I found that constantly pressing the IEM inside of my ear canal and never letting go was giving me the most full representation of the frequency response. The issue was that I couldn't use my hand to work and that there was some sort of low rumble effect from my fingers pressure when I was doing so. Not practical or usable.

 

I understand your take, and I talked about this in my post. This is why I used IEMs, because headphones are more inconsistent compared to them. IEMs only deal with the acoustics of the ear canal, which are much simpler and more predictable across different individuals and measurement rigs. Differences in acoustic impedance can be accounted for.

Not getting a proper seal/fit with IEMs is a common mistake, and is easily avoidable by using proper tips. Measurements made with mistakes like that are the result of malpractice, not from limitations of the measurement rig. So as long as you know what you're doing, and you know the limitations of the equipment, you know how to interpret the data.

I must disagree that measurements have "very little meaning in a real world application". We need some sort of objective control in our monitoring systems. Even though it might not be 100% perfect, it's way better than nothing. This is for the same reason that colorists use monitor calibrators. Using only our ears will be their equivalent of calibrating their screens by watching a movie and adjusting the colors themselves.

 

there is really no such thing as transparent monitoring system, deal with it,
human ears constantly compensate whatever input they receive - simple example being why live music sounds so great in recording studio live, but much different in mixing process from whatever playback device you have - your ears no longer have studio room environment corrections taken into account and use mixing room environment corrections instead,

live concert recording will never sound as good on home TV or even cinema, compared to actual live concert in good concert hall or venue, space and distances are so different sound won't propagate similarly at all,

audio fed directly to ears is completely different than audio received from speakers in a room,
no matter what companies try, they will never be able to compensate that, closest you can get is probably NovoNotes but again it does not simulate your very own room and your ears can't simultaneously "hear" your room and your headphones, so result is still very flawed,

about speakers, close distance means less room interactions and reflections, but longer distance means (lower) frequency waveforms properly playing out and wider dynamic range available - it's like having a small 4K screen not being able to see shit without scaling things up effectively killing its purpose, or having huge-ass TV screen zooming things again because of not being able to see shit either,

just an example, fancy Genelec 8331 at 70cm listening distance has less dynamic range than cheap-ass high-noise-floor of Kali Audio IN-8 (1st gen) at 2m distance, that's how things are...


heck most people don't even notice their computer uses EQ and dynamics corrections on its own playback, and blame DAWs sounding different...but that's a different story for another time

 

So...what is this about? (If you're in freedom to talk about it)

 

You had an improper fit for sure . This is not normal, did you try with other tip sizes ? Also, try silicon tips instead of foam ones.

If I understood correctly, you used a pair of 64 audio U12t and custom fit IEMs. While I can't comment on the exact custom fit you had, they are usually not good students when it comes to magnitude response, which is the "the single best indicator of its sound quality".

The U12t are also not very close to the diffuse-field target curve, which should be the most neutral one/the most similar to the sound of speakers. I highly encourage you to try those the Variations or the Xenns Top if you have the occasion :

Measuring the threshold of audiblity of phase shift and group delay in binaural systems, both with specially designed test tones, and music listening. I have plans to do more, but it's the one I'm focusing on right now.

 

I started with the foam ones as it seemed to provide the best seal, then tried 3 different type of silicon ones (those included in the package that you can see in my review) and finally a custom fit.

The inconsistency of the frequency response was dealt with the Custom fit but it didn't fix all the issues.

The u12t also have some modules that can be changed. They call them Apex modules. I tried the mX the m15 and the M20 which provides 10, 15 and 20 db of noise isolation which IRL experience translate as higher SPL in the bass frequency response. The mX were the only one usable in my case as the 2 other ones were just too bass heavy.

My second custom fit IEM was a lot better in the frequency range but was not translating well at all when my mixes were done.

As I said, I truly belive that some people might be able to work with IEM's. I don't.

There's also a lot of people that can't work with ATC's and I feel at home with any of them.

I sold my SCM20's a few months back and bought some Lipinski L-707 with the newest A-Driver and I'm not looking back. But as far as my portable solution adventure is concern, IEM are not for me. I then bought the VSX solution by slate, and still, there's a lot that is left at the door.

