[candlejack]

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

And, since the eyes are more trouble than they're worth, whenever possible, do a blind test.

 

[Carlsan]

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

I said "Made by admitted amateurs in less than stellar environmental conditions and with not exactly professional equipment."

Sorry, but yes, unless one is measuring within a laboratory, with the same environmental conditions, same equipment, and controlled variables, then yes, these graphs can't be trusted.
The earphones tested should also have been burned in for the right amount of time per the manufacturer or a reasonable amount if no manufacturer recommendation. To many variables to control.

I tend to ignore all graphs on Head-fi for this very reason.

 

[Wyville]

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]

I generally stay out of these discussions because it is a lot more complicated and nuanced than an internet forum will allow me to explain it, but there are a few factors to be aware of if you want to introduce any kind of scientific rigour. There is a reason why professional measurement equipment is so expensive and why measurements are conducted in specially prepared rooms. There is also a limit to the usefulness of measurements, however well conducted, because what they provide you with is an approximation. What I mean to indicate with these things is that the sound that leaves the IEMs is subject to changes by the ear canal and no two ear canals are the same. (My left and right are quite different.) This means that measurements are actually extremely difficult to do consistently (control over physical parameters) and meaningfully (having relevance to the IEMs actual use). Once the sounds leaves the IEMs it starts to become something very different from the exercise in physics that you get within the IEMs, as anatomy comes to play, physiology comes to play and yes, psychology too.

While measurements can be informative, they do not constitute the embodiment of the scientific method when it comes to describing the sound from IEMs, simply by the fact that sound emanating from IEMs without the interaction of the ear canal, physiology and psychology is meaningless data without context. When it comes to only measuring the IEMs without context, then the only meaningful measurements (in a scientific sense) are those conducted in a highly standardised way. When it comes to the perception of music coming from IEMs, then that is a whole different ball game, as a wide variety of factors come to play. Some of those are anatomical, some physiological, some developmental and yet others purely psychological.

What I mean to say is that there are different aspects to this hobby and different people focus on different things. It is important to make distinctions when dealing with any one of those aspects. Is it purely a technical issue? Is it to do with sound perception? Not everyone has the same focus and it is easy to get things muddled when discussions are at cross purposes. So for instance, it is not that strange that many hifi consumers buy with their heart because music is about emotion at a most fundamental level (it is biologically extremely primitive, predating spoken language).

Just some thoughts that occurred to me when reading your post (similarly incoherent ).

 

[davidmolliere]

I’ll do the flipside of the graphs, it’s a bit off topic but since all this started off topic well...

I really want to audition the IER-Z1R because impressions are fairly inconsistent from one person to the other, except the massive soundstage, the great bass there are very different experiences in terms of mids and treble. That might be due to burn in differences, sources, or personal preferences but it’s very puzzling. Strangely enough, this didn’t happen with the Solaris.

@Wyville Very good points, I love Final Audio’s lecture on the subject as well : https://snext-final.com/en/acoustics/

 

[KB]

Oh no! its back Weeee!

I bought a Z1R, I keep getting the Sony model number letter salads all mixed up, the flagship new Sony IEM, the big silver metal one anyhow I have not received it yet but did want to add it to my collection. I am a Sony fan boy so wanted to pay my homage as well, wonderful sounding IEM. Anyhow yeah the measurements, as I have stated in the past I am not a fan of them (good and bad) and end up bing a distraction that does a disservice to the whole community IMO. I dont know, Sony Z1Rs are just hitting the street, give them a few months and separation from production runs, the freqs will vary quite a bit visually but am sure it will be not audibly noticeable unless something goes very haywire. Almost all the Solaris freqs I see posted look not 100% so I am not sure what analyzers/couplers are being used or? I dont post about all this nor post my own measurements only because I would rather not throw more wood on this whole thing and well yeah get caught up in "measurement-bating". Im not sure but I think I might be the only head of a IEM company fool enough to post like this? not sure.

Measurements, listen with your ears not your eyes, buy with your ears not with your eyes. I like to toss out the most over the top glowing review and/or statements, throw out the worst review or most vial nasty posts and what is in the middle is probably going to be the most representative/accurate.

As I stated in the past here we here at CFA have a dedicated employee who job in singular. He pairs left and right individually using the latest AP audio analyzer and manages QC, I mean its tedious but we feel that making sure each IEM and perfectly hand paired left and right is critical. Before these built IEMs even make it to this person the whole batch is measures and anything that falls out of spec is pulled and recycled. We care deeply about the products that leave our doors and want nothing more then our customers to be happy, enjoy the hell our of our IEMs and their purchase as well as feel good about the purchase. I do like to read the forums and listen to what everyone is saying despite the occasional troll or misinformation or outright nasty mean posts. I want to be engaged and try and be better at what we do so knowledge is important here.

