[KuroKitsu]

The Q4 2019 isn’t an andromeda.

I was gonna add Io to the list too

 

[aaf evo]

May as well add universal Solstice demo to the just too since it’s basically a “custom andromeda”, I loved that when I had the demo.

 

[KuroKitsu]

May as well add universal Solstice demo to the just too since it’s basically a “custom andromeda”, I loved that when I had the demo.

"They're all Andromeda's" KB probably

 

[Damz87]

I kinda forgot about, and that other Japan only 3 driver one as well.

I usually think of the shell and the 5 BA setup though when "Andromeda" comes up

Yeah, It’s definitely the least “Andromeda” out of the Andromeda’s lol. It’s a pretty nice sounding IEM though.

 

[Precogvision]

Softears RSV Impressions

This one’s been getting some talk lately, so I figured I should drop some thoughts. Listened for a couple hours today and got in some A/B-ing with other sets that I have on-hand.

Spoiler: FR Graph

The RSV is most closely Harman-tuned, falling somewhere along the lines of neutral with bass boost. Some might be tired of the Harman-tuned IEMs that seem to be everywhere nowadays; I voiced a similar concern until I was reminded that IEMs with these tunings only make up ~5% of the market! The reason why these tunings seem so prevalent, then, is simply because there is a strong correlation between “good” IEMs and IEMs that follow this type of tuning. And it follows that good IEMs - I would hope - are talked about more often. Tangent aside, I'm going to eschew a tonal analysis because I cannot fault the RSV’s tonal balance barring subjective preference. It is firmly within the realm of the ideal.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said on an intangible level. Some have asked for a comparison to the venerable U12t, so here you go. The RSV does not sound like your traditional BA monitor. Transient attack has a softness to it not unlike the U12t; however, there is a distinct lack of not even the U12t’s microdetail, but just plain resolution. The former is not a big deal given that most all IEMs do not have much micro-detail to my ears; however, regarding the latter, the RSV simply comes off as too smeared. Subsequently, the RSV’s layering suffers; I do find it to sound somewhat congested at times. For sheer detail? Let's not even go there. And all of this is ignoring dynamics. While perhaps not as gun-to-the-head as most BA IEMs, there's an oddly poofy, inflated quality to the way the RSV rides dynamic swings that reminds me of the Dunu SA6 more closely in this regard.

Of course, I need to stress that this is not a fair comparison. Within the context of its price bracket, the RSV is a decent technical performer. Timbre is certainly better than your average BA monitor; this benefit extends to the bass which has surprisingly good texture and slam for a BA. Against the Moondrop S8, there is a noticeable gap in technical performance; however, the RSV offsets some of this difference with a more pleasing tonality. Treble on the RSV is also noticeably smoother, extending well into the upper-harmonics. I can appreciate the treble on this IEM. Hell, it might even be my new $700 benchmark for treble. The RSV also seems to have a tad of that elusive center image; certainly more than the S8 on this front.

I’m going to say that the RSV is recommended. It’s far from being a flagship killer and it lags in technical performance compared to heavy-hitters in its price bracket, but on the whole it’s an enjoyable set that I think most would be hard-pressed to dislike. It looks to me like the $700 bracket is shaping up to become the new battleground for Chi-Fi.

Score: 6/10

4/27/20 edit: Score lowered by a point due to a lack of micro-detail and off-putting macrodynamics.

 

[TooPoorForHiFi]

@Precogvision Price point aside, Hows RSV compare to SA6?

 

[Precogvision]

@Precogvision Price point aside, Hows RSV compare to SA6?

Bass slams harder, more textured, and treble extends further, more smoothly on the RSV. I would say they can trade blows for midrange tuning; nothing for me to really critique on that front. For detail and resolution, I'd say they're about equal too. RSV does sound more open from my memory of the SA6 - images slightly better - maybe thanks to the treble extension. Hard to go wrong with either; I'm actually not sure which one I would prefer which is why they have the same score.

 

[IEMusic]

Bass slams harder, more textured, and treble extends further, more smoothly on the RSV. I would say they can trade blows for midrange tuning; nothing for me to really critique on that front. For detail and resolution, I'd say they're about equal too. RSV does sound more open from my memory of the SA6 - images slightly better - maybe thanks to the treble extension. Hard to go wrong with either; I'm actually not sure which one I would prefer which is why they have the same score.

I can’t wait to read your impressions on the Lokahi, after you’ve had a chance to listen to it a while. It seems RSV, Lokahi, and SA6 are shaping up to be frequent comparisons.

I’m curious how the RSV compares to the Clairvoyance, or even the Dawn, mainly due to similar tuning.

 

[drspeter]

Thanks for your great impressions. I was debating between Monarch RSV and S8 for my ~700$ spot. If I prefer the one with better resolving capability, extended and airy treble, then S8 would be the way to go?

