[Resolve]

Moderator's Note: The first 145 posts in this thread originally appeared in the Subtonic STORM: Impressions and Discussion thread. As such, you may find references to Subtonic or The Storm from time to time.

What people eventually learn if they go into this far enough is that FR at the ear drum describes more than just tonality. It describes 'technicalities' as well. But it likely won't make sense just by looking at the graph, because tonality is the most common and obvious dimension along which we can understand this stuff.

And I was also there at one point too. I couldn't draw a straight line between the graph and my experience. But then I learned that the graph is just the acoustic performance in one condition - on one head. It's not about "hitting the target", it's about three factors, and I've said this in other threads before, but it bears repeating:

• Anatomy (HRTF)
• How the headphone or IEM changes depending on the head that wears it (HpTF)
• Preference

Understanding FR in relation to these three factors will go a long way to getting there. I imagine many won't be willing to try, maybe because it's easier to just believe in unmeasurable properties of transducers - and who knows, maybe there is some magical property there. But this is also why cheaper sets can often sound just as good if not better than more expensive ones - if they're a better fit for the individual for these three factors.

 

[ilikebananafudge]

What people eventually learn if they go into this far enough is that FR at the ear drum describes more than just tonality. It describes 'technicalities' as well.

How does FR at the ear drum describe detail retrieval and resolution?

In my time in this hobby, I've found that some transducers are better able to reproduce subtle details in music than others. I don't see how the amplitude of a frequency correlates with this ability.

 

[Resolve]

How does FR at the ear drum describe detail retrieval and resolution?

In my time in this hobby, I've found that some transducers are better able to reproduce subtle details in music than others. I don't see how the amplitude of a frequency correlates with this ability.

Right, that's where I was a while ago too - and I would've said exactly the same thing. The reality is though that it does. Precogvision actually has a good video that talks about some of this, but there is another element to it as well, particularly with IEMs.

Since IEMs bypass the pinna when being worn, the effects contributed to the auditory system at the ear drum need to be assumed. Like it takes a second to wrap your head around this but once you do it makes sense. Each person has a unique pinna, and that contributes unique effects to sound on the way to the ear drum. But because these effects are different for each person, you end up in situations where IEMs have to be developed for various averages. They may not be specific enough to be a good fit for every individual HRTF. But then you get to IEMs often on the high end, where they are more "HRTFy" in the sense that they do have more specific features that may be a better fit for certain HRTFs. The downside is that this specificity is going to make it less acceptable to the widest range of people.

So as an example, the lower treble features on the Storm don't work for me at all, and actually result in a kind of smearing or obscuring of details, while for others who say, have a length mode feature around 8khz, will find this to actually increase perception of resolution/detail/transparency etc.

But I think Precog's video does a good job at explaining the rest - we often say "but how does FR describe detail and resolution", it may not be a particularly fun answer, but it's that there are various features in the treble that redound to the effect of having certain parts of the music be 'enhanced' or brought forward in a way that is potentially enjoyable.

 

[listenerwww]

How does FR at the ear drum describe detail retrieval and resolution?

In my time in this hobby, I've found that some transducers are better able to reproduce subtle details in music than others. I don't see how the amplitude of a frequency correlates with this ability.

Detail is largely “directed attention,” and there are numerous factors in frequency response that can positively or negatively effect how your attention is directed—either enhancing the sense of discernibility around a particular cue (“IEM X made me hear details I’d never heard before!”) or obscuring said discernibility.

 

[aaf evo]

What people eventually learn if they go into this far enough is that FR at the ear drum describes more than just tonality. It describes 'technicalities' as well.

Alright, so I am not "defending" the Storm at all, as a matter of fact I feel I have been one of the more critical people towards it since it was released even though I have since decided to rebuy it. But I am so lost here. I can't help but largely disagree with this. I do not understand how you can correlate a frequency response to aspects that are just not possible to measure such as micro dynamics or note weight name a few, both are things which the Storm happens to do incredibly well. Do you not listen for these things when you evaluate transducers or are you more about the tuning and tone?

