Yet for some people, clearly, the original tuning had 'special sauce'. Moral of the story: everyone has their own taste in special sauce and might not be indexing for outright technicality or clarity.
Thanks for the link.
Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions
- Thread starter Precogvision
- Start date
Yet for some people, clearly, the original tuning had 'special sauce'. Moral of the story: everyone has their own taste in special sauce and might not be indexing for outright technicality or clarity.
Thanks for the link.
anyone got any detail on the new Dunu SA4?
I suppose it depends on whos 'reference' they're referring to. Maybe Andy Zhao (/head engineer?).
Do we have a link to any impressions from @Precogvision on that prototype, or can you recall what you heard Precog?
What I measured seems pretty close to what the graph in the FB link shows. I need to check if I have the OG unit or the experimental unit; I gave one of them away to a family member. But yeah, most of my thoughts between the two are summed up by that section in my Falcon Pro review.
It's interesting how you bumped up the detail score of the experimental FP from a 4 to a 6.
Isn't detail "true" resolution of an IEM? aka not affected by tuning? In theory, both IEMs should have the same resolving ability if each use the exact same driver.
I never got around the detail vs resolution debate because people's opinions on what both mean seem to differ.
Seems like the Falcon Pro uses a pretty good driver but was bottlenecked by heavy mid bass emphasis.
Isn't detail "true" resolution of an IEM? aka not affected by tuning? In theory, both IEMs should have the same resolving ability if each use the exact same driver.
I never got around the detail vs resolution debate because people's opinions on what both mean seem to differ.
Seems like the Falcon Pro uses a pretty good driver but was bottlenecked by heavy mid bass emphasis.
That's definitely an interesting question.
Here’s an article by Crinacle that defines how he breaks down transients into their attack and decay functions. In terms of how I perceive notes, I would define them the same way. But I think we might disagree on what results in these perceptions and what constitutes detail: I don’t really subscribe to the idea that resolution (or "true" detail and any other similar descriptor) is separate - at least certainly not entirely - from frequency response these days.
In fact, clarity, the nature of how sharply a note’s attack is articulated, is mostly just a product of frequency response to me. I’ve heard cheap IEMs (eg. CCA CRA) that have terrific clarity from boosting the upper-midrange and treble regions. However, when you boost these regions, it sounds unnatural relative to what you’d hear in real life, so many people perceive this as “fake” detail.
Outside of the attack function, I think there’s a gray area where some people associate graininess in decay with being “true” detail. Here, I refer to grain, or texture, being the idea that transients are decaying in quick succession. I mostly disagree with this interpretation of detail. If you listen to studio monitors, or better yet singers in real life, this grain doesn’t exist - or at least it doesn't to my ears. So what might this grain really be? Well, when you examine the frequency response of IEMs with this grain, they almost universally sport either a lack of air or a dipped region in the treble.
That brings us to the question of what is true detail? I think that "true detail" is 1) when FR closely mimics what we'd hear in real-life, or 2) when aberrations in FR are tasteful and don't detract - but enhance - what we'd hear in real-life. When details in a track pop out at us on a given IEM, for example, I think that’s mostly just the product of aberrations in FR. This is why, even when you hear something new in a track you’ve never heard before on your new IEM, you’ll notice you now hear the same detail on your previous IEM(s) if you listen closely - unless those other IEMs are completely dipped in that region of the FR. Of course, there's always case examples that contradict this idea. I've heard IEMs and headphones that have excellent frequency responses (and stellar extension on both ends) but that don't sound remotely detailed. That's where I'm inclined to say there's more to detail than just frequency response.
Some measure of ambiguity is always going to be present concerning detail. Everyone perceives it differently. To me, it's mostly a gut feeling when it comes down to two very good IEMs. For example, it's difficult to draw a distinction between the U12t and the Helios. The Helios has a leaner frequency response and more linear treble, but the U12t has more upper-treble. How can I possibly say with certainty which is more detailed? For some people who cannot hear the U12t's upper-treble peaks, the Helios will be more detailed even if I hear otherwise. In any case, the idea that two IEMs that use the same driver will have the same resolution doesn’t have much merit to me because there could be significant differences in how the drivers are implemented and their resulting frequency responses.
TL;DR: To me, detail is mostly a product of frequency response relative to how we hear things in real-life, but I do believe there are instances where there is more to detail than just the squiggly line.
So true detail means shelling 4k on an Elysian Annihilator?
Jokes aside, the faster decay = superior resolution debate not being true is a pretty good point.
It's a bit confusing when Crinacle said the 7hz Timeless has a soft presentation but he likes throwing the word bluntedness when something isn't very resolving but most people agree the Timeless is more resolving than most IEMs in it's price tier.
I assume soft and bluntedness aren't necessarily the same thing
Driver quality and implementation definitely has to do with resolving ability too as captain obvious as this may me.
Jokes aside, the faster decay = superior resolution debate not being true is a pretty good point.
It's a bit confusing when Crinacle said the 7hz Timeless has a soft presentation but he likes throwing the word bluntedness when something isn't very resolving but most people agree the Timeless is more resolving than most IEMs in it's price tier.
I assume soft and bluntedness aren't necessarily the same thing
Driver quality and implementation definitely has to do with resolving ability too as captain obvious as this may me.
I found it by googling etymotic memes because I thought the infamous fit was a meme lol.
It's from a reddit post.
