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

[SilverEars]

Originally Posted by average_joe /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
To me, I categorize the sound of most CIEMs in one of two categories: organic or analytical (although I reserve the right to change what I call the categories

).  The organic sound typically focuses on the entire presentation more so than individual instruments, and the analytical is the opposite.  I would put the UM3X in the organic category while I would put the JH13 in the analytical category (from what I have been told, and hearing the JH16).  The V6 is also in the analytical mold per joker.  

Hi joe, I'm not understanding what this means, can you explain this in more detail?  

 

[newzild]

   
Lol, they don't just cut the high frequency when changing the driver count as they retune the CIEM.
 
The demo of the LS-6 I had the chance to audition was amazing; I really liked the sound signature because it is neutral with plenty of detail yet liquid and musical.  The LS8+ is the upgrade to the LS8, keeping the warmth while improving overall performance.

 
Thanks mate - appreciate the info. I'm a bit of a bunny regarding technical knowledge as I only spend a tiny fraction of my time in these forums.
 
I sent you a PM before seeing this post. I would still appreciate a reply to the PM if you have the time.
 
Regards,
Scott

 

[tupac0306]

  Hi joe, I'm not understanding what this means, can you explain this in more detail?  

Is it that hard to understand? 

 
NT6 is analytical, while SE5 is organic (they are both close to neutral though, with NT6 being on the more accurate side). The instruments on NT6 are presented in a clear/forward way. 
 
As Joe stated:  It is much easier to hear the (instrument) detail from the NT-6 as its slices and dices presentation. 
 
And organic sound will still allow you to hear the instrument, but it's either laid back, or very smooth (not as bright) so that you can focus on the overall sound presentation (every element in the song). 
 
You can hear analytical signature in vocals too, but the instruments often take over very easily.
 
I think I should mention that the new JH13 FP is not analytical to my ears, it sits somewhere in between with a good combination of instrument detail and musicality. But the old JH16 IS analytical like the old JH13 with more clarity/brightness and speed.
 
 
Actually there is another category: neither analytical nor organic, but not neutral either.
E.g. JH roxanne. I am pretty sure you have hear everybody saying how warm, organic it is (people even compare it with LCD 3. smh lol). It's warm because of the its extremely rolled off upper treble, but the instruments are still presented in typical "JH" way, that's analytical, forward and direct (look at the HUGE peak at 9k). So this type of sound signature is definitely "special" IMO. Another example is H8P, but it does it better than roxanne to my ears. Hate it or love it
 
Hey Joe, you have no interest in any of the VE6 model? x1,x2 xc?

 

[SilverEars]

Yes, that's what I would have guessed since NT6/pro are referred to as being a bit boosted on the highs which is in line with being analytical or detailed.  So I take it that since the treble area is not accentuated, the presentation isn't forwarding the detail, but keeping the whole presentation at a more even level.  I've heard of the terms liquid mids or organic and never knew that it meant exactly.  I'm guessing organic means certain treble frequencies are dropped which is pushing back the sharp details. I'm sure there is something else to it also.
 
With NT6 you can distinguish the source's output pretty clearly, and of course sources also contribute to the presentation because of this reason.  I have heard dry treble, which would be on the more analytical side to more laid back treble, and more even tonality.  Two sources that were ES9018 based, and one sounded more accurate and other sounded dry.  But I still get the sense that NT6 is more on the analytical side.  Possibly the NT6 is not fully balanced.  From what I've experienced so far, there is a compromise of detail and clarity, vs more organic presentation.

 

[tupac0306]

  Yes, that's what I would have guessed since NT6/pro are referred to as being a bit boosted on the highs which is in line with being analytical or detailed.  So I take it that since the treble area is not accentuated, the presentation isn't forwarding the detail, but keeping the whole presentation at a more even level.  I've heard of the terms liquid mids or organic and never knew that it meant exactly.  I'm guessing organic means certain treble frequencies are dropped which is pushing back the sharp details. I'm sure there is something else to it also.
 
