I`m now going to ask some questions about Dayton iMM-6 OWN calibration file with Your setup as I didn`t notice about it in Your website tutorial/guide. You talk about soundcard calibration and SPL calibration but no mention about iMM-6 own calibration file (like the one provided by Dayton) Maybe I missed something or am just stupid in this but...
1) How did You implement Dayton iMM-6 calibration file with REW? Or with REW separate calibration file for iMM-6 is not needed? Dayton has tuned/calibrated iMM-6 under certain specs - doesn`t that need to be considered too?
2) If You did use iMM-6 calibration file (not the one provided by Dayton, which is free-field calibration and created Your own), how did You calibrate that file?
I didn't use the Dayton's calibration file at all, neither did Biodegraded. I am not quite sure about the exact reasoning but he reported...in my own words...less realistic results using it. What I could do is run a measurement with and without to test it for myself.
REW does contain a space to implement the factory-issued calibration file.
If not using the calibration file introduces an error, it must be systemic considering the consistency of measurements between our two rigs.
That`s why I`m asking this from Otto. It almost seems to me that he is using either Dayton provided mic calibration file (which is useless for IEMs) or self-calibrated file which is littlebit off.
I`m not trying to nitpick here, Otto, just to understand why You have difference in graphs compared to others
Solution - find a manufacturer with a reference rig. Get him to measure an IEM and send it to you - along with the data from his measurements. Measure on your rig (same IEM, same tips, reference (flat) dac/amp with low OI. Build a compensation file. Remeasure and check the matching. Repeat with a second IEM (you should only need to tweak rather than build full compensation calibration then).
When you consistently have a good calibration file which is closely approximating the reference measurement rig - then you're in business.
And that`s why I`m asking Otto HOW he calibrated (if he did) his file.
I know I`m not getting accurate results with my Dayton iMM-6 as 1) software I`m using sets limitations and 2) I have self-matched my calibration file with some IEMs I own against other graphs found on internet (many with different rig) and averaged the results into my calibration. Result is not accurate as many DIY cheap rig users have here but I`m gettin pretty good "average" FR graph that mostly matches close enough to other graphs. And I don`t get such bass "boost" or "downfall" in high-mids/low-highs.
REW does contain a space to implement the factory-issued calibration file.
If not using the calibration file introduces an error, it must be systemic considering the consistency of measurements between our two rigs.
Yes, it does not contain the mic calibration. Thanks for pointing this out as it will have to go into the manuscript. And I will ask my friend for his reasoning for leaving it off (he picked the setup stuff up from another forum).
UPDATE: note that the "mic's calibration file is not used" note was in there already.
The reason why I assembled the setup script in the first place is (1) because I was asked to write down my experience to make the setup easier for others and (2) for myself to remember should I have to redo it. It was a lot of work.
And to be quite honest, the reason why I use the plastic coupler was because it was free and because I had never heard of any IEC711 standard at the time....hey, and there are other standards, too (now we really open a can of worms). I was glad getting that setup to produce a graph (that was consistent with my friend's). This was done in November, I did my first measurement in early 2019...and there is lots of time for improvement left. No master has ever fallen from the sky.
I had a discussion with @Brooko a while ago about Ken Ball's compensation curve and getting something similar. I compared the Brainwavz B400 curves by Brooko and my friend in detail (I didn't have a rig at the time, but, as said, Bio's and my curves are pretty much identical). Here Brooko's with black background.
The measurements with "my" setup revealed the channel imbalances in 2 pairs pretty well.
The real question is: while there are huge differences in the small details ["microdifferences"], does "my" graph not characterize the B400's basic flavour adequately ["macrodifferences"]? Is my graph totally uninformative or misleading? Is it massively inconsistent with Brooko's (except in the upper treble which are generally delicate)?
Last but not least I'd like to repeat my friend's opinion on the current discussion:
I don't know why this is even a subject of discussion. It should be obvious that there'll be differences due to different internal dimensions (all of volume, length and width) of the coupler, and the acoustic impedance is obviously different between a proper IEC one and a bit or bits of tubing. The links that durwood posted give dimensions for the IEC711, which a lot of people try to imitate (or have, because cheap Chinese ones are now available). I didn't try to copy that or any other when I made our stepped ones, I just used materials I had to hand that'd fit the end of the microphone and would conveniently fit medium tip sizes because, for the 100th time, I was interested in *relative* differences between mods to the same earphone or between different earphones that I had here, to see if I could correlate different measurement results with what I thought I was hearing. That the results so far seem to have been consistent with my perceived variations in tonality, including across different earphone types (with occasional surprises, eg UE900s, which is likely due to the odd venting), and not *massively* inconsistent with raw measurements from many other people, has been a bit of a surprise.
