Planar timbre
Give the 2024's a try, I love them as they're much better than S12 OG (imo). But as much as I respect what they can do especially for what they cost, I much prefer to listen with others that cost a lot more. If I'd heard them first (and was wise) I could possibly think they are all you need though.
I don’t hear the “planar timbre” at all despite that they are my only planar set. Nothing leaps out at me even coming from other set that I have listened with for hours that are of different driver type and much greater cost, if that matters
I am of the opinion that “planar timbre” is just the very crisp treble and perception because everyone says they have it. That is one nuance I don’t buy into, same as BA timbre.
Not wanting to argue at all, just comparing notes, but why doesn’t the 2024 have planar timbre when they are essentially the same IEM with a slight tuning variation, it is still a planar.
I suppose you are using exactly the same or very similar ear tips for both IEMs?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.
Maybe different impedance on both IEMs and need to correctly match the volume between both of them? Or, as Bigshot stated, even when you feel that both of them are placed almost in the same position inside your ears, maybe there is a slight difference...
Does anyone have that notion? Assuming “sound signature” means the characteristics (plural) of the sound then a FR graph only represents the FR characteristic (and even then, only under specific conditions), not any other characteristic.
Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest and most pernicious problems/myths in the audiophile community, ruthlessly propagated by marketers and their shills for decades, ever since measurements started contradicting marketing claims. Namely: What measurements are actually measuring, what those measurements tell us and what they don’t tell us. At best a measurement (of equipment performance) can only ever tell us the “story” of that measurement (of that equipment) and provide a comparison with other equipment assuming a standardised measurement. A measurement never tells us the whole story, even if it were a perfectly accurate measurement it still wouldn’t tell the whole story and they don’t claim to tell the whole story!
As the previous paragraph indicates, the answer to your question is: There is a reasonable chance they will sound the same but they could sound significantly different. Because: Firstly, the graph does not tell the whole story and Secondly, even if the insertion depth in your ears of both IEMs is the same, it might not be the same depth as with the coupler and, the seal might not be the same (either between the two IEMs in your ears or compared to the coupler), both of which could also result in the IEMs’ performance varying significantly from the measurements.
Good point and it's one I overlook too often.
BA timbre is a meme. It’s almost certainly placebo from simply knowing that the IEM has BAs. Similarly to how people perceive copper cables as “warm” simply because the colour of copper is “warm”, people might perceive BAs as “plasticky” or “artificial” simply because of how the drivers look. They look more “artificial” than dynamic drivers.
The only way to do that is to hand someone an IEM they’ve never seen before without telling them what the driver configuration is (it should ideally have an opaque shell so they can’t see the drivers), having them listen to it, then having them describe how it sounds. So yeah, it’s tricky.
THANK YOU.
True. However, it’s useful as a point of comparison and it’s useful in the sense that it gives us a max measurement that can’t reasonably be exceeded and typically will never be attained.
By that logic, the answer to “how much harmonic distortion an IEM has” would be a few milliseconds worth!
Typically but there maybe some rare examples where the average level would only need to be around 94dB (peaks 20dB higher than average level). That’s academic though, as even an average level of 94dB is still well into hearing damage range and around 30 times higher than typical listening levels.
