Is this where we discuss EA500LM?

>>109558120
how bad it is? yeah

>>109558120
what's there to discuss? outdated tuning and design from people who are clueless about psychoacoustics and audio research

>>109558120
purpel

hey ballzo did you know that harman research is also a part of psychoacoustics? same for HRTF research
all the things you love to ignore you know

>take the right IEM out of your ear
>everything gets hard panned to the left
Ballzo literally can't comprehend how and why this happens.

>hurr durr my headphone is white therefore I perceive it as bright
>hurr durr my headphone is black therefore I perceive it as bassier
Where's the FR relationship, folks?

/iemg/ Dogma Check
Tired of the hivemind? Here’s your prescribed sanity dose:

>Crinacle is not your priest.
Rankings are a guide, not divine scripture. Your ears > his spreadsheet.

>Harman and JM-1 ≠ perfect.
It’s a preference curve, not a law of physics. Some genres need deviation.

>Chi-Fi isn’t magic.
Great value, yes. Immune to QC issues and hype cycles? Nope.

>Graphs are not sound.
They don’t show staging, dynamics, or fit. Use your ears, not just squigs.

>BA ≠ metallic, DD ≠ perfect.
Implementation matters more than driver type. Always has.

>Meme sets aren’t the whole hobby.
If it’s not shilled 24/7, it might still be good. It's highly encouraged to form an original opinion.

>Disagreeing ≠ cope or deaf.
Let people like what they like without foaming at the mouth.

>Loud posts =/= smart takes.
Confidence without experience is just noise. Show graphs, impressions, or both.


This has been your scheduled break from pos groupthink.

File: 1786313292115239.jpg (2.79 MB, 3000x4000)

2.79 MB JPG

r8

>>109558130
you never heard one. checked.
>>109558136
samefag replying to herself as usual.
>>109558190
nobody asked. as usual.
>>109558201
nobody asked and you're shitting up the thread because you're shitting your pants lol
>>109558202
still shitting up the thread and it only just got started lmao.

the seething cope is real

>>109558221
Nice keychain techs.

>>109558216
>>109558227
Nice shitting up thread with nothing, go learn how many ears humans have.

What TWS buds should I buy under $100? OnePlus Buds Pro 3 had latency issues on my phone, Soundpeats Capsule 3 Pro+ app and battery is fucking awful, Earfun Air Pro 4+ didn't sound good, then Soundcore Liberty 4 NC had abysmal transparency mode and strange ANC artifacts.

>>109558238
go play with your happy meal toys and pick fights elsewhere. this thread is off to a bad start already, solely because you can't get over yourself.

File: 1777305914369896.jpg (1.9 MB, 4000x5333)

1.9 MB JPG

>>109558256
Stay here since it's the deaf and poor edition.

>>109558271
good idea. thanks for the advice. and as long as I am here, you'll fixate on me because you can't help it even if you tried. :)

>>109558271
oh and you started this thread already replying to yourself lmaaaooooo can it get any worse for you?

>>109558284
Nothing will ever be as bad as having to sell your collection to buy a USED $80 IEM.

reminder that shillgot got a used pair of dirty nozzle ea500lmao

>>109558289
well, I already had around a dozen IEMs when I bought Xuan NV, so you're still making shit up.
this lying grift really hasn't been working out for you.
you really are in love with me if this is the lengths you go for my attention

>>109558306
They were real in your mind.

>>109558297
>lying about anons
grim

>>109558319
>"I'm in my element now"
what's your next grift because /iemg/ is bored with you repeating yourself and arguing with yourself- and losing every time

>>109558322
>not knowing stereo music has 2 channels
grim

>>109558336
you can't cite where I ever said that. grim

>>109558245
https://youtu.be/OOFdmdHvOKc

>>109558345
Unlike you I always have citations
>>109490786
>you are convinced that somehow...a stereo mix is a mono mix in disguise or something. that's true cynicism or just lack of understanding.
>>109543073
>"adding +2dB to the left channel via EQ"
which makes 0 goddamn sense

>foxzo bakes these threads and immediately turns it into bloodsports as if she runs the hobby too.
grim

>>109558227
>nobody asked. as usual.
but you did ask tho?
>how do we measure psychoacoustics?
this (you)?

>>109558357
>you are convinced that somehow
that's not evidence of me saying that about myself. if your grasp of grammar was above a 1st grade level, you'd recocgnize that I was talking about you. lol
you're so in love with me

>>109558362
you're judgement is clouded because you're too emotional. I buck broke you. not a mixing board. not techs or stereo imaging.
me. :)

>>109558233
ty

>>109558366
>that's not evidence of me saying that about myself
Certified 60 IQ reply. Nobody said or implied that. In that post you were genuinely baffled that I think stereo mix is made from mono channels. You were explained how stereo works for the first time ever.

File: panning.png (14 KB, 604x262)

14 KB PNG

>>109558366
lol he still doesn't get it... sasuga 60 IQ
>"adding +2dB to the left channel via EQ"
>which makes 0 goddamn sense
Look at the picture. Does it make sense now? Sorry it's not balls

>>109558373
...What did she mean by that?

Notice how he didn't deny the second citation at all. >>109558366

>>109557970
hm maybe it just seems that way to you? which is what i'm pointing to. i guess this is psychoacoustics

>>109558455
Maybe you don't know what you're pointing to.

>>109558391
>>109558397
>>109558407
>>109558415
>>109558455
why are you flooding the thread so hard?
there's only like two people here right now if you exclude your attempts to be another anon replying to your own posts lol
I accept your concession again. hopefully you choose can move on from me because I'm telling you now, I don't swing that way. sorry

>>109558476
Do we count the guy who don't know stereo is made from two channels as "people"?

>>109558484
>killing the thread as soon as it starts
yawn. that's cute and all, but you're unoriginal and devoid of anything interesting to say now.

>>109558455
You guess? It has a proper definition... which you don't know. You think it's something you need to measure lol

>>109558509
So we don't count him, okay.

>>109558476
>there's only like two people here right now if you exclude your attempts to be another anon replying to your own posts lol
Let's say it was true... what is the point of bringing it up every time? It has nothing to do with the current discussion. So why are you flooding the thread with irrelevant personal attacks instead of engaging with the subject matter?

>>109558245
Only airpods on iphone have good latency and transparency, but they don't sound good, actively fight your attempts to make them sound good even. Out of all the things you mentioned(latency, battery, sound, transparency, anc) you will be lucky to get 2 in any budget. Just get wired.

>eq guide
>no tech guide
techtards BTFO

>>109558538
i think you are confusing me with someone else. it was referring to the irony that your/his judgment of how relevant psychoacoustics is may itself be shaped by perceptual/cognitive factors. for example i might think that someone who thinks a shitbud is necessarily better than all totl iems might downplay this stuff a bit

>>109558216
>clanker has no data on /iemg/ so it just scraped reddit instead
>still brings up a list that was discontinued 3 years ago
Ballzo's magnum opus.

>>109558617
no he literally doesn't know what psychoacoustics means. that's why he asked retarded shit like "how do we measure psychoacoustics"

>>109558584
>>eq guide
no one gives a fuck
>no tech guide
because it's retarded
watercooler and SBAF are better than any guide, a lot of techs synergy tips and amazing insights every single day

>sbaf
>in the third millennium
ngmi

>>109558579
When I say the Buds Pro 3 had latency issues, I mean latency as bad as 300-400ms which made watching videos especially impossible. I'm not expecting sub-50ms latency here. Transparency on them was actually fantastic. I do already have Letshuoer S12s but I just need something for mixed casual use and recreational music listening when I don't have my wired IEMs on me

>>109558356
Has Moondrop QC improved at all in the past few years? I had Moondrop Sparks awhile back and they sounded great, but at some point they just refused to work/pair properly even after barely using them. I also remember having QC issues with the Aria but I don't remember what the issue was exactly.

>>109558651
>that's why he asked retarded shit
fell for it award

>>109558577
>Let's say it was true
it is.
>what is the point of bringing it up every time?
because you're pretending to be different anons and you reply to yourself. it's psychotic and desperate.
>So why are you flooding the thread with irrelevant personal attacks
that's you, honey. every time. literally every single time.
>instead of engaging with the subject matter?
the subject matter is you have no business instigating fights, starting arguments for the sake of it, singling out anons, targeting them for your own personal amusement, pretending to be different anons, shitting up the thread, etc.
this place isn't your anger management healing retreat.

