[ian91]

Timbre is through frequency response, as it will alter the source signal and color the original timbre as tuned by the mixing and mastering engineer.

All those other characteristics can be measured by a battery of tests including square waves and DIRAC pulses by observing the delta between the original digital signal and the recorded sound from the transducer or a reconversion through an ADC if you are testing components upstream of the transducer.

"Sound stage" is a more contentious topic because that depends on a number of factors that contribute to modifying the source signal's spatial cues as implemented by the recording engineer (binaural recording techniques for instance) or the mixing/mastering engineer (through software plug-ins playing with panning, reverb, EQ, phase differentials, etc) in such a way that renders a universal analysis practically impossible for HPs, let alone IEMs. These tracks are mixed on studio monitors usually, so spatial cues are building off a HRTF and HRIR that are not translatable exactly to the audience, and mastering those tracks further muddies the water by adding frequency exciters and distortion to ensure performance on systems that are not up to spec, especially speaker systems that don't have a proper subwoofer and room treatment. The measurement methodology for this is as yet unknown because of the psychoacoustic nature of sound imaging, although we can get close by mimicing the spatial cues observed through a binaural recording setup.

I find this topic of 'qualitative' vs 'quantitative' aspects of sound really interesting. I would disagree that timbre is solely a function of frequency response. For me, it goes beyond driver tuning to include more subtle qualities of driver behaviour over time, such as attack, decay, transient control and resonant properties which I feel is more driver composition and housing/ventilation. For example, I have heard a single BA tuned with what I consider to be a 'tonal balance' that on paper should produce a convincing realism and capture all the 'information' but the resolution, note density and contours of the attack and decay are unnatural and/or not sufficiently revealing. This makes distinguishing instrumental character more difficult. So, it's not just about the information but how that information is conveyed.

 

[KinGensai]

I find this topic of 'qualitative' vs 'quantitative' aspects of sound really interesting. I would disagree that timbre is solely a function of frequency response. For me, it goes beyond driver tuning to include more subtle qualities of driver behaviour over time, such as attack, decay, transient control and resonant properties which I feel is more driver composition and housing/ventilation. For example, I have heard a single BA tuned with what I consider to be a 'tonal balance' that on paper should produce a convincing realism and capture all the 'information' but the resolution, note density and contours of the attack and decay are unnatural and/or not sufficiently revealing. This makes distinguishing instrumental character more difficult. So, it's not just about the information but how that information is conveyed.

Yes, that's covered by analyzing the square wave response and DIRAC pulse response. Music obviously does not involve either of these things outside of some edge cases, but these signals provide a clean digital point of comparison to measure equipment against to definitively quantify the transducer's capability to render sound.

You can see THD and harmonic resonance profiles with clean sine waves with limitations introduced by the measurement rig's ADC and HRTF profile of course (namely phase cancellation at specific depths of the ear canal), and this helps to figure out how much muddiness a transducer is introducing to the source signal. This is of course not factoring in a linear time function, hence the above metrics.

Example of these metrics here: https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/qdc-anole-vx.php#gsc.tab=0

Square wave response and DIRAC pulse response reveal the impulse response, which will impact phase alignment when rendering changes in amplitude along a given frequency. Transducers are physically busy because they are attempting to render multiple sounds along the same linear time function, so the transducer needs to be hitting the right amplitude at each sample of the digital file (for 16/44.1, that's about 23μs per sample). Any deviation from these encoded time samples leads to "muddiness" or inability to separate multiple frequency related sounds from each other. This is the reason why multi-driver IEMs are definitively technically superior vs single driver IEMs.

 

[dleblanc343]

My Annihilator 2023 arrived today! After I retrieved the IEM and cable out of the box, I tried to lift the inner box thinking there should be more but since I couldnt I decided maybe there isnt anything else. Checked online and saw there's more stuff inside. I shook the box but it still won't open when eventually the side panel flopped sideways and opening the hidden compartment with more goods inside like case, warranty card, cloth, etc. I think the included eartips is Spinfit W1 but not entirely sure.

A bit of disappointment with the included Liquid Links Martini cable since it doesnt full insert into my dx320 max. Sound seems fine but it would sometimes pop out slightly and mess.up the sound. Im waiting for conx pentaconn ear connector so I can use it with my Cleo II Octa cables.

I'll spend the next several weeks alternating between the two, one week each, before deciding who to marry. Perhaps both of Anni and Mona. Both Maxi and Cleo is for sure a keeper though! Then I can finally conclude my gear hunt and hibernate for the next several years like I did when I completed my headphones setup (which I now sold and just the RME DAC remaining; fully switched to IEM now).

If you're on the fence or feeling guilt about owning a product, you should reflect upon it and not feel obliged.

