[nikbr]

Head-fi Ladies and Gents, 3rd and by far most exciting rehab test is complete and I'm ecstatic to share it with you.

AüR Audio Aurora vs Night Oblivion Butastur

Let us quickly meet the fighters:

In the left corner, shamelessly wearing colourful shorts is the Aurora which is rocking a Kinera Leyding cable and Tri Clarion tips! A set with a 2DD+6BA setup.
In the right corner, please give a warm welcome to black and white shorts of the Butastur which is equipped with a Hisenior WhiteWhale cable (in-ear pic shows the original cable) and Tangzu Tang Sancai tips! This one sports a 10BA setup.

Apples to oranges, vs ? Yes, a little bit ... but but, hear me out, these are relatively close price-wise and most consumers have a budget in mind even when they decide to treat themselves.

I have kept both switches on the Butastur down throughout the test, because the first switch does not aid bass while reducing treble, whereas the second switch is, presumably, meant for the older amongst you that - it's all part of nature's grand scheme - might not hear the higher frequencies the same anymore.

I have gone through the next tracks and did extensive A/Bing of the two competitors for hours on end. I have always done it with a fresh set of ears. Disclaimer: some tracks will include timestamps which are only precise for Tidal listeners.

The source I used was Tidal on my Samsung S23 wired to Fiio BTR7. Volume was kept at roughly 80dB which asked for just one level more on Fiio's 60-step control for the Aurora than for Butastur.

Without further ado, let's get this party started!

0:00-0:28 Guitars' dance
Aurora: Sound is full bodied, but guitar strings feel heavy
Butastur: A leaner sound which is livelier and more detailed

0:29-0:52 Calm female vocal joins
Aurora: Her vocal has more meat and is placed further back, feels more natural
Butastur: Better separation, but less natural

1:16-1:38 Powerful and sharp female vocal with a distinct echo
Aurora: Better vocal texture with more roundness
Butastur: Great separation&clarity, last »gone« is more cohesive when she changes vocal approach, too safe in sibilance region, but it's easier to follow separate guitars and the echo is clear

3:37-fin Pure emotion and guitars as children on a field trip
Aurora: Warmer and less forward, so it carries less power and guitars are lazier and less resolving, goosebump-o-meter (what a horrible expression, please sue me) at 4/5
Butastur: Wonderful heartfelt presentation, guitars do their dance without being in each other's way, goosebump-o-meter (please, not again ...) at 5/5

This track is overall more enjoyable on the Butastur that handles guitars better as well as not being shy to let the girl sing.

0:00-0:34 Heart-melting vocal + bass + piano
Aurora: Romantic vocal with good piano note weight and timbre, bass is well-textured and in correct amount
Butastur: Vocal appears more forward due to less bass which makes it less seductive, bass lacks weight and is timbrally off, piano is less weighted

0:35-1:03 Trombone and sax join
Aurora: Very easy to follow the piano far right despite a lot going on, bass is present but not overpowering, her vocal is better, inhales are as if I myself inhaled
Butastur: A bit harder to follow the piano due to less note authority, but soundstage is more open and it's more detailed and resolving, especially in treble

2:07-3:12 Getting jiggy with drums
Aurora: Warm-leaning, rhythm is more pronounced, stage is more compact
Butastur: Bright-leaning, but with clear percussion, a controlled but expansive stage, not sibilant nor shouty, distinct instrumentation

4:02-fin The Last Hoorah
Aurora: Better rhythmically and the gritty vocal playback is perfection
Butastur: Better clarity and imaging

This track is highly dependent on timbre and her voice's ability to leave you awe-struck. I have to give it to the Aurora.

