[Rolu]

So I've been in this hobby for what, like 15 years? Idk. I have probably heard several hundreds of sets priced anywhere from like $300 to $9000, with most of them likely costing over $1500. Throughout my time in the hobby since graphs have been easily accessible online I've had the ability to read these graphs and listen to enough sets to where I can get an idea and relation of how my HRTF will perceive certain tunings "at the ear drum" and I am able to tell if perhaps maybe something may be too shouty for me, too bright, etc etc. I think this is fairly is a fairly common ability between a lot of IEM users in the hobby at this point, no?

What I will never understand is how you can put so much weight into frequency response graphs that you can make a claim that you are paying for the tuning which gives you the "experience" you are getting. I just can't resonate with this. And this brings me back to my comparison above about the IER-Z1R and Traillii. With what data we have available to us, with the graphs most of us listeners understand how to read, and based off of those who have heard both IEMs in their own ears, I think it would be very fair to say these IEMs just sound nothing alike in the lows. However based off of looking at the graph comparisons you'd think that these IEMs may have a similar bass presentation. But you would never know this until you push play as the the 12mm DD in Z1R handles bass much differently than the dual BA in the Traillii.

From the beginning I have agreed that FR can show more than tonality, but I don't think it provides as much as you are claiming it does. Or certainly not to the extent to where a statement such as saying that Storm is only giving a certain experience because of how it is tuned.

Here is another example, these two IEMs I believe use the exact same driver but have different internal structures. One of them (and I already forgot which one because I removed the tags) has MUCH stronger sense of L/R separation and imaging whereas the other literally sounds like a blob of compressed sounds being presented in mono audio. I am not sure how anyone can look and come to a conclusion on which is which. If you think the sound at the eardrum between these sets is what gives such a difference between the perceived technical attributes between both, then it is oddly consistent amongst most people who have heard both.



Anyways, I really really must get to bed, I can't even think straight at this point and I'm not sure anything I wrote above makes sense anymore. It was a good chat. But we have different approaches and experiences regarding this topic and that is okay.

Wait, the Trailli and Z1R graph similarly in the bass region? Okay that's it, I officially denounce frequency graphs meaning anything to me! Those 2 sound presentations couldn't be more different.

 

[Frankie D]

I have stayed out of this till now. What the heck, as you all gave me a headache ( yet I keep reading ) I should be allowed to give someone else a headache.

I am no expert, but I have done some research in this area and what has always bothered me about these simple graphs is that they are exactly that; simplified graphs. Here is what I mean. Pick a note or notes on that graph and play them with a piano. Now a guitar. The graphs of the notes played by the piano and the guitar will be different as the overtones will be different which creates the unique timbre of each. For example:
Below are three charts of a flute, piano and trumpet all playing middle C.

All 3 are different accounting for the different timbre of each instrument at middle C.

In an IEM graph all we see is a single line going across all the frequencies. There is no timbral relationship depicted. Therefore how can one make any guess about the timbral sound of said IEM? This is just one example of a lack of data needed to understand how an IEM sounds.

 

[emdeevee]

I have stayed out of this till now. What the heck, as you all gave me a headache ( yet I keep reading ) I should be allowed to give someone else a headache.

I am no expert, but I have done some research in this area and what has always bothered me about these simple graphs is that they are exactly that; simplified graphs. Here is what I mean. Pick a note or notes on that graph and play them with a piano. Now a guitar. The graphs of the notes played by the piano and the guitar will be different as the overtones will be different which creates the unique timbre of each. For example:
Below are three charts of a flute, piano and trumpet all playing middle C.



All 3 are different accounting for the different timbre of each instrument at middle C.

In an IEM graph all we see is a single line going across all the frequencies. There is no timbral relationship depicted. Therefore how can one make any guess about the timbral sound of said IEM? This is just one example of a lack of data needed to understand how an IEM sounds.

Frankie, you put that perfectly and it's what I'm asking here...where in the squig can you determine the iem's timbre?

I know I can determine it at the eardrum because there I am at least hearing it. Where does the FR measurement demonstrate timbre?

