[rennyprowess]

Hi everyone, I've recently heard this word being thrown around a lot, but don't quite understand what it means. What does it mean to be the opposite of technical?

 

[KinGensai]

What a question indeed. I had this question too when I started investigating the IEM market, and reviewers have... varied takes on the definition of that term.

The more typical reviewers/commenters will use that term to describe treble response, as that region often dictates how micro-details are presented in audio playback.

More knowledgeable reviewers/commenters will use that term to describe the objectively quantifiable characteristics of the IEM. This would be things like THD levels or impulse response or quality of the crossover tuning as seen in a frequency response graph.

It depends on who's using the term, so if you are confused about it, you have to ask them to define their terms or see if they have a write-up explaining their lexicon (precog and honest audiophile do that for example).

 

[castleofargh]

Welcome to a world where fancy words describe vague subjective feelings. By calling something technical, they probably mean that they're noticing details or something like that. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Ryokan]

Is technical the same as resolving?

 

[BS5711]

My perception of the use of the term in relation to IEM is that they are referring to other parts of the perceived sound beyond the tonality.

That is soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments.

Frankly, based on my experience, I think given a competent IEM most of those differences are more within the recording more than they are a definable trait of the IEM.

 

[KinGensai]

My perception of the use of the term in relation to IEM is that they are referring to other parts of the perceived sound beyond the tonality.

That is soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments.

Frankly, based on my experience, I think given a competent IEM most of those differences are more within the recording more than they are a definable trait of the IEM.

I think all of those characteristics are directly linked to quantifiable metrics, except maybe input impedance because sources vary in SNR and output impedance so much.

I do agree on that last part though, it's easier to understand people who judge stuff using the same library and test tracks for everything.

 

[redrol]

It means more treble 90% of the time.

 

[gregorio]

Hi everyone, I've recently heard this word being thrown around a lot, but don't quite understand what it means.

Unfortunately, that’s rather typical in the audiophile world. Reviewers particularly like flowery prose, sometimes they use some correct terms/descriptions, sometimes the terms/descriptions they use are metaphorical and not uncommonly, they sometimes just use incorrect terms/descriptions or misappropriate existing terms (to mean something other than their actual meaning). Reviewers typically have little knowledge/understanding of audio, sound or perception, almost ubiquitously confuse them all and then, just use terms/descriptions that appear to match their personal impressions.

What does it mean to be the opposite of technical?

Well exactly, apply logic to many of the audiophile terms/descriptions and they collapse into nonsense. Many of the terms/descriptions used by reviewers and marketers seem to make some sort of vague or metaphorical sense to the audiophiles reading it but think about it in more detail and/or try to apply logic and they fall apart. In effect, you’re only supposed to have a vague understanding, to not “quite understand what it means” and you’re not supposed to think about it, apply logic or fact check it!

I think all of those characteristics are directly linked to quantifiable metrics, except maybe input impedance …

Don’t you mean that the other way around? Namely: None of those characteristics (That is soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments) are directly linked to quantifiable metrics, except input impedance?

G

 

[KinGensai]

Don’t you mean that the other way around? Namely: None of those characteristics (That is soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments) are directly linked to quantifiable metrics, except input impedance?

G

Hmm, I may be wrong about this, but I do think there is a causal relationship between objectively observable metrics and subjective judgements of quality.

Soundstage is a really nebulous term, that much I will agree on. However, I think the subjective judgement on this is predictable given enough data on an individual's HRTF. Spatial accuracy is a multivariate parameter involving both the transducer's ability to accurately play back the original signal and the juxtaposition of the IEM's FR to the individual's ideal target curve. Due to the heavy influence of the subjective parameters of the individual performing the judgement, definitive statements on soundstage don't mean all that much for others unless the readers/listeners have a good idea on the person's ideal curve and preferences. Most people won't be able to articulate this dynamic, but I think opinions can be helpful if they are interpreted using this heuristic.

With things like sound imaging and the like, I think it's easier to draw the causal link. Width, layering, isolation of individual sounds in a track, and all that would at least be influenced by, if not defined by, the transducer's THD levels and impulse response, would it not? The original signal has all that data in it ideally, so added distortion from a lower quality transducer would obscure that information and subsequently lead to a perception of "fuzziness" in the sound because the extraneous compression/rarefaction of the diaphragm(s) would add energy to the signal that shouldn't be there.

