Pricing, tiers, TOTL, etc. - What is the *material* difference?

[bigshot]

If you could isolate the sound of both below 4k you'd still hear differences. Take just the bass region and it would have more detail/control and sense of space.

Are we talking about differences that can be consistently detected in double blind listening tests or is this just hot air?

Judging quality by price is a very poor way to judge. That’s what controlled listening tests are for.

 

[Ryokan]

Well I admit I'm not sure about cables but feel confident I don't need to test my $2k iem's against something like the S12, as good as they are. If the differences between them were only as slight as my perceived differences with some cables then I'd give credence to your rational.

 

[bigshot]

Bias isn’t a matter of degree. It can appear to be huge, just like optical illusions aren’t what they appear to be.

 

[castleofargh]

We can make it apples-apples with a $5500 TOTL PMG APX SE vs $20 Truthear Hola. Strictly speaking of frequency range up to 4KHz, do you believe this FR graph would make you think the Hola sound the same as APX SE on bass guitar, cello, lower octave piano, pipe organ (not being played at higher octaves of course) that does not have musical information above 4KHz?

Different headphones don't measure the same, so again it's a false narrative(how many did you invent in those last 2 weeks?). That graph, if you look at the scale, suggests that even if we removed the signal outside the selected area, we'd still get 2 to 4 places where the amount of change could be audible.
Then, of course, taking only the FR graph and trying to play the "everything is the same" bait, is another false argument on top of the first one. As if FR told everything about the signal...
Then it's headphone measurements, not that you care. So they were measured by some dude who placed one pair how he wanted/could on a given Dummy head with given ears and ear canals having their very own acoustic characteristics.
Another dummy head, a slightly different placement, real human with hair or glasses messing with the seal more on one headphone than the other, the listener's own ears and ear canals showing different impedance characteristics, headband setting changing the amount of clamping, just different pairs than the one measured, many variables could cause an audible level of frequency response difference at the eardrum of a listener even while some graph seems close enough. But obviously, ignoring relevant variables is your thing nowadays.

 

[bigshot]

I think the reason he doesn’t trust measurements is because he can’t read them. His experience isn’t anchored in anything, so he clings to obvious bias as if it was objective evidence. He can’t tell the difference.

 

[gregorio]

An example of absolute to me is all you need to hear the sound of a headphone is measurements.

In a sense that is an absolute, it’s absolute nonsense! You again demonstrate that you are incapable of understanding the most simple of concepts, that the performance of something and your perception of it are two different things. That was literally the approach in the Dark Ages, why it is called the Dark Ages and why modern science was invented. Your problem is that you are using modern technology/science but trying to explain it with Dark Age thinking; ignoring, dismissing or simply unaware of the science and you’re doing that in a science discussion forum! A flip side of your argument is: Do you need audio in order to “hear the sound of a headphones”? If so, then digital audio is itself a measurement!

Secondly, another example is all DACs that measure at or below audibility thresholds sound the same.

Assuming certain obvious conditions (level matching, reasonable listening levels, etc.) then if the differences measure “below audibility thresholds” they are by definition inaudible and the definition of inaudible is that you as a human being cannot hear them. That is an absolute, an obvious one. Another obvious absolute is that if some distortion/fidelity issue is billions of times below the limit of acoustic sound, then it cannot exist as sound and any question of audibility must be complete nonsense!

Lastly, hearing is a fallacy and can NEVER EVER EVER be trusted. Those are absolutes lol

That is an absolute … absolute BS again! Hearing is NOT a fallacy, what IS a fallacy is the bolded part of the quote above, which apparently is one of your favourite fallacies, called the “Strawman Argument” fallacy. You’ve got a nerve trying to use a strawman argument in a science discussion forum and the fact you’ve actually bolded it, is just crazy!

