The discovery thread!

[Lycans]

There is a better drawn one, but this is the one i found
basic illustration on FR to instrument



and interactive one,
https://alexiy.nl/eq/
and explanation by the measurement king crin
https://crinacle.com/2020/04/08/graphs-101-how-to-read-headphone-measurements/
---

also the two stepsibling latest collab comparison

That is very helpful for someone new to the hobby, thank you!

 

[Singaravelan]

So, the base target here is a target curve by a single person and his/her individual preferences. > That's the basis to understand the grey dotted line. Now, if you go and display a measurement of an IEM interpolated with this target, you can see how far off a particular IEM is to Precog's "ideal". When you then add another IEM, you can at least see the differences to A) Precog's ideal AND B) the difference to each of the two IEM's independently. >> It's not perfect since such individual target curves are certainly not standardized. They can only help you better IF you have a relatively similar preference like Precogvision has (so you better know exactly his preferences what he likes and dislikes).

But in the end we can guesstimate DaVinci vs. Explorer:
> DaVinci has slightly more presence in sub bass and mid bass
> DaVinci's mids are all so slightly audibly more taking a back seat compared to the Explorer... but not much
> DaVinci has an audible push in the upper pinna gain region 3-5kHz and shoud sound a tiny bit more forward with e.g. voices
> everything above 5kHz, the treble region, is roughly identical

EDIT: but please be aware, you simply cannot, never know exactly how an IEM sounds only by looking at such graphs.. maximally it can give you a rough idea, because there are many many more influencing factors of how an IEM sound than just the tuning curve > IEM shell design and material & nozzle length (anatomical fit), driver implementation, nozzle design, and the usual suspects like cable and tips used...

Thanks boss! Much appreciated.

 

[Hypops]

I have no problems with more short posts, easier to follow.
Now, long signatures ........ (warrenpchi is an offender in this category!!! Sorry, I'll show myself out)

I’m with you. I really don’t like the recent push for multi-quote posts. They’re a pain to read. As if this thread weren’t already enough work to catch up on. Much prefer shorter, multiple posts myself FWIW. Can’t win, I guess.

 

[TimmyVangtan]

So, the base target here is a target curve by a single person and his/her individual preferences. > That's the basis to understand the grey dotted line. Now, if you go and display a measurement of an IEM interpolated with this target, you can see how far off a particular IEM is to Precog's "ideal". When you then add another IEM, you can at least see the differences to A) Precog's ideal AND B) the difference to each of the two IEM's independently. >> It's not perfect since such individual target curves are certainly not standardized. They can only help you better IF you have a relatively similar preference like Precogvision has (so you better know exactly his preferences what he likes and dislikes).

But in the end we can guesstimate DaVinci vs. Explorer:
> DaVinci has slightly more presence in sub bass and mid bass
> DaVinci's mids are all so slightly audibly more taking a back seat compared to the Explorer... but not much
> DaVinci has an audible push in the upper pinna gain region 3-5kHz and shoud sound a tiny bit more forward with e.g. voices
> everything above 5kHz, the treble region, is roughly identical

EDIT: but please be aware, you simply cannot, never, know exactly how an IEM sounds only by looking at such graphs.. maximally it can give you a rough idea, because there are many many more influencing factors of how an IEM sound than just the tuning curve > IEM shell design and material & nozzle length (anatomical fit), driver implementation, nozzle design, and the usual suspects like cable and tips used...

First of all, thank you for checking out DaVinci! I appreciate everyone here who's taking an interest in my project

I just want to add something important regarding graph comparisons.

I want to say that comparing across rigs is not a good idea because of coupler variations/ differences. The same exact unit can be measured differently on two separate couplers. You can find an example of this with Subtonic Storm, Softears Turii, and Elysian Pilgrim on my squig (https://timmyv.squig.link/) vs. HBB's squig (https://hbb.squig.link/). We measured the same exact units (We loan units to each other), but the graphs were different due to coupler variations. The differences can range from minor to massive.

