[Wyville]

Dongster your argument is very valid. Based on your posts, it appears you either have an academic or a research background or you have learnt things out of your own interest. Either ways, you might understand that, just because a methodology to objectively quantify an entity or a behavior does not exist, the entity does not automatically qualify as an entity of non-objective nature. In such a circumstance one needs to work towards finding a method/procedure to objectively measure it.

Currently, there are no methodologies to objectively measure the soundstage. And in order to find ways to measure soundstages, we need to define what soundstage is. It is a simple term used by audiophiles to describe an IEM’s ability to locate instruments at a distance away from the center of your head. It is made up of two qualities:

1. IEM’s ability to place all sound (regardless of the wavelength or continuity) outside your head
2. IEM’s ability to recreate the distance and directional information in the recording

So by your extreme example, where you have a vocal track recorded in an anechoic isolated chamber, it would be free of any directional or distance information. But if an IEM portrays the vocal slightly outside your head, we need to start determining if it is placing only the vocal (continuous waveform) outside your head or, if it is able to place even a monotone outside the head. Because, science is not just about proving something is of objective nature, but it is also about proving that something is NOT of objective nature. And in case you determine that the IEM places all sounds outside your head, then you could start investigating what causes this particular IEM to place all tones outside your head. But to do all this you need a point of reference and a standard/unit.

Now your argument about there are just 2 functions when it comes to IEMs; Amplitude and Time, it ties back to my argument above. Yes, terms like soundstage, clarity and tone are just jargons used by us audiophiles for easy everyday communication. But there are underlying entities that govern or contribute to these jargons. Just because we have not figured out a way to objectively quantify these entities, it is not right to say that these are subjective aspects.

I think it is important here to mention that objectivity is not the goal of science, it is merely part of its methodology. The goal of science is to understand things, "the pleasure of finding things out", and sometimes it is not possible to do that in an abstract (objective) form. Do we then stop and not look at it? Of course not. If we would do that, progress would grind to a halt.

The problem I see, and I see it in these types of audiophile discussions as well, is that people get too obsessed by objectivity and by trying to force it, end up with something that has nothing much to do with the original subject of enquiry. It turns into an abstract exercise that has little to do with anything other than "trying to be objective".

 

[Deezel177]

I think it is important here to mention that objectivity is not the goal of science, it is merely part of its methodology. The goal of science is to understand things, "the pleasure of finding things out", and sometimes it is not possible to do that in an abstract (objective) form. Do we then stop and not look at it? Of course not. If we would do that, progress would grind to a halt.

The problem I see, and I see it in these types of audiophile discussions as well, is that people get too obsessed by objectivity and by trying to force it, end up with something that has nothing much to do with the original subject of enquiry. It turns into an abstract exercise that has little to do with anything other than "trying to be objective".

I think there are ties between this and the age-old, human need to pursue the unquestionable "best" in everything. I mean, audiophiles (particularly thick-skulled and thick-pocketed ones) have been doing it for decades where they spend hundreds-of-thousands of dollars on the best "this" or the best "that" without as much as a single audition, simply because in the absence of little objective scale, pricing become the scale, and, "The most expensive thing is obviously the best, right?!" Now, in the age of measurements, specs, and graphs, people with a similar mentality abuse these technological advancements to find, objectively, "Which IEM has the mathematically greatest extension?" or "Which IEM has the fastest impulse response?" and in their quest for the objective best, completely disregard their own personal tastes, helpful impressions from others, etc. I'm not saying this is definitely the reason of why people obsess over measurements, because they are so much more dimensional than this, obviously. But, in the seemingly endless and ever-fervent quest to, as you said, obsessively force objectivity on everything, I can't help but be reminded of this.

