vibro veritas, measuring our IEMs like a pro with amateur budget.
post-11952614
Post #16 of 110

USHI

Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
73
Reaction score
16
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Posts
73
Likes
16
  amazon ^_^.
 
ok so I made an adapter compliant with the norm 1337wateva as seen on this picture showing that I didn't waste 3 years in a photography school:

obviously built to last. and if you want, I can do one for you for 200euro. it really improves the soundstage of that microphone.

 
then I went and just stuck the HF5 right on the mic with putty because F*** acoustic and I need to sleep at some point. here is what I get:


purple is done with veritas, no calibration
green is IMM6 no calibration
yellow is IMM6 with the calibration file I downloaded.(let's just say it looks better when you measure speaker sound, because it's pretty useless for this usage).
 
so when I find the right tube(pen cap or other professional grade material), I'm pretty sure I'll have to make up a compensation curve just like I did for the veritas.
Mine is pretty good using laptop line in. The tube i use is a 9mm inner  diameter syringe, with a sleeve made of GTmat quadro to hold the IEM tips and cut down noise.
Here's my Ety ER6 graph with calibration (same way you did) and without.

 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: castleofargh
post-11952733
Post #17 of 110

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,721
Reaction score
4,102
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,721
Likes
4,102
I've made several attempts with several microphones, even headset mics
, and my feedback would be that it's not too hard to get a pretty decent and significant result in the 200hz-8khz(once calibrated however we can). then some stuff work further, but all my tests made me careful about at least anything above 12 or 13khz. it's very easy to get some massive changes for a lot of reasons, and trying to EQ by ear(with equal loudness contour+test tones), I realized that I do also have some resonance points in the trebles, but not necessarily where my measurements have them, and I bet that another pair of ears might have them somewhere else. different mics in different tubes, end up giving resonance points at different places, insertion depth can also have an impact, so it's prudent to just not care too much about the upper end of frequencies.
 
the IMM6 is pretty great for it's intended use(speaker measurements on the go from a cellphone or a tablet), but it does also give nice results with a little mac gyver work for IEMs(+ by hand calibration). I ended up with some make up tube and a little part of gaming mouse pad for sealing part ^_^. but at least now I've made a proper cable for it, so it looks better than on the last picture 
.
 
I tend to stick with the veritas because it's pretty easy to use and I suck at DIY stuff, but I'm not sure it's any better in the end.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11998720
Post #18 of 110

HiFiChris

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
4,678
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Location
Posts
4,678
Likes
10,682

Hi,
 
do you want to share your whole calibration sheet for the raw measurement of the Veritas?

I am currently trying to make a compensation curve myself, but I'm not 100% satisfied in the mids and upper treble yet.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11998820
Post #19 of 110

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,721
Reaction score
4,102
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,721
Likes
4,102
I gave the "fake raw" compensation I use quite a few times in PM and very evidently , my veritas isn't right(as in like most others). when you see that people like brooko can get something that at least looks ok without correction, I feel like mine is in the defective zone.
I would really advise to just use a few IEMs you kind of trust and some online measurement(pick one, because in fact they all are different). the main point being to find a way to always put the IEMs at the same depth inside the veritas(I've marked the outside, it does help IMO). because there will be some crap resonance, and it will not be where it is on super expensive stuff, so the only thin we can really do is make sure we keep it at about the same place on all measures.
I can get an ok consistency between the IEMs I measure only when I can do that. which imply sometimes to use tips that aren't provided with the IEM :'(. so not the most objective stuff, but it's still way better than using the original tip and fail to place it right.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pec998xyb30bie/diffuse%20fieldXXX%20comp.txt?dl=0 
my make believe compensated curve, but I really doubt it will be of any use to anybody.
 
