[H T T]

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.

I would consider timbre to fall under both categories:

Timbre

The primary contributers to the quality or timbre of the sound of a musical instrument are harmonic content, attack and decay, and vibrato. For sustained tones, the most important of these is the harmonic content, the number and relative intensity of the upper harmonics present in the sound.

Some musical sound sources have overtones which are not harmonics of the fundamental. While there is some efficiency in characterizing such sources in terms of their overtones, it is always possible to characterize a periodic waveform in terms of harmonics - such an analysis is called Fourier analysis. It is common practice to characterize a sound waveform by the spectrum of harmonics necessary to reproduce the observed waveform.

Tuning may damper certain harmonics but it is up to resolution, clarity, and detail to produce the harmonics as well as the attack, decay and vibrato of the sound in the first place.

 

[Edric Li]

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.

The man is free to use these term however he likes, but here's J Gordon Holt's definition in his Audio Glossary (1990).

- Resolution: See "definition."
- Definition: definition (also resolution) That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group. See "focus."
- Focus: The quality of being clearly defined, with sharply outlined phantom images. Focus has also been described as the enhanced ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.

- Detail: The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components. See "low-level detail." Compare "haze," "smearing," "veiling."

- Speed: The apparent rapidity with which a reproducing system responds to steep wavefronts and overall musical pace. See "fast," "slow."
- Fast: Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it. (A "fast woofer" would seem to be an oxymoron, but this usage refers to a woofer tuning that does not boom, make the music sound "slow," obscure musical phrasing, or lead to "one-note bass.") Similar to "taut," but referring to the entire audio-frequency range instead of just the bass.

- Clarity: Undefined by Holt.

- Imaging: The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."
- stereo imaging: The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander."

- Separation: Undefined by Holt.

- Soundstaging: The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

- dynamic: Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast.
- dynamic range: 1) Pertaining to a signal: the ratio between the loudest and the quietest passages. 2) Pertaining to a component: the ratio between its no-signal noise and the loudest peak it will pass without distortion.

I am often frustrated by reviewers inventing their own language. This is especially common nowadays when most IEM reviews are done by "tech reviewers", who has no background in 2-channel listening. The don't understand why notions like soundstage width or separation are absolutely meaningless. In the case of Crin, I do feel the need to learn his language in order to understand him. More generally than the discrepancies mentioned above, I have issue with the notion of "technicality": it is a *massive* umbrella that captures everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[antdroid]

The man is free to use these term however he likes, but here's J Gordon Holt's definition in his Audio Glossary (1990).

I am often frustrated by reviewers inventing their own language. This is especially common nowadays when most IEM reviews are done by "tech reviewers", who has no background in 2-channel listening. The don't understand why notions like soundstage width or separation are absolutely meaningless. In the case of Crin, I do feel the need to learn his language in order to understand him. More generally than the discrepancies mentioned above, I have issue with the notion of "technicality": it is a *massive* umbrella that captures everything and nothing at the same time.

The ranking list is supposed to be a quick at-a-glance view and high level categories are fine. If you want more details in to the IEM, you read his review or comments. His original list didn't have the tonality/technicality breakdown. I prefer seeing this broken up now.

 

[Hanesu]

I have issue with the notion of "technicality": it is a *massive* umbrella that captures everything and nothing at the same time.

100％ agree with this! So many reviewers define "technicalities" as "true resolution" in comparison to earphones that only "enhance details by lifting certain parts of the frequency range"...but I honestly doubt the human ear can always hear the difference of those two....

 

[Ryokan]

Personally I'd put the Mest MKII above Andromeda 2020.

 

[gto88]

Monarch mkii is on top of the list, Crinacle really likes the iem.
I probably will get mkii to fulfill my curiosity of it.

 

[Fargeg]

100％ agree with this! So many reviewers define "technicalities" as "true resolution" in comparison to earphones that only "enhance details by lifting certain parts of the frequency range"...but I honestly doubt the human ear can always hear the difference of those two....