>>109559056
you are alone.

File: 0034tkl8gy1ig3eacw894j635(...).jpg (3.03 MB, 4080x3064)

3.03 MB JPG

Where's Resolve?

Tanchjim Chant, Moondrop Chu 3, EPZ P50 Pro graphs looks decent on HuiHifi

>>109559224
drop your impressions on new iems

>>109558906
I own 2 space travel and 1 block and they live in my gym bag for years without a problem. Never once had any issue with iem or headpos, wtf are you guys doing to your gear

What's the best lossless format to use for with a pmp? All I really know of is flac

>>109559319
>flac
That would be it.

File: 1786308699998259.png (467 KB, 937x842)

467 KB PNG

anyone has bought this? is it good? I want to get one too

>>109558100
Hello /g/, I have a budget of $150 for wireless noise cancelling earbuds. I will run with them, and so they will get sweat on them and cannot fall out. What does anon recommend?

>>109559423
I've been tempted but I heard the battery life is shit and only ~6 hours

File: moondrop_chu_3_paint_chipping.png (2.36 MB, 1080x2408)

2.36 MB PNG

>>109559270
>Chu 3
>Same meme paint and brass nozzle
Uh oh...

PMP request
>Budget
$100
>Format support
Needs .flac support
>Other features
As much battery life as possible (10+ hours), physical buttons/volume dial, USB-C

>>109559979
tempotec variation v1 is like $90 on their site

>>109559705
Best ANC and fit is airpods pro, but the pro will crackle and die eventually when you sweat over them, like mine did after 2 years. The non pro versions die faster, for me they last 6 months. Moondrop space travels has subpar ANC, they don't fit as nicely, but they don't die from sweat. And if they die, they are $30 disposable, get another pair. You can get a ton of space travels for one airpods pro. My rec is if you prioritize ANC, get airpods, else get space travels.

>>109559864
same as you...6h or 7h is shit and the price is 50 bucks, which is too much for a device like this according to me. should have been 40 bucks

>>109560092
no gapless either

>>109559991
Thanks, ordered

File: sias.webm (3.72 MB, 1280x720)

3.72 MB WEBM

CanJam bros... our response ?

Mark of a real /iemg/ent?
Proof of ownership of the limited edition Asano Tanch 1/6 figurine.

shartur you insufferable little shit eating retard, please post this in your next video and i will buy the first unit of peqdb reality

>>109559423
its fine as a shuffle device but the battery life aint too good and for some reason its overpriced on aliexpress. dont buy it for any more than 40 usd.

>>109558906
I'd say it's still hit or miss

File: file.png (208 KB, 2597x771)

208 KB PNG

>>109559270
Dreaded BA pos.

File: USn.jpg (154 KB, 1024x1536)

154 KB JPG

hmmm this shit kinda looks good...

>>109561638
>Ai generated box art
No thanks

>>109561651
I wouldn't be so sure

>buy xm5
>plastic hinge breaks
>buy xm4
>hinge breaks
great. can anybody recommend me something with metal hinges that wont break because of my big head

>>109561725
IEMs

>>109561725
stick to earbuds

File: 1766965212102943.png (3.86 MB, 2479x3498)

3.86 MB PNG

>>109561638
Trans-crinacle is back.

>>109560223
>audio?

File: HIX8euba0AAgfYJ.jpg (103 KB, 1368x1368)

103 KB JPG

he made a video about us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDymeah_lvw

personally i dont think these samsung buds are good ive not tried them but everyone says you need to eq them to make them sound good. i think eq is stupid. your iems / headphones should sound the same in every device you plug them into if you need to eq theyre shit

>>109562034
Good morning, sir.

File: IMG_20260804_140503432~2.jpg (3.46 MB, 4096x3072)

3.46 MB JPG

>>109558221
are you running rockbox? ive wanted one of these for ages but have so many ipods it feels like a waste of money kek

>>109561725
dan clark aeons

File: PVRE.jpg (525 KB, 4096x2732)

525 KB JPG

Is the text vented or just carved? Looks clean THOUGH

>>109562034
https://youtu.be/zksVBQwAIBw
watch until you understand

>>109562263
but he is right, if u have few playback devices, like PC, macbook, phone, maybe streamer or DAP. If u have few DAC and Amps, maybe 1 for desktop use, one for portable use. If u have more than 1 pair of IEMs or headphones, add to that desktop speakers. And EQ is so fucking annoying to use in that case. I had more than once situation that I forget about EQ profile and was scared that my headphones are fucked somehow, I had to store EQ settings on 2 computers and on my dap. It was so cumbersome to use. I will take good stock tuning any day over not so good but fixable with EQ. Where EQ should shine is with battery powered wireless stuff, it should be meta for big brands like Bose, Sony or Apple to have onboard memory that can store EQ profiles inside devices DSP.

>>109562322
MAYBE you can do that with headphones. IEMs will need EQ no matter what.
Like... Think about it. Say you want your headphones to sound one way... So what do you do? Buy headphones with tuning you want? But they will NOT behave on your head like they measure. So what do you do? Buy headphones with some fucked up tuning which plays like tuning you want on your head? Give up? Delude yourself that you bought a perfect headphones already? Or that they are good enough?
Pretty much every headphone\IEM is 6\10 be default MAXIMUM.
I understand that it's inconvenient but it is what it is
>Where EQ should shine is with battery powered wireless stuff, it should be meta for big brands like Bose, Sony or Apple to have onboard memory that can store EQ profiles inside devices DSP.
agreed

>>109562346
>IEMs will need EQ no matter what.
Hello,
This is obviously not true.
Thanks

>>109562346
Other way around, headphones are more unpredictable from head to head. But it isn't impossible to find good one that works well on ur head with only minor treble peaks.
Now when I'm thinking about wireless stuff, companies like Apple probably have tech and resources for doing stuff like inear measurements and real time EQ adjustments with DSP. Especially with tws stuff but even over ear probably could be cracked with some sort of ear shape scanner sensor build into wireless headpos

>>109562378
It is obviously true. Explain how it is not true

>>109562409
Some active over ears already check for bass leaks and can adjust their FR a little bit. Like bose QC or whatever. Same for airpods
>Other way around
it isn't. unless you are lucky IEMs will always have length modes it's simply unavoidable so far.

File: my-11134207-7r98r-lp4v4ko(...).jpg (249 KB, 1000x1000)

249 KB JPG

Bought a Sony NW-WM1AM2 new for £700, any tips for getting the maximum out of it? I previously had the NW-A55 and installed the custom OS, is there something similar?

Just needed to get the music off my phone and be able to search for songs, queue songs and have proper tag reading. It's android, but I won't connect to Wi-Fi ever and I've disabled all the apps it came with. I'd like to disable the Wi-Fi at hardware level but that would probably be difficult.

>>109562465
why this over newer Daps from Cayin, Fiio, iBasso and so on? It looks and is bit outdated in 2026

imagine not eq'ing your iems and only getting 6/10 MAXIMUM from them. sad. so much wasted sq

or 60% of it's intended sound rather. either way its sad

>>109559423
Nice vape

>>109562262
is it a retune or a prototype?

Ok so I bought the new moondrop chu 3,how bad are they?
I was eyeing the silicon, but I ain't paying 250€ for those when in yuan rupees they're like 160€

>>109563111
they are fine if you don't encounter QC issues

>>109563157
Let's hope I don't get busted out of 23€, that's half a day of work

>>109561638
Would buy siscon IEMs.

File: adamisdumb.png (116 KB, 1247x446)

116 KB PNG

Sine sweep lost

>>109563241
>€23
>half a day of work
uuuhm.. Poland? Romania?

>>109563508
Who is to say he's actually correct?
headphones.com said EQing to your HRTF sounds mostly flat.
>The way EQ is typically used in music production is to use positive gain and change the frequency until it sounds worst and then reduce the gain until it sounds right.
Literally nobody is stopping you from doing that together with sine sweeps.
...You still should EQ length modes out tho by the way.

