Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)

[Andreas2402]

Me either..

 

[average_joe]

Sorry about that; here is the proper link (which you may have already read), which is my summary and thoughts on the announcement.  I will be reviewing the ES50 in the future.  The tuning is different and I will try to find out more about the drivers, etc. and what exactly was changed. 

 

[Mython]

  Sorry about that; here is the proper link

 
 
Thanks, Joe - I think it's clear that this new (non)-sleep schedule we've devised for you is already leading to mistakes.
 
 
 
Everyone, I put forward a new motion that we allow Joe 1 hour sleep per night, instead of none.
 
All those in favour, say "aye"!
 
 
 
 
...BTW, I still can't see your viewpoints in that corrected link; just an overview/summary of Westone's press release.

 

[Deviltooth]

   
 
Thanks, Joe - I think it's clear that this new (non)-sleep schedule we've devised for you is already leading to mistakes.
 
 
 
Everyone, I put forward a new motion that we allow Joe 1 hour sleep per night, instead of none.
 
All those in favour, say "aye"!
 
 
 
 
...BTW, I still can't see your viewpoints in that corrected link; just an overview/summary of Westone's press release.

1 hour is acceptable provided he spends the time dreaming about CIEMs.

 

[tomscy2000]

I'm quite curious about the Ambient AM3 Reference Edition. It seems similar in goal to the UERM (which I enjoy very much), except it only comes out at around $500 USD, when converted from 3900 UAH and padded for exchange rates:
 
Courtesy of Google Translate (and some cleaning up by me):

A distinctive feature of the AM3 Reference Edition is that in this model there is no embellishment in the sound. Ambient Acoustics created this model with maximum linearity over the entire frequency range!
 
...This allowed a more accurate balance and smooth frequency response to meet the requirements of the most sophisticated listener. The model will be interesting primarily for musicians, sound engineers, and audiophiles who need to monitor accurate sound!

 
Indeed, frequency response looks like a decent approximation of neutral:
 

​

Slight early treble roll-off, and 800-2k rise is not as steep as I expect, but overall, still looks close to neutral, with a reasonable bass boost.​

 ​

Anyone else find it intriguing?

 

[Deviltooth]

  I'm quite curious about the Ambient AM3 Reference Edition. It seems similar in goal to the UERM (which I enjoy very much), except it only comes out at around $500 USD, when converted from 3900 UAH and padded for exchange rates:
 
 
Indeed, frequency response looks like a decent approximation of neutral:
 

​

Slight early treble roll-off, and 800-2k rise is not as steep as I expect, but overall, still looks close to neutral, with a reasonable bass boost.​

 ​

Anyone else find it intriguing?

It's hard not to.  When I think of neutral in audio I connect it with 'truth'.  The rendition of the music closest to what was heard/intended in the studio by the artists.  That's very seductive.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Never thought I would cross path with the other joe on this forum as it would be a cold day in hell before I got CIEMs. Well that cold day has arrived I made my humble entrance into the CIEM world with these
http://www.head-fi.org/t/458903/mingo-cm3-custom-iems


I'll detail my experience later if I have time. But first: given that I got shallow "comfort fit" CIEMs, is it normal if the seal loses a bit (sound from the CIEMs remains normal, but isolation drops a bit) if my posture is off? (I'd say that over the course of walking and commuting to work the seal varies between 100% and 70%, with the right ear dropping to 60% at times. They seal best when I'm sitting down (like I was when having the impressions done) or having my head tilted down (e.g. watching my phone) and seem to do worst (relatively speaking) if I'm walking around with a heavyish bag on my shoulders.

And if shallow fit is called "comfort" fit, is a 2nd bend fit uncomfortable? Does it really help make a more consistent seal? And would movement of the jaw, etc. cause acrylic CIEMs with a 2nd bend fit to mash against the ear canal? (I suspect not, given that the 2nd bend fit is called the "musician's fit", so you are supposedly able to sing with them on?)

