[gLer]

Well, there are a lot of different elements to technical performance. And priorities differ between people on what they want form a technical stand point. There are other variables in play too in how someone hears and evaluates something. It's never going to be an exact science, and technically grading gear will be to some degree subjective too.

Agreed, although technicalities should be less subjective than tonality, at least in terms of assessment. I mean, it should be easy enough to score resolution, stage width/depth/height, imaging, separation, dynamics on a scale. Especially if you have such a large basis for comparison.

That said, and as with everything else in this hobby, it seems YMMV applies to this too. Just because I'm hearing more details with one IEM over another doesn't mean others do.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Agreed, although technicalities should be less subjective than tonality, at least in terms of assessment. I mean, it should be easy enough to score resolution, stage width/depth/height, imaging, separation, dynamics on a scale. Especially if you have such a large basis for comparison.

That said, and as with everything else in this hobby, it seems YMMV applies to this too. Just because I'm hearing more details with one IEM over another doesn't mean others do.

True, but across reviewers, it does seem that they more or less agree on technical attributes within a very tight standard deviation. Tonal scores are all over the place.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Not at all. It's his opinion, and I know how he likes his sound. EVO is way off his preference curve. I used to go by Crin's ratings until I learned the differences in our preferences. All credit to him for staying consistent.

Yeah that's just daft. Opinion or not it's just not factual.

I agree with you. He also ranks Thieaudio Monarch as having better technicals than Odin and I don't think that many reviewers would agree with him. But, it's only S vs S-, so it's not a huge difference.

 

[gLer]

True, but across reviewers, it does seem that they more or less agree on technical attributes within a very tight standard deviation. Tonal scores are all over the place.

Which is why I called EVO's technical ranking total BS. I mean, he scored Nio higher technically. Sometimes you have to wonder.

 

[Mehran]

That said, and as with everything else in this hobby, it seems YMMV applies to this too.

You can add to it bias, feelings, preconceptions, expectations and the human psyche in general and how it can affect how we perceive things in a subtle way it becomes a mess. lol

 

[Darkestred]

Interesting, he finds the LX more technical as well.

This imo is fair because i look at technical as also being able to portray all arrays of instruments. The treble on the LX is better. And hi-hats are lost on the EVO's signature in particular.

I think the Evo is more deserving of an A+ as an overall. Sometimes, its hard to be fair with bias. But, who cares at the end of the day. Don't be sheep.

 

[drftr]

Is there a community-style ranking list where we all can add our own perceptions translated in rankings? Could be very helpful to many and would provide lots of inspiration for sure.

drftr

 

[RyanM]

Which is why I called EVO's technical ranking total BS. I mean, he scored Nio higher technically. Sometimes you have to wonder.

I should preface by saying that I really like Crinacle, both as a person (based solely on YouTube vids) and as a reviewer, if only for his knowledge and access to headphones and IEM's. But I'm not clear on what the "Technical Ranking" is. I would have to think that the only people capable of truly ranking the technicalities of Headphones or IEM's would need to be doing all sorts of testing with regards to distortion and group delay, etc. akin to what Amir does with ASR, or be engineering them. I don't expect any reviewer or enthusiast to sell me on the merits of PET vs. biocellulose based on, literally, nothing. Nor would I expect them to have a sixth sense about technicalities based on, say, frequency response. Frequency response and technicalities can be mutually exclusive and I would guess that they are in most cases. Can you really tell that a BA from an Etymotic IEM is technically inferior to a trio of BA's you may find in a CA IEM just by listening? Alternatively, if this is not what we are referring to, then, what in the world are we referring to? Even looking at his own article about "Tonal-Technical Dichotomy", he references things that are, fundamentally, influenced entirely by tuning. So, IMO, the Technical Ranking can only be seen as completely arbitrary. It has been adopted by others as well, but, they seem to have even less of an idea of what they are talking about.

 

[Tiax]

But I'm not clear on what the "Technical Ranking" is.

It's explained on his site:
https://crinacle.com/2021/06/04/the-tonal-technical-dichotomy-the-ief-evaluation-system/

 

[antdroid]

I should preface by saying that I really like Crinacle, both as a person (based solely on YouTube vids) and as a reviewer, if only for his knowledge and access to headphones and IEM's. But I'm not clear on what the "Technical Ranking" is. I would have to think that the only people capable of truly ranking the technicalities of Headphones or IEM's would need to be doing all sorts of testing with regards to distortion and group delay, etc. akin to what Amir does with ASR, or be engineering them. I don't expect any reviewer or enthusiast to sell me on the merits of PET vs. biocellulose based on, literally, nothing. Nor would I expect them to have a sixth sense about technicalities based on, say, frequency response. Frequency response and technicalities can be mutually exclusive and I would guess that they are in most cases. Can you really tell that a BA from an Etymotic IEM is technically inferior to a trio of BA's you may find in a CA IEM just by listening? Alternatively, if this is not what we are referring to, then, what in the world are we referring to? Even looking at his own article about "Tonal-Technical Dichotomy", he references things that are, fundamentally, influenced entirely by tuning. So, IMO, the Technical Ranking can only be seen as completely arbitrary. It has been adopted by others as well, but, they seem to have even less of an idea of what they are talking about.

