The definitions states that a bump in the x Hz range will cause property Y (in this case, x = 10k, Y = sparkle which isn't defined in the glossary yet IDK why)? The question is, in relativity to what? We need an objective definition, not a generalization that may or may not hold true in all aspects. That is what I'm getting at. With respect to a flat frequency, the statements all hold true. Take a look at the graph below. There is a major bump at the 10k range (from ~6.5k and up; bump is about 6 dB), I'm more than certain you won't get too much "sparkle" with this though as the rest of the frequency spectrum will overrun it... Then the question becomes, how much can it be overrun before the property doesn't hold (The answer to this shouldn't be a single number for all frequencies; rather a function in terms of frequencies...).
It's a sound in a specific frequency just as sibilance, as simple as that. Relative to the other frequencies of the IEM, usually measurements are aligned from 1k, db dips or peaks which are based from this reference point. It's a sound in a specific frequency, it always hold true. Now, the degree of how much sparkle the IEM has and how is perceived is subjective, but that doesn't change the objective rating of the mesurement. It's like finding exact sweetness level of a drink, it's objective, but the perceptions of humans vary because of their objective nature, that doesn't mean the objective rating is all of a sudden losing it's objectivity. That graph you showed portrays an IEM with a pretty big dip in the 10k, sparkle range. There is a bump which helps the dip, but the 10k region is still dipped/subdued despite the bump. Sparkle is always there, but I guess it can be taken over to a point where it's barely audible, pointless though.
OK, maybe this was a bit of a cheap shot at the definition. But a lot is left open for discussion with the definition (this is a legal counter-example). What is a bump specifically? Is there a bump at the ~16 kHz range? How can we reform the definition of "sparkle" to not include this example? This is what I meant when I said the definitions need to be reworked to account for
every case. When the definitions in the glossary were created, they were with respect to a flat response. Headphones generally aren't always flat. The definition breaks down with anomalies like the one above. I've ran into anomalies all the time with multiple IEMs for different descriptors. Creating an objective definition for audio terms is very difficult, you have to make it broad enough to include all headphones that would fall into it, but not too broad where it lets some in (that shouldn't be).
Well a bump is when the frequency response basically bumps from what came before. But a bump may still be a dip in the general sense, it becomes a peak when it's bumped past the 1k reference point. You can't make terms to generalize a specific sound and expect it to be objective, but specifics sounds in the frequency range are objective, because they are simply sounds which reside in a specific frequency range, such as sparkle, sibilance, honk, etc.
And you state if they are read/used correctly... Key word is if. The way they are read is 100% subjective (graph above, by definition, it should have the sparkle property; it can be read that way). It's your interpretation of the results, you can read it one way, another person as experienced can read it another. It remains
subjective (for that reason).
?. They're basically numbers, you relate two different graphs and you get objective technical differences. Whether you think one has more proper sparkle or whatever, doesn't change the fact that they're objective data
You didn't understand my argument regarding compensation. My argument is not what sounds flat to the ear, it's how the ear responds as the frequency trends away from what is considered flat. Is a 2 dB divergence at the 1 k range the same as a 2 dB divergence at the 20 Hz range (or take any frequency, 10 kHz for example)? Yet, with compensation, they are still treated the same... It'll take away 2 dB regardless to form the compensated. It shouldn't be like this. Actual divergence and perceived divergence hasn't been studied, so it can't be assumed that it is in fact the same. This is the reason why I only look at raw graphs for data anymore, the compensated ones are highly misleading much of the time IMO. I truly believe that more research needs to be done before we can have any accurate compensation (there just simply isn't enough taken into account). To sum this up, I'm saying compensation shouldn't be the same compensation per IEM and not be linear with respect to frequency as none of that has been confirmed yet (but it still is).
The diffuse-field Moller/Hammershoi curve has plenty of backed research. There is nothing confusing about the diffuse-field compensation, it's basically raw data with the ear's resonance taken into account, what strays away from flat is based on this, it's just easier for readers to see without having to think of the compensations in your head which will be more confusing. Compensations are inevitable, I think what needs more research are the lower frequencies in terms of extension and decay for that perceived realism.
You know what I meant with I said the ER4's neutrality was second to none... This was an ER4 and W4 statement really, why bring the UE 9000 (NOT CLOSE TO NEUTRAL AT ALL. The UE 9000 has a slight v-shape to my ears... You actually don't have the graph for the UE 9000 but Tyll does... Sorry, I had to throw this cheap shot
) and RE272 into the story?
MODDED UE900 [closed pinhole/100ohm adapter]. Non modded UE900 is slightly v-shaped, [NOT UE9000] it was a typo LMAO, why would I bring up a portable headphone when all the mentioned are IEMs? I would think you would know it's the UE900 even with the typo. Yes RE272 into the story, because RE272 is on par with ER4P in terms of being flat w diffuse-field compensations.
Musicality (being musical) deals with a lot more than just bass extension and depth. If it was, every bass-focused IEM would get 5 star reviews from me... It's not the case. You are overgeneralizing this aspect. It deals with the entire audio spectrum, not the first 100 or so Hz of it. Although you are correct (to a point), the bass extension has something to do with it, but it's not the whole story. It's not the only difference separating musicality from neutrality (there are others that can differ as well). I don't agree with your standpoint that
everyone will find neutral (to the ear with compensation) to be the best (personally, I do find neutral to be the best; the majority of the public does
not), but I understand the idea
completely (which is why I've stopped attacking it; you rate one way, I rate another, I've accepted that).
It's not about having lots of bass, or being bass focused. It's about that depth and decay, prime examples being the EX1000. EX1000 doesn't actually have much midbass, but it's rumble is well presented, with bottomless depth. This allows a balance in the lower mids because of the small midbass while providing enough bass "power" overall. I think this and avoidance of harsh peaks will lead to a "musical" sound. But as I said I think bass characteristics are the main big aspect no, not the only one. Listerners would prefer a more neutral response, I would look into a diffuse-field curve, but the amount of treble may be desired to be a bit more or les depending on the recordings, but a great IEM will at least folllow the DF curves leading to natural curve to the ear's headphone-related-transfers and will still look flat [UE900: downsloaping diffuse-field///ER4B: Linear diffuse field]. With the bass it's tricky because some headphones/IEMs may be flat but miss that decay and extension and sound less accurate as a result. Very high end stuff such as the Audeze LCD2-v2 follow the criteria of a diffuse-field response [downsloaping in form] and a well extended decaying bass. As a result, this headphone subjectively rated very high in recent studies by Harman Kardon.