0:00-0:36 Openness
Aurora: Warmer, but gives the sense of less resolution
Butastur: Colder (which doesn't pair well with song title), but more open sounding

1:11-1:55 Grainy vocal + back vocals + instrumentation
Aurora: It does grainy vocals better, presents back vocals and instrumentation very layered and true, lush and rumbling bass
Butastur: Lacks warmth and weight and doesn't pair well with this track, bass has no authority

2:16-2:50 Percussion
Aurora: Great reverberating bass, but it could do with more midbass kick
Butastur: Bass quantity is sufficient, but quality lacks behind Aurora's 2DD setup, kick is lacking and is less controlled

It is a track where bass is the main attraction and there can only be one winner, Aurora.

This whole song serves as a canvas to paint the picture about their separation, soundstage, imaging, timbre, and ambiance.

Aurora: Better bass, better drums, wider soundstage, timbrally better except at brass
Butastur: Brings all the details more at reach, sharper brass which works well, but it's shy on bass

Hm, this one is a dead draw that I could pick either one and simply experience the song differently.

Here we're trying to grasp how they handle timbre and a lively jazz club ambiance with background noises.

Aurora: Better background layering that brings you into that club, bass and percussion timbre is spot on
Butastur: Better brass timbre, laid back bass is welcome in certain section where Aurora might feel congested, clarity of vibraphone is amazing

Yeah these jazzy pieces really are good on both, so choice is down to listener's current preference.

Aurora: Good layering with very good depth perception, sweeter but more rounded violin, does not get sharp at any point
Butastur: Violin is more precise with each note, it is better controlled on busy passages, depth perception is not as good and it's on the verge of metallicness, but stays good

If you are into jazz or classical, you are choosing between two very different signatures that both do justice to those genres, but in their own way.

0:00-0:30 Percussion, bass, and brass
Aurora: Better percussion overall, better bass, but brass is a bit too shy
Butastur: Lighter on its feet, cymbals have more bite, but feel less natural, better brass

0:31-1:31 Layering and a sharp&gritty male vocal
Aurora: Fantastic vocal that is in its own space, layering is good but suffers slightly from too present bass
Butastur: Layering capability seems about the same, vocal gets more lost in the mix and lacks lower semitones

3:22-fin Back vocals, openness, and detail
Aurora: Due to thicker presentation it is tougher to follow minute details, back vocals are more true to life
Butastur: Good detail retrieval makes it easier to dissect the stage, but vocals all lack weight

I'm having a hard time forgiving the less than ideal vocals on Butastur, so this one goes to Aurora.

This one incorporates multiple male vocals into masterfully rhythmic background.

Aurora: It does the vocals, accordion and drums better and is simply more rhythmic and hence enjoyable
Butastur: It does the technicalities better so it's more separated, imaging is clearer and details are more reachable

When you are in the mood for enjoyable - Aurora, and when you prefer slimmer and more technical - Butastur.

0:00-0:18 guitar and background forming a template
Aurora: Thicker guitar, but lowest note reverberates nicer
Butastur: More dimension to each guitar note and a discernable background

0:19-0:50 Breathy male vocal
Aurora: Incredibly presented vocal once again
Butastur: Not on the same level with such vocals

1:51-2:42 Male high head voice, drums, piano, strings
Aurora: Kickdrum resonates better, voice is more natural, imaging falls a step behind the Butastur
Butastur: Very good imaging and top class separation, also due to lack of warmth which in this case comes in handy

3:00-4:10 Now we really get going
Aurora: Voice placement is spot on, however due to safer high mids it lacks that ultimate energy for such pieces, but it still gets a 3/5 on the goosebump-o-meter (just go with the flow)
Butastur: Vocal is a bit too far back, the lack of bass makes it a bit sterile and soulless while aiding with details and resolution

4:28-fin Grand finale
Aurora: Lacks that last bit in resolution
Butastur: seriously lacks emotion

None of them do perfectly with this track, but Butastur's lack of emotion is underwhelming, while Aurora is a bit too safe, but overall good.

I was primarily paying attention to the vocal and that echo, but drums, bass and guitar too.

Aurora: Maynard's vocal is otherworldly, drums are better overall despite the safe cymbals, better suited for rock/metal, although a bit safe on kick and treble
Butastur: I would hand the guitars to Butastur again, it allows a deep dive into technicalities, but isn't the pick for such style of rock/metal

Aurora comes out on top.

