I have a pair of Westone UM Pro 30, I do like them, so far happy with the standard foam but previously had silicone custom molds done for my UM-2s and they were excellent....but I lost one, doh!! I'll get another pair when I can afford it. Don't go for vinyl, it's hard and it hurts your ears after a while.
You're referring to custom ear-tips while I am hesitating between Universal IEM and Custom IEM, the latter having a completely custom shell (including the concha). I don't know how comfort issues with 'vinyl' (acrylic?) ear-tips that your recommandation may suggest translate (or not) with 'fully custom IEM'.
I used to have Etymotic ER-6i many, many, years ago.
ER-6i were supposed to be ER-6 with an higher sensitivity and a slight bass boost (just like ER-4PT for ER-4S). While ER-6 themselves were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to ER-4S, with the same target frequency response (diffuse field target). I guess Etymotic was using the same 'trick' as for ER-4S for ER-6 (adding a resistor to the cable to 'tune' the frequency response and use the BA underdamped).
As far as I remember, ER-6i lacked bass and sounded 'bright' (and fatiguing!) with my music player. I also had some 'background hiss'. Cable noise was horrible (until I had something to block the cable in the chin). However:
Memory is a dangerous thing!
I could not find ER-6i impedance curve, but I suspect impedance to be very frequency-dependent. Combined with my player output impedance and small linking capacitor, this may have affected frequency response.
I like a bass boost when listening to music with IEMs (compared to listening with speakers) and at that moment my music player did not offer a decent EQ, nor it could not be 'rockboxed.'
Nowadays, these issues could be corrected easily today by using a simple resistor network (for impedance related issues and 'background hiss') and proper EQ (or going for the XR variant).
Nevertheless, I not convinced by Etymotic approach regarding comfort. Sometimes I use my IEMs in the bed and since I am lying on the side Ety's are not suitable at all. Plus it seems that they still have a very noisy cable (to be clear) I'm referring to mechanical noise) that will need to be replaced.
If track numbers are tagged 1, 2, 3, [...], as opposed to 01, 02, 03, [...], there can be a problem once track 10 is encountered, depending on whether the tags and/or files are sorted as numbers or as text. If text, Track 10 will usually play after Track 1, with tracks 2 though 9 following for a ten-track album.
Your tagging/file naming can be correct to the eye, yet still fail if the software reading it doesn't sort as you expect.
It's rather hard to explain, but basically, every track is moved down. For example, if you listen to track 36, you're actually listening to track 35. If you're listening to track 44, you're actually listening to track 43, etc.
Who/what says it is track 36 resp. track 35? Sure you know that the tracknumber is a tag as well?
(Notice that for some CDs, the metadata sources will disagree on what is track 1 and 2.)
General information about pros and cons of CIEM vs. UIEM.
CIEM and UIEM reviews not performed by some audiophile charlatan.
Regarding , I am interested in some specific areas: Sound isolation is very important to me because I suffer from tinnitus. Therefore, I want to keep listening volume as low as possible, including in noisy environments (ex.: in the subway, in a train, etc.). In addition, in quieter environments (ex. : at home, at the library, etc.) I enjoy not being disturb by external noises. As for the information I found:
There is a consensus that silicon CIEM provides better sound isolation than acrylic CIEM, which makes sense: silicon CIEM are completely filled while most acrylic CIEM use an hollow shell, silicon is softer and may accommodante slight shape variations thus provide a better seal. Unfortunately, silicon CIEM seem to have a lot of drawbacks: less model choice, lower durability, size constraints, maybe impossible to re-shell (?), etc.
When it comes to compare UIEM and CIEM sound isolation, I found completely contradictory information! Some claim that CIEM sound isolation is far better, while other claim the opposite. I do understand that a lot of parameters comes into play (tips used for UIEM, insertion depth, material, presence (or not) of a vent, etc.). However, I struggled to find data that would give, at least, rough trends. I am looking for that!
