[candlejack]

Discussing company profit margins is not something I consider taboo, but maybe we shouldn't do it in relation to the topic of unit variation. I think it detracts from the main issue. I wanted to get that out of the way because I'm about to say something about company profit margins.

I was talking not too long ago with someone who is selling IEMs for a living and I was basically bitching about 64 Audio having absurd and unjustifiable prices (not that I was interested in any of their offerings at the time). I was arguing that their drivers are essentially COTS parts and aluminum shell manufacturing costs peanuts, so my only conclusion was that actually making a unit must be quite cheap (even if they are assembled in the US or EU). Therefore the company must be charging a huge premium for its design work, or is simply applying a "luxury product" marketing scheme: "the more it costs, the better it must be (, right?)" Well, this guy told me that as far as he knows 64 Audio is very inefficient in their manufacturing and it actually costs them a lot to make one IEM and this also reflects in the distributor/reseller prices. So much so that he actually makes quite a bit more profit selling one Andromeda than one Tia Fourte. I for one don't buy it, not that I don't believe the guy, but the company has just as much reason to bull him to justify the high prices as they do the customer/end user. And "inefficient" is a lot more acceptable to most people than "greedy".

 

[jeffreyw311]

I think the discussion is valid with regards to the topic of unit variation because unit variation is a quality control issue and solutions to quality control all cost time and/or money.

I don't believe 64Audio is that inefficient. Whatever R&D they do might be costly but the BOM itself is going to be like $300 at most. Knowles and Sonion products aren't that expensive and I don't believe the dynamic drivers they are sourcing are that much more expensive either. Shells can cost money but 64Audio aren't using particularly unique materials. I mean, big honking ScanSpeak woofers that weigh multiple kilograms are like $500 for the end user and they hold some prestige

As someone who worked in consumer electronics retail before, that message sounds like the sort of sales message we give to convince someone to purchase a product with higher retailer profit margins. Which wouldn't surprise me, 64Audio's prices are extremely high, seem to prefer people to buy from them directly and so definitely don't seem like they're giving the retailer a huge cut.

All of this ties back to the three things I described in my last paragraph.

 

[Jackpot77]

Sure profit margins are an emotive topic, but not sure that many of the TOTL "boutique" IEM companies are swimming in cash just yet.

Remember reading somewhere that the yield on making the TIA drivers for 64 Audio or difficulty in assembly made them an expensive and time consuming proposition compared to traditional off the shelf components. Also remember reading something from Ken previously that the yield on the ADLC drivers was low for each batch due to the prices required to make them.

Not defending prices of high end audio gear in general, but for smaller operations I imagine manpower and R&D account for a decent chunk as well. The more "industrial scale" manufacturers should be able to benefit from multiple economies of scale in both time and costs, allowing them to put out "more product" for the price of they get their sums right.

On a personal note, while I acknowledge the price for the Solaris is high, I think CA are pretty reasonable for cost compared to similar performing models on the market, so while they aren't cheap, they definitely aren't anywhere near as expensive as they could be for models like the Solaris and Andro. The high end hobbyist audiophile market is an expensive place, so at the end of the day it's down to the individual to work out whether the perceived quality and value is worth the cost.

 

[jeffreyw311]

On a personal note, while I acknowledge the price for the Solaris is high, I think CA are pretty reasonable for cost compared to similar performing models on the market, so while they aren't cheap, they definitely aren't anywhere near as expensive as they could be for models like the Solaris and Andro. The high end hobbyist audiophile market is an expensive place, so at the end of the day it's down to the individual to work out whether the perceived quality and value is worth the cost.

I would like to ask you this question then: at what price point should we expect pretty decent product consistency? That's really the question that should be answered, not dismissed with comments along the lines of "oh well, you know its up to the individual to make a decision..." or "I like this product so who cares" that people in the consumer audio industry have used to give manufacturers a pass since our era of kilobuck headphones and earphones.

This problem is possibly the worst thing of the high end portable audio industry where the most inconsistent products are generally the most expensive, which just should not be the case. Like the 64Audio Tia Trio is $3600 AUD from Minidisc and just look at Sample 1 and Sample 2. If the earphones people are listening to are essentially different earphones, just how useful are these high end audio impressions really?

