Are IEMs MORE detailed than headphones?

Check out the other creators in this video:
@ZReviews @GadgetryTech @TheHEADPHONEShow @sidesaladaudio
Are IEMs more detailed than headphones? Its a pretty complicated question actually... let's talk about it!
🎙If you want to join the discussion checkout our discord community:

[Spladoinkal]

As a pro musician maybe I can help shed some light on this: IEMs were originally designed to be monitors for musicians to hear each other on stage in a much better way than the wedge speakers we originally used. They helped isolate the sound so there is less chance of hearing loss, and they're instantaneous since they're in the ears rather than a few feet away which drastically can help timing. Over time, a third function of IEMs started to develop: Instrument separation. By putting multiple sound drivers on each iem, it helps spread out the sound more allowing each instrument to be heard without blending in with the other instruments. IEMs can have 5+ drivers in them meaning 10 total "Speakers" in your head. This can be mistaken for better detail since it's easier to pick out the full timber of an instrument or sound whereas most headphones or speakers will blend those instruments together so some of the frequencies end up overlapping and fine details end up lost in the mix. At low price points, this can definitely make a difference in the perceived quality of the iems but we can't forget that separating the sounds is not actually increasing the quality of the sounds. This is why high end headphones seem to blow the sound quality of iems out of the water.

[MrBlitzpunk]

My definition of detail is how much individual sound/instrument can be distinguished with clarity, so my definition of detail kinda goes hand in hand with how good the separation is

[ItsXev]

I’ve always felt detail comes down to (1) speed (2) finding ways to bring quietest parts of a song step forward so they are not lost, and (3) handling busy audio moments competently and coherently

[GadgetryTech]

I love all the takes everyone has on this!! Thanks DMS for including me in this discussion! Video came out great. Big shout out to other other reviewers with valid takes!

[PixelBlenders]

I think “detail” is a broad category that branches out into all other aspects of the sound, like “soundstage” “imagining” “separation” “accuracy” etc. All of these subcategories will share “detail” as a defining characteristic in our subjective judgment of sound quality. We listen for “details” in bass response as well as treble response. Higher detail makes “separation” more apparent and adds to the accuracy within the soundstage of well recorded music. Detail is not just about treble but is easier to detect in the higher frequencies.

[myaiua]

Loved the production quality of this video. And the way you incorporated those other opinions is so aesthetically pleasing. Thank you for this experience.

[laLakshya]

For me
Detail is simply the more amount of things i can hear in a track.
Some would say that how clear or well defined it sound is detail but i like to term that precision or definition.

[cheezesauce]

Thank you for the input Idubbbz! I didnt know u were an audiophile until now

[Kawartha]

Funny…. I have literally been thinking about this the last six months.
I understand the complexity of the question ….however, as a 60 year old audiophile ….I’m increasingly starting to look sideways at frequently hyped headphones and increasingly I’m turning to my IEM collection for ease, weight, compactness and yes for detail as well.

[Stock--Rosso]

Comfort while listening is the single most import thing (To me anyway) and I still haven’t found a pair of over ear cans, that don’t make me uncomfortable after an hour or so, even though I feel the their overall sound quality is slightly better than IEM’s. As subjectivity goes though, there is no wrong way, as long as it makes you happy. Great video👍🏻

[sivnqtc]

Detail, to me (a non-audiophile, non-expert), is the ability to isolate different instruments in a recording and being able to listen to them exclusively via focusing on them (meaning all instruments are playing and can be heard, but you can focus on any single instrument you want and hear it very clearly, almost as if they were playing alone). Sometimes with a very good recording of an orchestra, I can isolate 1st string versus 2nd string as they are playing; it's a surreal experience. I use Sennheiser HD660S (original) with an Objective2+ODAC.

[ArvidOlson]

I always thought about detail being a step beyond separation. If you listen to the same mix in different cans, using one of them it will be easier to focus on individual different instruments. Detail is how much "detail" you can hear about each instrument, the hum of an amp, the twang of a string, an overtone muddled out by another headphone. I don't think IEM's or headphones are more detailed than each other, its 100% individual. Basically with how much granularity and resolution the drivers can recreate an area of the frequency spectrum accurately.

[sidesaladaudio]

Should have had a short clip of Blaine saying "what the heck to you mean by detail?"

[mikafoxx]

Just going to comment on how nice your cinematography and lighting are in this video. I tend to think of detail as the ability to pick out individual parts in a mix, wheras lower detail things (maybe due to intermodulation distortion) tend to blend into one mass of sound. My ER4's were one of the first things that I had the feeling of actually hearing the reverb added to a track, instead of it blending in to the driver decay. The Sundara is a good second and has better tuning. The ER4 is well tuned almost diffuse field, but flat. I EQ it to give it that -1db/oct slope thats consistent with good reference speaker setups in a treated room. I think the headphone show knocked that reference curve out of the park.

[Sintrania]

“It doesn’t matter how detailed your headphone is, I will destroyed it all” - j-pop mixer compressing music to bits

[Auruchius]

I think the best way to quantify detail in a way most people can understand is how close a headphone or IEM can faithfully reproduce the recording we're listening to. In a lot of ways, I feel like my IE900s have come a bit closer to doing that for me than my HD800's surprisingly enough. I grab my IEMs so much more often for that reason. Not that the HD800 is bad by any means, but its hard to go back to my HD800's sometimes because of it.

[ziokalco]

I consider detail to be how accurately can a headphone reproduce complex sounds. This means keeping proper/accurate volume ratios between the different sounds in the mix (wich often times means handling a big dinamic range across all sound frequencies), and also not introducing "new sound" or distortion.

[praxis]

These days I'm much more measured, but I have had moments where I hear more. My Elex renders cymbals well, they seem to be everywhere. Yet I remember standing at a traffic light, listening to "Songbird" on IEM's and suddenly becoming aware that Lyndsey Buckingham was plucking strings in the background. Kind of spooked me.

I also have an SACD remix of Oasis' "What's the story Morning Glory" that gets rid of the "wall of noise" so you can actually hear them play, and there is a moment when "Champagne Supernova" gets serious where I can hear somebody playing an amazing guitar riff in my right ear where the main guitar is on my left. The way IEM's open up sound, is astounding.

I own many headphones, and many more IEM's just bought the Chu2 for my son, it's kind of a hybrid as I'm using the cable and vinyls from the salnotes Zero Mecha which I bought on a prime sale. The IEM is meh but the accessories are amazing.

So yes I would concur that IEM's have detail in spades, especially modern in ears from the past two years or so.

[tritrinh]

To me, the term details is pretty much a combination of different things like imaging, treble extension, speed, clean soundings and separation.

[sidesaladaudio]

Great video! "Audiophile terms" really are something that can be confusing since they aren't always clear on what is meant. Usually, I'll avoid terms like detail, speed, ect. because while it may describe a perception of how something may sound, it can imply some physical properties which may not actually be going on, and it can confuse the viewer.

I think the difficult part with "detail" especially is, what does the reviewer mean? Is it the best FR for your HRTF? Is it better perception of small nuances which may be induced by certain small peaks and dips which can overcome some masking effects and emphasize things like trailing ends of tones? Is it something else?

There's so much to unpack that sometimes these terms can be more confusing when used casually, and when different reviewers have different definitions.

(Edit are just to clarify what I meant at the time of writing)