 

[gregorio]

Spacial accuracy is a multivariate parameter involving both the transducer's ability to accurately play back the original signal and the juxtaposition of the IEM's FR to the individual's ideal target curve.

Spatiality/Soundstage is indeed “a multivariate parameter”, very “multi” in fact. It is defined by the relative amounts and settings of: Panning, reverb, compression, EQ/FR, level, balance and delays (each of which has a slew of parameters) as well as by the microphone usage. There is no “quantifiable metric/s” for this and it is not clear how there could be, as it would require completely deconstructing a mix/master, which is currently impossible. In addition, there is then the reproduction of this stereophonic signal and finally, the perception of the individual listener. Again, there’s no quantifiable metric for this.

Due to the heavy influence of the subjective parameters of the individual performing the judgement, definitive statements on soundstage don't mean all that much for others unless the readers/listeners have a good idea on the person's ideal curve and preferences.

Again, there are a lot of variables here, the “person’s ideal curve and preferences” being only two of them. There’s also the person’s individual HRTF and fit in the case of HPs/IEMs (or setup, room acoustics and positioning in the case of speakers), not to mention the person’s listening skills.

Most people won't be able to articulate this dynamic, but I think opinions can be helpful if they are interpreted using this heuristic.

Sure, so in addition to all the above there’s also the issue of them probably not being able to accurately articulate some/much of the above. Personally, I take audiophile opinions on this with a large pinch of salt and consider them to be relatively unhelpful.

With things like sound imaging and the like, I think it's easier to draw the causal link. Width, layering, isolation of individual sounds in a track, and all that would at least be influenced by, if not defined by, the transducer's THD levels and impulse response, would it not?

They’re certainly not defined by the transducer’s THD levels and impulse response, again; imaging, width, layering, isolation, etc., is defined by the recording, processing, mixing and mastering of the track being reproduced. This is then influenced by room acoustics (or lack of them), then by HP/IEM fit and by the listeners’ individual HRTF, preferences, listening skills and perception. The transducer’s THD and impulse response certainly can influence our perception but compared to all the other variables, it’s very minimal except in particularly extreme cases. Again, there is no quantifiable metric for this. It’s therefore not easy to draw the causal link at all.

G

 

[KinGensai]

Spatiality/Soundstage is indeed “a multivariate parameter”, very “multi” in fact. It is defined by the relative amounts and settings of: Panning, reverb, compression, EQ/FR, level, balance and delays (each of which has a slew of parameters) as well as by the microphone usage. There is no “quantifiable metric/s” for this and it is not clear how there could be, as it would require completely deconstructing a mix/master, which is currently impossible. In addition, there is then the reproduction of this stereophonic signal and finally, the perception of the individual listener. Again, there’s no quantifiable metric for this.

I think you are starting to expand the scope of the analysis here beyond the subject matter. For the purpose of this discussion, we are discussing the variable of the IEM/transducer in question, not the track used to judge said item. For the sake of the argument, I think it is safe to assume the track used in testing can be standardized and reproduced between the judging individuals, thus the production side can be ignored because it is practically completely controlled given the same version of the track. This leaves in question the subjective nature of the listener's judgement and the interpretation of said opinion concerning the item.

They’re certainly not defined by the transducer’s THD levels and impulse response, again; imaging, width, layering, isolation, etc., is defined by the recording, processing, mixing and mastering of the track being reproduced. This is then influenced by room acoustics (or lack of them), then by HP/IEM fit and by the listeners’ individual HRTF, preferences, listening skills and perception. The transducer’s THD and impulse response certainly can influence our perception but compared to all the other variables, it’s very minimal except in particularly extreme cases. Again, there is no quantifiable metric for this. It’s therefore not easy to draw the causal link at all.

G

I can understand your perspective as an audio engineer here, it makes sense if we are considering the entire picture from recording a performance to reproducing said performance through the equipment of choice. As I argued above, I would control for the production side of the variables by selecting a well known track(s) that is readily available in a lossless format (Time by Pink Floyd for instance) as a standardized track for evaluation.

As I understand it, spatial information consists of amplitude differentials combined with timing delays and varied filters to recreate panning, height, and depth right? Given this, distortion and impulse response would change these cues in the playback and mess with these cues significantly enough to affect perception of these qualities given that as little as 1ms can audibly affect the perceived panning of a specific sound, right?

 

[gregorio]

I think you are starting to expand the scope of the analysis here beyond the subject matter.

How so? Wasn’t the subject matter the “soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments.”?