 

[Yifang]

Wait, the Trailli and Z1R graph similarly in the bass region? Okay that's it, I officially denounce frequency graphs meaning anything to me! Those 2 sound presentations couldn't be more different.

The thing is though, what Resolve and the team are trying to claim is that the response of a specific sound characteristic is related to the ENTIRE frequency response, that while bass could be perceived as below 200Hz, the other aspects of it's perception could be linked to higher frequency ranges which we would assume are not relevant. Therefore despite the low end graphing the same, the differences could be a result of differences in frequencies outside of just the bass region, similar to how there is a high possibility that timbre is linked to the entire response range.

I'm keen to hear the explanation too, because while this concept of FR makes sense, that it probably provides more information than we are actually aware of in regards to the link between response and audible perception, I also can't see how there wouldn't be other variables which are inherent to the driver size/type/configuration.

I definitely don't agree with "These two IEMs measure the same so they are the same and therefore high end IEMs are just a scam", or something along these lines.

If brainlessly believing in FR helps you cope with a worse product than a better one which may cost more, then by all means please do so to boost your enjoyment.

With that being said, for the debate regarding the measurements, it's difficult to say current measurements are the limitation towards information, but rather, how do we know we are getting the maximum information out of existing measurements? I would believe we are more limited by our understanding towards measurements as as whole, rather than being limited by the measurement itself.

It's not possible to improve on measurements without fully comprehending what we currently have, and knowing where the limitations are, or what to improve on. We could say a limitation right now is accurate measurements are only up to 5KHz, so we should look to get accurate measurements up to 20KHz going forward. How are we then to know that 40KHz, despite being out of human hearing range, doesn't influence the tonal characteristics? Would we then need accurate measurements up to 40Khz, or do we hypothesize elsewhere?

More research into the relationship between factors itself is more important, because only then can we know where we need to improve measurement accuracy.

At the end of the day, I do believe there is a scientific explanation for it all, which can be supported by measurements, but it is the explanation itself which is currently lacking, more than the measurement methodology, tools, results necessarily are. Hopefully the research can be pushed deeper and bring even better audio for us going forward.

On a side note, check out this delivery truck I saw today

 

[DaveStarWalker]

You still seem to be disregarding a point I have brought up several times now. So I will just copy and paste what I posted above:

I know very well how frequency response works and how it can effect aspects of sound reproduction like you have stated with mentioning dynamics, detail, staging, and timbre. Some of this I am agreeing with. I just am not agreeing that FR is what we "pay" for when we buy an IEM nor do I think it is entirely responsible for what we experience inside our ears. I have repeatedly brought up that the situation in that you can take two identical frequency responses but have them be output by different driver types and they will likely not sound the same, therefore the "experience" would not be the same. If you think this has to do with how we perceive sound at our eardrum and not the laws of physics between different driver technologies or implementation, then I really don't know what else I can add to this conversation. Again, if it were flat out that simple we would all just be EQ'ing everything and headphones.com wouldn't have a business to run or $500 IEMs to compare to a Sennheiser HE-1 and take pre-orders for.

It's no different with televisions/monitors. There are different panels that have their own pros and cons. You cannot calibrate an IPS panel to have the same level of blacks as an OLED panel which flat out uses different technology to achieve what it does.

Agreed.

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".

Agreed too...

I see, but I'm not interested in EQ'ing. I want to be able to see a read a FR gaph and extrapolate these characteristics from it. How can I read a graph and determine how fast the bass decays or how textured it would be?

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

Same ...

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.

Good point....

 

[Resolve]

I have stayed out of this till now. What the heck, as you all gave me a headache ( yet I keep reading ) I should be allowed to give someone else a headache.

I am no expert, but I have done some research in this area and what has always bothered me about these simple graphs is that they are exactly that; simplified graphs. Here is what I mean. Pick a note or notes on that graph and play them with a piano. Now a guitar. The graphs of the notes played by the piano and the guitar will be different as the overtones will be different which creates the unique timbre of each. For example:
Below are three charts of a flute, piano and trumpet all playing middle C.



All 3 are different accounting for the different timbre of each instrument at middle C.