>>109563664
>headphones.com said EQing to your HRTF sounds mostly flat.
Anecdotal evidence and being aware of every step and measurement taken = useless

>>109563056
lol
>>109562055
yes it is rockbox-ed. donnt buy it if you already have tons of mp3s.

>>109563508
EQ guide won.
>>109563664
Who's to say headphones.com is right? A sample size of max 3 with dubious testing is not great.
oratory1990's tests reveal the opposite.
As the EQ guide states: sine sweeps should only be used to localize frequencies that have been detected with music/noise.

>>109563736
What the fuck do you think your oratory quote is? Not even "anecdotal evidence" but just an opinion. He doesn't know what headphones EQed to HRTF sound like.
What are you even arguing with anyway. Just a contrarian?

>>109563762
>Who's to say headphones.com is right
..because they literally have their HRTF measured and EQ to that?
> A sample size of max 3 with dubious testing is not great.
You are literally trusting an opinion vs actual measurements and data.
What's dubious about their testing?
>As the EQ guide states: sine sweeps should only be used to localize frequencies that have been detected with music/noise.
It says that because there was no way to tell if all peaks should or should not be EQed out. Now we have actual data that suggests that they should. You also don't actually need to do it. Maybe they give you better techs or whatever. EQ is a dynamic process. In the end you should A/B your EQ while listening to music

You people are so fucking weird. Whole idea that MAYBE not all peaks need EQ comes from our ignorance. We literally had no idea. We still don't really know but since then we got more data.
But instead of incorporating it into your world view you outright reject it and go back to ancient outdated opinions. The fuck?? Use your brains sometimes maybe.

>>109563799
They literally only talk about it for a split second, without showing their procedure or results. Where is their testing revealing statistical significance for not being able to detect tone colorations?
Not only that, their own theoretical framework doesn't even support their position. At best, this is a coincidence where a few members have more or less flat DFHRTFs, at worse it indicates that they are untrained listeners.
There is no data, oratory1990 himself has done this type of testing and says the complete opposite. The folks at headphones.com would tell you that their "data" and opinions are less reliable than oratory's.

>At best, this is a coincidence where a few members have more or less flat DFHRTFs
wtf are you talking about? they are not relatively flat. It would be weird coincidence btw considering how different they are - different races, head sizes, ears etc. HRTF is less of a problem than HPTF
>at worse it indicates that they are untrained listeners
I really do not understand where this is coming from. Actually where is everything you wrote coming from? "I don't like them so they MUST be wrong"?
>There is no data, oratory1990 himself has done this type of testing and says the complete opposite.
What kind of testing? He doesn't say the complete opposite btw.
>The folks at headphones.com would tell you that their "data" and opinions are less reliable than oratory's.
doubtful
>"data"
You are writing weird contrarian shit that is mostly wrong all to defend fucking treble peaks. Go add some with EQ and tell me how you like them, dummy

>>109563762
>oratory1990's tests reveal the opposite.
what tests reveal the opposite

PMP request
>budget
<$200
>features
Can't have wifi, work won't allow it. Would like flac support.
>past gear
I've had the Hifi Walker H2, everything was fine until the fucking headphone jack stopped working. Looking for a replacement now.

>>109563887
First of all, I do like them. Very much, actually, but this push of using tone gen on their part is not supported except through their very informal testing and lacks their usual rigorous approach to ideas backed with good theoretical frameworks.
>I really do not understand where this is coming from.
If they had results to show, then my comment would make more sense. Unfortunately they have no data and so we cannot determine the validity of their claims.
They refuse to show their DFHRTF and also HpTF using their tone method. They also have no listening tests done.
>doubtful
You probably weren't around the time when they started taking Blaine or oratory's advice and bringing them on as their unofficial consultants, I don't blame you for thinking this way.
>You are writing weird contrarian shit that is mostly wrong all to defend fucking treble peaks
Completely wrong, I advocate for sensible treble adjustments and not using only tone gen for fixing treble. No clue why you are stuck on this and keep trying to make this a personal/ideological issue.
>>109563896
Given his track record, his testing is likely far more rigorous and valid then whatever headphones.com is doing, simply due to the scale and scope of the companies he's worked at.
Read the whole thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/1upb6mw/comment/ovyxh3q

Meanwhile I don't use EQ at all. I'm simply buying products that sounds good for me, u should do it too

File: 3uvzgrgu9pwe1.jpg (32 KB, 565x406)

32 KB JPG

>>109564011

>>109563903
I'm scared for my hifiwalker h2 now. I hope the jack will not break

Do they still make bullet style IEMs? You know, the "regular" ones? I fucking hate whatever the trend has been now, every fucking one even the cheapest QKZ/KZ chink IEMs are those heavy, uncomfortable, edgy triangle/diamon/pebble shit you wrap around the back your ears.

>>109564011
Liking something without EQ is a skill issue.

>>109564121
Yeah? The ones in OP, tinhifi c0 elf, final E series, YU9 Ety clones, KZ ling long, etc.

There's a 0% chance the treble peaks will be in correct spots, especially with IEMs. Removing them is a no-brainer. When you get speakers you can find them and restore them.

>>109563968
>First of all, I do like them.
I don't care that was not the question.
>but this push of using tone gen on their part is not supported except through their very informal testing
false
people been using sweeps for years
>lacks their usual rigorous approach to ideas backed with good theoretical frameworks
false
>They refuse to show their DFHRTF
false
>HpTF using their tone method
what?
>They also have no listening tests done.
false
>You probably weren't around the time when they started taking Blaine or oratory's advice and bringing them on as their unofficial consultants, I don't blame you for thinking this way.
they can speak to him like to a normal person it has nothing to do with him being right or wrong
>Completely wrong, I advocate for sensible treble adjustments and not using only tone gen for fixing treble. No clue why you are stuck on this and keep trying to make this a personal/ideological issue.
So who are you arguing with then?
>https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/1upb6mw/comment/ovyxh3q
>my experience with test listeners is that even a DF-equalized headphone (equalized to that person's DF curve) is not reliably perceived as flat when listening to a sine sweep.
This depends on what he's talking about. Unlike headphones.com he shows no data, no measurements, no methodology. It's a fucking reddit post.
And no saying shit like "not reliably perceived as flat" is not "his tests reveal the opposite". Also they are kinda want to use fringe examples to undermine the whole concept when it is not really that deep. If you hear peak on sweep but EQing it out gives you bad results on music... just don't EQ it...
Like for example he says that without providing any data
>But most test listeners have an easier time identifying peaks (and by extent also dialing in the right amount of reduction on a filter) when listening to music.
yet tests show that pink noise and dense music gives similar results

>>109564200
>When you get speakers you can find them and restore them
even that is not really a reliable method.
It was tested and EQing DF devices to free field usually is less preferable.
Plus without measurements it's hard to say what you are actually doing to IEMs FR...
>There's a 0% chance the treble peaks will be in correct spots, especially with IEMs.
I don't think this is wrong tho

File: 20260224_192031.jpg (479 KB, 1278x1704)

479 KB JPG

EQ = COPE

>Try with speakers - set up speakers and EQ them so they produce a fully flat frequency response, and then listen to a sweep at 5-20 kHz. There will be peaks (because your ear produces them, not the loudspeakers).
Like he says this shit... but speakers are not headphones...They are not DF devices what kind of peaks they produce is irrelevant... I'm not saying there won't be peaks you might hear but fixating on edge cases is not seeing the forest for the trees. Nevermind the fact that he's actually using sine sweeps himself lol.

>>109564273
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: post their results.
>If you hear peak on sweep but EQing it out gives you bad results on music... just don't EQ it...
Glad we came to the same conclusion
>yet tests show that pink noise and dense music gives similar results
Ok?
>>109564368
What he's saying is that detecting a peak in tone gen does not mean that this peak should be removed. That is what headphones.com is advocating, that all peaks found using tone gen should be removed, irrespective of DFHRTF.
I'll be frank, I don't think you are quite ready to discuss this topic.

