[goodvibes]

Prolific. When I listened to the JH line, I thought the jh16 at around 9 o'clock was the sweet spot in that line. Was a show environment so bass level may be preferred higher or lower with other ambient conditions.

 

[csglinux]

Just dropped by Jaben Melbourne.

1More Triple Driver
1More Quad Driver
AAW AXH
AAW W500
Beyerdynamic Xelento
FitEar Parterrre
FitEar F111
FitEar 223
FitEar MH334
FitEar TG334
FitEar MH335DW
JH Audio JH13v2 Performance Series (Min bass)
JH Audio JH13v2 Performance Series (2 o'clock pot)
JH Audio JH13v2 Performance Series (Max bass)
Sennheiser IE800S
Shure SE846 (Black filter)

Hi @crinacle, I wonder if you might have a chance to go back and take another look at your Xelento and SE846 measurements. Considering you're not using any diffuse-field compensation curve, the Xelento FR shape looks about right, but it's resonance peak is way too low (in terms of frequency). It should extend well beyond 8 kHz. Also, the SE846 looks off in a couple of areas: 1) It's known to roll-off early - much earlier than the Xelento (your measurements show the opposite trend). 2) The shape of the FR curve looks off - i.e., the levels of those peaks look to be way too high with the black (darkest) filter. Below are measurements I took using blue (medium) filters. Obviously I can't compare directly with your measurements, but look at the comparisons between your Xelento + SE846 and mine. Your SE846 + black filter appears to have better treble extension than the Xelento. Nobody, not even the most die-hard of fans on the SE846 thread would expect that (Please just ignore the brown Knowles' filter measurements.)

 

[crinacle]

It looks that way, but isn't as bad as it seems.

Anyway, the higher frequencies are harder to interpret due to the resonant frequency shenanigans going on, 8k for the Xelento and ~9k for the Shure. With a less resonance-sensitive system like those in our tuning coupler rigs, any rolloff would be represented better. However in the IEC mic, the fit doesn't really allow me to measure deep unless the IEM allows me to (i.e. ER4).

I have said it many times, the tuning coupler system is actually more accurate at times because you have even greater control over the IEC mic, which has limited insert depth control due to it having to conform to a certain construction and standard. If we were to use a small-volume (0.4cc) coupler, I'm fairly certain we'll see the higher frequencies represented better.

Which brings me to my initial point: expect resonant frequencies and understand that they are (usually) not representative of real life performance.

 

[csglinux]

It looks that way, but isn't as bad as it seems.


Which brings me to my initial point: expect resonant frequencies and understand that they are (usually) not representative of real life performance.

If I do a frequency sweep with the Xelentos, I can hear that peak at around 10.5 kHz. Is there any way to modify your new coupler to allow for deeper insertion? Otherwise any funky-shaped IEM with short stubby nozzles (and let's be honest - that's 99% of IEMs these days!) are going to look unfairly and unrealistically bad in terms of their treble extension.

 

[csglinux]

Whoops - my bad! I forgot something important... The stock Xelento tips are sort of a weird oval shape. They can fit (apparently) in some peoples' ears nicely, but not in a round coupler. If you'd used stock Xelento tips on a round coupler opening, you'd probably be forced to use an unnaturally shallow fit. For consistency I always use SpinFit fits. No pressure here, but I'd be interested to see your measurements of the Xelento using something like the Cp100 (or equivalent, round silicone) tips. This may be all you'd need to get a realistic insertion depth. I'm expecting you'll see that resonance peak get closer to 10 kHz

 

[castleofargh]

is you ear IEC compliant? no? then what you hear is wrong!


also yeah the tips are always a headache. should we always use the default one? yes but many won't stand in place or won't allow for the proper insertion. so should we use the same tip for at least all the nozzles of a given diameter? yes for consistency, but then we get results that users won't have using the default tips.
whyyyyyyyyy? is usually what every guy doing measurements ends up thinking. ^_^

 

[csglinux]

is you ear IEC compliant?

Good point!

 

[Slater]

is you ear IEC compliant? no? then what you hear is wrong!


also yeah the tips are always a headache. should we always use the default one? yes but many won't stand in place or won't allow for the proper insertion. so should we use the same tip for at least all the nozzles of a given diameter? yes for consistency, but then we get results that users won't have using the default tips.
whyyyyyyyyy? is usually what every guy doing measurements ends up thinking. ^_^

Good points. For measurement, I use the same tips and the same insertion depth. As you mentioned, it provides consistency and is 1 less variable I have to worry about. Is it a perfectly accurate representation of what I'll hear if I tip roll to something else? No, but I don't care because I'm doing the measurements for me and no one else.

 

[crinacle]

In case anyone want to play around with my data on your own, you can just import the raw .txt files on REW. I know some of you are already seasoned, but a lot more aren't so I'll just run a step-by-step just in case.

