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

[castleofargh]

Well I presumed (I obviously presume too much) that each would be powered and tuned to an optimum and then compared. I was sure someone with experience would be able to say - 'that's a planar' or that's the dd, but some of you tell me that's not so.



Campfire Andromeda's are an all ba and you couldn't say their treble is rolled off.
Planars have weirdo treble? They're actually now making many high end (read expensive) hybrid iem's with a small planar just for the treble.

We can very well take your conditions, I see no issue picking the conditions you're interested in, but then you have to agree that we add even more variables. Are we hearing the BA sound or the 3 to 5 ways sound? Are we hearing sealed VS vented? How could we tell which variable or series of variables have led to our experience(assuming we already dealt with non audio biases and stuff like massive differences in sensitivity or absurd listening levels. I suggested a similar single driver to remove one variable, that's all.

As for my intuition of differences, there is nothing to defend or object to, I have no proof, and when I have, they're anecdotal for, again, maybe 3 or 5 pairs. I almost only buy BA IEMs as I generally only care about the isolation when I'm on the go. I do have a few small DD IEMs that also isolate well, like shure se215 and one or 2 etymotics that aren't BA based. But that's rare and not a selection made for sound quality. I like well vented sound, and when I get that from an IEM, said IEM remains in a drawer because I have no use for it. I've never owned a planar IEM myself, only heard 2 very briefly(why my brain reaches out to headphone and speaker planar to invent rules I don't know about).

 

[gregorio]

Argue? I was seeking to understand and thought you would provide some info on the subject

1. Yes, argue. You stated that “definitely” there is an audible characteristic difference between IEMs due to driver type. You then doubled down when asked for evidence. That is not “seeking to understand”, it’s an assertion of fact, an absolute one! An actual example of “seeking to understand” is your quote below, it’s phrased as a question, it ends with a question mark and there’s no “definitely” assertion in there!
2. I don’t have any particularly useful information to provide, beyond the obvious basic facts that IEMs (as all transducers) have to be coupled with something that is highly variable (in this case, an ear canal or coupler that is only vaguely similar to an ear canal) but unlike other transducers cannot be decoupled for objective measurement purposes and there are other variables besides just driver type. I’ve made it clear more than once that I have no expertise/knowledge beyond these basics, I even had to go and look up what “711” actually measures, because I didn’t know.

So if iem's with a single dd, ba's or a planar were tested for differences (without knowing which was played), there would be differences but you wouldn't be able to pick out the planar or others?

I don’t know! On the balance of probabilities I would guess probably not but a “balance of probabilities” doesn’t tell us whether that is actually the case and it tells us even less when my knowledge of the variables and probabilities is relatively poor to start with! So in this case, while my guess might be somewhat useful for my personal purposes, my honest answer to others would HAVE to be; “I don’t know”. My guess is more than open to any reliable evidence that can be presented but until then, the principles of science dictate that without reliable evidence claims be treated false.

G

 

[castleofargh]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, the IEC 711 coupler is the old standard that even the poor with cheap Chinese copy( this guy ) have mostly dropped in the last years for newer ones.
And to be clear, when the 711 specs mentioned having a narrow range(I don't remember exactly, but it was, like, up to 8 or 10kHz?), it only meant that the impedance characteristics above that frequency range stopped tracking with the average human reference they had made from a bunch of cadavers or whatever method they used back then. It's still measuring something, obviously. We just can't interpret too much about what it means for that imaginary average human dummy. More modern couplers keep extending the range(but the reference itself might not be exactly the same for different brands of dummies heads and rigs). Some now have ear canals that bend instead of the old straight tube. The aim is still to try and get some model of what the statistically average human might get at his eardrum. And the stuff that Headfi got a few years back, had the new benefit of giving slightly more consistent results at higher frequencies or something like that(not sure how that's achieved).
Personally I don't bother too much with that because while I sure value anything bringing a little more repeatability, my own ears do have big treble fluctuations from the slightest placement change.
And then the coupler and mic that Harman used for their famous curves, is one that few people were using, so that caused another mess where everybody started applying some graph they got, right onto their coupler measurements. We keep telling people not to make comparisons between measurements made on different rigs, and what did nearly every reviewer and headphone/IEM measurement website did, put a curve from another rig over their own measurements to show the Harman target reference... not great.

