[Whazzzup]

personally i want tuning done from source, just the best please. Filters in daps / portable dacs and IEM are flexible i get that. to me its also a cop out. If im spending doe i want what the engineers come up with that is there best/ or the positioning exactly of what they are after. I don't want to say gee i bought that 5 g dac or iem so i can choose what sound i like best. Just give it to me straight up. don't give me an eq, and if you can't, then ill pass.
Course you know me know, cat litter DIY is the max output. And of course just IMO

 

[Wyville]

There's a potential pitfall in that concept, though. There's a chance for the customer to be given too much control, only to realise that it wasn't what they wanted in the first place. For example, @mvvRAZ ordered a fully-custom IEM from Plunge Audio, where he got to decide the tuning. It ended up sounding exactly how he asked, but he then realised it wasn't enjoyable or good. That's how I remember the story going. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Michael. So, with such a concept, there's always that risk of the customer not fully-knowing what they want or, in the end, realising that there's a disconnect between what they want and what sounds good. In Michael's case, he was considerate enough to recognise that this was what he'd asked for, and that it wasn't all Plunge's fault. But, what if you did get a customer who was upset at how their IEM turned out and blamed the brand, even though they tuned it exactly how they wanted? Who's to blame then?

I think that's why previous attempts at this concept (i.e. Ultimate Ears' Personal Reference Monitor and Sony's JustEar) make you undergo multiple stages of consultancy. It's to simultaneously make sure you're happy with the final product and to cover the company's backside. I believe you still have to have some form of demoing and fine-tuning to make something like this work, unless you're working with veteran clientele who could read graphs and all that. There are precursors for such a concept, though, with the ones I mentioned and the Final Make Series you brought up. So, as someone who personally advocates for the right to service and user-end tinkering, I'd love to see it be viable one day.

I think you make a very good point about the customer potentially getting too much control and being out of their depth. In such a case personal service and documentation/step files to track the evolution would be essential.

For me personally it would be a bridge too far because I am in this hobby as a music lover, rather than a hardcore audiophile, but I can imagine that there are plenty who would love to go crazy with the specs and try to achieve personal perfection. With the right service and desired outcome, I expect it would feel like a very premium experience.

 

[Garney]

I think DIY but with some set boundaries would be of interest. Giving the consumer full freedom over the componentry, tuning, etc., as others mentioned here, may cause some headaches for both parties involved. Plus, I think many of us enjoy the "house sound" that the various manufacturers bring to the table. Would that be lost with a fully open DIY option?

Similar to how the automotive industry works - I would want the underpinnings to be of the OEM I'm purchasing from. The chassis, handling characteristics, etc. are all fully fledged, but the consumer has the ability to add some personal flavor on top. That's a concept I would probably get on board with. Maybe a defined set of options available that each yield a different sound/tuning profile? I know that a variety of companies already offer modular tuning via either tuning switches, filter / nozzle options, FiR's own ATOM modules and NF Audio's faceplates for the NE4. All well and good but at the end of the day, when it comes to TOTL especially, you're buying into the manufacturers tuning as much as you are the driver configurations / tech used. That may fall by the wayside with a fully DIY concept.

Interesting to think about nonetheless!

 

[DunkFealer]

I think you make a very good point about the customer potentially getting too much control and being out of their depth. In such a case personal service and documentation/step files to track the evolution would be essential.

For me personally it would be a bridge too far because I am in this hobby as a music lover, rather than a hardcore audiophile, but I can imagine that there are plenty who would love to go crazy with the specs and try to achieve personal perfection. With the right service and desired outcome, I expect it would feel like a very premium experience.

It's not really about achieving perfection, personally. I leave perfection to the masters---I prefer to trust the expertise of companies to define different templates of "perfection" for different broadly construed taste categories or use cases. Usually I tend to fall along these sound templates pretty well, and can even appreciate more unique tunings too (e.g., VE Elysium). I can't speak for anyone else's experience of course so YMMV.

