[drftr]

Thanks for sharing it here. I keep 2 copies of the book around the house. Great reference.

On Audio Glossary (1990): In my opinion, a good audio review should use one and only one of the two vocabulary: that of a mixing/mastering engineer or that of an audiophile. Holt's glossary is a great reference for the latter vocabulary. It focuses on conveying perception about and impression of the sound, instead of trying to "reason" about elements within the sound.

On separation: the idea that "separation" is considered a factor of sound quality is pretty easy to debunk. Unless one listens to IEM/HP with crossfeed, the panning of the instruments are determined by the mix itself. It is impossible for a bad quality IEM to make a stereo recording sound more mono than it is. Better imaging/resolution will result in a clearer "separation" of the instruments, but then we should be discussion the imaging capability, not "separation" or panning.

Funny thing is that Gordon Holt and other founding fathers like John Atkinson and Ken Kessler have close to zero "respect" if that's the right word for the IEMs that we think are the top of the bill. Oh well...

drftr

 

[drftr]

I actually tried to find the book on Amazon after reading your post and found that used copies go for like $150.

It's still on Stereophile though. For free, in case that suits you even better...

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

drftr

 

[drftr]

J Gordon Holt was the founder of Stereophile and Harry Pearson was the founder of The Absolute Sound. The two of them have done more to advance high end sound than anybody else. Their stories are fascinating in that they both worked to actually listen to audio components instead of only going by measurements. The two magazines were fierce competitors and ended up in multiple feuds and sniping with one another. As an old man who started reading both magazines in the early eighties the birth of high end audio and the transition to headphones is fascinating. Lots of big personalities who were trying to establish their legacies. I would recommend trying to find old issues of both magazines to see how reviewing has changed. It is a roller coaster ride.

Yep, these we're my Bible, made me start working in high end, and pretty much got me broke at the same time. I gave away hundreds of them. They were really very pretty small books when sometimes 7-8 page long written reviews that were fantastic to read, and then added with a zillion measurements. If they had come across what we do: staring at FR charts, they would probably mark the website as Junk to avoid an accidental revisit.

drftr

 

[Rockwell75]

Funny thing is that Gordon Holt and other founding fathers like John Atkinson and Ken Kessler have close to zero "respect" if that's the right word for the IEMs that we think are the top of the bill. Oh well...

drftr

Where can you find their impressions of said IEMs? Not that it matters...I am appreciative for the clarity they've given around some of the terms we use...that's no guarantee we'll like the same stuff . Secondly I don't think there is any universal consensus around what IEMs are "top of the bill".

 

[drftr]

Secondly I don't think there is any universal consensus around what IEMs are "top of the bill".

This was more about that they don't consider IEMs good reproductive devices at all, while many of us claim it's a very cheap way to get your hands on a complete and top notch hifi system.

Will look up some reviews later on. I have at least read an Ultimate Ears review at some point. Might be interesting to read about their perspective even if it were older just to see how they see things while coming from systems North of 500 grand.

drftr

 

[Edric Li]

This was more about that they don't consider IEMs good reproductive devices at all, while many of us claim it's a very cheap way to get your hands on a complete and top notch hifi system.

Will look up some reviews later on. I have at least read an Ultimate Ears review at some point. Might be interesting to read about their perspective even if it were older just to see how they see things while coming from systems North of 500 grand.

drftr

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ultimate-ears-18-pro-ear-headphones
https://www.stereophile.com/headphones/shure_se310_in-ear_headphones
https://www.stereophile.com/headphones/504shure

 

[Tchoupitoulas]

I always liked Tyll Hertsen's succinct description of IEMs, on his Wall of Fame. He wrote: "When well designed, in ear monitor sound quality can rival world class full-size open headphones, but will usually not have as strong a sense of space and imaging." He also noted (my emphasis added):

"There are two types of drivers used in in-ear monitors: dynamic and balanced armature. Both can yield good results, but generally dynamic IEMs: use a single driver; are less expensive; can be very easy to drive for portable players; but are usually limited in sound quality. Balance armature IEMs: may have multiple drivers with cross-overs in the earpieces; may be custom made for the shape of your ears; are typically more expensive; can be difficult for portable players to drive; and can have unbelievably good sound quality."

