[hakuzen]

A real 711 has 2 volumes connected by slits to the main coupler volume. Not sure what you guys talked about.

i think @castleofargh refers to these pin holes at the base of the coupler. they were called as "pressure equalizing holes" at the coupler's diagram ("h" at following pic).



about impedance/phase measurement, got time ago a box with 3 3.5mm sockets, a switch (to toggle between channels), and a resistor of 100ohm soldered to the right connectors of the socket.
it's very comfortable to use, and minimize leads resistance.



in a 711 coupler, the distance from the mic to the top of the coupler (top of the tip cavity) seems to be 2.55mm, so the BA(s) nozzle of the iem should be located right there. this is my goal when trying to find the right insertion depth for different iem and different tips now.

about SPL measuring, the coupler is also very useful to match desired level. but the attachment requires a 1/2" threaded cap of the meter, or mcgyver tricks to fit it, no leaking:

 

[castleofargh]

yup that.


@bartzky , noice!
about diffuse field, I'm ok. as I'm still not amazing on the RAW, I was thinking of maybe letting the RAW as it is, and do a play pretend DF so that it can look a little like innerfidelity or whatever(so DF in name only).

 

[bartzky]

More will follow soon.

Alright, let's take a look at some measurements!

Here's a German article about the new coupler with some comparisons to the Veritas: http://headflux.de/neues-messequipment-fuer-inears-iec-60318-4/ Note that the new measurements are shown in yellow while the Veritas measurements are shown in green. The Veritas was calibrated in a not dissimilar way @Brooko has calibrated his unit: I compared several IEC-spec measurements to the raw measurements of the Veritas from a bunch of IEMs (mainly BA based) to derive a calibration curve.
Looking at the curves the Veritas seems to struggle to get the bass reading correctly for dynamic driver IEMs. The Veritas constantly measures a bit more bass, while the reading of BA based IEMs is pretty much in line with the IEC coupler. Also there seems to be constantly more level at about 3-4 kHz with the Veritas which likely is a shortcoming of my calibration. Furthermore the resonance peak seems to be shifted to higher values and is generally recorded with less level than it is on the IEC coupler.
Overall the Veritas seems to be a solid performer for being a 3D printed and relatively accessible device, but surely has it's shortcomings.

Some more measurements are added to the overview: http://headflux.de/messungen/

 

[hakuzen]

about location (freq) and amplitude of resonance peaks, while using a IEC coupler, found that insertion depth is essential.
the distance from the mic to the top of the coupler (top of the tip cavity) seems to be 2.55mmcm, so the BA(s) nozzle of the iem, usually at a few mm 0.5-2mm below the nozzle grid, should be located right there.

deep insertion (clear) vs "right" insertion (dark), using silicone tips (left) and foam tips (right), KZ ZS6:




material and shape of tips affect to amplitude of peak resonances mainly, but also to location.

silicone (blue), wide foam (red), narrow foam (orange), KZ ZS6:



Edited: fixed error 2.55mm->2.55cm

 

[bartzky]

about location (freq) and amplitude of resonance peaks, while using a IEC coupler, found that insertion depth is essential.
the distance from the mic to the top of the coupler (top of the tip cavity) seems to be 2.55mm, so the BA(s) nozzle of the iem, usually at a few mm 0.5-2mm below the nozzle grid, should be located right there.

Insertion depth is absolutely essential. But I have to admit I'm a bit confused for what placement you aim for.

"C" in the picture that you have already posted is the reference plane:

The front of the tip should be placed there as stated in 60318-4. But I have to admit most IEMs don't fit deep enough to accomplish this. I usually try to place them as close to reference plane as possible then.

 

[hakuzen]

Insertion depth is absolutely essential. But I have to admit I'm a bit confused for what placement you aim for.

"C" in the picture that you have already posted is the reference plane:

The front of the tip should be placed there as stated in 60318-4. But I have to admit most IEMs don't fit deep enough to accomplish this. I usually try to place them as close to reference plane as possible then.

i guess (really don't know, but the shape of the coupler tip cavity suggests it) the reference plane ("C") is for a triple flange ER type tip (long). you can't reach reference plane with a regular tip, guess regular tips reference plane should be a few mm above, as shown in the pic.
however, tips have different total length, tube length; iems have different nozzle length, different lid position (if any lid); BAs are located at different depth into the nozzle..
roughly measured the distance from the mic to the top of the coupler: ~2.55mmcm! which is the average length of adult ear channel.
what i aim is to position the BAs nozzle of each iem (if they have BAs, of course) just right there (absolute top of the coupler), after guessing the BA depth into the iem nozzle (aprox), in order to find a regular protocol for all different BA iems. for dynamic drivers iem types, i'll probably aim to "regular" tip insertion (if the tip used is "regular").

Edited: error fixed 2.5mm->2.55cm

 

[crinacle]

For anyone interested, I'll be at the Melbourne HiFi Show on Saturday, 4th November. If anyone's nearby with interesting IEMs that wants them measured, feel free to hit me up.

(I'll probably be just loitering around the Jaben booth most of the time anyways. This event is more sources/speakers than actual porta-fi.)

