The discovery thread!

[o0genesis0o]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in a ratings for gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $10000 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $10 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

I have two kinds of scores, actually.

The star rating is absolute performance. Same bracket means practically similar performance on that particular aspect. So, of course there would be “high 4/5” or “low 4/5” resolution, but to account for people’s library and preference and hearing, 4/5 is 4/5.

The other rating is value, which I calculated as (performance)^5 / price. The power 5 is to introduce significant bias toward better performance (5 1star is not the same as 1 5star IEM).

For your example:

• The absolute rating will let people know both IEMs offer practically the same performance.
• B will stomp A in the value rating.

This rating system is why some IEMs like ThieAudio V16 is quite low in my ranking list, for instance. Decent sound, not competitive pricing.

Edit: thinking about adding 0.5 star to head-fi score for any IEM that top the value chart of that bracket at the time I write the review

 

[sgtbilko]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in a ratings for gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $300 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $100 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

This always intrigues me.

I think from my point of view, I would like to see ratings given without price factored in - this, in my opinion then leaves the reader to assess price as a personal value metric.

Put another way, if 2 iems of different prices score the same on technical performance, the real variable is the readers wealth - which plays a huge part in their buying process, but never changes how good the iem is.

 

[Zerstorer_GOhren]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in rating gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $300 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $100 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

Well, there will some TOTL sets that I will give a score lower than usual. For example, Effect X Elysian GAEA, I'll probably score it at 3.5 out of 5 due to its price point that some midrangers sounds better on both tonality and technical performance than this set. Even UM Mest II, Ill probably give it around 3.5 or 4 out of 5.

 

[Leonarfd]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in a ratings for gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $300 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $100 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

Very fun discussion, I prefer to evaluate with how the sound and technicalities is. Then tip it up or down depending on price, half a grade approximately.

An iem costing half of another with the same quality deserve to have higher score. My opinion.

In my opinion it would have been better without grading system, the text reflect more how good it is and is more accurate. Since all sets will have negatives and positives.

 

[Danx3k]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in rating gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $300 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $100 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

For me personally, I’d like to see two ratings - one for overall performance and one for performance for the price . Otherwise I’m always left wondering if it’s just great and a real giant-killer or just great for the price.

For example, if a $200 iem (or anything else for that matter) gets 5/5 / 10/10, it can give the impression that maybe it really is that good and will out performs anything else - regardless of the price.

On the flip side, if the same iem got 3/5, that could suggest it’s not very good, but it could being compared to a $1000 iem, so for the price it’s great.

Just my thoughts.

 

[gadgetgod]

Man, I am loving this player, the Aune M1p, IDK why I actually bought it, I just thought yeah a pure music player with an average battery, will be good for my gym and all. But now this thing is getting most of my time because it does sound so rich and lush that I am drooling over it right now. Paired to the Falcon Ultra, I am using this stack almost every single moment. Fantastic would be an understatement for the sound that I hear. Perfect hits in the mid-bass, absolutely lovely vocals, and crispy treble. I just love it!!!!!

Has some bugs which are actually not groundbreaking, but a crap battery life. The first hour of usage I got 7% battery drain, the second hour took 30% lol. But now with new firmware, I am getting constant 6-6.5 hours of music playback. Sometimes it gets stuck when randomly switches from flac to m4a playback, but everything runs perfectly otherwise.

Also in the back is the A&K PA10, absolutely amazing Amplifier which I pair with my R6 Pro II!! This time with god's grace I probably have some of the best portable setups ever.

 

[W0lrince]

Just playing devil's advocate, should price not be a factor in rating gear?

Let's take an exaggerated example for discussion:
- IEM A scores 4/5 based on technical performance, but costs $300 USD.
- IEM B has exactly the same technical performance as IEM A, but IEM B costs $100 USD.

Is it fair to grade both 4/5? Shouldn't the more expensive IEM be rated down, or at least the less expensive one be given more credit? If both are graded 4/5, where does the aspect of price-to-performance ratio come in? Should we be a bit more lenient with very cheap gear, and stricter with more expensive products, or treat all equally and strictly?

