Audeze Euclid Closed-Back Planar IEM

[tinyman392]

Made a

Okay, I focused in on this today and sure enough discovered my makeshift coupler is introducing error. Its length has major bearing on the resonance peaks and dips in both magnitude and frequency.

Measurement with a shorter coupler:

(Better aligns with the two previous measurements published)

Measurement with an even shorter coupler:

(also diverges from the two previous measurements published, so probably is also inaccurate as what I originally shared but then deleted in the previous post.)

Tho, it does seem that the frequencies at least, if not magnitude, of the peaks and dips at and immediately above 5300 hz, as well as the big dip near 16KHz are not affected by the coupler length. Leading me to believe those are not being introduced by the measurement rig, are real and are always there. So candidates for parametric EQ'ing.

I will try to measure a number of iems that I have with different coupler lengths to try to discover which best gives me measurements that correlates with measurements others have made (found in the AutoEQ github distribution). Atm before that, it seems at least my "shorter but not shortest" coupler is my best so far.

When I did a DIY coupler/mic I ended up trying to calibrate it so I compensated to match well established sources with headphones I knew the plots for (like an Etymotic). For example way back in the day I set up my setup a single compensation profile to be able to match Tyll’s DF compensated plots on Innerfidelity on like 10 IEMs.

 

[Dobrescu George]

Planar Magnetic Headphones always sounded better open-back, but Audeze decided to change that legacy. Their Euclid is a closed-back IEM, made with their latest planar magnetic technology, but also with good ventilation, so with zero driver flex, and if you thought that isine was detailed, this one will totally blow your mind!

It has a sparkly tonality, and while some folks will still prefer the warmer isine presentation, Euclid doesn't need a Cipher cable, and sounds good out of most portables.

I took the time to review the Euclid in-depth and compare it to many of the competitors, so I invite you to check out my full in-depth written review about the Euclid~

https://www.audiophile-heaven.com/2021/05/audeze-euclid-planar-iems-closed-back-magnificence.html

 

[m8o]

I took the time to review the Euclid in-depth and compare it to many of the competitors, so I invite you to check out my full in-depth written review about the Euclid~

Good selection of pairings w/capable dac-amps.

To the wider audience of readers, I'm apt to point out how demanding of a load these are on DAPs. Rolled-off bass and flat'ish bass dynamics are the result when driven with ordinary DAPs (ones which are not capable of driving the 13 or 14 ohm load these measure without suffering from flatter than normal dynamics and bass killing voltage droop; mine measured 14 and I read another reviewer measure 13 ohms). Based on my experience having driven these with a decent sampling of DAPs, portable DAC-amps, and desktops amps.

 

[m8o]

When I did a DIY coupler/mic I ended up trying to calibrate it so I compensated to match well established sources with headphones I knew the plots for (like an Etymotic). For example way back in the day I set up my setup a single compensation profile to be able to match Tyll’s DF compensated plots on Innerfidelity on like 10 IEMs.

Yep. I am not really a "iem guy". My sample size will be limited. But I think I can make it work and find the optimal coupler length for my test rig based on what I do have. I'm pretty sure all have had one or more measurements made by 'reference reviewers'.

 

[m8o]

Okay, followup. All my iems have one or more measurement found in the AutoEQ github distribution. All have notable frequency response anamolies. And after experimenting with coupling lengths, I was able to determine the optimal length so that my measurements' frequency peaks and troughs of the anomalies are within a few percent of what others have measured.

So I now think I have a good measurement data of my Euclid. And more importantly I have data downloaded directly from my Audio Toolbox (*) at octave, 1/3rd octave, 1/6th octave, and 1/12th octave smoothings, vs reverse engineering the two plots available online, or a photograph of my measurement from the device's coarse display, generated using the online WebPlotDigitizer. So I'll be producing -good- parametric EQ values shortly.