 

[Wyville]

I think there are ties between this and the age-old, human need to pursue the unquestionable "best" in everything. I mean, audiophiles (particularly thick-skulled and thick-pocketed ones) have been doing it for decades where they spend hundreds-of-thousands of dollars on the best "this" or the best "that" without as much as a single audition, simply because in the absence of little objective scale, pricing become the scale, and, "The most expensive thing is obviously the best, right?!" Now, in the age of measurements, specs, and graphs, people with a similar mentality abuse these technological advancements to find, objectively, "Which IEM has the mathematically greatest extension?" or "Which IEM has the fastest impulse response?" and in their quest for the objective best, completely disregard their own personal tastes, helpful impressions from others, etc. I'm not saying this is definitely the reason of why people obsess over measurements, because they are so much more dimensional than this, obviously. But, in the seemingly endless and ever-fervent quest to, as you said, obsessively force objectivity on everything, I can't help but be reminded of this.

Undoubtedly that's part of it. I also think some are just tech geeks and get lost in all the technical details because that is what they enjoy. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not mistaken for some kind of "ultimate, objective arbiter". People get too hung up on math...

 

[dongster]

read the sound stage /spacial cue section in the Springer Acoustic Handbook,

seems pretty well researched and documented.

I think it is important here to mention that objectivity is not the goal of science, it is merely part of its methodology. The goal of science is to understand things, "the pleasure of finding things out", and sometimes it is not possible to do that in an abstract (objective) form. Do we then stop and not look at it? Of course not. If we would do that, progress would grind to a halt.

The problem I see, and I see it in these types of audiophile discussions as well, is that people get too obsessed by objectivity and by trying to force it, end up with something that has nothing much to do with the original subject of enquiry. It turns into an abstract exercise that has little to do with anything other than "trying to be objective".

objectivity is implied in the scientific method through pragmatic test, and peer review/verification

a finding hinges on repeatability

 

[Wyville]

objectivity is implied in the scientific method through pragmatic test, and peer review/verification

a finding hinges on repeatability

Sure, science strives to achieve an ideal and that is essential to good science. There are however those who push that too far and then the methodology, which should be no more than a practical means to an end, sometimes becomes the dominant focus (ie. an end in itself). That turns something scientific into a caricature of science, ie. cargo cult science.

 

[piotrus-g]

As I got the feeling this thread absolutely needs more measurements from unknown quality here you go: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=gre_nada&logNo=221002961385

Jokes aside, the other measurements on the side seem to be pretty much in line with what one would expect from a 711/60318-4 setup. I sadly don't speak Korean, but there are a few mentions of speakerphone who is known to produce accurate measurements. Maybe someone can clear up if there is some sort of affiliation that speakerphone is responsible for those measurements.

As a last resort I'm sure @piotrus-g will jump in if the measurements are to far off.

Mind that the grey curves are the uncompensated measurements. Red and blue are the diffuse filed compensated results.

Also the impedance response is show which is essentially flat - what a surprise

On a side note: the photos in the review give a nice view on the internals. The special Fibae driver seems to be fabricated by Knowles. It's called Knowles 33357 and shared by Fibae 1 and 2. The Fibae 2 has got an additional Knowles CI 22955 that will be responsible for the lower frequencies, I assume.

Oh wow, thanks for that! Didn't know it existed.

Measurement are ok, in that they are fairly in line with our own measurements of UNIVERSAL models and with exception of tips used. Having said that universal fit F2 shouldn't present a deep between 5-10kHz when used with sleeves that we deliver with universal F2

To avoid clogging Nic's thread with FIBAE stuff here's dedicated thread where we can discuss technology, sound, performance etc https://www.head-fi.org/threads/customart-fibae-impressions-thread.854355/

 

[flinkenick]

I'll admit I wasn't blown away right away, but after some more listening and a minor cable adaptation, these beauties are finding a way to my heart.

 

[fuhransahis]

Sure, but how do they compare against the VE... oh, oops, nevermind

 

[Decreate]

I'll admit I wasn't blown away right away, but after some more listening and a minor cable adaptation, these beauties are finding a way to my heart.

So are they better than the SE5U?

 

[Deezel177]

So are they better than the SE5U?

@flinkenick Honestly and truthfully say "Yes" to this and watch me spend S$3799

 

[Wyville]

@flinkenick Honestly and truthfully say "Yes" to this and watch me spend S$ 3799

Nic: "Yes, but it really needs to be combined with Horus."

