Audeze Euclid Closed-Back Planar IEM

[vsg28]

Updated the results in the previous post based on a newly calibrated microphone, no idea why it was so off before (still present as attachments for records) but it was obvious based on my listening experience. Audeze shared the measurement done for my specific sample which clearly showed something was wrong before, and so I re-did the measurements which are now basically in-line with the factory results too. I just spent a pretty decent chunk of cash to procure what should be a better, more reliable setup for headphones as well as earphones to hopefully avoid such issues in the future.

 

[debullet]

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!

I am not an audio reviewer or anything of that sort, just a common consumer who really likes how planars sound after having listened to the HifiMan Sundara and Arya about a couple of years ago. For a long time I have been looking to get Planar IEMs and it was very expensive options with a number of issues, like the previous Audeze models were open back and that's a major downer for me. I had the Tin P1 for a while but I always felt the lack of versatility and form factor a pure TWS gave which the Euclid can function as and as a proper IEM once I plug it into a good DAC/AMP at home. I was using the Tin P1 with a Fiio BTR5 because they are extremely hard to drive as is the case with most planar.

So when I saw the Euclid I was very very intrigued and I very very close to buying it when I saw cirnacle's IEF graphs - I was bit, well disappointed that it wasn't matching to the iem target, until I saw this. What EQ settings enabled you to achieve this graph? Perhaps a picture or even the gains your had adjusted at different frequencies? I am curious to know how and what the ' ideal IEF' response would sound like.

Also pardon my lack of knowledge, how is this different from sound signature or is this what makes up the sound signature?

I generally like my EQ to resemble a tiny V shaped graph with 3-4db boost at the end of spectrum to a dip of 3-4db around 900-1000Hz, I am not sure why, but I find the sound quite crisp with these settings.

Lastly I saw you mentioned the E1DA PowerDAC V2 gets the best out of these, Reckon the E1DA 9038S could do this as well, on a good balanced cable?

Sorry for the incoherent number of questions, just trying to understand and learn few things I don't haha

Thank you

 

[m8o]

@debullet I'm on 'sabbatical' you might say from tech and headphones atm; I haven't turned a computer or a dap on for over two months. Once I return to my Euclid and verify I still agree with my peq parameters, I'll share them.

 

[debullet]

@debullet I'm on 'sabbatical' you might say from tech and headphones atm; I haven't turned a computer or a dap on for over two months. Once I return to my Euclid and verify I still agree with my peq parameters, I'll share them.

Ah man, thats a shame! Would have loved to have had a look at it, since your posts were good to read. but sure, please update when you can haha! Thanks!

 

[vsg28]

My Euclid review is live for those interested: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/audeze-euclid-closed-back-planar-magnetic-in-ear-monitors/

 

[Owludio]