With NT6 you can distinguish the source's output pretty clearly, and of course sources also contribute to the presentation because of this reason.  I have heard dry treble, which would be on the more analytical side to more laid back treble, and more even tonality.  Two sources that were ES9018 based, and one sounded more accurate and other sounded dry.  But I still get the sense that NT6 is more on the analytical side.  Possibly the NT6 is not fully balanced.  From what I've experienced so far, there is a compromise of detail and clarity, vs more organic presentation.

Yeah, there are lots of different frequency responses (bass+mid+treble, all three) can result in a organic sound, I would say, most of the case is the lower-mid treble region is pulled back. This area is very significant to the overall clarity, instrument forwardness, sharpness, airiness, and brightness (also vocal sibilance). But other parts of treble also contributes to some extent of these too, but upper-treble is also responsible in say, detail level, resolution, transparency and imaging focus. But don't expect to have all of the above unless the CIEM has a flat treble like NT6.
 
There are also other types of "organic" that doesn't require a special tuning,i.e. The treble can be flat but the overall it is just laid back, so it "serves as a contrast". Classic example, future sonics, MG6 Pro. I don't think you can even hear any treble in this CIEM. lol.
 
Also there is difference between organic and warm. warm can mean any CIEM that is "NOT bright" (e.g. VE stage 3). But organic IMO needs to have a forward mid-region, so the vocals needs to sound full and dense (e.g. SEM6, or SE5). But again, this needs a cut in the lower treble to “protrude” the mid section.
 
For NT6, it's still the most accurate CIEM I have heard. But if I stopped listen to it for a while, the first time I put it on, it always sounds bright. Then my brain adjust to it later. And I cannot listen to it for too long without resting.

 

[Barra]

   
 
To me, I categorize the sound of most CIEMs in one of two categories: organic or analytical (although I reserve the right to change what I call the categories

).  The organic sound typically focuses on the entire presentation more so than individual instruments, and the analytical is the opposite.  

@iburdeinick
I don't think anyone could go wrong with the v6 stage, it is a steal for its price. Having just listened through the UE, 1964ears, and Noble Audio lineups, it compares well with CIEMs twice it's price. The competing flagships may hold small SQ or technical advantages, but we are talking inches, not miles. IMO, at that level we are really only talking signature preferences anyways.

 
Do you think it is bright/analytical?

I am just a baby at comparing CIEMs compared to you, but I tend to use 4 categories when comparing CIEMs including: warm, colored, balanced, and analytical. Analytical to me is bright and lean with with elevated treble to force detail, and reduced bass and textures to get them out of the way as well as some planned treble spikes for ultimate detail. Balanced on the other hand is designed to be accurate to the recording providing exactly what the mastering engineer intended. A well done balanced CIEM will have deep bass when called for where an analytical CIEM will not and a warm CIEM will have bass even if it is not intended just for the fun of it.
 
I put the v6 stage into the balanced category as it is very accurate and has intense bass when called for. Compared to its brother, the v6 which is very very warm, the v6 stage could easily be considered bright, but I thought the K10 with its elevated treble was brighter than both the stage or my NT6pro. What was special about the stage was that it had an involving full sized presentation that got out of the way of the music. There are others i like a little better, but it is a super value that should be considered when comparing price.
 
However, take everything I say with a grain of salt as you may remember, I am one of the few that doesn't consider the NT6pro to be bright. I consider the NT6pro to be balanced as well but entering the organic area when paired with the HUGO or the Geek Out 1000. So maybe it is just my 50 year old man ears losing treble capabilities or maybe I have a special NT6pro that is tuned or fits my ears differently. Or maybe we are just using different labels for the same thing. 

 

[iscorpio71]

Thanks AJ,
 
I do feel that organic is much more to my liking, more natural sounding and fluid. 
 
I've never heard of the Fusion and never heard an hybrid custom, although I would like to try them I still prefer what I've heard and liked, Westone.
 
Any way I will wait for the UM3X to arrive reshelled and also the UE Superfi 5Pro, that will give me time and enjoyment while I'll save
 
Thanks!