 

[Precogvision]

A Pragmatic Take on Listener Limitations and Bias

Hey all, I just thought I'd drop an update to where my paradigm currently sits when it comes to audio. Like previous posts, I do touch on more controversial topics, so feel free to agree or disagree; I’m no stranger to unpopular opinions! Heck, I would say I’m the bearer of quite a lot of them in my reviews. Most of this is stream-of-consciousness, but I do hope this lends some more transparency to where I'm coming from in my reviews.

On Listening Limitations:

Aural memory is highly failable; I consider myself no exception to this. If I’m drawing a comparison between two IEMs that I am very familiar with, then yes, I am comfortable making more nitty-gritty comparisons. But for the vast majority of IEMs I hear? Admittedly, I’m not going to remember what it sounds like even a week later. I frequently draw upon existing write-ups and notes that I have when asked to compare IEMs. And no matter the comparison, I also always pull up their respective frequency response graphs to refresh my memory and to make sure I’m not making erroneous comments.

Now, frequency response is one thing, but how big are the technical differences that reviewers and listeners talk about? Well, I hate to disappoint, but they're not as large as some people might think. At least not for me. Believe me, I’d like to tell someone with certainty, “Hey, IEM X is (insert percentage here) more technical than IEM Y”. But it doesn’t really stack up like that for a couple of reasons:

1. There's a litany of derivatives (layering, imaging, dynamics, etc.) of sound that fall under technicalities. It’s difficult to quantify them under an umbrella term.
2. Diminishing returns are real. Once you start kicking around a grand or so, I really struggle to say if some IEMs are “better” than other IEMs in terms of technical performance. Of course, this is assuming a certain threshold.

To illustrate, between IEMs like the VE Erlkonig, EE Odin, and the qdc Anole VX? I'd struggle to say which is more technical. Same goes for something like the Andro 2020 versus the IER-M9. Sure, the technical discrepancy between something like the Andromeda 2020 and the U12t is fairly pronounced to my ears, but only because I’ve spent countless hours with them. I’ve handed them to my dad for a listen before, and he could barely tell the difference. When people say they hear “huge” differences in technical performance between some of these IEMs, frankly, I struggle to relate. And that’s fine! After all, it’s not my place to say what someone else is hearing, but rather to tell you what I hear.

This is a good segue into gut instinct. There will be times that a particular moment in a track strikes a chord with me or, on the contrary, sticks out like a sore thumb. But try as I may to pin-point what it is specifically, I can't. Being able to capitalize and explore moments like these, to get comfortable being uncomfortable, is crucial in my opinion. Of course, there is the risk of this running too equivocal; however, I think these moments can be the distinction between a "great" and a "top-tier" IEM.

And then there's the litany of stuff that I have to concentrate to hear; admittedly, stuff that I get the feeling a lot of people just take a shot in the dark at. Transients are a good instance. When I talk about stuff like “upwards-compressed” attack, “cleaner” decay, coherency, and just micro-dynamics in general, I really have to focus. Even then, a lot of the time I would hesitate to attest with 100% certainty to what I am hearing. And stuff like sources? Sure, I definitely hear differences, but currently, I'm just not confident enough to depict them specifically. Cables? Let’s not even go there.

Maybe I just don’t have enough experience with this stuff, or maybe I can’t hear them altogether. I don’t know. At the same time though, there is the dilemma of being obligated to report what I hear as a reviewer. People expect me to hear these differences. Having to tell them that, well, I don’t, kind of sucks.

On Bias and Subjectivity:

To return to the whole “huge” differences thing, burn-in is an interesting phenomenon. The way I see it, if you hear it or believe in it, then it does exist in your subjective reality and vice versa. Myself? I would say that, yes, I believe in it, although I’m inclined to say it’s mostly the product of psychoacoustics. I’ve experienced burn-in with a grand total of one IEM - the Moondrop KXXS - and that was back when I first started out. My totally unscientific theory is that because I swap between IEMs so frequently, my brain “equalizes” to new sounds faster than normal. So despite no shortage of testament you’ll see to the contrary, for me at least, it is most closely a negative phenomenon. The more time I have to spend with an IEM, the more I’ll be able to scrutinize it and find flaws. Like so, if you look at my initial impressions, you will see that they almost universally lean more positive than the final review. Be careful what you wish for!

On a related note, this plays into expectation bias. If you think you will hear something, then you’re predisposed to hear it and vice versa. I read reviews just like anyone else. In fact, I probably read more reviews than most people! The vast majority of it is because I'm a fat binge-reader; I don’t agree with most of the reviews that I read. I just enjoy reading people’s opinions and appreciating the work that goes into some of this stuff. But for the few reviewers I respect? Yeah, you bet their opinion is influencing mine; it’s likewise going to affect the outcome of my review to some extent.

