[Wyville]

Brief impressions EM10


(pic from EarSonics, but design is always black and gold symbols)

So I received the EM10 on Friday. Out of the box, the EM10 sounded very transparent, with nice body in the midrange, but rather cold. So I put the EM10 on to burn for two days, and the higher frequencies settled in revealing the EM10’s intended sound, which is very balanced, and especially beautiful.

The EM10 has a beautiful tone, which an emphasis on excitement and musicality. Yet, it’s very smooth, with some natural elements in its signature. Keywords here are ‘melodic’, or ‘euphonic’. It’s a joyous sound that enhances the upper mids, but doesn’t sound bright by any means. The key to its tuning lies in a lift in its upper mids/and lower treble, but essentially, followed by a dip in the mid treble region. As a result, the treble itself is very smooth. It’s a tuning that is close to the A18 (M20) in tone. In addition the EM10 has nice body in its vocals, resulting from a 1-3 KHz bump. Finally, it’s finished off with a punchy well-defined bass, with greater sub- than mid-bass quantity. It’s a typical type of bass that we like to see – fun and engaging.

The EM10 has an exciting tuning that makes me want to spend more time with it than I currently have, due to the shootout. It’s signature is extremely pleasing, almost the very definition of musical (at least mine), and its transparency is well above average. If this all sounds too good to be true, it’s because the EM10 comes with a downside of its own – its stage leans towards intimate. It’s roughly the same as the S-EM9 in overall dimensions, but the EM10 follows a similar issue as the Samba and Flamenco. Both the S-EM9 and Samba have a smallish to average stage, but excel in separation because of their optimized relationship between the note thickness and stage dimensions. However, when you add more body to the sound with a similar-sized stage (as with the EM10 and Flamenco), the stage automatically feels smaller, and the separation is not as effortless.

However, this is me being critical as usual. Make no mistake, the EM10 is a truly fantastic-sounding ciem, and without a doubt, EarSonics’ best so far. It’s a melodious yet smooth tuning, that simply just sounds very good. I can see this becoming a personal favorite on short term.

This is what I would say it roughly looks like in a graph :

Really nice to see you got your hands on them so soon! Sounds like they did a great job with these!

 

[dongster]

@flinkenick
Can you please draw such a graph for the ue18+, it would be super helpful.

 

[jmills8]

@flinkenick
Can you please draw such a graph for the ue18+, it would be super helpful.

Here

 

[flinkenick]

@flinkenick
Can you please draw such a graph for the ue18+, it would be super helpful.

Hey buddy, I've drawn a graph of UE18+ as it sounds to my ears. I say this bc there was a discussion on crincacle's thread about the universal version, and there are some graphs there. It seems to have some treble peakiness which is not present in the custom. So I emailed UE's director and asked if they were tuned differently, bc there is no harsness, sibilance, or even sparkle in the custom. It is one of the warmest and smoothest ciems I have. But he replied that with the custom they take the distance between the treble drivers and inner ear into account, so they can eliminate harshness.

Anyways, this would be what UE18+ sounds to me, as I described in my review. There is a slight lift in the bass, followed by a linear midrange up to 4 KHz, and a slight dip after around 5-6 KHz, followed by a big dip in the treble. After that upper treble is fairly linear and extended.

 

[proedros]

hey @flinkenick , expect people asking you about graphs for all the iems you have reviewed

an image = 1000 words , after all

 

[Deezel177]

so zeus xr is a18 level ? good to hear , now i am even more anxious to get mine

Well, the Zeus and the A18 have always been on the same level; they just have their own strengths and weaknesses, and different sound signatures. The carrot module simply reduces the discrepancies in the latter. Previously it was like comparing oranges to grapefruits; now it's more like oranges to nectarines.

