[luigicomencini]

I am thinking about doing this. Thinking about trying to EQ the Monarch to the FR of the Clairvoyance. I know it's possible. I just haven't figured it out yet. There is an app called Morphit that can transform one headphone FR to another, but its list of IEMs is limited at this time and does not include Thieaudio products.

I have simulated the hearing of a given IEM compared to another. In this case, with the Monarch connected and the equalizer on, the sound of the Clairvoyance would be simulated.
I guess it's well done. You can guess how any IEMs you have its response curve would sound like. Very interesting conclusions are drawn, especially from the tastes of each one.

 

[Forsaked]

Looks like i have to wait another month, but i think it is worth it!

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

That suuuuuuucccckkkksssss. I was going to order this weekend. Now should I wait? Something new could be released. I’m very new to the IEM world, but it seems to move fast.

I put my order on hold due to the delay. Thinking about looking at the Odin. Probably can get it faster.

 

[fast edi]

So, that delay is for a Custom made?

My recommendation is to ask them directly on discord, they are fast answering there. More reliable and individualized information than here.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

I have simulated the hearing of a given IEM compared to another. In this case, with the Monarch connected and the equalizer on, the sound of the Clairvoyance would be simulated.
I guess it's well done. You can guess how any IEMs you have its response curve would sound like. Very interesting conclusions are drawn, especially from the tastes of each one.

This is awesome. Well done. How did you get the parametric presets for those transformations? Did you find them published somewhere? Or, did you create the Frequency response transformations yourself?

 

[luigicomencini]

This is awesome. Well done. How did you get the parametric presets for those transformations? Did you find them published somewhere? Or, did you create the Frequency response transformations yourself?

From the crinacle page. I already said that I suppose I do well, although I am not sure. It's just an approximation anyway, because headphones have a characteristic frequency curve for something. Here are the two curves that I am comparing (Monarch vs Clairvoyance). For example, the maximum difference in responses is between 83 and 166 Hz, where I turn the gain up 2.5 dB. The crinacle graphs can be normalized to 60 dB and 1 kHz or another value, so you would have to play with those parameters and test.
I don't mean to get too complicated, so I haven't investigated thoroughly. It mainly helps me to see how different IEMs would sound in comparison.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

From the crinacle page. I already said that I suppose I do well, although I am not sure. It's just an approximation anyway, because headphones have a characteristic frequency curve for something. Here are the two curves that I am comparing (Monarch vs Clairvoyance). For example, the maximum difference in responses is between 83 and 166 Hz, where I turn the gain up 2.5 dB. The crinacle graphs can be normalized to 60 dB and 1 kHz or another value, so you would have to play with those parameters and test.
I don't mean to get too complicated, so I haven't investigated thoroughly. It mainly helps me to see how different IEMs would sound in comparison.

Thank you. I see what you are doing. You are taking the crinacle comparison graphs for various IEMs and eyeballing a correction factor. I think there is a way to simply take the parametric presets for both headphones or IEMs to any target curve and create an error correcting algorithm between the two to get the new presets. This is exactly how they get the parametric EQs in the first place. All you need to do is substitute the target curve with the IEM or headphones you want to simulate. I am sure someone has done this before. I am trying to find that work.

 

[luigicomencini]

Thank you. I see what you are doing. You are taking the crinacle comparison graphs for various IEMs and eyeballing a correction factor. I think there is a way to simply take the parametric presets for both headphones or IEMs to any target curve and create an error correcting algorithm between the two to get the new presets. This is exactly how they get the parametric EQs in the first place. All you need to do is substitute the target curve with the IEM or headphones you want to simulate. I am sure someone has done this before. I am trying to find that work.

That's right. With Equalizer APO is very simple.
Using an IEM and without correcting it with the equalizer, we will have its curve flat. When applying the correction, we will see how the one we want to compare would behave, to which we have increased or decreased the dB according to the frequency curves.

 

[Forsaked]

So, that delay is for a Custom made?

My recommendation is to ask them directly on discord, they are fast answering there. More reliable and individualized information than here.

UIEM and CIEM are both delayed, since it's in both cases build to order.

 

[Vrodnenok]

at long last, Monarchs arrived. despite price difference they are comparable with MEST, easily. i can't decide which i like more so far.

 

[dcd564]

at long last, Monarchs arrived. despite price difference they are comparable with MEST, easily. i can't decide which i like more so far.

Nice! Love to hear some of your impressions when you get the chance.

