For those who don’t know this yet: IEM measurements are more art than science at this point. There are quite a few different couplers (the thing the IEM is inserted in that’s attached to the microphone). You CAN NOT directly compare measurements taken with different couplers. Which is why almost all graphs mention what coupler was used (unless you’re Crinical and most know).
And,… ALL of these couplers (especially the older ones that were TOTL when Crinical started his site [which he’s kept using because otherwise one wouldn’t be able to compare measurements taken with the new coupler to those taken by the old one]. If he did he’d have to start over again and/or have 2 different data bases) are notoriously inaccurate in the higher frequencies. Due to sound waves in a metal tube ().
There is less than nothing wrong with Crinical’s measurements. But they can NOT be directly compared to measurements taken by anyone else. Unfortunately that’s just where we’re at in the IEM world. It’s stone age tech compared to what’s used for measurements in the rest of the audio reproduction world.
And,… ALL of these couplers (especially the older ones that were TOTL when Crinical started his site [which he’s kept using because otherwise one wouldn’t be able to compare measurements taken with the new coupler to those taken by the old one]. If he did he’d have to start over again and/or have 2 different data bases) are notoriously inaccurate in the higher frequencies. Due to sound waves in a metal tube ().
There is less than nothing wrong with Crinical’s measurements. But they can NOT be directly compared to measurements taken by anyone else. Unfortunately that’s just where we’re at in the IEM world. It’s stone age tech compared to what’s used for measurements in the rest of the audio reproduction world.