วีดีโอ

Hey, thankyou for explaining us about the new meta, timmy sent me here. We will love to see more videos from you

Aaand we see that Apple was way ahead of the game on this tuning years before this new meta discussion, as 5128 measurements of the Airpods Pro 1 reveal it to hit this target almost exactly.

Came from Timmy, I think I'm the 1000th sub so there's that but anyway, hi!

Great explanations. Thanks!

This is the first video of yours I've ever seen. Im only 10 mins in and I've already learned so much. 😂 Subbed. I need this level of expertise in my hyper fixations.

Subscribed! You are the GOAT!

is or does? mean

what an amazing video

Great info. Thanks!!!

Great production values for a first video! Thanks for your explanation. Very clear and interesting. Now I understand the A to Z of the new meta or JM1.

Hi a newbie here! So if I'm understanding this correctly, when using a headphone, i should use the 5128 diffuse field target....?

Thank you so much! Your speech pattern is very pleasant and the careful explanations are great. I'm only moderately informed on audio engineering but enjoyed the whole thing very much.

I knew that "meta" thing is just another pronoun

Open back is amazing , he400se sound amazing i can ear FX , time of reverb , delay's time

Fantastic video! It got me interested in learning how to use an eq for preference tuning. I'd love to see content from the community on how to make personal adjustments using the new meta.

The meta is boring and churns out landfill units. Great info on the backstory to the science behind the meta however.

This doesn't explain bass boost

Great explanations. I feel it is very tricky is when it comes to peoples impressions of neutral. For example depending on the specific genre of music and how it is mastered. Lets say a person hears a recording on IEMs that align to the new Meta, but the original mastering was done by an engineer using a traditional "neutral" studio headphones or monitors. Surely that colours the music differently then had the mastering taken place using the new meta and therefore to get an accurate representation of what the mastering enginner had intended it makes more sense to align to the same curve used during mastering or am i completely off base?

As someone that uses studio monitors with dsp as their loudspeakers (kali lp6) - this is why I got my dusk-dsp(default) just a few days ago. If I'm paying all this money - there better be some measurements behind it 😂

Wow! Thanks so much for sharing this. I find it very interesting and so well done! Wonderful work and glad to be someone that can enjoy your content.

Damn, thats impressive. Funnily, i was playing around just few days ago to EQ my IEM's and my "preference" is not that far off from JM-1 now that i compare the graphs. A hair more sub bass, a hair more mid bass, some tweaks on midrange but very close to that regardless. Harman target to me is a little too shouty and thin at times with a bit too much sub bass.

This was a fantastic explainer! Thanks!

This is really informative and well thought. Thank you.

Есть графики 5128 Free Field но для проэкции 90° ?

Now i wait for sharur to come out of his den, trying to trash talk about the info in this video with half-baked selective knowledge, while i enjoy my pop corn.

Great explanation ! I love neutral, and i'm happy this became the new target^^

Sorry for The stupid question over here. Cant we get The new meta Just by EQ our old iem. I have a moondrop blessing 2 and o dont know How Far he is from The meta.

A great video and much appreciated information!!

Kiwi Ears KE4 has the best meta tuning 💯

This was really helpful. I thought you were a regular on TH-cam and I am surprised you weren't. Really well done for a first upload. Waiting for more.

Where is the empirically based confirmation that the invented JM1 is really preferred? Where are the studies? Up to now these are just claims without any relevant basis.

An hypothetical next step would be calculating your own HRTF, wouldn't it?

Thank you for taking the time to make this video. At least for me, as a music lover, it helps me better understand the technical parts of playback.

The PewDiePie of audiophile community.