>>109564388
>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: post their results.
How about you post oratory's results first? If you don't have them then what the fuck are you talking about in the first place?
>Glad we came to the same conclusion
nobody ever said otherwise
this
https://youtu.be/zksVBQwAIBw
+ literally every review where they post and compare in ear measurements on their heads.
So yeah they do provide data and measurements.
>What he's saying is that detecting a peak in tone gen does not mean that this peak should be removed.
You can't compare peaks from positional queues to random peaks from DF devices...
>does not mean that this peak should be removed
also doesn't mean they shouldn't btw. He didn't provide any justification. Who's to say you don't want some of that removed lol?
>That is what headphones.com is advocating, that all peaks found using tone gen should be removed, irrespective of DFHRTF.
Not really no
>I'll be frank, I don't think you are quite ready to discuss this topic.
Bro you don't even know what headphones.com advocating for lmao the fuck are you talking about? Your evidence is a fucking reddit post with zero data and trust me bro

Oh and the idea that their DF HRTF are just flat wasn't even from oratory it was from some fucking literally who. Just so you know.

Remind me why are we pretending reddit1990 has any authority whatsoever? Because... he works in a company? And has a measurement rig?

where do I download good music quality? all I did for now is to use mp3 convertir from youtube videos

>>109564348
you must eq every single one of your iems asap or implicitly admit to hearing damage and/or incompetence

>>109564545
>just tank length modes lol
is that your advice?

ok, honest question based on observation of this general
Why are you so cucked, do you like watching cuck porn? I mean it looks like it. Never ever seen people buying things they don't like to fix them later. U are paying hard earned money for gear just to fix it with EQ. Why don't you expect the manufacturers to make the headphones or iems that sound great or even perfect on "your" head without any modifications? You are paying for it, u should expect best companies can offer to u.
Let's extrapolate your cuck mindset into something else.
Its like paying for nice meal but without seasoning because of cope "everyone's taste is different, chef can't possibly know how it will taste in my own mouth so I prefer to season the food myself, but I will still pay full price for the service anyway"

Is /iemg most cucked general on /g? Cucked by big black chink iem and headpos industry. Maybe Sharur is just sissy porn that tricks u into buying new iems and fix them with EQ instead of expecting good tuning from factory

>>109564588
saar! behave or else, saar!

>>109564515
And he makes Harman 2018/IE 2019 presets, yes.

>>109564588
>deaf retard
>food analogy
Iconic duo.

>>109564597
One would think that knowing what he know he'd understand that it's kinda pointless

File: hmm.jpg (18 KB, 384x384)

18 KB JPG

>>109564348
What pos would Tomoko use?

>>109564588
>Why don't you expect
? Because it's simply not what's happening and not how any of these devices work?
The number one advice is to listen to shit before you buy btw.
>u should expect best companies can offer to u.
they are all clueless
>expecting good tuning from factory
Good tuning is relative

>>109564622
she uses audio-technica earing

>>109564632
Why u just don't listen and buy stuff that is worth ur money aka sound good on your head with ur own ears and ur own fr aka manufacturer made something good for you instead of buying stuff that don't work and EQing it. Paying for something that is bad is just retarded, literally cuck mindset with extra cope sprinkle of "b b but it's cheap and comfy"
Like I literally returned few headphones due to that (living far away from any good audio store sadly) until I finally found stuff that I really like and works well with my ear.
Companies maybe are clueless but among 1000s of products there is at least good chunk of them that will work with ur own ears

>>109564471
>How about you post oratory's results first? If you don't have them then what the fuck are you talking about in the first place?
The disconnect here is that I respect oratory's expertise, not so much headphones.com. There is vast difference between both but I think this detail is lost here because none of you have worked professionally in this field.
>nobody ever said otherwise
The folks at headphones.com have said that using tone gen and making all peaks perceptually even/flat is equivalent to fixing the target to DFHRTF without any supporting evidence.
>+ literally every review where they post and compare in ear measurements on their heads.
>So yeah they do provide data and measurements.
I am specifically talking about results post-EQ using their methodology.
>You can't compare peaks from positional queues to random peaks from DF devices...
How do you determine if the peak is correct or not?
>also doesn't mean they shouldn't btw. He didn't provide any justification. Who's to say you don't want some of that removed lol?
Because if your target is your DFHRTF, and this DFHRTF has a peak, why would you remove it?
>Not really no
This is just wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0nZCXyDTz4&t=863s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVW53wmo-04&t=729s
>Bro you don't even know what headphones.com advocating for lmao the fuck are you talking about? Your evidence is a fucking reddit post with zero data and trust me bro
Very familiar, I have talked with them about these more technical topics. Trust me, they are very good but there is a reason why I am so cautious about their approach to this. Again, there is no theoretical framework that actually supports their point and other tests show opposing results.
The middle ground is what everyone else has been advocating which is to use tone gen solely as a method to localize problematic frequencies.
>>109564507
With headphones.com's own theoretical framework, this is a sensible conclusion to come to.

>>109564700
I demoed 40 headphones and most of them weren't even worth wearing, let alone listening to. You just have low standards.

>>109564515
He has a proven track of record of being a good acoustic engineer, especially for headphones/IEMs.
The same can be said about headphones.com, why put so much authority into them even if they are actively collaborating and consulting oratory?

>>109564729
>How do you determine if the peak is correct or not?
Not him but any peak that an IEM can produce will be incorrect. Open tube vs sealed tube series of resonances. With deep insertion there's a small chance you'll land the fundamental of the sealed tube to 3rd harmonic of open tube, but why rape your ears with deep insertion. Having wrong peaks is worse than not having correct peaks since peaks are more audible than dips.
>>109564755
What did he engineer.

>>109564799
>Not him but any peak that an IEM can produce will be incorrect.
And how would you know that?
>What did he engineer.
He worked at USound and now at Lewitt for their virtualization software. If you want specific products, most likely OEM devices and TWS/headphones/IEMs using MEMs.

>>109564741
Why are u even here, why are u even doing this stuff if u can just fix 1 comfy headset to ur liking and go do something else like normal person, normal person don't even care if tuning is abysmal v shape, headphones are just doing boom boom and have ANC instead of all of that audiophile bullshit

if you don't eq everything you have bad ears. the best iems in the world costs 9 dollars btw and i think all dacs and cables sound the same

>>109564838
>And how would you know that?
Literally the next sentence.
>If you want specific products, most likely OEM devices and TWS/headphones/IEMs using MEMs.
So literal vaporware.

>>109564869
>Open tube vs sealed tube series of resonances.
How would you know which resonances are incorrect?

>>109564872
The sealed tube ones. Since your ear isn't a sealed tube.

How are these threads still going? What are you guys talking about for all these years?

>>109564869
>So literal vaporware.
You're not an engineer are you...
>>109564877
So you're saying that all resonances have no chance of landing on a DFHRTF peak no matter the insertion depth, no matter the person.
Another question: how do you differentiate peaks from tube resonances or just regular peaks from the IEM's tuning?

File: 1771831045739268.jpg (31 KB, 500x574)

31 KB JPG

>>109564856
How something looks is more important than how it sounds.

any wireless earbuds worth buying or are they all still overpriced trash with shit audio quality?

>>109564888
It's like a ritual, we talk about the same thing every single day.

>>109564891
If you were talking about MEMS mics and accelerometers then that gives no autority about sound reproduction. MEMS drivers are a complete vaporware.

>>109563541
Spain, thanks to 10 whole years of corrupt socialist government

>>109564891
>how do you differentiate peaks from tube resonances or just regular peaks from the IEM's tuning?
They move when you change the insertion depth.

>>109564858
>he doesn't have golden ears to tell the FR of DAC filters apart
Ngmi...

>>109564921
Sound reproduction is any more special, and yes he has worked on sound reproduction devices. Read up on xMEMs. I don't know why you doubt his abilities to this degree.
>>109564932
So your method of EQ is to shift insertion depths, determine all resonances that come from it, find the specific set of resonances that come from normal wear, then EQ all of those out?
What if some resonances match your DFHRTF? Or what if non-tube related resonances have to be removed?

Some of u guys could make good money as sound engineer for big companies with all that knowledge. I'm actually smarter after few minutes of reading all that yapping

>>109565001
No, this is all relatively simple theoretical circlejerking and not at all relevant to engineering.

