I’m very happy that the list is finally completed. I’m enjoying this time of freedom, where I listen to an iem based on what I feel like rather than an obligation to write. I’ve written down some general thoughts on the upcoming series, now that is finally getting closer. Fair warning, these are more general ramblings, musings, and practicalities, so it’s probably just marginally interesting. I also seem to have mixed in a heavy dose of introspection and subjective opinion on certain matters, so take that as you please. I guess it’s more an extension of the introduction, but without the interesting sound parts. Just sayin’.
General format
Over the last weeks I’ve been tweaking my review format and style a bit, and I must say, I am very pleased with the result. In this series I’ll be finally working with the format I’ve always wanted – my dream format: it’s going to be 100% about sound, and sound alone. I’ve always dreaded writing about anything else – accessories (spoiler: they come with a peli case and cleaning tool), build (I will include pictures) and anything else related. I’m well aware it serves a purpose and rightly so, but I’m one of those people that will always skip directly to the sound when I’m reading a review and ignore the rest. I guess I’m somewhat of a purist that way. In the end, when you’re making a decision on a $1500 iem I find it hard to believe that anything other than the sound carries any significance, except for the build maybe (but this mostly applies to people with either larger or small ears). But so far, most of the iems are customs and the universals have an excellent fit. And while I prefer customs, I certainly don’t discriminate against universals, and would never base a purchasing decision on the fact whether or not it’s available as either. But I’m self-conscious enough to be aware that I’ve been blessed with very universal ears, and have never really experienced fit issues.
But of course I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions related to other factors here, if people have requests for information relating to such aspects. But what you will get in the series is a review that is overall slightly shorter in total quantity as I skip these sections, with a significantly longer section dedicated to sound.
This is partially due to the fact that I have to summarize each aspect to explain the pros and cons. As I mentioned in the first introduction, I wasn’t a fan of a general scoring system. However, when you have to score each aspect individually, it forces you to explain how you came to that score – both the good and the bad. In this way, you are invited to go more into detail. You simply can’t tip toe around the negative aspects, and then give one iem a lower score than another without explaining. This doesn’t mean I’ll be burning anything to the ground or be overly or unnecessarily negative. I’ve never been one to be overly critical for the sense of entertainment, and that certainly won’t happen here. The ultimate goal for me as a reviewer is simply to be as accurate as possible; to convey a picture that is both true and understandable.
But I will say, there’s a certain freedom in being forced to speak my mind. So while I am not a fan of a general scoring system (a final score), I have come to appreciate a full scoring system.
At this level, there aren’t any bad iems, period. There’s rarely a case where any iem outperforms another on every aspect – due to its specific tuning, each iem will always have some specific advantage over another. Even when comparing the number 17 to number 1, there will always be a specific aspect that might be better, which can even make the signature as a whole better based on one’s preference. In the end, all these iems are the result of what the designer considered ‘perfect’, even though most couldn’t be more different. But in the end there’s only good, and even better. I can honestly say I would be more than happy if I only had the ‘last’ iem.
The greatest downside is having to rank the bottom end of the list. I generally consider myself an amenable person, so my heart bleeds for the companies that will rank the lowest. Manufacturers and fans might feel wronged to see their iems positioned so low. But those spots have gotta be filled by some iems, there’s no way around that.. However, I sincerely hope most people will ultimately agree with the scoring. Keep in mind, the scores of the signature (bass, mids, treble) relies primarily on their quality, not a subjective interpretation of aspects like quantity or prominence. What I mean is a score will ideally relate it to aspects as balance, tone, naturalness, and speed and decay; rather than if I just like the signature – at least this is my primary intention. Also, importantly, the scores by nature are relative to all the iems in the list, and my personal experience in general. I would like to stress that anybody is
more than welcome to challenge a score or ranking. Just do it based on content, and referring to key audiophile properties.
However, the fact remains that this is just one person’s opinion. But taken together, I’m feeling pretty confident about this. To quote the new US president:
Damn right Donald. Now let’s make reviewing great again.
I will be including a new, unique element which I think will be pretty cool. I will go into more detail about this in my next ‘audiophile’ post before the shootout starts. Furthermore, my general style is probably common knowledge by now, at least on this thread; but I’m trying to go a bit more back to my roots. I’m looking forward to see how this will all be received, and hope this will result in something special.
I have also finally posted the (empty) chart in
post #2, so you can see the scoring that I’ve been mentioning. I will of course update this as we progress. One thing that is new is that I have decided to score upper midrange separately from midrange. It also becomes clear that the scoring consists of equal parts signature and performance. Tonality is somewhat of a crossover point between the two, as it is based on signature, but is an ‘objective’ sort of technical score.
Source
I mentioned in the initial introduction that I use two daps for my listening: the RWAK380cu and LPG. However, I’ve stumbled upon the practical issue that you are simply forced to score based on one source. Sometimes an iem will sound better with either the LPG or AK, so it’s hard to choose which score to pick in that case. But in a practical sense I listen to the AK most, and consider it my ‘reviewing tool’. So the scoring, as well as stage dimensions, will be based on the AK.