Because of this, It's best to compare IEMs from the same database only for the most accurate comparison. Comparing across different databases will be largely inaccurate.
This doesn't even take into account IEM unit variations, which would increase the rate of inaccuracy when comparing across databases.

Anyway, thank you again for checking out DaVinci! I hope everyone gets to demo it soon

 

[Ineras]

Thanks, apparently the flood of posts made me miss some mentions of the SLT6 by others . I guess what caught my eye was you also mentioning the TSMR-X since I had been on the verge of buying it several times now but am a little worried bass, especially sub bass, will be too strong for my liking.


Sadly not familiar with neither AS16 pro not V11, but you totally got me with the part about the multiple times very well done treble


Right, and it wouldn't really make sense to assume otherwise. DD sets don't all sound alike either, otherwise this hobby would be pretty pointless. Alas I'm afraid I'm one of those few people out there that actually consider themselves BA heads, if that is a thing . That, the praise by @ToneDeafMonk and I guess partly the optics made me very interested in this set.
I was more concerned about moving too much in the same direction, having the already monitor like SA6 and Hisenior T4, as I value having different tunings over having different characteristics in detail reproduction or technicalities with a similar tonality approach. And yeah, similar attitude towards DSP. Don't get me wrong, I use PEQ quite a bit, but only when things are (subjectively) fundamentally wrong. But for a product in this price range (I know, doesn't need correlate with quality), if that were the case, I wouldn't keep it.
Now I see something about smoothing out the midrange / treble mentioned in yours as well as @Ineras 's posts. Do you guys feel it can become too aggresive in these regions?

I didn't find anything aggressive with the SLT6 mids, I even have my switches set to Down Up right now which brings them up a bit.

I'm very sensitive to sibilance, and I appreciate a well done treble with good extension. I find the SLT6 treble to be one of the best I've heard for my preference. I even tried it with the Hidizs Martha, no problem. I only experienced sibilance with the TP50, and that was when it was fresh out the box.

As for the low end, it has good sub bass but the mid bass is a bit soft and lacks that dynamic punch that I get from the V11. However, it responds very well to eq.

 

[Jmop]

Scratch that, I agree with whichever DaVinci graph it was that cuts before 4k lol.

 

[ToneDeafMonk]

I was interested in it, too and I found the AFUL Explorer graph on Jaytiss Squig.link (and the DaVinci one still only on Super* Review)... so I tried to find a common target curve which I could actually compare the two graphs with each other. Result: Precogvision's target curve, again normalized at 60db and 500Hz.

EDIT: wish I could've compared with the Harman target curve, but Super* Review only offers an "adjusted Harman" curve in his Squig.link, and Jaytiss the raw Harman, so I had to use a target which matched both, but at least it gives you a rough comparison.

Here you go:

The Explorer looks like a I wish I was a DaVinci attempt , I am a little worried the E3 is going to sound a bit flat no pun intentionally done.

 

[flre]

I didn't find anything aggressive with the SLT6 mids, I even have my switches set to Down Up right now which brings them up a bit.

I'm very sensitive to sibilance, and I appreciate a well done treble with good extension. I find the SLT6 treble to be one of the best I've heard for my preference. I even tried it with the Hidizs Martha, no problem. I only experienced sibilance with the TP50, and that was when it was fresh out the box.

As for the low end, it has good sub bass but the mid bass is a bit soft and lacks that dynamic punch that I get from the V11. However, it responds very well to eq.

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I felt a little uncomfortable reading about supposed harshness in mids and treble as I count myself as quite sensitive to sibilance as well. Or peakiness in general but the graph looks butter smooth

 

[ToneDeafMonk]

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I felt a little uncomfortable reading about supposed harshness in mids and treble as I count myself as quite sensitive to sibilance as well. Or peakiness in general but the graph looks butter smooth

At 54 , I know I am treble sensitive have some upper frequency hearing loss and that's probably why I love the SLT6 so much LOL

 

[fidgeraldo]

I basically chose the Lakers due to Magic!