 

[bartzky]

i guess (really don't know, but the shape of the coupler tip cavity suggests it) the reference plane ("C") is for a triple flange ER type tip (long). you can't reach reference plane with a regular tip, guess regular tips reference plane should be a few mm above, as shown in the pic.
however, tips have different total length, tube length; iems have different nozzle length, different lid position (if any lid); BAs are located at different depth into the nozzle..
roughly measured the distance from the mic to the top of the coupler: ~2.55mm! which is the average length of adult ear channel.
what i aim is to position the BAs nozzle of each iem (if they have BAs, of course) just right there (absolute top of the coupler), after guessing the BA depth into the iem nozzle (aprox), in order to find a regular protocol for all different BA iems. for dynamic drivers iem types, i'll probably aim to "regular" tip insertion (if the tip used is "regular").

I was a bit confused by "2.55mm". With centermeters it makes much more sense now

The "reg tip" position seems to be in line with what I usually archive by using the smallest silicone tips.

I'd be very interested to know how the other guys (@crinacle, @castleofargh) handle the IEM placement.

I personally wouldn't like to depend insertion depth on the location of BA drivers. There just to many IEMs with dynamic drivers and even on pure BA constructions the location of the drivers varies widely. Take JH Audio's Freqphase for instance where some of the drivers have much longer tubes attached.

 

[castleofargh]

I was a bit confused by "2.55mm". With centermeters it makes much more sense now

The "reg tip" position seems to be in line with what I usually archive by using the smallest silicone tips.

I'd be very interested to know how the other guys (@crinacle, @castleofargh) handle the IEM placement.

I personally wouldn't like to depend insertion depth on the location of BA drivers. There just to many IEMs with dynamic drivers and even on pure BA constructions the location of the drivers varies widely. Take JH Audio's Freqphase for instance where some of the drivers have much longer tubes attached.

it's a little special for me as I don't publish my measurements, or only from time to time to show impedance impacts and little games like that. so a standard isn't my priority. I am ^_^.
in my new found desire to do well, when something like the er4sr can show much variations in the trebles from tips and the very large range of insertion depths available, I simply go for what I'm hearing when I usually use them:
I'll use a sweep to try and find a juicy spike in the trebles while playing with my EQ to check I'm identifying the right frequency. I also try to get a vague subjective notion of the amplitude compared to usually 3khz(pure habit). I'm not good at that past 10khz, but again just a general idea of relative loudness can help.
and from there I measure different insertions until I get something that looks like what I'm hearing(at the very least right frequency for the most audible treble spike). that's what serves me best even though I'm very prudent when it comes to EQing past 10khz, and I leave it alone if I have any doubt(as in chaotic trebles).
so I definitely do not settle for a standard insertion. but for the sake of repeatability and standards, a silicon tube with a marking is probably the very best option. it's just that in many cases, it doesn't reflect what we hear(again I'm only talking about the trebles, the rest is usually very fine). for example, inserting Shure IEMs as much as inserting Etymotic IEMs doesn't make much sense in practice. so IMO all choices are equally wrong for different reasons ^_^.

 

[hakuzen]

I was a bit confused by "2.55mm". With centermeters it makes much more sense now

The "reg tip" position seems to be in line with what I usually archive by using the smallest silicone tips.

I'd be very interested to know how the other guys (@crinacle, @castleofargh) handle the IEM placement.

I personally wouldn't like to depend insertion depth on the location of BA drivers. There just to many IEMs with dynamic drivers and even on pure BA constructions the location of the drivers varies widely. Take JH Audio's Freqphase for instance where some of the drivers have much longer tubes attached.

you are right. it's kind of stupid guessing where are the BAs (if any).
@castleofargh 's method sound to me the most meticulous and exact one, despite of he saying that all choices are equally wrong, but it's hard to implement for every iem (lot of work).
i'll try to insert iems till "regular tips" or "large tips" ref plane, depending of the length of the tip; this would match the maker's intention/distance when using stock tips. when using other tips (i usually like to test same tip for every iem), would try to match the position/depth the iem/nozzle had when using stock tips.

 

[crinacle]

I'm back.

AAW AXH
Sennheiser IE80S
Shure SE215

Not a lot of new things. Much of the items on display have already been measured. As usual, impression will be back over in the other thread.

 

[ranfan]

@crinacle Thanks for updating. May I ask Crinacle, what do you think of the Samba, and the Flamenco? Especially playing with your playlist. Do they sound good to your ears? Your Spotify playlist is nice by the way, I discovered a few good songs that I like from there.

 

[uoods]

Thanks for doing all these measurements and also having your opinions separately. I wish more people did this, as you can compare two reviewers' measurements and then their subjective opinions and have some way to normalize the two!

Just getting into measurements myself, any opinions of the Dayton imm-6? I know it's entry level but many seem to have decent FR measurements from it.

 

[crinacle]

@crinacle Thanks for updating. May I ask Crinacle, what do you think of the Samba, and the Flamenco? Especially playing with your playlist. Do they sound good to your ears? Your Spotify playlist is nice by the way, I discovered a few good songs that I like from there.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the playlist! Personally the Samba and the Flamenco are a little too intense for me. I prefer a slightly more laid-back/smooth sound as opposed to their aggressive, textured nature. Purely preference of course.

Thanks for doing all these measurements and also having your opinions separately. I wish more people did this, as you can compare two reviewers' measurements and then their subjective opinions and have some way to normalize the two!

Just getting into measurements myself, any opinions of the Dayton imm-6? I know it's entry level but many seem to have decent FR measurements from it.

I may be biased but I find the IMM6 extremely satisfactory for FR, perhaps the best out of the hobbyist DIY-sphere. THD, impulse and other various metrics aren't very good though. For that you'll want something a step higher.

 

[Virtu Fortuna]

Am I the only one who can't open the individual graphs?