[H T T]

You havent heard nier automata´s OST??? NANI!!!


Well, then:














Also, since you liked the "weight of the world" maybe you like the 8-bit version (not fanmade btw, its official) as well:

One of the best soundtracks ever!

Three of my faves are:

 

[luisdent]

Tanchjim Oxygen Impressions

As Tanchjim’s claim to fame, the Oxygen is often touted as being a Moondrop KXXS (one of my favorite single-DD IEMs) on steroids. So you can imagine that I’ve had my eye on the Oxygen for quite some time. Here, I’d like to give a shoutout to @luisdent & @MRSallee for finally making it possible.

Spoiler: FR Graph

Bass on the Oxygen curves satisfyingly, striking a tad more into the mid-bass than the KXXS and lending it to more warmth. This Oxygen, in particular, appears to measure with more bass than some other units, so take that for what you will. Gone is the overt-softness to slam the KXXS exhibits down-low, although make no mistake the Oxygen’s bass is still soft by DD standards. It’s mostly just okay, so let’s examine the midrange. Some listeners I know have, ironically, called the Oxygen’s midrange asphyxiating. I’d have to disagree. It’s upper-midrange tilted to be sure, but tonally, it doesn’t trigger any alarm bells. Maybe my ears have just been burned-in from hearing so many Moondrop IEMs at this point, who knows? I do hear this choking characteristic on the Hana, though. Treble on the Oxygen is a good deal more incisive than on the KXXS. Gone is the soft, wispy decay of the KXXS, replaced by more of a mid-treble tilt with pleasing amounts of impact and sparkle. Extension is not superb, but adequate. I do find myself enjoying this treble response. As a whole, I think the Oxygen hits that sweet spot tonally that the Hana and Darling (both overly shouty and with wonky treble responses) just didn't do for me.

The Oxygen is decently technical. Detail is about par with the ER2XR; however, the Oxygen leans smoother and more timbrally pleasing in decay like the KXXS. I think what would stand out most is the Oxygen’s macrodynamic punch. It pushes into dynamic swings harder than the FDX1, ER2XR, KXXS, and a lot of the other single-DD IEMs I’ve heard. The Zen and Luna surpass it in this department, but needless to say those IEM have other issues. I'm just left wanting by the milquetoast bass response; I think that would've aided greatly in perception of this characteristic. The Oxygen also has good imaging. It’s not holographic and it’s still lacking in center image diffusion, mind you, but I hear excellent left-right channel distinction and staging is slightly out-of-head.

Of course, you’ll want an assessment of value. The Oxygen takes a lot of what I like about the KXXS and turns it up a notch. Another close competitor would be the JVC FDX1. Blargh. Sure, the Oxygen’s not quite as technical, but the Oxygen has the FDX1 beat by a mile in timbre and treble response. Then you have the single-DD “bogeyman,” the Etymotic ER2XR. I don’t think the Oxygen is strictly better, but it’s in the same playing field and foils the ER2XR’s narrow staging and darker treble. Furthermore, when one considers that these are all IEMs at the top of their price bracket, well, that certainly does put things into perspective, doesn’t it?

It’s safe to say that the Oxygen is still a very solid IEM even if it’s not nearly as relevant these days with Moondrop breaking into sub-$100 territory with their single DDs. I'd really be hard-pressed to choose between my ER2XR and the Oxygen, as we all know the Etymotic fit is a pretty big barrier to entry. Along these lines, something unexpected is just how tiny the Oxygen is; it’s probably the first IEM I’ve worn where I can lay on my side comfortably in bed. Isolation kind of sucks, but all told? I just might have to pick one of these up for myself.

Score: 6/10

Here's the bass mod so far. Still playing around with it. Need to pierce some new tips and measure...

 

[luisdent]

How I Define Imaging (and thoughts on how the phenomenon occurs)

Like many terms slung around in the audio world, imaging has as many definitions as there are opinions: one won't find a concrete definition of what it constitutes. Most already know that I don't think most IEMs have good imaging. I'm not alone in this sentiment either, with many in my audio circle holding similar opinions. So here, I'll try to outline what I am listening for when I assess imaging, and why the vast majority of IEMs - oh, and headphones - are mediocre for this characteristic of sound to my ears. Do understand that what I outline here is my interpretation only, and I'm always working to understand more about this stuff. Important terms are in bold.