 

[SilverEars]

There are lots of variables that comes into play when people post their opinions on the characteristics of headphones.  When one says a headphone is analytical, you have to question what type of music they listen to. Everybody has their favorite pick of genres and artists, and especially if their preference is narrow, they will know the characteristic of the headphone based mostly on how the recording works with the FR of the headphone.  For example, jazz or classical and any audiophile recording will be more tolerant to headphone that people generally regard as being analytical.  I think of analytical headphones not playing well with compressed music as they tend to sustain the treble level in the area of the spectrum that will cause listening fatigue.  If you look at more relaxed type of genres, they are not so forward in the region so they can come off more liquid.  If a headphone is perfectly balance, I believe it would change it's character based on the recording.  Not all recordings are created equal.  
 
Two contrasting headphone I feel are the HD800 and the LCD3.  HD800 boost the treble area creating more of a cold tonality and come off bright and analytical as it will push out the details.  On the other hand, the LCD3 will dip in the region where HD800 will be boosted creating more of what I think the organic sound people are referring to here.  I'm curious how a headphone that is average of the two will sound like.  People seek engaging headphones, and perhaps the analytical nature of headphones detract from the musical sounds of certain genres that wasn't meant to be recorded have it's sound reveal at such a level.  Perhaps people don't want the happy medium between the two, they want one or the other.  

 

[average_joe]

 
Thanks mate - appreciate the info. I'm a bit of a bunny regarding technical knowledge as I only spend a tiny fraction of my time in these forums.
 
I sent you a PM before seeing this post. I would still appreciate a reply to the PM if you have the time.
 
Regards,
Scott

 
I will check the PM soon...lots to do
 

  Hi joe, I'm not understanding what this means, can you explain this in more detail?  

 

  Is it that hard to understand? 

 
NT6 is analytical, while SE5 is organic (they are both close to neutral though, with NT6 being on the more accurate side). The instruments on NT6 are presented in a clear/forward way. 
 
As Joe stated:  It is much easier to hear the (instrument) detail from the NT-6 as its slices and dices presentation. 
 
And organic sound will still allow you to hear the instrument, but it's either laid back, or very smooth (not as bright) so that you can focus on the overall sound presentation (every element in the song). 
 
You can hear analytical signature in vocals too, but the instruments often take over very easily.
 
I think I should mention that the new JH13 FP is not analytical to my ears, it sits somewhere in between with a good combination of instrument detail and musicality. But the old JH16 IS analytical like the old JH13 with more clarity/brightness and speed.
 
 
Actually there is another category: neither analytical nor organic, but not neutral either.
E.g. JH roxanne. I am pretty sure you have hear everybody saying how warm, organic it is (people even compare it with LCD 3. smh lol). It's warm because of the its extremely rolled off upper treble, but the instruments are still presented in typical "JH" way, that's analytical, forward and direct (look at the HUGE peak at 9k). So this type of sound signature is definitely "special" IMO. Another example is H8P, but it does it better than roxanne to my ears. Hate it or love it
 
Hey Joe, you have no interest in any of the VE6 model? x1,x2 xc?

 
Thanks for helping to explain as well as the info on the new JH products.  I know what you mean, and sometimes it is hard to categorize.  More below.
 
Yes, I am interested in the VE6, but my mouth is full and I don't want to shove any more food in there and chew with my mouth open
 

  I am just a baby at comparing CIEMs compared to you, but I tend to use 4 categories when comparing CIEMs including: warm, colored, balanced, and analytical.  Analytical to me is bright and lean with with elevated treble to force detail, and reduced bass and textures to get them out of the way as well as some planned treble spikes for ultimate detail. Balanced on the other hand is designed to be accurate to the recording providing exactly what the mastering engineer intended. A well done balanced CIEM will have deep bass when called for where an analytical CIEM will not and a warm CIEM will have bass even if it is not intended just for the fun of it.
 
I put the v6 stage into the balanced category as it is very accurate and has intense bass when called for. Compared to its brother, the v6 which is very very warm, the v6 stage could easily be considered bright, but I thought the K10 with its elevated treble was brighter than both the stage or my NT6pro. What was special about the stage was that it had an involving full sized presentation that got out of the way of the music. There are others i like a little better, but it is a super value that should be considered when comparing price.
 
