[Ronion]

BTW, one foolproof track to use to test if your buds are boosted in the pina gain region too much (or your ears are sensitive to that area) is to listen to the OG version of Ozzy Osbourne - Crazy Train. Especially in the chorus, it is super shouty and right in that region. You can't really use the "remastered" version because apparently, they heard it too and softened it up quite a bit. I just listened to both versions, and it is pretty noticeable.

Or you could do it the non-fun way (I suppose) and use an Online Tone Generator.

Edit: Though anything from Greta Van Fleet, or Alice In Chains, etc... will work as well.

I was just using this track today to test my latest build because it’s 2dB over target through the pinna/presence region. Which is partly why I consider it bright/neutral. It’s also about the same distance under target in the bass. Someone was recently inquiring about a recommendation with this exact signature but I can’t remember who. I would definitely recommend my latest build for that signature. I’m loving it and you can probably tell that I’m picky. Most people wouldn’t care about 1-2dB off target if they have a target that specific. Well, these pass for sure. It’s what I would call tastefully bright. It’s positively dull next to the SMABATs I’ve heard barring the 14.2 bio. It actually seems like it might be doing exactly what the FiiO did: as the foams get used, the pinna gain decreases and the bass deepens. I may be crazy however and my brain may be adjusting to them, but I’ll test it in a couple days to be certain. These two buds compliment each other really well: the FiiO warm/neutral, the 130Be bright/neutral. Both with above average bass (FiiO more prominent), and great midrange. The biggest difference is that one is mildly hot in the treble, the other one moderately dull. Very good drivers in both and they are both all day/night listenable. The MX500 is much lighter in the ear, but both fit very well.

 

[samandhi]

Off topic, but my band and I played a 3 day festival that Greta Van Fleet played as well and those dudes are on one serious hippy trip lol! They're cool enough guys and all, but they're almost commically hippie-esque. Hanging out with them is a bit like watching a sitcom where the plot revolves around some crazy friends who think it's still the late 60s/early 70s.

They pretty talented though. Especially their lead singer. Dude has some pipes and he can actually sing which is unfortunately a rare enough talent in any genre in these days of the "auto-tune it away" philosophy.

For topical content, I am finally getting a little break to sit down and try some new buds. I just plugged in the Yinman 600s about 20 minutes ago and these are without a doubt the most power hungry and difficult to drive earbuds ever. I have or have had two other 600 ohm pairs that were significantly easier to drive because these have the added difficulty of being inefficient/insensitive. I haven't crunched any numbers, but my guess is that they are even more inefficient than the numbers quotes by the maker.

Obviously, I need to listen longer before I write up my first impressions...

Yeah we were thinking more on the lines of 90-93 dB/mW rather than the advertised 95.

can ifi gryphon drive yinman 600?

Yes it can, but it has been my experience that they sound better with even more power.

Technically speaking the numbers needed to drive them would look something like:

• 32 mW
• 4.36 Vrms
• 7.3 mA

This is to drive them to a whopping 110dB.

The Gryphon is capable of 6.7Vrms (though we don't know the current, it is more than likely fine).

 

[WoodyLuvr]

For topical content, I am finally getting a little break to sit down and try some new buds. I just plugged in the Yinman 600s about 20 minutes ago and these are without a doubt the most power hungry and difficult to drive earbuds ever. I have or have had two other 600 ohm pairs that were significantly easier to drive because these have the added difficulty of being inefficient/insensitive. I haven't crunched any numbers, but my guess is that they are even more inefficient than the numbers quotes by the maker.

Obviously, I need to listen longer before I write up my first impressions...

Yeah we were thinking more on the lines of 90-93 dB/mW rather than the advertised 95.

Concur, I really do believe that these Yinmans are probably closer to 90-91dB/mW in sensitivity rather than their listed 95dB/mW.

 

[samandhi]

I was just using this track today to test my latest build because it’s 2dB over target through the pinna/presence region. Which is partly why I consider it bright/neutral. It’s also about the same distance under target in the bass. Someone was recently inquiring about a recommendation with this exact signature but I can’t remember who. I would definitely recommend my latest build for that signature. I’m loving it and you can probably tell that I’m picky. Most people wouldn’t care about 1-2dB off target if they have a target that specific. Well, these pass for sure. It’s what I would call tastefully bright. It’s positively dull next to the SMABATs I’ve heard barring the 14.2 bio. It actually seems like it might be doing exactly what the FiiO did: as the foams get used, the pinna gain decreases and the bass deepens. I may be crazy however and my brain may be adjusting to them, but I’ll test it in a couple days to be certain. These two buds compliment each other really well: the FiiO warm/neutral, the 130Be bright/neutral. Both with above average bass (FiiO more prominent), and great midrange. The biggest difference is that one is mildly hot in the treble, the other one moderately dull. Very good drivers in both and they are both all day/night listenable. The MX500 is much lighter in the ear, but both fit very well.