However, there's an intrinsic sort of "maker" pleasure that comes from getting to build something or even from getting something made to your spec. A very primal sort of "I played a part in making this" kind of thing (that I routinely get to experience in my job thankfully). And I agree with you and everyone else that constraints are important. I definitely would not trust myself to make anything remotely good if left to my own devices haha.

 

[mvvRAZ]

There's a potential pitfall in that concept, though. There's a chance for the customer to be given too much control, only to realise that it wasn't what they wanted in the first place. For example, @mvvRAZ ordered a fully-custom IEM from Plunge Audio, where he got to decide the tuning. It ended up sounding exactly how he asked, but he then realised it wasn't enjoyable or good. That's how I remember the story going. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Michael. So, with such a concept, there's always that risk of the customer not fully-knowing what they want or, in the end, realising that there's a disconnect between what they want and what sounds good. In Michael's case, he was considerate enough to recognise that this was what he'd asked for, and that it wasn't all Plunge's fault. But, what if you did get a customer who was upset at how their IEM turned out and blamed the brand, even though they tuned it exactly how they wanted? Who's to blame then?

I think that's why previous attempts at this concept (i.e. Ultimate Ears' Personal Reference Monitor and Sony's JustEar) make you undergo multiple stages of consultancy. It's to simultaneously make sure you're happy with the final product and to cover the company's backside. I believe you still have to have some form of demoing and fine-tuning to make something like this work, unless you're working with veteran clientele who could read graphs and all that. There are precursors for such a concept, though, with the ones I mentioned and the Final Make Series you brought up. So, as someone who personally advocates for the right to service and user-end tinkering, I'd love to see it be viable one day.

Yeahhh as a most general principle, let companies do the tuning. I reckon I’d do a much better job now that I’m pretty familiar with graphs but still not even close to what professionals can pull off

 

[AlexanderBelonozhko]

Being able to customize acoustic tuning is a major problem, most acoustical tuning components are embedded deep and designing a way for end users to swap them out without hassle is a monumental task. Electronic tuning is relatively easy.
The house sound would be planted in the acoustical tuning.
I am proposing a universal only, house tuned, one foot planted signature, built by the manufacturer, no assembly required.
The acoustical side of things will not be customizable by default. This includes drivers, acoustic filters/reactors, internal atom, and whatever else we can think of.
The other half of the tuning is electric, having the ability to target areas of the frequency range and adjust them to your liking, I don't want it to be a set it and forget it, although you may prefer a certain combo and decide to stick with it, knowing on a whim you can squeeze some more juice out of a certain track if you feel something is lacking.
As far as how this can be made possible, this is a brain child of mine and have been pseudo developing it for about a year and it came time to get some thoughts on the subject to see if this is something worth pursuing.

As far as documentation and 3d model files go, I have always liked an open source environment and I believe that it is important for two reasons. First being the go-to for detailed information about the technicalities of the product, driver count, layout, anatomy.
Secondly it would be a way of spearheading the possibility of having physical products be open source and not just software. I want to make this clear, modifications beyond electronic tuning wouldn't be provided as a service, It would be an undertaking not for the faint of heart, it would be 3rd party. One of the goals is to be able to create an ice breaker for hobbyist, another is to have general public information about the product. Let's say years later your warranty runs out, or the evolution is discontinued, and you don't want to sell as is or throw them away. Having the information to fix it either by a 3rd party pro, or diy I think is important.

Edit: This kinda ties into right to repair

 

[aaf evo]

Hmmmm

 

[tgx78]

@tgx78 Graphs are great, impressions are better!

That being said impressions take time. So no rush. First impressions?

First Impressions:

Tonally KR5 sounds warm U-shaped to me: pleasantly "dense” yet incredibly resolving and extended up top. Upper treble peaks doesn’t bother me, but ymmv depending on how sensitive you are with the treble energy. For me, it gives a nice airy and enveloping soundscape to compliment a bit of “creaminess” down low.

