DQ6 < FD5.
I3 Pro is probably below DQ6.
1 Like
IEMās donāt really do good soundstage but if I had to pick one then Z1R only because of itās cathedral like presentation which in itās self is amazing considering it comes from two transducers stuffed in your ears lol.
Have people seen this video from Michael Bruce? Can you measure IEM soundstage 3D/Depth? Maybe so! - YouTube. Thereās an associated head-fi thread: Can A Graph show IEM Soundstage: maybe so! | Page 2 | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org.
I think the theory is intriguing and may be relatively robust. The one glaring exception if IER-Z1R, which doesnāt have much of a 10k dip in the FR. It does, however, have a dip way out in 15k region, so if we use that valley, then the theory still holds.
Thoughts?
That theory has one big fundamental flaw.
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/1445
Those graphs arent accurate over 10k+.
This was published in 2010 - has the recording technology remained unchanged in the last decade?
Ah ok, so this is an international standard for manufacturers. Itās not that occluded-ear simulator couplers are inaccurate ofer 10+ kHz - rather, it says the device does not simulate a human ear, but can be used as an acoustic coupler. So it can measure sound frequencies, we just donāt know how that would translate to a human hearing experience. That doesnāt mean you cannot compare IEM FR graphs, especially if the measurements were done by the same person with the same rig (e.g., sticking with MRS for now).
Another way of investigating this is with EQ. Iāve read that someone EQed the Timeless @ 10 kHz and perceived an increase in depth. Perhaps folks with IEMs that respond particularly well to EQ could try this out?
If you adjust the balance between left and right thatās not really going to do anything to stage, it might shift your perception of it (which likely your ears will adapt to and it will slowly become normal again), but itās not going to add or subtract or improve accuracy or coherency inside that stage unless the iem was somewhat fucked to begin with which the mass majority arenāt. Sure you can pan a specific track inside a mix to make it seem like itās in a different location, but thereās so much more to that when it comes to creating actual stage and spatiality. You could also add some overall eq to a track to suck out a specific area to give it the illusion of more space, but itās just that, an illusion and it wears off quick. Itās more a physical limitation of the driver and the design, no amount of eq can really change that fwiw. Also a combination of the upstream source gear, along with the actual recording itself. If the recording doesnāt have stage to start with, you arenāt really going to get it in the rest of the chain. Same thing with if your dac or amp canāt properly recreate stage, neither really can the transducer, but again these all play a varying role of importance
EQ can affect stage but moreso due to signal degradation and itās typically seldom positive at least from my experience (basically time distortion, typically collapses stage and fucks phase a bit), but it depends on the quality of the eq and how heavy you lay it on, but itās always going to be there in some extent. Most of spatial recreation lies in the time domain from my experience, so if anything if you really wanted to start to look into graphs for spatial recreation Iād rather start looking into CSD rather than just FR. But either way Iām of the opinion that a graph wonāt tell you anything about spatial recreation, itās just something thatās not really been discovered how to measure yet, and I donāt really think it would be hiding in a graph that doesnāt emphasize time domain (if you were looking into how to measure dimensionality, why would you use a graph or method that only really fundamentally covers only a single dimension?). But IDK, Iām not a designer or researcher, Iām just going off my personal experience on things, everything in audio is much more complicated than it seems, everything interacts with each other, so pinning any aspect on one specific metric likely isnāt all the way there
2 Likes
The OP from the screenshot adjusted one channel because Timeless is known to have channel imbalance issues (blame QC). By matching the channels, the OP got back to the 10kHz dip that should give the perception of a large soundstage. Itās not really left right EQing but not fixing the imbalance.
I am of course not saying that this theory is a bulletproof method of gauging soundstage; however, it will be fun and potentially useful if we continue to add to the data. If I have some free time, Iāll share a googlesheet with the calculations. I think it held true for most of the IEMs mentioned in this thread.
So thatās only in relation to the timeless then, with headphones/iems that have proper channel matching itās not relevant?
Of course, nothing is really bulletproof for any of this stuff anyways
Gotcha, itās all about perception of course. I think this is really just a case of correlation does not imply causation though. I just think if fr truly was the only or main thing deciding stage, we would have figured that out long ago and things would be very different from how they are now
1 Like
Can you graph soundstageā¦
The coupler everyone is using, is using that standard.
Right, but did you read my full response? Doesnāt actually say 10+ kHz readings are inaccurate - just that itās not reflective of human hearing. Doesnāt mean itās not detecting an appreciable difference between IEM FR.
I find it an interesting theory. Guess Iāll compile that spreadsheet and see how the data stacks up.
Folks, feel free to share IEMs with limited soundstages so I can include both ends of the spectrum!
1 Like
is the EJ07 still king?
1 Like
Thummim takes some beating by all accounts not heard it myself but @M0N owned a set or still owns them so maybe he can give his opinion on their soundstage?
yes, it is! 
1 Like
So I donāt know if Iād consider the thummim the biggest, but it is one of the most interesting Iāve heard in presentation, itās incredibly spherical around the head and very holographic, not super natural, but really interesting and still very precise. It reminds me of how the focal headphones stage somewhat, just one of the things that really is the most standout about that iem. Itās still pretty damn big for an iem, although I think something like a traillii for example might offer a bit more raw width but really lacks some of the specialness and involvement of the mmr stage, but I would say the traillii is more organic in itās staging
2 Likes
I own both and they are different I have not listened recently . I will do that sometime soon.
So I found this very interesting and decided to do my own experiment and found the results very interesting!
What I used:
- a pair of IEMs I know (Olina for me)
- Song: Hell Freezes Over - Hotel California
- A way to PEQ
What I did:
Set up a peak band filter at 10.0k and cranked the gain up and down between +15db and -15db for 10-15 seconds at a time. Preamp was at +2db and Q at 6 (no real reason I chose those values)
What I noticed:
When the gain was raised in the 10k region I heard the smaller percussion instruments more and the whole thing felt flatish with a āwall of soundā feel
When I lowered the gain down to -15db some of those instruments became completely veiled and there was more negative space which allowed me to here more separation between the major instruments (vocals, guitars) as well as allow me to pinpoint the smaller percussion in the background. This gave me a much bigger sense of space and I could feel the depth of the stage a lot more (although width and height didnt change for me). Imaging suffered a bit due to the heightened background noise.
I just tested on this one song so other songs may not notice as much of a difference but I would imagine they would follow the same trend
2 Likes
ā¦ā¦ā¦. Yea, not that bad 
Listening to Amber Rubarthās Sessions from the 17th Ward and the Z1Rās still catch me out with their amazing soundstageā¦eyeballs rolling around like where wtf did that come from 
1 Like