Crinacle's explanation of what he means by Technicalities:
https://crinacle.com/2019/02/04/what-is-technical-ability-according-to-me-myself-and-i/

 

[RyanM]

Crinacle's explanation of what he means by Technicalities:
https://crinacle.com/2019/02/04/what-is-technical-ability-according-to-me-myself-and-i/

Oh interesting. I think this is the sort of explanation I was looking for. Thanks for this

 

[gLer]

Crinacle's explanation of what he means by Technicalities:
https://crinacle.com/2019/02/04/what-is-technical-ability-according-to-me-myself-and-i/

This article doesn't align at alI with how I understand 'technicalities' of an IEM. These include (but aren't limited to):

• Resolution
• Clarity
• Detail (yes all three are different)
• Imaging
• Separation
• Dynamics
• Speed
• Soundstage

Tonality, timbre and temperature all fall under the broad 'tonality' umbrella, which speaks to the FR balance and how an IEM is tuned.

So I guess if Crin's definition of technicalities is completely different to mine, it makes sense our 'scoring' would also be markedly different.

 

[crinacle]

This article doesn't align at alI with how I understand 'technicalities' of an IEM. These include (but aren't limited to):

• Resolution
• Clarity
• Detail (yes all three are different)
• Imaging
• Separation
• Dynamics
• Speed
• Soundstage

Tonality, timbre and temperature all fall under the broad 'tonality' umbrella, which speaks to the FR balance and how an IEM is tuned.

So I guess if Crin's definition of technicalities is completely different to mine, it makes sense our 'scoring' would also be markedly different.

Resolution, detail and speed fall under the same concept for me, or at the very least they are intrinsically linked. A resolving IEM is detailed and fast at the same time, as with every other permutation of that sentence, and I have it explained under "transients" in my article. Like for instance, I don't know of any examples where an IEM is "resolving" but also "not detailed" at the same time.

Clarity would be a function of tonality and FR; in the professional audio scene the term "clarity" is often used in relation to EQ and mixing so there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on that front. I don't subscribe to the weird "audiophile" definition of clarity because nobody who uses it that way seems to agree on what exactly that means, that is if one claims that it isn't FR.

Imaging, separation, and soundstage all also fall under the same concept of stereoimaging effects, that is to say how the brain perceives differences in volume and timing between our left and right ears to determine aural positioning. More specifically for the "separation" part, an explanation for the reason why a mono mix sounds like it has no "separation" compared to a stereo mix (because it literally does not have any different information between left and right channels), and why binaural recordings sound even more separated on headphones as compared to when it's playing back traditional 2-channel-mixed audio meant for speakers.

Dynamics would probably be the one that's the most separate from the rest, but I do have it factored into the technical score. It's just that in the context of actually explaining what it is, it's also one of those metrics that nobody seems to have a proper set definition of in the audiophile world, because the definitions I've heard are just so different (and so inconsistent between each other) from what I usually hear in the professional audio circles.

 

[drftr]

Resolution, detail and speed fall under the same concept for me, or at the very least they are intrinsically linked. A resolving IEM is detailed and fast at the same time, as with every other permutation of that sentence, and I have it explained under "transients" in my article. Like for instance, I don't know of any examples where an IEM is "resolving" but also "not detailed" at the same time.

Clarity would be a function of tonality and FR; in the professional audio scene the term "clarity" is often used in relation to EQ and mixing so there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on that front. I don't subscribe to the weird "audiophile" definition of clarity because nobody who uses it that way seems to agree on what exactly that it means, that is if one claims that it isn't FR.

Imaging, separation, and soundstage all also fall under the same concept of stereoimaging effects, that is to say how the brain perceives differences in volume and timing between our left and right ears to determine aural positioning. More specifically for the "separation" part, an explanation for the reason why a mono mix sounds like it as no "separation" compared to a stereo mix (because it literally does not have any different information between left and right channels), and why binaural recordings sound even more separated on headphones as compared to traditional 2-channel-mixed audio meant for speaker playback.

Dynamics would probably be the one that's the most separate from the rest, but I do have it factored into the technical score. It's just that in the context of actually explaining what it is, it's also one of those metrics that nobody seems to have a proper set definition of in the audiophile world, because the definitions I've heard are just so different (and so inconsistent between each other) from what I usually hear in the professional audio circles.

Interesting that you separate dynamics from speed. For me dynamics is the speed with which a tone is produce completely out of the blue.

drftr

 

[gLer]

Resolution, detail and speed fall under the same concept for me, or at the very least they are intrinsically linked. A resolving IEM is detailed and fast at the same time, as with every other permutation of that sentence, and I have it explained under "transients" in my article. Like for instance, I don't know of any examples where an IEM is "resolving" but also "not detailed" at the same time.

Clarity would be a function of tonality and FR; in the professional audio scene the term "clarity" is often used in relation to EQ and mixing so there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on that front. I don't subscribe to the weird "audiophile" definition of clarity because nobody who uses it that way seems to agree on what exactly that means, that is if one claims that it isn't FR.

Imaging, separation, and soundstage all also fall under the same concept of stereoimaging effects, that is to say how the brain perceives differences in volume and timing between our left and right ears to determine aural positioning. More specifically for the "separation" part, an explanation for the reason why a mono mix sounds like it as no "separation" compared to a stereo mix (because it literally does not have any different information between left and right channels), and why binaural recordings sound even more separated on headphones as compared to traditional 2-channel-mixed audio meant for speaker playback.

Dynamics would probably be the one that's the most separate from the rest, but I do have it factored into the technical score. It's just that in the context of actually explaining what it is, it's also one of those metrics that nobody seems to have a proper set definition of in the audiophile world, because the definitions I've heard are just so different (and so inconsistent between each other) from what I usually hear in the professional audio circles.

Thanks for the explanation Crin. I completely get how you get your scores, it just differs from how I personally evaluate IEMs. Much respect man.