This is also why I crack up at most so-called “objective” reviews. Even if you focus predominantly on measurements (like a certain audio forum prides themselves on), the presentation of this information and the conclusions drawn from it are still subject to bias. And let's say your review only consisted of objective data. You have to wonder, does that really constitute a review at that point? I'm largely inclined to say no. You can see that, as usual, I think striking somewhere in the middle between the objective and the subjective is most ideal. Admittedly, I do lean more objective when it comes to the likes of cables and audiophile-grade rocks. But if there's one thing that I think most people will agree on, it's that these items should be the last concern in your chain; the cherry on top.

The Takeaway:

I’m human. I don’t have golden ears. My hearing and ability to discern sonic nuance is probably no better than your average listener; I’ve just had the opportunity to hear way more IEMs. And even worse? I’m still a filthy fence-sitter. Trust me, I know all of this better than anybody. But if there’s a pitch amidst the litany of self deprecation, it‘s that for these same reasons, you can rest assured that I'm not in the business of setting up unrealistic expectations. I tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[RikudouGoku]

A Pragmatic Take on Listener Limitations and Bias

Hey all, I just thought I'd drop an update to where my paradigm currently sits when it comes to audio. Like previous posts, I do touch on more controversial topics, so feel free to agree or disagree; I’m no stranger to unpopular opinions! Heck, I would say I’m the bearer of quite a lot of them in my reviews. Most of this is stream-of-consciousness, but I do hope this lends some more transparency to where I'm coming from in my reviews.

On Listening Limitations:

Aural memory is highly failable; I consider myself no exception to this. If I’m drawing a comparison between two IEMs that I am very familiar with, then yes, I am comfortable making more nitty-gritty comparisons. But for the vast majority of IEMs I hear? Admittedly, I’m not going to remember what it sounds like even a week later. I frequently draw upon existing write-ups and notes that I have when asked to compare IEMs. And no matter the comparison, I also always pull up their respective frequency response graphs to refresh my memory and to make sure I’m not making erroneous comments.

Now, frequency response is one thing, but how big are the technical differences that reviewers and listeners talk about? Well, I hate to disappoint, but they're not as large as some people might think. At least not for me. Believe me, I’d like to tell someone with certainty, “Hey, IEM X is (insert percentage here) more technical than IEM Y”. But it doesn’t really stack up like that for a couple of reasons:

1. There's a litany of derivatives (layering, imaging, dynamics, etc.) of sound that fall under technicalities. It’s difficult to quantify them under an umbrella term.
2. Diminishing returns are real. Once you start kicking around a grand or so, I really struggle to say if some IEMs are “better” than other IEMs in terms of technical performance. Of course, this is assuming a certain threshold.

To illustrate, between IEMs like the VE Erlkonig, EE Odin, and the qdc Anole VX? I'd struggle to say which is more technical. Same goes for something like the Andro 2020 versus the IER-M9. Sure, the technical discrepancy between something like the Andromeda 2020 and the U12t is fairly pronounced to my ears, but only because I’ve spent countless hours with them. I’ve handed them to my dad for a listen before, and he could barely tell the difference. When people say they hear “huge” differences in technical performance between some of these IEMs, frankly, I struggle to relate. And that’s fine! After all, it’s not my place to say what someone else is hearing, but rather to tell you what I hear.

This is a good segue into gut instinct. There will be times that a particular moment in a track strikes a chord with me or, on the contrary, sticks out like a sore thumb. But try as I may to pin-point what it is specifically, I can't. Being able to capitalize and explore moments like these, to get comfortable being uncomfortable, is crucial in my opinion. Of course, there is the risk of this running too equivocal; however, I think these moments can be the distinction between a "great" and a "top-tier" IEM.

And then there's the litany of stuff that I have to concentrate to hear; admittedly, stuff that I get the feeling a lot of people just take a shot in the dark at. Transients are a good instance. When I talk about stuff like “upwards-compressed” attack, “cleaner” decay, coherency, and just micro-dynamics in general, I really have to focus. Even then, a lot of the time I would hesitate to attest with 100% certainty to what I am hearing. And stuff like sources? Sure, I definitely hear differences, but currently, I'm just not confident enough to depict them specifically. Cables? Let’s not even go there.

Maybe I just don’t have enough experience with this stuff, or maybe I can’t hear them altogether. I don’t know. At the same time though, there is the dilemma of being obligated to report what I hear as a reviewer. People expect me to hear these differences. Having to tell them that, well, I don’t, kind of sucks.

