SOURCE 29 · LISTENING TESTS · 16 / 17
IEM Listening & Subjective Evaluation
A direct IEM adaptation of subjective evaluation: controlled comparison, level matching, blind listening, vocabulary and the relationship between listener feedback and measurements.
29.1 Listening environment and calibration
Ask whether a vent reduces pressure, whether a vocal region is too forward, or whether a tuning improves game positioning. “Which is better?” is too vague to guide engineering.
29.2 Level-matched comparison
A small loudness difference can make one IEM appear fuller or clearer. Match level closely, let listeners reseat tips and keep fit from becoming the hidden variable.
29.3 Blind listening and MUSHRA-style methods
Brand, price, finish and driver count influence perception. Hide identity and randomise order when practical. Blind tests do not remove taste; they improve evidence.
29.4 Shared subjective-evaluation scales
Describe bass extension, control, vocal presence, sibilance, treble texture, imaging and comfort in agreed language. Ask for the track moment behind a comment.
29.5 Combining measurement with listening
Measurements show repeatable physical differences; listening shows whether those differences help the intended user.
29.6 Subjective-evaluation framework
A/B/X or MUSHRA-style sessions reduce expectation bias. A consistent scale turns “better” into evidence the engineering team can act on.