Recently, I bought the Hifiman Ananda Nano and will probably send them to sonarwork for a custom calibration. Those are what are the closest to my mastering monitors details and frequency response I found so far.

 

False.
At home I can listen to a show while doing whippits, DMT, ketamine, huffing gasoline simultaneously all the while my dogs lick my orifices, and if you've never listened to a show THAT way, oh boy, you don't know what you're missing.

 

I hope that Sonarworks will do it for you then . In my experience it sounds pretty good, and there a lot of options on their software. So if you're not happy with their in-house target curve, you can adjust it.

I remember you had concerns about their lack of phase correction, which could be relevant as the first version of the Anando actually measures pretty badly in the time domain :

However it is unclear how audible of a problem this is, and if the newer Nano is similar to this, I won't even bother trying to correct the phase response. So I think it's still a good idea to send them to Sonarworks

 

I have sonarwarks for a few years now. I recently reinstalled it as I could not afford a trinnov after buying my Lipinski's. It has it's use but if I could, i'd put it out of my audio path in a split second. I just need 4000$ for a trinnov and its out haha.

I don't know if you already had an extensive listen to the HD650 but in comparison, the nano's sound like a million bucks but I also see that audiosciencereview show about no distortion over 400hz which is difficult to explain as they are not even close in terms of details and depth. Maybe a flawed test or material ? I'm not even mentioning the step response rendering.

This test result seems exaggerated but still make sense compared to the new version as that was sort of the issue (the distortion, not the phasing issue) 2 revision before. They since introduced a stealth magnet technology (which brought them to an icredbile product and thats the one I compared at the store) and reduced the diaphragm thickness ( nano ) to the same one as the Susvara. Both of which reduced the distortion even further. But having listened to the Ananda at the store, I have not noticed any phase issue or anything unnatural. On the opposite, the Ananda had a clear advantage in how natural they sounded compared to other dynamic drivers in store. Most likely because of how open it sound compared to other open back. I also never bought or tried a 5000$ Audeze LC-5 so I cannot compare with something in the same type of category. As far as I remember, my LCD-3 were under-performing in comparison but I couldn't try them and make a direct comparison when I bought the nano.

The result vs the previous Ananda is a completely different Frequency response and a lot lower distortion ( even if planars are already in a league on their own vs dynamic drivers )

It's also not the first time that I see some incoherent reading or claim from audiosciencereview so I take it for what it is. (they have a full thread of people bashing the ATC's in there saying how bad monitors they are ) . Funny people in there, to stay polite.

You should give the Nano's a listen whenever you can, it's impressive.

 

I guess at the end of the day, it's the results that count. If you can get a good mix out of your system, room or what ever equipment your using, that's all that matters right?

Happy mixing everyone!

 

I bought expensive gear (RME Fireface UCS II, Adam Audio S2V) and what i can say is that you hear the fucking difference A LOT. I did not much in my small room, a few traps and absorbers, thats all. the measurement with rew and sonarworks was horrible and i said to myself: fuck it! The important question about all that is...is my music today better than it was 5 years ago? The answer is no and there are other reasons for that.

 

..... double false! you just gotta find the right show

i should add something i guess on topic- I have the Sennheiser hd600 being driven by creek audio obh-11 (no clue about it, wandered into a hifi shop bought it used.) AND a motu m2 and I just cannot recommend enough having an additional amp besides the motu. for listening to music I think the motu is probably fine, but I really disagree they are able to drive the phones hard enough if you're producing and leaving a decent amount of headroom in so you're not clipping in your DAW. even with my Behrdynamics 770 80ohm I think it's underpowered for producing.... like you need to be able to CRANK a song every once in a while to check it, and you won't be able to with only a motu. loud, but not blasting inside your brain loud. which of course isnt good 24/7 but I'll never go back to not being able to do that everyonce in a while. my 2 cents.

also even though the hd600s are notoriously neutral/flat I still have them tuned to a harman curve I found from oratory1990 on reddit. im thinking of taking that off.... it's not wildly different but things sound harsher without it. maybe that's good, maybe I've been pushing things too hard because of the compensation. hmmm. maybe I should just finish a song lol.

 

Last edited: Aug 18, 2023