[ryanjsoo]

Just yesterday I was saying to Nic how impressed I was with what you have been able to build up in such a short time since joining THL and you still keep surprising me. Great work man! Looking forward to it!

Dan's THL family is very proud, this will be a good holiday!

(And I'm not the new guy anymore hehe)

 

[Wyville]

Anything FitEar would be great! Simply because you can't get any info on them anywhere else.

Oh yes, same here! I would be all over FitEar's CIEMs if I could, if only because they have extremely short stems that would work well for me. Can't find any other company that makes them that short.

Thanks, man. It's been a lot of work and near-equal measures of disappointment and joy, but I've been extremely blessed and I couldn't feel any luckier. Speaking of looking forward to things, mystery-awesome-vocals-IEM review will be up in a few days. Stay tuned...

Oh, there they are again. Very, very curious about those now! Will be interesting to compare to the VE5.

 

[Wyville]

Dan's THL family is very proud, this will be a good holiday!

(And I'm not the new guy anymore hehe)

Yeah, he's been a great new addition and his reviews really compliment the style of everyone else.

Considering how many reviews you have been pushing out (I have trouble even just keeping up with them), you have gone straight from "new guy" to "veteran reviewer".

 

[ezekiel77]

Will be sure to take as many sneaky smartphone pics as possible during the festival. That new Oriolus looks intriguing too.

YES YES PLEASE TRY OUT THE NEW ORIOLUSESSS

(I was told there's the 10BA Melli-anus, and one with a piezo-something-something driver)

 

[ezekiel77]

Anything FitEar would be great! Simply because you can't get any info on them anywhere else.

Unicorns shall remain unicorns...

 

[Deezel177]

Unicorns shall remain unicorns...

I akin FitEar IEMs more to dragons; mythical, sure, but they have their feet in places too. I think the title of "Unicorn" still belongs to the Sony JustEar CIEMs. Heck, even every single unit is a uniquely-tuned unicorn.

 

[Wyville]

Perhaps something else for @ryanjsoo to look out for at PortaFest (not sure if Sammy will be there though):

Rhapsodio Saturn (US$ 380)
"Saturn is made with an 11mm dynamic driver with titanium diaphragm, focusing on providing deep bass and high clarity with excellent layering that makes it an all-rounder. Apart from that, Saturn weighs only one-third of the other dynamic driver in-ear monitors of the brand, providing a light and comfortable feeling."
Frequency response: 20 ~ 20,000 Hz
Sensitivity: 106dB/mV
Impedance: 16ohm

 

[flinkenick]

Crinicle, why didn't you just post your graphs? By the way Nick instead of finding some random graphs to your liking, try to compare stuff measured in the same rig.

NT6



i4



iSine20



Anybody see the large hump at 1.5khz? When I posted this, Audeze admitted it's peakier than that. Crinicle's graph is how Headwacker figured out where was causing the funny mids or vocals with the 1.5khz peak. Hawaiian boy, by ears figured out somewhere there is something funny in the mids. Some guys do it by ears nick. I heard incoherency in the mids, and even after EQ with DAPs, software EQ on the computer, still didn't sound right. Only LPG sounded properly driven and with EQ, the mids sounded proper. Other than the LPG, many DAPs do not have proper PEQ. You can get PEQ with Android devices, and tried those as well, Didn't sound proper.

You can go on and on about how Audeze tech is all that. Cool.

I've said it before but I'll say it again anyways for those still hazy about what's going on; it is the combo of the 1.5k peak and the 2-4k null that makes the Audeze portaplanars sound so weird. That is not to say that the reason for the weirdness is not solely due to the specific peak or null but rather both happening at the same time. The Campfire Jupiter is the most recognisable example of an IEM with a 2-3k null but does not sound as weird as the portaplanars because the latter have one very distinct difference: a 1.5k peak.

I guess my words got lost in translation at the start, I didn't say that the 1.5k peak is the only reason for the weirdness but rather is the reason for the unique weirdness that the 10/20/i4 exhibit.

I have a gentleman's agreement with Nic to not bring my data into this thread. At any case, I can find industry-standard graphs of the IEMs he listed so it's a non-issue.

What these graphs prove, is yet again, a powerful combination of overconfidence in a $50 measurement setup, with a complete lack of understanding of what specific frequencies do.

