[Zachik]

I’ve given you the answer to figure it out for yourself, can lead a horse to water etc.

WOW. Just wow.
Happy to see everyone is still respectful of each other...

 

[listenerwww]

WOW. Just wow.
Happy to see everyone is still respectful of each other...

I sincerely meant no offense.

aaf evo said he "want(s) to be able to see a read a FR graph and extrapolate these characteristics from it... (to) read a graph and determine how fast the bass decays or how textured it would be," and the answer to that question is that playing around with EQ is the best way to build the understanding of how FR would effect subjective qualia, in my experience.

 

[AxLvR]

What I can sum up from the discussion is where we go back to what it's supposed to be.

FR measurement will be more accurate to an X individual the more said individual is familiar with his/her own HRTF and be fully knowledgeable about the FR, its slopes, peaks, roll offs and whatnot. That way, X individual may have calculated perception of how each frequency of an IEM would perform for him/her to a certain extent, including its tech, texture, resolution, etc. But is it a guarantee that it would sound exactly as how they imagined it to be? not necessarily as implementations of tech and innovations in an IEM would affect quality but it is not necessarily clearly reflected in the FR.

In the end, to me it's still unclear whether tech can be apparent to everyone simply through FR. I still think tech is not a gimmick from simple treble extensions. Maybe in some iems it is the case. But not all. There is no proof that an IEM with an exact FR as STORM will promise the same level of tech it has. If so, everyone should buy 50 dollar iems and EQ it. And companies should just sell FR measurements instead of IEMs. This is the same case as JH's Pearl and Ruby, where they can give you an experience and flavour of different IEMs through 1 system. But is it gonna give you the same experience as the mentioned iem's individually? I think not.

 

[o0genesis0o]

This whole debate reminds me of the two music stores, side by side, in my town. One is an audiophile store, the one next door is pro audio. Coming to the audiophile store and ask for IEM, there will be a long discussion and all sorts of options. Coming to the pro audio store, there is a single shelf of Shure and Westone with some brochures for CIEM. “Want to change sound? Just EQ, bro”

I’m going to do a tiny experiment soon-ish: taking a few IEM of different types (DD, multi BA, Hybrid, Planar) and use the coupler to align them to the same target as best as I can, and tune treble by ears. Let’s see how different/same they sound.

 

[Resolve]

Can you explain to me which of the following IEMs below will reproduce a more authentic kick drum?

I think the issue here is you're still thinking of FR as just what you see on the graph. FR at the ear drum is going to be a lot more specific. Also, if that's a 711 based measurement (which is what it looks like) it's not actually showing perceptually relevant differences at low or high frequencies among those products.

Two IEMs that measure the same in the bass on 711 systems can measure differently in the bass on 4.3 systems. But more importantly, they'll have a different FR result at the ear drums of individual people based on their anatomy. Remember that the graph you see is just the indicated performance on one "head".

 

[aaf evo]

I think the issue here is you're still thinking of FR as just what you see on the graph. FR at the ear drum is going to be a lot more specific. Also, if that's a 711 based measurement (which is what it looks like) it's not actually showing perceptually relevant differences at low or high frequencies among those products.

Two IEMs that measure the same in the bass on 711 systems can measure differently in the bass on 4.3 systems. But more importantly, they'll have a different FR result at the ear drums of individual people based on their anatomy. Remember that the graph you see is just the indicated performance on one "head".

So why do you put so much weight into these graphs to begin with? Looking at graphs and being able to relate that to each individual's HRTF is one thing, but looking at graphs and saying "this are why you as an individual are having this experience" I feel is an entirely different thing.

Again it just goes back to my original point from the very beginning. FR do not show things like coherency between different drivers, they cannot show bass texture, bass decay, perceived soundstage, etc. Your point a few pages ago was that FR is responsible for our experiences, and I am disagreeing with you that it isn't entirely responsible.