Different couplers will give different results. Instead of wondering why there are differences and picking at them, It would be more useful to *highlight* the differences so that people can mentally 'compensate' your measurements to those of others (and vice versa) for earphones they've heard.
Excerpt of the spoiler: "Different couplers will give different results. Instead of wondering why there are differences and picking at them, It would be more useful to *highlight* the differences so that people can mentally 'compensate' your measurements to those of others (and vice versa) for earphones they've heard."
In other words, if somebody thinks my low ends are generally exaggerated, let's say by 3 dB, it should be easily possible to mentally remove them. That's what I always do intuitively when looking at other people's graphs.
And when I asked my friend whether he'd like to buy an IEC711 coupler and mic, he responded that the plastic does it for his purposes, which are: differences between models, mods, and hearing.
P.S. And if somebody banned me from this thread, let's say on the grounds of using a plastic coupler or pulling boogers out of my nose, this would make my life easier .
Otto, it is OK to do those measurement as YOU want and feel/see right!
My question is rather towards understanding differences in setups and cause of different results.
Imho, when mic (the very essential part of measurement rig) is made/tuned/calibrated under certain circumstances with/for certain specifications/calibration, then measurement-rig should involve that part (though, in case of Dayton iMM-6, with user-modified-matched calibration file is needed as Dayton provided one is useless in IEM measuring purposes).
And this is the part what I personally think is "missing" from Your rig and cause of those little deviations compared to others.
You may discard my opinion on this, of course! Like You said it fills Your purpose.
@Otto Motor if you want my rew save files for specific IEMs to compare that I’ve used with the iec711 coupler, let me know. Would be interesting to see if you can create a compensation file that works with Dayton that closely comes to results from iec711.
@Otto Motor if you want my rew save files for specific IEMs to compare that I’ve used with the iec711 coupler, let me know. Would be interesting to see if you can create a compensation file that works with Dayton that closely comes to results from iec711.
That’s what I use. The imm6 fits certain syringes perfectly. And the cc graduations on the side of the syringe make it easy to calculate the coupler volume, trim it to the perfect length, and also maintain a consistent insertion depth each time.
That’s what I use. The imm6 fits certain syringes perfectly. And the cc graduations on the side of the syringe make it easy to calculate the coupler volume, trim it to the perfect length, and also maintain a consistent insertion depth each time.
He didn`t mean that. @yuriv used syringes pushed into IEM-fitting tube with needles at certain distances and created "extra chambers" to match resonances.
@Otto Motor if you want my rew save files for specific IEMs to compare that I’ve used with the iec711 coupler, let me know. Would be interesting to see if you can create a compensation file that works with Dayton that closely comes to results from iec711.
@Otto Motor if you want my rew save files for specific IEMs to compare that I’ve used with the iec711 coupler, let me know. Would be interesting to see if you can create a compensation file that works with Dayton that closely comes to results from iec711.
@Otto Motor if you want my rew save files for specific IEMs to compare that I’ve used with the iec711 coupler, let me know. Would be interesting to see if you can create a compensation file that works with Dayton that closely comes to results from iec711.
If I get chance of silent environment tonight, will try to post IT01 vs. KPE graph of my poorly calibrated iMM-6. Anyway, my measuring showed much more similar peaks and relative FR area levels, even without "fixed" 8kHz resonant peak.
Here ya go @Otto Motor , KPE (custom nozzle grills/filter, with stock S-size silicone tips+ slip-stop rings) vs. IT01 (stock grills and stock small black medium bore silicone tips, but modified backplate) on my current calibration (matched @ 1kHz):
vs. Your current rig calibration:
Here is crins IT01 (IEC60318-4) vs. KPE (IEC60318-4) scaled to match and matched @ 1kHz rough overlay (photoshop). I hope he can provide better overlay graph.
General curve on Your rig is actually pretty nice but highs level vs bass level is something to be checked.
My own rig is poorly calibrated like I said (3kHz is little off and affected by mods also).