I'm aware I'm kind of beating a dead horse here but people really need to expect more from portable audio.

 

[fokta]

Was doing Short Impression, Solaris with Penon H16....

is an alternative for people want to listen Solaris with better Bass (Punchy and detail Rumble), and separations... with the compensation of lost of spark..

 

[Jackpot77]

I would like to ask you this question then: at what price point should we expect pretty decent product consistency? That's really the question that should be answered, not dismissed with comments along the lines of "oh well, you know its up to the individual to make a decision..." or "I like this product so who cares" that people in the consumer audio industry have used to give manufacturers a pass since our era of kilobuck headphones and earphones.

This problem is possibly the worst thing of the high end portable audio industry where the most inconsistent products are generally the most expensive, which just should not be the case. Like the 64Audio Tia Trio is $3600 AUD from Minidisc and just look at Sample 1 and Sample 2. If the earphones people are listening to are essentially different earphones, just how useful are these high end audio impressions really?

I'm aware I'm kind of beating a dead horse here but people really need to expect more from portable audio.

Definitely agree that customers should expect consistency from the manufacturer at this sort of price bracket - or at any price bracket, given that the sole purpose of an IEM is to relay sonic information to the listener by means of a specific tuning chosen by the designer

I think the issue gets more difficult to quantify with the addition of multiple sources of measurement from a non-standardised source. I own a MiniDSP EARS measurement head, and have been collecting measurements for a little while to see if they help enlighten me on some aspects of IEMs I enjoy (or don't). The process of fitting the IEMs into the rubber ears often leads to slightly different results (due to position of the IEM nozzle relative to the mic and rubber ear canal geometry). Also, environmental noise in my quiet residential house also can lead to variances on consecutive sweeps taken without adjusting the position of the IEM in any way. Obviously averaging the output over multiple sweeps is one way to get an average response, but given that level of complexity and the lack of standardisation between equipment, equalisation curves and method when measuring IEMs "in the field", it is difficult to get a good basis for some real discussion.

I certainly have no beef with the members who measure IEMs, and they can provide some real insight into certain aspects, but unless the "variant" IEMs could be collected up and measured using a standardised, calibrated and mechanically repeatable method at the same time, it is always going to be difficult to identify how much variation is down to the IEM itself and how much is down to other complex variables.

Just my take on it - as I said, I believe manufacturers should be producing gear that measures as close to identically as can be reasonably measured, but I think it is difficult to properly assess without some more rigorous controls.

 

[40lb]

Just enjoy the music

 

[BananaOoyoo]

Definitely agree that customers should expect consistency from the manufacturer at this sort of price bracket - or at any price bracket, given that the sole purpose of an IEM is to relay sonic information to the listener by means of a specific tuning chosen by the designer

I think the issue gets more difficult to quantify with the addition of multiple sources of measurement from a non-standardised source. I own a MiniDSP EARS measurement head, and have been collecting measurements for a little while to see if they help enlighten me on some aspects of IEMs I enjoy (or don't). The process of fitting the IEMs into the rubber ears often leads to slightly different results (due to position of the IEM nozzle relative to the mic and rubber ear canal geometry). Also, environmental noise in my quiet residential house also can lead to variances on consecutive sweeps taken without adjusting the position of the IEM in any way. Obviously averaging the output over multiple sweeps is one way to get an average response, but given that level of complexity and the lack of standardisation between equipment, equalisation curves and method when measuring IEMs "in the field", it is difficult to get a good basis for some real discussion.

I certainly have no beef with the members who measure IEMs, and they can provide some real insight into certain aspects, but unless the "variant" IEMs could be collected up and measured using a standardised, calibrated and mechanically repeatable method at the same time, it is always going to be difficult to identify how much variation is down to the IEM itself and how much is down to other complex variables.

Just my take on it - as I said, I believe manufacturers should be producing gear that measures as close to identically as can be reasonably measured, but I think it is difficult to properly assess without some more rigorous controls.

For what it’s worth, the Solaris measurements that are starting debates here seem consistent across trials and different across units.

