[twister6]

When it comes to FR graphs, there are 2 things that come to mind.

Just like measuring time, it becomes a question of relativity.
Audio equipment varies from DSP & amplifier designs, microphone standards, and audio interfaces.
Measuring multiple IEMs with identical audio equipment and comparing them can yield a comparison in terms of decibel magnitude / frequency.

Phase measurements are underrated.
A 2 dimensional representation does not do it justice.
When we speak of 'coherence' we are talking about phase.
In Laymen's terms, when a band plays in sync it sounds good. All the notes from each member seem to complement each other.
This is not something we can measure at this time, it is something that is felt.

Yeah, Alex, I mentioned the same before in other threads, relative to FR. By now people are used to going to Crin's website to view and compare graphs. It is 2D view and doesn't paint the full picture of the sound, and in some case could be even misleading when people ping me with similar graph shapes of $100 entry level and $2k flagship iems. But in a relative comparison it could give you a good idea if the bass of one IEM will be more elevated relative to the other one or mids are more forward or scooped out in a relative comparison. BUT, all this makes sense when these graphs are coming from the same website (Crinacle's database being a good example), measured by the same person using the same coupler, the same techniques, and the same compensation/calibration. Then, you can have a true relative comparison, focusing on delta. Otherwise, a graph from manufacturer vs graphs from different reviewers who use different couplers won't make sense in comparison. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jmarz]

Binaural microphones are likely the best way to get an accurate measurement.



Representing a 3D object on a 2D plane is possible and it can be startlingly accurate in some cases.
3D movies are filmed with 2 cameras.
The two are projected at different polarities.
3D glasses are polarized and produce a split image.
These concepts are present in audio (although from an entirely different domain), multi-speaker systems output frequencies from different locations and our brain will process the audiophilic soup.

Phase is relative.
Due to the location of speakers, reflections of frequencies, speaker harmonics, and interference between the speakers (electronically and acoustically), frequencies will arrive late (high frequencies have a short wave length and are prone to overlapping).
There is no way of telling if a frequency arrived late, maybe the rest are just early?
What we can measure is the difference in time between two frequencies.

That leaves me with a burning question, are we able to combine magnitude and phase in order to get a higher dimensional representation of sound?

We don't post frequency response graphs, not because they're useless, rather because they are a 2 dimensional image of a 4 dimensional object.

With IEMs, we can dramatically alter the "frequency" we hear with a change in tips. Not just manufacturer to manufacturer but even going up or down a size with the same manufacturer's tips. I also notice that my VxV's are sensitive to changes in which 2.5 to 4.4 adaptor I use - probably minor impedence variations. And I just bought a 4.4 cable and it sounds different than listening with the stock cables and adaptors.

I also believe that seeing a graph prior to listening will bias hearing every bit as much as non-double blind testing. And I question the value of too many A/B switches in a short amount of time. Humans are primarily visual creatures and we often assign a privileged position to vision, over the other senses, that is not warranted. I once saw on YouTube a well known reviewer state that he had trouble evaluating the IEM because he did not have access to a graph.

 

[Skullar]

Yeah, Alex, I mentioned the same before in other threads, relative to FR. By now people are used to going to Crin's website to view and compare graphs. It is 2D view and doesn't paint the full picture of the sound, and in some case could be even misleading when people ping me with similar graph shapes of $100 entry level and $2k flagship iems. But in a relative comparison it could give you a good idea if the bass of one IEM will be more elevated relative to the other one or mids are more forward or scooped out in a relative comparison. BUT, all this makes sense when these graphs are coming from the same website (Crinacle's database being a good example), measured by the same person using the same coupler, the same techniques, and the same compensation/calibration. Then, you can have a true relative comparison, focusing on delta. Otherwise, a graph from manufacturer vs graphs from different reviewers who use different couplers won't make sense in comparison. Just my 2 cents.

Exactly.

On its own graph is not very useful. But in database is good enough to gauge wether its even worth considering.
Its just a big picture or iems tonal presentation. A first step if you like.
Its not going to tell you about transient speeds or separations or typical characteristics of driver type. But if you have some experience in hobby and know what your looking for its a great tool.
If say Fir would show graphs of all 3 models i could easily tell which one i would like more. Thats all.

But then @Beh0lder is correct. Other manufacturers dont publish FR graphs either.
So will have to wait for BGGAR or Crin to do it.

Also your own reviews are quite helpful as you compare gear with stuff that i have owned of quite familiar so it works for me.