You can take two IEMs that have an identical bass shelf with both using DD drivers and measure them on whatever fancy rig you want, whatever you hear in your ears when you push play will not be shown on that measurement. Not all 9.2mm DD bass drivers are created equal, not all implementations are equal. You even state in your Storm review that the BA bass is very impactful and beats out most DD drivers, and you feel most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Do you think this is down to some perfected bass tuning that no one has discovered before or perhaps there is more to what is going on inside those shells instead?

For the sake of experimentation, please try the Oriolus Traillii at your next CanJam and compare it to the IER-Z1R bass response. I know these IEMs are graphed on some measly AliExpress clone, but you might be really surprised what you hear between them despite their low end similarities. The "experience" behind the Z1R bass is something else entirely, but if I didn't know any better I'd assume they'd sound the same down low.

 

[Resolve]

You can take two IEMs that have an identical bass shelf with both using DD drivers and measure them on whatever fancy rig you want, whatever you hear in your ears when you push play will not be shown on that measurement. Not all 9.2mm DD bass drivers are created equal, not all implementations are equal. You even state in your Storm review that the BA bass is very impactful and beats out most DD drivers, and you feel most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Do you think this is down to some perfected bass tuning that no one has discovered before or perhaps there is more to what is going on inside those shells instead?

Yeah so this is again a misconception due to the trend of measurements done on rigs that lack accurate acoustic Z. We'll need to do a video to clear this up, but when it comes to the whole "DD bass" thing, that is actually measurable.

To your earlier point though, we focus on measurements because HRTFs do have a trend, and it's worth understanding the response in relation to that. What's NOT worth doing is overly reading the tea leaves above 5khz as perfect indications of how something might sound to YOU. You can get a reasonable sense of it, but it won't necessarily be 1:1. We can't be literalists about this stuff, but just because we can't that doesn't mean it's useless, or not highly useful.

 

[Ojisan]

Again it just goes back to my original point from the very beginning. FR do not show things like coherency between different drivers, they cannot show bass texture, bass decay, perceived soundstage, etc. Your point a few pages ago was that FR is responsible for our experiences, and I am disagreeing with you that it isn't entirely responsible.

Great discussion and I think (and agree) @aaf evo brings up an important point here. What's missing from all the discussion is the time-domain aspect of listening. Human ears are exceptional at detecting time difference of arrival (or equivalently phase information). If you heard two impulsive strikes with milliseconds apart for left and right ear, most people can perceive that difference. Frequency domain charts are fundamentally infinite time response (i.e. basis of Fourier transform) and does not describe time resolution. Theoretical details aside, the time-domain transient response and harmonics - this is the basis for texture, soundstage, and resolution (FR shows the gross/net harmonic content but it's combined and may mask subtleties). As is already done in headphone world (among other areas like DAC/amp design measurements), I think multiple views needs to be looked at to analyze "sound quality". Such as time domain impulse response, waterfall plots, harmonic evaluation for common instruments, etc.

I really hope/wish some of you with excellent measurement capabilities can untangle some of these aspects for better community understanding.

Sorry my $0.02

 

[Resolve]

The other point here is that concepts like "texture", "decay" and so forth are uniquely descriptions of the experience. And while I think I know what someone is referring to with these terms, there's no guarantee. Either way though, it's absolutely FR at the ear drum that's responsible, it's just never analyzed that way.

 

[kumar402]

Fair enough, I think it is part of it but not all of it so we can agree to disagree here. I do find this a tad condescending but I am also not here to make friends.



Gotcha, I guess we don't see eye to eye in terms of review content and that is okay.

I think consumers (or least those that are playing in this price bracket?) are looking beyond things than just the frequency response though otherwise we would just buy something with a similar tuning that is cheaper, no? But perhaps I am the one who is mistaken here. Again, I am not defending the Storm nor do I care who likes it or not. For all I know I'll sell mine next week and buy something else, who cares. I just think the amount of weight being put into FR is overblown from my own experiences. I would be having this same debate whether or not I owned the Storm. FR will never tell you things like texture, decay, punchiness, etc. If there is a way to know this by looking at a FR then please tell me, I am wanting to learn.