I ended up returning Euclid within Audeze generous 30 day trial return window, as I couldn't justify $1300 for IEM that for my music tastes has such a glaring flaw. Lately I seldom post on Head-fi, as my frequent hearing changes would put too much pressure on my attempt to be objective, but since I was asked to clarify,- that takes exception;
"... What do you mean when you say, ‘ they lack dynamics’ or they don’t scale up well"
@debullet:
As far as I remember, the scaling comment was in context of my rant about bass dynamics. My best sources that make even Sony IER-M9(5BA) not to sound like BA and "disappear", providing natural perception of presence rather than sounding like DD, BA, Planar, etc...
Not the case with Euclid. It does scale its upper part of the range, in fact, as I mentioned, tonality of mid through treble(~500Hz&up) is the most natural I ever experienced. Unforgettable! I'll be watching Audeze and others if someone can do it again but with DD added to help Planar with the lower part of the FR range dynamics.
IMR is doing it with some success, but Bobs tuning is not quite in the same league with Euclid. And fit & isolation is not comparable either.
"Euclid is engineered for an incredible 105 dB/mW efficiency and a max SPL well over 120dB*, giving it the highest dynamic range of any in-ear in its category" So, what does Audeze mean by this? Apparently - that you can input power that produces 120Db output with distortions within the acceptable range.
The problem is that power needed to produce 120db is not the same on lower frequencies, and the fact that Dynamic range is 120db @1k doesn't mean much for the bass. To my ears, - the lower you go with Euclid, - the more Dynamic Compression is audible to the point of sub-buss dynamic range being 50db at best. How does it sound like, when you try to add bass? - lots of stage smothering rumble and not much weighty impact that most DD do so well... I should have seen this coming when reviewers noted that bass doesn't respond to EQ. If you care about bass impact, - this should be theRed Flag.
My experience with Planar and BA suggests that only complex DSP processing can compensate for this. Today, it's probably possible to create progressive expansion of dynamic range toward lower frequencies.(kind of what Dolby A expander used to do in the analogue past...)
So, if Audeze comes up with Expander DAC that is tuned for Euclid, - it has potential to be the best IEM ever.
Until then, I'll have to keep looking, while settling for now with IMR offerings for planar.
As for music examples that would show it? Well, everything. Any pop, Alternative, New Age, Symphonic. Even jazz makes noticeable that bass is not sounding as lively as on my other gear, and BTW live is still by far more dynamic than my most dynamic gear. As long as it's a new recording that haven't been compressed already. If you're used to traditional all-BA IEMs - I guess you can live with Planar bass compression as well, but I cannot.
My new favorite bass is IMR Astra that has that instant wow factor of how 3-dimentional bass instruments sound, while Euclid (and iBasso AM05) bass is there, and the tonality is accurate but dimensionally - completely flat in comparison.
I noticed by continuous failures of many IEM makers - how hard it is to tune DD in non-vented housing and even harder to make it work together with Planar. (Cupid) Still, there's hope, as Chi-fi is getting on it to open-up the market, and then maybe someone like Audeze comes back and shows how it's done right. For now - HarmonicDyne P.D.1 is on my radar with DD+Planar, and reviews are promising...
It would be an interesting concept to place bass DD right behind planar, so it would push the planar diaphragm but not compete with it in HF pathway, thus avoiding phase issues. It would have to be bass only DD with thick and deliberately heavy diaphragm. Will that happen in my audiophile lifetime? Who knows...

 

[vsg28]

FYI even Linsoul will agree that HarmonicDyne has yet to mature on IEM tuning. Based on my experience with both the Euclid and the P.D.1, I'd say save your money and not get the P.D.1. There is a Reveal+ plug-in coming soon for the Euclid, but not that it will matter here given you already returned it and don't expect EQ to change things much.

 

[debullet]

