[flinkenick]

Hello everybody, I transformed the posts to 'real' articles on THL. Because as we all know, once it's posted on the internet it becomes an undeniable fact. So for future reference you could use these much fancier versions if you like. Next week I will post another one, which is not completely new but I think it will be nice. 
 
http://theheadphonelist.com/audiophile-matters-music-lovers-vs-audiophile-approach/
 
http://theheadphonelist.com/audiophile-matters-describing-tonality/
 
From next week on I will announce one of the last iems every week. Only the last iem is still unsure, I will get hopefully get confirmation by the end of the month.
 
As some of the customs still have to be made, I hope to have the iems by March. So I will start then at the soonest. However, from begin February there should be some brief impressions of the newer iems to hopefully keep you entertained. 

 

[Fiberoptix]

I wanted to continue the discussion on sound characteristics and in particular soundstage depth. 
 
Just reading a review and it occurred to me that different reviewers have slightly different perspectives on depth when they describe the soundstage.
 
To me, good depth in the soundstage is the portrayal of instruments in front of you and being able to perceive the layering and distances between the individual instruments whilst maintaining a strong centre image of the performance. I think this is a rare quality for an IEM to do well.
 
I have read some reviewer description where they describe good depth as the perception of instruments around them and behind them. To me this is a different quality that is more akin to monitors that lack a solid centre image and push things to the left and right. A good indication of this is how well the singer is represented in front of you, can you clearly visualise the singer in an almost 'reach out and touch' way or do you struggle to pinpoint the voice, as if it is floating around in your head. Monitors that deliver this kind of presentation can actually be very entertaining and deliver that wow factor as they are very immersive, but for me they lack the longevity as the novelty wears off quick and I crave something more accurate (or speaker like).

 

[ForceMajeure]

  I wanted to continue the discussion on sound characteristics and in particular soundstage depth. 
 
Just reading a review and it occurred to me that different reviewers have slightly different perspectives on depth when they describe the soundstage.
 
To me, good depth in the soundstage is the portrayal of instruments in front of you and being able to perceive the layering and distances between the individual instruments whilst maintaining a strong centre image of the performance. I think this is a rare quality for an IEM to do well.
 
I have read some reviewer description where they describe good depth as the perception of instruments around them and behind them. To me this is a different quality that is more akin to monitors that lack a solid centre image and push things to the left and right. A good indication of this is how well the singer is represented in front of you, can you clearly visualise the singer in an almost 'reach out and touch' way or do you struggle to pinpoint the voice, as if it is floating around in your head. Monitors that deliver this kind of presentation can actually be very entertaining and deliver that wow factor as they are very immersive, but for me they lack the longevity as the novelty wears off quick and I crave something more accurate (or speaker like).

 
That depth factor you are talking about is in a big part dependent on the user and his personal pinna and earcanal bypass done by the frequency response of the iem. Not all user will experiment the same effect with the same iem.
 
Let me explain this, the frontal localisation and instruments placement cues are transferred to your brain with the help of the concha part of the ear by focusing and altering the frequency range (mainly mids). This is the out of head experience or in your brain sound...
 
Every person have his own pinna and ear canal length that also alter a part of the high-mids and treble and everyone's concha alters the frequency response differently so the brain that got accustomed to it, knows how to interpret it.
 
Because iem bypass that region being inserted directly in the earcanal, most iem makers already apply a bump in the 2,5-3khz range to compensate for the loss of focusing energy usually provided by the ear naturally. 
 
The problem is that not everyone's ear focuses the sound the same way, thus every one will ear depth soundstage/ front localisation differently... not talking about instruments cues that are also altered by the shape of the ear applying slightly different phases to different sound coming from different places (although in good recording those cues are already mostly present in the recording so it works better with good speakers and your ears do the rest of the work). 
 
So what I am trying to say is that not everyone will ear the same convincing soundstage and layering using the same iem.
.

 

[fzman]

   
That depth factor you are talking about is in a big part dependent on the user and his personal pinna and earcanal bypass done by the frequency response of the iem. Not all user will experiment the same effect with the same iem.
 
Let me explain this, the frontal localisation and instruments placement cues are transferred to your brain with the help of the concha part of the ear by focusing and altering the frequency range (mainly mids). This is the out of head experience or in your brain sound...
 
Every person have his own pinna and ear canal length that also alter a part of the high-mids and treble and everyone's concha alters the frequency response differently so the brain that got accustomed to it, knows how to interpret it.
 