The frequency range is a gradual, and therefore linear, rise from low to high tones. So if a bump between 2-3 Khz is an ideal response, then a bump between 1-2 KHz is only a slightly less ideal response; it does not have a completely opposite effect. You saw your graph months ago, and then made up a theory about the effect of the 1.5 KHz frequency based on one isolated observation.

This is the actual issue:

I show a graph by Tyll, who has over ten years of experience in measuring and uses a professional measurement setup. That graph shows a strong dip between 2-6 KHz which coincides with the issues in imaging, transparency, and note weight that I heard using my ears, and interpreted with actual knowledge and experience with frequencies. But no, that graph should be ignored. And then Crinacle mentions he didn’t even hear what I am mentioning in the first place. But despite not even knowing what I’m talking about, I have to hear that I am wrong and get schooled on frequencies.

Then I argue that Audeze’s DSP settings clearly show that the 1.5 KHz is not changed AT ALL; the major difference is that the 2-6 KHz is strongly elevated. This not only coincides with my EQ settings, but Audeze’s own recommended EQ settings.

Then I show graphs of other iems that have a peak in the similar region to explain that a 1.5 KHZ does not have a negative effect. This is again totally ignored because it doesn’t suit your narrative. The 8.2 graph is never acknowledged. And Silverears, just because you use two graphs from the same database doesn’t mean that that one is correct and the NT6 therefore doesn’t have a peak at 1.5 KHz. That’s really not what people mean when they say you should compare graphs from the same setup. Besides, how can I compare graphs from the same database if I wasn’t using that one in the first place? Simple logic must be a distant acquaintance to you.

But my favorite argument is where you keep repeating that the 1.5 KHz bump is the issue, then add that the problem isn’t fixed after that, while failing to see the irony in the weakness of that argument. I will say it explicitly because I'm pretty sure you still won't understand: the fact that your EQ settings didn't work negates your whole argument. The EQ didn't work because your settings were wrong in the first place.

You make one observation of a 1.5 KHz peak based on an amateur setup, and build a whole theory about what that frequency does, defying the basic logic of how the frequency range works. This is like saying the ideal listening volume is at level 80-81. But I once tested this iem I never heard before at level 79 and it sounded horrible. Therefore, the only logical conclusion must be that level 79 is THE ABSOLUTE WORST VOLUME TO LISTEN TO. Frequencies do not have absolute effects. They must always be interpreted in relation to other frequencies.

You have the arrogance to tell me to use my ears? How about instead of looking at a crapty graph you actually use EQ and literally try to use your ears? Lifting 1.5 KHz does not mask vocals or make them less transparent. It makes vocals more forward. If that were true it would mean that a dip at 1.5 KHz would therefore theoretically be a better tuning than a straight line (which has never been applied), and an ideal response would have a dip at 1.5 KHz followed by a peak at 2 KHz, which is both logically and practically impossible. But let’s be honest, I’m not going to fool myself into thinking simple logic is going to come through that dense wall. Because you have your graph, and have made up your mind about it a long time ago.

And no Crinacle you did not say it was the combo. You just kept repeating in several posts it was only the 1.5 KHz peak that affects vocals, because as we can now see you blindly went off your own graph. I tried to explain it was not the peak, but especially the strong dip in the 2-6 KHz range and the discrepancy between the two. But even now you keep on saying the 1.5 KHz gives this ‘unique weirdness’, which shows you still have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[crinacle]

Then I show graphs of other iems that have a peak in the similar region to explain that a 1.5 KHZ does not have a negative effect. This is again totally ignored because it doesn’t suit your narrative. The 8.2 graph is never acknowledged.

... The 8.2 graph has a peak at 2k, what are you on about?

And no Crinacle you did not say it was the combo. You just kept repeating in several posts it was only the 1.5 KHz peak that affects vocals

"The main issue with Audeze's in-ear planars is not so much the 2-3k null (which exists in HRTF compensation but not in raw) but rather a too-early bump at 1.5k. Ideally the bump should be centred at 2-3k but a 1.5k bump makes things sound unnatural, to say the least."

Here's a breakdown: the phrase not so much does not refer to an absolutist stance to anything. I didn't repeat this point at all. In fact, after two posts:

"Ah I think you've been misunderstanding me. It's not just the 1.5k peak but also the lack of 2-3k emphasis. There needs to be both; simply EQing down the 1.5k peak creates a somewhat linear response which isn't fully optimal. The final effect of Audeze's DSP is just that anyways; from a 1.5k bump to a "proper" 2-3k one. That combo whammy of early peak and null is the real killer."