I think what Noble, Sony, JH, 64 etc.. all the main companies are doing are great and it just pushes us all to make better and better performing products and compete harder. I also feel that the more viable successful companies exist the better the hobby will be. Not one size fits all also so I think that we all have to have some healthy respect for what others are making because that might fit one set of customers that are not being taken care of.

Oh look at that, I have said too much.

Kb

 

[davidmolliere]

I am shocked, my rave review went to trash
Joking, great post and this should never be forgotten :

Measurements, listen with your ears not your eyes,
buy with your ears not with your eyes.

This being said, I don’t think the middle ground is necessarily the « true » one if there is such a thing. The main item for me is for any reviewer to make clear what their reference point is, and make clear that this is a subjective exercise. I’ll take even a review I disagree with that makes this clear than one presented as objective that I would agree upon (oh my, this sure is bound to be wrong, just like measurements will be « wrong ») and middle grounded It’s all subjective.

Oh look at that, I have said too much.

I’d rather take the honest post, recognizing the competition as well (kudos for the fair play) over the polished one!

 

[jeffreyw311]

I said "Made by admitted amateurs in less than stellar environmental conditions and with not exactly professional equipment."

Sorry, but yes, unless one is measuring within a laboratory, with the same environmental conditions, same equipment, and controlled variables, then yes, these graphs can't be trusted.
The earphones tested should also have been burned in for the right amount of time per the manufacturer or a reasonable amount if no manufacturer recommendation. To many variables to control.

I tend to ignore all graphs on Head-fi for this very reason.

Sorry that opinion is straight up incorrect.

1) There has been very little evidence of burn in having significant results to frequency response graphs. A few dB here and there at most.
2) The measurements you’re seeing are used with ghe same measurement device.
3) Environmental conditions are not particularly relevant because ambient noise is far less than what the microphone will pick up.

There are a lot of variables to control like insertion depth and seal, none of what you propose to be a problem. I can get consistent results at a hifi store with a Dayton iMM-6. I can get consistent results with my MiniDSP microphone at my home environment when doing room calibration. It isn’t as hard as you think it is.

So the eternal questions are still this:
- Why are the IER-Z1R measurements all consistent so far?
- Why are the Solaris measurements inconsistent?
- How can we trust one’s opinion on high end audio when two different samples sound completely different?
- If there is product inconsistency, why is this tolerated?

 

[davidmolliere]

Yawning...

 

[jeffreyw311]

Yawning...

If you want to go back to your hug box, go right ahead but I think it’s about time people actually expected standards from their manufacturers.

Ken Ball’s statement is straight up embarrassing right there too answering absolutely nothing. It’s actually a really annoying statement because it’s basically saying “you can only trust your ears” which isn’t useful at all if there is a large enough degree of product variation that the product itself can essentially be different between two samples. So how can you really trust opinions/ears in that situation? Something not answered in that post.

 

[Carlsan]

We keep on going around in circles here, no matter what is said.
You graph guys can continue to go ahead and worship your graphs.
The rest of us prefer to listen and enjoy our earphones.

We get it, you are not happy with the graphs.
So what? The majority of the users here seem to like the Solaris. You have made your point and the rest of us don't care.

 

[jeffreyw311]

We keep on going around in circles here, no matter what is said.
You graph guys can continue to go ahead and worship your graphs.
The rest of us prefer to listen and enjoy our earphones.

We get it, you are not happy with the graphs.
So what? The majority of the users here seem to like the Solaris. You have made your point and the rest of us don't care.

I dunno, the people talking about the Solaris’ vocal problems would seem to care.

That’s not worshipping graphs, that’s finding out that their impressions are not consistent with the rest (including mine which was positive) and finding why that might be. And in this case, the differences in opinions might not be due to personal preference but because the Solaris samples are different enough. Ken’s second statement straight up admits to this (hybrids are hard, don’t expect much from me), his solution is to merely channel match.

Like it really isn’t hard to understand yet you refuse to understand what the problem is by deflecting and basically treating objective data as the devil. The objective data isn’t there to prove the Solaris is bad, it’s there to prove that product variation can be significant. Yet you seem unconcerned about this why?

Again, it’s super upsetting that people in the portable audio world would totally be OK with a $2,000 product being a box of chocolates. Only happens in portable audio, doesn’t happen in loudspeakers because transducers get measured and manufacturers can’t get away with this lax quality control.

 

[Carlsan]

I dunno, the people talking about the Solaris’ vocal problems would seem to care.

Can they please add to this discussion then, but leave the graphs at home.

I'm sure many of us here would love to hear the impressions they hear.

 

[KB]

I am shocked, my rave review went to trash
Joking, great post and this should never be forgotten :



This being said, I don’t think the middle ground is necessarily the « true » one if there is such a thing. The main item for me is for any reviewer to make clear what their reference point is, and make clear that this is a subjective exercise. I’ll take even a review I disagree with that makes this clear than one presented as objective that I would agree upon (oh my, this sure is bound to be wrong, just like measurements will be « wrong ») and middle grounded It’s all subjective.



