I actually have a favor to ask of some of the more thoughtful and experienced Watercoolers. I mentioned a bit ago that I’m trying to improve my critical listening, and reviewing skills (not to be a reviewer, THAT seems like so much work, this is just for my own personal development in my audiophile journey).
To that end, I’d LOVE to hear about some of your critical listening methodologies and routines.
Respectfully in advance, I’m not interested in “listen more” responses, that won’t be helpful because that’s a given.
To give an example, if you’re listening to evaluate FR, are you listening three or four times to the same tune to evaluate bass vs sub-bass, or do you gather that on one or two passes? What style of note-taking do you do, detailed and thorough, or just a couple of words? Do you find you need to use a different process when comparing DAP vs IEMs vs cables? What do you do to shift from the “listening” to the “writing”? Specifically wondering about those who write such nuanced and detailed (and extremely helpful) recaps that dissect the most intricate aspects of the gear we love.
I could go on with the questions, but I’m genuinely curious about all of this, and am surprised it’s a rarely discussed in detail aspect of the reviewing process here, or anywhere on the interwebs, actually.
I could be wrong, and this could be a bit presumptuous of me to say it, but my sense is there would be many, many forum readers that would be interested about this subject.
Yep, this is what I’ve experienced and been trying to say, especially compared to Turii Ti. But when I listened through my tube preamp, the IE600 sounded very very natural and smooth. A completely different sound.
It's generally a W-shaped signature with good full range DD supplemented by BA mids and piezo treble. I believe the DD is the same driver as their popular FAudio Major. It's not a bombastic bass, just right sweet and extended. There's a toggle switch to enhance bass/mids/treble. With all off, it's a very mild w or v-shaped that is neutral leaning character (I call it the A&K type tuning). The switch enhances each area very tastefully. Bass raises the subbass from a neutral bass. Mids switch adds body to the sound without being shouty. Treble switch adds top end giving a little more EST like sparkle. I tend to keep it at bass=on, mids=on, treble=off.
Relative to Traillii, it's more in-your-face type of presentation. Closer to the players. You can also hear the depth really well. I enjoy it with just about every genre. It scales up with source too.
One thing the piezo does is the sharp attack and rising edge. This is important for me since I play and listen to lot of guitar/stringed instrument music. Much better done than Hyla CE5. This nails the timbre for me. Traillii softens those edges which takes away the realism for me.
I think @twister6 had a comment somewhere on his show comments earlier this year.
Also in regards to the critical listeners, major thanks to all the reviewers. I know it can be a chore slogging through a review. The same for all those who provide detailed impressions & comparisons as well!
I was going to wait until tomorrow to start this but it will help me this weekend if we get a head start today. It's officially fall up here in the northern hemisphere which means it's time for our seasonal poll.
Survey: What are the top 3 IEMs that own your heart right now?
Criteria for selection is entirely up to you-- favourites, new loves...what 3 IEMs are occupying your mind and heart at this moment in time? To see the results of the summer and spring polls head to the opening page of the Watercooler thread.
I actually have a favor to ask of some of the more thoughtful and experienced Watercoolers. I mentioned a bit ago that I’m trying to improve my critical listening, and reviewing skills (not to be a reviewer, THAT seems like so much work, this is just for my own personal development in my audiophile journey).
To that end, I’d LOVE to hear about some of your critical listening methodologies and routines.
Respectfully in advance, I’m not interested in “listen more” responses, that won’t be helpful because that’s a given.
To give an example, if you’re listening to evaluate FR, are you listening three or four times to the same tune to evaluate bass vs sub-bass, or do you gather that on one or two passes? What style of note-taking do you do, detailed and thorough, or just a couple of words? Do you find you need to use a different process when comparing DAP vs IEMs vs cables? What do you do to shift from the “listening” to the “writing”? Specifically wondering about those who write such nuanced and detailed (and extremely helpful) recaps that dissect the most intricate aspects of the gear we love.
I could go on with the questions, but I’m genuinely curious about all of this, and am surprised it’s a rarely discussed in detail aspect of the reviewing process here, or anywhere on the interwebs, actually.
