[Virtu Fortuna]

So it's basically sounstage vs. tonality?
 
I don't know. It's a tough question.
 
Number 2 has a narrow soundstage? I don't like the narrow sound but then again tonality is also very important.
 
I think I would prefer tonality if the sounstage is OK

 

[fzman]

OK, more rampbling coming-you are forewarned!
 
It really is a tough question, one I often struggle with.  It is almost impossible to get everything on the wish list done completely and perfectly.  You do, however, know it when you hear it.  For me, the timbre/tonality is really important. Once that is right, getting a 3-D palpable holographic image on a really open stage is the icing on the cake.  The question for me comes down to whether I want my gear to add that stuff, or just let it come out, but only if it is on the recording.  And, equally important is which errors I am more willing to accept, be they additive or subtractive.  In my fantasy world, all recordings would be perfect, and the gear would present them in all of their musical and sonic glory.  
 
I am also aware that describing/reviewing gear is done at a certain 'level of description' that does not correspond to the way we consume the playback when listening for enjoyment, and that the words can get in the way, or even dissect the sound in ways that are unnatural and unsatisfying. For example, if I attend a live, acoustic concert, I am there to hear the musicains playing together, and want to be able to hear it clearly to get the full effect. It should be an aesthetic, emotional, human eperience. If, on the other hand, I am an acoustic designer, and have been hired to 'retune' the hall, I will be listening in a much differnt way, i.e., the music isn't even music at that point, it is just test tones for my analysis.  
 
Maybe what I am really pushing for is a very differnt style of prose for gear reviews. At the end of the day I want to know whether the gear gets me more or less in touch with the music.  Did it make me stay up til 3 A.M.- think about a book review that says "I couldn't put this book down, it hooked me on page one, and kept me reading all night until I finished it, and now I want to buy allof his/her books in the hope they are just as good".  Note, the review never talked about plot, charavter development, meter, word choice, descriptive prowess, etc.  The easier it is to think about and discuss those specifics, to me, means the book wasn't that good. 
 
None of this is to demean or denigrate reviewers, just to further reveal my own special sonic pathology.

 

[Vignelli]

u should try fidue sirius though
i rating it up above oriolus..
but this is my opinion of course.. 

 

[Virtu Fortuna]

Thanks for the suggestion. If I get my hands on them they'll definitely be added.

 

[yang2910]

Possible to add in the Campfire Andromeda into the comparison?

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

What are the ratings in each category based on?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[moshen]

Possible to add in the Campfire Andromeda into the comparison?

+1

 

[listen4joy]

possible to add Empire Ears Zeus?

 

[Majid Mute]

Possible to add in the Campfire Andromeda into the comparison?

+1

 

[Virtu Fortuna]

What are the ratings in each category based on?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

It's an average based on all the points on the table. 

 

[Virtu Fortuna]

Thank you for the suggestions guys. I will definitely add more IEM's as I listen to them for review or testing.

 

[flinkenick]

 
I am also aware that describing/reviewing gear is done at a certain 'level of description' that does not correspond to the way we consume the playback when listening for enjoyment, and that the words can get in the way, or even dissect the sound in ways that are unnatural and unsatisfying. For example, if I attend a live, acoustic concert, I am there to hear the musicains playing together, and want to be able to hear it clearly to get the full effect. It should be an aesthetic, emotional, human eperience. If, on the other hand, I am an acoustic designer, and have been hired to 'retune' the hall, I will be listening in a much differnt way, i.e., the music isn't even music at that point, it is just test tones for my analysis.  
 
Maybe what I am really pushing for is a very differnt style of prose for gear reviews. At the end of the day I want to know whether the gear gets me more or less in touch with the music.  Did it make me stay up til 3 A.M.- think about a book review that says "I couldn't put this book down, it hooked me on page one, and kept me reading all night until I finished it, and now I want to buy allof his/her books in the hope they are just as good".  Note, the review never talked about plot, charavter development, meter, word choice, descriptive prowess, etc.  The easier it is to think about and discuss those specifics, to me, means the book wasn't that good. 
 
None of this is to demean or denigrate reviewers, just to further reveal my own special sonic pathology.

This is a common thought that I see reflected on a regular basis. The core concept is that music should be about what we feel - the emotional experience, and audiophile terminology is too analytical and distant from the music. Now if you wouldn't mind, let me defend the 'reviewer perspective' and explain why this reasoning does not work, and we in fact should stick to the audiophile terminology as much and precisely as possible.
 
Music is a deeply emotional experience when done right: the music of your preference, and the proper gear to let that music shine. But as we see from that sentence, both the music of preference and proper gear for that are highly subjective, and there will be as much variation in both music styles and gear, as there are people to hear it. So, the chance that a piece of equipment can convey the same emotional experience for one person as the next, is in fact more unlikely than it is probable. Someone that listens to classical or jazz music will value very different sonic properties as someone listening to dance, metal or hip hop. A 'perfect' iem for one genre, will probably be more of a specialist than an allrounder also suitable for the others.
 
So, if I were to write a review that focuses on how an iem is able to move me, what kind of emotional experience it creates for me - would that be a better review than describing its frequency distribution, soundstage, transparency and resolution? It would be a good read, and very enthusiastic, but it would be heavily biased. People might think they can relate better to it, but this only holds up if you listen to the same music with the same style of listening. More importantly, what one person describes as 'great mids' or 'high resolution' depends on what their experience so far has been. That's why we see a lot of reviews on head fi that hype an iem immensely since it is their first TOTL iem. I was guilty of this myself, so I know. Everything just seems perfect when you're making that first step up. But when somebody else with more or different experiences hears it, it might be a letdown.
 
