstage" or "dynamics" or "plankton" the performance has (most of the time, compared to a proper headphone or speaker rig, it's very poor). By trying to judge real, live music against the facsimile, using jargon that borders on nonsensical word salad invented to benchmark facsimiles against one another, one has ceased to be a music listener and has turned into a gear listener. A sad fate to behold.

 

[Enhance]

Your favorite headphone is HD580? What do you pair it with?

 

[Benesyed]

interesting set of thoughts.

I'm not well informed enough either conceptually or with experience to speak to this argument.

 

[yookym]

Hello! I just wanted to say many thanks to your reviews and essays, which actually was a reason I joined this community. Not only did they give a new person like me an idea on how to evaluate gears and understand terminologies through coherent usage, it was inspiring in reading the thoughts about what is relevant in a gear also, which seemed to shift slowly by time. It helped me take a step back and think about what I really need and want, both in short-term and long-term, before just following the numerous information being uploaded every minutes and seconds.

Since I am here, I would like to take this chance to ask you a question. These days, I was interested in studying what some interesting shape patterns in FR graphs means and how they would impact the presentation of sound/timbre on varying arrays of driver setups: i.e. EQing to figure out the intension of FR dips and peaks, based on the most readily available / easily measurable / variable factor, FR graphs.

In one of your replies in this thread, I remember you mentioning that you prefer to reduce as much DSP in the chain as possible. Having not much experience with source gears, I have not much idea on how DSP will impact my experimentation. I wonder if you can tell me your experience on what it is that makes you avoid DSP since I am afraid it might be another variable for me to consider in the future, on top of the tuning-independant driver performances which I have no control over already.

Thanks again for all the interesting reads, and although you said it's unlikely and is something symbolic already, I still wish one day you find something that you can rate 10/10. I will be looking forward to your further critical and frank impressions on interesting devices and well-written opinions or lessons.

 

[aminus]

Hello! I just wanted to say many thanks to your reviews and essays, which actually was a reason I joined this community. Not only did they give a new person like me an idea on how to evaluate gears and understand terminologies through coherent usage, it was inspiring in reading the thoughts about what is relevant in a gear also, which seemed to shift slowly by time. It helped me take a step back and think about what I really need and want, both in short-term and long-term, before just following the numerous information being uploaded every minutes and seconds.

Since I am here, I would like to take this chance to ask you a question. These days, I was interested in studying what some interesting shape patterns in FR graphs means and how they would impact the presentation of sound/timbre on varying arrays of driver setups: i.e. EQing to figure out the intension of FR dips and peaks, based on the most readily available / easily measurable / variable factor, FR graphs.

In one of your replies in this thread, I remember you mentioning that you prefer to reduce as much DSP in the chain as possible. Having not much experience with source gears, I have not much idea on how DSP will impact my experimentation. I wonder if you can tell me your experience on what it is that makes you avoid DSP since I am afraid it might be another variable for me to consider in the future, on top of the tuning-independant driver performances which I have no control over already.

Thanks again for all the interesting reads, and although you said it's unlikely and is something symbolic already, I still wish one day you find something that you can rate 10/10. I will be looking forward to your further critical and frank impressions on interesting devices and well-written opinions or lessons.

With regards to reading FR graphs, it is part experience, part the art of interpretation, and part total bullsh*t. I think that trying to hone in on ultra specific elements on an FR graph (ie. a 1dB difference in elevation at 7khz or minutiae of a similar variety) is a complete waste of time; instead one needs to step back from it all and try to get an idea of the overall proportions of the graph. You most certainly are not going to get a full picture of how something sounds just off measurements alone, but they can still be mildly indicative of what sort of aural silhouette one can expect from a given transducer. If you really, really want to learn how to read FR, I strongly suggest buying an IEC 711 coupler of your own (knockoffs are really cheap on Taobao or similar Chinese marketplaces) and measuring quite literally everything and anything you can get your hands on after listening to it. Building up a repertoire of graphs and understanding how what I was actually hearing translated to points on a line were really how I taught myself to understand what matters and what doesn't in a measurement.