0:00-0:19 Thunderstorm, surround rain effect, guitar
Aurora: Storm is mightier and might make you look through the window
Butastur: The surround effect of rain is slightly larger here and it sounds more true, as well as guitars

0:20-0:56 oh hello there bass, calm male vocal, cymbals
Aurora: Bass weight and texture is best I heard in an IEM, vocal is perfect, cymbals are more 3D despite being held back
Butastur: Good vocal, serious detail retrieval, but BA bass is behind in weight and texture

0:58-fin Holly bassline
Aurora: Bass line handled with ease and authority, correct quantity of everything, just WOW
Butastur: BAs really trying their best, but the ultra lows just aren't there, so this song does not suit it at all

Do I really need to tell you the winner?

Let's check the overall epicness of a movie score.

Aurora: You get the theatre experience with just about perfect replay, soundstage is really well layered
Butastur: Less epic, but possibly even more 'Gothmic' and scarier due to the thinness, the lack of bass makes the overall magnitude of the soundstage appear smaller in this case

So, Batman should be watched with the Aurora in your ears.

Gotta love the Italians, they just have their own perspective. Such a fun track that tests technicalities, male vocal and the ridiculously dynamic Outro.

Aurora: Bass gets a bit out of hand at times and thus appears less transparent, vocals are better, it's more balanced sounding, while outro gets a bit congested sounding
Butastur: Leanness works in its favour and presents better imaging, more snappiness, more openness and the outro is better due to BA bass, male vocals and bass texture are a step behind Aurora

I must give it to Butastur.

A tech house tune that obviously needs bass and is extremely layered.

Aurora: A more holographic experience where DD bass is king, mids are tremendously detailed (probably due to safer treble that does not take over at any point), certain details would benefit from more treble
Butastur: I put it on 10 switch setting here despite preferring the 00 which lets Butastur do what it's good at, bass does gain a bit but becomes slightly boomy in this track, still overall experience is enjoyable because of good rhythmic presentation, however treble does get tiring especially at volumes that such tracks should be listened to

It's Aurora's playground, but Butastur offers an enjoyable twist.

WE HAVE REACHED THE END and my hands are about to fall off from typing, but hopefully there is something new or interesting to be gained from the experiment - if nothing else, you really should add these tunes to your next listening session!

Final words: do you want a warm-neutral set with wonderful bass, fantastic vocals and mids, laid back treble that still brings the details, or, second option, a neutral-bright set that is a bit more picky with genres and prefers to wow its listener with exquisite detail retrieval and upbeat presentation. I would struggle to choose so I consider myself lucky to own both!

 

[Smirk 24]

Very nice...i have not cable rolled my Singularity at all and was an early receiver, partially because I have to return the Vanguard 2w when my bifrost bold becomes available, though Chang has suggested I try the Vanguard 4w first. I love the Vanguard 2w and haven't tried anything else. At CanJam, I will try bifrost bold and Vanguard 4w, and I suspect I should also try Blue Hour! Any impressions or differences you pick up here with Singularity? BTW, huge success for me using the Coreir brass tips, making a great thing even better.

How is the difference, if any, with the 2w vs. 4w? I have to decide between that or the bifrost bold.

I've only ever tried Vanguard 4W so I can't provide any comparisons unfortunately. Thanks for the Coreir brass tips rec, I'll give that a try.

 

[Deezel177]

Still, A18s is far from reference. Well it has neutral mids on paper, so maybe you can use it for vocals, all right - I can give you that

'Depends on who you ask. I've been able to use it as a mixing and mastering reference just fine, and the recordings I've made with it have been generally well-received. It may not fit the hi-fi, audiophile-adapted definition of reference, but it does for mine.

 

[Simpeler]

'Depends on who you ask. I've been able to use it as a mixing and mastering reference just fine, and the recordings I've made with it have been generally well-received. It may not fit the hi-fi, audiophile-adapted definition of reference, but it does for mine.

