[bibit69]

Yeah. Back when I worked for an audio store part time I spent hours AB-ing the M7 and M9. Sometimes I would honestly forget which earphone were in my ears. I don't feel M9 justifies 2x the price since they are largely similar. It's more of a minor upgrade than anything. YMMV as always.

They also scale well with better electronics, in contrast to andro and even z1r.

 

[toranku]

Tork Target v5: What It Is.

Earlier this year I announced the Tork Target where the curve sets out to best represent what I personally love in an in-ear monitor response. A lot of people have been asking me as to how I designed the target and why it is shaped like that. The purpose of the curve was to modify the popular Harman Target to fit an overall response well suited for audiophile listeners and more importantly - myself. There is a lot of things the Harman Target gets right but there are some qualms that I have with it. For starters, here is the Harman IE 2019 Target:

Qualms/Positives with the Harman Target:

• Bass Shelf (20hz to 200hz): This area shows a nice shelf shape. It raises gradually then gains at a higher rate into the subbass. The amount of subbass the harman target has is beautiful - it rumbles down VERY deep with a great bass tonality.
• Lower Mids (200hz to 1000hz): The Harman Target sees an upslope in this region where the 200hz can be seen as recessed. The Harman curve synergises here in combination with the <200hz bass shelf. The more recessed low mids/upperbass prevents any form of bloat from occurring but in reality the lowmid presence is a bit too recessed, and leads to an overall thinner midrange tonality.
• Uppermids (1000hz to 4000hz): The Harman Target peaks at 3000hz here. This placement of the peak is very important in tonal balance. If the earphone peaks at 2k or 4k for instance, the tone of the midrange can be too shrill and forward (if at 2khz) or too distant and recessed (if at 4khz). I LOVE a 3khz peak and find it most tonally accurate. However, the Harman curve has 10dB of energy at its 3khz peak. I find that too much since it can lead to shrillness in the midrange and vocal range especially if there isn't enough bass to compensate. Adds a "digital" edge to the audio.
• Treble (4000hz to 10000hz): The Harman Target sees a roll off after its 3k peak.The roll off is designed to be smooth since the research shows it's what consumers like best, and I agree with it as well. Treble evenness happens a lot within this region. However a lot of people seem to find the Harman curve too bright from 4-10khz.

Now for my explanation to my target. Here it is:

Amendments done with Tork Target vs Harman Target:
Bass Shelf (20hz to 250hz): I adopt a harman-like shelf shape except that my bass shelf starts at 150hz. With my previous v1 to v4 targets, I opted for bass shelves from 250hz. However over time I felt that the midbass was a little overbearing and could add unintentional smear with the reproduction of bass frequencies as well as slight coloration over vocal fundamentals. With v5, bass now starts at 150hz which keeps warmth and midbass at bay. Cleaner, more refined than v4.
Lower Mids (250hz to 1000hz): I chose to keep this region ruler flat as I find Harman's 1.5dB recession at 200hz too much and can leave a potentially thin midrange. I want that warmth and thickness in this region but without being too overbearing. You know what I am starting to seriously dislike? IEMs that have a hump centered between 300-400hz. It gives that sense of graininess and haziness which I find very much undesirable.
Uppermids (1000hz to 4000hz): Harman has 10dB here while my curve has 8dB. A reduction to the same peak at 3khz allows for a thicker - dare I say - more natural tonality. I find 10dB too lean and shrill so I chose to adjust it to 8dB. I've experimented with 6-7dB but at times it could leave a sense of suppressed harmonics.
Treble (4000hz to 10000hz): Harman rolls of into 0dB (relative to 1khz) at 10khz here. With v5, I reduced the gain at 10000hz to -2dB (relative to 1khz). Not too bright, not too dark.

In essence, one can say my target is just a more mid-forward adjustment to the Harman Target. I get a overall thicker tonality compared to Harman. While I generally find the tone of Harman accurate, it does not quite translate well into IEMs. Perhaps it's because speakers hit your entire body which gives it that natural thickness which I sought to compensate with my curve.


Red: TorkTarget v5
Green: Harman IE 2019

Previous Target Revisions:
Version 1: Came up with the rough curve. 6dB of gain in the uppermidrange and only 5dB of gain in the bass.

Version 2: Gave v1 more bass and uppermids. Now 6dB bass and 7dB uppermids.

Version 3: Fixed the 3khz peak. It now peaks at 3k!!!