Here ya go @Otto Motor , KPE (custom nozzle grills/filter, with stock S-size silicone tips+ slip-stop rings) vs. IT01 (stock grills and stock small black medium bore silicone tips, but modified backplate) on my current calibration (matched @ 1kHz):
vs. Your current rig calibration:
Here is crins IT01 (IEC60318-4) vs. KPE (IEC60318-4) scaled to match and matched @ 1kHz rough overlay (photoshop). I hope he can provide better overlay graph.
General curve on Your rig is actually pretty nice but highs level vs bass level is something to be checked.
My own rig is poorly calibrated like I said (3kHz is little off and affected by mods also).
Interesting. I use medium narrow-bore tips and the other earpiece of the iBasso has a bit more upper midrange. Your iBasso has more upper midrange than your KPE, which is probably an artifact of your mod.
Here the pre-my-rig measurement by my friend with our classic divebomber bass/lower midrange and a rather subdued upper midrange...if you add 3 dB to the latter, nobody would complain.
Yes, it does not contain the mic calibration. Thanks for pointing this out as it will have to go into the manuscript. And I will ask my friend for his reasoning for leaving it off (he picked the setup stuff up from another forum).
UPDATE: note that the "mic's calibration file is not used" note was in there already.
The reason why I assembled the setup script in the first place is (1) because I was asked to write down my experience to make the setup easier for others and (2) for myself to remember should I have to redo it. It was a lot of work.
And to be quite honest, the reason why I use the plastic coupler was because it was free and because I had never heard of any IEC711 standard at the time....hey, and there are other standards, too (now we really open a can of worms). I was glad getting that setup to produce a graph (that was consistent with my friend's). This was done in November, I did my first measurement in early 2019...and there is lots of time for improvement left. No master has ever fallen from the sky.
I had a discussion with @Brooko a while ago about Ken Ball's compensation curve and getting something similar. I compared the Brainwavz B400 curves by Brooko and my friend in detail (I didn't have a rig at the time, but, as said, Bio's and my curves are pretty much identical). Here Brooko's with black background.
The measurements with "my" setup revealed the channel imbalances in 2 pairs pretty well.
The real question is: while there are huge differences in the small details ["microdifferences"], does "my" graph not characterize the B400's basic flavour adequately ["macrodifferences"]? Is my graph totally uninformative or misleading? Is it massively inconsistent with Brooko's (except in the upper treble which are generally delicate)?
Last but not least I'd like to repeat my friend's opinion on the current discussion:
I don't know why this is even a subject of discussion. It should be obvious that there'll be differences due to different internal dimensions (all of volume, length and width) of the coupler, and the acoustic impedance is obviously different between a proper IEC one and a bit or bits of tubing. The links that durwood posted give dimensions for the IEC711, which a lot of people try to imitate (or have, because cheap Chinese ones are now available). I didn't try to copy that or any other when I made our stepped ones, I just used materials I had to hand that'd fit the end of the microphone and would conveniently fit medium tip sizes because, for the 100th time, I was interested in *relative* differences between mods to the same earphone or between different earphones that I had here, to see if I could correlate different measurement results with what I thought I was hearing. That the results so far seem to have been consistent with my perceived variations in tonality, including across different earphone types (with occasional surprises, eg UE900s, which is likely due to the odd venting), and not *massively* inconsistent with raw measurements from many other people, has been a bit of a surprise.
Different couplers will give different results. Instead of wondering why there are differences and picking at them, It would be more useful to *highlight* the differences so that people can mentally 'compensate' your measurements to those of others (and vice versa) for earphones they've heard.
Excerpt of the spoiler: "Different couplers will give different results. Instead of wondering why there are differences and picking at them, It would be more useful to *highlight* the differences so that people can mentally 'compensate' your measurements to those of others (and vice versa) for earphones they've heard."
In other words, if somebody thinks my low ends are generally exaggerated, let's say by 3 dB, it should be easily possible to mentally remove them. That's what I always do intuitively when looking at other people's graphs.
And when I asked my friend whether he'd like to buy an IEC711 coupler and mic, he responded that the plastic does it for his purposes, which are: differences between models, mods, and hearing.
P.S. And if somebody banned me from this thread, let's say on the grounds of using a plastic coupler or pulling boogers out of my nose, this would make my life easier .
The devil is in the lower treble. Your graph showing ~20 dB drop from 3kHz to 8kHz. Mine showing 10dB max, and quite a lot less than that through that upper treble.
I have no issues (and nor should you care what I think) re your measurements. All I know is that if it was me - and I was showing a null which isn't there, I'd want to fix it. YMMV.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