(plots are an average of L+R at the four smoothing ranges cited above and different base levels so that the plots do not overlap)

(*) I also decompiled the software that interfaces to the device I showed a picture of previously, which is long out of production and business shut down so for which I am no longer able to contact support to retrieve the unlock code I once had, analyzed the source code, sniffed the com port and determined the basis for the unlock code, and generated said unlock code. As I've been on sabbatical from my chosen profession for about 3 years now after being at the top of the game, I've been feeling very reluctant the reenter the field and nervous whether I could still cut it, let along get thru an interview to get employed (and that may still be). It made me feel pretty good to be able to accomplish this reverse engineering task.

 

[68x1]

I've oredered these through local dealer and cannot wait. However, it's been two months since I placed my order (March 26, 2021) and looks like covid really has messed with the supply of parts. My dealer has said that Audeze is having a lot of trouble sourcing the necessary parts and materials to build the Euclids.

It seems their April production run has been delayed and I would not be suprised if the May run was also delayed.

 

[tinyman392]

I've oredered these through local dealer and cannot wait. However, it's been two months since I placed my order (March 26, 2021) and looks like covid really has messed with the supply of parts. My dealer has said that Audeze is having a lot of trouble sourcing the necessary parts and materials to build the Euclids.

It seems their April production run has been delayed and I would not be suprised if the May run was also delayed.

Oh no I really hope you get your headphones soon. I hope its worth the wait too. I’m very happy with them, but the signature is very particular.

 

[68x1]

Thanks @tinyman392. I am looking forward to listening to them as well. The wait will be very much be worth it.

 

[ThanatosVI]

These are very interesting, however the slightly bright tuning keeps me from getting them right away.

 

[m8o]

I’m very happy with them, but the signature is very particular.

Funny that... I was perfectly happy from the beginning. Then started applying light EQ. Then started trying to use AutoEQ based on two published measurement graphs to match various target curves; and there are so many of them. Then assuming you've been reading this thread for a while you saw my journey measuring these and I've been making PEQs from that....

But now that I have set all the analytics to match measurements to a target curve aside, and instead am make a PEQ while measuring the iem live in real time on the AudioToolbox 3C, I have several PEQs that mitigates all the peaks and troughs super accurately, and I'll never go back (to non PEQ'ed). Still a WIP so not sharing yet.

The head shaking bass rumble, with clarity, nuance, sparkle, all the way up the spectrum at the same time that these are capable of is remarkable. You can see some of my favorite headphones and iems I have in my signature. But I haven't listened to a single on of them since buying these and thru this journey to near objective and subjective perfection.

 

[m8o]

These are very interesting, however the slightly bright tuning keeps me from getting them right away.

Not that this is meant to or should change anything... But will just say, my sense of the way I see and hear things is I'd say these are actually more midrangey, lower midrangey at that, than bright. At least over a much wider frequency range / Q (i.e. over many octaves) than the peaks in the lower and upper treble I attribute to brightness.

As a picture is worth a 1000 words. A quick snapshot of my laptop screen:

1. Top magenta plot is the raw measurement of my Euclid at 1/12th smoothing.
2. The orange plot is my Euclid measured with the PEQ I most recently created most closely roughly matching an "iem target", applied. (Correction actually: since this I've reduced the 'depth' of the mid bass reduction, and some other changes. But I forgot to save the measurement to a file. The orange plot above is from when I was trying to match to the red target plot below, a custom one I made that merged parts of several targets. But this is still a decent example to illustrate my point.)

Below is a comparison of iem targets I made, including some targets I made especially for the Euclid for use in AutoEQ (which has been a bit of a failure).

( the bright blue plot curve, the oratory1990 target, is the one I want to try to PEQ to when I do this again.)

Anyway, to sum it up ... if you are listening with the PEQ engaged, then turn it off, imo it is the lack of dip from about 80-90Hz thru the early peak just above 2KHz then drop, up to about 2.5K, that is [way] more predominant to me, (i.e. to the left of the vertical magenta line in the image of my measurements) than the hi-Q peaks in the mid to upper treble.