Cables
At this point everyone most likely knows I am a hardcore cable enthusiast. I guess some might even find my opinions extreme. People are not comfortable with statements that diverge from an opinion that cables can only have a marginal effect on a sound, like ‘5%’. These people are not wrong. Except for the addition that cables, very much if not
exactly like iems, improve in performance the higher up you go. So while a $150 cable might have a slight effect that might be noticeable, but nevertheless marginal at best, the difference in tone and performance will increase significantly for a $1000 cable, although the same laws of diminishing returns apply as with daps and iems. That does not mean however, that performance does not continually increase the further you go. Similarly as with daps, a more expensive cable does not always mean the outcome is always better (although it should have an advantage in aspects like resolution). Synergy is paramount, and in some cases a sound may become too bright or warm, while stage dimensions can improve but also decline, and imaging or separation can even decrease. While I’m on the subject, I would strongly argue that a $350 silver cable from a respected manufacturer of your choice is, the height of price-to-performance ratio. This should provide a significant and noticeable improvement to your system. I think most people should experience the effect of such a cable. If you have tried and don’t, it’s probably best to steer away from cables. If you haven’t, maybe hold out on an opinion until then.
Anyways, I seem to have digressed quite a bit; my initial point here is that while I might seem to have stronger than average opinions about cables, it is primarily based on my experience with high-end cables, rather than general comments about stock or replacement cables. And I haven’t even reached the actual purpose for this section.
At first I was pondering the possibility of including a cable matchup section. I can now confirm I will NOT be doing so. I have chosen to do so to keep the review series ‘pure’. It makes me sad that cables are still heavily debated, but as a consequence this adds too many cons to the equation. This is illustrated by the fact that every time I post a cable review, someone has been trying to hack into my THL account (hey buddy, my password is c@blezAreR3al).
However, the reason I go into all this detail about cables, is because it is important to note that even though I won’t generally mention cables (unless applicable), they are still very much relevant to my listening and judgment for the simple reason that I always use them. Therefore, the scoring refers mostly to the iem itself, without the stock cable. As a result, the score would be higher than with the cable (for me personally, this doesn’t apply to the reader). In some cases, the original cable even has a detrimental effect on the tone (BTG cable, what have you done to Zeus’ treble??). So all iems are judged ‘equally’ in this regard since they are used with the same cables – at least, in my personal interpretation of equal.
However, in some cases iems are being delivered with quality aftermarket cables, an example being the A18 that comes with a Whiplash TWag V3, or the [TBA]. In these cases, I will have to factor in the tonality and performance of the cable, as it is a defining feat which has a significant contribution to the manufacturing cost, and accordingly their MRSP. In these cases, I of course will mention the characteristics of the cable where applicable in the review, or write a separate description. If not it would not be fair to these iems. I think I will include an asterisk to specify this or something.
Comparisons
There appear to be some differences about the use of comparisons in reviews. The way I see it is very simple. The comparison section is an absolutely essential addition to the sound description, and arguably, as important as the general sound description. I find this important for both reading and writing reviews.
The reason I would argue it should be the common standard, is because most importantly, it puts the iem’s performance in perspective to other iems, that can be similarly of differently priced (both can be informative). However, it also puts the reviewer’s reference point in perspective – this is especially applicable when we see claims as ‘high resolution’, ‘the best midrange I ever heard’, or ‘the widest stage’. These statements can mean either a lot or absolutely nothing depending on where you’re coming from. The best example is when someone writes their first TOTL review, and inspired by the improvement writes in superlatives. Don’t get me wrong – I have also done this myself. It’s normal, you’re flabbergasted by the huge improvement. So it helps when you give people a sense of where you’re coming from.
However I’m digressing, as I wasn’t planning on making any general opinions. Returning to the shootout; this belief is shared among THL. The minimum is 2 comparisons, for the specific reason of putting an item’s performance in perspective. For the shootout I will be doing 4, which was already more or less my standard. I don’t know what the deal with 4 is, 3 just seems too little and 5 is overdoing it. Maybe because it’s an even number(?)
Anyways, I won’t be making a table beforehand to make sure each iem is evenly distributed, although I guess I’ll have to calculate an average or something beforehand. However, each comparison is always selected for a specific purpose. Either to illustrate some point of an iem’s signature or performance by contrasting it with another; or to contrast it with similarly or more expensive iems. So roughly speaking, each comparison section will always contain a similarly priced or more expensive/cheaper iem, and an opposing signature (bright vs warm). If necessary, differences in resolution, imaging or stage can be exemplified through comparisons. I just thought it might be good to know beforehand that comparisons are not random, but serve a purpose. I hope that purpose might be distilled by reading. If you’ve read my previous reviews, you might have also noticed that I keep away from value judgments in comparisons. I’ve mentioned it before, and again at the begin of this post. Each tuning choice always has pros and cons, and the way these are perceived depends on individual differences in preferences and sensitivity. I might have a preference for one or the other, I try my best to leave it open to the reader.
Once the final list is disclosed on Friday everybody is invited to make their prediction. I’ve heard about 2/3 of the iems, and I’d still give myself a 30% chance of correctly predicting the outcome, so good luck with that. I have decided that I don’t want to hijack my own thread with these predictions, so I’ll
create a separate thread for that purpose. In addition, THL readers can post theirs under the dedicated post. If someone decides to go through this thread again in the future, I don’t want half of it being posts you need to skim through. Right now the thread is going in the right direction: TOTL impressions, comparisons, and all aspects related to listening and reviewing. So please do
not post the predictions on this thread. I don't want to say this, but I will ignore predictions made in this thread! Well, not really, but you get my point.
I’ll mention it again on Friday, just wanted to say it in advance so you’ve been warned twice