For the purpose of this discussion, we are discussing the variable of the IEM/transducer in question, not the track used to judge said item.

The track used defines the soundstage, width, depth, layering, etc. How can we “judge said item” (IEM/transducer) if we don’t know how wide, deep, layered, etc., the track is supposed to be?

For the sake of the argument, I think it is safe to assume the track used in testing can be standardized and reproduced between the judging individuals, thus the production side can be ignored because it is practically completely controlled given the same version of the track.

For the “sake of the argument” sure but in practice that’s often not the case. We quite often see audiophiles inadvertently comparing different masters or versions and even if that’s not the case, there is still no reference/standard if we don’t objectively know what the spatiality of the track is supposed to be, and we don’t because there’s no metric for that.

This leaves in question the subjective nature of the listener's judgement and the interpretation of said opinion concerning the item.

It leaves in question the listener’s preferences, their HRTF, their listening skills, the fit of the HPs/IEMs on their particular head/ears and what they think/believe the track’s spatiality is supposed to be. Each of these make very significant differences and is before we even consider the the transducers THD.

I can understand your perspective as an audio engineer here, it makes sense if we are considering the entire picture from recording a performance to reproducing said performance through the equipment of choice.

Surely it makes sense not only if we’re comparing the reproduction to the performance but also if we’re comparing the reproduction with the mix/master we’re reproducing?

As I argued above, I would control for the production side of the variables by selecting a well known track(s) that is readily available in a lossless format (Time by Pink Floyd for instance) as a standardized track for evaluation.

But that’s not a “standardised track for evaluation”, there is no standardised track, reviewers use all sorts of different tracks and even if they use that track, it maybe a different master. For argument sake let’s say it is the same master, all you’ve done is controlled the variables of the track you’re reproducing, you haven’t “standardised” those variables. For example, let’s say you test two IEMs (“A” and “B”) with that track and “A” sounds wider (for instance) than “B”, what does that tell us? Maybe it tells us nothing besides the IEMs fit differently enough in your particular ears to cause a different width perception for you personally? It certainly doesn’t tell us which is better because you/we don’t know how wide the track is supposed to sound (or how deep, or how isolated or layered).

As I understand it, spatial information consists of amplitude differentials combined with timing delays and varied filters to recreate panning, height, and depth right?

It’s all the things I mentioned previously and their relative amounts/settings (reverb, compression, FR/EQ, panning, levels, etc.). Not sure what you mean by “varied filters to recreate panning, height and depth”? Panning isn’t created by filters, it’s just a level difference.

Given this, distortion and impulse response would change these cues in the playback and mess with these cues significantly enough to affect perception of these qualities given that as little as 1ms can audibly affect the perceived panning of a specific sound, right?

Firstly, 1ms *can* audibly affect the perceived panning but it all depends on the mix, which brings us back to the mix and that there’s no metric for this. For example, 10ms might make no difference in some mixes, while under very specific/rare conditions significantly less than 1ms might affect perceived panning. However, what do you think is going to cause such a large relative timing difference?

Secondly, distortion could affect the perception of spatial information (not sure exactly what you mean by impulse response in this context though). However, many variables apart from that can affect the perception of spatial information and many of them to a far greater extent than transducer distortion is likely to.

Causation seems to be a particularly error prone area for most audiophiles. Due to audiophile marketing, they commonly focus on the least influential (or completely non-influential) variables, while ignoring/dismissing many of the most influential variables and therefore commonly assign causation to completely the wrong things!

G

 

[KinGensai]

How so? Wasn’t the subject matter the “soundstage primarily and the width, depth and layering of it but also isolation of individual instruments in the music, blackness of the background and the perceived space between the individual sounds of the instruments.”?

I apologize, I did not make this clear. I am attempting to define and contextualize the term "technical" as used in common parlance in audiophilia, of which BS5711 listed some things I think fall under the purview of the term. Admittedly, it's not my term or anything, but it is what the OP was asking about, so I am just providing my take on what people actually mean when they say it.

The track used defines the soundstage, width, depth, layering, etc. How can we “judge said item” (IEM/transducer) if we don’t know how wide, deep, layered, etc., the track is supposed to be?

For the “sake of the argument” sure but in practice that’s often not the case. We quite often see audiophiles inadvertently comparing different masters or versions and even if that’s not the case, there is still no reference/standard if we don’t objectively know what the spatiality of the track is supposed to be, and we don’t because there’s no metric for that.