1. Download Room EQ Wizard (REW) here
2. Import the .txt files using Ctrl+I or simply by going to File -> Import Frequency Response
3. Play with the graph settings with the button called "Limits". Default scaling that I use would be 30dB/90dB on y-axis and 20Hz/20,000Hz on x-axis, but of course you have all the freedom to play with that all you want.
4. To overlay, import all the graphs that you want and then hit the "Overlays" button. Adjust the scaling with the same steps in step 3.

Final product should look like this:

Whoops - my bad! I forgot something important... The stock Xelento tips are sort of a weird oval shape. They can fit (apparently) in some peoples' ears nicely, but not in a round coupler. If you'd used stock Xelento tips on a round coupler opening, you'd probably be forced to use an unnaturally shallow fit. For consistency I always use SpinFit fits. No pressure here, but I'd be interested to see your measurements of the Xelento using something like the Cp100 (or equivalent, round silicone) tips. This may be all you'd need to get a realistic insertion depth. I'm expecting you'll see that resonance peak get closer to 10 kHz

@castleofargh already laid out my train of thought regarding this; if the default tips are weird or whatever I'll still be using it since, well, it's the default. I'd be happy to play around with tips but I think I've outlived my welcome in Jaben Melbourne. All this is done on a "when I have time" basis, after all.

 

[csglinux]

In case anyone want to play around with my data on your own, you can just import the raw .txt files on REW. I know some of you are already seasoned, but a lot more aren't so I'll just run a step-by-step just in case.

1. Download Room EQ Wizard (REW) here
2. Import the .txt files using Ctrl+I or simply by going to File -> Import Frequency Response
3. Play with the graph settings with the button called "Limits". Default scaling that I use would be 30dB/90dB on y-axis and 20Hz/20,000Hz on x-axis, but of course you have all the freedom to play with that all you want.
4. To overlay, import all the graphs that you want and then hit the "Overlays" button. Adjust the scaling with the same steps in step 3.

Final product should look like this:




@castleofargh already laid out my train of thought regarding this; if the default tips are weird or whatever I'll still be using it since, well, it's the default. I'd be happy to play around with tips but I think I've outlived my welcome in Jaben Melbourne. All this is done on a "when I have time" basis, after all.

Love REW! Awesome bit of software

I totally understand your position on re-measuring and use of stock tips, so like I said - no pressure. Use of default tips does create a bit of an issue though for IEMs like the Xelento. Those oval tips are designed to fit in a concha bowl, not in a round coupler. That's probably why your high frequency roll-off is way too early. IMHO @Slater is right to be using the same eartips for each IEM. We should simply be aiming for a consistent seal and an insertion depth that (at minimum) doesn't depart too far from reality just to accommodate the shape of our coupler. SpinFit Cp100, Cp155 & Cp800 should collectively cover every IEM ever made. And they all fit nicely in cylindrical couplers

One other question @crinacle - I saw that your legacy database contained a number of measurements contributed by other members. How did you ensure those measurements were comparable? Did they borrow your equipment, or did they have identical mics/couplers of their own? I'd be happy to offer you (unDFC'd) measurements of my own, but I have a totally different setup (Vibro Veritas and REW) and things wouldn't match.

 

[crinacle]

One other question @crinacle - I saw that your legacy database contained a number of measurements contributed by other members. How did you ensure those measurements were comparable? Did they borrow your equipment, or did they have identical mics/couplers of their own? I'd be happy to offer you (unDFC'd) measurements of my own, but I have a totally different setup (Vibro Veritas and REW) and things wouldn't match.

They both use the IMM6 with a tubing coupler. I'd say that anything that uses a microphone and tubing is bound to get similar results to mine when insert depth and resonant points are matched. The Veritas has slightly different acoustic properties that makes it a little different in the 4-6k region, I think? I haven't really experimented on it that much.

 

[csglinux]

They both use the IMM6 with a tubing coupler. I'd say that anything that uses a microphone and tubing is bound to get similar results to mine when insert depth and resonant points are matched. The Veritas has slightly different acoustic properties that makes it a little different in the 4-6k region, I think? I haven't really experimented on it that much.

I may try to get an IMM6 and post the differences. Where do you purchase these? I was also curious about your new mic. Can you tell us what it is and where you purchased it?

Thanks for posting the links to your raw text files. This is very useful

 

[Ike1985]

Request: Tia Trio & A12t. TY

 

[crinacle]

Here's some more from @malvinviriya:

64 Audio A3t
64 Audio A4t
64 Audio A6t
64 Audio N8t
64 Audio A12t
64 Audio Tia Trio

 

[SilverEars]

I just looked at the Forte graph, I definately heard the dip in the mids.