• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

IEM soundstage and imaging ever a question?

Flint

Prodigal Son
Superstar
I am pleased to see journalists writing reviews from the big audio shows so I can get an idea of what is coming out in an area I love to play within. But sometimes they discuss characteristics of a product in a way which makes no sense whatsoever. Take a reviews of Audeze's new iSine 10 IEM on the website The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/4/12791374/audeze-isine-10-hands-on-preview-ifa-2016

In the article he sets up the review by stating he didn't expect the fixed-magnet planer IEMs to perform well, but was surprised when he heard them, stating:

"Their soundstage is broad, their imaging’s precise, and their range extension, from deep sub-bass to high end treble, is outstanding."

Well, I am glad he liked them, but how does one IEM compare to any other IEM in terms "Soundstage" and "Imaging"? Those two terms refer to how well a reproducing transducer can give a sense of 3D space to the playback of a stereo signal and are typically used with loudspeakers in rooms where measurable characteristics such as power response, dispersion, and such play a huge role. Likewise, setup, placement, and room acoustics play a huge role in the soundstage and imaging. With any headphone, the sound is directed from each transducer to each ear without any crosstalk or dispersion characteristics. The sound enters the ear canal unaffected by any of the anomalies which can impact soundstage or imaging (by the way, both terms are practically identical in meaning, though one gets used more for the left to right blending of a stereo signal and the other is often used for how some stuff sounds further away, or even vertically placed).

So, to me at least, using terms like "soundstage" and "imaging" as two of the three redeeming characteristics of a pair of IEMs leads me to believe the author is not very good at communicating (maybe English isn't his first language), or perhaps he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and cannot be trusted at all. Either way, the rest of the review is now questionable for me. How do I trust what he is saying is reflective in what actually happened, or what the IEMs sound like.

So, convince me I am wrong in this judgement.
 
Last edited:
If the program material used some sort of "virtual surround" that tricks the ear into thinking there are sounds outside the left-right plane, that might explain what he heard. But I would hope reviewers would be aware of the characteristics of the program material they're using - if not, they should find a less challenging occupation.
 
Flint, all I can say is that, in my opinion, there *is* some discernible difference in "soundstage" (I use that word too, I admit) when comparing various headphones or IEMs. It's slight, especially when comparing the larger (to me) difference in this same thing between different models of speakers. Mostly I've focused on headphones, but I think the principle is the same with IEMs. Yes, despite the lack of room involvement in the acoustics, there can still be a difference in imaging precision, separation of instruments, apparent width and depth - all of these being together what I mean by "soundstage" - between different headphones. And, I would venture to suggest, between different headphone amplifiers or even tube types/brands in a tube amp (though again the order of magnitude of these differences becomes even smaller).

Ok you can flame me now.
 
there can still be a difference in imaging precision, separation of instruments, apparent width and depth - all of these being together what I mean by "soundstage" - between different headphones.

I accept the notion that separation of instruments and apparent depth of field could be different between different headphones.

I don't believe that imaging precision can truly exist, in this case. The perception of imaging precision due to there being more precision in the detail and accuracy of the instruments, or sounds, may be different, but that, to me, is precision (accuracy), not imaging.

Apparent width could occur due to better matched left & right drivers and better matched phase performance since most DSP induced width enhancement is done with phase manipulation (as mentioned above). But, for me, that is a "could make a difference" thing and not consistent.

There are hundreds of reasons IEMs will sound different and make it easy to prefer one over another. But I struggle with the concept that of the first three that come to mind, Soundstage and Imaging are included. I think frequency balance, detail, separation of sounds, attack, decay, dynamics, and so on would be higher on the list. This author listed Soundstage, Imaging, and Bass & Treble extension and only one belongs in the three he chose to use as indicators these IEMs were not crap.

In the article he gets into the other important aspects of IEMs, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
I don't believe that imaging precision can truly exist, in this case.
Why not? Your implicit assertion is then that "imaging" (I'm still not exactly sure how you distinguish this from "soundstage") is a function *only* of room acoustics, and nothing else. At least, that's how I read it. But why should that be the case?

In my opinion, the "better matched" issue that you mention is the key, that when the sound signal from the left and right transducers is as close as possible to the input electronic signal, the imaging will be more precise, the soundstage broader/deeper, etc. So the less random distortion, noise, whatever, in the entire chain (DAC, amplification, transduction), the better the overall soundstage.

