[earmonger]

I have tried a lot of budget-fi hype trains here on Head-Fi. Most aren't bad. Exaggerated bass, shrill or metallic treble. But over $100 (IEMs) or $200 (headphones), I expect something serious -- not a fast-food boom-sizzle salt-fat blast but something that respects the original production.

 

[nikbr]

I'm interested because they look like they have a chance of staying put in my ears compared to mx500s and bells

Have you tried wearing them looped around the ears like IEMs? Sure it looks ridiculous but it could work since cable is not pulling downwards then.

 

[Uprox]

For those that have heard the CCA Trio, do you think these are midfi?
If so or not, why?

Obviously the Trio doesn't qualify to those that judge midfi by price, but what about performance?

I think IEM level is determined by technicalities: resolution, separation (air), details, transients.
Can Trio deliver these parameters? I doubt it. Is there any pleasure in listening to the Trio? Probably there is.
So mid-fi level can be absorbed by those who need better experience of critical listening, not only a pleasure of sound profile of tonal balance.

 

[theveterans]

I think IEM level is determined by technicalities: resolution, separation (air), details, transients.
Can Trio deliver these parameters? I doubt it. Is there any pleasure in listening to the Trio? Probably there is.
So mid-fi level can be absorbed by those who need better experience of critical listening, not only a pleasure of sound profile of tonal balance.

According to Precog and Resolve, technicalities is all about FR to your eardrum hence it doesn't exist

 

[BS5711]

My gosh some folks over think things.

I think most reasonable folks can understand what is appropriate here, not dirt cheap junk, not mad expensive luxury, the rest is in the middle be it good, bad or otherwise.

It is an internet forum folks not a school exam where you might get marked down. If you think it is vaguely applicable talk about it, I don't think anybody will crucify you for missing their self imposed definition.

And we don't all need better experience at critical listening, some of us just like to enjoy our music that sounds good on decent gear that isn't cheap junk and also doesn't cost the price of a used car.

I am trying out some Azla Crystals on my Solaris Mercury that I got at a very nice discount powered by a humble Shanling M3 Ultra this afternoon. They sound excellent !

 

[Hypops]

According to Precog and Resolve, technicalities is all about FR to your eardrum hence it doesn't exist

Their point, as I understand it, isn't that things we call "technicalities" don't exist. It's that they are measurable, secondary effects that could be identified by certain traits in an FR graph. The problem is that no one really knows what those traits are yet. In other words, they (and many engineers) think these qualities are all captured in the FR graph, but like reading ancient Egyptian before the Rosetta Stone, we just don't have the "key" to understand them yet. I suspect they're right, but as with other transducer types (loudspeakers and full-size headphones), other measurable traits matter too, like distortion, impedance, group delay, etc.

 

[Uprox]

According to Precog and Resolve, technicalities is all about FR to your eardrum hence it doesn't exist

My ears and brain tell to me about technicalities, not Precog or Resolve ))
Frankly I don't know exactly who they are, just some reviewers may be - I don't care.

 

[theveterans]

My gosh some folks over think things.

I think most reasonable folks can understand what is appropriate here, not dirt cheap junk, not mad expensive luxury, the rest is in the middle be it good, bad or otherwise.

It is an internet forum folks not a school exam where you might get marked down. If you think it is vaguely applicable talk about it, I don't think anybody will crucify you for missing their self imposed definition.

And we don't all need better experience at critical listening, some of us just like to enjoy our music that sounds good on decent gear that isn't cheap junk and also doesn't cost the price of a used car.

I am trying out some Azla Crystals on my Solaris Mercury that I got at a very nice discount powered by a humble Shanling M3 Ultra this afternoon. They sound excellent !

CFA legit knows how to tune their IEMs which is so unconventional to any target preference yet still hits that tonality while maximizing technicality through some curvy FR tuning perceived at the coupler

Just looking at its FR, it should've sounded wonky and bloated and lacking technicalities as heck but Bonneville's FR at my eardrum sounded more like the RTings target than the coupler perceived FR response with technicalities right up there to even Subtonic storm's level IMHO

 

[o0genesis0o]

Their point, as I understand it, isn't that things we call "technicalities" don't exist. It's that they are measurable, secondary effects that could be identified by certain traits in an FR graph. The problem is that no one really knows what those traits are yet. In other words, they (and many engineers) think these qualities are all captured in the FR graph, but like reading ancient Egyptian before the Rosetta Stone, we just don't have the "key" to understand them yet. I suspect they're right, but as with other transducer types (loudspeakers and full-size headphones), other measurable traits matter too, like distortion, impedance, group delay, etc.