That being said, I can confidently say Anni23 is a Summit-Fi piece of gear and its cost/ performance is competitive considering the state of the market. I think it will hold value in resale more than the Monarch & it will also give you piece of mind if you're concerned with missing out on better things should you settle for Monarch.

An IEM also has more longevity than source components, so perhaps you can also consider downsizing source and retaining both iem's - that would give you more flexibility in theory.

The cable not fitting the recessed port of DX320MAX was something that I also was bummed about, but I always had a secure click. As long as you're more stationary it should be fine, though it is tough on the OCD lol

Owning Anni 2023 for about 2 weeks, absolutely in love with the thing. It was one of the more convenient purchases for me in the recent years, especially with so many much more expensive items, which imho Anni 23 blows out of the water, both with its technicalities and the tuning. Not to speak of the design and build quality.

Enjoy your purchase man, your DX320 deserves a high end IEM to be paired with.

And yep, the cable connector is weird, have problems with my Holo Bliss and it too, very difficult to get the right fit. Agree on the packaging, it is wild, took me a while too to figure out how to open the accessories part haha

Well said on all 3 points but I have a tip for all future Annihilator purchasers in removing the iem's from the snug-fit foam.

Just take a piece of scotch tape, fix it flush against the faceplate and pull upwards, and it will be out in 2 seconds effortlessly. Scotch tape is mild and leaves no residue or marks to the faceplate

 

[KinGensai]

Why do you think Custom is needed for CP622B to be on the list?

He already answered, but I think it's not just the 622B, it's all BC IEMs. They rely on a solid connection with your pinna to transmit the vibrations as intended, which will go better with a custom shell because it will fully engage with your pinna as opposed to partial engagement. It'll also be more comfortable to maintain that fit vs universal.

 

[Bret Halford]

Square wave response and DIRAC pulse response reveal the impulse response, which will impact phase alignment when rendering changes in amplitude along a given frequency. Transducers are physically busy because they are attempting to render multiple sounds along the same linear time function, so the transducer needs to be hitting the right amplitude at each sample of the digital file (for 16/44.1, that's about 23μs per sample). Any deviation from these encoded time samples leads to "muddiness" or inability to separate multiple frequency related sounds from each other. This is the reason why multi-driver IEMs are definitively technically superior vs single driver IEMs.

SHOTS FIRED lol.

Consider, the issue of path length differences between drivers as well as the coherence requirements of the cross over network. Routing each bore tube through the IEM while rigidly aligning the length to maintain phase for that band is tricky enough in tiny IEM form factor, but add in that even perfect physical length will by necessity only match at a single frequency and will inherently introduce tiny phase errors for the rest of that driver's operating bandwidth. Indeed, some of the absolute top tier multi driver IEM manufacturers like FiR use a "sound reactor" fed from all the bores together with regular phase/timing prior to delivery in ear, trying to approximate the coherence of delivering it all from the same single driver/reference plane.

The actual advantage of multi driver setups is that it gives you additional tuning freedom (that crossover can be used to help achieve very specific FR) and also makes sure you're getting coverage at the extremes in the frequency range. Particularly higher frequencies >10-12k will roll off quite heavily in single driver designs (not just IEMs, headphones too), having a tweeter to take over extends that up to the limits of hearing. Ditto for a big ol' dynamic woofer down low if you want to really move some air down low. But phase and timing accuracy is a liability, not an advantage for multidriver systems!

 

[KinGensai]

SHOTS FIRED lol.

Consider, the issue of path length differences between drivers as well as the coherence requirements of the cross over network. Routing each bore tube through the IEM while rigidly aligning the length to maintain phase for that band is tricky enough in tiny IEM form factor, but add in that even perfect physical length will by necessity only match at a single frequency and will inherently introduce tiny phase errors for the rest of that driver's operating bandwidth. Indeed, some of the absolute top tier multi driver IEM manufacturers like FiR use a "sound reactor" fed from all the bores together with regular phase/timing prior to delivery in ear, trying to approximate the coherence of delivering it all from the same single driver/reference plane.

The actual advantage of multi driver setups is that it gives you additional tuning freedom (that crossover can be used to help achieve very specific FR) and also makes sure you're getting coverage at the extremes in the frequency range. Particularly higher frequencies >10-12k will roll off quite heavily in single driver designs (not just IEMs, headphones too), having a tweeter to take over extends that up to the limits of hearing. Ditto for a big ol' dynamic woofer down low if you want to really move some air down low. But phase and timing accuracy is a liability, not an advantage for multidriver systems!

That's a good point. I was taking for granted that multi-driver IEMs of the tier regularly discussed in this thread handle that problem and render it near inaudible, else such IEMs wouldn't get the attention they do.