 

[Joe Bloggs]

In the meantime, I found that I am not able to lie down with these CIEMs. The ear canals distort just enough to either break the seal on both ears or create a strong vacuum if a seal is made by pushing the CIEMs in. Would this problem go away with a second bend mold or actually get worse?

 

[Inks]

  I'm quite curious about the Ambient AM3 Reference Edition. It seems similar in goal to the UERM (which I enjoy very much), except it only comes out at around $500 USD, when converted from 3900 UAH and padded for exchange rates:
 
 
Indeed, frequency response looks like a decent approximation of neutral:
 

​

Slight early treble roll-off, and 800-2k rise is not as steep as I expect, but overall, still looks close to neutral, with a reasonable bass boost.​

 ​

Anyone else find it intriguing?

Considering that's raw, that's FAR from neutral. That bass looks ridiculously boosted, the midrange balance looks good [all the way to 3k] but there's too much 4-6k presence and that 10 peak may be problematic to a smaller extent. Definitely not high bandwidth considering the roll-off, but not terrible. 

 

[average_joe]

  I'm quite curious about the Ambient AM3 Reference Edition. It seems similar in goal to the UERM (which I enjoy very much), except it only comes out at around $500 USD, when converted from 3900 UAH and padded for exchange rates:
 
 
Indeed, frequency response looks like a decent approximation of neutral:
 

​

Slight early treble roll-off, and 800-2k rise is not as steep as I expect, but overall, still looks close to neutral, with a reasonable bass boost.​

 ​

Anyone else find it intriguing?

 
It may be very nice, but I am more intrigued by the AM6 HiRez.
 

Never thought I would cross path with the other joe on this forum as it would be a cold day in hell before I got CIEMs. Well that cold day has arrived

I made my humble entrance into the CIEM world with these

http://www.head-fi.org/t/458903/mingo-cm3-custom-iems


I'll detail my experience later if I have time. But first: given that I got shallow "comfort fit" CIEMs, is it normal if the seal loses a bit (sound from the CIEMs remains normal, but isolation drops a bit) if my posture is off? (I'd say that over the course of walking and commuting to work the seal varies between 100% and 70%, with the right ear dropping to 60% at times. They seal best when I'm sitting down (like I was when having the impressions done) or having my head tilted down (e.g. watching my phone) and seem to do worst (relatively speaking) if I'm walking around with a heavyish bag on my shoulders.

And if shallow fit is called "comfort" fit, is a 2nd bend fit uncomfortable? Does it really help make a more consistent seal? And would movement of the jaw, etc. cause acrylic CIEMs with a 2nd bend fit to mash against the ear canal? (I suspect not, given that the 2nd bend fit is called the "musician's fit", so you are supposedly able to sing with them on?)

 
 

In the meantime, I found that I am not able to lie down with these CIEMs. The ear canals distort just enough to either break the seal on both ears or create a strong vacuum if a seal is made by pushing the CIEMs in. Would this problem go away with a second bend mold or actually get worse?

 
Welcome to the world of CIEMs, they look nice Yes, the fit is problematic.  The shorter the canal, the higher the chances of issues with the seal breaking, and with longer canals there is a higher chance, although generally fairly slight from my experience and discussion with others, for fit issues with longer canals.  But, musician's fit monitors can be very comfortable for extended periods of time and never lose a seal.  I would get a refit and probably a new set of impressions.  Make sure the impression depth is quite deep, with the ear dams in your ears as far as you can tolerate which should result in a good fit regardless of the canal length.  

 

[tomscy2000]

Inks /img/forum/go_quote.gif  Considering that's raw, that's FAR from neutral. That bass looks ridiculously boosted, the midrange balance looks good [all the way to 3k] but there's too much 4-6k presence and that 10 peak may be problematic to a smaller extent. Definitely not high bandwidth considering the roll-off, but not terrible. 

You really like using superlatives, don't you?

 

[Inks]

Hmm I was hoping for a productive response, that's simply hm take based on my knowledge.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

It may be very nice, but I am more intrigued by the AM6 HiRez.