Until they can figure out an exact and reliable method to tweak FR digitally to make a generic DD to sound EXACTLY like top “technical” performers like, say, the STORM or Anni, then all that is being argued is purely semantic and wordplay, IMHO. Exact match, not kind of, not close enough, not kind of similar. EXACT.

Given the current state of measurement tool and maybe just the nature of IEM, this hypothesis is unfalsifiable, no different from the “technical performance” camp, thus guaranteeing no smug or condescending.

You see, audio science gives and audio science takes

 

[Uprox]

And we don't all need better experience at critical listening, some of us just like to enjoy our music that sounds good on decent gear that isn't cheap junk and also doesn't cost the price of a used car.

Golden words!

 

[theveterans]

My ears and brain tell to me about technicalities, not Precog or Resolve ))
Frankly I don't know exactly who they are, just some reviewers may be - I don't care.

They pretty much reviewed the Subtonic Storm and chalked up all technicalities as a unique perception of FR to their eardrums and not to the measuring equipment as explained by @Hypops

 

[Barndoor]

Their point, as I understand it, isn't that things we call "technicalities" don't exist. It's that they are measurable, secondary effects that could be identified by certain traits in an FR graph. The problem is that no one really knows what those traits are yet. In other words, they (and many engineers) think these qualities are all captured in the FR graph, but like reading ancient Egyptian before the Rosetta Stone, we just don't have the "key" to understand them yet. I suspect they're right, but as with other transducer types (loudspeakers and full-size headphones), other measurable traits matter too, like distortion, impedance, group delay, etc.

I kind of get that. My understanding is graphs are frequency sweeps.
But what about, if for example, a single piano note was graphed over time? Obviously a single piano note is a frequency range. Would an IEM that is deemed to be technically good have a more defined shape to the range compared to a lesser iem? Would the variation over time be different?

 

[Uprox]

They pretty much reviewed the Subtonic Storm and chalked up all technicalities as a unique perception of FR to their eardrums and not to the measuring equipment as explained by @Hypops

They are great! It’s a pity that their wealth of experience is useless to me.

 

[Hypops]

Until they can figure out an exact and reliable method to tweak FR digitally to make a generic DD to sound EXACTLY like top “technical” performers like, say, the STORM or Anni, then all that is being argued is purely semantic and wordplay, IMHO. Exact match, not kind of, not close enough, not kind of similar. EXACT.

Given the current state of measurement tool and maybe just the nature of IEM, this hypothesis is unfalsifiable, no different from the “technical performance” camp, thus guaranteeing no smug or condescending.

You see, audio science gives and audio science takes

I actually agree with you. I was just describing what I think the Headphone Show folks are chasing. The "measurement-ist" theory is that once--or if--we get better at measuring individual ears, matching one headphone to another's sound is all possible. I think they overestimate how easy it would be to calculate such a complicated thing as individual HRTF. To say nothing of ear tips and where those ear tips actually fit in individual ears, or different driver combinations and distortion profiles. It all gets hopelessly complicated, almost to the point of mathematical chaos. I myself don't think we'll ever be capable of calculations that precise. But folks like Resolve seem to.

 

[o0genesis0o]

I actually agree with you. I was just describing what I think the Headphone Show folks are chasing. The "measurement-ist" theory is that once--or if--we get better at measuring individual ears, matching one headphone to another's sound is all possible. I think they overestimate how easy it would be to calculate such a complicated thing as individual HRTF. To say nothing of ear tips and where those ear tips actually fit in individual ears, or different driver combinations and distortion profiles. It all gets hopelessly complicated, almost to the point of mathematical chaos. I myself don't think we'll ever be capable of calculations that precise. But folks like Resolve seem to.

IMHO, I love to see the lenses of scientific method being pointed at our hobby, but I don’t like how it is being used. People seem to forget that we are not trying to transfer signal from point A to point B with minimal loss (ala low noise and distortion) when it comes to personal audio. It is the auditory illusion that is precisely the point of personal audio. Not signal purity. Not anymore given the performance of modern audio gears.

Folks with scientific inclination and engineering know how should point those capabilities toward forming theories about how to control that auditory illusion via mechanical and electrical means. But no, such a concept is too slippery for numerical minds, so they rather stick to signal purity and sweep the point of personal audio under the rug, pretending that signal purity is the goal of personal audio. But no, “it is the subjective crowd is ignorant and arrogant”, never the insufferable audio scientist wannabe themselves.

I admire the approach of Final Audio though I rarely agree with their IEM. Whatever they set out to control, they always managed to hit. Remember how they throw everything out the window to make the biggest IEM soundstage with A series? Relationship between stage and dynamic with B series?