[crinacle]

Since my old UE18+ measurement was using a 10k resonant peak in mind, I'll update the IMM6 measurements to reflect the same insert depth for consistency. The initial measurement was made with the IEC measurements in mind, at an insert depth that emulated its 7.5kHz peak.

With stock, wide-bore tips

With small-bore tips

 

[FastAndClean]

 

[Francisk]

Urghhhhhh.....

 

[crinacle]

New measurements now up. Been experimenting around and have improved the measurement process by a lot using periodic (PN) white noise instead. Measurements would be averaged faster and cleaner than before.

Audeze iSine 10 (remeasure)
Audeze iSine 20 (remeasure)
Cardas A8 Ear Speaker
Cardas EM5813 Ear Speaker
Etymotic HF5

Spoiler: JH Lola

Minimum bass
Half bass
Maximum bass

Notes and impressions:

• The Audeze duo still sounds very weird to me. Tonality and timbre are way off especially when compared to my benchmarks (Andromeda, UERM, UE18+ etc.) .Could be attributed to the hefty 1.5K-ish spike of doom.
• The Cardas EM5813 was horrible. The A8 was pretty okay for the most part, except for the unnatural-sounding treble that was muffled and slow for whatever reason. Would not recommend either.
• Etymotic HF5 is a darker version of the ER4 that retains the signature sterility and reference-orientated of the Etymotic house sound. One of the best neutral budget IEMs around.
• JH Lola... The Lola has managed to have its twin DDs control the midrange and yet retain none of the traits that made the dynamics desirable in the first place. Overall tonality is thin and cold with slightly distant mids and little smoothness. The use of BA woofers for bass did not help the note weight at all and the Lola ends up being a soulless, strange-sounding "monitor". Would not recommend.

 

[crinacle]

Got a friend in Indonesia who sent some graphs my way. Based off preliminary measurements, it can be assumed that it's more-or-less in line with the measurements that my IMM6 produces.

Avara is a local Indonesian CIEM maker focusing on affordable customs for the masses.

Avara AV1
Avara AV2
Avara AV3

Notes and impressions (not mine)

• The AV1 has a distinct lack of treble on first impression. It has a good midbass presentation that is definitely faster than the SE215. Vocals carry decent weight as well but it lacks extension and makes female vocals sound dull and muted. Treble presentation is equally dulled due to the rolloff post 5k. Not recommended even at its $165 price point, except only for the most desperate.
• More treble is immediately apparent on the AV2 compared to the AV1 whilst keeping the bass quantity. Mids aren't necessarily recessed but there's a jarring difference of amount of lower mids and upper mids, making the female vocals sound thin. The bass is pretty linear and enjoyable but the vocal timbre was off as mentioned earlier. Treble has enough energy but doesn't feel natural. Still not so worth it at $235 honestly.
• The AV3's bass has decent enough kick and low-end extension. The mids has nice enough body to it that vocals sound natural, both male and female. Good top-end extension that brings more airiness to the sound. Treble is quite polite while keeping the quantity enough to satisfy, and presents an accurate timbre as well. A solid recommendation at $290.

 

[goodvibes]

I have to say that the Clear Tune Monitors sounded a lot like those measurements. Tried the lot after good reviews by members here, one of which seems to have become an authority on flagship IEMs. A couple were OK (not the top ones) but most sounded off to me. Phasey with gaps. Maybe I was having a bad day but those curves look about right to me.

 

[goodvibes]

Got a friend in Indonesia who sent some graphs my way. Based off preliminary measurements, it can be assumed that it's more-or-less in line with the measurements that my IMM6 produces.

Avara is a local Indonesian CIEM maker focusing on affordable customs for the masses.

Avara AV1
Avara AV2
Avara AV3

Notes and impressions (not mine)

• The AV1 has a distinct lack of treble on first impression. It has a good midbass presentation that is definitely faster than the SE215. Vocals carry decent weight as well but it lacks extension and makes female vocals sound dull and muted. Treble presentation is equally dulled due to the rolloff post 5k. Not recommended even at its $165 price point, except only for the most desperate.
• More treble is immediately apparent on the AV2 compared to the AV1 whilst keeping the bass quantity. Mids aren't necessarily recessed but there's a jarring difference of amount of lower mids and upper mids, making the female vocals sound thin. The bass is pretty linear and enjoyable but the vocal timbre was off as mentioned earlier. Treble has enough energy but doesn't feel natural. Still not so worth it at $235 honestly.
• The AV3's bass has decent enough kick and low-end extension. The mids has nice enough body to it that vocals sound natural, both male and female. Good top-end extension that brings more airiness to the sound. Treble is quite polite while keeping the quantity enough to satisfy, and presents an accurate timbre as well. A solid recommendation at $290.

AV3 actually looks quite nice. Awesome to see a company do a that. Looks like $315 now.

 

[crinacle]

I have to say that the Clear Tune Monitors sounded a lot like those measurements. Tried the lot after good reviews by members here, one of which seems to have become an authority on flagship IEMs. A couple were OK (not the top ones) but most sounded off to me. Phasey with gaps. Maybe I was having a bad day but those curves look about right to me.

Yeah, CTM measured so badly that I spent a lot of time making sure it wasn't due to any rig anomalies. Multiple counts of tubing length checks, insert depth and channel matching tests... everything was fine. They are just that screwed up, no sugarcoating it.

 

[bartzky]

The CTM measurements from speakerphone look extremely bad too: https://clarityfidelity.blogspot.de/search?q=Clear+tune

 

[goodvibes]

Yeah, CTM measured so badly that I spent a lot of time making sure it wasn't due to any rig anomalies. Multiple counts of tubing length checks, insert depth and channel matching tests... everything was fine. They are just that screwed up, no sugarcoating it.

New tech. Freak Phase.

 

[Francisk]

New tech. Freak Phase.

 

[dongster]

@crinacle
can you please post a compensated graph for VE8?

 

[bartzky]

Until @crinacle replies this might be helpful for you:

You can find my other measurements for comparison here: http://headflux.de/messungen/

 

[dongster]

Until @crinacle replies this might be helpful for you:

You can find my other measurements for comparison here: http://headflux.de/messungen/

thanks man.

I overlay-ed Prophile 8 vs VE8 and VE6 vs VE8 from your Website (1khz match), the VE8 actually have the same/more treble than both. Unlike most peoples impression that the VE8 is darker than VE6 and PP8

Maybe too much bass compared to treble?
Do you think if i EQ down the bass and lower mid a bit more, VE8 would appear more sparkly?

 

[bartzky]

I personally like to match at 700Hz as I find that to more accurately represent subjective perception:

Yellow: ProPhile 8 no switches
Green: VE8
Blue: VE6 X1

the VE8 actually have the same/more treble than both. Unlike most peoples impression that the VE8 is darker than VE6 and PP8

Maybe too much bass compared to treble?

I actually compared the PP8, VE8 and VE6 Xcontrol side by side and too say the VE8 is darker than booth. I'd put that down to the VE8's bass and full bodied and warm midrange. Especially the PP8 is much leaner from 200-600Hz.

Do you think if i EQ down the bass and lower mid a bit more, VE8 would appear more sparkly?

Absolutely, but I personally wouldn't be happy spending over 2k for an IEM I need to EQ and rather go for a different IEM instead