[jeffreyw311]

Not really sure, only testing the demo's with professional equipment can really tell. Or sending them back to Campfire. Like I said before, if there are inconsistencies there could be several reasons besides CA 's QC, which seems to be top notch from Ken's posting above.

And as I have shown, that's not entirely true with their hybrids. Polaris has the exact same problems, just few people really cared about it as an earphone.

Could be that environmental conditions, or physical mishandling has damaged the earphones... just a thought.

Damage to audio equipment is always catastrophic and dead obvious. These differences are, in fact, not catastrophic or something untrained ears would not have noticed.

I hate to let you in on a secret, but many in this community don't follow Crin or his measurements. Not debating that he has taken on a huge task but I don't care for graphs, only my ears, and I disagree with many of his observations.

So what you're saying here is that Crinacle was hearing ghosts when he says that he heard all three samples as sounding different? Its a simple yes or not answer, that's what you're implying by you saying that you disagree with his observations.

 

[theveterans]

Then you should stop posting and fly to Portland to audition yourself. Go back to CL2 thread since that’s the greatest and flawless IEM ever made.

Can you actually audition them there? Their building from google maps looks like a distribution center than a store though.

 

[seamon]

This is why impressions with specific music and tracks are important, such as the ones posted before with Fleetwood Mac.

Yep, and I did post them compared to U12t and LCD 4.

Thing is I am allergic to recessed mids. I hate them. If something has recessed mids, I will call it trash.
I was considering getting a Abyss 1266 Phi but after listening to it, I did not like it and 90% of it because of the mids.
I don't hear this with the Solaris. Solaris mids sound pretty good to me.

 

[kingkikapu]

I’m hopping on a plane as I type with Solaris as my companion. Best way to fly.

Thanks KB and Co. they’ve been fun.

 

[harishmirror]

Solaris being the most sensitive iems I ever came across. Just wanted to ask the Solaris/1Z owners if you guys noticed any audible differences between the 3.0 and 3.1 firmware.

 

[Dithyrambes]

Lol, guys guys calm down. I don't understand the fussing. Look you choose to use your money wherever you want. I understand there is product variation.....even in TV displays and such....you might get a bad apple. But if I'm paying $1500 for an iem, I better be goddamn sure....its a good one. Until this gets sorted out, its hard for someone like me to purchase it.

Everyone is just shouting louder and louder thinking they'll win the argument. Its dumb. If you like your solaris....then keep listening. Don't try to prove others wrong. @Kitechaser , You haven't even heard the solaris yet and you've added so much noise along with the CL2. Unless you have any impressions you can add, stop posting and arguing with others that have.

As for the solaris, funny thing is my impressions actually line up with @sagebeard very much.....but who knows.....which version was that one? Was it the intended one? Its not ok to not know what you'll get for $1500 and hope its good. But if you believe in CA with all your trust on their qc, just buy the damn solaris and stop bothering others and enjoy the music.

@seamon

I have no idea what you are talking about your mids. The very fact that you mention a audeze lcd4.....saying the mids are not screwy really make me discount any and all impressions from you. I'm sorry I have to be blunt, but anyone who's heard the lcd4 knows it has a huge 4k canyon in the mids......maybe its the music you listen to that's not affected, but I can't listen to any classical, yet alone hope that I'll hear any accurate reproduction from stringed instruments with the lcd4. It might suit your genres, but to call that a reference with 10/10 ratings makes no sense to me and doesn't help people who want a neutral sound without a 4k canyon with impressions that help their purchasing decision. If your preference is for a gulf there, then clearly state so, instead of saying you know what reference mids sound like.....without knowing what the graph looks like.

Check the FR graph please.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD4.pdf


Also the Audeze is known to have bigger variations in their QC, so I defintiely won't be buying any of their products, yet alone take a chance on the LCD4, hoping that its a A-grade version and not hoping I get a B or C grade version...while paying 4k.

 

[ustinj]

I just have to ask. How many sony IER-Z1R demos were measured before it was rated 4 months before release?

Well one difference here is:

Crinacle liked the Z1R, no massive drama. No further measurements were really needed.

Crinacle didn't love the Solaris, massive drama. He tries to get more data to solidify his opinion (because obviously having a contradictory opinion makes his rep questionable on HF), but instead finds that he likes other Solaris units more than the first. Hence he measures multiple demos.

Apart from the QC debacle, the entire argument began because some people didn't like Crinacle's first opinion ... right???