However, take everything I say with a grain of salt as you may remember, I am one of the few that doesn't consider the NT6pro to be bright. I consider the NT6pro to be balanced as well but entering the organic area when paired with the HUGO or the Geek Out 1000. So maybe it is just my 50 year old man ears losing treble capabilities or maybe I have a special NT6pro that is tuned or fits my ears differently. Or maybe we are just using different labels for the same thing.

 
Isn't warmth technically coloration?  The last sentence in the first paragraph to me = neutral and capable (capability is something different and related to quality, not sound signature per se).
 
One man's neutral is another man's bright!
 

  There are lots of variables that comes into play when people post their opinions on the characteristics of headphones.  When one says a headphone is analytical, you have to question what type of music they listen to. Everybody has their favorite pick of genres and artists, and especially if their preference is narrow, they will know the characteristic of the headphone based mostly on how the recording works with the FR of the headphone.  For example, jazz or classical and any audiophile recording will be more tolerant to headphone that people generally regard as being analytical.  I think of analytical headphones not playing well with compressed music as they tend to sustain the treble level in the area of the spectrum that will cause listening fatigue.  If you look at more relaxed type of genres, they are not so forward in the region so they can come off more liquid.  If a headphone is perfectly balance, I believe it would change it's character based on the recording.  Not all recordings are created equal.  
 
Two contrasting headphone I feel are the HD800 and the LCD3.  HD800 boost the treble area creating more of a cold tonality and come off bright and analytical as it will push out the details.  On the other hand, the LCD3 will dip in the region where HD800 will be boosted creating more of what I think the organic sound people are referring to here.  I'm curious how a headphone that is average of the two will sound like.  People seek engaging headphones, and perhaps the analytical nature of headphones detract from the musical sounds of certain genres that wasn't meant to be recorded have it's sound reveal at such a level.  Perhaps people don't want the happy medium between the two, they want one or the other.  

 
I don't see how a sound signature is dependent upon music unless the headphone is ultra-transparent.  It might be better to question the quality of the tracks vs. the music.  I test with a very wide range of genres and quality levels, and analytical is analytical IMO.
 
LCD3 = organic (based on what I know from reading and owning the LCD-2) while HD800 = analytical based on my listening experiences.
 
Here is how I see (hear) things:
This is complex and dependent upon frequency response, impulse response, and decay.  These things can be measured though FR charts, decay plots, impulse response, and square wave response.  The question that I don't know how to answer is how do all of these measurements play together to determine sound qualities.  Two of the measurements are over the entire frequency spectrum, FR charts and decay plots, while the other two are taken at a single frequency point for each measurement.  
 
So, if I am not relying on measurements, which I don't know how to translate into actual sound accurately anyways (how do you measure soundstage size and presentation perspective?), I use my ears.  Plus, FR plots don't necessarily translate to real world perception without correlation with decay plots (however they truly correlate).  Since I am not measuring, I am trying to correlate ADSR, or what I term "note quality" to help with my categorization.  Faster than how I hear "neutral" would be analytical while slower or a longer average sustain is organic.  Something neutral + transparent can go to either side of the spectrum depending on the recording, and I believe the SE5 is the closest I have heard to this (I don't know many recordings that are purposely bright and have thinner notes).
 
In my mind, this brings up another question: what is neutral (see one man's bright above)?  Can you get 10 head-fiers to agree?  Is the NT-6 truly neutral?  Is it the LS6?  How about the VE6?  All?  Are are all neutral in different ways.  How about natural?  Is that different than neutral?  
 
Fun stuff!
 

  Thanks AJ,
 
I do feel that organic is much more to my liking, more natural sounding and fluid. 
 
I've never heard of the Fusion and never heard an hybrid custom, although I would like to try them I still prefer what I've heard and liked, Westone.
 
Any way I will wait for the UM3X to arrive reshelled and also the UE Superfi 5Pro, that will give me time and enjoyment while I'll save
 
Thanks!

 
Enjoy.

 

[tomscy2000]

Are are all neutral in different ways.  How about natural?  Is that different than neutral?  