 

[bigshot]

I don't have any evidence to present.

then why do you keep talking?

 

[Ryokan]

then why do you keep talking?

To read replies from the experts here and realise I have some pre-conceived ideas about audio. What's your excuse?

 

[bigshot]

Keep at that.

 

[CK Moustache]

I haven't heard a single BA IEM on the market that's less rolled rolled-off than multi-BA or tribrid IEMs yet. The Etymotic ER4 ones are definitely rolled-off relative to the modern tribrid IEMs being sold today

*Shure SE846 have entered the chat.*

---

Unfortunately even after extensive web search, I cannot find it anymore, but as I recall, around 14/15-ish years ago, there was a blind test study (I recall with about 50 participants, but my memory could well fool me and it could've been less) done as part of a Bachelor's/Master thesis (at least I think so) on whether there's an audible difference in various tweeter designs (I think I remember two different dome tweeters vs one ribbon), given the frequency response is similar. The result was that the drivers were indistinguishable from each other.

Obviously this was only limited to testing the tweeters, and speakers ≠ headphones ≠ IEMs, but after all, and not much surprisingly, it's the frequency response that is the most important factor of sonic perception. Performing a similar test with IEMs would be more difficult because a) the frequency response of the IEMs would have to be as identical as possible and b) the shape of the shells would have to be similar as well, else the participants would easily know when they're being given a different set. The easiest way to do this would be in an ABX setting with level-matched Etymotic ER2SE and ER3SE plus a high order low pass filter around 2 kHz since their tuning is mostly identical and their shell design is similar (nope, I definitely don't volunteer as a participant in this ). But even then we'd only be comparing two sealed shell single micro driver IEMs with each other.

On a highly subjective note full of sighted bias and knowing which headphones/IEMs/earbuds I was listening to and what I've paid for them (), with over 100 in my personal possession (there goes the Corvette/Porsche) and various review sanples that I requested (because I'm a broke idiot who spent way too much money on headphones and IEMs over the years and eventually realised that a set of ER4S(/R) and HD 600/AEON Flow Closed are all I really need), I personally feel like there is indeed a difference in perception of various driver tech, but it's mainly limited to the bass and not the rest of the audible spectrum (that myth of "BA treble/timbre" imo only comes from the TWFK times where many multi-BA implementations had a rather wonky/peaky/bright (upper) treble response as opposed to many DD designs of that era). As such, without being able to prove it, I would say that I can hear a difference between multi-BA designs with large Knowles CI woofers/vented BA woofers and those that have smaller woofers even if the latter have a stronger bass boost. The same goes for dynamic driver diameter (with earbuds/IEMs, as I wouldn't apply this to my experience with full-sized headphones) where I perceive the larger diameters as different.
Probably a somewhat less easy task with full-sized headphones (planar magnetic vs dynamic driver), as most dynamic driver designs don't extend as flat in the bass as most planar magnetic headphones (who volunteers to perform a test with applied band pass filter? (Not me)). And even then, as with the BA woofers, the same tech (planars) can sound subjectively different (I did a comparison of my LCD-X and HE 400 once, with a high order low pass filter applied around 800 Hz or so, and their subjective bass perception was still different, but I obviously also knew and felt which headphones I had on).
But then again that's all just anecdotal evidence and I don't care much about it at the end of the day.

What really interests me with speakers is whether one could, with statistic relevance, tell a large subwoofer driver apart from many smaller drivers that add up to the same surface area, provided both designs have the exact same frequency response. My guess is: no.

 

[bigshot]

I don’t think anyone claims that transducers all sound the same. It’s DACs and amps that should be audibly transparent.

 

[CK Moustache]

I don’t think anyone claims that transducers all sound the same. It’s DACs and amps that should be audibly transparent.