To me it's fair, if 50$ iem perform as good as 500$, that just mean 50$ iem have better value than 500$, it doesn't change anything. "For a budget set", "At it's price point", all that means it's still inferior compare to high-end set, which implying 50$ iem don't sound as good as 500$ iem, also means we should have lower it's score.

 

[r31ya]

I have two kinds of scores, actually.

The star rating is absolute performance. Same bracket means practically similar performance on that particular aspect. So, of course there would be “high 4/5” or “low 4/5” resolution, but to account for people’s library and preference and hearing, 4/5 is 4/5.

The other rating is value, which I calculated as (performance)^5 / price. The power 5 is to introduce significant bias toward better performance (5 1star is not the same as 1 5star IEM).

For your example:

• The absolute rating will let people know both IEMs offer practically the same performance.
• B will stomp A in the value rating.

This rating system is why some IEMs like ThieAudio V16 is quite low in my ranking list, for instance. Decent sound, not competitive pricing.

Edit: thinking about adding 0.5 star to head-fi score for any IEM that top the value chart of that bracket at the time I write the review

i love separate rating for pure performance and value preposition.
With the separation, i could see how good the performance of iem aspect compared to the top dog.
and it will be accompanied with value rating, that shows, yeah this level of performance is great for this price.

because "good for the price" on its own without the pure performance ranking is often kinda vague on how good it is.
things like "its great for the price" without pure performance scoring, might cause this kind of reaction "uuh, Its decent. Its better than the standard sure. but its not even good enough to be among the price segment kings, not to mention the higher price segment"
there is one website do written review with pure performance ranking and value ranking that once shock me, "seriously, this level of performance only get 7/10?" but then i saw the one that got 8~9 score is bunch of midfi and totl, "ok, 7 is freaking awesome for the price"

not to mention the contrast between the pure performance and value will be able to illustrate the advancement chifi standard sound quality

I think the late AmericanSpirit also grade this way, pure performance scoring then value scoring.
Crin do pure technical performance and tone on a bell curve grading with stars ranking for value grade.

---

this is odd news progress,
no official marketing blurb yet, but FR graph is out and early impression and actual product shots is out, both from third party.
So no pricing or even driver setup statement for the upcoming CCA Duo

Spoiler

Seems to be dual DD with soundtube shell, i guess KZ/CCA first foray into the new dual DD hype.

 

[o0genesis0o]

i love separate rating for pure performance and value preposition.
With the separation, i could see how good the performance of iem aspect compared to the top dog.
and it will be accompanied with value rating, that shows, yeah this level of performance is great for this price.

because "good for the price" on its own without the pure performance ranking is often kinda vague on how good it is.
things like "its great for the price" without pure performance scoring, might cause this kind of reaction "uuh, Its decent. Its better than the standard sure. but its not even good enough to be among the price segment kings, not to mention the higher price segment"
there is one website do written review with pure performance ranking and value ranking that once shock me, "seriously, this level of performance only get 7/10?" but then i saw the one that got 8~9 score is bunch of midfi and totl, "ok, 7 is freaking awesome for the price"

not to mention the contrast between the pure performance and value will be able to illustrate the advancement chifi standard sound quality

I think the late AmericanSpirit also grade this way, pure performance scoring then value scoring.
Crin do pure technical performance and tone on a bell curve grading with stars ranking for value grade.

Manufacturers generally do not want to see performance-only rating, especially for these hype train $50 IEMs. Speaking from personal negative experience.

 

[r31ya]

Manufacturers generally do not want to see performance-only rating, especially for these hype train $50 IEMs. Speaking from personal negative experience.

considering i was only able to afford the sub $100s iems, i use to be giddy to be able to afford a B- ranking iem/headphones in crin list.
yes, its not gonna be able to hang with the midfis and totl but dude B- on overall ranking is great

but i can understand why manufacturers doesn't want the hyped iem budget iem only have scores of 6.5/10,
even tough in the grand scale its already great value preposition, its just the 6.5/10 might not look good in a glance without context.

 

[sgtbilko]

I wonder if it's worth adding a 3rd 'ranking' for the genres of music it best suits?

BGGAR does this now in his videos (as you probably know), so if you are a basshead or Kpop fan etc, at least you have a better idea of how a technically rated iem may fit in with your tastes...

