Frankly speaking, I have seen larger companies failing badly against the smaller ones when building technology products due to their size, bureaucracy, hard-lined rules, strict budgets done by non-technical people and lacking or worse, suppressing people with innovative practical ideas. That also creates a different state of mind and atmosphere among the employees that hinders the creativity. True, building a chip is a huge thing, not just the infrastructure but also a state level investment in research and education that can take decades to build up provided the human capital exists (which I think is one of the biggest reasons for conflicts -even wars- in our time), but we are not building a chip here, but a well understood area of engineering - at least well understood in terms of what it means to develop hardware that can reproduce the sound well enough that the difference to the original signal is insignificant for human hearing.Also very quotable.
The counter argument is, that DAPs with outdated and buggy software, inferior silicon hardware and otherwise overpriced and overkill electrical parts in them, manufactured by small size en vogue audio design companies will surely beat the phone made by companies owning (or being one of) the most prestigious audio firms of the last 100 years or so and having access to their research and staff, including their own ridiculous budgets to invest into more of it
YMMV and mine does as well. It's not a question with a definite answer
I am ready to pay the price for a smaller company when the proper engineering is in place, I even would support the idea of supporting a smaller company. But what baffles me is the repeated repackaging of the hardware under different labels while lacking any software to support that. Even today, in the age of DAPs with very powerful SoCs that include powerful DSPs, I don't see anyone implementing a proper system level PEQ or crossfeed. A&K has it but it is a stone age implementation. There is something wrong here.
Is this post really a reply to mine? I am surprised as I didn't mention any measurements but anyway... Electromagnetic wave propagation is part of undergraduate studies in electrical engineering and I most probably solved my last hand calculated wave propagation question about 20 years ago during the finals and since then I didn't touch anything on the subject - at least I don't remember. So I won't be able to go into any details, but at least I can say the inductive and capacitive effects will be influential in much higher frequencies than 20 kHz. So yes, it is a resistive effect that might play a role combined with the high output impedance of the player and low and irregular impedance of an IEM. But the most interesting thing is, even that very obvious thing, the relation of the output impedance of a player and the impedance characteristics of an IEM, is disregarded here. What about the DC resistance of the cable? There are a lot of online tools and tables about that - you can just check and get your answer.I explained briefly why these measurements are meaningless and misleading.
Let me explain it now in more detail to, hopefully, close this subject.
1. Signal propagation in metal wires can be measured very precisely. One can take any arbitrary signal (pure shapes, sinusoidal, etc., or their combination, or any actual music files) and precisy compare signal in and signal out for any changes, distortions, etc. It can be done with a relatively simple equimpent (signal generator, ADC and/or oscilloscope). The fact that there are no such measurements documenting cable differences precusely are very telling, since not much difference other than simple attenuation due to cable resistance can be documented.
2. It is fare to point out that since we listens to transducers, then measuring the whole chain makes a good sense holistically. There, if measurements are done right (and it is a big "if", see below), significant effects of cables (due to their resistance, again) on low-impedance multidriver IEMs containing BAs are well-documented. In fact, CA alone could be responsible for triggering "cable listening" (and source selection, certainly) with their IEMs.
3. Now, the measurements cited by you have been performed using a coupler. Everyone using these couplers experienced how sensitive to the seal ( affecting bass) and insertion depth (treble and resonances), the measurements are. In fact, the same IEMs routinely receive different measurements by different people, a common not fully resolved problem with these coupler measurements. Standardization requires a lot of effort, and still is far from perfect.
To put it simply, I (and anyone else) can take any of three cables: A, B, and C and make three series of experiments with these couplers, where A can be demonstrated first to be "most bassy", then "most mid" and lastly "most trebly".
That what happens when the distortion of other parts of measuring chains are incomparably higher than what is tried to be measured in cables (an obvious problem of a weak link).
If cable manufacturers would try to post such measurements, they would be ripped apart, but hobbyist’s measurements are OK (and fun) as long as improper claims are not made.
I thought to tell a related story of my experience with clarinets, relevant to couplers, may be another time.
You can continue trying to find reasons to make engineering data to be irrelevant but the fact is, it is what makes this hobby possible. People can claim "SINAD" is irrelevant and claim to hear how wonderful the 24 bit version of the same file converted via a 256 bit floats sounds. Happens all the time. But in the end, it is just a claim against something that has been theoretically and practically proven to work.