Well, there was a bit of discussion about just that around page 14, on which you also commented in post #202, also saying that the frequency response is the main factor.
And that blind test with tweeters 15-ish ago also acknowledges it in a more scientific, statistically relevant setting (it's a pity I cannot find it anymore - I just found it: https://www.static.tu.berlin/filead...ente/Abschlussarbeiten/RotterAndreas_MagA.pdf - memory served me right as it was 15-ish years ago and that the tweeters that were tested were cone and ribbon constructions, but I got the number of participants wrong (there were 10, 7 of which were professionals in the audio/communication sector and experienced with blind testing, the other three were musicians), and only the two tweeters with the biggest measured differences (that were then compensated for) were evaluated against each other, with the result that they were indistinguishable from each other if they measured the same, which, of course, makes sense).

Thankfully well constructed DACs and amplifiers sound audibly transparent for decades (and identical unless deliberately altered by the manufacturer, which for some reason especially happens in the high-end (read: $$$) consumer sector, but if there are no differences, I guess they just have to add something to differentiate them from the rest (I really don't understand the comeback of long-outlived tech such as tubes, R2R and piezoelectric drivers in the "high-end" sector, but I guess if there is no real technical progress happening with long-proved twch, those are the things that can generate new attention and sales, which of course isn't bad per se (I really like my Dual turntable and Vinyl discs as well as my Nordmende Traviata tube radio and its sonic characteristics, but for other/nostalgic/aesthetic/"analogue" reasons, and would never ever claim that that tech is better than CDs or OPamps - so it's mainly the marketing claims that somewhat trigger/irritate me, not the tech itself))).

That said, I'm thankful that my Apple USB-C DAC and RME ADI-2 DAC sound and measure the same (as in with differences below the audible threshold of transparency for the human ear) even when using extremely sensitive IEMs with a wonky impedance response (admittedly not entirely identical as the Apple exhibits a slight amount of audible hiss in this extreme case scenario, but there are no other sonic differences, unlike one boutique DAC-Amp with fancy coloured light balls I used to own that was a rare case of being audibly distinguishable in a blind test (which never happened with other DACs/DAC-Amps when used in a chain as pure DACs or as DAC-Amps, bit with full-sized headphones that are not source-picky unlike extremely low impedance, high sensitivity IEMs with a wonky impedance response) in a chain when used as a pure DAC with an amplifier after it and even showed measurable differences when used with different full-sized headphones).

But then there are always people who say that there are huge differences between audibly transparent gear, claim that they can hear differences between high and low audio bit rates/different audio formats, and dismiss Bluetooth, especially SBC (even though SBC is audibly transparent to the human ear unless the transmitter effs up and dosn't transmit the full available bitrate for some reason).
I don't blame those people - in 2008-ish when I got into the headphone and digital audio hobby, I was the same and was influenced by that subjective, biased "MP3 is bad, only WAV and FLAC are the way to go" and transducer burn-in spirit that also existed back then, but as I am pro measurements and questioning subjective impressions and had a high interest in psychology at that time, I performed several ABX tests (not surprisingly, I couldn't tell FLAC apart from MP3, and neither could I between medium and high bitrate compressed audio files) and educated myself on various audio-related topics to understand the technical backgrounds better.
What makes me somewhat sad are people who are too stubborn to admit that their absolute claims may have been proven wrong, don't want to understand or know how their subjective perception of sound aligns with measurements and often dismiss measurements in general. Well, to each their own, PLUR, and live and let live, in the end we're all just strangers on the internet, but absolute subjective claims without the tiniest bit of scientific background/proof are just quite worthless (which also applies to this overly long post of mine right here, if anyone apart from myself even reads it, as it's been that ongoing circle of discussing subjective points of view vs objective facts/measurements for decades).

 

[castleofargh]

*Shure SE846 have entered the chat.*

---

Unfortunately even after extensive web search, I cannot find it anymore, but as I recall, around 14/15-ish years ago, there was a blind test study (I recall with about 50 participants, but my memory could well fool me and it could've been less) done as part of a Bachelor's/Master thesis (at least I think so) on whether there's an audible difference in various tweeter designs (I think I remember two different dome tweeters vs one ribbon), given the frequency response is similar. The result was that the drivers were indistinguishable from each other.