 

[dongster]

Hey buddy, I've drawn a graph of UE18+ as it sounds to my ears. I say this bc there was a discussion on crincacle's thread about the universal version, and there are some graphs there. It seems to have some treble peakiness which is not present in the custom. So I emailed UE's director and asked if they were tuned differently, bc there is no harsness, sibilance, or even sparkle in the custom. It is one of the warmest and smoothest ciems I have. But he replied that with the custom they take the distance between the treble drivers and inner ear into account, so they can eliminate harshness.

Anyways, this would be what UE18+ sounds to me, as I described in my review. There is a slight lift in the bass, followed by a linear midrange up to 4 KHz, and a slight dip after around 5-6 KHz, followed by a big dip in the treble. After that upper treble is fairly linear and extended.

thanks man! any thoughts on the ideal target curve?
should the target curve look exactly like this? :http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/ear_sensitivity.htm
is there one in your shoot out that is flat as a ruler as you perceive it?

Best Regards,
dongster

 

[flinkenick]

thanks man! any thoughts on the ideal target curve?
should the target curve look exactly like this? :http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/ear_sensitivity.htm
is there one in your shoot out that is flat as a ruler as you perceive it?

Best Regards,
dongster

Nope, no thoughts on ideal curve. I'm sure it's interesting, but I just haven't looked into it. I've seen some images in the past, I believe a flat line with 3 KHz bump. But the problem is that 1) 'neutral' or 'flat' isn't the same as natural or tonally accurate, and 2) there are different routes in achieving an accurate signature, and there can be different tunings that sound accurate or 'right', in different ways. I wouldn't say I've heard any iem that I consider truly neutral or flat. Iems have large bumps, dips and peaks, either because of the integration of different drivers, or just bc they're tuned that way for a certain effect. Even when an iem sounds relatively neutral, it can still be the result of peaky freq response. So it's hard to say if that still counts as flat, if you know it has the peaks.. The most neutral piece of equipment I have heard, would be the SilverFi IEM-R4 cable.

 

[fiascogarcia]

But he replied that with the custom they take the distance between the treble drivers and inner ear into account, so they can eliminate harshness.

Anyways, this would be what UE18+ sounds to me, as I described in my review. There is a slight lift in the bass, followed by a linear midrange up to 4 KHz, and a slight dip after around 5-6 KHz, followed by a big dip in the treble. After that upper treble is fairly linear and extended.

Nope, no thoughts on ideal curve. I'm sure it's interesting, but I just haven't looked into it. I've seen some images in the past, I believe a flat line with 3 KHz bump. But the problem is that 1) 'neutral' or 'flat' isn't the same as natural or tonally accurate, and 2) there are different routes in achieving an accurate signature, and there can be different tunings that sound accurate or 'right', in different ways. I wouldn't say I've heard any iem that I consider truly neutral or flat. Iems have large bumps, dips and peaks, either because of the integration of different drivers, or just bc they're tuned that way for a certain effect. Even when an iem sounds relatively neutral, it's still the result of peaky freq response. So it's hard to say if that still counts as flat, if you know it has the peaks.. The most neutral piece of equipment I have heard, would be the SilverFi IEM-R4 cable.

I think the ER4s is about the most flat freq. curve I have seen, including the 3k bump.

 

[EagleWings]

thanks man! any thoughts on the ideal target curve?
should the target curve look exactly like this? :http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/ear_sensitivity.htm
is there one in your shoot out that is flat as a ruler as you perceive it?

Best Regards,
dongster

I believe you may have gotten 2 concepts mixed. 1. Ear Sensitivity and 2. Head Related Transfer Function

1. The link that you have shared is the Ear Sensitivity curve. Regardless of whether you are listening through your earphones or headphones, or speakers or even live music, your sensitivity curve will be similar.