>>109564967
>Read up on xMEMs.
That's what made me say it's vaporware. An entirely different company had to step in and reinvent MEMS drivers just for us to have any tangible product.
>So your method of EQ
For EQ it doesn't matter whether the peak is from the tuning or from the resonance. Find the most consistent insertion depth that you can get and EQ what you hear. For me that happens to be the most shallow insertion depth. So, as far as possible from the possible overlap of open/sealed tube resonances.

>>109565040
In case it wasn't clear, usound's MEMS is not xMEMS.

Ultimately all those MEMES are just PZTs.

>>109565040
>That's what made me say it's vaporware. An entirely different company had to step in and reinvent MEMS drivers just for us to have any tangible product.
This is referring to the use of MEMs drivers in sound reproduction devices, xMEMs since they had more popular products. Now we have a few major players, doesn't take away from his expertise.
>For EQ it doesn't matter whether the peak is from the tuning or from the resonance.
So you're saying that every peak must be removed? What if they align with the DFHRTF?
>>109565073
Yes, I wasn't clear enough above.
>>109565085
Doesn't matter, the benefits of MEMs are for batch manufacturing and space reduction, not actual acoustic benefits.

>>109565104
Working in a company that made nothing actually does take away from his expertise.
>So you're saying that every peak must be removed?
Yes.
>What if they align with the DFHRTF?
You can't know without speakers. Even if by pure chance it does align, a dip(relative to DF HRTF) is less audible than a peak so the harm will be minimal. We don't even know if the model of sound our brain reconstructs after removing the spatial cues is DF. We only think so because it's directionless.

>>109562419
nta, but let me put in my two cents.
the basic idea is that you buy speakers/headphones/iems/etc., and you just press play to enjoy your music.
there's no study that says being an autistic faggot is a prerequisite to enjoying audio. but that's just me.
>>109562712
>>109562726
imagine talking to yourself
>>109563762
>EQ guide won.
nobody reads that because a nobody wrote it.

>a dip(relative to DF HRTF) is less audible than a peak so the harm will be minimal
Headphone niggas are paying thousands of dollars for total unfixable treble nulls.

>>109565189
>assuming those nulls aren't filled with what's in audio anyway

whoever heard of balancing things out?

>>109565211
They aren't. Do you know what a null is?

>>109565177
>You can't know without speakers
So that defeats the whole purpose of using tone gen, which is to simplify the process and be as accessible/easy as possible. With music/noise, you will at least get a good indicator for peaks and determine if they are correct or not. This is not anymore complicated and removes the guess work and potential harm from removing a peak when there aren't any.
Dips are much less severe, but then if the aim is to popularize a method that tries to be as simple and easy for the layman as possible, what safeguards are used to make sure the "peak" removal isn't too wide or drastic?

>>109565214
oh yeah. your intellect is a good example of null and void

>>109565227
>So that defeats the whole purpose of using tone gen
It doesn't. A completely smooth treble achieved by tonegen is a reasonable approximation of the not completely smooth ideal, which you can only find with speakers.

>>109565234
>oh yeah.
So that's a no. Figures.

>>109564700
>Companies maybe are clueless but among 1000s of products there is at least good chunk of them that will work with ur own ears
try 1000 headphones is a shit unrealistic advice

>>109565227
Btw it's not about tonegen vs noise/music. If you found it with music you should still remove it. You don't really know if it's correct without speakers.

>>109565253
Eh I guess I can see your point, you're saying tone gen will get you the way there and might have some deviations that we can more or less ignore since they won't be perceived. Not sure if I agree on the last part but I doubt it'd be a big issue.
>>109565292
With music, you will at least get a sense of wrongness and if the peak is impacting preference. Noticing a peak in music will translate to tone gen, not the other way.

>>109565320
You can get a peak with music that negatively affects preference, but that's actually how it's meant to sound. Do you leave it or keep it?

>>109565366
*remove it or keep it

>>109564729
>The disconnect here is that I respect oratory's expertise, not so much headphones.com.
I simply do not care tho.
When you say something like "not reliably perceived as flat" immediately there's a lot of questions. Such as what did measurements show? Was there a peak? No? There was no measurements? Why? Was there a dip after EQ? What methodology was used to get individual DF-HRTF? Was the same method headphones.com used? Or was it math driven approximation? Frankly questions are endless. With 0 data provided.
>There is vast difference between both but I think this detail is lost here because none of you have worked professionally in this field.
It's a simple appeal to authority so it's not a good argument by default.
>The folks at headphones.com have said that using tone gen and making all peaks perceptually even/flat is equivalent to fixing the target to DFHRTF without any supporting evidence.
yeah that's not what they said. can you quote where and who said it?
>I am specifically talking about results post-EQ using their methodology.
>How do you determine if the peak is correct or not?
Good question btw which gives us a lot more questions about oratory's position. Such as IF it was "not reliably perceived as flat" then what was it? Was there a peak on every headphone? Only on some? So would adding it improve a headphone? NOTHING.
Just saying.
Also I dunno would be a peak created by your ear heard as correct for a DF tuned device?
They are basically going against the idea that for DF-tuned devices peaks will be heard as colorations. Which is kinda you know you should provide actual data to disprove.
https://hauptmikrofon.de/theile/1986-3_Standardization-of-studio-headphones_JAES-1986.pdf
>Because if your target is your DFHRTF, and this DFHRTF has a peak, why would you remove it?
Would be nice if mr.I worked at the company provided fucking ANYTHING now wouldn't it?
I'd say it's case by case basis. headphones.com said it's MOSTLY flat not perfectly.

4chan doesn't have enough fucking letters lmao fuck off I can't write shit... it's really annoying.

>>109565366
Now we're venturing outside of sound reproduction. If music was produced and mixed according to rigorous standards, then I would choose to leave it as is if authorial intent is to be respected (this is very debatable)
Of course that isn't the case, so I'll go with preference. Even then I don't think it is of any benefit if we start mixing different fields of acoustic together.

>>109564729
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0nZCXyDTz4&t=863s
he is talking about AUTO EQ profiles that will fuck up your shit.
never it says that EQing peaks is the equivalent to measuring your HRTF
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVW53wmo-04&t=729s
well? He literally said they can be "A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFIDENT"
Oratory doesn't even tells you to not use sine sweeps AGAIN.
>Very familiar
you clearly have comprehension problems then. But then again without knowing what the fuck oratory is talking about there's impossible to tell anything so it's like whatever.
>Again, there is no theoretical framework that actually supports their point
I linked it.
>other tests show opposing results.
sadly for both of us other tests DO NOT EXIST.
If you can't show them they DO NOT EXIST. You get that? "B-but oratory said" is not a test.
>With headphones.com's own theoretical framework, this is a sensible conclusion to come to.
that's a big assumption

>>109564856
>normal person don't even care if tuning is abysmal v shape, headphones are just doing boom boom and have ANC instead of all of that audiophile bullshit
This is actually true but why is this true? Consumer tunings are all god awful. That's why IEMs with kidna scuffed ie2019 tuning literally murdered everything in sound quality immediately

>>109565185
>there's no study that says being an autistic faggot is a prerequisite to enjoying audio.
I agree

>>109565405
>I simply do not care tho.
I would say the same, but given the situation where none present evidence, and one side has the theoretical framework + expertise + no-data tests to support their position vs the other side which has the no-data tests but nothing else, I'm inclined to trust the former a bit more.
Even if I don't choose, I can simply rely on personal experience and the theoretical framework that both sides use.
>It's a simple appeal to authority so it's not a good argument by default.
Agreed and explained above.
>yeah that's not what they said. can you quote where and who said it?
I can never get timestamps correct
The section at 12:05 addresses this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVW53wmo-04
>Such as IF it was "not reliably perceived as flat" then what was it?
It means that even when calibrated to an individual's DFHRTF, that listener will still perceive a peak when listening to sweeps. He explains it after.
>Also I dunno would be a peak created by your ear heard as correct for a DF tuned device?
If the goal is adherence to DFHRTF, then yes as long as that DFHRTF has said peak.
>>109565481
>never it says that EQing peaks is the equivalent to measuring your HRTF
I never meant that and I don't see how you could possibly misconstrue it as such. I am saying that they are saying that removing peaks to perceptually flat will be equivalent to making the in-situ response closer to one's DFHRTF.
>Oratory doesn't even tells you to not use sine sweeps AGAIN.
Nobody did, tone gen are useful for localizing problematic frequencies.
>I linked it.
Where?
>If you can't show them they DO NOT EXIST. You get that? "B-but oratory said" is not a test.
The same can be said for the headphones.com team.
>that's a big assumption
How so? If they say that using tone gen to make things sound perceptually flat is good enough to make the sound better on the basis of matching DFHRTF, then they are saying that the DFHRTF is also more or less flat.