First, I'm no expert, but I can tell you imaging is influenced a good deal by what tracks you're listening to specifically. There are some tracks that are better for imaging than others by virtue of how they have been mastered. I will not explore this variable further, and assume that we are using the "best" tracks for imaging. Imaging itself can be broken down into several subsets. However, at its core, it is largely a reference to the extent to which a transducer is able to shape the perception of the "room" around the listener. So by extension, soundstage is a derivative of imaging and they are not distinct. Another subset of imaging that is commonly referred to is positional accuracy. This is simply the degree to which a transducer is able to localize instruments on the soundstage; then, the degree to which a listener can pinpoint them. This has overlap with layering, the space, or sense of physicality, between instruments on the stage. A headphone like the HD6XX, for example, has pretty terrible imaging despite it sounding reasonably "open" in terms of layering. Some will also wonder about terms like holographic or "3D" imaging. I dislike these phrases, and they're slung around far too generously in my opinion. This is the perception with which instruments - usually percussive ones - "float" on the soundstage. By extension, this plays into soundstage height and the way an IEM shapes the walls of the stage. The IEMs that qualify as being holographic to me are the few and far between.

A phrase that I use quite often in my writing is center image. Like the phrase implies, this is the field of sound that comes from dead center in front of a listener. Within the context of headphones and IEMs, it is a psychoacoustic illusion that comes from the perception of having two channels in conjunction. There are many IEMs that may have center image, but that cannot project it. This is most obvious to me when focusing on the positioning of vocals on the stage. Transducers that are able to project the center image create what I perceive as soundstage depth. So you can imagine that most IEMs that I have heard do not have much - or have at all - soundstage depth. Hell, even many headphones I've heard do not have soundstage depth. The HD800S (the lauded king of soundstage by the way) is a prime example; vocals sound like they are coming - positionally - from inside my head. In general, I would say I put a strong priority on center image when assessing imaging.

Some will wonder about the correlation between imaging and frequency response. There is definitely a strong one, particularly with respect to treble. In my experience, no IEM that has had good imaging has had poor treble extension. But the opposite does not hold true; I have heard many IEMs with excellent treble extension and unremarkable imaging. So what accounts for this distinction? It's hard to say due to confounding variables. For example, standouts in imaging like the Andromeda 2020, Tia Trio, and Tia Fourte all make use of acoustic chambers. But with the likes of IEMs like the U12T and the Ikko OH10, we can isolate some of these variables. I suspect "good" imaging with these IEMs occurs not necessarily due to sheer extension, but rather due to the contrast between their post-10kHZ dips and ~15kHz peaks. This lends to unique treble reverb and, by extension, the way the stage is imaged. Similarly, dips in frequency response can lend to the perception of more open staging. The most obvious way this is achieved is by dipping 3-4kHz to make the upper-midrange sound more distant, thus increasing perceived depth. Most of my favorite IEMs tend to make use of this tuning trick, and although I have not heard it yet, I can surmise from frequency response that this is how the much-hyped Oriolus Trailili achieves its staging.

Hopefully, this helps explain why I think very few transducers have good imaging overall.

very good post!
you're the first person i've seen attribute soundstage, etc., to frequency response in some way. I completely agree and actually believe it is the most prominent factor in the soundstage depth. Obviously a transducer's ability to reproduce said frequencies across the board with low distortion, etc. is vital. But when the frequencies are portrayed in a very linear fashion that reduces frequency masking and allows all parts of the spectrum to be heard equally, the soundstage will benefit. When you take it further and make sure every subdivision and micro area of the response is linear (no narrow dips or peaks that may not be obvious on a smoothed graph) then soundstage is further improved.

When a well recorded and mastered song is played back on such an earphone, the presentation allows all of the frequencies to be reproduced so that the nuances of the recording are apparent. This includes, as you mentioned, reverb trails, room ambiance, positional precision, etc. if extension suffers our ears can tell something is off. We hear high frequencies in room ambiance that we may not realize, and all instruments have interactions at that region and others as well. This allows the realism of the recording to come through which is heard as amazing depth or soundstage.

When a poor recording is being played back, many earphone can add a sense of increased soundstage depth by modifying the frequency curve. Usually a lower treble dip followed by a mid/high treble bump will increase the impression of detail and depth. But in many cases this is like fixing the song by re-mixing it at the earphone level. Sadly, many albums probably require this trait to sound their best. But when listening to superbly mastered music, this may not be desirable, and a more linear response would be more impressive. Although it could still possibly "enhance" the already excellent perception of depth. But whether that is true to the recording or not is another question.

I'm sure there are other factors as well that effect all of these things, but frequency is definitely a big one. sorry for the rambling. Just thought i'd chime in as a mixing/mastering engineer.