This was from just a few years ago. It's amazing to think how much has changed in terms of hybrid IEMs and new kinds of driver.

@Scuba Devils - thank you for the reply about the Dunu Black Friday info

 

[Deezel177]

I always liked Tyll Hertsen's succinct description of IEMs, on his Wall of Fame. He wrote: "When well designed, in ear monitor sound quality can rival world class full-size open headphones, but will usually not have as strong a sense of space and imaging." He also noted (my emphasis added):


This was from just a few years ago. It's amazing to think how much has changed in terms of hybrid IEMs and new kinds of driver.

@Scuba Devils - thank you for the reply about the Dunu Black Friday info

Yeah, it's important to remember that any perceived "disrespect" towards IEMs as a high-end audio device were made years ago; decades, potentially, at this point. Although they're still a very different - not worse, simply different - beast to full-sized headphones (just like they are to full-sized speakers), they've come obscenely far, especially in the past five-or-so years. I'd argue IEMs have improved much more drastically than headphones have within that time frame. But, again, that's not to say they're now the same or anything like that. It's just to contextualise the criticisms that were made then, and why they seem very untrue now.

 

[Rockwell75]

It's still on Stereophile though. For free, in case that suits you even better...

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

drftr

"The casual audiophile hears reproduced sound as a whole, and judges its quality according to whether it sounds "good." Many reviewers never reach that stage of perception because---convinced by their measurements that all competing products sound "essentially the same"---they never make the effort to listen critically to reproduced sound. The reason a subjective reviewer hears more than the "objective" reviewer is not that his auditory equipment is superior. It's because he has accepted the premise that identical measurements do not necessarily ensure identical sound, and has trained himself to hear the differences when they exist."

Preach!

 

[drftr]

"The casual audiophile hears reproduced sound as a whole, and judges its quality according to whether it sounds "good." Many reviewers never reach that stage of perception because---convinced by their measurements that all competing products sound "essentially the same"---they never make the effort to listen critically to reproduced sound. The reason a subjective reviewer hears more than the "objective" reviewer is not that his auditory equipment is superior. It's because he has accepted the premise that identical measurements do not necessarily ensure identical sound, and has trained himself to hear the differences when they exist."

Preach!

That's certainly a nice opening paragraph to quote when writing The Audiophile Gospel According To Jeff - YMMV!

drftr

 

[Rockwell75]

That's certainly a nice opening paragraph to quote when writing The Audiophile Gospel According To Jeff - YMMV!

drftr

I have no interest in writing or passing anything off as "gospel" beyond simply that the subjective component to this hobby is a much greater factor than many seem to realize.

 

[sleepdeprecation]

I mean that sounds like some good news worth proselytizing

 

[Edric Li]

Yeah, it's important to remember that any perceived "disrespect" towards IEMs as a high-end audio device were made years ago; decades, potentially, at this point. Although they're still a very different - not worse, simply different - beast to full-sized headphones (just like they are to full-sized speakers), they've come obscenely far, especially in the past five-or-so years. I'd argue IEMs have improved much more drastically than headphones have within that time frame. But, again, that's not to say they're now the same or anything like that. It's just to contextualise the criticisms that were made then, and why they seem very untrue now.

Looking back, the JH Roxanne, EX1000 and K3003 were really game changers.