However, if we both speak the same language, and I am able to accurately and objectively describe the way the music is presented, then this allows the reader to infer if that iem will match their preference and accordingly recreate that personal emotional experience. In fact, I would argue this is the only way that people with very different different tastes, experiences and expectations can gain valuable information from the same review. 
 
So, this why I would advocate the opposite; people need to use and understand terms like transparency, resolution, separation, treble extension, etc, way more. I only very rarely read reviews that give me an accurate picture of how sound will be conveyed, because people tend to just write 'the mids are great'

 Focusing on personal experience will not improve this

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

What are the ratings in each category based on?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

It's an average based on all the points on the table. 

I meant for each category. For example what separates an 8.5 mid FR from a 9 mid FR? What does an 8 for tonality mean?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[fzman]

  This is a common thought that I see reflected on a regular basis. The core concept is that music should be about what we feel - the emotional experience, and audiophile terminology is too analytical and distant from the music. Now if you wouldn't mind, let me defend the 'reviewer perspective' and explain why this reasoning does not work, and we in fact should stick to the audiophile terminology as much and precisely as possible.
 
Music is a deeply emotional experience when done right: the music of your preference, and the proper gear to let that music shine. But as we see from that sentence, both the music of preference and proper gear for that are highly subjective, and there will be as much variation in both music styles and gear, as there are people to hear it. So, the chance that a piece of equipment can convey the same emotional experience for one person as the next, is in fact more unlikely than it is probable. Someone that listens to classical or jazz music will value very different sonic properties as someone listening to dance, metal or hip hop. A 'perfect' iem for one genre, will probably be more of a specialist than an allrounder also suitable for the others.
 
So, if I were to write a review that focuses on how an iem is able to move me, what kind of emotional experience it creates for me - would that be a better review than describing its frequency distribution, soundstage, transparency and resolution? It would be a good read, and very enthusiastic, but it would be heavily biased. People might think they can relate better to it, but this only holds up if you listen to the same music with the same style of listening. More importantly, what one person describes as 'great mids' or 'high resolution' depends on what their experience so far has been. That's why we see a lot of reviews on head fi that hype an iem immensely since it is their first TOTL iem. I was guilty of this myself, so I know. Everything just seems perfect when you're making that first step up. But when somebody else with more or different experiences hears it, it might be a letdown.
 
However, if we both speak the same language, and I am able to accurately and objectively describe the way the music is presented, then this allows the reader to infer if that iem will match their preference and accordingly recreate that personal emotional experience. In fact, I would argue this is the only way that people with very different different tastes, experiences and expectations can gain valuable information from the same review. 
 
So, this why I would advocate the opposite; people need to use and understand terms like transparency, resolution, separation, treble extension, etc, way more. I only very rarely read reviews that give me an accurate picture of how sound will be conveyed, because people tend to just write 'the mids are great'

 Focusing on personal experience will not improve this

 
Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I'll reply to the main points here, but think this may be too off the main topic of this thread, and would certainly be happy to continue past this in PMs. I am not really commenting on your reviews, but rather a pattern I perceive in online equipment commentary in general.  You write quite well (certainly better than my one-draft, stream of consciousness style in my posts here).  
 
That said, I do not think that music is solely an emotional experience, nor do I believe that using audiophile terminology to describe the performance of gear  is useless or wrong-minded, because it doesn't convey the emotional content and/or  its subjective relationship to a specific listener.What I think happens (not your reviews specifically, I am speaking in general terms here) is that lots of people listen to entirely electronically created music, and have no reference point for how it "should" sound, since they were not there during the recording process.  Perhaps also, as you have said, they have too little experience with music, its live performance, and the range of gear and the attainable performance levels at the state of the art. 
 
I was comparing some alternative filter inserts for my Shure 846s this very morning, and used a Dave Holland live recording, feeding the 846s from my PAW Gold.  What I noticed immediately from the listening experience was that there was a bit less bass weight (expressed in my head as more sound from the strings of the bass, and less from the big wood body of the bass) than with the Shure white filters.  I also noted that the impact of the percussion-the sound of sticks hitting drum heads was less realistic than from good dynamic driver-based iems.  I did not perform any waveform analysis, I did not express my personal preferences--those ARE subjective, describing how the presentation diverges from "the real thing" is not subjective, although it is empirical. My comments on the drum sounds are based, in large part, on being a drummer, and having heard lots of drumming live, unamplified.  I used a live jazz recording, since there is a fairly specific sound the recording 'has', and that is the benchmark for how gear plays it back.  
 
As far as the whole genre issue is concerned, whenever someone mentions that a product would be more suited for certain specific genres, I read that as a criticism of the product.  I would argue that good gear would not 'care' what genre it plays, and would do them all equally well.  I understand that specific shortcomings can play into the subject taste is specific listeners, or that the shortcomings may not be (too) exposed by specific genres.....  
 
Your last sentence is right-on!!!  My comments about the jargon 'losing the music' is those reviews that have paragraph heads like 'Bass', 'Mids', 'Treble'.....   that would be like reviewing an ensemble by reviewing each individual musician...  FAIL!
 
I think we agree more than we disagree.....  

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Interesting thread here
 
My personal favourite iem used to be oriolus and k10u, then now it may be shift to Katana. I think you really need to Katana to the list!