CSD plot gives some idea of decay and impulse response and distortion profile also helps along with FR.

 

[aaf evo]

Yeah so this is again a misconception due to the trend of measurements done on rigs that lack accurate acoustic Z. We'll need to do a video to clear this up, but when it comes to the whole "DD bass" thing, that is actually measurable.

To your earlier point though, we focus on measurements because HRTFs do have a trend, and it's worth understanding the response in relation to that. What's NOT worth doing is overly reading the tea leaves above 5khz as perfect indications of how something might sound to YOU. You can get a reasonable sense of it, but it won't necessarily be 1:1. We can't be literalists about this stuff, but just because we can't that doesn't mean it's useless, or not highly useful.

I don't think I've mentioned graphs over 5khz once for this exact reason.

You're still glossing over a point I have made several times by now.

How can you tell me things that like driver coherency and bass quality are something that can be shown up in a measuring rig? Because as far as I know that isn't possible, and to me those are big factors in an entire listening experience or why anyone would be willing to pay X amount for an IEM A over IEM B, it's also a big reason why there's a fanbase for single DD IEMs. You gave your opinion and presented it as fact and said people are paying $5k+ for a frequency response experience, I am telling you that is not true. In your video review you mentioned that Storm BA lows can easily be confused for DD bass, but you didn't know this until you pushed play right? The FR didn't tell you that. You might not be willing to spend that on an IEM with Storm's tuning, and that is fine. I don't think Storm is the best tuned IEM I have heard either, I prefer my Craft Ears Omnium to it in tuning. But if you genuinely think that two identical frequency responses will lead to two identical experiences without considering into things like driver type or implementation, then I am not sure what to say.

The other point here is that concepts like "texture", "decay" and so forth are uniquely descriptions of the experience. And while I think I know what someone is referring to with these terms, there's no guarantee. Either way though, it's absolutely FR at the ear drum that's responsible, it's just never analyzed that way.

Again I just don't agree here. You can go listen to something like car subwoofers and hear the differences in texture and decay between the exact same subwoofer but different in size. An 8" subwoofer does not reproduce a 30hz wave the same way at 15" subwoofer does. We have miniature speakers in our ears, a dynamic driver will render a 30hz note differently than a BA driver.

 

[goldwerger]

I suggest using EQ and playing with the balance between fundamental and overtone on things like drums or bass. The results may surprise you.

Most people who make or produce music are generally more open to the idea of FR being responsible for how these things impress upon us, because we EQ to aid in our control of presenting these aspects rather regularly.

I’ve given you the answer to figure it out for yourself, can lead a horse to water etc.: If ya don’t wish to use EQ, then that’s fine, but that is the way to unlock a bit of the understanding I’m talking about.

I just dropped into this thread to see what all the hubbub was about.

First, I would respectfully suggest that a more humble approach would likely get a more receptive audience; if not that, it would make for a more enjoyable conversation. Any debate where one isn't looking to listen to others but just looks to convert isn't a debate, it's a speech.

Second, @aaf evo has repeatedly raised a couple of great points that got no great replies. I agree with two key points he raises: (1) FR cannot measure everything. It is a rather useful tool, but it has limits. I can't see how anyone can divine timbre accuracy of instruments (such an insanely complex aspect, with each instrument having different resonances; how would a single-dimensional graph present that?), nor imaging, attack or decay. I think FR is very useful for many people (including those who aren't able to demo gear for themselves to get a sense of tonality; perhaps some sense of space based on treble extension), but it cannot showcase everything. If it could, then practically anything could be EQed to be everything. So it's a valuable tool, but ia good graph cannot save a bad headphone. (2) if it all depends on HRTF (agreed) and changes at the individual level, then one cannot draw conclusive opinions from an average FR.