Welcome to the world of CIEMs, they look nice Yes, the fit is problematic.  The shorter the canal, the higher the chances of issues with the seal breaking, and with longer canals there is a higher chance, although generally fairly slight from my experience and discussion with others, for fit issues with longer canals.  But, musician's fit monitors can be very comfortable for extended periods of time and never lose a seal.  I would get a refit and probably a new set of impressions.  Make sure the impression depth is quite deep, with the ear dams in your ears as far as you can tolerate which should result in a good fit regardless of the canal length.  

Thanks Joe!

Er, open mouth, closed mouth, bite block? (my first impressions were with a bite block) I heard there's a dedicated ear impressions thread, can you link me to it? FWIW these CIEMs are OEMed by Unique Melody if that makes any difference (they do 2nd bend molds? Mingo said they have to ask them for me. I told them to ask, while they are at it, whether my particular pair of ears can have 2nd bend molds made for them--as the first bend molds I got here seem to taper to a rather narrow opening, with little room for acrylic around the sound tube. I'm kinda afraid that if the 2nd bend molds have such a narrow "neck", the tips might break off like icicles with a hard bump )

 

[tomscy2000]

  Hmm I was hoping for a productive response, that's simply hm take based on my knowledge.

If you're looking for a productive pursuit, there are better options that trolling on head-fi, which is predominantly subjective in nature when it comes to the approach of audio.
 
I never claimed that the AM3 was "perfectly neutral", and never applied any type of reference sound field to the label "neutral" either. I merely termed it as a "decent approximation of neutral", which to me merely implies that many (not all) would probably find this earphone fairly subjectively flat; perhaps not perfectly flat, but reasonably flat.
 
Fine, if you want productive:

1. Look at the vertical axes and the intervals. How is the bass amplitude ridiculously boosted in any literary characterization of the word "ridiculous" ? Ridiculous is the characterization of anything absurd, and/or deserving/inviting derision or mockery. Should that bass response be mocked? Well, I guess you're doing that. Boosted? Yes. Ridiculous? Absolutely not.
2. Aside from the rising bass shelf, which is perhaps +2-3 dB greater in the sub-bass region, the rest of the response behaves somewhat similar to the GR07 MK II --- while the GR07 isn't diffuse-field or Olive-Welti (who came up with that ridiculous moniker anyway? I'm pretty sure Sean Olive and Todd Welti are somewhat disturbed that their findings have already been named) flat as you would prefer, but there are many individuals that find the GR07 subjectively pleasant to listen to, and reasonably flat in response. How many people are complaining of the 10 kHz peak also present in the GR07?
3. Treble "roll-off" is not a qualifiable statement for IEC-60711 measurements. Actually, ANSI 3.25 is more accurate, and whatever Paul Barton and the Canadian NRC have (modded from the Zwislocki design) is likely more accurate still. IEC-60711 (60318-4) couplers have a 7.5mm diameter opening, which can behave like an acoustic short circuit in the high frequencies (Don Wilson of Etymotic stated this personally). Whereby balanced armature drivers are indeed physically limited in bandwidth, high frequency results taken from an IEC-60711 cannot be characterized with confidence.
4. We have no verifiable information with respect to Ambient Acoustics' testing methodology --- whether they measure with the exit bores at the reference plane, with the dampers at the reference plane, with the individual's 2nd bend at half the distance from the DRP, or anything plausible with respect to approximating residual canal volume, and thus we don't know what half-wave resonances in the results are real or artifactual. We don't know the smoothing resolution on that graph. We don't know a lot of parameters. I wasn't taking that graph and praising it in holy sanctimony in any way, and only suggested that the AM3 might be something that people looking for a neutral-sounding monitor may possibly be interesting in. At least Ambient Acoustics freely releases their results to allow prospective buyers to make an informed decision on whether or not their particular product is suitable for them or not.
5. Why comment on a product that you're not interested in anyway, other than to pose hollow criticism?

 

[Inks]

 
If you're looking for a productive pursuit, there are better options that trolling on head-fi, which is predominantly subjective in nature when it comes to the approach of audio.
 
