[Deezel177]

I have nothing to back that up, but I don't know how the material of the nozzle should impact sound. There is a well known product, the JVC-FD01, that has 3-4 changeable nozzles with different materials. It is quite populars, so users have measured the IEM with different nozzles, and frequency response is strictly identical (and so is sound).

Well, that's not the case here as @crinacle's measurements show:

There is a significant difference between the SS and brass editions. My take on it is that the SS is more technical and intense while the brass is more laidback with a tonality that I think will be enjoyed by more people at the cost of sheer definition. My personal favourite would be the SS, but both are very capable flagships.

Joseph told me the internals are exactly the same, so unless he's lying, it is indeed the material that's making all these differences.

 

[Mimouille]

Well, that's not the case here as @crinacle's measurements show:


Joseph told me the internals are exactly the same, so unless he's lying, it is indeed the material that's making all these differences.

I was only talking about the FD01. I am just wondering how it affects sound technically. And also why it works on one IEM and not another.

 

[Deezel177]

I was only talking about the FD01. I am just wondering how it affects sound technically. And also why it works on one IEM and not another.

I think it has to do with the resonances of the materials. Different materials resonate at different frequencies, so perhaps that creates boosts or peaks at those frequencies. Similarly, they dampen other frequencies as well. There was, however, a really peculiar case with someone's JH Roxanne. This person cracked the shell open whilst mountain biking and sent it back to JH for reshell. He owned a first-generation Roxanne, and when the damaged side came back, it had titanium waveguides (or tubes) at the end of the sound tubes as per the second-generation Roxanne. So essentially, he had a Roxanne I in one ear and a Roxanne II in the other. When he asked JH about it, they told him not to worry as the titanium waveguides made no change in sound. I found that particularly hilarious.

 

[Jackpot77]

I think it has to do with the resonances of the materials. Different materials resonate at different frequencies, so perhaps that creates boosts or peaks at those frequencies. Similarly, they dampen other frequencies as well. There was, however, a really peculiar case with someone's JH Roxanne. This person cracked the shell open whilst mountain biking and sent it back to JH for reshell. He owned a first-generation Roxanne, and when the damaged side came back, it had titanium waveguides (or tubes) at the end of the sound tubes as per the second-generation Roxanne. So essentially, he had a Roxanne I in one ear and a Roxanne II in the other. When he asked JH about it, they told him not to worry as the titanium waveguides made no change in sound. I found that particularly hilarious.

Had an interesting discussion around that with Thomas from NCM in Vietnam when I was reviewing the Bella. Apparently harder surfaces (or more porous ones) alter the resonance peaks in the soundwaves being bounced off them. He was using stainless steel tubing on his flagship (Bella) rather than titanium as he felt the very notional sonic improvement from steel to titanium wasn't worth the additional complication and difficulty in machining the titanium.

The guys at Flare Audio have done stuff on their site in the past about why housing material matters - believe that was all related to resonance as well. If I remember their thoughts correctly, they go for the material with the densest atomic structure, as this introduces the least resonance and therefore gives the least colouration.

I don't know anywhere near enough about the underlying science, but it does sound plausible enough to me. I always equated it with using tonewood on guitars or closed back headphones - the ZMF range and Fistex/Massdrop TH-X00 models all use different wood for the enclosures on their models, and each imparts a different tonality or tuning to the sound, according to multiple comparative reviews.

Pretty sure ZMF have done explanation up as well on what woods do what - imagine if certain resonances either amplify or dampen certain frequencies, this could either introduce or remove a masking effect covering one or more frequencies, adjusting perception of clarity of sound as well as just tonality. Pretty sure that was the whole sales pitch of the Sennheiser IE800 as well - ceramic housing to reduce masking effect.

Apologies for the rambling response - this has always been an area that interests me in terms of the science of sound, so if anyone has any useful links as to why (or why not) material affects sound, would love to see them.

 

[Deezel177]

Had an interesting discussion around that with Thomas from NCM in Vietnam when I was reviewing the Bella. Apparently harder surfaces (or more porous ones) alter the resonance peaks in the soundwaves being bounced off them. He was using stainless steel tubing on his flagship (Bella) rather than titanium as he felt the very notional sonic improvement from steel to titanium wasn't worth the additional complication and difficulty in machining the titanium.