 
50 shades of grey?

 

[shakur1996]

Here is my 5 cents to the topic (I've owned Custom Art Pro330v2, Custom Art Pro210, Cosmic Ears BA4R, Etymotic Research ER4P/S. I auditioned someone else Spiral Ear 5way Reference, Hidition NT-6 Pro. I have also auditioned universal JH Audio Roxanne), IMO:

1. neutral=balanaced. This means that bass,mids and treble are playerd more or less with the same loudness/on the same level/they constitute the same layer of music; small dips and peaks here and there does not change my perception of neutralness. For example I consider Ety ER4S as almost neutral (almost because to my ears they have un-natural bump in the uppder mids/lower treble region to artificially push out the details and clarity). On the other side of the spectrum is for example Roxanne - IMO they play bass and mids more or less on the same level, but treble constitues a 2nd layer of music, it is laid back (I agree with someone who said that although Roxanne has laid back and rolled-off treble, treble in this IEM is agressive, pushed forward);

2. natural is the opossite of analytical. For me those two sides of the spectrum are connected with, amongst other things, decay time and brightness. I consider CIEMs/IEMs as natural if they have just "right amount" of decay time, neither too short nor too long; of course, it is hard to say where is the boarder. For example I consider Ety ER4S as having too short decay time so they are analytical but they are definitely not natural (natural CIEM/IEM does not cut notes too quickly).
But there is also another apsect of the analytical charcter of phones i.e. brigthness. I also consider bright CIEMs/IEMs as analytical although if a given CIEM/IEM has longer decay time it is somehow neither analytical nor natural, but definitely bright. Brightness is connnected with a bump in the upper mids/lower treble to push the details and clarity. For example, I consider Ety ER4S as a little bit bright IEM; to my ears Hidition NT-6 Pro is very very bright (I could not listen to it).
I see that people are also using terms like "warm", "organic", "dark". I have a hard time to find the right explanation for those words. I often find that what is is considered by others as warm is simply dark for me i.e. there is some sort of veil on the sound (details can be heard but you have a constant desire to increase the volume to better hear the details). Regarding "organic" I think that is more or less similar to my understanding of "natural"; to me te the distinction between organic and analytical on the basis of whether a given CIEM/IEM focuses on entire presentation or on details, is ambigous. For example, I wouldn't say that Cosmics were analytical, but you could easily shift your focus between the entire presentation and the details (I guess this issue is connected not with the CIEM/IEM character but rather with how do we listen to the music - there are some who focuse just on listening to the music and there are some who try to hear every little nuance in the recordings).

 

[piotrus-g]

 Regarding "organic" I think that is more or less similar to my understanding of "natural"

I'd say by organic many understand this "liquid", lush but not overly warm type of signature. Organic feature often focuses around midrange which is a bit influenced by mid bass, but not too much. On the other hand organic IEMs will rarely present any harshness.
 
PS: shakur fix your quote you've forgot ] at the end of tag.

 

[shakur1996]

I'd say by organic many understand this "liquid", lush but not overly warm type of signature. Organic feature often focuses around midrange which is a bit influenced by mid bass, but not too much. On the other hand organic IEMs will rarely present any harshness.

PS: shakur fix your quote you've forgot ] at the end of tag.

Thanks Peter for input. I fixed the quote simply by removing it

 

[tupac0306]

 
Here is how I see (hear) things:
This is complex and dependent upon frequency response, impulse response, and decay.  These things can be measured though FR charts, decay plots, impulse response, and square wave response.  The question that I don't know how to answer is how do all of these measurements play together to determine sound qualities.  Two of the measurements are over the entire frequency spectrum, FR charts and decay plots, while the other two are taken at a single frequency point for each measurement.  
 
So, if I am not relying on measurements, which I don't know how to translate into actual sound accurately anyways (how do you measure soundstage size and presentation perspective?), I use my ears.  Plus, FR plots don't necessarily translate to real world perception without correlation with decay plots (however they truly correlate).  Since I am not measuring, I am trying to correlate ADSR, or what I term "note quality" to help with my categorization.  Faster than how I hear "neutral" would be analytical while slower or a longer average sustain is organic.  Something neutral + transparent can go to either side of the spectrum depending on the recording, and I believe the SE5 is the closest I have heard to this (I don't know many recordings that are purposely bright and have thinner notes).
 