(And as someone who owns one, the MiniDSP EARS isn’t a great argument for “measurements can vary” - I think we all know that it isn’t a particularly reliable tool.)

 

[Rockwell75]

As someone who's very likely going to purchase a Solaris one day much more relevant to me than this graph that keeps getting regurgitated every few weeks is the fact that peoples' impressions (with their ears) have been consistently and overwhelmingly positive. And by people I don't mean reviewers (professional or otherwise)-- rather people who have bought this thing and posted their thoughts. This is one of the most consistently praised IEMs I have come across, with the only real issues being the fit for some people-- and a lot of this praise comes from people who have a lot of experience with IEMs (on this and other forums). Maybe I'm naive but if there really were quality issues/inconsistencies with this thing then said issues/inconsistencies would be reflected in the experiences of those who own it? I can see graphs being used to help understand issues that people are perceiving with their ears, but for the issues to be rooted in the graphs themselves seems like the wrong way to go about this (to me). An added bonus is that CA's customer service is by all accounts stellar so even if there were issues with a product not being up to spec it would be looked after.

 

[candlejack]

I would like to ask you this question then: at what price point should we expect pretty decent product consistency? That's really the question that should be answered, not dismissed with comments along the lines of "oh well, you know its up to the individual to make a decision..." or "I like this product so who cares" that people in the consumer audio industry have used to give manufacturers a pass since our era of kilobuck headphones and earphones.

This problem is possibly the worst thing of the high end portable audio industry where the most inconsistent products are generally the most expensive, which just should not be the case. Like the 64Audio Tia Trio is $3600 AUD from Minidisc and just look at Sample 1 and Sample 2. If the earphones people are listening to are essentially different earphones, just how useful are these high end audio impressions really?

I'm aware I'm kind of beating a dead horse here but people really need to expect more from portable audio.

This has been probably my biggest reason for frustration since becoming active again on this forum: people acting more like brand ambassadors/apologists instead of paying customers. This and the refusal to embrace and promote the scientific method for describing sound (yes, I'm talking about measurements and their analysis).

But I think the hi-fi audio consumer has a different psychology than a consumer of regular everyday goods. When I buy a washing machine I do it without passion. I'm only concerned with its objective qualities: does it wash well, is it energy efficient, is it quiet, does it cost a reasonable price, and I don't particularly care about the brand or if anybody else likes it.

A high end headphone on the other hand is not something that simply satisfies a need. We have an expectation that it will somehow enrich our lives, it will bring us joy and happiness. You "love" your headphone but you don't give a second thought to your washing machine, even though your washing machine is much more useful/needed in your life. When you love something, you begin to have a relationship with that thing. If someone tries to hurt it, you want to protect it. If someone says that it sucks, you want to retaliate because if it sucks and you love it, what does that say about you? But this is not a healthy consumer/customer attitude. Instead of demanding more, you find excuses for why you get less. You cannot love something that you do not think is awesome. So if you already decided that you love it (because with this decision comes the promise of happiness) then it has to be awesome!

But this is an emotional response, with only short term benefits. Thinking objectively and recognizing a flaw might make you a bit sad initially, but raising the issue instead of burying it will in the long run force the manufacturer to improve the product which will put you in the position to enjoy it more. I see this as an exercise in consumer maturation.

[This was pretty much an unstructured braindump, apologies if it's incoherent]

 

[Carlsan]

Listen with your ears, not your eyes, people.

Try it, listen, then come back and talk.
I've always suspected the accuracy of some of these graphs anyway.Made by admitted amateurs in less than stellar environmental conditions and with not exactly professional equipment.

 

[Jackpot77]

This has been probably my biggest reason for frustration since becoming active again on this forum: people acting more like brand ambassadors/apologists instead of paying customers. This and the refusal to embrace and promote the scientific method for describing sound (yes, I'm talking about measurements and their analysis).

But I think the hi-fi audio consumer has a different psychology than a consumer of regular everyday goods. When I buy a washing machine I do it without passion. I'm only concerned with its objective qualities: does it wash well, is it energy efficient, is it quiet, does it cost a reasonable price, and I don't particularly care about the brand or if anybody else likes it.