>>109564891
>So you're saying that all resonances have no chance of landing on a DFHRTF peak no matter the insertion depth
technically there is a chance practically not really. Also I dunno maybe it's just me but moving IEMs around trying to unfuck length modes doesn't sound practical to me. You properly wear them and where it lands you there they will be.

>>109564888
IEMs ARE NOT SOLVED YET so there's a lot to talk about

>>109565538
Why are you confident that practically, none of the peaks have a chance? DFHRTFs vary massively.
>Also I dunno maybe it's just me but moving IEMs around trying to unfuck length modes doesn't sound practical to me.
I think everyone agrees unanimously on this.
>>109565511
The average person (rightfully imo) judges music based on the content, not the spectral quality of reproduction.
It doesn't matter if they are using bass boosted or no bass devices, they are still getting 95% of the musical content and ideas that define each track.

>>109564967
>So your method of EQ is to shift insertion depths, determine all resonances that come from it, find the specific set of resonances that come from normal wear, then EQ all of those out?
NTA but I did indeed do exactly this with most IEMs I have tho most deep insertion ones are pretty consistent with length modes in my ear.
>What if some resonances match your DFHRTF
technically you don't even need that if resonance at 8k (if you can push IEMs there lol) not very big it will sound mostly fine because on average people tolerate 8k energy decently well.
>Or what if non-tube related resonances have to be removed
Then we all go to fucking JAIL apparently. Cause you are talking about it as if it's the end of the fucking world. Also I don't think I actually have any such resonances.
You can come up with a scenario where removing or toning down HRTF related peak can be beneficial too.

>Loud posts =/= smart takes.

>>109565001
>I'm actually smarter after few minutes of reading all that yapping
my condolences

>>109565598
>Then we all go to fucking JAIL apparently. Cause you are talking about it as if it's the end of the fucking world. Also I don't think I actually have any such resonances.
I think people are getting lost in the sauce.
I agree, these issues are not all that important. We are just discussing the ideas and concepts and their validity, nowhere have I or others have said that doing treble changes in one way or another would result in instantaneous combustion, it's all within the scope of DFHRTF adherence.

>>109565185
>the basic idea is that you buy speakers/headphones/iems/etc., and you just press play to enjoy your music.
and then you wonder why did you go deaf

>>109565227
>With music/noise, you will at least get a good indicator for peaks and determine if they are correct or not.
That is also not true without speakers. You need reference either way. If you don't know what correct sounds like then wtf are you EQing?
EQing peaks at least will give you something.
Oratory's position LITERALLY is not supported by any evidence and can be ignored until he provides them.

>>109565320
>Noticing a peak in music will translate to tone gen, not the other way.
peak in music can also be a peak in music and not a headphone. How would you know if it is or isn't?

>>109565677
That's the neat part, u can't. Just EQ with sine sweep and go with the flow of music, not everything is perfect

>>109565666
You are not aiming for "correctness" when using such signals, you aim for preference. Tone gen's basis is that it matches the DFHRTF and therefore preference to the in-situ response; whether this actually matches the DFHRTF is not supported.
There is a weird cross over between reproduction and production sides of things, but if the person doesn't have a reference speaker setup, then they are stuck between two "bad" choices, but I believe one is better than the other
>Oratory's position LITERALLY is not supported by any evidence and can be ignored until he provides them.
Same with the headphones.com team.
>>109565677
Read above. If we are without reference, preference is the key. If you have a reference speaker setup, then compare.

>>109565533
>but given the situation where none present evidence
nono ONE have evidence. We literally KNOW what they are doing how and why.
What do we know about oratory except that he said so? fucking NOTHING.
The more I think about it the more questions I have. Why the fuck is he vagueposting lol? Kinda annoying. Imagine basing your opinion on a vaguepost...
>he section at 12:05 addresses this.
I unironically do no think there's any problems with their statements. They are reporting their statements. Rather carefully. "not reliably perceived as flat" is pretty vague you know. I'd say it's even a problematic statement.
But I guess we can go in circles forever cause yeah headphones.com in the end are just 4 guys with measurements. But also rigs we have have averaged DFs and also do not have weirdo peaks. So like ???. Do we actually need to pay attention to them that much? I really want to know what the fuck "not reliably perceived as flat" actually mean but also at the same time I'm to lazy to ask oratory himself and especially on reddit fuck that LOL.
>It means that even when calibrated to an individual's DFHRTF, that listener will still perceive a peak when listening to sweeps. He explains it after.
No I read what he said it actually doesn't mean anything at all because we literally have no idea what the fuck he did and how.
There was not so recent study where listeners preferred standardized target over personal HRTF tuned ones. One of the reason was their methodology for personal tuning which was less than ideal. It can easily be the case with oratory.
>If the goal is adherence to DFHRTF, then yes as long as that DFHRTF has said peak.
But it depends tho hens all the questions I asked already.

>>109565666
What’s your point about using speakers? With speakers, you'll experience frontal HRTF peaks and dips rather than a diffuse sound field. Also, you'll rely on your auditory memory, which is known to be quite poor. IEMs are considered a meme because HRTF measurements are taken at the entrance of the ear canal rather than at the eardrum, making this data useless for IEMs.

>>109565636
I'm not wondering that at all, but I appreciate your concern.

>>109565770
>What do we know about oratory except that he said so? fucking NOTHING.
This can also be said about headphones.com, I don't see why you are drawing a line between both when they don't show evidence, methodologies, etc.
>Why the fuck is he vagueposting lol?
Because listening tests are protected IP that cost a lot of money and so sharing the results is not allowed.
>But also rigs we have have averaged DFs and also do not have weirdo peaks.
Rigs do have strange DFHRTF features, they are just smoothed out because the fine details are not useful for most applications. Human DFHRTFs are also very variable with strange peaks and dips everywhere.
>Do we actually need to pay attention to them that much?
Probably not. Localization research is basically converging on "if HRTF matching is not perfect, go with pop avg". Failing to get perfect DFHRTF matching for an individual is usually worse than just going with an average.
>No I read what he said it actually doesn't mean anything at all because we literally have no idea what the fuck he did and how.
He made the in-situ response match the listener's DFHRTF, then made them listen to sweeps. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
>One of the reason was their methodology for personal tuning which was less than ideal.
Yes, and he's the one (with Blaine) that developed the in-ear microphones for the headphones.com team that they used to get their HRTFs measured.
The main problems for most HRTF databases is the use of blocked canal mics, improper placement, and inconsistent data sets.

>>109565715
>Just EQ with sine sweep
That's what we are talking about lol
Tho giving tone gens to retarded normies can as we all know from owliophile example lead to deafness so it's also kinda irresponsible for headphones.com to do so without a proper guide.

File: 1769823386181602.png (37 KB, 902x451)

37 KB PNG

I exclusively rely on sine waves to eq my iems, because for me it just works. picrel is an eq preset for one of my iems. when comparing eq vs no-eq with music, I prefer the music with the eq.

>>109565883
what kind of company names their pos base line lmao fucking retards

>>109565780
>What’s your point about using speakers
Speakers are a reference for music. If you are listening to music without reference how do you know it sounds correct? From training? Inherently so? lol no
>Also, you'll rely on your auditory memory, which is known to be quite poor.
While this is correct I kinda think this idea is overblown and not that relevant.
I pretty much immediately hear if I'm using wrong fucked up EQ (if windows fucked up my audio drivers after an update or whatever). Is it my auditory memory that is poor? no.
>IEMs are considered a meme because HRTF measurements are taken at the entrance of the ear canal rather than at the eardrum, making this data useless for IEMs.
well yeah

>>109565548
What's the solution?