So as an example, the lower treble features on the Storm don't work for me at all, and actually result in a kind of smearing or obscuring of details, while for others who say, have a length mode feature around 8khz, will find this to actually increase perception of resolution/detail/transparency etc.

But I think Precog's video does a good job at explaining the rest - we often say "but how does FR describe detail and resolution", it may not be a particularly fun answer, but it's that there are various features in the treble that redound to the effect of having certain parts of the music be 'enhanced' or brought forward in a way that is potentially enjoyable.

I personally feel you are giving treble more credit than it deserves when it comes to resolution, detail, and transparency. I don't feel it is that black and white. For me there is a large difference between having "detail via frequency response" and "detail via driver implementation" (I don't know how else to phrase this.)

Do you feel the U4s has higher resolution than the U12t? When I compared them both the U4s sounded smeared in detailing and resolution and very "surface" level compared to the U12t. But your claims regarding treble and how it is tuned in the FR would state this should not be the case?

Sorry, I am just not following this at all. I do believe FR is massive in terms of how things "will sound" but If FR were as responsible for as much as it is made out to be then we'd be done with this industry a long time ago, headphones.com wouldn't really have much purpose to exist, and 64 audio would stop releasing the same generic tuning in different driver configurations.

 

[Resolve]

Alright, so I am not "defending" the Storm at all, as a matter of fact I feel I have been one of the more critical people towards it since it was released even though I have since decided to rebuy it. But I am so lost here. I can't help but largely disagree with this. I do not understand how you can correlate a frequency response to aspects that are just not possible to measure such as micro dynamics or note weight name a few, both are things which the Storm happens to do incredibly well. Do you not listen for these things when you evaluate transducers or are you more about the tuning and tone?



I personally feel you are giving treble more credit than it deserves when it comes to resolution, detail, and transparency. I don't feel it is that black and white. For me there is a large difference between having "detail via frequency response" and "detail via driver implementation" (I don't know how else to phrase this.)

Do you feel the U4s has higher resolution than the U12t? When I compared them both the U4s sounded smeared in detailing and resolution and very "surface" level compared to the U12t. But your claims regarding treble and how it is tuned in the FR would state this should not be the case?



Sorry, I am just not following this at all. I do believe FR is massive in terms of how things "will sound" but If FR were as responsible for as much as it is made out to be then we'd be done with this industry a long time ago, headphones.com wouldn't really have much purpose to exist, and 64 audio would stop releasing the same generic tuning in different driver configurations.

So I do hear these things, but what people need to realize is that treble features at the ear drum have a massive influence on how things come across. Tones that dominantly token midrange frequencies still have their upper harmonic content meaningfully influenced by treble features. The same is true for bass. It really is worth watching Precog's video on this, as he does a good job of explaining that part in particular.


Moreover, those of us who are doing manual tone gen stuff and using it to EQ to various features of our HRTF, we are all saying essentially the same thing here. If you haven't done that, I recommend giving it a try. Again, not to a target, but to the features you've identified as being part of your own HRTF.

 

[aaf evo]

So I do hear these things, but what people need to realize is that treble features at the ear drum have a massive influence on how things come across. Tones that dominantly token midrange frequencies still have their upper harmonic content meaningfully influenced by treble features. The same is true for bass. It really is worth watching Precog's video on this, as he does a good job of explaining that part in particular.


Moreover, those of us who are doing manual tone gen stuff and using it to EQ to various features of our HRTF, we are all saying essentially the same thing here. If you haven't done that, I recommend giving it a try. Again, not to a target, but to the features you've identified as being part of your own HRTF.

For sure, I totally understand this. The entire frequency response and how it hits our ears can shape how we hear things and this varies among all of us. Which is why I asked you if you hear the U4s as having higher resolution than the U12t? Because in my case it absolutely is not, and that goes against the idea of treble being associated with perceived detail or resolution. That’s why I do not believe it is as black and white as it is being made out to be.