The cracking drums in Rage Against the Machine's "Killing in the Name of" are present, but avoid any kind of harshness or stress, and the electric bass rolls powerfully but completely boom-free from the fast DD they are using, which hardly distorts even at higher volumes.

The bass of the KR5 really fundamentally pushes down to below 25Hz in the deep bass and then fades out gently and naturally through Kinetic bass system - perfectly comprehensible with the ultra-low tones in "After That" by Yaeji. You don't have the feeling that something is missing. The bass range always remains controlled and well-balanced albeit slightly emphasizing mid bass which gives the fundamental and midrange a wonderfully powerful, woody character with a very contrasting and full range of tones - very nicely intelligible with the cello in Heinrich Schiff's Shostakovich Cello Concertos. The gradations of dynamic contrast in small ensembles are effortlessly portrayed and in a very comprehensible manner. The "Car Song" by RM Hubbert, for example, a voice presence seems to work well with the ambience layering, a wide space for the guitar behind it, goosebump-inducing tones and finely dynamic micro-shades that make up the soul of the music - touchingly beautiful.

Only reservation I have is the upper mids aka. pinna gain hitting slightly below my target frequency range + amplitude so the sound of stringed instruments are less vibrant than say Jewel or Traillii. As KR5 seems very finicky with the eartips, insertion depth and source components, I will need to experiment more here.

I believe someone mentioned this here already, but KR5 really do excels at low level listening with its unrestricted dynamic range.

 

[Deezel177]

Being able to customize acoustic tuning is a major problem, most acoustical tuning components are embedded deep and designing a way for end users to swap them out without hassle is a monumental task. Electronic tuning is relatively easy.
The house sound would be planted in the acoustical tuning.
I am proposing a universal only, house tuned, one foot planted signature, built by the manufacturer, no assembly required.
The acoustical side of things will not be customizable by default. This includes drivers, acoustic filters/reactors, internal atom, and whatever else we can think of.
The other half of the tuning is electric, having the ability to target areas of the frequency range and adjust them to your liking, I don't want it to be a set it and forget it, although you may prefer a certain combo and decide to stick with it, knowing on a whim you can squeeze some more juice out of a certain track if you feel something is lacking.
As far as how this can be made possible, this is a brain child of mine and have been pseudo developing it for about a year and it came time to get some thoughts on the subject to see if this is something worth pursuing.

As far as documentation and 3d model files go, I have always liked an open source environment and I believe that it is important for two reasons. First being the go-to for detailed information about the technicalities of the product, driver count, layout, anatomy.
Secondly it would be a way of spearheading the possibility of having physical products be open source and not just software. I want to make this clear, modifications beyond electronic tuning wouldn't be provided as a service, It would be an undertaking not for the faint of heart, it would be 3rd party. One of the goals is to be able to create an ice breaker for hobbyist, another is to have general public information about the product. Let's say years later your warranty runs out, or the evolution is discontinued, and you don't want to sell as is or throw them away. Having the information to fix it either by a 3rd party pro, or diy I think is important.

Edit: This kinda wraps into right to repair

I think custom-tuning on that end could be really interesting. The first time I saw something to this effect was from Canalworks, who had CIEMs with resistors sticking out of them, which you could swap out to tune certain frequencies.



There was also recently the Anew X-One, whose crossover circuits were stored in these swappable chips. That's more in line with what you're talking about, but it still isn't fully user-customisable, since you can't make those chips yourself without Anew publicly sharing the schematics, which is what you've mentioned also.



So, an evolution of this would be really interesting from a hardware-tuning point-of-view. I think the "easier" approach at the moment would be through DSP, which is what Audeze did with the Cipher cable. And, it's also what JH were about to do with the still-yet-to-be-released Janis, which had an app-controlled DSP box that, with the 7-pin connectors, allowed for user EQ. But, that isn't quite as satisfying as physically plugging in components of your own.