When you boost parts of the frequency range too much, it masks others. Once you've trained your ears a bit, it's not hard to tell when, say, a cymbal crash drowns out midrange-centric instruments or a mid-treble spike pushes everything forward into a blob. The less of that kind of thing you have, the better perceived resolution generally becomes.

e: I will say that it's harder with proper headphones and a load more difficult with speakers because of how much more jagged their FRs can get.

e2: Also, a good upper treble response, including a well-defined simulated pinna notch, is key for the stereo imaging capabilities necessary for clear instrument separation. I find bass most useful for evaluating this region, as its decay and texture heavily depends on the ~10 kHz response.

 

[Hanesu]

When you boost parts of the frequency range too much, it masks others. Once you've trained your ears a bit, it's not hard to tell when, say, a cymbal crash drowns out midrange-centric instruments or a mid-treble spike pushes everything forward into a blob. The less of that kind of thing you have, the better perceived resolution generally becomes.

e: I will say that it's harder with proper headphones and a load more difficult with speakers because of how much more jagged their FRs can get.

e2: Also, a good upper treble response, including a well-defined simulated pinna notch, is key for the stereo imaging capabilities necessary for clear instrument separation. I find bass most useful for evaluating this region, as its decay and texture heavily depends on the ~10 kHz response.

Maybe true for some observations, but I still doubt you can always tell the difference or be sure about what you hear. Simple part of the reason is, most so called "audiophiles" are self trained ! Most of us listen to earphones and interpret our subjective impressions while trying to put them in relation to what we have read "somwhere", for example in this forum (often written by people who also read it somewhere somewhen etc). But this interpretation/relation is highly relative. There are no truly scientific standards for the description of sound. I appreciate what people like Crinacle do, to define their personal usage of terms to describe sound. Still, it is highly subjective....and I feel there is no way around it.

 

[Fargeg]

Maybe true for some observations, but I still doubt you can always tell the difference or be sure about what you hear. Simple part of the reason is, most so called "audiophiles" are self trained ! Most of us listen to earphones and interpret our subjective impressions while trying to put them in relation to what we have read "somwhere", for example in this forum (often by people who also read it somewhere somewhen etc). But this interpretation/relation is highly relative. There are no scientific standards for the description of sound. I appreciate what people like Crinacle do, to define their personal usage of terms to describe sound. Still, it is highly subjective....and there is no way around it.

Harman International developed some solid standards for critical listening training years ago. I recommend trying out Harman How to Listen, a training program.

e: Even if there are no ISO standard descriptors for sound, I find this resource very handy for putting names to what I hear while training my ears: https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/tutorials/how-to-interpret-graphs/frequency-response/

 

[Hanesu]

Harman International developed some solid standards for critical listening training years ago. I recommend trying out Harman How to Listen, a training program.

For sure, this is interesting, thanks! I agree, it would make a big difference if you train your ears after such program to do critical listening.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html

e: Even if there are no ISO standard descriptors for sound, I find this resource very handy for putting names to what I hear while training my ears: https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/tutorials/how-to-interpret-graphs/frequency-response/

This is a nice text, too!

STILL I think most of my arguments written above are valid in many cases. Because - again - the way we gain knowledge here is to put subjective experiences in relation to what we read.

 

[Wasaabi]

I‘m waiting for the measurements of FH9.

 

[drftr]

I‘m waiting for the measurements of FH9.

Plus:

FiiO FD7
Rhapsodio Eden
Unique Melody FuSang
64 Audio U6t
Lime Ears Pneuma
InEar ProMission X

Looks like a lot of work though... But since they're all considered top notch in their price range it would be awesome to have access to their measurements for sure.

drftr

 

[crinacle]

I'm sure Head-Fi wouldn't mind me posting about this one...

​

 

[frix]

nice, reminds me of the good days when tyll was around at trade shows.

 

[dhruvmeena96]

I'm sure Head-Fi wouldn't mind me posting about this one...

​

modern day Tyll : crinacle