In an IEM graph all we see is a single line going across all the frequencies. There is no timbral relationship depicted. Therefore how can one make any guess about the timbral sound of said IEM? This is just one example of a lack of data needed to understand how an IEM sounds.

We have a video on this. Turns out you can actually show the same graph from a music stimulus.

 

[MayaTlab]

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.

Maybe we could throw an olive branch for some implementations with BA drivers with fairly elevated harmonic distortion of the bad kind (H3...) as well ? I can't deny that my crappy pair of NiceHCK X49's harmonic distortion is audible with some signals at common levels. But that may not apply to the Storm, and if it did it wouldn't reflect superbly well on it as harmonic distortion is a solved problem with $20 IEMs. Is it a front vented design BTW ? This would also be important in terms of FR at the drum (not just BA vs DD drivers).

Do you think that it would be helpful as well to make a video on minimum phase / excess group delay, or include these measurements in most reviews as a pedagogical tool, even if it's for the most part going to be a boring "yep it's flat" section ?

 

[Rolu]

The thing is though, what Resolve and the team are trying to claim is that the response of a specific sound characteristic is related to the ENTIRE frequency response, that while bass could be perceived as below 200Hz, the other aspects of it's perception could be linked to higher frequency ranges which we would assume are not relevant. Therefore despite the low end graphing the same, the differences could be a result of differences in frequencies outside of just the bass region, similar to how there is a high possibility that timbre is linked to the entire response range.

I'm keen to hear the explanation too, because while this concept of FR makes sense, that it probably provides more information than we are actually aware of in regards to the link between response and audible perception, I also can't see how there wouldn't be other variables which are inherent to the driver size/type/configuration.

I definitely don't agree with "These two IEMs measure the same so they are the same and therefore high end IEMs are just a scam", or something along these lines.

If brainlessly believing in FR helps you cope with a worse product than a better one which may cost more, then by all means please do so to boost your enjoyment.

With that being said, for the debate regarding the measurements, it's difficult to say current measurements are the limitation towards information, but rather, how do we know we are getting the maximum information out of existing measurements? I would believe we are more limited by our understanding towards measurements as as whole, rather than being limited by the measurement itself.

It's not possible to improve on measurements without fully comprehending what we currently have, and knowing where the limitations are, or what to improve on. We could say a limitation right now is accurate measurements are only up to 5KHz, so we should look to get accurate measurements up to 20KHz going forward. How are we then to know that 40KHz, despite being out of human hearing range, doesn't influence the tonal characteristics? Would we then need accurate measurements up to 40Khz, or do we hypothesize elsewhere?

More research into the relationship between factors itself is more important, because only then can we know where we need to improve measurement accuracy.

At the end of the day, I do believe there is a scientific explanation for it all, which can be supported by measurements, but it is the explanation itself which is currently lacking, more than the measurement methodology, tools, results necessarily are. Hopefully the research can be pushed deeper and bring even better audio for us going forward.

On a side note, check out this delivery truck I saw today

The thing is though, what Resolve and the team are trying to claim is that the response of a specific sound characteristic is related to the ENTIRE frequency response, that while bass could be perceived as below 200Hz, the other aspects of it's perception could be linked to higher frequency ranges which we would assume are not relevant. Therefore despite the low end graphing the same, the differences could be a result of differences in frequencies outside of just the bass region, similar to how there is a high possibility that timbre is linked to the entire response range.

I'm keen to hear the explanation too, because while this concept of FR makes sense, that it probably provides more information than we are actually aware of in regards to the link between response and audible perception, I also can't see how there wouldn't be other variables which are inherent to the driver size/type/configuration.

I definitely don't agree with "These two IEMs measure the same so they are the same and therefore high end IEMs are just a scam", or something along these lines.

If brainlessly believing in FR helps you cope with a worse product than a better one which may cost more, then by all means please do so to boost your enjoyment.

With that being said, for the debate regarding the measurements, it's difficult to say current measurements are the limitation towards information, but rather, how do we know we are getting the maximum information out of existing measurements? I would believe we are more limited by our understanding towards measurements as as whole, rather than being limited by the measurement itself.