Honestly I think this is a separate issue from frequency response per se. Does imaging suffer if there's a 0.5dB dip at 1000Hz? I would venture to say, no, not as long as the same response is present in both channels. You may not like the overall tone/timbre if this is the case, but I don't think there's a direct relationship between frequency response and soundstage/imaging.
 
My comprehension of the term, "Imaging", is that it is the way we perceive the perceived placement of sounds between the left and right ear. The nature of the way we "locate" a sound is how it arrives at one ear before it arrives at the second and the loudness in one ear versus the other ear. If two IEMs have very similar sonic characteristics, which I would expect from any decent pair of IEMs that cost more than, say, $100, then how can one set of IEMs have different imaging than another set of IEMs? The difference in loudness and arrival time in the ear will be identical regardless of the model of the IEM.

I do acknowledge that the performance of each channel in a given pair of IEMs is crucial to my argument above. But I have confidence that most, if not all, quality IEMs exhibit that consistency.
 
I do acknowledge that the performance of each channel in a given pair of IEMs is crucial to my argument above. But I have confidence that most, if not all, quality IEMs exhibit that consistency.

That's the thing. I do not share your confidence. ;) I think the precision of the imaging, as you describe it, is just as dependent on the critical matching between channels as any of the other stuff we've mentioned. As I said, perhaps the difference from one model of headphone/IEM to another is less in this regard than between speakers, but that's not to say it's not perceptible. With careful listening, which clearly you don't do and I'm far superior at. :moon:
 
That's the thing. I do not share your confidence. ;) I think the precision of the imaging, as you describe it, is just as dependent on the critical matching between channels as any of the other stuff we've mentioned. As I said, perhaps the difference from one model of headphone/IEM to another is less in this regard than between speakers, but that's not to say it's not perceptible. With careful listening, which clearly you don't do and I'm far superior at. :moon:

It seems to me that you have spent far too much time reading and giving credence to the moronic stupidities of the headphone arrogance club where people will tell you want you can expect to hear using subtle language which seems to make sense but is, in fact, pseudo-science babble meant to impress one another. Mister self-ascribed smart guy claims that he hears X and his audio-ignorant wife hears it, too. Then, no one is brave enough to question him and instead they claim to hear X as well. This self-aggrandizement and group-think fantasy world is fine and can be quite fun, but it clearly has turned you into another snobberifficly arrogant pseudo-expert who thinks you can hear things where nothing is there to hear.

Or... maybe I am completely wrong. What the hell do I know?
 
:rofl:

Flint, in truth I think you and I *do* listen for different things. You clearly have a more trained ear than I do in terms of frequency response. And that is consequently more important to you, and TBH this is what you continually tout as the most important thing in a transducer (speakers, headphones, IEMs). I'm not disagreeing that it's important, but I submit that frequency response, for other folks like me, is of secondary importance when compared to imaging/soundstage (or matching of signals in both channels, which ultimately I think is *exactly* the same thing). It is the latter that I focus on whenever I am evaluating a speaker or headphone system, because I simply don't have the training to know whether the frequency response is flat or not. Especially with headphones, where objective measurements of frequency response are *FAR* from flat, making objective evaluation of that rather difficult.
 
That's a good point, but would disagree with your assessment about what I listen for and consider most important. Most important to me is the ability to completely lose myself in the music. The ability to do that, for me, is to hear all the instruments and distinguish them as much as the artist intended, to experience an all encompassing soundfield - depth, width, etc. - and to not be distracted by any glaring issues in playback, like a harsh top end that gives me listening fatigue, or a overly boomy bass which overpowers the other sounds. I talk about frequency response quite often because I believe that is the most glaring problem with most decent systems - those two I just listed by far holding the top honors of distractions from the ethereal escape from human form where the mind, or rather, the soul can float away in the music.

So, I do listen for all the things you listen for, I just know from formal training, extensive research and decades of personal experience what usually causes those things to work or not work.

But.... what is very often different from me and most people (and I acknowledge I am far from the norm) is that I want to experience exactly what is in the recording without any form of alteration. I don't want to make it more smooth or more soft or more punchy or more detailed than what left the studio or mastering room. Even shitty recordings can be engaging and magical if the music and experience speaks to my soul - like the crappy garage punk of the early 1980s, or the fake synth pop of the 1980s, or the dead and groovy synth-space music of the Eurotrash movement of the 2000s.