The guys at Flare Audio have done stuff on their site in the past about why housing material matters - believe that was all related to resonance as well. If I remember their thoughts correctly, they go for the material with the densest atomic structure, as this introduces the least resonance and therefore gives the least colouration.

I don't know anywhere near enough about the underlying science, but it does sound plausible enough to me. I always equated it with using tonewood on guitars or closed back headphones - the ZMF range and Fistex/Massdrop TH-X00 models all use different wood for the enclosures on their models, and each imparts a different tonality or tuning to the sound, according to multiple comparative reviews.

Pretty sure ZMF have done explanation up as well on what woods do what - imagine if certain resonances either amplify or dampen certain frequencies, this could either introduce or remove a masking effect covering one or more frequencies, adjusting perception of clarity of sound as well as just tonality. Pretty sure that was the whole sales pitch of the Sennheiser IE800 as well - ceramic housing to reduce masking effect.

Apologies for the rambling response - this has always been an area that interests me in terms of the science of sound, so if anyone has any useful links as to why (or why not) material affects sound, would love to see them.

Yeah, my interest in this started with the K10Au. Having loved the warmth of the acrylic K10U, I was massively surprised (and disappointed) to hear the K10Au, which was very noticeably brighter and more sibilant. Everyone I talked to (and I talked to a lot of people) shared the very same sentiments and surprise, so much so that the Wizard himself had to address it during the custom IEMs panel at the very first CanJam SG. He said that the internals were exactly the same, and since the BAs were isolated from the chassis and firing into sound tubes, the shell shouldn't make a difference. Obviously, we agreed to disagree.

 

[EagleWings]

A quick google search on the subject turned up this link, which was an interesting read:

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0708/roncone-0708.html

 

[Jackpot77]

A quick google search on the subject turned up this link, which was an interesting read:

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0708/roncone-0708.html

Very interesting. Wonder why shell/ sound bore composition has been reasonably widely perceived to have an effect on the tonality / sound of an IEM then? Genuinely an area I'd love to understand more about.

 

[Wyville]

Very interesting. Wonder why shell/ sound bore composition has been reasonably widely perceived to have an effect on the tonality / sound of an IEM then? Genuinely an area I'd love to understand more about.

In my experience questions such as these have many aspects that are best considered on a case-by-case basis. The measurements in the article show differences in the vibration, yet musicians noticed little differences in the sound. What does that mean exactly? Are there differences but not audible, was it audible but not considered significant enough, or were there no differences in the sound produced by the instrument despite the instruments vibrating differently? If the last, how can that be explained? What about the musician playing? Did they adapt their playing style relative to the sound they were producing? I could go on for ages with questions that are relevant to these experiments because it is very easy to overlook tiny, seemingly insignificant differences that end up being highly consequential.

What I mean is that there can be a variety of cases with IEMs. There are quite common associations we have with brass being warmer than stainless steel, which might have simply been picked up by some as a marketing tool. There might be cases where different materials were used with a minor adjustment in the construction due to the material requiring it, where the difference is caused by that adjustment rather than the material. There might also be cases where you get a sort of 'perfect storm' where the design happens to amplify minute differences in the vibrations to significant levels. The thing is, you just don't know unless you can evaluate each case in a thoroughly comprehensive manner and even then it is only valid in that particular case.

 

[Mimouille]

What also gives me doubt, is the fact that people always associate sound differences to what they naturally associate the material with. So anything copper / brass / gold should be fuller / warmer whereas silver / Titanium / steel / aluminum should be sharper / brighter / colder. This reeks of placebo, as there is no common property that I see in these to warrant that. Softness versus hardness? Meeeh. Anyways I have no idea, but honestly, it all seems pretty gimmicky to me. Of course it keeps people entertained...

 

[Wyville]

What also gives me doubt, is the fact that people always associate sound differences to what they naturally associate the material with. So anything copper / brass / gold should be fuller / warmer whereas silver / Titanium / steel / aluminum should be sharper / brighter / colder. This reeks of placebo, as there is no common property that I see in these to warrant that. Softness versus hardness? Meeeh. Anyways I have no idea, but honestly, it all seems pretty gimmicky to me. Of course it keeps people entertained...