With regards to DSP, it's pretty straightforward. I find the minimum phase (and linear phase too, for that matter, but to a much lesser extent) filters used in basically all DSP functions to be highly destructive to transients and timbre. Everything, whether it's digital or physical, has a sound, and the more things you have in the signal path, the more variables you add to the equation. I also find the idea of having to fix a manufacturer's mistakes for them using EQ philosophically abhorrent. If a transducer cannot sound good on its own terms, then it is simply not worth my time and effort. The less "correction" one has to do to keep components in line, whether it's through brute force methods like DSP or more ephemeral tugging and nudging by trying to synergistically match opposites in components (e.g. a warm DAC with a cold amp), the better.

As for future content, expect some new reviews soon; I have been itching to write about something for a while. I also have some ideas for a large, long form essay aimed at the more philosophical aspects of audio, but I cannot promise that it will materialize into something worth publishing anytime soon, if ever. The last time I made this claim, it never turned into anything, so do not be surprised if this one ends up with the same fate.

 

[Not so fat head]

I'd appreciate and look forward to reading your document, but it's not changing any minds on head fi...; well maybe a few. Stubborn group of guys, with opinions from A to Z...

 

[yookym]

With regards to reading FR graphs, it is part experience, part the art of interpretation, and part total bullsh*t. I think that trying to hone in on ultra specific elements on an FR graph (ie. a 1dB difference in elevation at 7khz or minutiae of a similar variety) is a complete waste of time; instead one needs to step back from it all and try to get an idea of the overall proportions of the graph. You most certainly are not going to get a full picture of how something sounds just off measurements alone, but they can still be mildly indicative of what sort of aural silhouette one can expect from a given transducer. If you really, really want to learn how to read FR, I strongly suggest buying an IEC 711 coupler of your own (knockoffs are really cheap on Taobao or similar Chinese marketplaces) and measuring quite literally everything and anything you can get your hands on after listening to it. Building up a repertoire of graphs and understanding how what I was actually hearing translated to points on a line were really how I taught myself to understand what matters and what doesn't in a measurement.

With regards to DSP, it's pretty straightforward. I find the minimum phase (and linear phase too, for that matter, but to a much lesser extent) filters used in basically all DSP functions to be highly destructive to transients and timbre. Everything, whether it's digital or physical, has a sound, and the more things you have in the signal path, the more variables you add to the equation. I also find the idea of having to fix a manufacturer's mistakes for them using EQ philosophically abhorrent. If a transducer cannot sound good on its own terms, then it is simply not worth my time and effort. The less "correction" one has to do to keep components in line, whether it's through brute force methods like DSP or more ephemeral tugging and nudging by trying to synergistically match opposites in components (e.g. a warm DAC with a cold amp), the better.

As for future content, expect some new reviews soon; I have been itching to write about something for a while. I also have some ideas for a large, long form essay aimed at the more philosophical aspects of audio, but I cannot promise that it will materialize into something worth publishing anytime soon, if ever. The last time I made this claim, it never turned into anything, so do not be surprised if this one ends up with the same fate.

Thank you very much for the comprehensive reply. It gave me good guidelines for what to expect. Indeed the first thing I did after I got my first IEM in like 10 years was getting a 711 knockoff, to at least get a grasp of the shock I experienced with the new gear (kind of an extension of my workplace instinct). I am still studying how to fully utilize the coupler mic, but I will keep trying to see correlation/limitation between my subjective impression and the data points. About the DSP, EQ and in general, I will take a close eye on how destructive they are, as a side-hobby to satisfy my curiosity.

Good to hear that there will be new posts from you in the future! I will be calmly looking forward to reading them.