On the fundamental criticism of IEM: unfortunately I'd slide with the 2-channel people here. IMO The biggest issue that holds back the community is the lack of consensus on crossfeed. There's a barrage of (bad) reasons why crossfeed is becoming obsolete:
1. We have an entire generation of consumer and audiophiles grew up on headphone listening; they thought that's how stereo music is supposed to sound.
2. We have an entire generation of internet musicians making music on headphones for people listening on headphones.
3. Hip-hop, the genre of this generation, doesn't really need crossfeed.
4. Every component in the chain thinks that crossfeed is somebody else's responsibility. More on that here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/just-a-stand-alone-crossfeed-please.939367/page-2#post-16178188
5. IEM makers, observing the slow (in fact, decreasing) adoption of crossfeed, compensate by tuning to create the illusion of crossfeed, making warmer and warmer headphones. More on that here: youtube.com/watch?v=RRNIC81OnmU

Until the community as a whole hop back on the crossfeed train, we cannot say we made any meaningful progress in achieving better soundstage and imaging.

 

[Rockwell75]

Looking back, the JH Roxanne, EX1000 and K3003 were really game changers.

On the fundamental criticism of IEM: unfortunately I'd slide with the 2-channel people here. IMO The biggest issue that holds back the community is the lack of consensus on crossfeed. There's a barrage of (bad) reasons why crossfeed is becoming obsolete:
1. We have an entire generation of consumer and audiophiles grew up on headphone listening; they thought that's how stereo music is supposed to sound.
2. We have an entire generation of internet musicians making music on headphones for people listening on headphones.
3. Hip-hop, the genre of this generation, doesn't really need crossfeed.
4. Every component in the chain thinks that crossfeed is somebody else's responsibility. More on that here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/just-a-stand-alone-crossfeed-please.939367/page-2#post-16178188
5. IEM makers, observing the slow (in fact, decreasing) adoption of crossfeed, compensate by tuning to create the illusion of crossfeed, making warmer and warmer headphones. More on that here: youtube.com/watch?v=RRNIC81OnmU

Until the community as a whole hop back on the crossfeed train, we cannot say we made any meaningful progress in achieving better soundstage and imaging.

Interesting. I Googled ‘cross feed’ and found the following post on Reddit:

“When an artist creates a track, they generally pan for speaker sound stage. This can create some weird sound on headphones, especially when things are panned hard left or right, like in beatles stereo mixes, for example. Crossfeed emulates the way that you hear from speakers. When listening to speakers, your right ear gets mostly right speaker, and left gets mostly left. Wour right also hears some of the left speaker, though, and your left hears some of the right. This is what creates a lot of speaker sound stage.

When you put on headphones, this goes away. Your right only hears the right channel, and left hears only left. Crossfeed helps fix this by sending a little of each channel to the opposite. (e.g. left channel plays 100% of left, and 15% of right). This creates a huge soundstage, and fixes annoying mixes.

---

I first tried the regular "crossfeed" plug-in for foobar, which sounds excellent. I then tried the stereophonic to binaural plugin, but found it to degrade sound quality too much with echo and other weirdness. I definitely reccommend trying it. I always leave mine on now.”

In other news:

 

[drftr]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ultimate-ears-18-pro-ear-headphones
https://www.stereophile.com/headphones/shure_se310_in-ear_headphones
https://www.stereophile.com/headphones/504shure

I managed to find a Stereophile review for the A18t and in that review I found something I had seen before but never understood. So why not asking here, hoping someone can explain. Let me quote the reviewer first:

"The issues are hiss, volume control, and the impedance dipping to nine ohms at 1kHz. Hiss is a common problem when using a big headphone amp to drive an in-ear monitor. Some are worse than others, and it isn't always predictable based on the specs alone. The A18t is what I'd call worse than average in this regard, though certainly not as bad as some others in my collection. Still, it will disqualify plenty of amps. The other associated problem is usable volume control. These things get so loud, so quickly, that many amps simply become unusable. Lastly, a low output impedance is essential. Something like a five-ohm OI can do a fine job with certain IEMs, and can sometimes end up actually enhancing the sound with certain models. But in this case you really want to go as low as possible – definitely under two ohms, with one being ideal. If not, bloated mid-bass and a funky, uneven midrange become readily apparent."

I do understand how this works and why, but not how it's applied. Would one use some kind of special cable for this that has a resistor in its path? Or is it a device that you hook up to perhaps change resistance in a stepless way? Tnx...

drftr