Which now begs the question:
What IS reference sound and what IEM’s would fit this sound?

 

[Smirk 24]

Which now begs the question:
What IS reference sound and what IEM’s would fit this sound?

U12t is pretty reference-y. I'd throw Monarch MK2 in there as well.

 

[Deezel177]

Which now begs the question:
What IS reference sound and what IEM’s would fit this sound?

I've talked about this a bunch of times, but, to keep it simple, I think there are two general types of reference. The first would be an ideal, objective reference, which, to me, would be an IEM with as little tonal colouration and technical limitations as possible. A reference IEM should be as transparent as possible to the music it's playing, and the only way to know that is to see how well it translates the differences between the tracks it plays. A common example I use is: If I play a jazz track, then I play a dance/EDM track, and the IEM is giving me similar amounts of bass on both, then it clearly isn't a reference in-ear. You'd want the IEM to tell you the latter has more bass than the former (as the case tends to be). Narrowing those differences to tracks on the same album, even, another common comparison I make is between Tracks 2 and 3 on Tom Misch's Geography album. Tom's vocals are ever-so-slightly brighter and lighter on Track 3 than on 2. An IEM with a colored midrange (at the very least) would mask those nuances and, therefore, not let the tracks come through as transparently and, therefore, not be a reference IEM.

Extending this into the technical realm, you'd also want an IEM to show you differences in scale and dynamics between two tracks. What use is tonal transparency if you're hearing the same degree of compression on every track, or the same stage sizes, etc.? A reference IEM should also be able to grow and shrink its stage to accurately show what the track has to offer. I've heard IEMs, headphones, even cables that stretch images to fake a wide soundstage, but if it's happening on every single track, then it's not really reference, is it? A good example of an IEM that I'd consider reference in imaging, specifically, is Empire Ears' ODIN. If you play a well-mastered track with great space and dynamics, it fills that in-ear's stage up beautifully. There seems to be a nice spot for each instrument to sit in. Whereas, playing a super-compressed, radio-inclined track will give you every instrument scrunched up into a tight ball in the middle of the soundscape - never expanding, never growing - while the outer reaches of the stage remain unoccupied; empty-feeling.

Dynamically-speaking, there are also IEMs like the VE EVE 20 (another common staple in posts of mine like this) that are very punchy and contrasty macro-dynamically, but can't dial that energy back when it comes time for a slow ballad or a bossa nova record. A reference in-ear should toe the line and let the track sway its energy up or down. This is, to me, what separated the U12t from the U6t or the U4s. Although they share many tonal similarities (as their FRs aptly suggest), their capacity to let tracks rise and fall in energy are worlds apart. Given a dynamically-mastered track like Snarky Puppy's Go, the U6t and U4s would usually start at a 5 or 6 (energy-wise) and top out at an 8. Whereas, the U12t can go from a 4 at the start of the track and climax at a 9 or 10. Being able to accurately ebb and flow with the music is another key component of the ideal reference IEM.

Now, whether or not an IEM with all these qualities exist is the million-dollar question... My money is on No...t yet.

My second definition of reference would be the subjective kind, and that's much simpler to explain. Basically, it's the IEM that your brain most quickly and easily recognizes as correct-sounding, and would therefore allow you to analyze the music you're listening to with as little effort as possible. It's what your brain references as your personal, baseline sound, and you accumulate it over years of listening experience. For example, if you took one person with a lifetime of hearing the piano and another without one, their references of what the instrument sounded like would wildly differ. On the other hand, if you took two people who grew up playing the piano, but in different homes with different acoustics, then their ideas of what the piano sounded like would differ too.

So, that's more of a subjective definition of the word, and, whenever I wanna use that meaning specifically, I always preface it by saying my reference, which, I've found, tends to be a bit warmer, less-upper-mid-forward and more laidback than most. To use a relevant example, the U18t is an IEM many people call colorless or neutral, but I've always found its low-to-mid-treble peak lingers and carries over from one track to another. There's a tizz that makes it not reference to me. But, hey, the last two words of the previous sentence are there for a reason.