It's not possible to improve on measurements without fully comprehending what we currently have, and knowing where the limitations are, or what to improve on. We could say a limitation right now is accurate measurements are only up to 5KHz, so we should look to get accurate measurements up to 20KHz going forward. How are we then to know that 40KHz, despite being out of human hearing range, doesn't influence the tonal characteristics? Would we then need accurate measurements up to 40Khz, or do we hypothesize elsewhere?

More research into the relationship between factors itself is more important, because only then can we know where we need to improve measurement accuracy.

At the end of the day, I do believe there is a scientific explanation for it all, which can be supported by measurements, but it is the explanation itself which is currently lacking, more than the measurement methodology, tools, results necessarily are. Hopefully the research can be pushed deeper and bring even better audio for us going forward.

On a side note, check out this delivery truck I saw today

I am not sure why this comment is a reply to mine as most of the remarks do not relate to what I wrote . I do not care for this discussion so much, and the Trailli vs Z1r comment was literally the only thing I read on this thread.

But because you replied- I don't believe the bass performance of both is different because the rest of the frequency response is different. Except maybe the punch everything on these two earphones is different on the low frequencies- decay, slam, texture, resolution, reverb, etc.

If it is indeed true that everything we hear should be measurable, the frequency graphs at this time are nowhere near being able to measure all of that. Maybe the solution is a 3D or 4D chart?

In any case I'm happy that folks for whom audiophilia is more than just a hobby and probably a profession are putting their time into measurements, but for me measurements in their current form do not mean anything outside of the manufacturers using it to demonstrate channel balance.

 

[Doltonius]

I have stayed out of this till now. What the heck, as you all gave me a headache ( yet I keep reading ) I should be allowed to give someone else a headache.

I am no expert, but I have done some research in this area and what has always bothered me about these simple graphs is that they are exactly that; simplified graphs. Here is what I mean. Pick a note or notes on that graph and play them with a piano. Now a guitar. The graphs of the notes played by the piano and the guitar will be different as the overtones will be different which creates the unique timbre of each. For example:
Below are three charts of a flute, piano and trumpet all playing middle C.



All 3 are different accounting for the different timbre of each instrument at middle C.

In an IEM graph all we see is a single line going across all the frequencies. There is no timbral relationship depicted. Therefore how can one make any guess about the timbral sound of said IEM? This is just one example of a lack of data needed to understand how an IEM sounds.

I find it puzzling that you get so close to the whole truth and yet stop at the last step. Timbral relationship is just the relative amplitude of the overtones, spread across the spectrum above the fundamental pitch, mostly integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. And frequency response simply determines the relative amplitude of overtones. If frequency response graphs are good for anything, that thing is making timbral predictions, as long as you are familiar with where the fundamental pitches are of each music note and what overtones that musical instrument will produce at a given pitch. All the information you need to make timbral predictions for an iem is contained in the frequency response, at the eardrum ideally. It is not a guess. It is all the information you need about the iem to know what timbral characteristics it has.

 

[Doltonius]

You still seem to be disregarding a point I have brought up several times now. So I will just copy and paste what I posted above:

I know very well how frequency response works and how it can effect aspects of sound reproduction like you have stated with mentioning dynamics, detail, staging, and timbre. Some of this I am agreeing with. I just am not agreeing that FR is what we "pay" for when we buy an IEM nor do I think it is entirely responsible for what we experience inside our ears. I have repeatedly brought up that the situation in that you can take two identical frequency responses but have them be output by different driver types and they will likely not sound the same, therefore the "experience" would not be the same. If you think this has to do with how we perceive sound at our eardrum and not the laws of physics between different driver technologies or implementation, then I really don't know what else I can add to this conversation. Again, if it were flat out that simple we would all just be EQ'ing everything and headphones.com wouldn't have a business to run or $500 IEMs to compare to a Sennheiser HE-1 and take pre-orders for.

It's no different with televisions/monitors. There are different panels that have their own pros and cons. You cannot calibrate an IPS panel to have the same level of blacks as an OLED panel which flat out uses different technology to achieve what it does.