I personally just look at gear as individual items. So the Trinity brass is simply a different IEM to the Trinity SS. I am not in a position to say anything about the contribution that might or might not be made by the nozzle material, and it does not matter much to me either. The claims are still interesting purely from a scientific perspective (I am still a scientist at heart). Is it possible in principle? And what I always find the most interesting cases; if it should theoretically make no difference, how about those cases where it does? I have enough experience in science to know that "common sense" is your worst possible lab partner. Common sense knows diddly squat.

 

[MrLocoLuciano]

2 violins exactly similar with 2 different wood sound different...
Nothing really surprising after all.

 

[491326]

Softness versus hardness? Meeeh

2 violins exactly similar with 2 different wood sound different...
Nothing really surprising after all.

I can definitely attest to this. I used to play cello and owned two cellos. One was an old cello with a very dense wood that had aged over time. It sounded very mellow and never got particularly loud. Another was a modern cello with a very light wood. this cello got loud easily and the sound was very aggressive.

 

[Mimouille]

2 violins exactly similar with 2 different wood sound different...
Nothing really surprising after all.

And my two kids are made of similar material but sound quite different...should I have them retuned?

I personally just look at gear as individual items. So the Trinity brass is simply a different IEM to the Trinity SS. I am not in a position to say anything about the contribution that might or might not be made by the nozzle material, and it does not matter much to me either. The claims are still interesting purely from a scientific perspective (I am still a scientist at heart). Is it possible in principle? And what I always find the most interesting cases; if it should theoretically make no difference, how about those cases where it does? I have enough experience in science to know that "common sense" is your worst possible lab partner. Common sense knows diddly squat.

Yes good point, common sense is your enemy in this hobby.

 

[KuroKitsu]

Yes good point, common sense is your enemy in this hobby.

Common sense is what keeps food in the pantry. That doesnt sound like an enemy...

 

[Deezel177]

In my experience questions such as these have many aspects that are best considered on a case-by-case basis. The measurements in the article show differences in the vibration, yet musicians noticed little differences in the sound. What does that mean exactly? Are there differences but not audible, was it audible but not considered significant enough, or were there no differences in the sound produced by the instrument despite the instruments vibrating differently? If the last, how can that be explained? What about the musician playing? Did they adapt their playing style relative to the sound they were producing? I could go on for ages with questions that are relevant to these experiments because it is very easy to overlook tiny, seemingly insignificant differences that end up being highly consequential.

What I mean is that there can be a variety of cases with IEMs. There are quite common associations we have with brass being warmer than stainless steel, which might have simply been picked up by some as a marketing tool. There might be cases where different materials were used with a minor adjustment in the construction due to the material requiring it, where the difference is caused by that adjustment rather than the material. There might also be cases where you get a sort of 'perfect storm' where the design happens to amplify minute differences in the vibrations to significant levels. The thing is, you just don't know unless you can evaluate each case in a thoroughly comprehensive manner and even then it is only valid in that particular case.

Excellent, excellent post, my friend.

What also gives me doubt, is the fact that people always associate sound differences to what they naturally associate the material with. So anything copper / brass / gold should be fuller / warmer whereas silver / Titanium / steel / aluminum should be sharper / brighter / colder. This reeks of placebo, as there is no common property that I see in these to warrant that. Softness versus hardness? Meeeh. Anyways I have no idea, but honestly, it all seems pretty gimmicky to me. Of course it keeps people entertained...

This was the point I'd bring up most back when I doubted the sonic impact of cables. How convenient is it that the supposed sound of a material strongly correlated with its visual appearance? And honestly, I think that placebo is what most people hear in the beginning. This changed for me when I heard PWAudio's warm, mellow-sounding, single-crystal silver cable. Despite having the exact same visual appearance as Norne Audio's Therium silver cable, I was able tell which was which during an inadvertent blind test. I picked up what I thought was the Therium - fully expecting it to sound bright and crisp - and immediately thought, "Why does it sound warm and mellow?" only to realise that it was the PWAudio cable I had plugged in. This was repeated when I heard the MS x EA Eos, and so on. Visual bias affecting sonic input is absolutely a real thing, but that doesn't mean genuine sonic alterations aren't there either.