[ChrisSC]

Where does the Tia Fourte among the top ones?

Between "the best of the best" and "sublime, simply sublime"

 

[dongster]

@piotrus-g
would it be possible to share the FIBAE 1,2 measurements?
I saw that you were open to do it for 8.2.

 

[Wyville]

Between "the best of the best" and "sublime, simply sublime"

Sold! Oh, wait....

 

[piotrus-g]

@piotrus-g
would it be possible to share the FIBAE 1,2 measurements?
I saw that you were open to do it for 8.2.

Definitely, but not now. As it was a case with 8.2 we are waiting till we have at least few reputable reviews before we post graphs. Reviews for both models are in progress so...

 

[cvbcbcmv]

Yeah I think so too. @cvbcbcmv didn't explicitly explain but I guess his reasons are the same with what you have plainly and completely laid out

Hey man, my apologies for not getting back to you! Haven’t had a chance to check Head-Fi on my own and for some reason I didn’t get emails about your messages, but I did for this mention. The reasons others explained were exactly my reasons; the guy who made the product in the first place is the guy who will be best at taking it apart and putting it back together! Plus I can personally attest to Piotr’s Reshell skill and after sale support, so all those reasons combined into my recommending 8.2.

 

[bartzky]

@piotrus-g
would it be possible to share the FIBAE 1,2 measurements?
I saw that you were open to do it for 8.2.

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.

 

[dongster]

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.

ive seen this one before, but thanks for sharing any ways

 

[EagleWings]

my central argument is pillared upon this:
all an iem does is push eardrum back and forth, oscillation, 2 variables magnitude and time
to dispute the following, one must disprove this.

the reason i belive its not 2 sides of same coin:

eardrum/diaphram/air movement can be objectively and unambiguously described by amplitude time graphs, like analogue recording vinyl

tone, sound stage, and clarity and all these HIFI attributes takes place after the eardrum movement is interpreted by the nerves and brain from spacial cues recorded int the recording for example. and how the brain interpret that sound from spatial cues such as channel loudness difference, decay of diff. freqs, reflections, all of which are contained in a recording.

FR shows the faithfulness of the reproduction of magnitude - y axis.
waterfall and transient shows the faithfulness of the reproduction of timing - x axis and magnitude.

magnitude+time=sound wave

to take an extreme, an recording without sound stage info inside (singer, guitar, drum, violin all individually recorded in an anechoic chamber superimposed), should an iem like Fourte still produce an sound stage?

In my opinion a iem with great sound stage has the technical capability to reproduce or even highlight (color) the FR region or decay behavior related in spacial cues.

formatting for those lazy to read in detail, which i think is most hehehehe

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.

 

[flinkenick]

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

Hehe if this is a little zing at my earlier post, the measurements of the Solar and Galaxy were from Rhapsodio. The VE8 measurement was by Jomo. Needless to say, both use quality measuring equipment. I had hoped 'iem manufacturers' had sufficed.

 

[tsn141]

For measurements;
Here are some interesting pages from the Colloms book about assessment of sound. It is directed at speakers, but still applicable to iems. The main topic is what part can be attributed to measurements, and what part to objective evaluation, and how to combine both.
The next set of pages is a bit technical, but also very interesting because it indirectly relates to the limitations of measurements compared to human hearing.

Why measurements can not reach human perception, here is a part of human hearing. From, springer handbook;

Cochlear get sound data in frequency domain and time domain inherently, human made systems take time domain and convert to frequency domain. At this stage all the auditory nerve fibres behave like a mic with a narrow band. So the human ear has millions of mics with a narrow band. Therefore, it is technically superior than a measurement system with a single mic.

 

[guisess93]

Hey man, my apologies for not getting back to you! Haven’t had a chance to check Head-Fi on my own and for some reason I didn’t get emails about your messages, but I did for this mention. The reasons others explained were exactly my reasons; the guy who made the product in the first place is the guy who will be best at taking it apart and putting it back together! Plus I can personally attest to Piotr’s Reshell skill and after sale support, so all those reasons combined into my recommending 8.2.

thanks for everything. Cheers

 

[dongster]

For measurements;
Here are some interesting pages from the Colloms book about assessment of sound. It is directed at speakers, but still applicable to iems. The main topic is what part can be attributed to measurements, and what part to objective evaluation, and how to combine both.
The next set of pages is a bit technical, but also very interesting because it indirectly relates to the limitations of measurements compared to human hearing.

Why measurements can not reach human perception, here is a part of human hearing. From, springer handbook;

Cochlear get sound data in frequency domain and time domain inherently, human made systems take time domain and convert to frequency domain. At this stage all the auditory nerve fibres behave like a mic with a narrow band. So the human ear has millions of mics with a narrow band. Therefore, it is technically superior than a measurement system with a single mic.

 

[dongster]

For measurements;
Here are some interesting pages from the Colloms book about assessment of sound. It is directed at speakers, but still applicable to iems. The main topic is what part can be attributed to measurements, and what part to objective evaluation, and how to combine both.
The next set of pages is a bit technical, but also very interesting because it indirectly relates to the limitations of measurements compared to human hearing.

Why measurements can not reach human perception, here is a part of human hearing. From, springer handbook;

Cochlear get sound data in frequency domain and time domain inherently, human made systems take time domain and convert to frequency domain. At this stage all the auditory nerve fibres behave like a mic with a narrow band. So the human ear has millions of mics with a narrow band. Therefore, it is technically superior than a measurement system with a single mic.

source? book title plsssssss~~~~~~~~~

 

[tsn141]

source? book title plsssssss~~~~~~~~~

https://www.amazon.com/High-Performance-Loudspeakers-Martin-Colloms/dp/0470094303

https://www.amazon.com/Springer-Handbook-Acoustics-Thomas-Rossing/dp/0387304460

brick type document

 

[ThomasHK]

Therefore, it is technically superior than a measurement system with a single mic.

Yeah... That's not how hearing works though. That's just the physiological part of it, our brain than takes that huge amount of information and synthesis what it thinks is important. E. G. There's temporal masking, time integration and limits to how fine we can distinguish different frequencies (if your interested, Google auditory filter bank and JNDs for hearing.)

A measurement system with a microphone would actually be able to get much finer resolution in time and frequency than our hearing can.