Not even different units of the the same iem model have exactly the same frequency response, either measured or hypothetical at your eardrum, due to unit variation in manufacturing. It is simply impossible for you to claim that you have heard two different iems with the same response but sound different to you. If they sound different to you, there must be differences in frequency response, measured or not, but you probably chose to neglect them, dismissing the difference as too small to have resulted in the subjective difference. but that is not a justified move in reasoning.

The laws of physics determine what the sound is at your eardrum and that determines your subjective perception.

Headphones involve time-dimension variances due to reflections and resonances, and some headphones intentionally induce harmonic distortions to produce a certain effect. so indeed eq-ing won't be able to reproduce the sound. however, with iems, these factors usually don't come into play and eq-ing can definitely get you very far in simulating one iem with another.

The physical limitations of ips compared to oled is well-known and easily measured. what is the physical quantity that you purpose is responsible for the difference between BA, DD, planar, and EST? well I know that ba's have more harmonic distortion these days than the others, but still not high enough to be of concern. but other than that, it is mostly about what frequency response shapes they are most capable of reproducing in which frequency range. you can more easily get a healthy shape in the bass with DDs and smooth treble curves with EST's. and BAs are more easily made to sound in narrow bands in the midrange, so that you can fine tune the midrange. that is why they are chosen for their respect uses, mostly.

 

[Resolve]

Maybe we could throw an olive branch for some implementations with BA drivers with fairly elevated harmonic distortion of the bad kind (H3...) as well ? I can't deny that my crappy pair of NiceHCK X49's harmonic distortion is audible with some signals at common levels. But that may not apply to the Storm, and if it did it wouldn't reflect superbly well on it as harmonic distortion is a solved problem with $20 IEMs. Is it a front vented design BTW ? This would also be important in terms of FR at the drum (not just BA vs DD drivers).

Do you think that it would be helpful as well to make a video on minimum phase / excess group delay, or include these measurements in most reviews as a pedagogical tool, even if it's for the most part going to be a boring "yep it's flat" section ?

Yes, I have started to include these but it does become data overload in videos. I also do wonder if elevated H3 and H5 is influential in certain situations for multi-BA setups. In this instance probably not, since is actually quite low, but in general it could be.

 

[Doltonius]

I am not sure why this comment is a reply to mine as most of the remarks do not relate to what I wrote . I do not care for this discussion so much, and the Trailli vs Z1r comment was literally the only thing I read on this thread.

But because you replied- I don't believe the bass performance of both is different because the rest of the frequency response is different. Except maybe the punch everything on these two earphones is different on the low frequencies- decay, slam, texture, resolution, reverb, etc.

If it is indeed true that everything we hear should be measurable, the frequency graphs at this time are nowhere near being able to measure all of that. Maybe the solution is a 3D or 4D chart?

In any case I'm happy that folks for whom audiophilia is more than just a hobby and probably a profession are putting their time into measurements, but for me measurements in their current form do not mean anything outside of the manufacturers using it to demonstrate channel balance.

Do you have a reason for believing that the subjective bass performance is not affected by the rest of the frequency response? I will just provide one simple point: transients in a given frequency range requires higher frequencies to realize. Think about fourier transformations of square waves, which involve transients. the result of the transformation contains many many very high frequency components.

IEMs are minimum-phase systems. assuming negligible harmonic distortion, phase-mismatch, channel imbalance, etc, usually the case with decently made iems, then basically all the information in contained in the frequency response. if our efforts to interpret them fall short of explaining our subjective perception, it is not that they graphs don't contain enough information. it is that we are not skilled enough to extract the right inferences from the graphs.

one thing that frequency responses already reliably provide for us given our interpretive skills is timbre. whether an instrument will sound brighter, darker, duller, hollower, muddier, more natural, more awkward etc, can be easily read off of frequency response graphs as long as you know where the fundamentals and overtones of the notes of the instrument are; this is independent of the equipment.

 

[aaf evo]

Not even different units of the the same iem model have exactly the same frequency response, either measured or hypothetical at your eardrum, due to unit variation in manufacturing. It is simply impossible for you to claim that you have heard two different iems with the same response but sound different to you. If they sound different to you, there must be differences in frequency response, measured or not, but you probably chose to neglect them, dismissing the difference as too small to have resulted in the subjective difference. but that is not a justified move in reasoning.