The metric I would point to as the best evidence supporting my assertion is multi-tone response tests that span across the entire audible range. This tests the transducer's ability to rapidly fluctuate between voltage levels and accurately recreate the signal without introduced IMD or THD muddying the resulting sound.

I would concede that precision is not necessarily what every listener wants, thus the qualifier of "technically" to superior. Single driver HPs and IEMs introduce more distortion and sloppier transient response comparatively, but sound as presented in real life also has such imperfections, so sometimes it's the right amount of imperfection to make it sound more lifelike. Music in general is mixed and mastered assuming playback on speakers, so they are accounting for room acoustics to affect the sound further. HPs and IEMs lack room acoustics, so some extra distortion and IR can add artificial reverb and pleasing even order harmonics, making it a better choice for those who want that.

I want every bit of precision I can wring out of my gear, so I go with gear that eliminates as much of those factors as I can find.

 

[Deezel177]

I find this topic of 'qualitative' vs 'quantitative' aspects of sound really interesting. I would disagree that timbre is solely a function of frequency response. For me, it goes beyond driver tuning to include more subtle qualities of driver behaviour over time, such as attack, decay, transient control and resonant properties which I feel is more driver composition and housing/ventilation. For example, I have heard a single BA tuned with what I consider to be a 'tonal balance' that on paper should produce a convincing realism and capture all the 'information' but the resolution, note density and contours of the attack and decay are unnatural and/or not sufficiently revealing. This makes distinguishing instrumental character more difficult. So, it's not just about the information but how that information is conveyed.

I was talking to a few friends recently about times where I’ve liked an IEM’s tuning (i.e. frequency response), but disliked the timbre or texture of its drivers. Revived interest in the Trailli reminded me that, while I liked how its midrange was shaped, I didn’t particularly like the feel of it. It felt a tad familiar, almost as if I’d heard those drivers before.

Conversely, the 622B and VE X are recent examples where the texture (or feel) of their drivers elevate otherwise familiar FRs. The 622B would sound “normal” if it wasn’t for its moving, resonant, BCD-powered midrange and its stellar-quality BA bass. The VE X has a muscular, sinewy, earthy quality that matches its warm FR perfectly. I recall the red proto - identical in FR to the VE X, but with completely different drivers - sounding wetter, looser and less gritty; more smoothed or rounded.

So, again, there’s definitely an argument to be made that the model of the driver is just as important as how it’s tuned, especially nowadays, where every non-proprietary driver model’s probably been used dozens of times over.

 

[osocan]

I was talking to a few friends recently about times where I’ve liked an IEM’s tuning (i.e. frequency response), but disliked the timbre or texture of its drivers. Revived interest in the Trailli reminded me that, while I liked how its midrange was shaped, I didn’t particularly like the feel of it. It felt a tad familiar, almost as if I’d heard those drivers before.

Conversely, the 622B and VE X are recent examples where the texture (or feel) of their drivers elevate otherwise familiar FRs. The 622B would sound “normal” if it wasn’t for its moving, resonant, BCD-powered midrange and its stellar-quality BA bass. The VE X has a muscular, sinewy, earthy quality that matches its warm FR perfectly. I recall the red proto - identical in FR to the VE X, but with completely different drivers - sounding wetter, looser and less gritty; more smoothed or rounded.

So, again, there’s definitely an argument to be made that the model of the driver is just as important as how it’s tuned, especially nowadays, where every non-proprietary driver model’s probably been used dozens of times over.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[KinGensai]

@Deezel177
Seems to me like that's the objective with BCDs, restore some of that lost kinetic energy you get with natural sound and speakers for the sake of fidelity. After trying a BC equipped IEM, feels like the right direction to me.

 

[PHLHarmonic]

Had a go at the Nightjar Acoustics Singularity today. Here are my impressions:

Pros

• Very pleasing subbass with controlled midbass that does not overpower the mids
• Well-separated midrange with smooth notes
• Smooth and extended treble
• The midrange notes are wonderfully natural and organic, with a very pleasant body. Note definition is top-notch.
• Wide and deep stage
• Overall a very refined presentation; can even be called romantic

Con

• The upper midrange is somewhat pulled back and lacks the energy I normally look for.
• Overall midrange feels very slightly veiled to my ears, perhaps pairing with a more powerful and dynamic source will clean that up.
• While the notes are very well-defined, they do not exactly sound tangible, neither do they have class-leading resolution
• Treble has less energy for my preference, the extension saves it from being muted.

