[RPKwan]

The fourte was so ahead of its time, though.

I just revisited the fourte, and while I still feel it has some significant flaws, and falls short vs the new ultra-totl stuff, some of what it does remains extremely impressive (staging / detail / bass…).

The fact that it did some of this stuff as well as it did 5 years ago, when virtually nothing else at the time could compete, is what solidifies the fourte’s special status in hf history.

one could make a strong case its eye-watering release price was justified.

I remember the first time I heard it I was blown away. But then I listened to it a few more times and things started to sound strange and veered into almost distorted or extremely artificial tuning. It wasn't my cup of tea but agree it was something I had never heard before.

 

[Precogvision]

The Fourte is pretty incredible when you put it in that context (eg. it being a five year old IEM). For all its quirks, it has incredible dynamic range and truly holographic imaging. Even looking at the current crop of IEMs on the market, few can match up in one department much less both. The Nio and the U6t are also older designs, as they're essentially the universal demo units of the N8 and A6t respectively. Both are still great IEMs (at least in my opinion) and, really, it just goes to show how far ahead of the curve 64 Audio was at one point in time. I hope they can keep up that pace in the future, although that might be a tad unrealistic

 

[RPKwan]

The Fourte is pretty incredible when you put it in that context (eg. it being a five year old IEM). For all its quirks, it has incredible dynamic range and truly holographic imaging. Even looking at the current crop of IEMs on the market, few can match up in one department much less both. The Nio and the U6t are also older designs, as they're essentially the universal demo units of the N8 and A6t respectively. Both are still great IEMs (at least in my opinion) and, really, it just goes to show how far ahead of the curve 64 Audio was at one point in time. I hope they can keep up that pace in the future, although that might be a tad unrealistic

Have you tried any of the UM offerings ie. FS, Fusang...? It's always interesting to see what IEMs hit big in Asia first then spread out...

 

[gLer]

Have you tried any of the UM offerings? It's always interesting to see what IEMs hit big in Asia first then spread out...

Which would you say are currently the most popular high-end IEMs in Asia?

 

[RPKwan]

Which would you say are currently the most popular high-end IEMs in Asia?

It's interesting in that it really depends on the music people listen to. So, as @bluestorm1992 mentioned I think alot of IEMs focused on female vocals or classical are popular - also depends on how big you budget is.

Trailli was big, VE is always big, Dita x Final, Damascus and QDC VX always big.

I tend to like trying everything from high-end TOTL to less-known brands and everything in between.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

 

[gLer]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

Brilliantly done. Do you maybe want to add price/value, or are you skipping that on purpose?

 

[Damz87]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

This is epic bro!

 

[mvvRAZ]

Brilliantly done. Do you maybe want to add price/value, or are you skipping that on purpose?

Too subjective a point imo - something that costs 20% of the MSRP of an A18S and delivers 80% of its performance should score super high on a value evaluation but would get 0 listening time from me because I already own the 100% version - its value to me would essentially be “none”

I also feel like the magic of the TOTLs is in just how refined the individual details are, so a 10 or 20% leap in performance to me is “objectively” huge and as such warrants a price difference

Lastly, aesthetics, materials, shells and all that make a huge difference to my value perception, which is not the case with a lot of audiophiles which would mess up a value evaluation even more than it already is

One thing I’ll definitely do is a “Favourite at 1000/2000/2500/3000/4000+ IEM” and I suppose that’s somewhat approaching a value list

 

[immortalsoul]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

Nice format, it would be nice if bass, midrange, treble, detail retrieval, separation, soundstage and dynamics can have a score, from lets say 1-10
For example if you have great separation, it can have 9.5, or 10, that way if someone is looking for that particular trait in an iem to be easy to compare to another iem that has 8

 

[RTodd]

Too subjective a point imo - something that costs 20% of the MSRP of an A18S and delivers 80% of its performance should score super high on a value evaluation but would get 0 listening time from me because I already own the 100% version - its value to me would essentially be “none”

I also feel like the magic of the TOTLs is in just how refined the individual details are, so a 10 or 20% leap in performance to me is “objectively” huge and as such warrants a price difference

Lastly, aesthetics, materials, shells and all that make a huge difference to my value perception, which is not the case with a lot of audiophiles which would mess up a value evaluation even more than it already is

One thing I’ll definitely do is a “Favourite at 1000/2000/2500/3000/4000+ IEM” and I suppose that’s somewhat approaching a value list

Like your new format, very elegant and well thought out. Easy to read. Outstanding to me.

As for value it ends up with three possible outcomes based on the readers subjective opinion.

For what the reader desires, hears;
Overpriced
Underpriced
Priced right

I agree best to leave that up to the consumer of the review sheet.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Nice format, it would be nice if bass, midrange, treble, detail retrieval, separation, soundstage and dynamics can have a score, from lets say 1-10
For example if you have great separation, it can have 9.5, or 10, that way if someone is looking for that particular trait in an iem to be easy to compare to another iem that has 8

I’d generally like to avoid flat scores since they get overused a lot by readers who are just getting into the hobby. There isn’t a single metric that I can objectively give a score to - for example a super bright IEM can score really high on detail without it being detail I appreciate because it’s just so much in my face. In that case, would I give the IEM a high or a low detail score?

It’s too preference based of a hobby to really give out scores and rankings Imo, at best I can hope to give a good idea of what something sounds like, and recommend it (or not) to people based on certain characteristics

 

[normie610]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

Man, I love this format! Concise yet informative. No need to read lengthy reviews great job Michael, this is definitely THE gold standard of reviews!

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Here goes the first review with the new format - my quite possibly favourite-of-all-time IEM, the A18S

I like it because it boils down reviews into their essential elements. So, you can create a review in a single page.

The problem I have is that it's hard for me to figure out if I should buy this IEM. I read the details and initially I didn't see the name of the IEM, but I could not figure out what IEM you were talking about and I've actually auditioned the A18s. If I saw 10 of these, I would probably be so confused that I wouldn't know what to do. I think this illustrates the general problem with reviews. Reviewers tend to use ambiguous language to describe subjective impressions when readers need objective information and pointers as to what is better based on their preferences. And, they may not know what their preferences are. This is why people are asking for metrics. Take soundstage as an example. Is very wide good enough? What if I read an IEM had just wide soundstage? Should I buy it? How important is soundstage vs dynamics? Should I only look for an IEM with excellent dynamics? These words and categories don't connect with how I listen to music.

What is missing is context to orient the reader and queues for what is good or desirable. Maybe the reviews need to be supplemented with top 10 lists. For example, top 10 IEMs for classical music. List of 5 top criteria for great classical music listening. Evaluation of this IEM in those dimensions. Just imagine how good this would be when paired with Damz ranking list? Damz orients the reader and this format provides the data in a one page format.

 

[normie610]

Michael, perhaps you can also add something like “Genres Tested: xxx” or “Suitable Genres: xxx”. Perhaps this could give a better idea for people who aren’t yet familiar with the usual audio review terms (separation, imaging, etc.)