 

[jeffreyw311]

I think seamon has made it clear in the past that he's just sensitive to 4khz so de-emphasizing that frequency range works for him. That's pretty consistent with him liking the Audeze LCD-4 and Solaris, both of which appear to de-emphasis that frequency range. My bigger problem with the LCD-4 is the screwy uneven treble so it sounds kind of bright despite such a de-emphasis in that region.

Earphones are a bit different to headphones due to the whole pinna bypass situation so it goes without saying that you can't compare frequency response graphs between the two. Etymotics don't have the huge 1-5khz hump for no reason.

 

[BananaOoyoo]

Well one difference here is:

Crinacle liked the Z1R, no massive drama. No further measurements were really needed.

Crinacle didn't love the Solaris, massive drama. He tries to get more data to solidify his opinion (because obviously having a contradictory opinion makes his rep questionable on HF), but instead finds that he likes other Solaris units more than the first. Hence he measures multiple demos.

Apart from the QC debacle, the entire argument began because some people didn't like Crinacle's first opinion ... right???

People are accusing Crinacle of being paid off by Sony and spreading FUD for choosing to give Campfire Audio the benefit of the doubt after not liking the first demo unit. Now that’s just bull.

 

[Dithyrambes]

@jeffreyw311

its ok for him to have his preferences of a 4k canyon....but as I said, its a FR that completely kills strings in any classical setting such as orchestra. Can't say his impressions about the solaris having perfect mids is going to help someone who doesn't like the 4k canyon like myself. When I read his solaris impressions, am I going to hunt for his preferences in 186 pages of this thread?

If we get to the whole pinna bypass situation, we can argue all iems regardless of the same frequency will sound different for everyone's ears....having no consensus or impressions on any iem since it should sound different for everyone. Which then means all subjective impressions can't be counted on. As for Ety's......some people really don't like the harman curve....while some people need it to sound neutral....with it sometimes....its really like knives in the ear.... Which one is correct?...I'm sure not everyone thinks ETY's sound neutral. Best thing is to know what you prefer and what works for you! But not clearly stating your preferences and throwing things like mids were good on lcd4 and abyss phi was bad doesn't really help at all with any impressions. That's why I find his whole comparison between the LCD4, Solaris, and u12t not helpful even after having heard all three of them.

 

[Kitechaser]

Lol, guys guys calm down. I don't understand the fussing. Look you choose to use your money wherever you want. I understand there is product variation.....even in TV displays and such....you might get a bad apple. But if I'm paying $1500 for an iem, I better be goddamn sure....its a good one. Until this gets sorted out, its hard for someone like me to purchase it.

Everyone is just shouting louder and louder thinking they'll win the argument. Its dumb. If you like your solaris....then keep listening. Don't try to prove others wrong. @Kitechaser , You haven't even heard the solaris yet and you've added so much noise along with the CL2. Unless you have any impressions you can add, stop posting and arguing with others that have.

As for the solaris, funny thing is my impressions actually line up with @sagebeard very much.....but who knows.....which version was that one? Was it the intended one? Its not ok to not know what you'll get for $1500 and hope its good. But if you believe in CA with all your trust on their qc, just buy the damn solaris and stop bothering others and enjoy the music.

@seamon

I have no idea what you are talking about your mids. The very fact that you mention a audeze lcd4.....saying the mids are not screwy really make me discount any and all impressions from you. I'm sorry I have to be blunt, but anyone who's heard the lcd4 knows it has a huge 4k canyon in the mids......maybe its the music you listen to that's not affected, but I can't listen to any classical, yet alone hope that I'll hear any accurate reproduction from stringed instruments with the lcd4. It might suit your genres, but to call that a reference with 10/10 ratings makes no sense to me and doesn't help people who want a neutral sound without a 4k canyon with impressions that help their purchasing decision. If your preference is for a gulf there, then clearly state so, instead of saying you know what reference mids sound like.....without knowing what the graph looks like.

Check the FR graph please.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD4.pdf


Also the Audeze is known to have bigger variations in their QC, so I defintiely won't be buying any of their products, yet alone take a chance on the LCD4, hoping that its a A-grade version and not hoping I get a B or C grade version...while paying 4k.