 

[r31ya]

I wonder if it's worth adding a 3rd 'ranking' for the genres of music it best suits?

BGGAR does this now in his videos (as you probably know), so if you are a basshead or Kpop fan etc, at least you have a better idea of how a technically rated iem may fit in with your tastes...

yeah BGGAR do genre scaling now.
its pretty great way to show the viewers, how this particular iems works on your library.

 

[Ferdinando1968]

Very fun discussion, I prefer to evaluate with how the sound and technicalities is. Then tip it up or down depending on price, half a grade approximately.

An iem costing half of another with the same quality deserve to have higher score. My opinion.

In my opinion it would have been better without grading system, the text reflect more how good it is and is more accurate. Since all sets will have negatives and positives.

I think the matter of judgments is enormously complex.

The factors (that come to mind) that come into play are:

1. subjective judgment and personal tastes
2. the type of music that is mostly listened to
3. the most objective possible technical judgment on a given technical aspect
4. the cost
5. the historical period in which the judgment was given (given the strong technical evolution that the drivers undergo, what was 5 stars yesterday is perhaps only 3 stars today)

Constraining 3) to 4) produces perhaps more 'fair' reviews on the least expensive IEMs (otherwise you may never see cheap IEMs with 4 or 5 stars)

Unbinding 3) from 4) perhaps provides a technical judgment on a specific aspect that could be more objective about that aspect.

But there is still 5) which invalidates the judgment over time, and which in theory would force the star ratings to be periodically reviewed.

What do you think ?
Too complicated ?

 

[gooberbm]

But the rating is converging to 4/5 nowadays. If an item is not an outright failure, it’s likely a good IEM.

Is it probably time to reassess your benchmarks and move things around a little bit? If everything is a 4 or higher, then your average has moved TBH

 

[Uprox]

The Dunu Falcon Ultra has got me stopped in my tracks
FiiO BTR7 (via BT) --> Samsung 20 --> Amazon Music

TLDR: Honestly, this is what I would be expecting from the yet to be released Moondrop Blessing 3 Dusk. Basshead's rejoice. Finally found a unicorn, that does justice to the intro of "Enter Sandman". if you’re a Dunu fan, the Falcon Ultra is a must, for the collection. I actually place it higher than the O.G. Zen

My test song for sssibilance is "House of the rising Sun". The S's are differing degrees of hissy on all of my IEMs. Not so on the F.U.'s
Sub bass “Lollipop” & “Wait/Whisper” enough head rattle to put a smile on any basshead's face, without having a prolonged decay. Really reminiscent of a good 15" kevlar sub, vs. a run of the mill 12"
Mid bass “Me and Misses Jones” & "Un-Break my Heart", two songs that can be made or busted by the midbass. The FU's support the vocals, true to the artists.
Mid Forward vocals. “In the Air ToNight”, Collins has that kind of voice that can sound too synthesized, on some sets. But the FU's say nuts to that.
More details than I would expect from a single DD, given the afore mentioned sub & midbass presence.
Soundstage 7.25 out of 10.; this so subjective, that I would recommend compiling other reviews.

Running balanced is a necessity. On the 3.5mm SE connection I had to bump my Massdrop THX AAA 789 to it’s second gain setting.
Very hard (at least my copy) to swap from the 3.5mm to 4.4mm. Will probably loosen up with use.
Threading of the nozzles matches FiiO FD5. The FiiO “ sound tube” is longer than the Dunu nozzle, so this would an option for a deeper insertion.

I would’ve said that the tuning was more of a W, but graphs don’t lie (I guess).


O.G. Zen vs. FU (on BTR7)
Zen wins on width, but I'm not kicking the FU out of bed. FU's tuning is more sultry, similar to using a tube amp. The Zen has more sparkle, up top.
Sub: (this surprised me) FU wins, hands down.
Midbass: on the Zen is cleaner. But I appreciate that small boost in the FU's midbass; it brings home vocals, mud free.
Overall: the FU has richer/fuller mids. The FU's playback is the vinyl, stereophonic version, vs. the Zen's MP3 playback


sidenote:
@baskingshark you suck. You've effectively sidelined my Zens, maybe.

Thanks, it's very interesting!
What do you think about Dunu Falcon Ultra vs Shozy B2?