[DanWiggins]

of course it's hard to test for more than one specific situation at a time when so many variables can all have some impact, and that impact from one variable can also be altered by changes in the other variables. it's kind of a mess.
my concern with CSD is that it might convey an idea of long lasting decay over all sounds just because it shows that. but real music obviously isn't only made of full scale tone that cuts off instantly. with music the driver keeps being constrained by electrical forces for the signal, so the actual result might be more like extra distortion than actual long lasting decay(I saying the same thing but it's the way to imagine it that changes). and specifically in the low end, it's not like bass drums or guitar bass have impulse like behaviors anyway. so while CSD or impulse response can be super informative objectively, I fear how they might bias me into false ideas about what I'm supposed to hear.

Expectation bias is of course real, and I think why many of the purely "objectivists" in the audio world simply don't get it. At the end of the day, all we sell is illusion; audio is but fantasy of an event we never witnessed, nor can be captured as it originally happened. How much pepper and salt belongs on a steak? That is for the eater, not the chef, to decide what is correct.

IF you are interested in accuracy, then a clean CSD is of course important. The Toole/Olive paper about timbre and resonances is quite instructive on that! However, if your enjoyment is enhanced by some additional ringing, or a too-lean bass, or dropped-down top end, then is that wrong? The objectivist would say yes - and measurably so! I say "if the music moves you, you want to listen to more music" because of the colorations there - then they really aren't colorations but simply requirements for you.

Perception has general trends, but in the end it is all individual. And that includes expectation bias. If you expect to hear something - or the absence of it - you may not perceive it. And if you do, you may downplay (or highlight) because of the bias going in. The actual act of perceiving (which I say is different than the act of hearing, hearing being a purely mechanical/biological process before it's perceived through the filter of our wetware in our skulls) is what matters, and if it sounds better to you - then it is. Unquestionably so.

 

[buonassi]

and it's something I will probably never understand(or agree with) ^_^. to me that's the equivalent of expecting custom shells without sending ear impressions simply because the price is premium.
-we have different bodies.
-at least part of the frequency response is altered and brain calibrated by that possibly unique body.
hence needing a possibly unique signature.

the statistical chances to get that signature just for me while waiting for a manufacturer to guess right is realistically pretty slim, and I'm yet to try any IEM or headphone where some EQ couldn't feel better to me than the original tuning. on the other hand I admit that we aren't born with EQ skills, so it can take time and efforts to "find ourselves" using EQ.

I agree. the purists who resist EQ are missing out on the ecstasy of true balance. When EQ is done right and calibrated to smooth out the frequency peaks and nulls (which vary by individual), the music takes on a whole new dimension.

 

[datranz]

whats a good iOS eq? one with parametric eq and q controls if available. Thanks

 

[Brooko]

whats a good iOS eq? one with parametric eq and q controls if available. Thanks

Equaliser - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/equalizer/id321267949?

 

[eldss]

whats a good iOS eq? one with parametric eq and q controls if available. Thanks

If you stream, there are no good options. But if you own your music, HibyMusic is free and has an ok eq.

 

[shotgunshane]

Equalizer:
Equalizer by Audioforge Labs Inc.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/equalizer/id321267949?mt=8

Wow, this thread has turned into the best thread on HF. Keep up the great discussions.

I'm having a hard time digesting temporal masking, when dynamics of similar FR, have noticeably slower decay/bass than armature bass.

 

[ThomasHK]

@crinacle I see you measured the Jomo 4, any comments on it? General Timbre observations? Comparisons? Thanks!

 

[crinacle]

New breakthrough out, here's a .mp3 for Periodic White Noise. It should cut down measurement averages by a very significant amount without compromising precision and accuracy.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxAPZablZ6VfeG9xd0FxT3hnZ2M

Use the PWN file with the "Slow" rather than "Infinite" averaging on the FFT Plot/Analyzer app. A good curve should be generated within 3 seconds as opposed to the 3 minutes with standard white noise.

@crinacle I see you measured the Jomo 4, any comments on it? General Timbre observations? Comparisons? Thanks!

Very technically capable IEM. Detail and clarity focused while being on the warm side of things. Definitely a good purchase for anyone looking for that signature.

 

[ThomasHK]

Very technically capable IEM. Detail and clarity focused while being on the warm side of things. Definitely a good purchase for anyone looking for that signature.

Thanks man, appreciated. As a point of reference, how does it compare to SE846¿

 

[goodvibes]

I agree. the purists who resist EQ are missing out on the ecstasy of true balance. When EQ is done right and calibrated to smooth out the frequency peaks and nulls (which vary by individual), the music takes on a whole new dimension.

That's not what he said at all. Some may prefer the device that doesn't need EQ and hear the slight veil the added buffering and bit manipulation causes on their best files. Ringing and resonances can not be cured with EQ. Only made more palpable. Nothing wrong with it if that's what you like but nothing wrong with preferring a different way to achieve a goal. It's whatever floats your boat. Insisting that EQ makes everything better for everyone is silly.

 

[crinacle]

Thanks man, appreciated. As a point of reference, how does it compare to SE846¿

Don't have both with me to A/B so I don't want to discuss about the two too in depth without enough confidence. They should be somewhat similar in flavour and signature, though. Obviously the 846 would be more focused in the basslines.

 

[crinacle]

Now, an IEM full of hype and controversy...

Warbler Prelude

(Measurements are done by @malvinviriya with the same IMM-6 + tubing rig, so the usual disclaimers about possible equipment and technique variations apply.)

 

[headwhacker]

Hi @crinacle when you get a chance, I hope you can measure the LCDi4. As much as measurements of the iSines look and sound weird, when EQed they transform into something very excellent.

 

[crinacle]

Hi @crinacle when you get a chance, I hope you can measure the LCDi4. As much as measurements of the iSines look and sound weird, when EQed they transform into something very excellent.

Been trying to find a demo unit for ages, but will definitely post them when I get them.

As for the EQ, I'm pretty sure that holds true for 80% of IEMs out there.

 

[csglinux]

New breakthrough out, here's a .mp3 for Periodic White Noise. It should cut down measurement averages by a very significant amount without compromising precision and accuracy.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxAPZablZ6VfeG9xd0FxT3hnZ2M

Many thanks for sharing this @crinacle ! It does indeed speed things up for my portable measurement rig

A couple of technical questions on this though... Can white noise really be periodic? Wouldn't that impose a wavelength/frequency correlation that's not supposed to be there? Running the above through an FFT, your new mp3 file does appear to use a better (more random) random number generator which results in a flatter FR, but it also seems to have been filtered at 20 kHz. I see a sharp roll-off in the FFT (and in my measurements) at that point. Not critical at 20 kHz, obviously, but I just wondered why that filtering was applied?

Also, can you explain anything more about the periodicity?