2. Head Related Transfer Function: When you listen to sounds from macro sources such as live music, live instruments or through speakers, the sound waves interact with different artifacts in the room such as walls, tables, couch, other objects, your torso and your head. And when you try to measure the FR at your eardrum, it wouldn't be flat. Because couches, walls and other objects are not the same from one person's setup to another's, those objects are ignored and so the target curves are typically delveloped in anechoic chambers. So if you stand in front of a stereo speakers in an anechoic room, the soundwaves reaching your eardrum would be interacting with just your torso, head and pinna. This measurement of the flat speaker's Frequncy Response at the eardrum is called the Head Related Transfer Function or HRTF.

There are different philosophies for capturing the HRTF. Diffused Field (DF), Free Field (FF), Independent of Direction (ID) and Harmon are the popular philosophies/methodologies used in the industry. Of the above 4, Harmon is gaining much traction these days. In fact they are still fine tuning this curve.

Now when you use a earphone, the earphone delivers the sound directly into your ears and so it does not have the chance to interact with your torso, head or ears. So if you look at the raw measurement of a neutrally tuned earphone, it wont look flat, but will resemble the HRTF curve. Each IEM manufacturer follow different HRTF philosophies. And so a neutral earphone from one manufacturer would not measure the same as a neutral earphone from another earphone manufacturer due to this reason among many others. Despite the various HRTF philosophies, what is consistent across all the philosophies is a bump in the 2-3kHz region which is caused by the interaction of the soundwaves with your head. So a neutral tuning of an IEM would resemble something like this:



This is what they call as the target curve. Because you take one of these HRTF curves and keep it as a target and you try to tune your IEM to match that curve when you are shooting for neutrality.

Oh, btw, I forgot to mention. The ear sensitivity curve you shared comes into play when measuring these HRTFs. A typical Microphone is impartial to frequencies but your ear is not like that. So when you are trying to capture the HRTF, the microphone's sensitivity are calibrated in such a way to match the sensitivity of your ears for different frequencies.

 

[flinkenick]

I think the ER4s is about the most flat freq. curve I have seen, including the 3k bump.

From what I've heard, the ER4s indeed seem to be the closest to neutral. Never heard it myself!

 

[noplsestar]

Managed to audition something interesting today, which were U18's with carrot modules (AKA U18's with the APEX modules disabled).

Funnily enough, the C18's (as I'll call them) sounded very much like my custom Zeus-XR. I'm not sure whether they sounded closer to the R or the XIV configuration, but in terms of tonality, frequency response, soundstaging, and imaging, they were very much on par with one another.

The only differences I noticed were a slightly sparklier treble with a longer decay and slightly better micro-detail retrieval on the C18. The carrot module really helped tame the super energetic tia treble and added body to the midrange.

Although, all in all, it made the sound more natural, I felt it diminished the signature tia sound present in both the U18 and the forte, and made it somewhat unappealing for someone who already owns the XR. Though, if you're already looking at the U18, and you wished it had a more bodied and natural sound, carrot modules are truly key.

Is the carrot module to buy or just a prototype? And is there a version of the A18 without the apex modules, like the Zeus without the Adele?

 

[dongster]

hey @flinkenick , expect people asking you about graphs for all the iems you have reviewed

an image = 1000 words , after all

sry bro luckily this shoot out only has 17

I believe you may have gotten 2 concepts mixed. 1. Ear Sensitivity and 2. Head Related Transfer Function

1. The link that you have shared is the Ear Sensitivity curve. Regardless of whether you are listening through your earphones or headphones, or speakers or even live music, your sensitivity curve will be similar.

2. Head Related Transfer Function: When you listen to sounds from macro sources such as live music, live instruments or through speakers, the sound waves interact with different artifacts in the room such as walls, sofa, couch, other objects, your torso and your head. And when you try to measure the FR at your eardrum, it wouldn't be flat. But because the couch, the walls and other objects are not the same from one person's setup to another's, those objects are typically omitted to create a standard and what are considered are your torso, your head and you ear pinna. So if you stand in front of a stereo speakers in an anechoic room, the soundwaves reaching your eardrum would be interacting with just your torso, head and pinna. This measurement of the flat speaker's Frequncy Response at the eardrum is called the Head Related Transfer Function or HRTF.