Hope this helps.

 

[Piotr Michalak]

Which now begs the question:
What IS reference sound and what IEM’s would fit this sound?

By reference I mean neutral - possibly with some clean subbass boost, but not too much. And at least good technicalities. My top of the line reference IEMs:

5. Tralucent Plus5.2. Dead flat neutral with funky treble peaks. Tubeless creates great imaging. Not very well known.

4. Empire Ears Zeus XRA. Colored neutrality. Neutral bass with very colored mids. Still very high technicalities even in 2023.

3. Aroma Audio Jewel. A bit warm because of recessed highs (with an hole at 6kHz) and boosted sub lows, but has a tendency towards neutrality. Superb technicalities.

2. Vision Ears Erlkonig setting IV. Slightly warmed neutral. Especially the mids are perfect neutral. My golden standard.

1. Ambient Acoustics MAD24. Crazy electrostatic like technicalities with 24 BA drivers. Overall neutral tuning. Untouchable. No hype for this yet is a very strange social phenomenon.

0. Wavaya Octa. Vocal-first neutral. Or neutral for vocalists. Partially tubeless 4BA + 4EST. The only CIEM made from porcelain (!!!). Just an honorable mention: the company no longer exists. I loved it so much that I got two pairs just in case.

 

[zikarus]

I've talked about this a bunch of times, but, to keep it simple, I think there are two general types of reference. The first would be an ideal, objective reference, which, to me, would be an IEM with as little tonal colouration and technical limitations as possible. A reference IEM should be as transparent as possible to the music it's playing, and the only way to know that is to see how well it translates the differences between the tracks it plays. A common example I use is: If I play a jazz track, then I play a dance/EDM track, and the IEM is giving me similar amounts of bass on both, then it clearly isn't a reference in-ear. You'd want the IEM to tell you the latter has more bass than the former (as the case tends to be). Narrowing those differences to tracks on the same album, even, another common comparison I make is between Tracks 2 and 3 on Tom Misch's Geography album. Tom's vocals are ever-so-slightly brighter and lighter on Track 3 than on 2. An IEM with a colored midrange (at the very least) would mask those nuances and, therefore, not let the tracks come through as transparently and, therefore, not be a reference IEM.

Extending this into the technical realm, you'd also want an IEM to show you differences in scale and dynamics between two tracks. What use is tonal transparency if you're hearing the same degree of compression on every track, or the same stage sizes, etc.? A reference IEM should also be able to grow and shrink its stage to accurately show what the track has to offer. I've heard IEMs, headphones, even cables that stretch images to fake a wide soundstage, but if it's happening on every single track, then it's not really reference, is it? A good example of an IEM that I'd consider reference in imaging, specifically, is Empire Ears' ODIN. If you play a well-mastered track with great space and dynamics, it fills that in-ear's stage up beautifully. There seems to be a nice spot for each instrument to sit in. Whereas, playing a super-compressed, radio-inclined track will give you every instrument scrunched up into a tight ball in the middle of the soundscape - never expanding, never growing - while the outer reaches of the stage remain unoccupied; empty-feeling.

Dynamically-speaking, there are also IEMs like the VE EVE 20 (another common staple in posts of mine like this) that are very punchy and contrasty macro-dynamically, but can't dial that energy back when it comes time for a slow ballad or a bossa nova record. A reference in-ear should toe the line and let the track sway its energy up or down. This is, to me, what separated the U12t from the U6t or the U4s. Although they share many tonal similarities (as their FRs aptly suggest), their capacity to let tracks rise and fall in energy are worlds apart. Given a dynamically-mastered track like Snarky Puppy's Go, the U6t and U4s would usually start at a 5 or 6 (energy-wise) and top out at an 8. Whereas, the U12t can go from a 4 at the start of the track and climax at a 9 or 10. Being able to accurately ebb and flow with the music is another key component of the ideal reference IEM.