I’d rather take the honest post, recognizing the competition as well (kudos for the fair play) over the polished one!

Oh no David! sorry not meant to disrespect of course, also yours was not the only amazing ++ reviews so your hardly the only.

Kb

 

[candlejack]

I generally stay out of these discussions because it is a lot more complicated and nuanced than an internet forum will allow me to explain it, but there are a few factors to be aware of if you want to introduce any kind of scientific rigour. There is a reason why professional measurement equipment is so expensive and why measurements are conducted in specially prepared rooms. There is also a limit to the usefulness of measurements, however well conducted, because what they provide you with is an approximation. What I mean to indicate with these things is that the sound that leaves the IEMs is subject to changes by the ear canal and no two ear canals are the same. (My left and right are quite different.) This means that measurements are actually extremely difficult to do consistently (control over physical parameters) and meaningfully (having relevance to the IEMs actual use). Once the sounds leaves the IEMs it starts to become something very different from the exercise in physics that you get within the IEMs, as anatomy comes to play, physiology comes to play and yes, psychology too.

While measurements can be informative, they do not constitute the embodiment of the scientific method when it comes to describing the sound from IEMs, simply by the fact that sound emanating from IEMs without the interaction of the ear canal, physiology and psychology is meaningless data without context. When it comes to only measuring the IEMs without context, then the only meaningful measurements (in a scientific sense) are those conducted in a highly standardised way. When it comes to the perception of music coming from IEMs, then that is a whole different ball game, as a wide variety of factors come to play. Some of those are anatomical, some physiological, some developmental and yet others purely psychological.

What I mean to say is that there are different aspects to this hobby and different people focus on different things. It is important to make distinctions when dealing with any one of those aspects. Is it purely a technical issue? Is it to do with sound perception? Not everyone has the same focus and it is easy to get things muddled when discussions are at cross purposes. So for instance, it is not that strange that many hifi consumers buy with their heart because music is about emotion at a most fundamental level (it is biologically extremely primitive, predating spoken language).

Just some thoughts that occurred to me when reading your post (similarly incoherent ).

I find it surprising how you can have such wonderful insight but not be able to drive this train of thought all the way to its ultimate destination.

Yes, the anatomy of the ear canal will influence how the sound will reach the sensory organ. The physiology of the sensory organ will influence what stimuli are sent to the brain. And both of these can be measured. The first probably falls under the scope of physics, the second medicine.

But even if these were completely outside of the reach of science, what would that mean? A musical instrument produces sound. That sound reaches two different ears. Can the nature and quality of the sound produced by this instrument not be evaluated because the ears are different? Does a Stradivarius not sound objectively better than some random violin? But anyway, we don't need to go down this path, because the influence of ear anatomy can be measured and quantified. Significant geometry and material characteristics can be identified. Some baselines can be generated. Any actual ear could be measured (similar to the process of getting a custom fit) and the outcome evaluated by interpolating using the baselines. If I can imagine it, then I'm sure these studies have already been done. They belong to science and I don't expect every audio manufacturer to invest in doing their own research. But the research is probably out there for whoever is interested.

My point is that there is a lot we can learn about audio gear from measuring it. But it's true that we'll need to educate ourselves to understand what these measurements can tell us. Maybe this is what's putting off so many people.

 

[candlejack]

Anyhow yeah the measurements, as I have stated in the past I am not a fan of them (good and bad) and end up bing a distraction that does a disservice to the whole community IMO. I dont know, Sony Z1Rs are just hitting the street, give them a few months and separation from production runs, the freqs will vary quite a bit visually but am sure it will be not audibly noticeable unless something goes very haywire. Almost all the Solaris freqs I see posted look not 100% so I am not sure what analyzers/couplers are being used or? I dont post about all this nor post my own measurements only because I would rather not throw more wood on this whole thing and well yeah get caught up in "measurement-bating". Im not sure but I think I might be the only head of a IEM company fool enough to post like this? not sure.

I completely disagree with this attitude but hey, it's your company and it's not like you have no idea what you're doing: the Andromeda and the Solaris are both excellent.

Measurements, listen with your ears not your eyes, buy with your ears not with your eyes.

It's not that easy, Ken. My local CA dealer has demos for all your IEMs. That's what I get a chance to listen to before buying. If the demo does not match what's in the sealed box, then I hope we can agree that it's a problem. In Europe all stores I know of have a return policy that states: "Exceptions are the in-ear headphones. From the point of view of hygiene, we can not take these products back."

As I stated in the past we here at CFA have a dedicated employee who job in singular. He pairs left and right individually using the latest AP audio analyzer and manages QC, I mean its tedious but we feel that making sure each IEM and perfectly hand paired left and right is critical. Before these built IEMs even make it to this person the whole batch is measures and anything that falls out of spec is pulled and recycled.

Could you share with us what does "out of spec" mean in this case? What exactly are the tolerances?