I respect that many want to make the music sound the way they prefer - to make a modern recording sound like their favorite Moody Blues album, you know, the one that completely blew your mind when you first heard it and defined in you what it means to transcend into a musical world without boundaries? Yeah, I get it. It is just isn't for me.
 
I want to experience exactly what is in the recording without any form of alteration.
Aye, there's the rub. I agree with this general goal, but how do we *know* what we're hearing is as close to the recording as possible? None of us were in the rooms at the time of the recordings, so we can never truly, objectively, know this. We can only infer it by overall training, average listening experience over many, many recordings and transducer systems. That takes time and careful attention, and is ultimately subject to individual human idiosyncrasies, which is why the audio world is such a mess. In my opinion.
 
Aye, there's the rub. I agree with this general goal, but how do we *know* what we're hearing is as close to the recording as possible? None of us were in the rooms at the time of the recordings, so we can never truly, objectively, know this. We can only infer it by overall training, average listening experience over many, many recordings and transducer systems. That takes time and careful attention, and is ultimately subject to individual human idiosyncrasies, which is why the audio world is such a mess. In my opinion.

I believe there is a certain amount we can do to ensure our playback systems are as distortion free as possible. Frequency response is one easy aspect to comprehend and address. But we can also address room acoustics to eliminate egregious reflections, echoes, standing waves, and reverb. We can address THD and IMD with the gear we buy. We can reduce phase issues, work on left/right symmetry, cut noise, and so on. We can attempt to get accurate dynamics (as you recall I sold off my amazing speakers to some schlub to make more dynamic speakers with better baffle acoustics properties). All of things, which I have discussed extensively for this very reason, are aspects of creating an accurate reproduction system.

Knowing that we have addressed those relatively simple "distortions" to the sound helps us get closer to the original source sound. The final step would be to visit one of the studios where the final master was created.

I have the honor of being in the studio when the sounds were being engineered for thousands of songs we still hear today. In some cases I was part of the decision process to define the sound. So, I am blessed in that way. I know exactly what certain pop-rock hits from 1985 to 1997 should sound like, so I have a reference to work from. Since then I have been lucky enough to visit other studios and mastering suites merely as a guest to hear the music as it was made or when it was finished. I've even had artists come to my place and listen to their work on my systems (both the one I tricked some moron into buying and my current one). That is what helps me determine what I consider accurate. That is also why more than half the tunes on my brilliant and amazing speaker demo CDs are on my brilliant and amazing speaker demo CDs.

So, how do we know what accurate is? We learn to listen. We visit friends with systems based on great studios. We take tours of studios. We attend live performances more often. And we stop listening to the gear and start listening to the music (Pauly, I know you already do this, but many don't).

But then, I am some crazy old fart. Why listen to me?
 
And, of course, this hobby is plagued by immense limitations, trade-offs, and barriers to perfection. We all must make audio choices within our budgets. We don't necessarily have dedicated rooms. We often simply don't have the time, skills, and patience to make it all happen. So we need to make the most impactful choices we can. This is when I start mocking people who cannot, or will not, address the acoustics issues in their homes and instead spend thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars rotating insanely over-engineered power amplifiers or AC power conditioners in and out of their rigs.
 
Frequency response is one easy aspect to comprehend and address.
I guess one of my points is that this isn't that easy, especially with headphones. Yeah with speakers we can do measurements. And I firmly believe that gathering experience with speakers and these measurements - both what they can and can't tell us - has helped me to be able to evaluate headphones. But your OP was that a headphone evaluation that didn't talk about frequency response was total bunk (or maybe I'm reading too much between the lines there?). Maybe true, but I think if you're coming from just the headphone world, it's a whole lot harder to know and discuss what flat frequency response sounds like.
 
Jesus

You guys turn listening to music into an exercise. Why not just get a decent set of speakers or headphones, address the biggest acoustic issues within the constraints of your budget and WAF, and play some tunes?
 
There's no time for that shit with all this critical listening to be done.
 
But seriously, the reason I do the "exercise" is that (as Flint said as well) once I have that part done, I can more easily slip into just the music. Because knowing I've done all I can do to optimize the system I have within its constraints, actually helps me to relax. If that makes any sense.
 
I have learned that once you exhaust all reasonable options to get great sound, every time you turn it on, you simply enjoy it.

Remember all the posts about my work? When's the last time I added new info or talked about upgrades or new settings?
I just sit and enjoy it.
 
Back
Top