I never claimed that the AM3 was "perfectly neutral", and never applied any type of reference sound field to the label "neutral" either. I merely termed it as a "decent approximation of neutral", which to me merely implies that many (not all) would probably find this earphone fairly subjectively flat; perhaps not perfectly flat, but reasonably flat.
 
Fine, if you want productive:

1. Look at the vertical axes and the intervals. How is the bass amplitude ridiculously boosted in any literary characterization of the word "ridiculous" ? Ridiculous is the characterization of anything absurd, and/or deserving/inviting derision or mockery. Should that bass response be mocked? Well, I guess you're doing that. Boosted? Yes. Ridiculous? Absolutely not.
2. Aside from the rising bass shelf, which is perhaps +2-3 dB greater in the sub-bass region, the rest of the response behaves somewhat similar to the GR07 MK II --- while the GR07 isn't diffuse-field or Olive-Welti (who came up with that ridiculous moniker anyway? I'm pretty sure Sean Olive and Todd Welti are somewhat disturbed that their findings have already been named) flat as you would prefer, but there are many individuals that find the GR07 subjectively pleasant to listen to, and reasonably flat in response. How many people are complaining of the 10 kHz peak also present in the GR07?
3. Treble "roll-off" is not a qualifiable statement for IEC-60711 measurements. Actually, ANSI 3.25 is more accurate, and whatever Paul Barton and the Canadian NRC have (modded from the Zwislocki design) is likely more accurate still. IEC-60711 (60318-4) couplers have a 7.5mm diameter opening, which can behave like an acoustic short circuit in the high frequencies (Don Wilson of Etymotic stated this personally). Whereby balanced armature drivers are indeed physically limited in bandwidth, high frequency results taken from an IEC-60711 cannot be characterized with confidence.
4. We have no verifiable information with respect to Ambient Acoustics' testing methodology --- whether they measure with the exit bores at the reference plane, with the dampers at the reference plane, with the individual's 2nd bend at half the distance from the DRP, or anything plausible with respect to approximating residual canal volume, and thus we don't know what half-wave resonances in the results are real or artifactual. We don't know the smoothing resolution on that graph. We don't know a lot of parameters. I wasn't taking that graph and praising it in holy sanctimony in any way, and only suggested that the AM3 might be something that people looking for a neutral-sounding monitor may possibly be interesting in. At least Ambient Acoustics freely releases their results to allow prospective buyers to make an informed decision on whether or not their particular product is suitable for them or not.
5. Why comment on a product that you're not interested in anyway, other than to pose hollow criticism?

Please refrain from offensive remarks such as labelling posts as "trolling", it leads nowhere....
 
Yup, you said it was a decently neutral response, I simply disagree and don't even think it's close based on the data shown, not even decently. 
 
10db boost is simply "ridiculous" IMO, disagree if you'd like but in my experience that kind of boost is not close to decently neutral, in other words, it's exaggerated IMO. GR07 has approximately less than half of the bass boost of this IEM and it's subjectively likable because it does indeed follow every standard fairly well whether it be DF or OW [term which Dr.Olive had no issue with]. One of it's flaw is it's sibilance which indicates there's a unpleasant peak...True about the simulator, but IME, while not precisely accurate, based on the data alone I'll bet pretty good money it's still not high bandwidth as in reaching 20k hz. Insertion depth can change those peaks but won't change that bass boost and the potential limited bandwidth, even then, the claim was made based on the information given, if you are questioning the graph yourself, why make such a claim in the first place? Simply not close to decently neutral based on the information given, I just inform based on my knowledge and I do respect the fact they have given such information in the first place, I just want to make the picture clear. Because I have the right to express my opinion, I have given my reasons, hope this makes it less "hollow". 
 
[edit: LOL just noticed the way the graph is presented is really awkard and compressed in terms of db steps. So I take it back, nothing special though, similar to TDK BA200 but lesss balanced as the whole treble past 6k is pretty hot...ie boosted]