FreQ Custom IEM: Music Lovers VS. Makers - A Comparison
For high resolution pictures,
Index of /freqshow
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> INTRODUCTION <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
This is it folks, Lovers versus Makers: the battle of the FreQin' century!
The Music Makers FreQs were released on May 5th, 2008. The only difference between the Lovers and Makers is that the Makers have detachable cables and an optional new crossover. A crossover is a wire or circuit that directs different frequency ranges to different drivers. The crossover is important for determining the sound signature and frequency response of an IEM.
The Music Maker's crossover is described by the FreQ as for "use with amplifiers for musician’s monitor packs along with sound engineers using mixing boards." I find this description pointless because both my SuperFreQs (ML) and FreQ Shows (MM) sound almost the same from amped and unamped sources. The MM FreQs seem to require a little more amplication to reach the same volume. However, it is perfectly fine to use a MM FreQ with an iPod or laptop headphone out. Of course, both the FreQs will always sound a bit better with an amp, but it is not necessary.
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> GETTING A GOOD SEAL <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
I've always emphasized that the impressions process is crucial for a good fit. When I got my impressions made, I gave my audiologist the UE instructions (
http://www.ultimateears.com/_ultimat...structions.pdf ) and made sure he went to the second bend with a bite block, etc.
Personally, I don't think going to the second bend and using a bite block is as important as
relaxing your facial muscles, keeping still, and refraining from talking or moving your mouth while the silicone is in your ear. I doubt a poor fit is the fault of the custom IEM maker. The fit of my FreQ Shows is just as I expected from my impressions.
My audiologist used a large cotton stopper, which was difficult to stuff in my canal. I knew that my canal would expand a bit due to the large stopper, and my FreQ Shows fit just as expected: very tight - so tight that I am a little annoyed by it
. Although the fit is tight, there is no discomfort or pressure point at all. This is a sign of a good seal.
If you've never had a custom IEM before, this tight fit will be uncomfortable for the first week or two. Fortunately, if you don't have any pressure points, you'll get used to it!
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> CONSTRUCTION <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
The new braided cord is very nice. It is soft, supple, durable, and lightweight compared to the old iBud style cord. I'm 90% sure the cords were bought from Westone because the logo at the Y connector has been scratched off.
The colors didn't come out as I requested. Here is a picture I sent Todd of what I wanted:
Here is what I got:
As you can see, the blue needs to be a bit darker. They may not have gotten their dark translucent colors sorted out when they made mine.
I recommend using solid shell colors if you want your customized graphic to be seen. Otherwise, all the wires and components in the shell tend to clash with the graphic and cause it to be less visible.
Here are the rest of the pictures:
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> SOUND COMPARISON <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
-----------------------+ Testing Methodology +------------------------
I chose four tracks from different CDs that I felt were good to use for comparison. I listened to each track at least twice with each FreQ. On the first listen, I paid attention to frequency spectrum, noting the extention of and emphasis on bass, mids, or highs. On the second listen, I paid attention to everything else, including soundstage, imaging, instrumental separation, etc.
-----------------------+ Disclaimer +-------------------------------
I am using an old generation SuperFreQ (ML) to compare with a new generation FreQ Show (MM). I noticed several differences in construction that can alter sound signature and response. First, the new FreQs use sound tubes with larger diameters. Todd told me that with a larger diameter, there is better transmission of sound. Second, the canal portion of the FreQ Shows is made of solid acrylic vs. the hollow acrylic of my SuperFreQs. I'm guessing that the solid acrylic is better at sound transmission - no vibration is lost to the tubes.
Please note, the new SuperFreQs are probably constructed the same way as the FreQ Shows, so you may not see any of these differences in the new SuperFreQs.
Finally, all of my impressions are comparisons rather than absolute judgments. For example, if I say the SuperFreQs are harsh, that is only compared to the FreQ Shows. Otherwise, I think both the SuperFreQ and FreQ Show sound great.
---------------------+ Testing Equipment +----------------------
iBasso D2 with LT1113 opamps on high gain using battery power
1 foot USB cable connected to Thinkpad R51 laptop
All tracks are FLAC played from foobar2000 using ASIO4ALL through the iBasso D2 DAC
All pieces played at 9 o'clock with FreQ Shows and 8:30 with SuperFreQs
----------------------+ The Comparison! +------------------------
Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out
>>> Track 3 - Take Five <<<
Listen #1 )
FreQ Show: The basslines isn't very prominent, the cymbals are fairly spicy, the cymbals, piano and sax are heard with fairly equal emphasis (with a little less emphasis on the piano) with the focus on the melody of the sax. When you have the drum passage, you can hear the drum sound bouncing off the back wall about 15-20 feet away. No part of the spectrum seems to overpower another. Everything seems balanced and just right. You need to concentrate on the bass to notice it.