 

[o0genesis0o]

With regards to reading FR graphs, it is part experience, part the art of interpretation, and part total bullsh*t. I think that trying to hone in on ultra specific elements on an FR graph (ie. a 1dB difference in elevation at 7khz or minutiae of a similar variety) is a complete waste of time; instead one needs to step back from it all and try to get an idea of the overall proportions of the graph. You most certainly are not going to get a full picture of how something sounds just off measurements alone, but they can still be mildly indicative of what sort of aural silhouette one can expect from a given transducer. If you really, really want to learn how to read FR, I strongly suggest buying an IEC 711 coupler of your own (knockoffs are really cheap on Taobao or similar Chinese marketplaces) and measuring quite literally everything and anything you can get your hands on after listening to it. Building up a repertoire of graphs and understanding how what I was actually hearing translated to points on a line were really how I taught myself to understand what matters and what doesn't in a measurement.

With regards to DSP, it's pretty straightforward. I find the minimum phase (and linear phase too, for that matter, but to a much lesser extent) filters used in basically all DSP functions to be highly destructive to transients and timbre. Everything, whether it's digital or physical, has a sound, and the more things you have in the signal path, the more variables you add to the equation. I also find the idea of having to fix a manufacturer's mistakes for them using EQ philosophically abhorrent. If a transducer cannot sound good on its own terms, then it is simply not worth my time and effort. The less "correction" one has to do to keep components in line, whether it's through brute force methods like DSP or more ephemeral tugging and nudging by trying to synergistically match opposites in components (e.g. a warm DAC with a cold amp), the better.

As for future content, expect some new reviews soon; I have been itching to write about something for a while. I also have some ideas for a large, long form essay aimed at the more philosophical aspects of audio, but I cannot promise that it will materialize into something worth publishing anytime soon, if ever. The last time I made this claim, it never turned into anything, so do not be surprised if this one ends up with the same fate.

Interesting how I 100% agree with all the points you mentioned here, despite disagreeing with most of your reviews, almost all the time.

Yup, listening + measuring again and again is the way to build that “pattern language” in the brain to associate graph with potential sound signature. I can BS about this and that based on graph, only if the graph is somewhat familiar. Given a strange graph of, say JH audio IEMs, and all the predictions are out of the window.

Anyhow, keep up the writing!

 

[silverszi]

Of course, none of this matters if one doesn't know what liveliness or engagement in music are, which sparingly few people do,

I've been thinking about this
how would you go about defining musicality and engagement, because reading this it does come across as gatekeeping a bit

 

[aminus]

I've been thinking about this
how would you go about defining musicality and engagement, because reading this it does come across as gatekeeping a bit

I wrote an old article on the definition of engagement factor a few years ago; while outdated, the essential spirit of the concept is not entirely incorrect. I would recommend starting there.

As for gatekeeping — a meaningless pejorative. All things worth preserving have to be gatekept.

 

[silverszi]

I wrote an old article on the definition of engagement factor a few years ago; while outdated, the essential spirit of the concept is not entirely incorrect. I would recommend starting there.

Seems like audiophoolery and just means it's enjoyable and probably differs from person to person.

I kinda think musicality/engagement might be related to all dynamic things in audio, like imaging, being able to hear directional changes, volume dynamics, notes sounding different instead of mush but really it's dependent on so many other factors that it's probably not even worth trying to define.

 

[redrol]

Lets unpack this situation. Animus privilege allows him to gatekeep the concept of engaging sound. /wokeaphile

 

[aminus]

Seems like audiophoolery and just means it's enjoyable and probably differs from person to person.

I kinda think musicality/engagement might be related to all dynamic things in audio, like imaging, being able to hear directional changes, volume dynamics, notes sounding different instead of mush but really it's dependent on so many other factors that it's probably not even worth trying to define.

The purpose of the engagement factor article was to clarify what precisely engagement factor means within the context of my reviews. That is subjective. Musicality is not, and that particular rant was written too early on to have a concrete understanding of the greater concept of musicality regardless. The engagement factor discussed in the aforementioned article is but one (albeit an important one) facet of it.

Lets unpack this situation. Animus privilege allows him to gatekeep the concept of engaging sound. /wokeaphile

I recommend unpacking the disclaimer at the bottom of the original post instead.