There are different philosophies for capturing the HRTF. Diffused Field (DF), Free Field (FF), Independent of Direction (ID) and Harmon are the popular philosophies/methodologies used in the industry. Of the above 5, Harmon is gaining much traction these days. In fact they are still fine tuning this curve.

Now when you use a earphone, the earphone delivers the sound directly into your ears and so it does not have the chance to interact with your torso, head or ears. So if you look at the raw measurement of a neutrally uned earphone, it wont look flat, but will kind of resemble the HRTF curve. Each IEM manufacturer follow different HRTF philosophies. And so a neutral earphone from one manufacturer would not measure the same as a neutral earphone from another earphone manufacturer. Despite the various philosophies, what is consistent across all the philosophies is a bump in the 2-3kHz region which is caused because of the interaction with your head. So a neutral tuning of an IEM would resemble something like this:



This is what they call as the target curve. Because you take one of these HRTF curves and keep it as a target and you try to tune your IEM to match that curve when you are shooting for neutrality.

Oh, btw, I forgot to mention. The ear sensitivity curve you shared comes into play when measuring these HRTFs. A typical Microphone is impartial to frequencies but your ear is not like that. So when you are trying to capture the HRTF, the microphone's sensitivity are calibrated in such a way to match the sensitivity of your ears for different frequencies.

thank you for the detailed explanation.
I'm familiar with the concept of HRTF, but perhaps i have some misconceptions,
my understanding is as follows,
1) HRTF and such dont apply to ciem because ciem have very deep insertion and thus shoot sound waves directly at ear drum does have have any interaction with ear/body/room.

the only factor is air movement to perceived loudness relationship

granted ear ear canals not uniform between different people, nor is it a perfect cylinder and such, but the channel of air between the ciem tip and ear drum is very small. ofc the ideal situation would be a personalized HRTF equivalent for my ear canal

2) actually recording a person or band making music in a room, and record with a 2 channel microphone, the effects of the recording environment is recorded as well, and the 2 membranes in your ear should have a direct synchronicity with the 2 diaphragm the microphone, losses in amplification and driver aside.

Reason why i think they should have synchronicity
a crude example i can think of is if i have a use a wind generator->electric motor fan chain (ignoring losses):
ie kindetic energy of wind->electrical energy->kinetic energy of wind
so wind->....->wind

this parallels with kinetic energy of sound waves->electrical energy generated by the movement of microphone diaphragms->(amplify that electric signal) kinetic energy to dirve the iem diaphram which drives ur ear diaphram
so electronic ear (microphone)->...->human ear

thats why i think ciem might be the most direcly way to translate microphone to ear drum, only if u can coat the ear membrane with electric field and and have an electrostat like that LOL

3) ofc you can say that a sound engineer mixed the music with speaker and HRTF in mind with factors such as high frequency decay over long distances, then thats just the intrinsic drawback of iem/ciem

hopefully i explained my thoughts clearly, looking forward to learning more about this topic

 

[EagleWings]

sry bro luckily this shoot out only has 17

thank you for the detailed explanation.
I'm familiar with the concept of HRTF, but perhaps i have some misconceptions,
my understanding is as follows,
1) HRTF and such dont apply to ciem because ciem have very deep insertion and thus shoot sound waves directly at ear drum does have have any interaction with ear/body/room.

the only factor is air movement to perceived loudness relationship

granted ear ear canals not uniform between different people, nor is it a perfect cylinder and such, but the channel of air between the ciem tip and ear drum is very small. ofc the ideal situation would be a personalized HRTF equivalent for my ear canal

2) actually recording a person or band making music in a room, and record with a 2 channel microphone, the effects of the recording environment is recorded as well, and the 2 membranes in your ear should have a direct synchronicity with the 2 diaphragm the microphone, losses in amplification and driver aside.