 

[redrol]

Sound stage is in the mid range, between 1-5k say. Its NOT the upper 'air' treble at all.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Sound stage is in the mid range, between 1-5k say. Its NOT the upper 'air' treble at all.

more air doesn't give you a wider or larger stage, but it gives you a better sense of space Imo, you can more clearly tell where everything is happening and the space between instruments etc

 

[luisdent]

Sound stage is in the mid range, between 1-5k say. Its NOT the upper 'air' treble at all.

i have to disagree on that. the entire spectrum matters.you can have a certain level of 1-5k but if you boost the bass you mask that, if yo decrease upper treble you lose the sense of spaciousness due to the lack of transient clarity up high. based on his definition of soundstage that wouod absolutely matter in the whole picture. but as he said, a lot of these terms fly around and you may mean something other than what we were describing.

 

[luisdent]

more air doesn't give you a wider or larger stage, but it gives you a better sense of space Imo, you can more clearly tell where everything is happening and the space between instruments etc

and i would argue that is exactly what soundstage is. clearly hearing the space between instruments makes a space sound bigger and more spacious. aka, the stage of sound is larger. at least how we've been describing it. stereo width and other aspects might be related but different (wider stereowill also increase the perceptionof the stage being larger). but just the sense of space is what I'm referring to. how large or small, how unnatural or natural a space sounds.

terms are important because you can say imaging is bad, but what does imaging even mean? i think more people need to do what precog is doing and at least explain the terms in the way they are using them. that is what matter most, that we understand what you are saying by your terms.

 

[Strifeff7]

Sound stage is in the mid range, between 1-5k say. Its NOT the upper 'air' treble at all.

Agreed,
a certain brand use this cheating trick to achieve a wider perceived soundstage,
really sacrifice mid range tonality for a stage,

*cough *cough *fourt *cough

 

[redrol]

Agreed,
a certain brand use this cheating trick to achieve a wider perceived soundstage,
really sacrifice mid range tonality for a stage,

*cough *cough *fourt *cough

[edit] less crapping up thread

 

[Precogvision]

Sound stage is in the mid range, between 1-5k say. Its NOT the upper 'air' treble at all.

Assuming we’re on the same page about what soundstage is, that’s a pretty hot take haha.

Heck, ignore treble air, just look at the sub-1kHz frequencies. If you dial back the bass on an IEM, that’ll give the perception of a larger soundstage. I believe you’ve tried the 64 Audio Nio. That’s a pretty good example between the MX and M15 modules. It follows that boosting treble air in lieu of turning down the bass will likewise lead to the perception of more open staging. Soundstage is most definitely not limited to the midrange...

 

[redrol]

i have to disagree on that. the entire spectrum matters.you can have a certain level of 1-5k but if you boost the bass you mask that, if yo decrease upper treble you lose the sense of spaciousness due to the lack of transient clarity up high. based on his definition of soundstage that wouod absolutely matter in the whole picture. but as he said, a lot of these terms fly around and you may mean something other than what we were describing.

Im talking about the 3D cues encoded in a stereo mix. Midrange! You can chop treble off at 10k and still have all the 3D.

 

[luisdent]

Im talking about the 3D cues encoded in a stereo mix. Midrange! You can chop treble off at 10k and still have all the 3D.

perhaps if you can't hear past 10k. hehe. but in all seriousness, i disagree, but maybe i think you might argue the majority of a mix takes place in the mids, so perhaps it has the biggest effect. but i can hear a lack of thee dimensionality with reduced upper treble myself...

 

[RikudouGoku]

Im talking about the 3D cues encoded in a stereo mix. Midrange! You can chop treble off at 10k and still have all the 3D.

If you chop the upper treble from 10k+, you will lose a lot of air and that will affect the perception of the soundstage. Same reason why the Dunu Zen has such a narrow soundstage, its because it has a big roll-off in the upper-treble.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Agreed,
a certain brand use this cheating trick to achieve a wider perceived soundstage,
really sacrifice mid range tonality for a stage,

*cough *cough *fourt *cough

Sacrifice midrange tonality? Eeeeek I don’t know if I’d agree with that, a linear/non-forward midrange sounds way more appealing to me and that’s before considering the benefits it has on the staging

 

[gLer]

Say what you like about Fourte, it has the largest perceivable stage of any IEM I've ever heard. And the midrange sounds perfectly natural to me, at least with well recorded music. Better slightly wonky than hot or shouty.