Now, whether or not an IEM with all these qualities exist is the million-dollar question... My money is on No...t yet.

My second definition of reference would be the subjective kind, and that's much simpler to explain. Basically, it's the IEM that your brain most quickly and easily recognizes as correct-sounding, and would therefore allow you to analyze the music you're listening to with as little effort as possible. It's what your brain references as your personal, baseline sound, and you accumulate it over years of listening experience. For example, if you took one person with a lifetime of hearing the piano and another without one, their references of what the instrument sounded like would wildly differ. On the other hand, if you took two people who grew up playing the piano, but in different homes with different acoustics, then their ideas of what the piano sounded like would differ too.

So, that's more of a subjective definition of the word, and, whenever I wanna use that meaning specifically, I always preface it by saying my reference, which, I've found, tends to be a bit warmer, less-upper-mid-forward and more laidback than most. To use a relevant example, the U18t is an IEM many people call colorless or neutral, but I've always found its low-to-mid-treble peak lingers and carries over from one track to another. There's a tizz that makes it not reference to me. But, hey, the last two words of the previous sentence are there for a reason.

Hope this helps.

Get your point, but - as for the objective reference - how do you define your base reference (e.g. in your second example comparing two tracks sounding slightly different - based on what)?

In other words - is the base reference you need to refer to not always subjective anyway? Like you say so nicely yourself, based on years of a certain listening experience.

In essence 'to me' is what this hobby is all about imo.

 

[morserotonin]

Hi all,

I have been out of touch here for months due to serious illness in the family. However, I will be attending CanJam SoCal. I will be there Sunday only but will be there all day and hope to see a bunch of you again this year!

 

[emdeevee]

Watercooler love throughout the Canjam Socal video! Super excited for this weekend!

 

[fejnomit]

So, that's more of a subjective definition of the word, and, whenever I wanna use that meaning specifically, I always preface it by saying my reference, which, I've found, tends to be a bit warmer, less-upper-mid-forward and more laidback than most

Very interesting post. Plus, "your" reference is essentially mine as well. So thank you for that. I also believe there is a misconception around the Harman curve as somehow being 'reference' - perhaps in a third sense of the term meaning 'able to play most things well and please most people in the process' - but that is not the case to my ears. Also I would say "neutral" is another term that is quite slippery. As stated above, neutral in reference to what exactly? The "to me" creeps back in every time...

 

[yaps66]

Hello everyone,

I just got back from a journey to the north coast community of Bella Bella with 25 of my students to participate in a weeklong cultural event (hence my not posting or responding to much in the last 8 days). Lots of great stories and memories but right now I'm switching gears and getting hyped for SoCal!

Amazing pictures as always Jeff! Love them!

 

[Deezel177]

Get your point, but - as for the objective reference - how do you define your base reference (e.g. in your second example comparing two tracks sounding slightly different - based on what)?

In other words - is the base reference you need to refer to not always subjective anyway? Like you say so nicely yourself, based on years of a certain listening experience.

In essence 'to me' is what this hobby is all about imo.

Well, obviously, it would take years of experience to have enough skill to discern those tiny nuances, so there would be a degree of subjectivity in it too. But, the reason why I call it an ideal, objective reference is because we're not taking into account any biases or preferences the end user may have here. We're using the IEM as control, and we're letting only the tracks be the variables. Unfortunately, it's impossible to establish a singular baseline with a single listen or a single measurement. It's not like a desktop monitor where we can slap a measuring device and see how color accurate it is or how much contrast it has. The only way is to listen to a bunch of tracks and see how distinct the IEM can make each track sound. In the Tom Misch example, we can objectively say there is a difference in the way his vocals sound between tracks 2 and 3 because, well, there is a difference. We're not introducing any subjectivity by saying which of the two sounds better, or more correct, etc., but there definitely is a difference. You can hear it on a number of earphones that err on neutral. The one that showcases that distinction best would be the most reference-ish of them all... but only in that region, specifically.