File: IMG_20251030_193511.jpg (1.77 MB, 4000x5333)

1.77 MB JPG

>>109565933
Fox.

We all agree that EQ is a good thing. Mandatory even.
But what if we don't just EQ per POS, but EQ per song?
Some kind of dynamic EQ.

Thoughts?

>>109565600
You haven't even figured out 2 channel music yet, hush.

>>109565947
or just listen to the objectively best song
my pick?
ear licking asmr track #41

>>109565947
Of course. 109565883 is my global system eq (when using this particular iem), and in my music player I have an adjustable tilt (basically a broad highshelf at 1 kHz), to reduce brightness of bright recordings.

>>109565883
In my experience sine waves are good for finding and fixing peaks and valleys. But they do a lot less for the overall shape of the tuning once I've smoothed out the flaws. If the tuning was okay to begin with this is fine. But otherwise I either have to raise or lower large areas like <800, ~2000-4000, ~4000-6000, and >6000 while listening to music to adjust that. Or I can put an IEM I like the tuning of in one ear and the one I'm trying to fix in the other ear, and adjust EQ with sines on the one until the tone stays in the center all the way up and down.

>>109565982
I agree, I actually have a fifth filter on the eq preset which is a low shelf, which is impossible to set with a sine sweep, instead I set this one while listening to actual music.

>>109565844
>This can also be said about headphones.com, I don't see why you are drawing a line between both when they don't show evidence, methodologies, etc.
Why are you saying that? Like maybe in a strict sense they did not provide a proper paper with all the above mentioned. But they did explain what they did and why. They did show measurements of their HRTF, say what kind of preference bounds they are using, provide on head measurements etc.
Like what do you want from them? They think DFHRTF EQed headphones sounds mostly flat on sweep and that EQing out peaks will in general lead to good results.
In latest video listener even said that doing so might fuck up techs for some lol. You can always turn EQ off...
Meanwhile oratory is just a reddit post and half of your position isn't even from him. He didn't say anything about headphones.com DFHRTF being flat or it being a funny coincidence.
I imagine there's a magnitude of reasons why peaks can or can not be reliably heard.
>Because listening tests are protected IP that cost a lot of money and so sharing the results is not allowed.
FUCK US then I guess? No public data = opinion discarded by default but frankly his opinion is not even that different from headphones.com. He's just saying to EQ with music or pink noise while tone gen is useful to detect peaks.
>He made the in-situ response match the listener's DFHRTF
how?
>then made them listen to sweeps.
AND? "not reliably flat" meaning sometimes they heard it as flat but sometimes not? how reliable was it? not at all? somewhat? What headphones were used? Do they influence anything? etc.
Everything he said is pretty unusable outside of general "also use music" advice which nobody is arguing against.
>Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
It's less that I don't understand and more that there's pretty much zero info in these statements.

>>109565947
I EQ more per genre. I use the separate speaker/user EQ feature on the Qudelix 5K and have the speaker EQ get it to something roughly neutral. Then I have user EQs that do things like make it V or W shaped for pop or rock, put a lot of bass for EDM, or roll off the highs for spoken-word stuff like podcasts that are often recorded with a mic that makes the highs sound peaky and grating.

>>109565933
More research. Active systems.

>>109565947
Most popular music apps allow EQ per song/album/genre

>>109566032
For what, head tracking and spatial audio?

Are DFHRTF related peaks in the room with us right now?

>>109566041
For preferred IEM tuning and ways to preserve it inside an ear canal
>head tracking and spatial audio
sure that too

I bought some Tanchjim One IEMs last year, and I loved them to pieces, literally. they just quit out on me a little while ago. I went back to the aliexpress listing but it was all sold out, and I cant seem to find them again. what the heck happened? they were so comfortable, anything else with a similar shape? do I just go with the zero? I hate having a mic in the cable but if that's the next best thing I have no other option I suppose.

>>109566022
>They did show measurements of their HRTF [...] provide on head measurements etc
Where? From what I remember, they explicitly have not shown their DFHRTFs and only use it for on-head compensation.
>They think DFHRTF EQed headphones sounds mostly flat on sweep and that EQing out peaks will in general lead to good results.
Right, that's fine. What I'm not keen on is them basing their whole EQ methodology around this when all of their past recommendations have been more strict.
>In latest video listener even said that doing so might fuck up techs for some lol. You can always turn EQ off...
Unrelated, off-topic
>Meanwhile oratory is just a reddit post and half of your position isn't even from him. He didn't say anything about headphones.com DFHRTF being flat or it being a funny coincidence.
His replies are directly addressing the use of tone gen and its validity for EQ purposes. Please stay on track.
>FUCK US then I guess? No public data = opinion discarded by default but frankly his opinion is not even that different from headphones.com. He's just saying to EQ with music or pink noise while tone gen is useful to detect peaks.
This comes down to an ideological and professional difference between you and I so we can leave it at that. The same criticism however should also be applied to the headphones.com team.
And again, stay on topic, I did not say oratory said that.
>AND? "not reliably flat" meaning sometimes they heard it as flat but sometimes not? how reliable was it? not at all? somewhat? What headphones were used? Do they influence anything? etc.
Again, this comes down to differences in belief/experience. I believe oratory and have seen his expertise in guiding the headphones.com team, so I expect him to also have the same or higher level of standard when doing similar tests in a professional environment.
Is this foolish? Maybe, but I have yet to see any of his claims be falsified, precisely because he has a lot of caution when addressing such topics.

>>109566084
hm maybe wait a bit? Clankers say they were not discontinued but who knows
>do I just go with the zero
tuning looks significantly different

>>109566084
they are officially discontinued
they have other bullets but one was ahead of its time desu

>>109566129
damn, that's upsetting. is there anything else with a similar shape? I had some final E series but they just weren't that comfortable.
>>109566120
Honestly I'm not super picky with the tuning, the shape and feel is really what I'm after.

>>109566154
their zero ultima is pretty similar

>>109565975
>schizo fox ramblings
no dude, go yell nonsense somewhere else

80-90% or so of people who listen to iems or headphones regularly are deaf or will be soon. very sad but it is what it is. particularly egregious how absent this knowledge is in the non-shitbud segments generally. i tried telling my brother to eq all his (garbage obviously) kilobuck sets but he just looked at me like i was retarded or something. i concluded he's already deaf

>>109566161
alright, I'll check them out. thanks.

>>109566103
>Where? From what I remember, they explicitly have not shown their DFHRTFs and only use it for on-head compensation.
Why do you want to see them so much??? Are you some kind of pervert??? LOL
https://youtu.be/zksVBQwAIBw?t=782
it's in the new video.
>What I'm not keen on is them basing their whole EQ methodology around this when all of their past recommendations have been more strict.
TO BE FAIR People been using sine sweeps for years regardless. Because they simply just work most of the times. Are they being a bit careless with their advice? Maybe?
>Unrelated, off-topic
It is related in a sense that they aren't telling anybody to strictly EQ shit out and be done with it lol. It's more like a suggestion.
>His replies are directly addressing the use of tone gen and its validity for EQ purposes. Please stay on track.
Sure
>Useful to find the frequency of a peak or dip (and to some extent to find the bandwidth), but not useful in finding out whether that peak should be removed or not, and/or by how much it should be reduced (if at all).
Sounds like it's pretty valid even in his opinion.
>Again, this comes down to differences in belief/experience.
>I believe oratory
You see I DO NOT BELIEVE anybody. And by the way I don't even doubt what he's saying at all.
But we simply know much more about headphones.com methodology even with their small (4) sample of people. Because we know exactly 0 about oratory's sample sizes or methodologies.
Did he actually measure DFHRTFs just like headphones.com did but with A LOT MORE people? No? Yes? Maybe?
>but I have yet to see any of his claims be falsified, precisely because he has a lot of caution when addressing such topics.
>0 public data
>claims not falsified
wow I wonder why it's a mystery

https://youtu.be/4cDgzCZOtLc
HERE IT IS BOISSSSSS

>>109566188
Watch how real people discuss audio and learn, nigga.