Because iem bypass that region being inserted directly in the earcanal, most iem makers already apply a bump in the 2,5-3khz range to compensate for the loss of focusing energy usually provided by the ear naturally. 
 
The problem is that not everyone's ear focuses the sound the same way, thus every one will ear depth soundstage/ front localisation differently... not talking about instruments cues that are also altered by the shape of the ear applying slightly different phases to different sound coming from different places (although in good recording those cues are already mostly present in the recording so it works better with good speakers and your ears do the rest of the work). 
 
So what I am trying to say is that not everyone will ear the same convincing soundstage and layering using the same iem.
.

 
Given all of that, what do "measurements" really tell us about an iem - or headphone for that matter-who's a dummy head anyway? (I don;t mean the quoted poster, just to make sure this is not misunderstood).

 

[fzman]

  I wanted to continue the discussion on sound characteristics and in particular soundstage depth. 
 
Just reading a review and it occurred to me that different reviewers have slightly different perspectives on depth when they describe the soundstage.
 
To me, good depth in the soundstage is the portrayal of instruments in front of you and being able to perceive the layering and distances between the individual instruments whilst maintaining a strong centre image of the performance. I think this is a rare quality for an IEM to do well.
 
I have read some reviewer description where they describe good depth as the perception of instruments around them and behind them. To me this is a different quality that is more akin to monitors that lack a solid centre image and push things to the left and right. A good indication of this is how well the singer is represented in front of you, can you clearly visualise the singer in an almost 'reach out and touch' way or do you struggle to pinpoint the voice, as if it is floating around in your head. Monitors that deliver this kind of presentation can actually be very entertaining and deliver that wow factor as they are very immersive, but for me they lack the longevity as the novelty wears off quick and I crave something more accurate (or speaker like).

With speakers, I have always found that you can either have big soundstage or precise localization, until you get to the "big boy" systems that do everything well-of course depending to a large degree on the room.  Audio, like life in general, is about compromise, and choices-warm or detailed, dynamic or 'smooth' etc. 

 

[twister6]

.

 
Given all of that, what do "measurements" really tell us about an iem - or headphone for that matter-who's a dummy head anyway? (I don;t mean the quoted poster, just to make sure this is not misunderstood).

 
Exactly!!!  Besides this being a very subjective matter which depends on an individual ear/canal anatomy, the measurements are just a baseline, based either on using a dummy head (and only a few pro places can afford the real deal $20k measurement setup, and even that represents some overall average earcanal path) or the hobby setups such as Veritas $49 coupler with a mic and ARTA freeware program where you have a sealed coupler with a short direct distance between the mic and the driver (that's what I use).  It will give you a basic idea of what to expect, but not exactly what you actually going to hear with your own ears

  I'm not even taking into account personal ear health, age, and ear damage accumulated over the long period of loud music listening, all these factor will skew the "FR" even further.
 
Regarding soundstage, I had a first hand/ear experience testing CustomArt Harmony H8.2 ciem vs iem, 64auduio U12 vs A12, and recently UERR ciem vs universal ToGo version.  Soundstage difference was the first thing that jumped in my face, and it was not consistent.  With U12 vs A12 and UERR ciem vs iem - custom version had a wider soundstage in comparison to universal.  With H8.2 it was the opposite, where universal shell had a noticeable wider soundstage in comparison to CIEM.  Very subjective opinion, according to my ear anatomy

 

[flinkenick]

  I wanted to continue the discussion on sound characteristics and in particular soundstage depth. 
 
Just reading a review and it occurred to me that different reviewers have slightly different perspectives on depth when they describe the soundstage.
 
To me, good depth in the soundstage is the portrayal of instruments in front of you and being able to perceive the layering and distances between the individual instruments whilst maintaining a strong centre image of the performance. I think this is a rare quality for an IEM to do well.
 
I have read some reviewer description where they describe good depth as the perception of instruments around them and behind them. To me this is a different quality that is more akin to monitors that lack a solid centre image and push things to the left and right. A good indication of this is how well the singer is represented in front of you, can you clearly visualise the singer in an almost 'reach out and touch' way or do you struggle to pinpoint the voice, as if it is floating around in your head. Monitors that deliver this kind of presentation can actually be very entertaining and deliver that wow factor as they are very immersive, but for me they lack the longevity as the novelty wears off quick and I crave something more accurate (or speaker like).

Hi @Fiberoptix thanks for your input on the matter!
 
Depth, IMO, should strictly relate to the spatial dimension of depth and accordingly, the layering ability. Nothing else, or the constructs we use will get intertwined. 
 