I ended up returning Euclid within Audeze generous 30 day trial return window, as I couldn't justify $1300 for IEM that for my music tastes has such a glaring flaw. Lately I seldom post on Head-fi, as my frequent hearing changes would put too much pressure on my attempt to be objective, but since I was asked to clarify,- that takes exception;
"... What do you mean when you say, ‘ they lack dynamics’ or they don’t scale up well"
@debullet:
As far as I remember, the scaling comment was in context of my rant about bass dynamics. My best sources that make even Sony IER-M9(5BA) not to sound like BA and "disappear", providing natural perception of presence rather than sounding like DD, BA, Planar, etc...
Not the case with Euclid. It does scale its upper part of the range, in fact, as I mentioned, tonality of mid through treble(~500Hz&up) is the most natural I ever experienced. Unforgettable! I'll be watching Audeze and others if someone can do it again but with DD added to help Planar with the lower part of the FR range dynamics.
IMR is doing it with some success, but Bobs tuning is not quite in the same league with Euclid. And fit & isolation is not comparable either.
"Euclid is engineered for an incredible 105 dB/mW efficiency and a max SPL well over 120dB*, giving it the highest dynamic range of any in-ear in its category" So, what does Audeze mean by this? Apparently - that you can input power that produces 120Db output with distortions within the acceptable range.
The problem is that power needed to produce 120db is not the same on lower frequencies, and the fact that Dynamic range is 120db @1k doesn't mean much for the bass. To my ears, - the lower you go with Euclid, - the more Dynamic Compression is audible to the point of sub-buss dynamic range being 50db at best. How does it sound like, when you try to add bass? - lots of stage smothering rumble and not much weighty impact that most DD do so well... I should have seen this coming when reviewers noted that bass doesn't respond to EQ. If you care about bass impact, - this should be theRed Flag.
My experience with Planar and BA suggests that only complex DSP processing can compensate for this. Today, it's probably possible to create progressive expansion of dynamic range toward lower frequencies.(kind of what Dolby A expander used to do in the analogue past...)
So, if Audeze comes up with Expander DAC that is tuned for Euclid, - it has potential to be the best IEM ever.
Until then, I'll have to keep looking, while settling for now with IMR offerings for planar.
As for music examples that would show it? Well, everything. Any pop, Alternative, New Age, Symphonic. Even jazz makes noticeable that bass is not sounding as lively as on my other gear, and BTW live is still by far more dynamic than my most dynamic gear. As long as it's a new recording that haven't been compressed already. If you're used to traditional all-BA IEMs - I guess you can live with Planar bass compression as well, but I cannot.
My new favorite bass is IMR Astra that has that instant wow factor of how 3-dimentional bass instruments sound, while Euclid (and iBasso AM05) bass is there, and the tonality is accurate but dimensionally - completely flat in comparison.
I noticed by continuous failures of many IEM makers - how hard it is to tune DD in non-vented housing and even harder to make it work together with Planar. (Cupid) Still, there's hope, as Chi-fi is getting on it to open-up the market, and then maybe someone like Audeze comes back and shows how it's done right. For now - HarmonicDyne P.D.1 is on my radar with DD+Planar, and reviews are promising...
It would be an interesting concept to place bass DD right behind planar, so it would push the planar diaphragm but not compete with it in HF pathway, thus avoiding phase issues. It would have to be bass only DD with thick and deliberately heavy diaphragm. Will that happen in my audiophile lifetime? Who knows...

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain the questions! Unfortunate that you had to return it,(or maybe not haha). Hope you can find or come to terms with something that ticks all your mentioned boxes!

 

[debullet]

First Impressions of the Audeze Euclid.

Before I say anything, I am not a audio reviewer, just another guy who enjoys listening to music and now that I have started working can afford more expensive earphones, and the Euclid are the most expensive IEM's I have owned. I have only used one another high end IEM extensively, ThieAudio Monarch and I will drawing comparisons to that mostly. I have tried a bunch of other IEM's like the Blessing 2, Tin P1, qdc 8sl - but not long enough to form an opinion. I personally enjoy the Planar sound a lot after I tried the Hifiman Sundara, and Ananda. Since then I was was looking for Planar Drivers in an IEM and was quite buzzing when I saw the Euclid, saved up for about 3 months and then pulled the trigger on these.


So the first thing, I noticed once I opened the box was that, there were only 2 types of earbuds. The SpinFits were missing. I messaged Audeze regarding this and well they told me they are having issues procuring them and will be looking forward to including them in the future. Honestly, this was a bit annoying as I would expect some standard and consistency on the product received by such a distinguished player in the audio market. Yes they cost about 15 dollars but its extremely poor handling of the situation in my humble opinion. @Audeze @KMann - you can take this as feedback if at all anything.


Audio Impressions - Before I begin, I should also say this, I mostly used the Monarch and the Euclid for however long I have had it using the FiiO UTWS3 - Some people or most people generally frown upon this but oh well, I move around a lot and appreciate the convenience and between using them wired through the apple dongle and my TWS setup there isn't any difference that my ear picks up. I have used it wired but again not long enough for me to say this is better and I have read that the Euclid is quite source specific as well.

