it doesn't cost much to try. I personally gave up real fast :'( . I can play with my various etymotics and ensure stable results on 2 or 3 mics+stuff that seem to indicate clear behaviors from the rig itself. but as soon as the IEMs have very limited insertion depth, very different tips, or vented vs not, what felt like stability goes out the window for me. well not completely, but certainly enough to kill all ideas of crossover compensation between rigs(which is why I tried in the first place).
I'm confused. Assuming the coupler is a reasonable representation of the ear canal (given the variations from person-to-person, there's every expectation that it's representative of somebody's ear canal), whether the x kHz peak is due to inherent transducer output or resonance should be immaterial, because in either case it would be experienced by a listener. So why would we call that an error? If we're saying those resonances wouldn't occur in reality, because we need a better hardware model of the ear canal that provides a better impedance BC for the acoustic waves, it's still not a measurement error. I'm sure I'm overlooking something. What is it?
I honestly don't think it's worth the extra work. The information that is most relevant is what FR the IEM delivers to an average ear - that includes resonant peaks from the closed ear entrance as well as the effects of different insertion depths. Knowing if certain aspects of the FR are due to the transducer or features of the interaction between ear canal and IEM is not really relevant in an everyday scenario. That's more relevant for designing IEMs than for reviewing or testing.
would it though? are resonances solely the result of the air volume? If so, I'd say you're right. But I thought resonances are dependent on material type, volume, and geometry - probably other things I'm missing.