 

[armstrj2]

Hmmmm

Will another CIEM be added to the collection soon?

 

[armstrj2]

I think custom-tuning on that end could be really interesting. The first time I saw something to this effect was from Canalworks, who had CIEMs with resistors sticking out of them, which you could swap out to tune certain frequencies.



There was also recently the Anew X-One, whose crossover circuits were stored in these swappable chips. That's more in line with what you're talking about, but it still isn't fully user-customisable, since you can't make those chips yourself without Anew publicly sharing the schematics, which is what you've mentioned also.



So, an evolution of this would be really interesting from a hardware-tuning point-of-view. I think the "easier" approach at the moment would be through DSP, which is what Audeze did with the Cipher cable. And, it's also what JH were about to do with the still-yet-to-be-released Janis, which had an app-controlled DSP box that, with the 7-pin connectors, allowed for user EQ. But, that isn't quite as satisfying as physically plugging in components of your own.

I'm guessing ideas like this will live and die by the costs involved and how much of an impact they actually have?

If it has to be done by a third party (like was suggested in a previous post) I'd wonder how expensive it could get and would people end up just wanting to buy something new?

For me, I'd like to be able to tell someone what sound I'd like and leave it to the expert to pull it off. If I did hardware mods myself it could end up being Frankenstein, both in appearance and sound!

 

[Deezel177]

I'm guessing ideas like this will live and die by the costs involved and how much of an impact they actually have?

If it has to be done by a third party (like was suggested in a previous post) I'd wonder how expensive it could get and would people end up just wanting to buy something new?

For me, I'd like to be able to tell someone what sound I'd like and leave it to the expert to pull it off. If I did hardware mods myself it could end up being Frankenstein, both in appearance and sound!

'For sure. You do have precedents like Sony's JustEar service, which is thriving even to this day. Obviously, though, being Sony, they have the cash and R&D foundations to afford it. That being said, I don't expect swappable systems like these to be that expensive to pull off, given how cheap most (non-proprietary) audio components are. The only difficulty would be appropriating them into a swappable form factor, like Anew's chips. Speaking of, I forgot to mention a very recent addition to that list: Effect Audio's Axiom.



They have these MU modules, which I initially thought were only for changing the IEM's cable sockets. But, they actually contain circuitry that allows for different tunings as well. So, the industry certainly looks like it may begin to head more in that direction. My review of them should be coming rather soon, by the way.

 

[aaf evo]

Will another CIEM be added to the collection soon?

I’m not sure yet! They’re good. FiR have dropped two of the best IEMs I’ve heard (for my preferences) with these releases. I’m trying to figure out if adding the Kr5 will overlap too much with the A12t for me. After seeing the graph I was more worried about it being bright like Annihilator, and while it does have a healthy treble presentation I don’t really consider it bright, the Annihilator to me is brighter.

Off of my initial impressions, the Kr5 is objectively “tuned better” than the XE6. It just sounds more tonally correct. But I’m also hearing it as a bit generic as a result whereas the XE6 to me offers something totally different but with technical excellence also.

I also hear the XE6 to be technically superior for my standards with the exception of separation. The XE6 just has too much body and warmth to have top class separation. So I’d give the KR5 the upper hand there. But the way XE6 is able to dig deep into a track and resolve those small nuances seems superior to me and better articulated. Yes, the KR5 has more treble so on the surface it can sound like it’s more detailed too but I personally don’t associate more emphasis as more detailed, just like how there is a difference in sub bass depth versus emphasis, a bigger emphasis may perceive it as going lower but that isn’t the case.

As far as staging goes, I also hear the XE6 to be “more open” but I think that may be due to how I hear the treble. It’s very warm and not as emphasized as the KR5 so to me it sort of plays off in the distance as opposed to more “in your head” like I hear it on the KR5. Both IEMs are very holographic though.