Obviously this was only limited to testing the tweeters, and speakers ≠ headphones ≠ IEMs, but after all, and not much surprisingly, it's the frequency response that is the most important factor of sonic perception. Performing a similar test with IEMs would be more difficult because a) the frequency response of the IEMs would have to be as identical as possible and b) the shape of the shells would have to be similar as well, else the participants would easily know when they're being given a different set. The easiest way to do this would be in an ABX setting with level-matched Etymotic ER2SE and ER3SE plus a high order low pass filter around 2 kHz since their tuning is mostly identical and their shell design is similar (nope, I definitely don't volunteer as a participant in this ). But even then we'd only be comparing two sealed shell single micro driver IEMs with each other.

On a highly subjective note full of sighted bias and knowing which headphones/IEMs/earbuds I was listening to and what I've paid for them (), with over 100 in my personal possession (there goes the Corvette/Porsche) and various review sanples that I requested (because I'm a broke idiot who spent way too much money on headphones and IEMs over the years and eventually realised that a set of ER4S(/R) and HD 600/AEON Flow Closed are all I really need), I personally feel like there is indeed a difference in perception of various driver tech, but it's mainly limited to the bass and not the rest of the audible spectrum (that myth of "BA treble/timbre" imo only comes from the TWFK times where many multi-BA implementations had a rather wonky/peaky/bright (upper) treble response as opposed to many DD designs of that era). As such, without being able to prove it, I would say that I can hear a difference between multi-BA designs with large Knowles CI woofers/vented BA woofers and those that have smaller woofers even if the latter have a stronger bass boost. The same goes for dynamic driver diameter (with earbuds/IEMs, as I wouldn't apply this to my experience with full-sized headphones) where I perceive the larger diameters as different.
Probably a somewhat less easy task with full-sized headphones (planar magnetic vs dynamic driver), as most dynamic driver designs don't extend as flat in the bass as most planar magnetic headphones (who volunteers to perform a test with applied band pass filter? (Not me)). And even then, as with the BA woofers, the same tech (planars) can sound subjectively different (I did a comparison of my LCD-X and HE 400 once, with a high order low pass filter applied around 800 Hz or so, and their subjective bass perception was still different, but I obviously also knew and felt which headphones I had on).
But then again that's all just anecdotal evidence and I don't care much about it at the end of the day.

What really interests me with speakers is whether one could, with statistic relevance, tell a large subwoofer driver apart from many smaller drivers that add up to the same surface area, provided both designs have the exact same frequency response. My guess is: no.

Harman gave up on trying to test different headphones because people recognized things like weight differences (with the LCD2 or 3? Being an obvious issue), even when someone else was putting them on from behind. They ended up using convolution to simulate all headphones through one. Which has obvious limitation like how the headphone used can never be perfectly transparent and how non-linear distortions aren't passed on through an impulse. But Even then, it's probably among the least biased methods of testing.

For in ears it's even worse to try and swap between pairs, and also trickier to measure the response at someone's ear if we plan to use convolution.
For speakers, Harman again has built a room with automation to move the speakers rapidly so that people can try them working from the same position(and there is a curtain with low acoustic impact to hide the speakers from the listening room. That's pretty cool and hard to beat as a listening test solution.

About some idea of matching the FR that works somehow for a listener, I don't think that would actually make transducers sound the same. The level of distortions(not just THD), is really important here and is unlikely to get below audibility in a direct A/B. With reasonably low distortions, listeners' preferences have almost nothing to do with distortions, but it doesn't mean they're inaudible.
For speaker systems, the amount of distortion tends to be pretty high so even with room reverb, it might be even more important to consider distortions as audible. Of course, it's completely possible for 2 transducers to have fairly similar distortions profiles, in that case, we don't care.
I have one paper on trying to correlate distortion measurements and preference, but it's a small test with few listeners and like 5 or 6 headphones where they end up trying to interpret some meaning out of the 2 worst headphones only. Not exactly the most convincing paper, but hey, they tried something.