Anyway, not looking to flame this debate, as it will clealry remained unresolved, as it does wherever this debate surfaces. Eventually, science may offer us ways to measure more of the insane complexity of what we subjectively hear. The best reference graph for me is that of other community members' feedbacks whose taste most align with my own - the best measure I know to predict whether something would fit my HRTF.

Peace.

 

[o0genesis0o]

The gist is (1) FR at ear drums is everything there is, BUT, the (2) FR GRAPHS that we have now do not and likely will never have the necessary fidelity and accuracy to capture FR at ear drums in its entirety.

Resolve and Listener are emphasising point (1), aaf evo and co are emphasising point (2).

Edit: I don’t think we should dismiss the effort of high end IEMs because of point (1). I mean how does good FR at ear drum happens? Because of the R&D manufacturers put in to make it so.

 

[Somafunk]

FR will never tell you things like texture, decay, punchiness, etc. If there is a way to know this by looking at a FR then please tell me, I am wanting to learn.

The choice of descriptive adjectives such as texture, decay, punchiness is not accurately transferable as it is purely subjective to how you interpret such

How can I read a graph and determine how fast the bass decays or how textured it would be?

You won’t find that in a graph of an iem that has its frequency response measured, you will find bass decay and texture in the hands of the studio mixing engineer

 

[listenerwww]

I just dropped into this thread to see what all the hubbub was about.

First, I would respectfully suggest that a more humble approach would likely get a more receptive audience; if not that, it would make for a more enjoyable conversation. Any debate where one isn't looking to listen to others but just looks to convert isn't a debate, it's a speech.

Second, @aaf evo has repeatedly raised a couple of great points that got no great replies. I agree with two key points he raises: (1) FR cannot measure everything. It is a rather useful tool, but it has limits. I can't see how anyone can divine timbre accuracy of instruments (such an insanely complex aspect, with each instrument having different resonances; how would a single-dimensional graph present that?), nor imaging, attack or decay. I think FR is very useful for many people (including those who aren't able to demo gear for themselves to get a sense of tonality; perhaps some sense of space based on treble extension), but it cannot showcase everything. If it could, then practically anything could be EQed to be everything. So it's a valuable tool, but ia good graph cannot save a bad headphone. (2) if it all depends on HRTF (agreed) and changes at the individual level, then one cannot draw conclusive opinions from an average FR.

Anyway, not looking to flame this debate, as it will clealry remained unresolved, as it does wherever this debate surfaces. Eventually, science may offer us ways to measure more of the insane complexity of what we subjectively hear. The best reference graph for me is that of other community members' feedbacks whose taste most align with my own - the best measure I know to predict whether something would fit my HRTF.

Peace.

I told aaf that he can use tools that are eminently available to better understand the things he said he wishes to learn, and he declined—which is fair, but it does remain true that anyone reluctant to mess around with EQ is hamstringing their potential understanding of how frequency response effects things like dynamics, detail, soundstage, timbre etc. As I've said, the people equalizing the music we listen to generally understand how this relationship works, as EQ is one of the many tools they use to shape these things.

My "lead a horse to water" comment was not about him being obstinate or me being fed up or anything like that, it was shorthand for the fact that:

a) there's no reason for me to force someone into doing something they don't want to do, nor berate them for not doing so. I told him what to do, he declined, that's that.

b) it's really hard for anyone—including me—to give someone an EQ point or profile and say "This is what bass texture sounds like". I can talk about what those terms mean to me as they commonly relate to subjective qualities, but there is no guarantee he agrees on which FR factors influence which quality.

We can use words to describe the experiences we're having, but the only ones who are sure of what we're saying are ourselves. Or in other words, I can lead a horse to my idea of bass texture, but I can't guarantee that he agrees.

I am still happy to give a more thorough explanation (or address your claims numbered #1 and #2) but only elsewhere, as I think it's rather obvious that this discussion isn't wanted here. Feel free to DM me here or find me on discord (listener.) if you'd like to chat more about it.

After all, this is a thread about one of the only flagship IEMs that actually has great midrange tone IMO, so it's not like there's much for a nerd like me to complain about anyway