A high end headphone on the other hand is not something that simply satisfies a need. We have an expectation that it will somehow enrich our lives, it will bring us joy and happiness. You "love" your headphone but you don't give a second thought to your washing machine, even though your washing machine is much more useful/needed in your life. When you love something, you begin to have a relationship with that thing. If someone tries to hurt it, you want to protect it. If someone says that it sucks, you want to retaliate because if it sucks and you love it, what does that say about you? But this is not a healthy consumer/customer attitude. Instead of demanding more, you find excuses for why you get less. You cannot love something that you do not think is awesome. So if you already decided that you love it (because with this decision comes the promise of happiness) then it has to be awesome!

But this is an emotional response, with only short term benefits. Thinking objectively and recognizing a flaw might make you a bit sad initially, but raising the issue instead of burying it will in the long run force the manufacturer to improve the product which will put you in the position to enjoy it more. I see this as an exercise in consumer maturation.

[This was pretty much an unstructured braindump, apologies if it's incoherent]

Nicely put, and some very astute observations. Maybe the lack of "rationalisation" when is comes to this hobby can be ascribed to the emotional nature of the whole pursuit. For most people, music is not a quantifiable, "rational" thing - you can't weigh it, use it for sustenance or interact with it. It has no value other than to the listener, and even then the perceived value is entirely dependent on the listener's own bias, preference and emotional response. One man's Mozart may be another man's Motorhead.

Given that background, and making a large assumption that most audiophiles end up going down the rabbithole because they want something that makes their music sound "better" rather than just cussing the latest shiny toy, is it any wonder that there are so many conflicting opinions on what sounds good?

Bit of a rambling digression from meel, so apologies if it didn't make sense - I definitely agree manufacturers should be held to account more by the end customer, but only where it is a matter that they can fix (QC as an example). Fit example, tuning falls into the bracket of preference for me, so while I would happily make suggestions to a manufacturer on what I would prefer in one of their products, I wouldn't expect them to listen to me unless multiple other listener's made the same request.

 

[candlejack]

As someone who's very likely going to purchase a Solaris one day much more relevant to me than this graph that keeps getting regurgitated every few weeks is the fact that peoples' impressions (with their ears) have been consistently and overwhelmingly positive. And by people I don't mean reviewers (professional or otherwise)-- rather people who have bought this thing and posted their thoughts. This is one of the most consistently praised IEMs I have come across (with the only real issues being the fit for some people)-- and a lot of this praise comes from people who have a lot of experience with IEMs (on this and other forums. Maybe I'm naive but if there really were quality issues/inconsistencies with this thing then said issues/inconsistencies would be reflected in the experiences of those who own it? I can see graphs being used to help understand issues that people are perceiving with their ears, but for the issues to be rooted in the graphs themselves seems like the wrong way to go about this (to me). An added bonus is that CA's customer service is by all accounts stellar so even if there were issues with a product not being up to spec it would be looked after.

Other people's opinions are very useful but I think there's a limit to that, especially on Head-Fi. Even those who have no relationship with the manufacturers and are completely honest are not to be trusted. You see, "the people that have a lot of experience with IEMs" are generally those who are easily excitable but never satisfied. You will find them praising a different IEM every 3 months. Not because they're dishonest, but because the chase is part of the enjoyment and amplifying differences between different models justifies the chase. That's why we end up with statements like "X is in a different league than Y, but Z blows X out of the water". These opinions are more an answer to: "what's worth paying closer attention to" than "what should I buy".

Btw, I think the Solaris is a great IEM and if it fits well in your ear, then you should definitely buy it. It's heads and shoulders above all other IEMs!

 

[Jackpot77]

Listen with your ears, not your eyes, people.

Try it, listen, then come back and talk.

Amen to that. Ears always beat eyes in this hobby.

 

[ddmt]

Listen with your ears, not your eyes, people.

Try it, listen, then come back and talk.
I've always suspected the accuracy of some of these graphs anyway.Made by admitted amateurs in less than stellar environmental conditions and with not exactly professional equipment.

By that logic, we should see a non consistent graph of multiple z1r too then, you know because they are amateurs with amateur equipment.