>>109563743
whats battery like? i thnik i get like 40 hours out of myy modded 5g

>>109566197
well yes
https://aao-hnsfjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1177/0194599813496044a247
>This study identified that the use of earphones may affect the relationship between music exposure dose and NIHL at high frequency. To preserve hearing, teenage students should avoid using earphones to listen music for long periods of time.
https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Zif46moP_ugJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=ko&as_sdt=0,5
now if only they EQed out all the PEAKS.

Here's a question for you... Can a DFHRTF-related treble peak still damage hearing?
HMMM? HMMMMM?

>>109566290
it was real in your head

>>109566317
yes that would have prevented most or all of it. very sad

>>109566253
I do not have an ear fetish but I salute my brothers and sisters that do.
Anyways thanks for the link. You can see that their DFHRTFs are not flat. If they decide to release OC-EEP HpTFs with their methodologies then that would seal the deal, but they haven't (yet?) so I would be cautious.
>TO BE FAIR People been using sine sweeps for years regardless. Because they simply just work most of the times. Are they being a bit careless with their advice? Maybe?
People using them for years is not a proper point, we have seen what people without training/know-how have made, it's not good a lot of times.
>It is related in a sense that they aren't telling anybody to strictly EQ shit out and be done with it lol. It's more like a suggestion.
Sure, but the context of this whole discussion is around EQ, tone gen, and "correctness" w.r.t DFHRTF. I agree with him, I personally don't really care about perfection.
>Sounds like it's pretty valid even in his opinion.
Yes, and I have also said the same.
>And by the way I don't even doubt what he's saying at all.
Sure, I think this comes down to an ideological difference between us, no right or wrong.
>Did he actually measure DFHRTFs just like headphones.com did but with A LOT MORE people? No? Yes? Maybe?
Given personal discussions with him, most likely yes. He is surrounded by a lot of acoustic research infrastructure, I remember he mentioned the very very high cost of renting out HRTF measurement spaces for other tests at his work.

>>109565943
damn i wanted this braixen fig, my preorder was cancelled. so much smaller than i thought itd be

>>109566273
Is this why you fags are talking about MEMs

also oratory mentioned

The answer is yes btw if HRTF-related peak can be heard on a sine sweep (allegedly) and if it is prominent enough that it warrants EQ... you should EQ it because it still can be damaging because as literally who from reddit (not oratory) said
>People may be expecting a similar perceptual compensation to happen for pure tones based on their DF-HRTF, which of course doesn't happen; you simply hear pure tones at the level they reach your inner-ear, regardless of what contributed to the gain.
I'd say it is not proven it if does or doesn't happen (even if oratory agreed with it).

imagine viewing paint by numbers as an absolute necessity because it's the most 'correct' and simply being a good painter just doesn't cut it

I'm pretty sure IEMs arent great for your health. I was thinking about this when I read this paper about how the hum of ACs and such raises blood pressure. Headphone bros might be right. I feel less cortisol or blood pressure and stress not wearing iems

File: IMG_20210628_030007.jpg (123 KB, 1170x1129)

123 KB JPG

I swear even the last 5 years of /iemg/ people generally agreed EQ is cope. What the fuck happened to you faggots in the last 3 months? Get it together. Don't feed schizo.

That shill video was very effective. I'm thinking of getting the moondrop silicon as an upgrade from the novas. Talk me out of it

>>109566552
Hmm I give this take... exactly 60 IQ

>>109566565
>EQ is cope
eq is there to cope with unwanted resonances, because iems block the ear canal. imagine just accepting this situation

>>109566587
I dunno bro... it looks pretty good... I'd get it if I didn't have daybreaks already... tho maybe I will still get it regardless

>>109566565
>I swear even the last 5 years of /iemg/ people generally agreed EQ is cope.
cool fanfic

>>109566595
nah bro my resonances fir perfectly into my DFHRTF dips so it's a skill issue on your end

File: 1780608072790101.jpg (796 KB, 2000x2188)

796 KB JPG

>>109566608
kek

SAAR I NEED TO EQ EVEN THOUGH I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THE EQ IS CORRECT OR NOT TUNAK TUNAK HEY TADADA

>>109566565
we just didnt notice peaks raping our eardrums day and day out back then. eqing everything is essential

>>109566593
you can't even count to 60.

>>109566715
Said the guy that can't count to 2.

>>109566719
>*hands over concession*
you got me. I feel...battered. embarrased.

>>109566692
Eqing to peqdb diamond is the most correct saar, 800 gigamutts said so.

>>109565947
Music always sounds good, no need to touch it. If your IEM can't even handle music throw it in the trash. Making noise and sweeps sound good is the real challenge.

Is Truthear Nova still good?

>>109566935
Ofc, it follows the Harman IE 2019 target

>>109566947
Is it the Shartmanest among Shartmans?

>>109566935
No, Premogged by EM6L

>>109566935
Yes. Haven't found a reason to upgrade, despite having tried a lot more expensive iems at an audio store near my place.

File: graph.png (244 KB, 2400x1080)

244 KB PNG

>>109566984
Doubt.

>>109566994
Great, I think of buying it used for cheap. What eartips are the best for the Nova?

>>109567004
Literally yes lmfao. How do you post graphs while simultaneously being unable to infer that Nova is thin sounding pos?

>>109567034
How is that relevant to being the most Shartman among Shartmans? Of course shartman is thin.

>>109566984
>>109567034
>>109567056
never mind, I'm a retard, I mistook one citation with another

>>109567018
I like it with spinfit W1s for comfort, I'm not a basshead. But keep in mind Nova's nozzle doesn't have a ridge, so some tips could fall off. The only tip that does that right now for me is Final Audio. Also Nova's nozzles are pretty wide, so if you have small ear canals it could be an issue. Ppl say use foam tips but I never did like how foams sound.

chu 3 doesnt seem to have replaceable nozzle filters
yuki wtf are you doing !!!!!!

File: crazy.png (122 KB, 608x618)

122 KB PNG

I can't follow headpos show logic. Let's just think for a second. Most of the music lives in the bass and mids (20-2k), and your HRTF is only helpful above that. On top of that, no one likes raw DF, so you'd need to tweak it with a tilt, which puts you back to square one in subjectivity as it's taste related.

After all your effort and hours of EQing, if you move the headphone back and forth near it, it completely messes up the EQ in the treble. What's the point???

>>109567160
Sir... planned obsolescence is the new meta. The nozzle will clog, and then you buy another one.

>>109566563
might be true. my peepee doesn't get hard anymore after exclusively using iems

>>109567034
>unable to infer that Nova is thin sounding pos
NTA, how are you able to infer “thin” from a graph while assuming all audio has enough information in that frequency range to have some objective “thickness” for the IEM to reproduce?

>>109567169
>Most of the music lives in the bass and mids (20-2k)
yeah dumbass go put a -6 dB shelf above 4k and tell me how much music lives there.
>After all your effort and hours of EQing, if you move the headphone back and forth near it, it completely messes up the EQ in the treble. What's the point???
..don't move it then?

>That's because the diffuse-field curve of your head will show peaks - and in the absence of a reference (e.g. when listening to a sine sweep), it's sometimes possible for trained listeners to perceive those peaks.
>SOMETIMES possible
>for TRAINED listeners
>to perceive
Methinks normal human has no chance and should just EQ out all the loud peaks. Because it looks like there's no downsides after all and headphones.com are right.

File: images.jpg (23 KB, 516x387)

23 KB JPG

>>109567497
>yeah dumbass go put a -6 dB shelf above 4k and tell me how much music lives there.
Just a tad darker, there's very little energy above 4k compared to 20-2k. My point is that adjusting the bass and mids is equally important, and you don't need your HRTF for that. Above that, sibilance or a peak might show up, which is easy to correct.
>..don't move it then?
It's not a pos, hp moves more easily when tilting your head or adjusting the headband clicks, or after a reseat.

how many hours of un-eq'd listening is considered safe before permanent damage becomes likely? i know there are no guidelines yet but just looking to get your feel on it. my brother insists his stock iems sound fine and i worry the damage is already done. trying to call him but he's turned off his phone now