I'm not completely sure what other reviewers are hearing when they are referring to hearing instruments behind them, I would think they are either using more advanced equipment than I am or hallucinogens I don't think I've ever heard something behind me, unless it was my gf walking in. 
 
As for the solidity of the center vocal image; I would attribute this mainly to the midrange density, the presence in the 1-3 KHz region. An iem can still have good stage dimensions or depth specifically, while lacking a solid vocal presentation. That is, if we are talking about the same thing.
 

  With speakers, I have always found that you can either have big soundstage or precise localization, until you get to the "big boy" systems that do everything well-of course depending to a large degree on the room.  Audio, like life in general, is about compromise, and choices-warm or detailed, dynamic or 'smooth' etc. 

Hi Mark, I would never claim to have half the experience you have with speakers; while I see your point, with iems I don't feel there necessarily has to be a compromise between stage dimensions and imaging, at least in the TOTL segment. Similarly, if the resolution is high enough, a warm iem can still very well be as detailed as an analytical iem. However, a brighter iem will as you suggest always be more upfront in its detail presentation. For instance, the DN-2000j is hyperdetailed due to its significantly enhanced treble. But while the brighter microdetails in the treble will shout out at you, the midrange itself won't necessarily be more detailed.
 
But I'm just nitpicking here, I get your point - you are absolutely right when you say it's all about compromise. Every tuning choice results in a pro and a con. More treble sparkle, less natural tone. More body in the midrange, less balance with the treble. Fuller upper-bass or lower midrange, less clean stage, etc.

 

[flinkenick]

Anyways, more than happy to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. Don't mind me, just posting this in the meanwhile. 

 

ANNOUNCING IEM #14:

 

Spiral Ear 5-Way Ultimate​

 
 
The 5-way Ultimate is the most neutral iem I have heard till date. It combines an almost analytical precision, with an essential hint of naturalness in its tone. The Ult is neither warm or bright, but mostly accurate. The midrange has just the right amount of density, without sounding overly thick. It's both neutral in its tone, as its presentation. While both its stage dimensions as well as vocal positioning seem to show variance based on the track, the stage feels very spacious in all directions, not in the last part due to its clean and airy presentation. 
 
The 5-Way Ultimate is both highly resolving as well as transparent; as my friend @Docterror said, listening to the Ult is like watching 4K television – it is so clear, you can see all the warts and imperfections on someone’s face. Quite frankly, a fairly accurate description to sum it up. 

 

[fzman]

   
 
Hi Mark, I would never claim to have half the experience you have with speakers; while I see your point, with iems I don't feel there necessarily has to be a compromise between stage dimensions and imaging, at least in the TOTL segment. 

 
I did a bad job of expressing it, but what I was trying to say is that the totl is the stratum where you get the fewest compromises-- 

 

[flinkenick]

   
I did a bad job of expressing it, but what I was trying to say is that the totl is the stratum where you get the fewest compromises-- 

Aah I see. Well wasn't that bad, your point came across 

 

[CraftyClown]

   
 
I'm not completely sure what other reviewers are hearing when they are referring to hearing instruments behind them, I would think they are either using more advanced equipment than I am or hallucinogens I don't think I've ever heard something behind me, unless it was my gf walking in. 
 

 
Could they possibly be referring to Binaural recordings? They would most definitely allow you to hear instruments behind you.

 

[PinkyPowers]

The 5-way Ultimate is the most neutral iem I have heard till date.

It's impressive how these have remained so many people's top pick for so long. I know Mim still loves them. And They came in 2nd place in the Fit for a Bat shootout.

If it weren't for my abiding love of warm, bassy headphones, I'd probably own a set. I'd still like to hear them, some day.

 

[Kerouac]

 

The 5-way Ultimate is the most neutral iem I have heard till date.

It's impressive how these have remained so many people's top pick for so long. I know Mim still loves them. And They came in 2nd place in the Fit for a Bat shootout.

If it weren't for my abiding love of warm, bassy headphones, I'd probably own a set. I'd still like to hear them, some day.

 
Yep...a very interesting contender indeed.
 
Oh and it even ended #1 in FFAB

 

 

[EagleWings]

Could they possibly be referring to Binaural recordings? They would most definitely allow you to hear instruments behind you.

Actually, there are a few tracks that I have come across, where the instruments seem to sound from behind my head. They don't sound like it's actually coming from right behind me and out of my head, but more like from the nape of my neck. And no, those are not binaural recordings.

 

[PinkyPowers]

Yep...a very interesting contender indeed.

Oh and it even ended #1 in FFAB  

Ooops. My bad.