Dynamics go to the XE6, honestly I don’t think any IEM beats XE6 for dynamics.

I prefer the bass shelf on the KR5 with a smidge more sub bass relative to the slight roll off on the XE6, but the XE6 bass is much larger in its presentation so the sheer quantity of it to me wins, it may not rumble as much but it’s just straight up addicting.

I really like the mid range on the Kr5, there’s enough body in the lower mids and enough gain in the upper mids for my tolerances. Female vocals don’t sound overly rich like they do on XE6 nor do they sound overly clear and airy like they do on the Annihilator, it’s the sweet spot for me on KR5.

I also feel the air/upper treble on XE6 is better articulated, probably due to the EST driver. It just sounds so clean, almost like purified air

I’ll post more as I listen, only had about 45 mins so far. I have such a nice CIEM design lined up so we’ll see what happens

 

[armstrj2]

'For sure. You do have precedents like Sony's JustEar service, which is thriving even to this day. Obviously, though, being Sony, they have the cash and R&D foundations to afford it. That being said, I don't expect swappable systems like these to be that expensive to pull off, given how cheap most (non-proprietary) audio components are. The only difficulty would be appropriating them into a swappable form factor, like Anew's chips. Speaking of, I forgot to mention a very recent addition to that list: Effect Audio's Axiom.



They have these MU modules, which I initially thought were only for changing the IEM's cable sockets. But, they actually contain circuitry that allows for different tunings as well. So, the industry certainly looks like it may begin to head more in that direction. My review of them should be coming rather soon, by the way.

I like the idea of just being able to slide in a new module and if it could be done at a good price then I am all for it.

It does remind me of Google's/ Motorola's Project Ara which didn't really get off the ground due to the costs of the modules. Not exactly comparable and the parts "should" be cheaper for IEMs but the concept is the same. Change out a part rather than changing the whole phone. There were many reasons Project Ara failed but one of them was the expected costs of parts and push back from manufacturers that it was just easier and cheaper to make a whole new phone than manufacture loads of smaller parts.

It's great to see something other than combinations of different drivers being discussed as a way to move the industry forward.

 

[fabio19]

First Impressions:

Tonally KR5 sounds warm U-shaped: pleasantly "dense” yet incredibly resolving and extended up top. Upper treble peaks doesn’t bother me, but ymmv depending on how sensitive you are with the treble energy. For me, it gives a nice airy and enveloping soundscape to compliment a bit of “creaminess” down low.

The cracking drums in Rage Against the Machine's "Killing in the Name of" are present, but avoid any kind of harshness or stress, and the electric bass rolls powerfully but completely boom-free from the fast DD they are using, which hardly distorts even at higher volumes.

The bass of the KR5 really fundamentally pushes down to below 25Hz in the deep bass and then fades out gently and naturally through Kinetic bass system - perfectly comprehensible with the ultra-low tones in "After That" by Yaeji. You don't have the feeling that something is missing. The bass range always remains controlled and well-balanced albeit slightly emphasizing mid bass which gives the fundamental and midrange a wonderfully powerful, woody character with a very contrasting and full range of tones - very nicely intelligible with the cello in Heinrich Schiff's Shostakovich Cello Concertos. The gradations of dynamic contrast in small ensembles are effortlessly portrayed and in a very comprehensible manner. The "Car Song" by RM Hubbert, for example, a voice presence seems to work well with the ambience layering, a wide space for the guitar behind it, goosebump-inducing tones and finely dynamic micro-shades that make up the soul of the music - touchingly beautiful.

Only reservation I have is the upper mids aka. a pinna gain hitting slightly below my target frequency range + amplitude so the sound of stringed instruments are less vibrant than say Jewel or Traillii. As KR5 seems very finicky with the eartips, insertion depth and source components, I will need to experiment more here.

I believe someone mentioned this here already, but KR5 really do excels at low level listening with its unrestricted dynamic range.

If you like RATMs .................. listen to these: