But but Nic already reviewed the Andros here http://theheadphonelist.com/campfire-audio-andromeda/ he did the homework more than a year ago.
flinkenick's 17 Flagship IEM Shootout Thread (and general high-end portable audio discussion)
Thanks for sharing that! I had understood that the 334 were very mid-focused, but had not heard they were this focused on vocals. I love vocals and certainly would consider vocal-centric IEMs, but that position is taken by the VE5 at the moment and those have amazingly good treble. That said, @Deezel177 will come with another contender in a few days.
Haven't read much on the 335, but then again, I seriously doubt I will ever go through the trouble of getting FitEar anyway. They just keep popping up because of their CIEM build. Especially the Titan has incredibly short stems and that would be a dream if I could find it closer to home. The only company I know who is willing to experiment with that is Hear Wave Audio here in London (still need to visit them at some point).
Yep, that is pretty much it. Nic keeps trying to explain the interdependency within the frequency response, but that does not seem to come across clearly enough. Or at least the discussion keeps coming back to the 1.5 kHz bump as an isolated cause, which is exactly what Nic was trying to explain should not be done. Not sure why these discussions (FR graphs in general) usually end up with people digging in their heels.
Hey, I missed that one! But then again, that was just before I found this place, so logical I would have missed it.
Interestingly, the 334 isn’t vocal-focused the way the VE5 and the mystery CIEM is. It has a darker, thicker presentation with an emphasis on the lower midrange; almost a Zeus-XIV-like mid signature. Though, the 334 has a more rolled-off treble in comparison. On the other hand, the VE5 and the mystery CIEM are dependent on both a collective midrange bump as well as an elevated upper treble; to simultaneously create large, expansive vocals as well as the clarity and air required to properly resolve the intimate stage. But, you’ll find out soon enough when I publish the review.
Oh, wait... did you think the review was gonna come out in a few days? That’s... very interesting...
What I am on about, is that you said you had recently listened to a tone generator. At each step of 500 Hz, did you hear completely opposite sounds or did you hear a gradual rise? Neighbouring frequencies have a very similar tone, that's the whole idea of a gradual rise. If a 1.5 KHz gives 'weird vocals', then according to that logic a 2 KHz bump should give 'slightly less but still weird vocals'. But your argument is that a graph with a 1.5 KHz apex has a crazy, never seen before effect on the sound, whereas a 2 KHz bump is a perfectly normal and natural sound.
I get this notion because your argument was, and still is, that is primarily the 1.5 KHz peak which causes this effect. Not only in the first posts but every post after up till now.
You did not mention your graph, but you said my analysis, which is that the a lack of note weight and imaging precision results from a drop in the midrange not (hence LACK of note weight) is wrong and I should ignore Innerfidelity graph. Then you say you made your own analysis before you saw the Innerfidelity graph, which is evidently based on your own graph. Again, an analysis that has nothing to do with the issues I mention in my own analysis (which you yourself said you didn't hear using your ears), but solely revolves around an incorrect assumption of the 1.5 KHz range based on an isolated observation. If what you are saying is true, then you should be able to find more examples of iems that have a 1,5 KHz bump that show a similar effect to prove your argument.
Actually the point is not at all that 1.5 KHz has no effect. Of course the 1.5 KHz has an effect: it creates a slightly forward vocal, and can even increase vocal transparency. I own multiple iems that have a bump at either 1 or 2 KHz and do not show that effect, so I know from personal experience what the effect of this range is. And no, the point is not to disprove the 1.5 KHz effect is not there, that's not the issue at all. It's to prove that a 1.5 Khz does not have the effect that you are claiming it has, since there are numerous iems that have bumps at 1 KHz or 2 KHz. But according to you, Crinacle, and apparently thatonenoob, a 1.5 Khz bump is an isolated evil frequency that has a completely different effect than a bump at its neighbouring frequencies, even though this defies the most basic logic.
What an incredibly literal interpretation of an argument. Passively listening to 'frequencies' does not automatically make you more experienced. If that was the case, everybody's grandmother would have 'more experience with frequencies'.