I could be wrong, and this could be a bit presumptuous of me to say it, but my sense is there would be many, many forum readers that would be interested about this subject.
I primarily listen for frequency response, as that usually dictates the majority of my opinion on an IEM. Graphs of frequency response are just another asset for me nowadays because 1) I usually have a general idea of how something will graph just by ear, and 2) I’ve often found there are small discrepancies between what I measure and what I hear. These differences could come down to seal, insertion depth, etc. but I wouldn't want to “lead the witness” by seeing a measurement first.
Learning to discern frequency response by ear is a matter of listening more, but there's more nuance to it than that. If you're always listening to the same IEM, you're not really going to build listening ability. Frequently listening to more IEMs is a much better avenue for building your listening ability. Hearing different things forces your ears to re-calibrate and allows you to develop more concrete preferences. Something else you can do is check measured frequency responses after listening to an IEM, so that you learn to correlate what peaks and dips in specific areas sound like. Playing around with EQ can also be an eye-opener.
The tracks you're using are also important. Granted, I don't think they necessarily have to be well-mastered, have high dynamic range, or anything of the sort. Listening to those types of tracks, or feeling compelled to listen to what others are listening to to bring out a certain IEM's "potential," usually isn't a good direction of resources. At the end of the day - at least as a consumer - you're buying that IEM for you, not someone else. Listen to music that you are familiar with and enjoy. Back to the idea of building associations, pick certain parts and instruments of songs; listen to how they sound different when there is certain peaks or dips on an IEM's frequency response. I have about five or six songs that I use to quickly gauge an IEM's frequency response. A couple sweeps of an individual part of a song is usually enough. For example, thisis one for sub-bass extension (0:15 is around 30Hz, maybe lower). At shows, I usually don't have time to be dallying, so this is the approach that I use.
Re. taking notes, I do take notes when demoing, but they're very rudimentary. Some people have seen my notes and are like...that's it? But especially at shows where I'm on the clock, I find there isn't really any point in writing down specific moments of songs or anything like that. After all, I'm using the same songs and listening to the same segments of these songs almost every demo session! At least for me, less is more in this type of environment. It's a different story when I'm assessing from home, though. At home, I usually write-up a skeleton of the review based on my first couple hours of listening. Then I slowly make adjustments as I get more ear time on an item. But my impressions don't usually change much from initial listen, so this approach might not work for everyone.
It is certainly difficult to draw a line between reviewing and listening for fun. I think I have a more rational approach to reviewing and listening. I rarely, if ever, get chills or goosebumps when listening to music. It's very difficult to find IEMs that I enjoy listening to these days. My hearing has also gotten more sensitive in the last couple years - I can't hear any higher or lower in frequency, but I've noticed that certain frequencies, especially higher ones, bother me more than they used to. I have to wear earplugs at the dentist now haha. All this to say that there are trade-offs to building your critical listening skill! To some degree, I genuinely envy people who can just listen to the music and enjoy all the new gear. There are still moments where things "click" with a set for me, where I go into a set with no expectations and find myself blown away, but these moments are the exception, not the norm.
Hello dear, as you know , I am happy owner of ie600 and I am very well.I also hear sometimes a "digital" effect that however does not affect the good feeling with this small headphone. Do you think Twilight is more effective on rock metal? Or Oriolus Szalay? Thanks in advance
But I have listened to my FH9 this morning, and they are f*ckin' awesome.
Sort of "fun reference" signature just super addictive.
Really a masterpiece.
I have made some tips rolling too, and by far, the best paired, for me, is obtened with the Canal Works Gel, wide bore. Not as good (but very good) with the narrow bore version.
Absolute opposite with my others uiems with prefere the narrow bore version.
I also listened to two cables to replace, with my Aure Ringo, my Tricopper x8, which is now installed on my Aure Élixir.
Aaw Aoraki = a crush. Very, very, very recommended.
Cema Palladium Palace = a real steal. Not as good as the Aaw, but very good.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