I suggested to pass on one or 2 pairs of IEMs to anybody with the veritas as a way to try and get a common reference. it's certainly not without problems, and it means wasting some more money on postage fees, but maybe that would be one way to let people use more of what we make available, by being able to make not perfect but usable comparison between measurements from different people.  but I have to admit I'm not sure we can even get that to work, simply determining the proper depth insertion and make sure everybody is actually on it, that's not so easy to solve with a non transparent tube.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: HiFiChris
post-11998971
Post #20 of 110

HiFiChris

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
4,678
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Location
Posts
4,678
Likes
10,682
  I gave the "fake raw" compensation I use quite a few times in PM and very evidently , my veritas isn't right(as in like most others). when you see that people like brooko can get something that at least looks ok without correction, I feel like mine is in the defective zone.
I would really advise to just use a few IEMs you kind of trust and some online measurement(pick one, because in fact they all are different). the main point being to find a way to always put the IEMs at the same depth inside the veritas(I've marked the outside, it does help IMO). because there will be some crap resonance, and it will not be where it is on super expensive stuff, so the only thin we can really do is make sure we keep it at about the same place on all measures.
I can get an ok consistency between the IEMs I measure only when I can do that. which imply sometimes to use tips that aren't provided with the IEM :'(. so not the most objective stuff, but it's still way better than using the original tip and fail to place it right.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pec998xyb30bie/diffuse%20fieldXXX%20comp.txt?dl=0 
my make believe compensated curve, but I really doubt it will be of any use to anybody.
 
I suggested to pass on one or 2 pairs of IEMs to anybody with the veritas as a way to try and get a common reference. it's certainly not without problems, and it means wasting some more money on postage fees, but maybe that would be one way to let people use more of what we make available, by being able to make not perfect but usable comparison between measurements from different people.  but I have to admit I'm not sure we can even get that to work, simply determining the proper depth insertion and make sure everybody is actually on it, that's not so easy to solve with a non transparent tube.

Thanks for the link, I'll try your measurements later. In the other Veritas-thread, I have posted my rough attempt to make a compensation. Not too bad actually for the first results, although it definitely needs some more time to try.
The way you do did it (take multiple IEMs, measure them, compare them to other raw data on other sites, then alter the compensation curve until the results match) is also how I did it. Although my curve is way more simple, it took a lot of time and was sometimes really frustrating (though I'm still working on it).
Something frustrating is that not all IEMs are easy to position and models with vents in the nozzle are even harder to get measured right. Really takes up a lot of time to get 711-like results, but once it is set up, it can be quite helpful.

By the way, what sources are you using for audio playback and recording? The best way is to check if they are metrologically flat (e.g. with a loopback test in RMAA) and then include the non-linearities to the FR compensation curve. I'm glad my equipment is metrologically flat, but I had to buy another audio interface for recording the mic signal, as my soundcard didn't have a powerful enough mic amplifier.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11999009
Post #21 of 110

HiFiChris

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
4,678
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Location
Posts
4,678
Likes
10,682
@castleofargh

I tried your compensation curve and it isn't too far off Rin Choi's compensated measurements together with the IEMs I have measured so far.

If possible, could you also send me your "fake-raw" calibration curve? I think if you post it publicly, it would also help other people, I think that a combination of your and my simple compensation curves will at least help me to get a reasonable result (and it would certainly help me to finish my German and English reviews of the Veritas faster which I have already finished by ca. 90%).
As except for the (lower) mids, your diffuse-field compensation curve will definitely be helpful for me (although I would be very thankful to receive the "fake raw" curve from you as well).

Many thanks in advance.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11999180
Post #22 of 110

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,721
Reaction score
4,102
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,721
Likes
4,102
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bmg4bfahhloqtgu/RAW%20XXX.txt?dl=0 
here you go. I give it like this with very little points so that it's less of a mess to modify, but I have one with more points. which is simply made from smoothing the graph and recording it when already applying a calibration to make the IEM+veritas flat. and then some amazing 9 year old subtraction magic in excel. but it really yields no difference compared to just smoothing that one .txt
 
I have no problem sharing everything, I really didn't mention my settings because of how much it seemed to be a failure for others when discussing in PM.
 