What I am dealing with is Silverears who is telling me "that others actually use their ears" and I should try that for once, while I don't even have a measurement setup and have written over 80 reviews mentioning frequencies going only on my ears. But I don't see you addressing that. Then I have Crinacle who feels the need to prove himself at the expense of me and my shootout for the third time in six months. Tell me @crinacle, how often have I come on your thread to comment on you and your analysis? Do you also make a habit of repeatedly challenging Brooko or anybody else?
I am perfectly fine with you taking their side in this case. But could you maybe do me the courtesy of not talking to me in such a condescending tone?
Hi yes you are kind of correct when it comes to the relative prominence of the 1.5 KHz peak. But the issue is that these people were saying the solution was EQ'ing down the 1.5 KHz peak because it is the 1.5 KHz peak that causes weird vocals. I am saying that a simple 1.5 KHz peak could never have such an effect because this is not the case with iems with similar peaks at 1 or 2 KHz. I am saying that you need to add more solidity to the midrange by increasing the midrange frequencies, since this effect can only occur from a large dip throughout the midrange. This is supported by Audeze's own advised EQ which significantly boosts the upper midrange. This is also visible in the DSP graphs: if 1.5 KHz was the issue, then you would have see a completely different curve: not a rising bump between 1-4 KHz, but a completely flat line throughout the midrange since the 1.5 KHz would be reduced. So Audeze own EQ is most definitely evidence, unless the assumption is that Silverears, Crinacle, and thatonenoob not only have a better understanding of frequencies than flinkenick, but also Audeze.
I'll just cease the Audeze debate now. Too much misunderstandings going on and going to take too much effort to clarify.
Honestly, I would welcome any counterargument, counteranalysis or further discussion on my threads. I don't like to restrict myself in a bubble (unintended or otherwise) where I'm the top authority and everyone else is an audience. Don't be afraid of debate or discussion; just refrain from attacking me as a person, okay?
I've had a few debates with Brooko with other topics as well (his reviewer grievances thread come to mind). You're not the exception here. For some reason, you take things too far and assume everything is a challenge to your authority and at your expense. I don't expect anyone to come out victorious in any argument and any technical analysis is much welcome in any subject, audio included. I'm here to discuss audio; you can agree, you can disagree, we can discuss.
The problem here arises when we disagree. This all started with me pointing out that you compared a HRTF-compensated graph with a raw graph, which was a valid criticism and I hope you can learn from that. Everything else was trying to isolate what makes the Audeze portaplanars so weird. But here, you have this need to be completely and utterly right and somehow shut me down totally in a topic that is more grey-area than black-and-white.
Honestly, I would welcome any counterargument, counteranalysis or further discussion on my threads. I don't like to restrict myself in a bubble (unintended or otherwise) where I'm the top authority and everyone else is an audience. Don't be afraid of debate or discussion; just refrain from attacking me as a person, okay?
I've had a few debates with Brooko with other topics as well (his reviewer grievances thread come to mind). You're not the exception here. For some reason, you take things too far and assume everything is a challenge to your authority and at your expense. I don't expect anyone to come out victorious in any argument and any technical analysis is much welcome in any subject, audio included. I'm here to discuss audio; you can agree, you can disagree, we can discuss.
The problem here arises when we disagree. This all started with me pointing out that you compared a HRTF-compensated graph with a raw graph, which was a valid criticism and I hope you can learn from that. Everything else was trying to isolate what makes the Audeze portaplanars so weird. But here, you have this need to be completely and utterly right and somehow shut me down totally in a topic that is more grey-area than black-and-white.
Last edited:
Just want to give a friendly reminder/opinion that personal audio discussion should never get too personal you guys. It's great to see all these constructive discussions lately.
Last edited:
Crin, if you welcome criticism, then I would like to point out that you have not done yourself any favours by criticising the shootout in the past and coming into this thread with an air of "I am going to teach Nic something". Take those two in combination, how do you expect Nic is going to respond? He has put his heart and soul into his shootout and has had to defend himself countless times against unfair criticism and accusations. That is not something anyone can simply brush off.
Even in your post here you can't help yourself but to add comments like "hope you can learn from that". Why? There is no need for that and you know from experience that is just going to get under Nic's skin. Why go there? Why not simply construct your argument devoid of such personal squabbles?
Irrespective of the validity of the arguments you present, you are yourself contributing to the polarisation of the discussion. And yes, Nic gets angry. He knows that, he knows it's not his strong point, but he has taken criticism of it to heart and is trying to improve in that (as he commented on several times). He is however the one who is constantly subject to criticism and surely you can appreciate that it is bloody difficult to deal with day in day out.
I hope I did not come off that way, but I honestly cannot recall specifics. Help me out here.
That is true, hate for the sake of hating is hard to argue since it usually doesn't involve logic. However, I don't think I was doing that; my topics had technology in its roots and have been for discussion purposes.
Because he repeated the same mistake that I told him about a few months ago. Either he forgot or he really thinks that I'm wrong about everything and ignored my initial advice. I wasn't trying to taunt him but seeing people misuse data is a personal pet peeve of mine. Everything else is interpretation; pardon my crudeness but it's not really my problem if you misconstrue relatively neutral wording like "I hope you can learn from that" as an insult, given the context. Who knows, you could've added unwelcome meaning to that little sentence when Nic probably wouldn't have given it another thought without your whiteknightly intrusion.
That's funny, because that suggests that I'm the one trying to ruin this atmosphere of praising and giving props with *gasp* polarising opinions (as if that is a bad thing). If all of you are so angry and insulted that someone would disagree with you, maybe I'm in the wrong crowd.
(Note: this is a conversation between me and you. Obviously you don't speak for Nic and I'm not trying to argue points that he himself have not made.)
Last edited:
You think I am restricting myself here in a bubble because I don't want to be challenged? I don't go around the forum posting because I want to minimize my time on Head-Fi, the main reason is that my PhD is already severely delayed because I invested so much time and energy in the shootout. I welcome impressions or debate as much as the next person. You're painting me as a dictatorial authority here, but when have you ever seen me act that way?
As for me taking everything to personal, you posted this on the measurement forum when somebody asked about the shootout one week after I said that I needed to take a break because I was exhausted from pressuring myself for 12 weeks to release a review on time week after week.
"I do. It's dragging on for quite a while but I understand it from a "marketing" perspective; let the information trickle down in small amounts and let the hype keep building up to #1.
Unfortunately it also means the main thread is 90% off topic and more noise than signal. I just drop by every Friday since the weekly reveals are actually semi-entertaining.
The whole weekly-release tactic + pre-announcement is all an effective way to garner hype and views for the shootout itself."
Then a while back you proudly proclaimed you were debunking the hype this shootout created for the Prelude by posting an awful graph. But that has nothing to do with me or the shootout I guess?
You pointed out I misinterpreted a graph, and I acknowledged that. That was the end of that discussion, the discussion that follows if from you saying "Oh hey your analysis wrong. It does not have to do with the midrange dip but with the 1.5 KHz peak." You just blatantly I misinterpreted the graph wrong, where I am actually not going off any graphs at all. I am going off what I heard with my own ears, which I mentioned to Vishnu before I saw ANY graphs; I even showed those messages. I know for a fact that a lack of note weight, precision of imaging and transparency has nothing to do with a 1.5 KHz bump. Like I said I know this because I have owned mulitple iems for a long time that have similar peaks in surrounding areas. These issues occur from a 'lack of midrange', not an excess.
But you say you haven't heard what I am referring to, which makes sense since you briefly demoed an open-back iem in a noisy environment, yet continue to tell me my analysis is wrong. Can you not see how frustrating that argument is?
Last edited:
I'm saying that from what I'm seeing, there has not been many nitty-gritty discussions where any certain aspect have been discussed/debated. You say something, people like your post, end of story. And when you touch on a subject that I'm familiar with, I would like to contribute and propose a different perspective. But when I do, that's something that doesn't happen a lot (like you said, thrice over the past year or so). I didn't paint you as "a dictatorial authority" but it's clear that a lot of people have a lot of respect for you, for good reason. And that seems to stagnate discussions when no one wants to state an opinion that goes against yours since they find your opinions to be of higher credibility than theirs. (Note that I'm NOT saying that my opinions are more credible that yours, but I want to have a discussion on equal footing and not put anyone on a pedestal.)