Obviously, just using that test is barely enough to call an IEM's midrange reference, let alone the sum of its parts. That's why we need a wide variety of tracks for the IEM to output, so we can see what qualities stay and what qualities don't. To reuse the U18t as an example, if I listen to 10 tracks with the IEM, I'll hear the same 7kHz tizz on every single one. It's a quality that stays, adds a common tint to every track I listen to and, therefore, minimizes the differences between them. So, it isn't an ideal reference. There are a number of bass cannon in-ears that give a similar oomph down low to every track it plays, and we've established that similar and reference don't mix. This applies also to texture, imaging, dynamics, etc. If we take a desktop monitor again as an example, if you put up 10 different images (from 10 different artists and 10 different mediums) and they all have a slight green tint, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say the green tint is a coloration of the monitor, no? The display that makes those 10 images as distinct as possible would then be the ideal, objective reference.

So, the difference between the objective reference and subjective reference is that the former may not sound "comfortable" to you. It's not designed to sound correct to you, necessarily. Its main purpose is to be as transparent as possible by showcasing as many differences between tracks as possible, and that may mean certain tracks sounding off or unnatural. More likely than not, that's just how the track was mixed and mastered in the first place. And, that is where the last line of your reply comes in. That ultimate, objective reference will not be for everyone. I think marketing for headphones and earphones has been incredibly detrimental in making people think this sound is what every audiophile should be striving for. Listen to the tracks as the artists intended! Purely colorless and transparent! In my opinion, that's all BS. I say, find the IEM that sounds best and most correct to you. Heck, do I listen to the A18s when I'm not working nowadays? No. It's the JH Sharona if I still want that reference-ish sound, the Nightjar Acoustics Singularity for fun, or my car speakers the other 90% of the time. As I've said numerous times in the past, the reference sound isn't the best or ultimate sound. It's just a sound.

Very interesting post. Plus, "your" reference is essentially mine as well. So thank you for that. I also believe there is a misconception around the Harman curve as somehow being 'reference' - perhaps in a third sense of the term meaning 'able to play most things well and please most people in the process' - but that is not the case to my ears. Also I would say "neutral" is another term that is quite slippery. As stated above, neutral in reference to what exactly? The "to me" creeps back in every time...

Yeah, exactly. I've heard the Harman curve a few times, and the word that keeps coming back to me is "digestible." It's safe, unexaggerated and blasé. The issue I run into most with it, as it's most commonly found in cheaper IEMs, is it has nowhere near the technical faculties to be comfortably called reference. Most of the times I've run into the Harman curve are on IEMs with compressed dynamics, same-y imaging, etc. I think that's the bit most people forget when they're trying to pin down whether or not an IEM is reference.

I talked about my definitions of neutral and natural some time ago. I feel neutral is like that ideal reference I talked about. It's the sound that doesn't necessarily come natural to you, but shows off the differences between tracks most clearly, and, therefore, is colorless. Because it's used in tonal connotations more often than not, I think neutral can be summarized as objective reference, but without the technicalities part (dynamics, imaging, etc) playing as big of a role. As I explained above, because we can't pin down an exact reference or neutral sound based on one listen (as it would be far too subjective), the only way to determine that would be listen to as many tracks as possible and see which IEM makes them sound as distinct as possible. That's been my longstanding opinion for years now, and I'm still looking for that one thing that'll change my mind.

 

[gLer]

As I've said numerous times in the past, the reference sound isn't the best or ultimate sound. It's just a sound.

Talk about quotable quotes, one of your best yet

 

[metaljem77]

Had my eye on this for my Singularity.

I’m using Vanguard 4W right now, are there any differences between Vanguard/Blue Hour that you can share?

I’ll do what I can to do some comparisons with Vanguard which I have now as well, I’ll perhaps do it this weekend. Happy to take this sharing via pm, as my visits to HF are random and irregular. Caveat: my comparisons will be inadequate, perhaps Chang would be best placed to provide insights