On Bias and Subjectivity:

To return to the whole “huge” differences thing, burn-in is an interesting phenomenon. The way I see it, if you hear it or believe in it, then it does exist in your subjective reality and vice versa. Myself? I would say that, yes, I believe in it, although I’m inclined to say it’s mostly the product of psychoacoustics. I’ve experienced burn-in with a grand total of one IEM - the Moondrop KXXS - and that was back when I first started out. My totally unscientific theory is that because I swap between IEMs so frequently, my brain “equalizes” to new sounds faster than normal. So despite no shortage of testament you’ll see to the contrary, for me at least, it is most closely a negative phenomenon. The more time I have to spend with an IEM, the more I’ll be able to scrutinize it and find flaws. Like so, if you look at my initial impressions, you will see that they almost universally lean more positive than the final review. Be careful what you wish for!

On a related note, this plays into expectation bias. If you think you will hear something, then you’re predisposed to hear it and vice versa. I read reviews just like anyone else. In fact, I probably read more reviews than most people! The vast majority of it is because I'm a fat binge-reader; I don’t agree with most of the reviews that I read. I just enjoy reading people’s opinions and appreciating the work that goes into some of this stuff. But for the few reviewers I respect? Yeah, you bet their opinion is influencing mine; it’s likewise going to affect the outcome of my review to some extent.

This is also why I crack up at most so-called “objective” reviews. Even if you focus predominantly on measurements (like a certain audio forum prides themselves on), the presentation of this information and the conclusions drawn from it are still subject to bias. And let's say your review only consisted of objective data. You have to wonder, does that really constitute a review at that point? I'm largely inclined to say no. You can see that, as usual, I think striking somewhere in the middle between the objective and the subjective is most ideal. Admittedly, I do lean more objective when it comes to the likes of cables and audiophile-grade rocks. But if there's one thing that I think most people will agree on, it's that these items should be the last concern in your chain; the cherry on top.

The Takeaway:

I’m human. I don’t have golden ears. My hearing and ability to discern sonic nuance is probably no better than your average listener; I’ve just had the opportunity to hear way more IEMs. And even worse? I’m still a filthy fence-sitter. Trust me, I know all of this better than anybody. But if there’s a pitch amidst the litany of self deprecation, it‘s that for these same reasons, you can rest assured that I'm not in the business of setting up unrealistic expectations. I tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Yup, agree with pretty much all of this.

But damn, that percentage thing drives me crazy...
You cant just say "hamburger X is 50% tastier than hamburger Y", it just doesnt work that way...

 

[eloelo]

Nice reflection, you are so cool precog uwu. I also had to search up some of your more complex vocabulary on google XD.

Reminds me of when an iem has bigger "soundstage" than the previous which had bigger stage than A, which had bigger stage than B and so on. You'd think iems have a 10m wide soundstage by now.

I'd also like to add how your mood, your energy level on a random time during the day could affect your experience with an iem. E.g. In the morning when im still drowsy, I can't stand treble boosts, but at night, somehow I can tolerate them alot. When demoing kilobuck iems that aren't mine, i feel anxious + I might listen at higher volumes than i'm used to in order to get the most out of the demo session, which may affect my listening experience. But once I purchase it and use it in a more normal, laidback scenario, I find out the iem disappoints XD.

 

[xenithon]

I’m human. I don’t have golden ears. My hearing and ability to discern sonic nuance is probably no better than your average listener

I'd also like to add how your mood, your energy level on a random time during the day could affect your experience with an iem.

Great write-up, and just to add onto eloelo's point, I think people may also underestimate their own hearing profile. While we may look at graphs and pick out dips or peaks at certain frequencies and what that translates to, so too is it pertinent to get one's hearing tested every so often and understand where they may have potential hearing loss - be it from long term exposure, genetic, or otherwise - and overlay that into what they are hearing.

 

[gLer]

When demoing kilobuck iems that aren't mine, i feel anxious + I might listen at higher volumes than i'm used to in order to get the most out of the demo session, which may affect my listening experience. But once I purchase it and use it in a more normal, laidback scenario, I find out the iem disappoints

So true. Whenever I'm underwhelmed by the sound of my IEMs, chances are a few notches up on the volume dial and 'there it is!'. Music sounds better louder, but just like too much sugar is bad for us, too much volume is as well, no matter how good it is.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

So true. Whenever I'm underwhelmed by the sound of my IEMs, chances are a few notches up on the volume dial and 'there it is!'. Music sounds better louder, but just like too much sugar is bad for us, too much volume is as well, no matter how good it is.

I go the other way. The way I like to test the quality of an IEM is if it sounds better with lower volume than the one I am comparing it against. The reason louder volume sounds better is your ears are seeking more of something in the FR that it isn't getting. When it is perfectly in balance, you can turn it lower and still hear it. This is a great test of frequency response and resolution. If you have a really highly resolving IEM and turn the volume down, you can hear the entire FR, but just at a lower volume. This is why Odin is my favorite IEM. I can turn it down to 60 db and still hear everything.