I guess great minds think alike?!

I know I have talked a lot about buds having bass and all that good stuff, but I really prefer a neutral tuning (with a tad of bass boost to keep them from being boring sounding).... Having said that, with driver coatings getting better and better, I am sort of digging some of the yummy bass that contemporary buds/IEMs throw out. One of my "guilty pleasures" has been the CCA CRA and CRA+.

I wonder if you can easily extract the drivers from the new modular M4 drivers, or have they become too expensive to even bother? I haven't even looked at this option since they discontinued the M2S Pro drivers (I think I got the last of both the 32 bio, and the 150Ti drivers).

 

[o0genesis0o]

Concur, I really do believe that these Yinmans are probably closer to 90-91dB/mW in sensitivity rather than their listed 95dB/mW.

The insane amount of power needed to run these buds further show that ear buds are more similar to full size cans than IEMs

 

[samandhi]

The insane amount of power needed to run these buds further show that ear buds are more similar to full size cans than IEMs

Yeah, but here is the thing about the Yinman 2.0 that goes against the science. They can be driven to pretty loud levels from something like 2Vrms. I know, because I tried it on my tube amp and one jack is 2Vrms and the other is 4Vrms.

Having said that, and in case you weren't around to see it in my impressions, it was pretty loud, but it was also pretty flat, the bass was very flabby, and there was almost no separation.

Edit: Comparatively speaking, of course...

 

[JAnonymous5150]

can ifi gryphon drive yinman 600?

Yes. The Gryphon has quite a bit of muscle behind it and it gets far too loud before I get anywhere near full volume. The Yinmans also sound quite full and warm so I would imagine the Gryphon is doing a decent job of pulling good performance out of them as well. That said, I haven't done any comparisons to see how it scales up with my Burson or other more powerful amps because I am trying to stick with the Gryphon for consistency's sake for these first impressions posts. The Gryphon, as you probably know, is one of the more powerful portable combos out there. What you may not know is that I have had good luck with the Gryphon not just driving high impedance transducers to loud volumes, but also getting them to fill out and sound/perform the way a well driven transducer should.

I'm interested to see how they scale with the Burson et al nonetheless, but I think most people would find the job the Gryphon is doing to be far more than adequate.

 

[samandhi]

I haven't done any comparisons to see how it scales up with my Burson or other more powerful amps because I am trying to stick with the Gryphon for consistency's sake for these first impressions posts.

Oh, you'll see.. IME it is very noticeable going up just 1W. But I digress, and I don't want to poison your first impressions/thoughts on them before you get started. I'll shuddup' till' you are done.

 

[JAnonymous5150]

Concur, I really do believe that these Yinmans are probably closer to 90-91dB/mW in sensitivity rather than their listed 95dB/mW.

I think you're right. I would guess lower than 93 so I think 90 to 91 is about right. Just based on the increased power consumption versus a pair of custom buds I have on loan from a friend that measure 600ohms and 96dB/mW according to their maker.

 

[mt877]

Ok guys, made new measurements with a different measuring tool. I used a film densitometer which is used to accurately measure the density of the latent image after silver halide crystals are exposed to light and chemically processed on photographic film. Using this principle a density measurement of porous foam can be performed as well.

Measuring method: Black foams were measured. The point source of light and the detector was approx. 1mm which allowed accurate measurement of a single layer of foam through the hole of a full foam. For the FF3 crisp donut foam I had to measure between the through holes and outer edge of the foam and then divide by 2 to get a single layer density figure. The FF3 single layer foam density for all 3 (balanced, bass and crisp) were all within the same relative range. It's easy to understand how the crisp donut foam would affect treble response. The values measured for the balanced and bass foams is essentially equal. It could be that the foams I received were mixed up or put in the wrong bag during the packaging process. Although the measurement numbers are different than what I posted before, it is easy to see that the previous measurement using a different methodology and the current measurements follow the same general trend.