Wanna see what how a good recording engineer who trained their ears for a living. See this post here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/raal-1995-immanis.971583/post-18688388

Why would I “wanna see what how a good recording engineer who trained their ears for a living” when I am one, when I’ve worked with countless others, some of whom weren’t just good but were world class? Even more bizarrely, your link does NOT even lead to us being able to “see … a good recording engineer”, it leads to an anecdote, by a marketer, about an engineer. Again, that’s just crazy, devoid of any hint of rational/critical thinking; an anecdote by a marketer is apparently evidence which you obviously accept but objective measurements and proven science, no way! And if that’s not already enough demonstration of a lack of rational thought, you’ve also employed another fallacy, “cherry picking”! Your own cited source completely contradicts your claim: “This is a reply to "our ears are most fallable sense" post that was deleted. … While that is true, it's not so bad if one has a lot of practice and keeps working on it.” - Your own source agrees that hearing/our ears are our most fallible sense. Did you accidentally miss that part, despite it being the very first two sentences in the post you cited?!!

Strictly speaking of frequency range up to 4KHz, do you believe this FR graph would make you think the Hola sound the same as APX SE on bass guitar, cello, lower octave piano, pipe organ (not being played at higher octaves of course) that does not have musical information above 4KHz?

Your premise doesn’t make sense to start with! Not having “musical information above 4kHz” depends on how you define “musical information” because it’s a subjective and somewhat ambiguous term. All the instruments you listed can/do have actual audio information above 4kHz! I won’t bother refuting this false assertion any further as @castleofargh has just posted and covered it well.

G

 

[JamoBroGuy]

@colonelkernel8
Yes, you’re right to say that the two IEMs would probably sound very similar if not the same in the region @theveterans highlighted. HOWEVER:

That’s assuming those 2 IEMs will have that exact FR at YOUR EARDRUM. There are loads of examples of 2 IEMs measuring very similarly on a 711 coupler but as soon as you measure them on a more accurate measurement rig like a 5128, they’re actually different. So just because they measure the same on a measurement rig doesn’t mean they’ll have the same or even a similar FR at your eardrum (chances are you don’t have the same ear canal as a 711 coupler or 5128).

But you’re right to say that there isn’t some magical quality of an IEM’s sound outside of FR (and in the somewhat rare case where it’s audible, harmonic distortion). That’s BS.

 

[VNandor]

We can make it apples-apples with a $5500 TOTL PMG APX SE vs $20 Truthear Hola. Strictly speaking of frequency range up to 4KHz, do you believe this FR graph would make you think the Hola sound the same as APX SE on bass guitar, cello, lower octave piano, pipe organ (not being played at higher octaves of course) that does not have musical information above 4KHz?

Do you really believe these instruments don't make any appreciable sound above 4kHz at lower octaves? Have you never listened to music or how do you come to a conclusion like this?

 

[Ryokan]

If it all comes down to bias and two iems measuring virtually the same are said to sound the same (even for just part of the freq range) why is it I don't listen much to anything I've bought costing under $300+/- ? If that were true I'd sell my expensive ones as I get great satisfaction having something which costs far less and does the same job. And for a few years I did buy many cheaper iem's in the hope this were true but it's simply not.

 

[BS5711]

I am not sure I agree with the notion that the FR graph represents the sound signature.

Other measurements or measurements on specific equipment might indicate relative sound characteristics better than some but the common 711 measurements seen everywhere, even on the same gear, don’t seem to tell the whole story.

How similar should the two IEM from the same manufacturer on graph below sound ?

I have both and the fit in ear is very much the same with very similar shells so I don’t believe there would be an obvious difference caused by insertion depth differences between the two.

To me the Aurora (blue) is really notably less crisp on female vocals and the treble is generally held back a tad resulting in a notably more laid back and less incisive sound than the Ascension (green). The Aurora uses BA tweeters while the Ascension uses EST.

I can close the gap by adding a 4-5db high shelf above about 4kHz to the Aurora but that isn’t close to what the graphs indicate.

Also, the Ascension seems to have slightly more bass in general and better extended sub bass despite that the bass region of the graphs are not far from being on top of each other.

The Ascension has a single 10mm dynamic driver for bass while the Aurora has dual opposed 7.5mm dynamic drivers.

They certainty have a generally similar tuning philosophy that is audibly apparent but they don’t sound even remotely as similar as the graphs look to me.

Another 10 x BA set of the same brand has less bass but the bass has a different quality to it than either of the dynamic drivers.

A 14.8mm planar set of a different brand has a similar bass quantity as those graphed below but again the bass has different nuance.