Sound quality is also very important to me. As a long term UIEM user, I noticed that:
Quality of seal as a tremendous impact on bass response. With UIEM, I usually get the best seal with double/triple flange silicon tips or with foam tips. I do prefer the latter for their comfort. I noticed that my ear canal shape was varying quite a lot when moving my jaw. It seems normal, but to what extent depends - I guess - a lot on individuals. Thus, I was wondering to what extend it could be a problem for me with CIEM (I'll try to discuss that with an audiologist, to check if my ear canal are particularly varying in shape compared to the average individual...). User feedback maybe helpful.
With UIEM, insertion depth seems to have an impact on high frequency response. I recently read that this may be due to some resonance in the ear canal and that inserting and that modifying IEM insertion depth, thus cavity length and resonant frequency. I was wondering how CIEM manufacturers were managing this issue...and it seems they simply don't! I am looking for more information about that. (Good point with CIEM being that you might get a consistent insertion depth, bad point being that you cannot adjust it.)
Regarding , I found a lot of audiophile reviews where facts are mixed with complete non-sense. On the other hand, we have Chin Roi measurements which provide very interesting material, but they are not easy to understand for the layman (IMHO information about how these measurements impact listening experience are lacking)...and this fellow stopped publishing in 2014, thus most models I am considering are not reviewed. As for a model short list, nothing is fixed. Regarding UIEM, I gave a try to Orivety New Primacy (ONP) hybrids (dynamic driver for bass and dual balanced armature for mids/highs). I found them convincing sound-wise, but I had to return them due to comfort issue (my left ear canal as a different slope than the right one and combined with ONP connector implémentation it caused the IEM not to stay correctly in place, no matter the tips used). In addition, isolation was just barely okay. I was also considering second hand Shure SE846 and Westone W60 (these fellows are very expensive but re-sell value is pretty stable in case I don't like them and I have an excellent customer experience with my previous Westome UIEM which lasted 12 years, making the cost of use more acceptable...although nothing guarantee the new ones will last so long !). I also have less expensive options in mind, like the FLC8S (hybrids). Regarding CIEM, I was considering several options, including AAW because they propose hybrid CIEM and I was curious how to see how they perform after having tried the ONP which were pretty convincing. But nothing is fixed since I had to rely on those audiophile websites to make my short list...so on unreliable data!
Please take into account that I will use those something like 40 to 50hours per week, in both noisy and very quiet environment. They are, by far, the listening device I use most...so I pay quite a lot of attention to them. regards, Fred
If you are chasing comfort and isolation you shoud go to the audiologist and make several molds with different materials, insertion deepness and concha shapes... and test by yourself what is good for you.
For the UIEM insertion depth issue, you should look at the transfer functions of the 2cc coupler, the 1.26cc standard IEC711 coupler and its diferent adapters (exemple : IEC60318-4 (711) coupler with DB2012 adapter G.R.A.S. 43BA-2, the residual volume is 0.4cc ) and some of the measurements procedures and make your own conclusions.
I am not sure any manufacturer would be okay to provide me with several "dummy shells" to play with them. Plus I guess bore length is part of the design and CIEM manufacturer will not be okay to modify it on demand...
As for influence of insertion depth, I will take a look. Thanks!
Videos from my playlist on youtube used to have their "date added" in the some metadata field, which allowed for me to sort them after that (since I had it displayed in a column). Is this coming back or is it infeasible with the current architecture?
There were few changes regarding to custom metadata. Quick answer - %fy_published_at% is what you need now. A bit more longer answer - last paragraph of Back compatibility topic.
Can I somehow reset the stored metadata or re-apply the title parsing rule? The previous method of restarting foobar doesn't work anymore, most likely because of the external storage.
Edit: Found the storage in appdata/foobar2000/foo_youtube/meta.
This also can be done from foobar2000. Info reload (Properties -> Tools -> Reload info) is all that's need now when switching between metadata mapping and title parsing rule, or after editing that rule. Though if you edited metadata, then all metadata becomes to be 'user metadata' which is stored independently and takes precedence. In this case additionally need to remove it (Properties -> Tools -> Remove tags).
Is it only me who is getting "server error (403)) on 95% of all songs ? Checked for updates "No update need: You have the latest Youtube Source Version" Have not downloaded any "beta/alpha version" using stable with plugins download version.
1.x won't be updated. You can try 2.0 beta or wait for release. Release will be at the end of this week, if nothing new and serious will be reported.