The SBAF Headphone Compendium

Great article and premise: why no HD650 of IEMs.

I'd say the reason is rather simple. It has nothing to do with better measurements, better instrumentation that accounts for the ear's impedance, which is a great thing for itself.

I'd argue that it's more the IEM manufacturers catering to IEM users' tastes (including regional). Really, one doesn't need a Type 5128 to hear. I just don't think there's much of an IEM market for people who prefer HD600/HD650 tuning.

Also, while maybe there is no HD650 of IEMs, there are certainly a few candidates for the HD600 of IEMs. The Gaudio Nair comes to mind. The quality of construction is excellent and it's just a hair over $1k, which is nothing.

 

On IEMs, even with better ear simulators, there is a HUGE problem with measuring IEMs:

Determining a target that translates into the same (or close enough) perceived response (outside of personal preferences) for all individuals is impossible.

It's hard enough as it is with headphones, but IEMs unlike headphones TOTALLY bypass pinna.


@Lyander: That CFA Andro 2020 / Solaris work really great for you but Ara not so great. And Ara works great for me, but Andro2020 too dark... not surprising. I bet my pinna / concha amplifies sounds from 2k-5kHz more than yours.

In this case, it's not even personal preferences or opinions. We are hearing different FR, especially in the upper mids and to a lesser extent lower treble.

 

Remember, my response isn't only to you, but to everyone. It's crucial to point out that measurements do not reflect "the truth". Especially with IEMs: 1) measurement couplers are still evolving to get better results in the lows where ear canal impedance starts to be a factor; 2) individuals' pinna and concha will vary resulting in different gain functions.

The first one can probably be roughly worked around if one knows the if bass (or single) driver is DD or BA type. Still, having a coupler that better simulates the impedance of a human ear canal is the best way to go. The second one stipulates in FR graphs an indication of the zone of uncertainty from 2kHz to 8kHz where the middle of that range is likely to have the most variance.

The problem is that people dislike uncertainty.

 

@james444 or @shotgunshane posted a diddy from a research paper a while back where scientists shoved a microphone inside ear canals. They measured significant differences from individuals in the test group. It's somewhere in SBAF.

 

Found it: https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...es-for-iems-wont-work.5293/page-4#post-170944

Ear canal / blocked entrance (so measuring pinna/concha contribution - note that these structures are bypassed by IEMs)


Looking at it now, more variance in treble than I thought!

 

Headphones.com has some interesting ideas in showing measurements as compensated to the diffuse field HRTF of the measurement rig, then overlaying preference boundaries (10db slope). Supposedly this would allow for better comparisons across rigs and make personal preference deviations easier to see over raw graphs or deviations from a supposed one true target. Although at first blush it may make deriving EQ a little more difficult, at least since I’m not used to seeing it this way. Anyway, some great conversation around measurements happening.

Here is their video explaining the idea:

 

This is excellent. I like what these guys are doing, offering flexibility (uncertainty) in their approach, benefiting audio enthusiasts as a whole, not trying to make an academic name for themselves.

 

I'd rather spend money on hearing aids than toward DCA cans and their overpriced (and lack of) "performance".

edited- because overpriced isn't the only criticism.

 

Added DCA to first post. Let me know if I am fair in the blurb.