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

But in a relative comparison it could give you a good idea if the bass of one IEM will be more elevated relative to the other one or mids are more forward or scooped out in a relative comparison. BUT, all this makes sense when these graphs are coming from the same website (Crinacle's database being a good example), measured by the same person using the same coupler, the same techniques, and the same compensation/calibration. Then, you can have a true relative comparison, focusing on delta. Otherwise, a graph from manufacturer vs graphs from different reviewers who use different couplers won't make sense in comparison. Just my 2 cents.

I agree, that is something I didn't mention. Because graphs are the best we have for representing IEM signature over the web, an unbiased measurement of randomly sampled units to compare with a database of graphs is necessary.

 

[mvvRAZ]

@AlexanderBelonozhko Could you offer us some comparison between the Kr5 and Xe6? I spoke to Bogdan about ordering the Xe6, but I'm having thoughts about potentially getting the 5 as a CIEM and the 6 as UIEM or the other way around...

From Musicteck's description it sounds like the 5 is more of a reference monitor while the 6 is more natural sounding? Could you compare the upper treble for us? Hoping to place an order today

 

[normie610]

Hoping to place an order today

That’s quick! Get the 6 as UIEM and give us impressions!

 

[mvvRAZ]

That’s quick! Get the 6 as UIEM and give us impressions!

I can hopefully receive it/them before I get back on the 29th, so I'd be able to write impressions/reviews over New Years

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

@AlexanderBelonozhko Could you offer us some comparison between the Kr5 and Xe6? I spoke to Bogdan about ordering the Xe6, but I'm having thoughts about potentially getting the 5 as a CIEM and the 6 as UIEM or the other way around...

From Musicteck's description it sounds like the 5 is more of a reference monitor while the 6 is more natural sounding? Could you compare the upper treble for us? Hoping to place an order today

We tuned all 3 models of the F series to have a similar bass response.

The three differ in mid drivers (1.5kHz - 5kHz).
F4 has a single mid with thick center mid.
F5 has a dual mid in the same case size, quick center mid.
F6 has a dual mid with a smaller case size, lean lower mid and extended upper mid. Electret driver is implemented similarly to the M5, produces frequencies greater than 12kHz.

Upper treble:
F4 is neutral
F5 is bright
F6 is neutral with extended treble

Edit: F5 high driver is tuned brighter than F4.

 

[mvvRAZ]

We tuned all 3 models of the F series to have a similar bass response, the three differ in mid drivers (1.5kHz - 5kHz).
F4 has a single mid with thick center mid.
F5 has a dual mid in the same case size, quick center mid.
F6 has a dual mid with a smaller case size, lean center mid and extended upper mid. Electret driver is similar to the M5, produces frequencies greater than 12kHz.

So of the three the F6 has the most forward midrange you mean? It’s signature is similar to that of the M5?

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

So of the three the F6 has the most forward midrange you mean? It’s signature is similar to that of the M5?

The implementation of the electret is similar in effect, the F series is an overhaul in design from the M series and has few similarities in signature.

 

[Skullar]

The implementation of the electret is similar in effect, the F series is an overhaul in design from the M series and has few similarities in signature.

So the bass is more linear between subbbas and midbass or is there a model that has subbass focus?

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

So the bass is more linear between subbbas and midbass or is there a model that has subbass focus?

F4 can be driven louder without upper mid / treble fatigue resulting in more bass. We also developed AtomXS around the F series universals allowing sub bass tuning on all models.
My comment on all having similar bass response is to give a point of reference when describing mids and treble. Tuning for the dynamic driver is consistent through all 3.

 

[Skullar]

F4 can be driven louder without upper mid / treble fatigue resulting in more bass. We also developed AtomXS around the F series universals allowing sub bass tuning on all models.
My comment on all having similar bass response is to give a point of reference when describing mids and treble. The tuning for the dynamic driver is consistent through all 3.

Got you. I love my bass but i love upper mids too lol. So will wait for some more info.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

The implementation of the electret is similar in effect, the F series is an overhaul in design from the M series and has few similarities in signature.
Yes, I would describe the F6 mids as most forward of all 3.

So to represent similar natural sound of M5 but with better technicality, the F6 should be the best choice?

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

So to represent similar natural sound of M5 but with better technicality, the F6 should be the best choice?

Xe6 is our flagship and has improved much since M5.

I'd sum it up this way

My guess, it's new IEM tuning element with:
- Wood: solid bass
- Water: fluid and dynamic mid
- Fire: hot treble