Reason why i think they should have synchronicity
a crude example i can think of is if i have a use a wind generator->electric motor fan chain (ignoring losses):
ie kindetic energy of wind->electrical energy->kinetic energy of wind
so wind->....->wind

this parallels with kinetic energy of sound waves->electrical energy generated by the movement of microphone diaphragms->(amplify that electric signal) kinetic energy to dirve the iem diaphram which drives ur ear diaphram
so electronic ear (microphone)->...->human ear

thats why i think ciem might be the most direcly way to translate microphone to ear drum, only if u can coat the ear membrane with electric field and and have an electrostat like that LOL

3) ofc you can say that a sound engineer mixed the music with speaker and HRTF in mind with factors such as high frequency decay over long distances, then thats just the intrinsic drawback of iem/ciem

hopefully i explained my thoughts clearly, looking forward to learning more about this topic

1) Any earphone that shoots the sound directly into your ears would have to take HRTF into account. And it holds true for Custom IEMs as well. Say you are in an anechoic chamber with a set of stereo speakers that measure ruler flat. When you listen to music out of these speakers, certain frequencies are enhanced because of the interaction with your body, head and pinna. How do you recreate this enhancement of certain frequencies in an IEM? By tuning the IEM to inherently have these frequency bumps in its frequency response.

Regarding 'air movement to perceived loudness relationship'. You are heading into complex territory. dbSPL varies with distance and so when coming up with HRTFs, engineers try their best to eliminate as many variables as possible. One of the ways is; the dummy head is placed at a certain distance away from the speakers and a nominal loudness is chosen that is considered as moderate listening loudness for an average human. Now I do not know what is the right distance, because then you could start talking about Far-Field Monitors and Near-Field Monitors.

But rest assured, you can be confident that the engineers take utmost care when coming up with curves. You could google for Harmon Target curve and there is plenty of information out there.

2) The way things are recorded in studio is not simply done by 2 microphones in most cases. In a studio, there is a main floor and isolated chambers. Most of the band is placed in the main floor and multiple microphones are placed here optimally to record the timbral information of the instruments as well as the spatial, reverberation and decay cues. And the number of microphones and their arrangement is not anywhere close to replicating a human set of ears. The one exception to this is the binaural recordings.

Also keep in my mind, when it comes to stereo fidelity, IEMs lose to speakers by a huge margin because when you listen to speakers, your right ear gets the most of what comes from the right side and your left ear gets only a little and vice versa. But this is not present when listening to IEMs.

Perceived Spatial cues via Speakers = Spatial information in the recording + Spatial cues due to speaker distance and placement

Perceived Spatial cues in Earphones = Spatial information in the recording

Some DAPs and DACs try to compensate this by providing a feature called the cross-feed. Not sure how effective it is though.

My point being, saying that '2 membranes in your ear should have a direct synchronicity with the 2 diaphragm the microphone' is really oversimplification, except binaural recordings.

3) I am not sure if the recording engineer would consider the HRTF because the music they record will be played via all kind of sound systems such as mono speakers, stereo speakers, multi channel systems, headphones and earphones. I could be wrong though. Per my understanding HRTFs are predominantly used by headphone manufacturers and earphone manufacturers to tune their Headphones and Earphones to replicate what the eardrum perceives when listening to speakers.

But yes, you are right, IEMs have their limitations. Its just something we have to make peace with for the convenience and amount of micro-details they provide.

 

[dongster]

1) Any earphone that shoots the sound directly into your ears would have to take HRTF into account. And it holds true for Custom IEMs as well. Say you are in an anechoic chamber with a set of stereo speakers that measure ruler flat. When you listen to music out of these speakers, certain frequencies are enhanced because of the interaction with your body, head and pinna. How do you recreate this enhancement of certain frequencies in an IEM? By tuning the IEM to inherently have these frequency bumps in its frequency response.