I sat here reading a 120 pages of impressions, people who liked and didn't like the Solaris. Not one single person mentioned recessed vocals, I mean not once on a 120 pages.
Here comes a reviewer, who on his own thread complained several times that he had asked campfire audio for a review pair, but they had replied back that they didn't have any to spare, and were busy fulfilling customer orders first.
He comes out with initial impressions contradicting a 120 pages of testimony, from people, who I happen to trust a lot more than him, and the whole place just explodes.
Now what manufacturer in the future will not provide him with a review pair, lest they get a similar treatment.
The graphs provided to show this on that one supposed pair (out of 100's), are not verifiable.
Should 1 person have this much power and control on head-fi? Or even a group of people?
Something similar happened on the CL2 thread, where people who had positive impressions of the iem were accused of being shills for RHA, and having defective ears by a couple of reviewers.
You guys might be okay with stuff like this, but I can't help but speak up.
To each his own.

Edit: do you know how much these review pairs sell for on ebay?

 

[justrest]

I never felt that the mids were recessed.

 

[BananaOoyoo]

I will say though as someone who has been interested in getting a Solaris that possibly significant unit variance is actually the worst outcome for Campfire Audio. It’s one thing for reviewers to like/dislike/agree/disagree about IEMs, since my personal impressions could very well differ, but if I can’t know what the product will sound like before getting it... I’m not touching it with a 10ft pole.

 

[jeffreyw311]

@jeffreyw311

its ok for him to have his preferences of a 4k canyon....but as I said, its a FR that completely kills strings in any classical setting such as orchestra. Can't say his impressions about the solaris having perfect mids is going to help someone who doesn't like the 4k canyon like myself. When I read his solaris impressions, am I going to hunt for his preferences in 186 pages of this thread?

If we get to the whole pinna bypass situation, we can argue all iems regardless of the same frequency will sound different for everyone's ears....having no consensus or impressions on any iem since it should sound different for everyone. Which then means all subjective impressions can't be counted on. As for Ety's......some people really don't like the harman curve....while some people need it to sound neutral....with it sometimes....its really like knives in the ear.... Which one is correct?...I'm sure not everyone thinks ETY's sound neutral. Best thing is to know what you prefer and what works for you! But not clearly stating your preferences and throwing things like mids were good on lcd4 and abyss phi was bad doesn't really help at all with any impressions. That's why I find his whole comparison between the LCD4, Solaris, and u12t not helpful even after having heard all three of them.

The 1-8khz region is generally the region with most contention for most users because of that pinna bypass. So I actually agree with you that individual totally subjective opinions on IEMs aren't terrible useful. Especially if the person hasn't provided a lot of impressions that are consistent with each other. For someone like me, the Etymotics sound perfectly fine to me. Someone like Seamon seems to want less emphasis in that region and I'd assume that he wouldn't probably think too highly of it.

You can't dig through a million pages but you also can't expect people to be innately aware of their biases if they're not aware of them. If we look at the whole drama itself, we've got a lot of pages of people who just straight up cannot comprehend graphs and measurements to the point that they are dumbfounded by the idea that pro-sumers are capable of producing repeatable measurement results (even I can manage this with specific tips, a vinyl tube and a Dayton microphone). You think people are going to be more aware of more complex phenomena like individual pinna and concha gain?

The only solution is for someone to provide a large range of impressions, hope that they're all very consistent with each other and hope they're willing to point out deficiencies in the hardware they're listening to. That way the end user can figure out where the person giving their impressions is coming from in much the same way you could tell Tyll's (from Inner Fidelity) personal biases. From reading Seamon's impressions on multiple forums, he's consistent enough with his impressions that I can start to guess his biases and how he's hearing things.

 

[ustinj]

Last IEM I had with a 2-3k rise and 4k dip was the HS1551. Initially it sounded forward and pretty natural in the midrange, but after quick A/Bs with other IEMs, the 4k dip is noticeable. After listening for a few minutes that tonality issue becomes less of a problem because ears adapt quickly, and it can still be an enjoyable IEM that many love.

The midrange on said IEM wasn't recessed, but instead it sounded choked out and slightly crushed, lacking the appropriate crunch to go along with the 2-3khz emphasis. The body of vocals is there, but the upper octave of the midrange is not. Not recessed, but not correct. e: and I still liked that IEM a lot

Then again I am talking about a different IEM; but maybe that's the case here. It seems a lot of a 'not-entirely-positive' impressions state that the midrange is not recessed, but just has a weird timbre. It's important to not twist words around, if crinacle says "the upper harmonics are suppressed", don't generalize by quoting, "he said the midrange is recessed" because it makes a huge difference to specify which sub-region of the midrange poses an issue.