Version 4: Adjusted the bass slope of v3. I was afraid the bass shelf of v3 might come off as a bit bloated. V4 takes heavy inspiration from AKG's N5005 here - great deep reaching subbass free of bloat. Does need a tinge more midbass IMO so I start the gain from 250hz instead of N5005/Harman's 200hz.

Version 5: Bass shelf now starts at 150hz and now has 8dB gain at 3khz. Decreased treble range by 2dB (at 10khz).

Hope this clears up any questions about the curve and why I am still updating it. This is not a perfect curve and I am striving to improve it. And of course, this is just an FR curve. The products themselves will have to be adjusted based on what sounds best! I have also left the raw .txt files for public access.

Cheers!

 

[491326]

Hello Toranku, I was wondering what your thoughts would be on measuring your hearing sensitivity and applying the results to the graph. I recently had my hearing measured, though not in a particularly controlled or thorough way, but I noticed that my hearing was more sensitive at 2khz and had a dip at 4khz. I'm planning on purchasing more iems with those numbers in mind. There are some issues though; the test was done with headphones which were too tight and distorted the shape of my ears. The intention of the test was to mainly focus on eardrum performance.

 

[toranku]

Hello Toranku, I was wondering what your thoughts would be on measuring your hearing sensitivity and applying the results to the graph. I recently had my hearing measured, though not in a particularly controlled or thorough way, but I noticed that my hearing was more sensitive at 2khz and had a dip at 4khz. I'm planning on purchasing more iems with those numbers in mind. There are some issues though; the test was done with headphones which were too tight and distorted the shape of my ears. The intention of the test was to mainly focus on eardrum performance.

Ultimately you will have to try out stuff for yourself - it's all that matters. Don't blind buy if possible. There's only so much a graph can tell you.

 

[491326]

Ultimately you will have to try out stuff for yourself - it's all that matters. Don't blind buy if possible. There's only so much a graph can tell you.

of course of course. my current plan of attack is to scour the graphs by crin to look for stuff that i think might be suited to my hearing and demo them.

 

[Ricky64]

Tork Target v4: What It Is.

Earlier this year I announced the Tork Target where the curve sets out to best represent what I personally love in an in-ear monitor response. A lot of people have been asking me as to how I designed the target and why it is shaped like that. The purpose of the curve was to modify the popular Harman Target to fit an overall response well suited for audiophile listeners and more importantly - myself. There is a lot of things the Harman Target gets right but there are some qualms that I have with it. For starters, here is the Harman IE 2019 Target:

Credits to crinacle.com

Qualms/Positives with the Harman Target:

• Bass Shelf (20hz to 200hz): This area shows a nice shelf shape. It raises gradually then gains at a higher rate into the subbass. The amount of subbass the harman target has is beautiful - it rumbles down VERY deep with a great bass tonality.
• Lower Mids (200hz to 1000hz): The Harman Target sees an upslope in this region where the 200hz can be seen as recessed. The Harman curve synergises here in combination with the <200hz bass shelf. The more recessed low mids/upperbass prevents any form of bloat from occurring but in reality the midbass-upperbass presence is a bit too recessed, and leads to an overall thinner midrange tonality.
• Uppermids (1000hz to 4000hz): The Harman Target peaks at 3000hz here. This placement of the peak is very important in tonal balance. If the earphone peaks at 2k or 4k for instance, the tone of the midrange can be too shrill and forward (if at 2khz) or too distant and recessed (if at 4khz). I LOVE a 3khz peak and find it most tonally accurate. However, the Harman curve has 10dB of energy at its 3khz peak. I find that too much since it can lead to shrillness in the midrange and vocal range especially if there isn't enough bass to compensate.
• Treble (4000hz to 10000hz): The Harman Target sees a roll off after its 3k peak.The roll off is designed to be smooth since the research shows it's what consumers like best, and I agree with it as well. Treble evenness happens a lot within this region. However a lot of people seem to find the Harman curve too bright from 4-10khz.

