How I Evaluate Sound Performance
Many will say such and such IEM is better than another, but just how and why is never clear. If one has no guidelines, no reference and rather uses a personal perception without a good knowledge of each aspect of performance (specially frequency response), they're usually preaching out of their own, personal, subjective matter. We each have our limits in what we tolerate in bass, midrange and treble levels, but it's a personal matter. As such, personal preferences are all over the place thus they cannot be used for a more objective rating system. With my approach I hope to establish the most exact method I know of establishing a hierarchy, one that is as tangible and objective as it can be.
Evaluation Process
To complement my evaluation process, I can provide this glossary[link] that defines every term I tend to use. In additon, I have writtent this brief explanation of an IEM's frequency response [link] . I tend to describe the sound of the IEM with specific frequency regions in mind instead of using broad terms that can have different definitions. If terms are used, I provide a specific definition to keep things as exact as I can, at times the terms pretty much concide with specific frequency regions. I consider the fact that most readers are new to these technical details and thus, I provide as much information as I can and will answer questions that may get asked.
10 point rating system
The best sounding producst will get a 9-10 rating, the worst a 1-2. The best sounding products are the most accurate, they maintain the purest tone, details and presentation of the recordings as it was made. Thus...
A flat response is Technically Better.
It's as simple as that, loudspeakers with a flat response are thought to be best by proffesionals for a reason. A flat response equals to a more even distribution of each frequency brough out by a recording, this allows the IEM to be transparent to the recording, equating to a more detailed sound that mainstains the tone intended. Yes, some may prefer a boosted bass, treble or both, it actually compromises more than a flat response because it forces recordings towards a specific tonal color that doesn't always comply. For example, a boosted bass will give the midrange a thicker presentation and warmth, but it puts a veil in details in the process, thus is may at times sound "veiled" [link]. You can't have a transparent midrange with a big bass boost as the boosted bass just won't allow it, it brings something new to the table. Despite straying for the target, I will mention the boosts and how it may complement a specific preference, since we don't always like the highest performing sound. Of course, the higher the boosts or dips, the lower the rating of the product. To note, there can still be v-shaped, bass lenient and other such colored IEM that are fairly close to being linear flat. While mostly rare cases, it also makes the point that the aim isn't for a specific signature, the goal is to get as close to flat as possible, allowing maximum transparency.
Frequency Bandwith
Basically how far the IEM can extend at both ends. An IEM with outstanding bandwith has good presence all the way down to 20hz in the bass and up to 20khz in the treble.
Transient Speed/Imaging
How well the IEM keeps up with information, basically speed. An IEM with good speed has great imaging as a result. A slow IEM blends everything together and rids of the accuracy of how everything is placed.
Graphs provided by Arthur Rin Choi
In additon to listening, the IEM's bandwidth, transient speed and overall frequency response is portrayed by graphs provided by Rin Choi. His frequency reponse graphs, I find to be the most accurate considering his well established methods. Taking out the technicalities of aside as to how and why his graphs provide an accurate picture, you can basically assume it's a simulation of how an average ear will perceive the sound. The results are basically the cold facts, your ears won't astray that far off unless it has significant damage as it's an averaged picture. These graphs play a big role in my rating system in order to maintain the most objective stance possible.
Soundstage Width/Personal Listening
Frequency response graphs can tell me a big chunk of the peformance, but real listening is used to sum up the picture. You do have to consider my ears may have slightly different resonance aspects and my mind will inevitably be biased as are all subjective reviewers. I would mention that every IEM that has been graphed by Rin, pretty much graphs as I hear it so far. Soundstage size or width, unlike imaging, is an aspect that can't be measured and it will emphasized in my subjective comparisons. I also listen to an array of recordings, ranging from older jazz to newer rock recordings. I will mention how that relates to IEM's response as sometimes a little reservation on certain areas (especially sibilant ones) can actually be a plus as long as it doesn't astray too far from transparency.
Loudless Levels and Perception changes
Generally, I base my listening on levels anywhere between 80dB and 100dB. I will mention how those slightly quieter levels may benefit or diminish the sound quality of the product. Very low volume levels are of little mention because a lot of fidelity is simply lost and it takes a very specialized IEM to sound good.
Comparisons
You may see comparisons between products, usually of similar price range. Both graphs and subjective listening are used.
===========================================
Sound Summary
Here, I will basically summarize the sound of the IEM as briefly as I can and how it applies to preferences, use and rating given.