 

[Resolve]

For sure, I totally understand this. The entire frequency response and how it hits our ears can shape how we hear things and this varies among all of us. Which is why I asked you if you hear the U4s as having higher resolution than the U12t? Because in my case it absolutely is not, and that goes against the idea of treble being associated with perceived detail or resolution. That’s why I do not believe it is as black and white as it is being made out to be.

I personally haven't done that comparison. But I would say that it's certainly not about overall treble level, but rather the specific features that cause elements of your experience to stand out. And this is highly determined by your anatomy, specifically your outer ear (pinna) contribution to what your brain expects as "normal" at the ear drum, and the length mode air volume - which by the way isn't just one resonance. It's actually multiple resonances that shift depending on the air volume between the ear drum and the sound producing device.

 

[aaf evo]

I personally haven't done that comparison. But I would say that it's certainly not about overall treble level, but rather the specific features that cause elements of your experience to stand out. And this is highly determined by your anatomy, specifically your outer ear (pinna) contribution to what your brain expects as "normal" at the ear drum, and the length mode air volume - which by the way isn't just one resonance. It's actually multiple resonances that shift depending on the air volume between the ear drum and the sound producing device.

I’d be interested on your take of U4s v U12t regarding detail, transparency, and resolution between both if you ever get the chance. To my ears they are a very good example of two very similarly tuned IEMs that showcase that there are aspects of music reproduction that can’t be directly attributed to a frequency response.

 

[listenerwww]

I do not understand how you can correlate a frequency response to aspects that are just not possible to measure such as micro dynamics or note weight

I think this rather well illustrates the issue; the problem isn’t that frequency response doesn’t contain these aspects. The pattern, speed, and magnitude of oscillation of the ear drum is frequency response. What’s lacking is our understanding of consistent correlation between FR and these factors, as well as the ability to measure at our individual eardrums to see what features are *actually* present in our ear canals vs the graph.

 

[listenerwww]

I’d be interested on your take of U4s v U12t regarding detail, transparency, and resolution between both if you ever get the chance. To my ears they are a very good example of two very similarly tuned IEMs that showcase that there are aspects of music reproduction that can’t be directly attributed to a frequency response.

I’d say it’s likely many would hear U12t as “more detailed, transparent, resolving etc.”, but I actually hear U4S as more “transparent” due to having less midrange masking from excess air in the treble.

 

[Resolve]

I’d be interested on your take of U4s v U12t regarding detail, transparency, and resolution between both if you ever get the chance. To my ears they are a very good example of two very similarly tuned IEMs that showcase that there are aspects of music reproduction that can’t be directly attributed to a frequency response.

So my question here is... are you judging them to have similar treble - or similar tunings - based on graphs? or based on manual tone-gen sweeps, perceptually. Because I suspect they would not in fact be similar for those features.

 

[aaf evo]

I think this rather well illustrates the issue; the problem isn’t that frequency response doesn’t contain these aspects. The pattern, speed, and magnitude of oscillation of the ear drum is frequency response. What’s lacking is our understanding of consistent correlation between FR and these factors, as well as the ability to measure at our individual eardrums to see what features are *actually* present in our ear canals vs the graph.

Sure, I agree here. So don't you think that making a 20 minute video review of the Storm and then comparing it to two sets that are like 5 to 10 times cheaper but only really diving into the comparisons of their "similar" frequency response is sort of missing the entire point of a Storm review to begin with? I can't speak for everyone but I doubt anyone is paying $5k for a Storm because of its frequency response alone. This is where I am puzzled. Because I genuinely believe there is so much more as to what is going on inside those shells and the listeners' ear that is far deeper than a squiggly line on a graph.

So my question here is... are you judging them to have similar treble - or similar tunings - based on graphs? or based on manual tone-gen sweeps, perceptually. Because I suspect they would not in fact be similar for those features.

