[Rockwell75]

I feel the same way as you in a lot of ways. While I started more budget and worked my way up to higher end stuff, I honestly find myself much more interested now in low to mid range stuff. Having heard higher end stuff, I know a lot more what I like and I know that I can get a very large portion of the performance for a fraction of the price. And at a fraction of the price it's a lot easier to experiment and play around and have more options.

Perhaps the biggest realization I've had in this hobby recently is that absolute technical performance does not correlate to an increase in enjoyment for me. I don't need any extremes to be happy-- I just need an IEM to not do certain things wrong and get the basics right relative to my tastes. Beyond that i can easily adjust to and be happy with a comparatively wide array of sound sigs. It very much helps if there is some degree of inspiration in the tuning and it's not simply a generic/harmon based/tuned by committee sort of deal.

 

[ian91]

Perhaps the biggest realization I've had in this hobby recently is that absolute technical performance does not correlate to an increase in enjoyment for me. I don't need any extremes to be happy-- I just need an IEM to not do a certain few things wrong and get the basics right. Beyond that i can easily adjust to and be happy with a comparatively wide array of sound sigs. It very much helps if they have some degree of inspiration in the tuning and are not generic/harmon based/tuned by algorithm/committee etc.

I've also learnt that quite recently. Timbre will always trump technicalities for me. I also don't like an expansive stage (or perculiar choices in presentation) where it can actually detract from my enjoyment of the music.

 

[Rockwell75]

Timbre will always trump technicalities for me.

100%

I've often thought that there are two broad approaches to listening (or really engaging with anything)-- an intellectual approach and an emotional approach. An intellectual approach will generally lead to a more analytic preference and an emotional approach will generally lead to a more musical preference. In real life it's more of a spectrum and most people's preferences are a mix of both approaches. I do believe though that at the end of the day the sum total of one's tastes and preferences will place them more on one side than the other. I'm decidedly on the musical/emotional side of the fence and a, perhaps the, fundamental expression of this more emotional/musical approach is this stated affinity for timbre over technicalities.

 

[mashuto]

Perhaps the biggest realization I've had in this hobby recently is that absolute technical performance does not correlate to an increase in enjoyment for me. I don't need any extremes to be happy-- I just need an IEM to not do a certain few things wrong and get the basics right. Beyond that i can easily adjust to and be happy with a comparatively wide array of sound sigs. It very much helps if they have some degree of inspiration in the tuning and are not generic/harmon based/tuned by algorithm/committee etc.

And speaking directly to that, the honeydew is staying, and the ie900 is going back. Technically the ie900 wins, but the tuning wasn't enjoyable to me whereas the honeydew is, even though it too is far from perfect in a lot of ways.

 

[fzman]

More old guy rnating to follow:

I still think that many of my sensibilites run counter to what is common on this site (not in a judge-y way, just noting some differences).

I have always thought that when genre is discussed in the context of a gear review/comment/observation, that in spite of what's being said, the reality is finding genres that do not sho-up the weakness/faults of a piece of gear. That is, solo triangle music does not suffer from a system that lacks proper bass response. There's an old joke about someone claiming that the 'thermos bottle' is the most spectacular sceintific invention of all time, since it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold. When asked why the speaker held that belief, the reply was simply "How does it know?"

I like to think that gear does not know what music genre it's being used for, and that it should not matter--it should simply output the signal it is given (or a louder version there-of). This is not to say that synergy does not play a role, just that good is good, per se.

 

[Imusicman]

Technicalities mostly, and also imho the highs...Ely has the nicest highs I've ever heard. I would also give Elysium the nod for female vocals. That said when you factor in cost/value Isabellae is a no-brainer imho

Just ordered the Isabellae mainly based on comments in this thread. Even though it's a blind buy for me I think the risk factor is quite small given it's price point.

 

[Rockwell75]

Just ordered the Isabellae mainly based on comments in this thread. Even though it's a blind buy for me I think the risk factor is quite small given it's price point.

Isabellae imho can be described with some accuracy as either a baby Elysium or an Andromeda like tuning through a single DD. If either of these descriptions appeal to you my suspicion is that you'll be quite happy. Be sure and stop by here and share your impressions

 

[fzman]

I've also learnt that quite recently. Timbre will always trump technicalities for me. I also don't like an expansive stage (or perculiar choices in presentation) where it can actually detract from my enjoyment of the music.

I think this can be a false dilemma - how do you get proper timbre without the device doing a good job revealing what's on the recording? BTW, I am strongly with you on the proper timbre thing - i would rather clupmed-together real saxes, than a giant soundfield of kazoos.

Timbre is a coherence/time-domain thing, most of the 'technicaligites' talk, imho, is about frequency response only....

 

[ian91]

Timbre certainly relies to a degree on good technicalities and specific driver characteristics (e.g. onset/offset and decay), I'm just saying proper coherence and realism means more to me than the intanglible technicalities like the size of the stage or the degree of instrument separation and layering etc.

The music I generally listen to isn't that demanding/reliant on extremes of technicalities for my enjoyment.

 

[ranfan]

I think this can be a false dilemma - how do you get proper timbre without the device doing a good job revealing what's on the recording? BTW, I am strongly with you on the proper timbre thing - i would rather clupmed-together real saxes, than a giant soundfield of kazoos.

Timbre is a coherence/time-domain thing, most of the 'technicaligites' talk, imho, is about frequency response only....

I recently read this blog post by crinacle, and reading your comment on timbre and technicalities, this came to mind
https://crinacle.com/2021/06/04/the-tonal-technical-dichotomy-the-ief-evaluation-system/

 

[KutuzovGambit]

The music I generally listen to isn't that demanding/reliant on extremes of technicalities for my enjoyment.

I think this gets to the heart of a lot of it. Genre plays a big role in priorities.

 

[Rockwell75]

I think this can be a false dilemma - how do you get proper timbre without the device doing a good job revealing what's on the recording?

Timbre trumping technicalities isn't saying that an IEM doesn't need to be technically competent-- it's more about pointing out that one generally has to make sacrifices on one area to maximize another. One only needs to observe how IEMs most highly praised for their technical skill tend to be all BA, or BA/e-stat. This is because thicker DD timbre tends to limit raw resolution or perception of space & layering. In my experience the phrase "timbre over technicalities" is, practically speaking, just another way of stating a preference for DD timbre.

 

[ian91]

In my experience the phrase "timbre over technicalities" is, practically speaking, just another way of stating a preference for DD timbre.

As BA implementation improves (Traillii gets very close), hopefully this won't be the case, but yes, agreed, that's essentially how I see the landscape right now.

 

[Imusicman]

Ive not really been into IEM's until this last year or so. Prior to this I was definitely what you might call a "Headphone guy"

I have to say though it's been quite a journey of discovery and I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. I may have been lucky but I don't think I've come across any bad IEM's. Sure I've clicked with some more than others but thats just part of the fun of the hobby for me.

Really looking forward to hearing the Isabellae when it arrives in the next week or two.

Still looking for my elusive Grail IEM the Erl LE or failing that patiently waiting to see what VE comes out with next. Maybe a new Erl or Elysium Mk11?

 

[Rockwell75]

As BA implementation improves hopefully this won't be the case,

I don't see this happening, at least not completely, for reasons of physics-- a DD is a vibrating membrane, a BA is a vibrating reed. The latter will always be limited in how much air it can move-- which seems to be the key factor in the more natural, realistic timbre found in DDs. If BA tech & implementation is to improve my hope is that they're able to move in the other direction and close the gap between BAs and e-stats in terms of speed and clarity.