 

[CK Moustache]

Harman gave up on trying to test different headphones because people recognized things like weight differences (with the LCD2 or 3? Being an obvious issue), even when someone else was putting them on from behind. They ended up using convolution to simulate all headphones through one. Which has obvious limitation like how the headphone used can never be perfectly transparent and how non-linear distortions aren't passed on through an impulse. But Even then, it's probably among the least biased methods of testing.

For in ears it's even worse to try and swap between pairs, and also trickier to measure the response at someone's ear if we plan to use convolution.
For speakers, Harman again has built a room with automation to move the speakers rapidly so that people can try them working from the same position(and there is a curtain with low acoustic impact to hide the speakers from the listening room. That's pretty cool and hard to beat as a listening test solution.

About some idea of matching the FR that works somehow for a listener, I don't think that would actually make transducers sound the same. The level of distortions(not just THD), is really important here and is unlikely to get below audibility in a direct A/B. With reasonably low distortions, listeners' preferences have almost nothing to do with distortions, but it doesn't mean they're inaudible.
For speaker systems, the amount of distortion tends to be pretty high so even with room reverb, it might be even more important to consider distortions as audible. Of course, it's completely possible for 2 transducers to have fairly similar distortions profiles, in that case, we don't care.
I have one paper on trying to correlate distortion measurements and preference, but it's a small test with few listeners and like 5 or 6 headphones where they end up trying to interpret some meaning out of the 2 worst headphones only. Not exactly the most convincing paper, but hey, they tried something.

In my mind I included "with sets that have reasonably low distortion levels", but didn't write it out. But yes, chances are that the distortion profiles of two different sets of IEMs/Headphones are just too different to not be important in this testing scenario. But if they were, along with the frequency response, I don't really see any other variable that could indicate fundamental sonic differences between various driver types.

Oh, I would love to blind audition several active studio monitors in that ingenious room - as far as I recall, switching between speakers and playback only takes three seconds in their setting.

 

[Davesrose]

I think when we get into "audible differences" of DACs and amps, there's always some differences in reference: especially the claim that everything is "transparent" and therefore should sound the same. With DAC chips....conceptually that should be true. Given today's technology, it would be really hard not to have a completely flat response through our reference sound range in the digital realm. But even with a separate DAC component, you have whatever designed analog stages there are. It can be the headphone stage, and then whatever analog output stages there are. Audiophiles will go on about how great a balanced headphone stage is, or XLR output is compared to RCA-and I have found with my headphone components, that they are designed separately. There often times is a boost in amperage with the balanced stage: so there is an attempt to highlight the balanced stage with a different line level. So say listening to the same headphones during a headphone meet won't go through level matching, and then also you have the issue of your subjective perception changing as you listen to people and have different ambient sounds.

I think also what can complicate digital systems is that you might not be sure what sources you're listening through. For example, going through USB with a device to a DAC-conceptually it would make sense that all should sound the same. And if they're in an "exclusive" mode...it is like a bitstream in that it is unadulterated. But there can be transfer modes in which the device could add an EQ preset. @CK Moustache mentions speaker design. I'm a constant consumer of movies-I have a higher end 3D audio receiver that processes native Atmos, DTS:X, and Auro-3D. I do like trying to bitstream to it and have it process native 3D audio or go to DTS:Neural if its upmixing to 3D audio. These modes that I select are going through the EQ presets of my receiver (I first did an auto Audyssey calibration before fine tuning with specific measuring devices and preferable bass settings). Recently I visited my parents: my dad had just upgraded his receiver for a simpler Atmos setup. But I was surprised he mentioned he liked keeping his system in "Direct" mode with his Roku streamer. He thought he still gets Atmos, but I certainly didn't hear heights (even though his are reflective). I did try to indicate to him about how his calibration was not being applied for "Direct" and Atmos is something that has to be decoded with the receiver. But he's seen that Roku outputs everything in Atmos so it must be good (even though that metadata is stripped off in Direct mode). Also, your full calibration settings with your speaker amp is going to have a lot of sway about subwoofer output.