Do the different drivers types genuinely sound different despite that the bass quantity might graph the same. They seem to but I might be getting sucked in by the same biases that I critique others of ignoring

Or is it simply a case of basic 711 measurements not telling the entire story even using the same measurement gear ?

For comparison I don’t hear the same nuanced difference in bass, for example, between dynamic driver and planar driver’s headphones, it seems to be an IEM thing but that might be simply due to the fact I have owned a lot more IEM than headphones.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

If it all comes down to bias and two iems measuring virtually the same are said to sound the same (even for just part of the freq range) why is it I don't listen much to anything I've bought costing under $300+/- ? If that were true I'd sell my expensive ones as I get great satisfaction having something which costs far less and does the same job. And for a few years I did buy many cheaper iem's in the hope this were true but it's simply not.

To be clear, people aren’t saying that “you only like expensive IEMs more due to bias, so you must stop using your expensive IEMs and use cheap ones that measure the same”. On a subjective level, expensive IEMs can absolutely deliver a better listening experience, even if it’s due to bias. Good bias exists. What we’re discussing here is objective, tangible sound differences, separate from how humans perceive it.

---

@BS5711
If I had to guess, it’s probably because of differences in acoustic impedance between the different driver types.
If a DD woofer and a BA woofer measure the same on a 711 coupler, the BA woofer will have less bass than the DD woofer on a 5128 (which is ultimately responsible for what people call “BA bass”). The same likely applies to ESTs and planars for treble and bass respectively.
Frequency response should not be confused with frequency response graphs.

 

[BS5711]

If I had to guess, it’s probably because of differences in acoustic impedance between the different driver types.
If a DD woofer and a BA woofer measure the same on a 711 coupler, the BA woofer will have less bass than the DD woofer on a 5128 (which is ultimately responsible for what people call “BA bass”). The same likely applies to ESTs and planars.

Gidday mate,

It might be as simple as that but there seems to be something in the nuance of the bass in particular when comparing DD, BA and planar drivers in IEM, and BC come to think of it.

Again, I happily admit I might be getting sucked in by bias because what I hear is essentially what everyone parrots.

However, I am more than happy to buck the standard line, in fact I like to where I believe it is warranted, but this is a situation where my feeling (not that we care about those ) is that there is something else going on between driver types even if they have a audibly very similar bass quantity regardless of how they might measure on different measurement set ups.

 

[Ryokan]

To be clear, people aren’t saying that “you only like expensive IEMs more due to bias, so you must stop using your expensive IEMs and use cheap ones that measure the same”.

It does seem that way.

When I was at school a teacher conducted an experiment: a group of kids were to mostly say something was the same as another very similar object, they wanted to see if others would go along with the majority agreement which became authoritative. Maybe like a crude Milgram test?

This is a similar test isn't it? and I've passed

 

[JamoBroGuy]

Gidday mate,

It might be as simple as that but there seems to be something in the nuance of the bass in particular when comparing DD, BA and planar drivers in IEM, and BC come to think of it.

Again, I happily admit I might be getting sucked in by bias because what I hear is essentially what everyone parrots.

However, I am more than happy to buck the standard line, in fact I like to where I believe it is warranted, but this is a situation where my feeling (not that we care about those ) is that there is something else going on between driver types even if they have a audibly very similar bass quantity regardless of how they might measure on different measurement set ups.

It was mostly just a guess. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can give a more thorough answer.

 

[BS5711]

It does seem that way.

When I was at school a teacher conducted an experiment: a group of kids were to mostly say something was the same as another very similar object, they wanted to see if others would go along with the majority agreement which became authoritative. Maybe like a crude Milgram test?

This is a similar test isn't it? and I've passed

You’re good mate.

I don’t come close to buying into the notion that electronic audio gear is all audibly different as pretty much everyone outside SS seems to believe but for me all bets are off when it comes to transducers and personal preferences thereof.

I sold a set of Campfire Solaris ($1,600) because I didn’t want to listen with them in preference to my S12 Pro ($135) in fact I very significantly preferred the S12.

@JamoBroGuy … all good my friend, happy to go along with that until someone smarter than us both convinces me otherwise