As before the VE foam measurements split into 3 different densities, thin, medium and thick. By backlighting the VE foams it was pretty easy to see that the thin foams were more porous and allowed more light to filter through, the same for the medium foams versus the thick foams. The VE foam sets also included colored foams which I did measure, but am not including because foams of different colors filter light differently than black foams and the numbers would be confusing. Just as an example a thick white foam measured at .65, while a thick black foam measured at 1.59. This is not to say that colored foams can't be measured accurately. All the thick white foams measured around .65 +/- .10. It's just a matter of establishing a baseline.

How to understand the data set: Lower the number = lower foam density (more light passed through). Higher the number = higher foam density (less light passed through).

This time around I sorted the results from lowest to highest density measurements.

FF3 Balanced​	FF3 Bass​	FF3 Crisp​	VE Black​	HieGi Black​
1.34​	1.31​	1.29​	0.82​	1.41​
1.39​	1.32​	1.48​	0.85​	1.49​
1.44​	1.36​	1.49​	0.93​	1.51​
1.44​	1.42​	1.51​	0.93​	1.51​
1.46​	1.44​	1.54​	0.94​	1.52​
1.46​	1.46​	1.55​	0.95​	1.52​
1.51​	1.46​	1.55​	0.98​	1.59​
1.53​	1.46​	1.56​	0.98​	1.6​
1.56​	1.49​	1.58​	1​	1.66​
1.56​	1.49​	1.59​	1.03​	1.66​
1.6​	1.51​	​	1.07​	1.7​
1.62​	1.51​	​	1.1​	1.7​
​	​	​	1.1​	​
​	​	​	1.12​	​
​	​	​	1.13​	​
​	​	​	1.14​	​
​	​	​	1.16​	​
​	​	​	1.2​	​
​	​	​	1.54​	​
​	​	​	1.59​	​
​	​	​	1.61​	​
​	​	​	1.76​	​

 

[JAnonymous5150]

Ok guys, made new measurements with a different measuring tool. I used a film densitometer which is used to accurately measure the density of the latent image after silver halide crystals are exposed to light and chemically processed on photographic film. Using this principle a density measurement of porous foam can be performed as well.

Measuring method: Black foams were measured. The point source of light and the detector was approx. 1mm which allowed accurate measurement of a single layer of foam through the hole of a full foam. For the FF3 crisp donut foam I had to measure between the through holes and outer edge of the foam and then divide by 2 to get a single layer density figure. The FF3 single layer foam density for all 3 (balanced, bass and crisp) were all within the same relative range. It's easy to understand how the crisp donut foam would affect treble response. The values measured for the balanced and bass foams is essentially equal. It could be that the foams I received were mixed up or put in the wrong bag during the packaging process. Although the measurement numbers are different than what I posted before, it is easy to see that the previous measurement using a different methodology and the current measurements follow the same general trend.

As before the VE foam measurements split into 3 different densities, thin, medium and thick. By backlighting the VE foams it was pretty easy to see that the thin foams were more porous and allowed more light to filter through, the same for the medium foams versus the thick foams. The VE foam sets also included colored foams which I did measure, but am not including because foams of different colors filter light differently than black foams and the numbers would be confusing. Just as an example a thick white foam measured at .65, while a thick black foam measured at 1.59. This is not to say that colored foams can't be measured accurately. All the thick white foams measured around .65 +/- .10. It's just a matter of establishing a baseline.

How to understand the data set: Lower the number = lower foam density (more light passed through). Higher the number = higher foam density (less light passed through).

This time around I sorted the results from lowest to highest density measurements.

FF3 Balanced​	FF3 Bass​	FF3 Crisp​	VE Black​	HieGi Black​
1.34​	1.31​	1.29​	0.82​	1.41​
1.39​	1.32​	1.48​	0.85​	1.49​
1.44​	1.36​	1.49​	0.93​	1.51​
1.44​	1.42​	1.51​	0.93​	1.51​
1.46​	1.44​	1.54​	0.94​	1.52​
1.46​	1.46​	1.55​	0.95​	1.52​
1.51​	1.46​	1.55​	0.98​	1.59​
1.53​	1.46​	1.56​	0.98​	1.6​
1.56​	1.49​	1.58​	1​	1.66​
1.56​	1.49​	1.59​	1.03​	1.66​
1.6​	1.51​	​	1.07​	1.7​
1.62​	1.51​	​	1.1​	1.7​
​	​	​	1.1​	​
​	​	​	1.12​	​
​	​	​	1.13​	​
​	​	​	1.14​	​
​	​	​	1.16​	​
​	​	​	1.2​	​
​	​	​	1.54​	​
​	​	​	1.59​	​
​	​	​	1.61​	​
​	​	​	1.76​	​

Damn, bro! Talk about puttin' in work!

