IEM Review Critiques, Discussion and General Thoughts

I hope @Marvey, @ultrabike or one of the other measurement folks can chime in here.

I wanted to comment on the ideas that
1. resolution is subjective
And
2. That a colored tuning automatically relegates an earphone to "low-fi" status.

For point 1, my impression was that there are definitely objective measures which strongly correlate to that perhaps subjective perception of resolution in audio. Distortion measures would be some of the key ones here. Distortion also relates to perception of timbre, with BAs having more odd-order (iirc?) distortion, leading to poorer timbre. I believe there was a discussion of this in the "audio 101" thread. I would imagine that very low-distortion would play as big a role as frequency response in what sounds "good" to someone.

For point 2, while the "fi" in "hi-fi" is fidelity, I think it is very far from an accepted truth that a colored earphone is bad simply for being colored and without regard to distortion, etc. Look at audiophiles in Japan, where it is very common to prefer a certain colored sound. Of course, extreme cases subjectively defined aside. While frequency response may be objective (yet varying in different measurements depending on interactions with fit and various measurement artifacts, etc.), the preferences for a frequency response are subjective for earphones, perhaps even varying more than preferences something like less distortion.

This is not meant as an attack on anyone (It's the internet, so better to be clear), but I do think it's nice to bring the discussion away from nick's reviews. As I'm sure James knows when he said that he would "expect a shootout of the very best and not just the most expensive IEMs" that both expectations and ideas as to what is best have a lot of subjectivity... talking about why we feel something is best is very interesting to me so hopefully we can keep going that way

 

That was a typo. I actually meant to list imaging, stage and separation. Thanks for the catch, corrected.

In my understanding, resolution is primarily a result of linear response (absence of masking) and low distortion. Which means, at least derived from objective properties, though I don't think I've ever come across a conclusive definition of the term "resolution".

 

The original definition of 'hi'fi' is, as James suggests, to faithfully reproduce a recording as accurate as possible with a heavy emphasis on a 'neutral' or 'accurate' sound, as well as high resolution and transparency for instance. This is the traditional audiophile view that originated from speaker setups, and was later transferred to headphones. And of course, Tyll for instance still upholds this view of neutrality as a benchmark for his headphone reviews.

However, this traditional view is no longer valid for iems. For example, we have people in the East listening to J-pop or K-pop, while Westeners listen to all forms of rock or metal, and then there's genres like R&B, hip hop or pop, and not to mention all the electronic varieties. These genres no longer require a neutral tuning with a focus on timbre; in fact, in most cases, they sound worse with natural-sounding iems. Genres like EDM require a v-shape tuned tuning for extra sparkle and excitement, while hip-hop might require some more bass. Similarly, metalheads don't really care if their high pitched electric guitar is completely accurate in tone. 'Timbre' might have been the highest priority for classic audiophiles listening to jazz and classical, but trust me, it has long been forsaken in the iem market - both by consumers and manufacturers. This is a very important point to understand; most iems were never tuned to sound 'accurate', not even in the +$1500 range. They might be tuned to sound exciting, for their bass, for their stage, or just for detail. So strictly judging them on that, is not reflective for either their design or their audience. People have very different preferences, including the people that tune the iems. So to say an iem like Vega is not 'hi-fi' or worth its price just because its not accurate, is not a mindset that fits the current market. It neglects that neither the manufacturer nor the people that buy it desire an accurate tuning in the first place, and in that case you're simply just judging them to be less because it doesn't match the traditional perspective, which is biased towards 'audiophile music'. What's more, in the current state of affairs, it's not only that some people might not prioritise timbre; hardly anybody does. That's how much the iem community has evolved away from the traditional audiophile philosophy. Mind you, this isn't about me or my preference, just my observation and experience with iems in the market. But again, considering how much more affordable iems are compared to speaker and full HP setups, it's understandable. The population of iem listeners has become very diverse, and so is their taste in music. This shapes their preferences and expectancies for signatures, and manufacturers respond accordingly.

As for whether technical properties as resolution, transparency, imaging, and even stage are subjective - frankly, this is the first time I have ever come across this. So James, this is not me being pissed anymore, but just really flabbergasted at the certainty of you telling me 'I'm just wrong'. I'm not familiar with this forum yet, but there has never been discussion on the objectivity of those aspects on high-end iem threads on head-fi. Besides distortion, both resolution and transparency are related to measurable aspects as the linearity of the signature, as well as top-end extension, and in the case of transparency, to the mid- and upper-bass for instance. I have also never read any questions about subjectivity about stage. Iems as the W900 and A18 have a significantly wider stage than any iem out there, while iems as the Dream, Maestro V2, 5-Way, Zeus-XIV, all have three-dimensional stages with good width and depth. You compare one of these iems to a random $300 earphone, 8 out of 10 moderately trained listeners should be able to identify the larger stage. I am willing to put any amount of money on that.

And understanding separation is one of the most fundamental parts of sound analysis, and also far from subjective. Separation relies for a great deal on the tuning of the bass for two reasons: a larger quantity of bass will tighten the stage and affect the cleanliness of the presentation, but also create a thicker note structure. The relationship between the note size and stage dimensions in turn will play an important role in determining the quality of the separation - if you fill two similarly sized stages with either lean or thick notes, the one with leaner notes will automatically have a more effortless separation. However, factors as the cleanliness of the stage, resolution, transparency, and layering and imaging will all contribute to the organisation of the stage and its separation. But of course like with other aspects of technical sound analysis, there is a subjective factor; but this lies in the listeners' ability to perceive them, rather than the iem's objective performance.

 

My correlation between price and performance of a $300 iem, referred to the size of stage. Can you name one $300 iem that has a stage as large as Zeus-XIV, W900 or A18? I did not say accuracy is per definition not a desirable trait. Sweet lord, how in gods name did you process this post? I said that there is a wide variation in preference in music, and because of that, people prefer different signatures. Or do you just find it impossible to understand that somebody might like a different type of signature than what you like?

As for not agreeing with my sound analysis. What exactly are you questioning here? That people have the ability to analyse separation? I think you're going to have to dig a bit deeper than just saying 'I don't agree'.