I mostly listen to Tamil Songs( I will post links to the songs that I make comparisons to) - AR Rahman, Illayraja; Blues, Led Zepplin, Michael Jackson, Pink Flyod are some of the other more familiar genres that I have listened to.

After about few hours of listening, what stood out to me most was the slam on these things. Although I am not a bass head coming from the DD bass on the Monarch and reading reviews I was quite skeptical about having made this purchase. Yes compared to the DD bass, these are lacking, but what I really liked was how well controlled it was, it felt just nice - not too overbearing. I wouldn't go as far as to say the bass was anemic, atleast for me personally. The slam, punch and thump were all there - just enough and nice -

Where I found the biggest difference, between the Monarch and Euclid was while listening to this song - , 0.05-0.12 seconds, the instrument that is being played there felt a lot more heady and hot and overbearing , and most other songs I listened to that had a similar instrument played in that note felt that. The Monarch felt a lot more relaxed, I am not sure which is more natural, cause with the Monarch there is a good chance I am just used to that sound signature for the longest time and this was just a stark difference I noticed.

Male vocals also felt elevated and sometimes just felt they were a bit too much. When it comes to the mids, I think I would prefer the Monarch over the Euclid if I had to choose one. Although there were times with the Monarch where I felt the female vocals were a bit too sharp.

I was one of those that found the Monarch's treble a bit too sharp and ear piercing at times especially during the first few hours of listening, I did not have this issue at all with the Euclid. Cymbals and percussions did feel slightly better on the Monarch but I wouldn't go as far as to say the difference is so much, I would take the drop in these to reduce the sharpness in this region. I again I am not sure about the nuances and intricacies but just going by how they felt.

All said and done, what blew my mind most about the Euclid, the factor that I was looking forward to the most, The soundstage - My god. The detail retrieval along with separation of instruments was just mind blowing. The was a point where I was listening to a song, where the music stops suddenly and people talk. I legit thought that this was coming from outside, that I turned my head around for that split second and realized this was coming from the song. These are what Planars do, and the Euclid's certainly can do them with zero fault. Some people I know, find the timbre of Planars a bit off, but I for one like how they sound over DD's or BA's. Lastly hearing each instrument distinctively without any congestion was just orgasmic to say the least - this is where the Euclid's blow the competition away - they don't have this bundled up feeling of instruments which I experienced with Monarch and most of the other IEM's I have used for a short while. That is not to say that the Monarch is bad, its just the Euclid's are far superior imo in this aspect.

Songs I listened to before I wrote this -
Hotel California
Stariway to Heaven, Babe I'm Gonna leave you, Kashmir, Dazed and Confused.
Billy Jean
Shine on you Crazy Diamond.
,
The entire playlist of 'AR Rahman meets Berklee' - .

Again, not an audio reviewer, Just someone who enjoys music and wanted to share my two cents worth of experience and thoughts of owning and using two high end IEMS.

Edit - I also wanted to mention, I used to EQ my stuff quite a lot. I like the sound signature that the default preset ‘Rock’ provides. Usually when I used to buy audio products, I generally go with it if they sound under my version of the tweaked EQ setting of the default Rock setting.

over the years I realised this wasn’t exactly the ‘right’ thing to do as generally earphones should be taken for their signature sound and tonality.

that said, when I got the Monarch, I used it without any EQ, as they sounded brilliant out of the box and was very reminiscent of what the signature I aim to attain except for a few points which I was ready to overlook given my lack of expertise in figuring out the right settings to get the final value of what I wanted. I tried the same EQ setting I used to use, and for once all I felt the EQ setting did was make them louder - in the sense, I didnt notice any relative change between the different frequencies and felt a overall rise in volume and it didn’t really make it sound ‘better’ which was quite weird and absurd to say the least. So I just reverted to using them without any EQ which I had no issues with.

with regards to the Euclid, I have seen that it may need some EQ adjustments to improve the tonality, out of the box, apart from the things I mentioned earlier I didn’t notice any jarring issues. Having said that, I have requested for EQ settings from a couple of people compensating to the IEF Neutral Target and one for the Harman Curve2019V2. I will post my thoughts if and when I get my hands on some EQ Values from the people who are more knowledgeable and know what they are doing with EQ to see how the Euclids would sound corrected to different graphs.