Your personal life, I have no problem with. If you look at my recent activity, bulk of my posts on HF this week was on this thread regarding this debacle, with bare scatterings in my own thread. I'm busy, you're busy, I understand.
Ah, bringing that into the conversation. Can't say I wasn't expecting that.
I don't see how my observations were wrong. The thread is pretty off-topic most of the time (the regulars here agree and they all have fun with it too!). There was a lot of hype surrounding this shootout, which is great. I'm stating my reasoning in a forum where the language is less flowery and more direct-to-the-point, so uh...
Aw man, I thought we settled this? I never tried to "debunk" anything. I posted a graph, other people interpreted it wrongly, we had a talk, and now it only exists in my database. Please tell me that's the end of the story here and there's no Chapter Two.
As I've said, no more Audeze discussion from my end. For your mental health and mine.
Last edited:
Your post here is another example of how you, perhaps entirely unintentionally, position yourself as an "authority" and steer towards making it personal.
I understand that your aim is for your arguments to be objective, scientific even, but they don't come across as such.
Case in point. You present an argument here as an absolute truth and imply Nic is being ignorant. Why? Why not simply restate your argument and work with whatever counterargument you receive in return?
That much is certainly clear by your reaction and that is fine, but it does not explain why you construct your arguments as you do.
But it wasn't neutral, given the context. I explained in my previous post how such remarks can easily be taken as a personal attack. Besides that, they have no place in an argument that is purely based technology.
Again, you can't help but introduce a thinly veiled personal jab at me. Why? Why not stick to what I wrote? Why read more into it? This was not about defending Nic, or his arguments, my post was a constructive criticism about how you present your arguments.
I did not suggest that at all. I said, and I will quote: "you are yourself contributing to the polarisation of the discussion" I chose that wording very specifically with the sole intention of not suggesting you were trying to ruin anything. In fact, I started with "you have not done yourself any favours" for the purpose of indicating it could well have been completely unintentional. That is because I honestly believe you are genuinely interested in these things and want to discuss every aspect and interrogate every finding. Again, that is great and I do read your posts with great interest. The only thing I am pointing out here is that the way you construct your arguments is counterproductive.
Gavin C4
Member of the Trade: Hercules Audio
Got a chance to demo the VE8 for few hours in Hong Kong. Shared some similar impression with nick. Definitly worth placing it into the Top tier selection from nick together with 5way, Zeus and U18.
I would add some impression soon.
I would add some impression soon.
This thread is Nic's thread. Yes there has been a lot of sucking up to the teat or at least trying to find a open one to suckle on..I tend to respect a variety of people's opinion's regarding their ability to hear frequency and eloquently articulate what they hear, Nic being one of those people, it doesn't mean I always agree.....there is one thing that amazes me, and that is ego and the powerful desire to be right even when there is no right or wrong. Someone's opinion is only that, someone's opinion. No one person's opinion should be gospel and not one person is always correct and there is never only one expert, they are only an expert of their own opinion. The thread has veered from what it was intended to be and the hard work that went into that. I review, and while some here think I am a hack, I would never want to take on an endeavor of this magnitude. To me balancing "real life", relationship, career and everything else that goes into that consumes my time, the important stuff, not the internet or social media. Again, it is Nic's thread and we are all a visitor. The art of hearty debate involves listening as well as talking. Not trying to insert myself into the fray, but clearly as a clan of one, I have a subjective opinion that there is no argument to win.
Yes I agree the VE8 should be at the top of anyone's list, particularly if you do not have a TOTL IEM. It truly is a solid player, all around. I have never heard the the 5way but from my recollection of the VE8 I feel that the U18 and Zeus's strong points excel past what the VE8 delivered, but it has been a while since I have heard it. If I could have only one custom and did not own others it would be the VE8.Got a chance to demo the VE8 for few hours in Hong Kong. Shared some similar impression with nick. Definitly worth placing it into the Top tier selection from nick together with 5way, Zeus and U18.
I would add some impression soon.
Users who are viewing this thread