*** HOWEVER *** funny... I was just experimenting with a used Pioneer DAP I just bought streaming over USB to my Mojo -- just to test that the Mojo was indeed getting the native sample rates for all the different source music; it was. I was doing that without any tone control or parametric eq [PEQ]. And I was NOT hating it! Lol. So that kinda negates my "I never want to go back" comment I made earlier about always wanting to use these now with PEQ applied. I'll tell you, I think that the Mojo is capable of good current drive ability in the low-end -- thus no bass roll-off because of voltage droop into the low 14 ohms of this -- has a lot to do with that. I do love these iems. But then reactivate the PEQ and ... oh ya, I like that!

 

[Luke Skywalker]

I wonder if my HiBy R6 Pro or iFi xDSD would be able to bring out the full potential of these? I doubt the Fiio UTWS3 would…

 

[tinyman392]

I wonder if my HiBy R6 Pro or iFi xDSD would be able to bring out the full potential of these? I doubt the Fiio UTWS3 would…

To be honest, they’re really easy to drive.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

To be honest, they’re really easy to drive.

Wow, nice! I love the sound of my LCD-2s, which are my first and only “nice” headphones.

I’m trying to figure out my next moves with IEMs…

I want to set up a TWS adapter solution (the Fiio or the iBasso) with a pair of IEMs, but I kind of want to keep my universal JH Lola’s for wired listening. So maybe I’ll get another set of IEMs for the Fiio/iBasso setup, but I have no idea which ones to get if I go that route.

However… I’m also planning to get a pair of high-end custom IEMs (Elysium perhaps) as soon as I can listen to some different ones and get impressions made.

Any thoughts/advice?

thanks!

 

[m8o]

I wonder if my HiBy R6 Pro or iFi xDSD would be able to bring out the full potential of these? I doubt the Fiio UTWS3 would…

If you'll read my musings on this topic if you read back in posts, having used them on a variety of DAPs and dac-amps and amps, including desktop amps, including driving them right off the 50wpc speaker taps of my McIntosh MHA-100 headamp [a dacamp, but I use only its amp part]. You'll see I have a different opinion from the above, when covering the lowest octaves. (It makes me wonder if they shouldn't be vented a tiny bit more, to let the diaphragm move more quickly when the deflection needs to be its largest in the lowest octaves. But I imagine Audeze experimented with that and optimized the vent size for bass delivery.).

Yes, they are indeed easy to drive. But with the caveat the 'rumble' or 'impact' of the lowest octaves doesn't become visceral until you have an amp driving this thing's 14 ohm load that has a reserve of current available to deliver with every dynamic musical impulse in the bass region.

Now, understand, DSP / equalization does wonders. You'll see not too far above I am a heavy user of it, in the parametric variety. I say this in the light that half the time I'm driving this with a FiiO X7 DAP using the AM3D THX amp with a balanced cable. It doesnt have a huge current reserve. So I bump up the two lowest PEQ bass parameters that I developed.

But even at that, there is something different about the bass delivery [impact, speed, control] between that and when I use my E1DA PowerDAC v2. Right away the lowest octaves have a certain visceral authority, using the exact same player [USB Audio Player Pro] and EQ [the provided Toneboosters Parameteic EQ using the exact same 10 parametric EQ parameters], which is 'subdued/softened' in the X7. I can use a few dB lower EQ parameters in the bass.

(As noted earlier, I have played with using a couple of desktop amps. But that was experimental; I haven't been using them with this Euclid on a day to day basis.)

The Mojo is a more similar experience to the PowerDAC v2 in the dynamic bass delivery. But a bit more refined; just not as refined / smooth as the X7 (which is why I use the X7 aside from its convenience as a single pocketable DAP when going somewhere in the city). As it doesn't have integrated DSP like the PDv2 letting me alter the treble/bass based on the needs of imperfect musical mixes, nor balanced amp out, I choose to use the PDv2 instead of the Mojo most of the time.