 

[m8o]

EDIT: Post withdrawn. I decided to withdraw my PEQ recommendations for the Euclid until after I remeasure. I figured out a way to use my audio test tool [an Audio Toolbox 3C] to arrive at parametric EQ values that would give better correlation to various targets, than what I shared yesterday. I'll re-edit this post once I am done and share the resulting parameters.

 

[m8o]

Not many Euclid owners out here. But for all those who do own it and check in here, hope you will take a moment to reply. I'm taking a poll. I found yesterday something has major repercussions on the Euclid's natural frequency response and parametric equalization necessary to match IEM response targets:

When you take the ear-tip off [though you can see it even if you leave the tip on] and look down into the nozzle, is the 'white acoustic wadding' inside:
A. near the top?
B. about 1/2 way down the nozzle?
C. deep down inside?

Example of what I mean by 'near the top'. (*)

(*) This is NOT how it looked when I bought my Euclid. But that was also an opened box which may have been altered by the store's staff. I don't know. And why I am taking this 'poll'.

I'll defer further/lengthy detail. Need to transfer some more recent measurements into Excel and add to existing graph comparisons.; so I'll have empirically derived evidence to add to this later. But I will say right now I discovered yesterday that this has an enormous effect on the dB difference between the peaks and troughs in the Euclid's frequency response (and can perhaps answer why my PEQ parameters didn't work at all for you, @debullet ). As pictured my measurement now more closely matches Crinacle's and SoundStage's in the heights and depths in the FR variations. And as pictured I find I am way way happier with the Euclid's natural response, sans any equalization. I could live without any (tho I do prefer it with 'some' parametric equalization).

 

[tinyman392]

Mine's pretty deep in there. I don't EQ the Euclid and didn't feel like it needed it.

 

[tinyman392]

I purchased the BT adapter Audeze makes for the Euclid, arrived today. Charging them up right now before using them... Why is Audeze still using micro-USB? Just about everyone and their mother's have gone to USB-C now for USB charging.

 

[m8o]

I purchased the BT adapter Audeze makes for the Euclid, arrived today. Charging them up right now before using them... Why is Audeze still using micro-USB? Just about everyone and their mother's have gone to USB-C now for USB charging.

Oh wow. Was wondering if they were going to release something like they said they would just the other day. Did not know they already had. Interested to measure the output of that and see what eq curve they shipped it with if any. I'll probably pick one up too. [edit: just looked ... argh, no LDAC? Ignoring that this should be obvious based on the form factor, I see it is based on what they made for the iSine and not the tech employed in the Mobius and others w/LDAC support]

 

[tinyman392]

Oh wow. Was wondering if they were going to release something like they said they would just the other day. Did not know they already had. Interested to measure the output of that and see what eq curve they shipped it with if any. I'll probably pick one up too. [edit: just looked ... argh, no LDAC? Ignoring that this should be obvious based on the form factor, I see it is based on what they made for the iSine and not the tech employed in the Mobius and others w/LDAC support]

Yeah, I’ve been stalking Audeze’s site for it. It popped up on Monday. It is definitely based on the iSine adapters they created, so no LDAC unfortunately, just AAC and APTX; I’m on iOS so I’m not too worried. I wish I could tell you what “flat“ was Prior to this I’ve been using the Fiio UTWS2 extensively which gave the Euclid a smoother sound. The Cipher BT cable gives it a little more punch in comparison with a small tweak in the upper midrange. But that’s all I can really say about it with the short listen I gave. That said, I don’t feel like these are EQing the sound much (if any) since the Euclid were acoustically tuned rather that a focus on digital tuning. But maybe my ears are deceiving me.