 

[Precogvision]

I have the Monarch on-hand with the MEST at the moment, so I can offer some quick input too. I agree they're somewhere around the same level. The Monarch is the more "clean-cut" of the two with very clear delineations throughout its sound tonality-wise, whereas the MEST is a little all over the place in terms of tonality, but very fun and flavor-oriented nonetheless.

They're comparable technicality wise, but I do think the MEST has the edge. Decay in the midrange is a little cleaner (so less BA timbre), and imaging is close to holographic, whereas the Monarch is more width-oriented, struggling to articulate soundstage depth and height. Both have incredibly good detail in the midrange. Not really a fan of either's bass, though. The Monarch is lacking in slam in contrast to the 100hZ shelf, and the MEST's bass has some coherency issues relative to the midrange (which the Monarch also has to a lesser degree). Both have fairly good treble. The Monarch is a little smoother, more linear whereas the MEST has a 6kHz peak which lends some "spiciness" to the presentation that I think flies pretty nicely. Overall, just very, very solid IEMs.

 

[dcd564]

I have the Monarch on-hand with the MEST at the moment, so I can offer some quick input too. I agree they're somewhere around the same level. The Monarch is the more "clean-cut" of the two with very clear delineations throughout its sound tonality-wise, whereas the MEST is a little all over the place in terms of tonality, but very fun and flavor-oriented nonetheless.

They're comparable technicality wise, but I do think the MEST has the edge. Decay in the midrange is a little cleaner (so less BA timbre), and imaging is close to holographic, whereas the Monarch is more width-oriented, struggling to articulate soundstage depth and height. Both have incredibly good detail in the midrange. Not really a fan of either's bass, though. The Monarch is lacking in slam in contrast to the 100hZ shelf, and the MEST's bass has some coherency issues relative to the midrange (which the Monarch also has to a lesser degree). Both have fairly good treble. The Monarch is a little smoother, more linear whereas the MEST has a 6kHz peak which lends some "spiciness" to the presentation that I think flies pretty nicely. Overall, just very, very solid IEMs.

Thank you for the excellent comparison!

 

[W1ll1eTheP1mp]

I have the Monarch on-hand with the MEST at the moment, so I can offer some quick input too. I agree they're somewhere around the same level. The Monarch is the more "clean-cut" of the two with very clear delineations throughout its sound tonality-wise, whereas the MEST is a little all over the place in terms of tonality, but very fun and flavor-oriented nonetheless.

They're comparable technicality wise, but I do think the MEST has the edge. Decay in the midrange is a little cleaner (so less BA timbre), and imaging is close to holographic, whereas the Monarch is more width-oriented, struggling to articulate soundstage depth and height. Both have incredibly good detail in the midrange. Not really a fan of either's bass, though. The Monarch is lacking in slam in contrast to the 100hZ shelf, and the MEST's bass has some coherency issues relative to the midrange (which the Monarch also has to a lesser degree). Both have fairly good treble. The Monarch is a little smoother, more linear whereas the MEST has a 6kHz peak which lends some "spiciness" to the presentation that I think flies pretty nicely. Overall, just very, very solid IEMs.

How are they compared to U12T?

 

[Precogvision]

How are they compared to U12T?

Just so we're clear, I'm a fat U12t shill. That aside, I do think the U12t is a clear cut above both of them. The big issue you run into with a hybrid setup is coherency. Both the MEST and the Monarch are highly technical and fairly well-tuned, but I don't find either of them particularly coherent.

For example, the MEST's midrange is way more resolving than it's bass, and in general, the MEST has a tendency to over exaggerate the separation between instruments lending to "holes" in the way it images. On the other hand, the Monarch, again, has more 2-dimensional imaging, albeit very good positional accuracy and width, lending to disconnect. I'd also argue that the Monarch's coherency issues are a byproduct of the tuning itself which is somewhat segmented, if you will. All of this is ignoring that neither of them - particularly the Monarch - has top-tier qualities in isolation. The U12t's BA bass has better tactility than both of them and is more resolving to my ears. Both the MEST and Monarch's treble roll off in the final octaves of extension whereas the U12t is straight up peaking at that point. The Monarch's macrodynamic ability is poor, the MEST's is inconsistent. I could go on, but I think you can see where I'm going haha.

Both the MEST and the Monarch are really good IEMs for their respective price points. They're exceptionally well-rounded, and you could easily make an argument for either, particularly the Monarch, punching above its weight. However, I think there's still a good ways between these IEMs and the truly top-tier stuff like the U12t (which isn't without its faults either, of course).