In my mind, this brings up another question: what is neutral (see one man's bright above)?  Can you get 10 head-fiers to agree?  Is the NT-6 truly neutral?  Is it the LS6?  How about the VE6?  All?  Are are all neutral in different ways.  How about natural?  Is that different than neutral?  
 
Fun stuff!
 
 

Knowledge! 

Here is my 5 cents to the topic (I've owned Custom Art Pro330v2, Custom Art Pro210, Cosmic Ears BA4R, Etymotic Research ER4P/S. I auditioned someone else Spiral Ear 5way Reference, Hidition NT-6 Pro. I have also auditioned universal JH Audio Roxanne), IMO:

1. neutral=balanaced. This means that bass,mids and treble are playerd more or less with the same loudness/on the same level/they constitute the same layer of music; small dips and peaks here and there does not change my perception of neutralness. For example I consider Ety ER4S as almost neutral (almost because to my ears they have un-natural bump in the uppder mids/lower treble region to artificially push out the details and clarity). On the other side of the spectrum is for example Roxanne - IMO they play bass and mids more or less on the same level, but treble constitues a 2nd layer of music, it is laid back (I agree with someone who said that although Roxanne has laid back and rolled-off treble, treble in this IEM is agressive, pushed forward);

2. natural is the opossite of analytical. For me those two sides of the spectrum are connected with, amongst other things, decay time and brightness. I consider CIEMs/IEMs as natural if they have just "right amount" of decay time, neither too short nor too long; of course, it is hard to say where is the boarder. For example I consider Ety ER4S as having too short decay time so they are analytical but they are definitely not natural (natural CIEM/IEM does not cut notes too quickly).
But there is also another apsect of the analytical charcter of phones i.e. brigthness. I also consider bright CIEMs/IEMs as analytical although if a given CIEM/IEM has longer decay time it is somehow neither analytical nor natural, but definitely bright. Brightness is connnected with a bump in the upper mids/lower treble to push the details and clarity. For example, I consider Ety ER4S as a little bit bright IEM; to my ears Hidition NT-6 Pro is very very bright (I could not listen to it).
I see that people are also using terms like "warm", "organic", "dark". I have a hard time to find the right explanation for those words. I often find that what is is considered by others as warm is simply dark for me i.e. there is some sort of veil on the sound (details can be heard but you have a constant desire to increase the volume to better hear the details). Regarding "organic" I think that is more or less similar to my understanding of "natural"; to me te the distinction between organic and analytical on the basis of whether a given CIEM/IEM focuses on entire presentation or on details, is ambigous. For example, I wouldn't say that Cosmics were analytical, but you could easily shift your focus between the entire presentation and the details (I guess this issue is connected not with the CIEM/IEM character but rather with how do we listen to the music - there are some who focuse just on listening to the music and there are some who try to hear every little nuance in the recordings).

Well put Tupac~ 
 
It can be hard to describe: neutral, balanced, natural, accurate. 
 
I do agree that neutral doesn't have to be accurate, but it needs to be balanced. Natural sound needs to be easy on the ears. Accurate doesn't exist in headphones.

 

[shakur1996]

Knowledge! 
Well put Tupac~ 

It can be hard to describe: neutral, balanced, natural, accurate. 

I do agree that neutral doesn't have to be accurate, but it needs to be balanced. Natural sound needs to be easy on the ears. Accurate doesn't exist in headphones.

Thanks tupac

For me accuracy is very hard to define. I would say that a given CIEM/IEM is accurate if it is true to the recording. But, I'm also not ensure whether such CIEM/IEM actually exist. Ety ER4S may have most accurate FR response, but in terms of note decay etc. I truly doubt whether they could be called accurate (first of all they lack subbass and body - definitely there are songs which were recorded in such a way that they are outputing subbass rumble and body).