 

[syazwaned]

Ok guys, made new measurements with a different measuring tool. I used a film densitometer which is used to accurately measure the density of the latent image after silver halide crystals are exposed to light and chemically processed on photographic film. Using this principle a density measurement of porous foam can be performed as well.

Measuring method: Black foams were measured. The point source of light and the detector was approx. 1mm which allowed accurate measurement of a single layer of foam through the hole of a full foam. For the FF3 crisp donut foam I had to measure between the through holes and outer edge of the foam and then divide by 2 to get a single layer density figure. The FF3 single layer foam density for all 3 (balanced, bass and crisp) were all within the same relative range. It's easy to understand how the crisp donut foam would affect treble response. The values measured for the balanced and bass foams is essentially equal. It could be that the foams I received were mixed up or put in the wrong bag during the packaging process. Although the measurement numbers are different than what I posted before, it is easy to see that the previous measurement using a different methodology and the current measurements follow the same general trend.

As before the VE foam measurements split into 3 different densities, thin, medium and thick. By backlighting the VE foams it was pretty easy to see that the thin foams were more porous and allowed more light to filter through, the same for the medium foams versus the thick foams. The VE foam sets also included colored foams which I did measure, but am not including because foams of different colors filter light differently than black foams and the numbers would be confusing. Just as an example a thick white foam measured at .65, while a thick black foam measured at 1.59. This is not to say that colored foams can't be measured accurately. All the thick white foams measured around .65 +/- .10. It's just a matter of establishing a baseline.

How to understand the data set: Lower the number = lower foam density (more light passed through). Higher the number = higher foam density (less light passed through).

This time around I sorted the results from lowest to highest density measurements.

FF3 Balanced​	FF3 Bass​	FF3 Crisp​	VE Black​	HieGi Black​
1.34​	1.31​	1.29​	0.82​	1.41​
1.39​	1.32​	1.48​	0.85​	1.49​
1.44​	1.36​	1.49​	0.93​	1.51​
1.44​	1.42​	1.51​	0.93​	1.51​
1.46​	1.44​	1.54​	0.94​	1.52​
1.46​	1.46​	1.55​	0.95​	1.52​
1.51​	1.46​	1.55​	0.98​	1.59​
1.53​	1.46​	1.56​	0.98​	1.6​
1.56​	1.49​	1.58​	1​	1.66​
1.56​	1.49​	1.59​	1.03​	1.66​
1.6​	1.51​	​	1.07​	1.7​
1.62​	1.51​	​	1.1​	1.7​
​	​	​	1.1​	​
​	​	​	1.12​	​
​	​	​	1.13​	​
​	​	​	1.14​	​
​	​	​	1.16​	​
​	​	​	1.2​	​
​	​	​	1.54​	​
​	​	​	1.59​	​
​	​	​	1.61​	​
​	​	​	1.76​	​

this is just awesome work

 

[samandhi]

Ok guys, made new measurements with a different measuring tool. I used a film densitometer which is used to accurately measure the density of the latent image after silver halide crystals are exposed to light and chemically processed on photographic film. Using this principle a density measurement of porous foam can be performed as well.

Measuring method: Black foams were measured. The point source of light and the detector was approx. 1mm which allowed accurate measurement of a single layer of foam through the hole of a full foam. For the FF3 crisp donut foam I had to measure between the through holes and outer edge of the foam and then divide by 2 to get a single layer density figure. The FF3 single layer foam density for all 3 (balanced, bass and crisp) were all within the same relative range. It's easy to understand how the crisp donut foam would affect treble response. The values measured for the balanced and bass foams is essentially equal. It could be that the foams I received were mixed up or put in the wrong bag during the packaging process. Although the measurement numbers are different than what I posted before, it is easy to see that the previous measurement using a different methodology and the current measurements follow the same general trend.

As before the VE foam measurements split into 3 different densities, thin, medium and thick. By backlighting the VE foams it was pretty easy to see that the thin foams were more porous and allowed more light to filter through, the same for the medium foams versus the thick foams. The VE foam sets also included colored foams which I did measure, but am not including because foams of different colors filter light differently than black foams and the numbers would be confusing. Just as an example a thick white foam measured at .65, while a thick black foam measured at 1.59. This is not to say that colored foams can't be measured accurately. All the thick white foams measured around .65 +/- .10. It's just a matter of establishing a baseline.

How to understand the data set: Lower the number = lower foam density (more light passed through). Higher the number = higher foam density (less light passed through).

This time around I sorted the results from lowest to highest density measurements.