Ok, so under ideal circumstances we would have listened to the finished track in the same studio with the same setup the mastering engineer used and compared that to the resulting track through the IEM + as similar an audio chain as possible to the original (I imagine the amp would have to be modified a bit to not obliterate the IEM, you know a hell of a lot more about that than I do).

I don't think this is strictly necessary to yield usable information from a reviewer. While the ideal circumstances are not strictly platonic in nature, it gets pretty close practically because most of us don't have the time or inclination to do that. I think there are two practically feasible alternatives to this purist approach.

1: Set one transducer as a reference and compare everything else to that. This requires some investment from the audience, but it gives a common point of reference to work off of.
2: Use binaural recordings to judge the technical capabilities of the HPs/IEMs. Binaural recordings of everyday noises avoid the problem of artificial spatiality, so that's less to worry about.

But that’s not a “standardised track for evaluation”, there is no standardised track, reviewers use all sorts of different tracks and even if they use that track, it maybe a different master. For argument sake let’s say it is the same master, all you’ve done is controlled the variables of the track you’re reproducing, you haven’t “standardised” those variables. For example, let’s say you test two IEMs (“A” and “B”) with that track and “A” sounds wider (for instance) than “B”, what does that tell us? Maybe it tells us nothing besides the IEMs fit differently enough in your particular ears to cause a different width perception for you personally? It certainly doesn’t tell us which is better because you/we don’t know how wide the track is supposed to sound (or how deep, or how isolated or layered).

I think you may have misunderstood me, I'm not suggesting that multiple people adhere to a standardized list of tracks to test on, I'm saying that people choose a set of tracks to use as testing material and stick to that material across their IEMs. That is enough IMO to sufficiently control the variables of production and provide useful opinions on the IEMs themselves.

It’s all the things I mentioned previously and their relative amounts/settings (reverb, compression, FR/EQ, panning, levels, etc.). Not sure what you mean by “varied filters to recreate panning, height and depth”? Panning isn’t created by filters, it’s just a level difference.

I was trying to describe it in shorthand, but those terms do describe it better. I was about to type about panning not being just a level difference, but I guess it is if you are using speakers in a room.

What I meant by varied filters is to account for FR changes due to distance and positioning. IIRC, higher frequencies decay faster than lower frequencies, so the further away you are from the source, the bassier the sound is. Height has it's own effect (female vocals moving up or down depending on the 1.5kHz and 2.9kHz response for instance), and panning causing FR changes to each channel based on HRTF, etc. I guess audio engineers don't do this? Or is it applied by software?

Firstly, 1ms *can* audibly affect the perceived panning but it all depends on the mix, which brings us back to the mix and that there’s no metric for this. For example, 10ms might make no difference in some mixes, while under very specific/rare conditions significantly less than 1ms might affect perceived panning. However, what do you think is going to cause such a large relative timing difference?

Secondly, distortion could affect the perception of spatial information (not sure exactly what you mean by impulse response in this context though). However, many variables apart from that can affect the perception of spatial information and many of them to a far greater extent than transducer distortion is likely to.

I think I understand what you are arguing here. The linear distortion introduced by IR won't matter for timing as much because IR primarily affects post impulse amplitude, so I accept your argument here.

For the second part though, those variables apart from the technical performance of the IEM are being controlled for by the juxtapositional analysis if the reviewer is properly doing that, which I will concede is not always in evidence.

---------------------------

Gregorio, I want to ask you this then. Let's say that, for whatever reason, you are on a quest to find the most technically capable IEMs on the market. What are your criteria? How do you look for relevant information on that criteria? How do you judge those things?

 

[Rolu]

In my mind, that just means high resolution.

 

[rennyprowess]

What a question indeed. I had this question too when I started investigating the IEM market, and reviewers have... varied takes on the definition of that term.

The more typical reviewers/commenters will use that term to describe treble response, as that region often dictates how micro-details are presented in audio playback.

More knowledgeable reviewers/commenters will use that term to describe the objectively quantifiable characteristics of the IEM. This would be things like THD levels or impulse response or quality of the crossover tuning as seen in a frequency response graph.

It depends on who's using the term, so if you are confused about it, you have to ask them to define their terms or see if they have a write-up explaining their lexicon (precog and honest audiophile do that for example).

Thanks for your explanation! I think this clears my doubt very well. Based on my understanding by the word "technical", people may refer to things like the IEM's ability to reproduce fast sections of songs (e.g. fast EDM, double kick sections in heavy metal), etc