Comparison with 634EARS LOAK-2(CL) (89800 JPY or around 600 USD)

• LOAK-2(CL) has a more dynamic and more energetic sound in comparison.
• The upper midrange and treble of LOAK-2(CL) are more forward, so the overall presentation is more clear.
• The midbass of LOAK-2CL is stronger, perhaps slightly boomier in comparison.
• The midrange notes of LOAK-2CL have a slightly thinner body and the edges are rougher compared to the Singularity's well-bodied smooth notes.
• Resolution seems comparable between both, perhaps LOAk-2(CL) gets a slight upper hand due to the brilliant treble.
• The Singularity has slightly better separation.
• The LOAK-2CL has a similarly wide soundstage, but the depth is slightly more on the Singularity.
• The LOAK-2CL has a more vibrant and slightly raw presentation compared to the Singularity's more laid-back and refined one.

I wonder how the Singularity compares to the TS-316 at over twice the price, as I find it interesting. Related to 634ears, my MIROAK-II has been shipped.

 

[AxLvR]

We look forward to the reviews from @AxLvR ! Always balanced and impartial.

Will report definitely! again thanks so much @RonaldS86 for being so kind! So grateful!

 

[drftr]

Anybody here have any experience with this Iem would appreciate some feedback before I purchase. Thank you guys.

Red is not my colour at all but this looks stunning.

drftr

 

[PassionForMusic]

I got my Amber Pearl IEM yesterday and have been in awe at how it sounds with the Cayin. N30LE.
My all-time favourite until very recently, in the UM Mentor, is now back in its box and on the classifieds.

The Pearl sounds bigger and bolder, bass hits harder with the soundstage being just as deliciously expansive.
I couldn't stop listening for a long time last night. Simply incredible..

Personally I regard the Amber Pearl as an upgraded UM Mentor. The Pearl has amazing bass. Amber Pearl along with the Cayin N30BLE is definitely a combo to hold onto for a while.

UM Mentor is still an amazing iem. GLWS.

 

[Noobzilla]

Owning Anni 2023 for about 2 weeks, absolutely in love with the thing. It was one of the more convenient purchases for me in the recent years, especially with so many much more expensive items, which imho Anni 23 blows out of the water, both with its technicalities and the tuning. Not to speak of the design and build quality.

Enjoy your purchase man, your DX320 deserves a high end IEM to be paired with.

And yep, the cable connector is weird, have problems with my Holo Bliss and it too, very difficult to get the right fit. Agree on the packaging, it is wild, took me a while too to figure out how to open the accessories part haha

I hope no one ripped their box figuring it out haha

If you're on the fence or feeling guilt about owning a product, you should reflect upon it and not feel obliged.

That being said, I can confidently say Anni23 is a Summit-Fi piece of gear and it's cost/ performance is competitive considering the state of the market. I think it will hold value in resale more than the Monarch & it will also give you piece of mind if you're concerned with missing out on better things should you settle for Monarch.

An IEM also has more longevity than source components, so perhaps you can also consider downsizing source and retaining both iem's - that would give you more flexibility in theory.

The cable not fitting the recessed port of DX320MAX was something that I also was bummed about, but I always had a secure click. As long as you're more stationary it should be fine, though it is tough on the OCD lol

I've tried several TOTL IEMs like Fei Wan, Aura, Amber Pearl and although theyre all improvements over my Monarch, none of them wow'ed me as much as the Anni 2023. I wouldn't say the Anni is overall better than those mentioned but there's something unique about it that I wanted to listen to it again.

Cable seems fine so far when stationary but I move often haha. I've gotten tempted to trim the stock cable a bit lol but nah I'll just wait a few more days for the proper conx to arrive then I can pair with my Cleo.

I've decided I will keep the Mona for sure. I find it fun listening to an album with it first then switching to Anni23. They sound different and going back to the Mona as a baseline helps me remember what I like about the Anni.

I just checked how much I spent on my headphones. It's about 30% more than what I've paid so far for my Anni23 setup though I bought all headphones stuff brand new (never again lol!). I recovered about 2/3 of the total cost selling my headphones setup. I also compared my used purchase price vs MSRP on my IEM setup and I saved about 30% so the numbers seem about right though dx320max and Anni23 are fairly new vs my 3-4 yr old headphones setup plus I'm getting more enjoyment with my portable IEM.

 

[Ike1985]

I also find BCD's to be a clear upgrade, super hyped for Aroma to come out with their own version-hopefully a ripoff of UM because I think UM do it best with regard to BCD but I prefer Aroma for tuning. BCD Fei wan.

Sidenote, my cat knocked my Jewels off the standing desk and shattered the left one. damn. I ordered through Andrew @ MT, is the way to go about getting it fixed to contact him or Aroma directly? Went back to my A18t's for meow, wow I dislike this signature so much more than my Jewels. Ouchie. Jewel has that subbass hit, A18t just doesn't.