[Adds S$2,399]

 

[flinkenick]

The 5-Way is a unique monitor, that oozes in naturalness. However, as a result of its warmer than neutral tuning, its biggest weakness is its limited versatility.

The VE8 sounds engaging due to its thicker note structure, resulting from its lifted bass: full-bodied instruments, presented in a wide stage. But more than anything, the VE8 is easy to listen to. And it shines in its versatility. You can easily switch from Leonard Cohen to Guns n Roses, on to some reggae or electronic - no biggie. Not sure if I can think of any other iem that easily handles a wide variety of genres, and just sounding good. Because its such an easy listen, you tend to not notice that its technically capable, or at least pay attention to it. But its high definition and excellent treble speed are definitely worth mentioning.

As with Zeus, it suffers from a suboptimal cable pairing; at least when paired with the AK. With its stock cable its somewhat void of warmth, and Horus also wasn't a good pairing. So I just listened to Zeus and Horus mostly on holiday. But with HanSound Zen Exact right touch of warmth, while maintaining its all-round character.

 

[Deezel177]

The 5-Way is a unique monitor, that oozes in naturalness. However, as a result of its warmer than neutral tuning, its biggest weakness is its limited versatility.

The VE8 sounds engaging due to its thicker note structure, resulting from its lifted bass: full-bodied instruments, presented in a wide stage. But more than anything, the VE8 is easy to listen to. And it shines in its versatility. You can easily switch from Leonard Cohen to Guns n Roses, on to some reggae or electronic - no biggie. Not sure if I can think of any other iem that easily handles a wide variety of genres, and just sounding good. Because its such an easy listen, you tend to not notice that its technically capable, or at least pay attention to it. But its high definition and excellent treble speed are definitely worth mentioning.

As with Zeus, it suffers from a suboptimal cable pairing; at least when paired with the AK. With its stock cable its somewhat void of warmth, and Horus also wasn't a good pairing. So I just listened to Zeus and Horus mostly on holiday. But with HanSound Zen Exact right touch of warmth, while maintaining its all-round character.

@Wyville S$2399 purchase: Avoided... for now Looking forward to the review, Nic; I'm damn-well sure I'll enjoy reading every word

 

[fuhransahis]

Zeus's vocal strength interests me but it's apparent lack of bass also keeps me away... SE5U seems to excel at both so I keep getting drawn to it. Luckily A18 is not really in the pic as it's not only ridiculously expensive but it seems to have a brighter overall tuning than I'd like, as I get the impression it's more of a V-ish shape, though I do wish I had the Apex module as an option as I listen to music louder than many, it seems.

I guess I'm looking for an XXx shape (or an L, flipped horizontally, then rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise lol) that also excels at clarity without the lifted treble, while also being versatile, as I can only have one of these (C)IEMs at once. W900 remains a possible option, I think.

 

[flinkenick]

Zeus's vocal strength interests me but it's apparent lack of bass also keeps me away... SE5U seems to excel at both so I keep getting drawn to it. Luckily A18 is not really in the pic as it's not only ridiculously expensive but it seems to have a brighter overall tuning than I'd like, as I get the impression it's more of a V-ish shape, though I do wish I had the Apex module as an option as I listen to music louder than many, it seems.

I personally wouldn't say Zeus non-ADEL lacks bass. It's not an exceptional bass, but it doesn't underperform either, in quantity or quality. I don't listen to it feel like I'm missing something. 5-Way's bass is very good in terms of audiophile tuning. Its tone, definition, bottom-end extension - all very good. High quality bass. But it's not something you listen to specifically for an impactful, pounding bass so to speak; like Dream, Vega, or even A18. It's just a very coherent bass within the signature. On a sidenote, I think the ES80 has the most technical BA bass I have heard. Neutral, but executed to perfection. I would have scored it 90-91 probably.

I guess I'm looking for an XXx shape (or an L, flipped horizontally, then rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise lol).

Or, commonly known as an 'L-shape'