The laws of physics determine what the sound is at your eardrum and that determines your subjective perception.

Headphones involve time-dimension variances due to reflections and resonances, and some headphones intentionally induce harmonic distortions to produce a certain effect. so indeed eq-ing won't be able to reproduce the sound. however, with iems, these factors usually don't come into play and eq-ing can definitely get you very far in simulating one iem with another.

The physical limitations of ips compared to oled is well-known and easily measured. what is the physical quantity that you purpose is responsible for the difference between BA, DD, planar, and EST? well I know that ba's have more harmonic distortion these days than the others, but still not high enough to be of concern. but other than that, it is mostly about what frequency response shapes they are most capable of reproducing in which frequency range. you can more easily get a healthy shape in the bass with DDs and smooth treble curves with EST's. and BAs are more easily made to sound in narrow bands in the midrange, so that you can fine tune the midrange. that is why they are chosen for their respect uses, mostly.

You are viewing this in terms of absolutes, when in fact our senses do not work this way. You can have a different perception of hearing, vision, smell, or taste simply by just having a headache or being tired. If you cannot understand the concept that different driver types will reproduce the same frequencies using different technologies which may result in a different listening experience, then I'd suggest trying more sets. Manufacturers don't just decide to throw in a DD for bass response because it's what they have lying around in their driver stock.

Again, you are speaking like what you preach is fact when it simply cannot be proven, so at this point I'd appreciate it if you and whoever else treats "frequency response at the ear drum" as an absolute could stop telling those of us who disagree with you that we are wrong or being neglectful. There is nothing wrong with your opinion.

 

[Doltonius]

You are viewing this in terms of absolutes, when in fact our senses do not work this way. You can have a different perception of hearing, vision, smell, or taste simply by just having a headache or being tired. If you cannot understand the concept that different driver types will reproduce the same frequencies using different technologies which may result in a different listening experience, then I'd suggest trying more sets. Manufacturers don't just decide to throw in a DD for bass response because it's what they have lying around in their driver stock.

Again, you are speaking like what you preach is fact when it simply cannot be proven, so at this point I'd appreciate it if you and whoever else treats "frequency response at the ear drum" as an absolute could stop telling those of us who disagree with you that we are wrong or being neglectful. There is nothing wrong with your opinion.

Trying more set will never do the job because there are no two different sets on the market that have exactly the same frequency response realized with different kind of drivers. As I said, not even different units of the same model have exactly the same response due to unit variation, and also, different fit with each listening. I don't know why you think simply trying more sets will help make your point.

Manufacturers use a certain type of driver in a frequency range because it is easier to achieve the desired frequency response in that region, at least for the more scientifically minded manufacturers. DDs more easily get your that healthy bass shape. ESTs more easily give you a smooth treble response. BAs more easily give you narrow frequency bands to fine tune the midrange. these choices don't presuppose the existence of factors not related to frequency response.

There is nothing wrong with paying thousands for tuning, if tuning is indeed all there is to sound in iems. and tuning to these complex shapes that are deliberately and meticulously designed as in the subtonic storm is no easy feat. even if eq-ing can theoretically realize all of that, coming up with the target itself is already a job that takes a lot of work. and realizing the response with purely analog means is something to appreciate in itself, just like mechanical watches. quartz and electronic watches have long overtaken mechanical watches in accuracy and reliability. but there is still a point of making and buying mechanical watches, just for the mechanical marvel they pull off. the same goes for iems and headphones. even if someday we have accurate "FR at the eardrum" measurement and every model is easily imitated with eq, there is still a point with making expensive analog iems and headphones that realize complex response, just to appreciate the marvels of acoustic design.

 

[Frankie D]

I do not follow your response. The current graphs only show one line…essentially it shows an IEM can play each frequency. The graph does not show any Timbral information other than if some basic overtones might be excited. Each instrument has its own set of overtones. How does that graph explain all of them for a musical track?