Regarding 'air movement to perceived loudness relationship'. You are heading into complex territory. dbSPL varies with distance and so when coming up with HRTFs, engineers try their best to eliminate as many variables as possible. One of the ways is; the dummy head is placed at a certain distance away from the speakers and a nominal loudness is chosen that is considered as moderate listening loudness for an average human. Now I do not know what is the right distance, because then you could start talking about Far-Field Monitors and Near-Field Monitors.

But rest assured, you can be confident that the engineers take utmost care when coming up with curves. You could google for Harmon Target curve and there is plenty of information out there.

2) The way things are recorded in studio is not simply done by 2 microphones in most cases. In a studio, there is a main floor and isolated chambers. Most of the band is placed in the main floor and multiple microphones are placed here optimally to record the timbral information of the instruments as well as the spatial, reverberation and decay cues. And the number of microphones and their arrangement is not anywhere close to replicating a human set of ears. The one exception to this is the binaural recordings.

Also keep in my mind, when it comes to stereo fidelity, IEMs lose to speakers by a huge margin because when you listen to speakers, your right ear gets the most of what comes from the right side and your left ear gets only a little and vice versa. But this is not present when listening to IEMs.

Perceived Spatial cues via Speakers = Spatial information in the recording + Spatial cues due to speaker distance and placement

Perceived Spatial cues in Earphones = Spatial information in the recording

Some DAPs and DACs try to compensate this by providing a feature called the cross-feed. Not sure how effective it is though.

My point being, saying that '2 membranes in your ear should have a direct synchronicity with the 2 diaphragm the microphone' is really oversimplification, except binaural recordings.

3) I am not sure if the recording engineer would consider the HRTF because the music they record will be played via all kind of sound systems such as mono speakers, stereo speakers, multi channel systems, headphones and earphones. I could be wrong though. Per my understanding HRTFs are predominantly used by headphone manufacturers and earphone manufacturers to tune their Headphones and Earphones to replicate what the eardrum perceives when listening to speakers.

But yes, you are right, IEMs have their limitations. Its just something we have to make peace with for the convenience and amount of micro-details they provide.

I think comparing to speakers field of studies if not relevant. Because as you said yourself "engineers try their best to eliminate as many variables as possible".
All these factors such as HRTF, body, head and pinna, " dummy head is placed at a certain distance away from the speakers" room dont apply for IEMs. Lets forget recording for a moment, i have a computer generated frequency sine sweep, which has is just a pure signal, and let it drive a iem through the small pocket of air between iem tip to your ear drum, if you perceive (keyword) the whole course of the sweep to be even loudness, i would think its flat, and thus will reproduce (keyword) what ever signal that comes in in the purist definition of fidelity.
ofc, i get this doesn't mean its all enjoyable, but thats high fidelity, because in this scenario, the iem only reproduce what song contains, what the mixer/producer put in there.

granted there are factors such as eardrum/body resonances and ear canal effects, but i think it would be reasonable to say that if i get my iem tip as close to the ear drum as possible, u can neglect it, and but resonance is a constant, which u can do reasearch on like a 1000 people and average, i cant imagine large variance in this respect.
you can even do a model tunnel identical to my ear canal see its effects on frequencies.

and you take frequency sensitivity into consideration, bam, flat response
TLDR flat response=HIFI should theoretically be possible since air between iem tip and ear drum very small


As for cross feed, I understand the reasoning being each of your ear would hear both speaker channels. But, if the recording if made with 2 channel microphone, the left side channel would have recorded sounds from both sides of the sound stage. I think cross feed is only good for if the mixer only put sounds such as a synthetic tone in one channel but does not the other. but in this case it doesnt make sense to have cross feed, because there is no pin pointing on the sound stage, as that synthetic sound doesnt oringinate from a instrument on the stage.

As for how music are recorded with microphone, i think it would make the most sense to have 2 channels of microphones mimicking your 2 ears.

Hope to think what you guys think my theories on this complex topic.