[thesheik137]

I would like to start off by saying big respect to all reviewers who spend their time analyzing gear and writing reviews/articles on them. It is very valuable for the community and I appreciate it a lot. However, there are so many options out there and only so many ways to describe them, that sometimes I think that a simpler, more quantitative approach to reviewing and comparing products could be used. I think numbers can tell their own story separate from the words, but it may also be a good to combine the two to paint a more complete picture.

As a test case, I have conducted a quantitative analysis/comparison of 3 IEMs I currently own and am listening to: Fearless S8 Pro, Sony IER-M9, and Custom Art FIBAE4. I want to let the numbers talk for themselves, but I will note that all of the listening was done from the same source and with the same cable model and eartips used for all IEMs.

Overall, I am pretty happy with the end result in regards to formatting / categories etc, but more tweaking could always be used.

For anyone who is interested, I have include the excel file HERE as well, so feel free to edit, give feedback and use for yourselves.

Thanks.



EDIT: Updated to V2 already. Changes include more categories (speed, dynamics, coherency), changed weighting and possible points total of 100. Was originally trying to keep it simple, but decided to go all out.

 

[Geared4me]

I really appreciate how you presented your idea and followed it with a real world example. Good work!

 

[billbishere]

T800 value would be off the chart!

 

[redrol]

Very nice!!!!
The M9 seems like its going to get a purchase from me.

 

[thesheik137]

V2

 

[Raketen]

ICYMI @Virtu Fortuna and @ruthieandjohn have somewhat similar approaches you may appreciate: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/iem-score-list-r21.815852/ https://www.head-fi.org/threads/10-...r-headphoneus-supremus-inaugural-post.768317/

 

[thesheik137]

ICYMI @Virtu Fortuna and @ruthieandjohn have somewhat similar approaches you may appreciate: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/iem-score-list-r21.815852/ https://www.head-fi.org/threads/10-...r-headphoneus-supremus-inaugural-post.768317/

Nice. I had seen headfonics ratings on the site, but not more in-depth chart before. I think one important thing that I tried to remedy in my approach is weighting and focusing on sound. To me, it doesn't make sense to weight frequency response elements the same as build or fit. Obviously, the exact weightings could be tweaked here and there, maybe depending on preference, but I think it's a critical element.

 

[Virtu Fortuna]

Nice. I had seen headfonics ratings on the site, but not more in-depth chart before. I think one important thing that I tried to remedy in my approach is weighting and focusing on sound. To me, it doesn't make sense to weight frequency response elements the same as build or fit. Obviously, the exact weightings could be tweaked here and there, maybe depending on preference, but I think it's a critical element.

Hi,

The weightings on my table are already tweaked. The build, fit and isolation have smaller impact when compared to sound columns.

 

[acygni]

Honestly can't see how these are useful to most ppl nor tell how each set sounds. Wouldn't want to see these become the new trend for future reviews personally. Just my personal opinion.

 

[buonassi]

Not that ypur opinion isn't valid ... But why do you think that? What,about the scoring approach doesnt sit well with you @acygni ?

 

[Colors]

Have the M9. Insanely tight imaging, accurate soundstage, immense detail/cues and realism.

Not to mention the amazingly soft cable and very comfortable fit.

 

[acygni]

Not that ypur opinion isn't valid ... But why do you think that? What,about the scoring approach doesnt sit well with you @acygni ?

I just dont think numbers provides the info a potential buyer would want or should want to decide a purchase. A scoring system is ok for some categories in the chart such as build quality, isolation, possibly comfort. But what does quality means for each sound aspect? Does high quality mean it's clear and low quality means it's muddy? Does low quanity means it's recessed and high quality means it's forward? or are they only relative to the other sets? Etc. Even then it relies almost soly on subjective evaluation, though some may be ok with that and that is fine too. But I would take FR graphs over scores.