May I see where did you get this notion from "several posts"?

because as we can now see you blindly went off your own graph

Really? Really. You're going to go there. I didn't bring anything I've done into this. I used Innerfidelity graphs, Speakerphone, Rinchoi, whatever you gave I went along with. And still, when I have tried to show that I'm not referring to my own data but other even more reliable data than mine, you still somehow find the opportunity to assume that my impressions revolve around my "flawed" measurements even though I made not a single mention of it anywhere. WHY.

 

[ustinj]

I can't be the only one who loves a good argument

 

[SilverEars]

Thank you Crinicle for iterating the obvious that had to be pointed out for Nick. Originally Nick ignored part of the frequency spectrum of issue, and was pointed out, and gets defensive about what is quite obvious.

As Nick originally posed using some random graphs from different rigs to point out that 1.5khz has no effect. Sure. LOL. The point of graphs from the same rig is for comparison of what is there in relation to each other, not to find a 1.5khz peak from irrelavent graph from a different measurement rig(which Nick's response was). No matter what measurement, that 1.5khz is there. And that is right, there shouldn't be a rise there.

 

[PacoTaco]

Looking through 447 pages of replies is a bit of a grueling task, so I'm just going ask straight up:

Where's the andromeda review? It's considered a flagship for their BA line and basically the HD800/Yggdrasil of IEMs (as in, a flagship considered good for the money)

 

[thatonenoob]

I'm mildly confused by some of these assertions.

Implying that paying more produces a better setup. In fact, accurate interpretation of mediocre numbers can be more powerful than an inaccurate interpretation of better results, as we have seen time and time again.

Implying that others don't have actual knowledge and experience with frequencies. Most human beings, with > 2 years of existence (scientifically proven by myself), will probably have heard the full range of frequencies of 20-20kHz.

My dude, relax.

 

[ustinj]

Well flinkenick did mention that frequencies are relative should be compared to its surrounding frequencies, so using Inner Fidelity's graph.. If the audeze EQ has a +15 rise in the 2-3 khz region, and the raw measurement of the iSine20 shows a -5 dB regression at 2.5khz relative to it's 1.5khz peak, I would imagine what this EQ does -- even if it does NOT directly alter the 1.5khz bump, this increase to the 2-3khz region would indeed remove the 1.5khz peak and shift it towards the 2-3khz area. So sure, the EQ doesn't "lower" the 1.5khz region, but by increasing the depression after the 1.5khz region it more or less gives the same effect ...

One side is saying the 1.5khz peak is bad, the other is saying 1.5khz has nothing to do with it sounding bad, blah blah bla

If you want to compare frequencies relatively, then applying the EQ will make 2-3khz the peak of the graph. Audeze's EQ will remove that 1.5khz peak, regardless of whether they altered the 1.5khz frequency or not.

So saying "audeze's EQ doesn't even change the 1.5khz region" should not really be used as evidence of whether the 1.5khz is the issue or not.

 

[Gavin C4]

Oh yes, same here! I would be all over FitEar's CIEMs if I could, if only because they have extremely short stems that would work well for me. Can't find any other company that makes them that short.

Oh, there they are again. Very, very curious about those now! Will be interesting to compare to the VE5.

Went to demo Fit ear 334 and 335. I would say Fit ear 334 is not really for everyone. 334's female vocal has a very large body and upfront. But all the background instrument is hidden away. You might be able to get away with acoustic tracks, but not with pop / classical. The 334 is all about vocal, the size of the vocal is so strange that I felt very weird as it is very different from most TOTL I have recently listened to (Zeus, VE8, U18, fourte, andromeda, gemini. I would describe the vocals on the 334 is like a foam soaked in water. The vocal size and body are larger on the 334 but it also loses its density. The enlarged vocals just sounded a bit weird to me, it is magnified and brought specially up front. The 334 will then filter out the detail of the background instruments to allow you to all in and focus on the vocals. There is no treble spike at all. It has a very fast treble roll off just like the SE535 and SE846. On lower volume, you literally can't hear any highs / treble/ cymbals. For treble sensitive people, it might be a good pick as both 334 and 335 have a very fast treble roll off. The 334 is all about its "special" vocal, but it is definitely not for everybody. And it is not my cup of tea. The 334 just reminds me about the glory days of SE535 and SE846.

If you are between 334 or 335. 335 is definitely the safer pick as it is a much all rounder compared to 334.