Now for my explanation to my target. Here it is:


Amendments done with Tork Target vs Harman Target:
Bass Shelf (20hz to 250hz): With the iteration of Tork Target v4, I adopted a more harman-like bass shelf. The Harman target's bass is fantastic for preventing bloat which I am going to take inspiration from. However, my target's bass starts gaining from 250hz. The reason is that I want that tad bit of warmth that harman can sometimes sound devoid of, as well as having a tinge more midbass (which IMO harman is a bit too laxed here). Harman has a 8-9dB bass shelf which I adjust to 6dB as I also have lesser uppermids.
Lower Mids (250hz to 1000hz): I chose to keep this region ruler flat as I find Harman's recession at 200hz too much and can leave a potentially thin midrange. I want that warmth and thickness in this region but without being too overbearing. You know what I am starting to seriously dislike? IEMs that have a hump centered between 300-400hz. It gives that sense of graininess and haziness which I find very much undesirable.
Uppermids (1000hz to 4000hz): Harman has 10dB here while my curve has 7dB. A reduction to the same peak at 3khz allows for a thicker - dare I say - more natural tonality. I find 10dB too lean and shrill so I chose to adjust it to 7dB. Honestly, 8dB might not be bad here too.
Treble (4000hz to 10000hz): Harman rolls of into 0dB (relative to 1khz) at 10khz here. I choose to do the same where I also have 0dB gain at 10khz. This is where pinna gain ends.

In essence, one can say my target is just a more mid-forward adjustment to the Harman Target. I get a overall thicker tonality compared to Harman. While I generally find the tone of Harman accurate, it does not quite translate well into IEMs. Perhaps it's because speakers hit your entire body which gives it that natural thickness which I sought to compensate with my curve.

Previous Target Revisions:
Version 1: Came up with the rough curve. 6dB of gain in the uppermidrange and only 5dB of gain in the bass.


Version 2: Gave v1 more bass and uppermids. Now 6dB bass and 7dB uppermids.


Version 3: Fixed the 3khz peak. It now peaks at 3k!!!


Version 4: Adjusted the bass slope of v3. I was afraid the bass shelf of v3 might come off as a bit bloated. V4 takes heavy inspiration from AKG's N5005 here - great deep reaching subbass free of bloat. Does need a tinge more midbass IMO so I start the gain from 250hz instead of N5005/Harman's 200hz.


Hope this clears up any questions about the curve and why I am still updating it. This is not a perfect curve and I am striving to improve it. V4 is more or less finalised though, and it should stay for a while. I may make small revisions in the future but as of now I am very happy with the v4 target. And of course, this is just an FR curve. The products themselves will have to be adjusted based on what sounds best! I have also left the raw .txt files for public download.

Cheers!

This is very interesting, thanks for sharing. For me, the penultimate achievement in audio is attaining warmth and midrange thickness while not sacrificing inner detail and spatial cues. It seems difficult to achieve, due to driver limitations and phase incoherencies. I feel the Sony Z1R dropped the lower midrange to technically achieve this. The VE Elysium is interesting in this regard, but does sacrifice the pleasurable attack and decay of a DD bass, and some bass quantity. Curious if you feel it is technically possible in an iem to get to your V4?

 

[mvvRAZ]

This is very interesting, thanks for sharing. For me, the penultimate achievement in audio is attaining warmth and midrange thickness while not sacrificing inner detail and spatial cues. It seems difficult to achieve, due to driver limitations and phase incoherencies. I feel the Sony Z1R dropped the lower midrange to technically achieve this. The VE Elysium is interesting in this regard, but does sacrifice the pleasurable attack and decay of a DD bass, and some bass quantity. Curious if you feel it is technically possible in an iem to get to your V4?

I've tried EQ-ing more bass into the Elysium but it makes the package as a whole sound off

I think the Elysium lacks bass decay above all else, which Imo can be achieved with a small DD (the midrange DD is 6 or 7mm large, they could probably fit a second one in) - a twin DD + twin estat Elysium would be sick, while maintaining the current FR

 

[Ricky64]

I've tried EQ-ing more bass into the Elysium but it makes the package as a whole sound off

I think the Elysium lacks bass decay above all else, which Imo can be achieved with a small DD (the midrange DD is 6 or 7mm large, they could probably fit a second one in) - a twin DD + twin estat Elysium would be sick, while maintaining the current FR

I do wonder, though, whether an IEM crossover can work well enough to allow a smooth transition without destructive bleed over or phase incoherencies to get the bass/lower midrange right, in such tight confines? I wonder if the answer is an almost full range DD coupled with a non BA tweeter? (I do like the quality of the Z1R Mg tweeter, though the quantity is excessive. I felt the highs in the Elysium were very well executed. I find BA highs a bit crunchy and unnatural sounding).