Both judging of off their tunings through graphs and my own experience listening to them. They sounded overall similar to me in how they present music with the U4s being a tad brighter in the low treble area, it was too much for me personally, but where I felt they were vastly different was how each IEM presented music. To me it just goes deeper than a frequency response can show. The drivers used, the implementation, how dampened they are, etc. Maybe someone else can word it better than I can. I can only go back to my original statement that I feel there is a difference between detail through frequency response (like having certain emphasis/dips, etc) and detail through an IEM that is well designed and engineered. I hear it as two different things.

 

[AxLvR]

Okay, I've just re-watched Theo's video in regards to details in an IEM. First of all I'm a "simply believe your ears" kinda guy as compared to how does an IEM graphs guy.

From what I can sum up, cmiiw, according to Theo, details, resolution, tech, etc. is a result of how an IEM is being tuned in the FR, the better the treble extension, the more details we are able to hear or perceive. Also, this will be a different experience for everyone since we all have unique HRTF to ourselves. As a result, he'd hear IEMs more as simply 'different' than say one is more technically capable to another because depending on how they are tuned, details can pop out at you or it just doesn't. I do agree with him that details have always been there in the first place, especially micro or feint details in the background, because hey, the track was mastered and mixed in a studio where obviously they insert those details and as a result, can also hear these details in their mastering studio setup. This is where Theo also says to compare the IEM that successfully made you hear the detail vs. your older IEMs where you couldn't and you'll actually realise that the detail was always there in the first place but it just didn't pop out at you because of how your previous IEM was tuned. This is true and not true in my experience, as i was comparing STORM to an older released flagship IEM Fitear DC Ti. I noticed that a small detail was present with STORM but not with DC Ti, so perhaps DC Ti doesn't have as good of an extension compared to STORM?

But what I'm really curious to know is, does detail come simply from good treble extension and how our unique HRTF perceives it? Does electrical/acoustic engineering, driver implementation, internal wiring, crossovers, dampening, acoustic chamber, shell material, nozzle, etc. not have any effect on it?
Because see if tuning or FR is simply what makes Technicalities as in details, resolution, transparency etc. apparent or prominent, then 5 years ago, we'd have been able to have the same level of tech as now, say like STORM level of tech, just that manufacturers back then weren't capable or competent enough to find the right balance in FR to give us the same experience?

I'm asking this because this is purely interesting to me, I'd love to learn and understand why things happen a certain way when I hear em.

 

[Resolve]

Sure, I agree here. So don't you think that making a 20 minute video review of the Storm and then comparing it to two sets that are like 5 to 10 times cheaper but only really diving into the comparisons of their "similar" frequency response is sort of missing the entire point of a Storm review to begin with? I can't speak for everyone but I doubt anyone is paying $5k for a Storm because of its frequency response alone. This is where I am puzzled. Because I genuinely believe there is so much more as to what is going on inside those shells and the listeners' ear that is far deeper than a squiggly line on a graph.



Both judging of off their tunings through graphs and my own experience listening to them. They sounded overall similar to me in how they present music with the U4s being a tad brighter in the low treble area, it was too much for me personally, but where I felt they were vastly different was how each IEM presented music. To me it just goes deeper than a frequency response can show. The drivers used, the implementation, how dampened they are, etc. Maybe someone else can word it better than I can. I can only go back to my original statement that I feel there is a difference between detail through frequency response (like having certain emphasis/dips, etc) and detail through an IEM that is well designed and engineered. I hear it as two different things.

Again the point was not to show that "these cheaper IEMs can do the same thing", rather "these are all good tunings to shoot for". I also compared them with the Odin, Raven, U6t, and Volur.


But when it comes to the other aspects you just referenced, all of that shows up in FR as well. And quite frankly, I'm not bothered if people who are interested in a $5k IEM don't get that FR is responsible for their experience. I don't feel that describing it in terms of FR is reductive - the fact that this particular result was achieved, matters. And we are in a better place if we can more appropriately predict goodness/badness for various qualities in terms of tangible metrics.