from what I've seen, my stuff compensates too much in the high frequencies(because my veritas takes a serious dive and others don't seem to).
 
about my gear, I've tried everything I could TBH and it made no change whatsoever. as long as I calibrated it in a loop as you mentioned without the veritas, to make sure that part would be flat, they all gave the very same results. minus my laptop's input when used at 44khz, then the trebles were a mess with the famous little bump we see so often on ADC of poor quality when doing low-fi measurements of gear.
same with the software of choice between ARTA and REW.
by default I go for odac o2 and the startech(just because it doesn't use asio and never crashes, but the ADC is crap compared to other stuff, I even have more distortions than on my laptop mic in, and that's saying something. but for a FR graph it's more than enough to get a reliable result(as long as it's properly compensated)
I use only one channel at all time though (with some crocodile plugs) as a way to ensure no channel imbalance(the O2 being pretty generous in that domain at low volume).
 
     Share This Post       
post-11999200
Post #23 of 110

HiFiChris

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
4,678
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Location
Posts
4,678
Likes
10,682
Cool, thanks.

Imho, you should put all of your calibration and compensation files in your first post, as your review/write-up is really nice. You could just add the disclaimer that those values match with your Veritas, but they might not with others.
O2 + StarTech is a good combination for measuring equipment.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12026362
Post #24 of 110

money4me247

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
6,447
Reaction score
3,914
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Posts
6,447
Likes
3,914
I couldn't get a clean impulse response with the veritas. anyone have any tips?
 
     Share This Post       
post-12027170
Post #25 of 110

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
8,721
Reaction score
4,102
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
8,721
Likes
4,102
depends on what you call clean.
here is what I get from my se215 in REW in the "filtered IR" window %FS and no filter(per frequency thing)

 
but like everything else, it has components of the IEM+ the veritas(that isn't as transparent as I wish it would), so IMO out of showing that kind of graph with a warning, or realizing that the IEM cable is reversed, you can't hope for any practical convolution usage and such. 
just like waterfall plots that at least in my case clearly show some patterns in the shape of the decay that have nothing to do with the IEMs measured. so I think I will stick to only giving FR, unless there is something significantly bad to show from another measurement.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12028929
Post #26 of 110

money4me247

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
6,447
Reaction score
3,914
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Posts
6,447
Likes
3,914
  depends on what you call clean.
here is what I get from my se215 in REW in the "filtered IR" window %FS and no filter(per frequency thing)

 
but like everything else, it has components of the IEM+ the veritas(that isn't as transparent as I wish it would), so IMO out of showing that kind of graph with a warning, or realizing that the IEM cable is reversed, you can't hope for any practical convolution usage and such. 
just like waterfall plots that at least in my case clearly show some patterns in the shape of the decay that have nothing to do with the IEMs measured. so I think I will stick to only giving FR, unless there is something significantly bad to show from another measurement.
 
thanks for the info. anyone with ARTA want to share configuration tips? I will have to try REW out.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12072264
Post #29 of 110

Cotnijoe

Sponsor: iFi Audio
Formerly with Unique Melody
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
2,940
Reaction score
2,416
Location
Baltimore
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Location
Baltimore
Posts
2,940
Likes
2,416
Guys, the Veritas price just got slashed in half!

$50 USD!
 
Is it like an early black friday thing or is it just 50 bucks now... cuz if it is... imma b pissed that I "preordered" it at a price that's now higher than retail...
 
     Share This Post       
post-12072268
Post #30 of 110
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
6,978
Reaction score
14,981
Location
the land of cheese and beer
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Location
the land of cheese and beer
Posts
6,978
Likes
14,981
Is it like an early black friday thing or is it just 50 bucks now... cuz if it is... imma b pissed that I "preordered" it at a price that's now higher than retail...
I'm not sure bro, it's cheaper than I paid as well, but I look at it like I got it way before everyone else when it first came out and got to use it for a good amount of time.

I think of it like video game consoles when they first come out. I guess they just get cheaper over time. Maybe something else is coming down the pipe.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top