 

[mvvRAZ]

I do wonder, though, whether an IEM crossover can work well enough to allow a smooth transition without destructive bleed over or phase incoherencies to get the bass/lower midrange right, in such tight confines? I wonder if the answer is an almost full range DD coupled with a non BA tweeter? (I do like the quality of the Z1R Mg tweeter, though the quantity is excessive. I felt the highs in the Elysium were very well executed. I find BA highs a bit crunchy and unnatural sounding).

You might be right there

I do prefer the estat treble in the elysium to just about any BA I’ve heard, but the Z1R’s DD tweeter still holds the No1 for me

A single DD for the lows and mids coupled with the current twin estats might sound lovely and fix the Elysium’s BA lows. Alternatively though, if they add another BA and replicate the bass of the VE8 with a bit less quantity that would also do the job for me

 

[toranku]

This is very interesting, thanks for sharing. For me, the penultimate achievement in audio is attaining warmth and midrange thickness while not sacrificing inner detail and spatial cues. It seems difficult to achieve, due to driver limitations and phase incoherencies. I feel the Sony Z1R dropped the lower midrange to technically achieve this. The VE Elysium is interesting in this regard, but does sacrifice the pleasurable attack and decay of a DD bass, and some bass quantity. Curious if you feel it is technically possible in an iem to get to your V4?

To get to my curve it will need a minimum of 4 drivers. The bass shelf is especially hard, as well as the smoothed 3-10khz response. But alas a curve is just a curve. The product has to speak for itself, regardless of how close or how far it is from the curve.I guess you can say its a guide but ultimately has to be adjusted based on user preferences or goals of the manufacturer. I wanted a thicker, more midforward tone relative to Harman IE but that isnt to say every product following the curve will meet my standards and expectations.

 

[mvvRAZ]

To get to my curve it will need a minimum of 4 drivers. The bass shelf is especially hard, as well as the smoothed 3-10khz response. But alas a curve is just a curve. The product has to speak for itself, regardless of how close or how far it is from the curve.I guess you can say its a guide but ultimately has to be adjusted based on user preferences or goals of the manufacturer. I wanted a thicker, more midforward tone relative to Harman IE but that isnt to say every product following the curve will meet my standards and expectations.

Would you say the IER M9 manages to get the midrange texture right as well as that forwardness you mentioned? I can get a really good discount on it, have been considering it for some time

 

[toranku]

Would you say the IER M9 manages to get the midrange texture right as well as that forwardness you mentioned? I can get a really good discount on it, have been considering it for some time

Well I do honestly think it's hard to predict whether you like something or not. Everyone really does hear differently & my content is catered to well...myself. It's just how I hear things. You can see me praise something from day to night but find the earphone average and disappointing. Or you may like something a lot but see me talking crap about it. If possible I'd always just recommend trying it out for yourself.

I don't really know how respond to people asking whether "X" or "Y" is good for their preferences or whether it's suitable for their genre of music if they were to blind buy it.

Personally speaking, I like M9's sense of "naturalness" filled with warmth and coziness. The laid-back presentation makes music unfatiguing.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Well I do honestly think it's hard to predict whether you like something or not. Everyone really does hear differently & my content is catered to well...myself. It's just how I hear things. You can see me praise something from day to night but find the earphone average and disappointing. Or you may like something a lot but see me talking crap about it. If possible I'd always just recommend trying it out for yourself.

I don't really know how respond to people asking whether "X" or "Y" is good for their preferences or whether it's suitable for their genre of music if they were to blind buy it.

Personally speaking, I like M9's sense of "naturalness" filled with warmth and coziness. The laid-back presentation makes music unfatiguing.

Yeah definitely, ultimately the whole forum is a bunch of people expressing what they feel or hear with certain IEMs... at best you can find a couple of people that experience things in a way similar to how you do and badger them for recs

 

[Love Music]

Just bought the 1655. Very good sound. Engaging bass, open and airy soundstage with good clarity. Also very good details from a single dynamic driver.

 

[Love Music]

Was comparing side by side with the m9 but decided to go for the 1655 as i already have the m7. But the detail, separation and imaging was exceptional on the m9. But maybe the slightly recessed midrange made it a tad dull and maybe the dynamics that toranku mentioned in his review?

Toranku are there any other iem's that are very detailed, with good separation and imaging qualities (that are not lean), slighlty warm like the m9 but with more excitement? But I'm not sure it seems the more you listen to it the more you enjoy it...it seems like those earphones that don't immediately grab you but you will appreciate it with time.....