Like a wise Measurbator once said: ER2XR might poke a newbie's brains if they go deep enough, so the default rec under 100$ is the Aria.
From an FR perspective, I'd say the issue is that some planars have these resonant dips starting from the lower treble and going up at the harmonics, which apparently change wildly with even minor variations in positioning:
Based on measurements, non-stealth egg-shaped Hifiman headphones also seem to exhibit this behavior. My guess based on the CSD measurements I've seen is that the cause is the planar drivers being either deliberately or inadvertently underdamped and allowed to ring freely.
Based on my subjective impressions, including listening to sine sweeps, of several Hifiman headphones, I would say that the ratio of the depths of these notches correlates with staging depth, imaging coherence, and bass slam when they're positioned on an ideal spot on my head but with all sorts of timbre flaws and imaging wonkiness, particularly hollowness and tall staging, when it's even slightly off.
My guess is that the Timeless's perceived soft presentation is caused by the 5- and 10-kHz notches being too deep at certain insert positions relative to the air region, letting too much high-end shimmer "shine through" and overextending the trailing edges of transients. My prediction is that it would be resolved if you appropriately EQ'ed down the frequencies from 13 kHz up.
Based on playing with EQ, I'd say that bluntness is usually caused by insufficient energy at the right end of the upper treble notch, typically at around 12 kHz, which does not seem to be a problem with the Timeless.
Last edited:
hey @Precogvision, about this post on the MiM Dark Magician, was that the older version? Ethanmusic7 has a newer, revised version, and that might bring about tuning changes that you might want to take a second look.
I was able to meet with Ethanmusic7 a few days ago and had a small shootout with some iems at the 1k+ mark, namely the Monarch Mk2, MEST MK2 and MEXT. My friend and I both really like the Dark Magician, and preferred that over all the other IEMs we tried, hands down.
Maybe it's just me being butthurt, but i can't imagine it being rated 5/10. I would argue that the DM is more on par on IEMs such as those listen above.
I was able to meet with Ethanmusic7 a few days ago and had a small shootout with some iems at the 1k+ mark, namely the Monarch Mk2, MEST MK2 and MEXT. My friend and I both really like the Dark Magician, and preferred that over all the other IEMs we tried, hands down.
Maybe it's just me being butthurt, but i can't imagine it being rated 5/10. I would argue that the DM is more on par on IEMs such as those listen above.
logiatype
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Posts
- 364
- Likes
- 339
Your posts are always really interesting! I tested this by EQing only 16k down by 3bB (best the ES100 has) and definitely changes the bass... Immediately and audibly different. Would have never suspected that frequencies that high would be affecting the bass.From an FR perspective, I'd say the issue is that some planars have these resonant dips starting from the lower treble and going up at the harmonics, which apparently change wildly with even minor variations in positioning:
Based on measurements, non-stealth egg-shaped Hifiman headphones also seem to exhibit this behavior. My guess based on the CSD measurements I've seen is that the cause is the planar drivers being either deliberately or inadvertently underdamped and allowed to ring freely.
Based on my subjective impressions, including listening to sine sweeps, of several Hifiman headphones, I would say that the ratio of the depths of these notches correlates with staging depth, imaging coherence, and bass slam when they're positioned on an ideal spot on my head but with all sorts of timbre flaws and imaging wonkiness, particularly hollowness and tall staging, when it's even slightly off.
My guess is that the Timeless's perceived soft presentation is caused by the 5- and 10-kHz notches being too deep at certain insert positions relative to the air region, letting too much high-end shimmer "shine through" and overextending the trailing edges of transients. My prediction is that it would be resolved if you appropriately EQ'ed down the frequencies from 13 kHz up.
Based on playing with EQ, I'd say that bluntness is usually caused by insufficient energy at the right end of the upper treble notch, typically at around 12 kHz, which does not seem to be a problem with the Timeless.
Edit: Totally reinforces the feeling I have that all I'm paying for is tuning haha.
Last edited:
I believe I heard this when I was in SG, I just never got around to uploading the squigs or writing about it. If I'm being 100% honest, I preferred the original; the upper-midrange was more to my liking on the original, and I felt that's what made it unique.
Ethan/Gabe's an awesome guy though and took my feedback in stride! I had a great time hanging out with him, and I'm glad there's other people like you who are enjoying the new version too
Green: V2, Orange: OG
I second this regarding Ethan! He's an excellent and awesome guy who is an absolute wonder to deal with!
I've bought a number of things from him now even though I don't live in Singapore. I've always found that he responds quickly and makes sure everything is in great shape before shipping to me. Any issues I've had he has been quick to solve for me.
Loving my DM OG. Got a DM2 en route! Hoping to have the same experience you had @Mattyjm!!
I've bought a number of things from him now even though I don't live in Singapore. I've always found that he responds quickly and makes sure everything is in great shape before shipping to me. Any issues I've had he has been quick to solve for me.
Loving my DM OG.
Got a DM2 en route! Hoping to have the same experience you had @Mattyjm!!I believe I heard this when I was in SG, I just never got around to uploading the squigs or writing about it. If I'm being 100% honest, I preferred the original; the upper-midrange was more to my liking on the original, and I felt that's what made it unique.
Ethan/Gabe's an awesome guy though and took my feedback in stride! I had a great time hanging out with him, and I'm glad there's other people like you who are enjoying the new version too
Green: V2, Orange: OG
Users who are viewing this thread