FF3 Balanced​	FF3 Bass​	FF3 Crisp​	VE Black​	HieGi Black​
1.34​	1.31​	1.29​	0.82​	1.41​
1.39​	1.32​	1.48​	0.85​	1.49​
1.44​	1.36​	1.49​	0.93​	1.51​
1.44​	1.42​	1.51​	0.93​	1.51​
1.46​	1.44​	1.54​	0.94​	1.52​
1.46​	1.46​	1.55​	0.95​	1.52​
1.51​	1.46​	1.55​	0.98​	1.59​
1.53​	1.46​	1.56​	0.98​	1.6​
1.56​	1.49​	1.58​	1​	1.66​
1.56​	1.49​	1.59​	1.03​	1.66​
1.6​	1.51​	​	1.07​	1.7​
1.62​	1.51​	​	1.1​	1.7​
​	​	​	1.1​	​
​	​	​	1.12​	​
​	​	​	1.13​	​
​	​	​	1.14​	​
​	​	​	1.16​	​
​	​	​	1.2​	​
​	​	​	1.54​	​
​	​	​	1.59​	​
​	​	​	1.61​	​
​	​	​	1.76​	​

So, based on your measurements the averages and variances are as follows:

• Balanced = 1.4825
• Variance = .28
• Bass = 1.4358
• Variance = .20
• Crisp = 1.514
• Variance = .30
• Heigi = 1.5725
• Variance = .29
• VE Black = 1.1331
• Variance = .94

Edit: Damned fine work BTW!

 

[yaps66]

Ok guys, made new measurements with a different measuring tool. I used a film densitometer which is used to accurately measure the density of the latent image after silver halide crystals are exposed to light and chemically processed on photographic film. Using this principle a density measurement of porous foam can be performed as well.

Measuring method: Black foams were measured. The point source of light and the detector was approx. 1mm which allowed accurate measurement of a single layer of foam through the hole of a full foam. For the FF3 crisp donut foam I had to measure between the through holes and outer edge of the foam and then divide by 2 to get a single layer density figure. The FF3 single layer foam density for all 3 (balanced, bass and crisp) were all within the same relative range. It's easy to understand how the crisp donut foam would affect treble response. The values measured for the balanced and bass foams is essentially equal. It could be that the foams I received were mixed up or put in the wrong bag during the packaging process. Although the measurement numbers are different than what I posted before, it is easy to see that the previous measurement using a different methodology and the current measurements follow the same general trend.

As before the VE foam measurements split into 3 different densities, thin, medium and thick. By backlighting the VE foams it was pretty easy to see that the thin foams were more porous and allowed more light to filter through, the same for the medium foams versus the thick foams. The VE foam sets also included colored foams which I did measure, but am not including because foams of different colors filter light differently than black foams and the numbers would be confusing. Just as an example a thick white foam measured at .65, while a thick black foam measured at 1.59. This is not to say that colored foams can't be measured accurately. All the thick white foams measured around .65 +/- .10. It's just a matter of establishing a baseline.

How to understand the data set: Lower the number = lower foam density (more light passed through). Higher the number = higher foam density (less light passed through).

This time around I sorted the results from lowest to highest density measurements.

FF3 Balanced​	FF3 Bass​	FF3 Crisp​	VE Black​	HieGi Black​
1.34​	1.31​	1.29​	0.82​	1.41​
1.39​	1.32​	1.48​	0.85​	1.49​
1.44​	1.36​	1.49​	0.93​	1.51​
1.44​	1.42​	1.51​	0.93​	1.51​
1.46​	1.44​	1.54​	0.94​	1.52​
1.46​	1.46​	1.55​	0.95​	1.52​
1.51​	1.46​	1.55​	0.98​	1.59​
1.53​	1.46​	1.56​	0.98​	1.6​
1.56​	1.49​	1.58​	1​	1.66​
1.56​	1.49​	1.59​	1.03​	1.66​
1.6​	1.51​	​	1.07​	1.7​
1.62​	1.51​	​	1.1​	1.7​
​	​	​	1.1​	​
​	​	​	1.12​	​
​	​	​	1.13​	​
​	​	​	1.14​	​
​	​	​	1.16​	​
​	​	​	1.2​	​
​	​	​	1.54​	​
​	​	​	1.59​	​
​	​	​	1.61​	​
​	​	​	1.76​	​

Thanks! Over and beyond!

 

[FranQL]

@FranQL said he will do it when he has time. I suppose he'll post it here. And thanks to you for leading me to discover Viridis

Here it is