Pewdiepie is into the Audiophile hobby now? Aint no wayyyy

Enjoying music is not a cooperative multiplayer game. It is a "solo", personal experience. This "meta" stuff is "influencer" triviality at its worst. No offense is really intended. We are not beholden to anyone's "meta" standard of audio. You decide what is enjoyable to yourself, so gaming terms such as meta used for personal audio enjoyment are rather ludicrous. "We" may be a headphone/earphone loving (or hating in many cases) community, but the ultimate experience is personal-*NOT* a public "meta." There is lots of hating/mocking of others because of this pseudo-meta stuff that is ultimately everyone's individual choice. I do not owe anyone anything, and my ears and preferences are my own. We all hear differently, and in the case of IEMs, I can most of the time alter the tuning more or less to my liking by altering the way the sound "hits" my eardrum, and the distance of the IEM from it. Thus measurements are to me slightly helpful, but I always "change" the tuning by messing with angles, seals, and/or diverse eartips. The generally static IEM graph measurement cannot possibly account for the multitude of angles and insertion depths possible that will definitely alter what we hear, and our ear canals can be wildly different from each other. "Meta" used for audio does irk me a bit, as though even knowing it's a "just for fun" term, it could end up being as toxic as in gaming when someone does not conform to a specific gameplay meta. Elitism/shunning the "different other" is the ultimate result. And I feel everyone has the right to like what they like, even if it's not "meta", conforms to any popular influencer's preferences, etc. And do not some of us know and like/love many headphone/earphone outliers that aren't based on any common preference curve? These manage to sound good or special, even when supposed to "suck" when you see their graphs. So no, I do not care about false audiophile metas, as there are many ways to enjoy music (and indeed I am more of a "neutral sound" person, though have lots of "bad" headphones/earphones that sound very good *to me.*) Best wishes to all; enjoy your music your way, and do not feel personally attacked. It is *your* hobby to enjoy as you please, whether following someone else's preferences, or making your own choices (I know these are not mutually exclusive either). Your ears are yours alone, as is your choice of music to love. However, I will follow no "audio metas" of any kind myself. (This is no attack on graphs-and preference targets, even-which I enjoy exploring and to make informed comparisons; my annoyance is more on defining "good" or "bad" for *others* based on a graph measurement goal/preference of someone else, no matter how popular. This doesn't mean that there are no "bad" earphones, but rather, that not all of the outliers are really bad/not worth exploring because they may not meet any specific audiophile graph criteria. We should ultimately listen ourselves and make our own choice, based on what we know we like/do not prefer.)

Didn't realise PewDiePie was part of the audio hobby

amazing video ty so much

Hey Joel, very nice video. It ended up answering quite a few questions that I had in mind beforehand. But one thing that I still believe is going to improve the target is to reduce the ear gain by about 1-2 decibels (maybe more depending on the individual), more specifically the area around 2-3khz. What I've found is that the ear canal still has a significant boost in this area even on very deepily inserted IEMS. If you try to match the target, the ear gain will make the response go past your natural HRTF and it will sound shouty and it will mask the lower mids and the lower treble, making for a slightly claustrophobic listening experience compared to ideal. Your target already has a slight reduction compared to the sandard 5128 diffuse field, but it's not nearly enough to account for the noticeable ear canal boost, and I think with just this small ajustment it's going to sound a lot more natural and less harsh. Maybe this is very specific to my own ear and ear canal shape, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the average person will also have a slight boost in this area since it's the largest gain and IEM could possibly still receive after being inserted. And also, as far as I know, the complaint of JM-1 being overly shouty is by far the most commonly shared around, giving even more validity to my hypothesis. I would be very glad if you could investigate the matter and also thank you very for reading this. I hope you can give me a response soon enough, Take care!

Woww

Audiophiles still don't know about the audio circle of confusion?

GIVE US MORE PLEASE!!! MORE MORE MORE :)

Pewdiepie and Linustechtips had a baby, it's you

Play at 1.75x speed

Huge thanks for the balanced and still very resolving clarification, it really brings fourth all the micro-details of the musi- ehh I mean of the topic <3

I like how this vid just popped up in the first row of my recommendation feed. Thx for explaining the "META", Mr. PewDFie

Superb video! Since you said you're looking for future video ideas, I'd love it if you could go into more detail about your own methodology EQing treble, especially since it's something a lot of established figures in the audio world describe as a "no-go" zone in some ways.

Great video! What I am wondering is what population they got the average HRTF from - how are different ages, sex and ethnicities considered? I would assume these all have significant influence on the pinna‘s shape.

One thing ive been annoyed with about the new graphs is that they dont use a flat line like the old ones did. Yes, you can always flatten the graph, but ive always felt that the pinna bump was a great instantaneous reference for where my expectations lie. While i found out pretty quickly that the old neutral didnt have the warmth i needed, the flat graph was still easier and more comfortable to compare measurements to. I get why people use the slope, probably because you might confuse it with the old neutral otherwise, but i think we should have our new neutral as a flat line with pinna gain and an old neutral reference that has the changes applied to it, not the other way around.

PewDiePie