And I stopped being a Lakers fan after Kareem stopped playing. I turned to the Knicks after.

Cheers!

 

[ericf]

A review of Simgot Supermix 4 with comparisons to Kiwiears Quintet. It includes recordings to compare and I find it quite interesting. To me, the Quintet sounds quite open and impactful compared to the Supermix 4 which has a somewhat nasal tone and, to me, too much upper frequency loss. To each their own.

 

[thaslaya]

First of all, thank you for checking out DaVinci! I appreciate everyone here who's taking an interest in my project

I just want to add something important regarding graph comparisons.

I want to say that comparing across rigs is not a good idea because of coupler variations/ differences. The same exact unit can be measured differently on two separate couplers. You can find an example of this with Subtonic Storm, Softears Turii, and Elysian Pilgrim on my squig (https://timmyv.squig.link/) vs. HBB's squig (https://hbb.squig.link/). We measured the same exact units (We loan units to each other), but the graphs were different due to coupler variations. The differences can range from minor to massive.

Because of this, It's best to compare IEMs from the same database only for the most accurate comparison. Comparing across different databases will be largely inaccurate.
This doesn't even take into account IEM unit variations, which would increase the rate of inaccuracy when comparing across databases.

Anyway, thank you again for checking out DaVinci! I hope everyone gets to demo it soon

Timmy, I have to give you and Dunu huge props. Last night I needed to do some more testing for a review of the ZMF Caldera but I couldn't stop listening to the DaVinci. Sure it's not going to compare to a TOTL open back headphone but I found that I actually prefered the DaVinci. Iems are just best for me and you and Dunu have created a stellar set here! Be proud and keep on doing your thing!

 

[r31ya]

The Explorer looks like a I wish I was a DaVinci attempt , I am a little worried the E3 is going to sound a bit flat no pun intentionally done.

different measurement sample,
the main difference seems to be in 2K to 5K gain. Da Vinci have more upper mids, vocal focus?

 

[droid23]

First of all, thank you for checking out DaVinci! I appreciate everyone here who's taking an interest in my project

I just want to add something important regarding graph comparisons.

I want to say that comparing across rigs is not a good idea because of coupler variations/ differences. The same exact unit can be measured differently on two separate couplers. You can find an example of this with Subtonic Storm, Softears Turii, and Elysian Pilgrim on my squig (https://timmyv.squig.link/) vs. HBB's squig (https://hbb.squig.link/). We measured the same exact units (We loan units to each other), but the graphs were different due to coupler variations. The differences can range from minor to massive.

Because of this, It's best to compare IEMs from the same database only for the most accurate comparison. Comparing across different databases will be largely inaccurate.
This doesn't even take into account IEM unit variations, which would increase the rate of inaccuracy when comparing across databases.

Anyway, thank you again for checking out DaVinci! I hope everyone gets to demo it soon

Hello Timmy!

I'm honored that Mr. DaVinci himself shows up in our "discovery round table".. A big high five man!
(Mine was shipped tody by HiFiGo, so I ordered one anyway before we had any FQ response graph because I knew that DUNU and Timmy can only be a good collab, honestly, without buttering it up!)

Yes, of course you're absolutely right, you can't really compare measurements taken with different equipment. I shouldn't have done that actually. But it's anyway a tiny bit soft science due to intra-setup differences even with the same equipment, also that sometimes can vary and give slight differences in curves. We in our lab are bound by law to only use officially licensed calibrated equipment, repeatedly and controlled within certain timeframes, so I know a little bit about the problems of high repeatability and reliability of measurements. Nevertheless you should still have a very rough "guesstimate"... but this never can be a substitute of hearing an IEM with our own ears.

Thanks again for clearing that up Timmy and congrats to your DaVinci! ..hope it will be the IEM of 2024 (so far it goes into the right direction I'd say... fingers crossed for you)

 

[fidgeraldo]

I hope everyone gets to demo it soon

A free unit for all...that's amazing! Can't wait!

Cheers!

P.S. I bought Nan-na because of you!