SuperFreQs: Cymbals lack a treble extension that allows them to sparkle. The bass seems to be just as prominent as the FreQ Shows. There is more of a midrange emphasis on the SuperFreQs. The sound of the saxophone is more emphasized and harsh.
Listen #2 )
FreQ Show: The sound of the FS is laid back. The sax does not seem to overpower anything. I think it sounds great. It's a frequency balance that you can listen to all day without feeling fatigued. When the drum passage is bouncing off the back wall, I can feel it bounce back at and go pass me. I have a better sense of the space with the FS. There's not much you can tell about imaging with this piece - only four instruments in distinct areas on the headphone stage. Again, the cymbals have a nice decay and can sometimes be heard bouncing off the back wall near the end of the piece.
SuperFreQs: The cymbals don't sound as juicy and enticing. The sound is dark and veiled compared to the FS. There is just something about tone of the music that does not sound as fresh as the FS. This sound signature change is similar to that of my move from the Super.fi 5 Pro to the SuperFreQs, which was a pretty big difference. The cymbals seem anemic and don't have the extension of the FS. With the FS, the cymbals reminded me of my HD580s, not quite the same extension, but it was great. The drum passage bounding off the back wall sounds the same with the SF. After the saxophone comes back after the drum solo, I can tell that it is more forward than the FS. It sounds closer, around 2-3 feet away from me compared to the 5-6 feet with the FS.
Diana Krall - All For You
>>> Track 1 - I'm Errand Girl For Rhythm <<<
Listen #1 )
FreQ Show: You can hear her pressing the pedal on the piano a lot at the beginning (volume dependent, not a good comparitive indicator). The guitar has sightly more emphasis than the piano while they are dueting. You can sort of hear the bass.
SuperFreQs: With the SuperFreQs, it is obvious that Krall's voice is more promninent. Her voice sounds harsh at times, especially when she "ssss". The midrange on the SuperFreQs is more forward than the FreQ Shows from what I can hear. Again, the bass seems to be the same as the FreQ Shows.
Listen #2 )
FreQ Show: Krall's voice seems to be about 7 feet away. Her voice also sounds a bit harsh when she "sss" near the end - the same as the SuperFreQ.
SuperFreQs: With the SF, the "ssss" is definitely more harsh than the FS. Krall's voice seems to be the same distance, but it is a bit louder.
Byron Janis - Rachmaninoff Piano Concertos No. 2, No. 3, and Preludes
>>> Track 3 - Piano Concerto No.3 in D minor Op. 30 - Finale-alla breve <<<
Note: Only 1 listen for this track since it is so long (half for frequency spectrum and other half for soundstaging and imaging)!
Listen #1 )
SuperFreQs: The piano seems to be very close, maybe 2-3 feet in front of me. The piano seems to overwhelm every thing else in the spectrum. The midrange is very much emphasized compared to the FreQ Shows.
The soundstage seems fairly small. Everything seems to be condensed around the piano within 20 feet. The treble extension seems to be the same (premature conclusion), especially at the conclusion of the piece where there are a lot of cymbal clashing.
FreQ Show: There seems to be more of a bass emphasis with the FS. The piano isn't as prominent, so I can hear some of the bass strings. The bass seems kind of flabby and encompassing in this piece. During the conclusion of the movement, I can tell that the FreQ Shows has better treble extension because the cymbals sound more spicy and emphasized. The sound of the cymbal also seemed to travel across the whole auditorium rather than staying in a small space with the SFs.
The soundstage of the FS seems to be more open, not necessarily wider, but it sounds as though each of the instruments are more spaced apart and airy.
Piano Grand - A Smithsonian Celebration
>>> Track 10 - Eliane Elias and Her Trio - The Time is Now <<<
Listen #1 )
FreQ Show: The cymbals sound very metallic. There is a great tightness to the cymbals, and you can clearly hear the impact. The bass is audible in the midst of all the noise. The drums are very fast and quick. I can hear the bass, piano, and cymbal without having to concentrate. The cymbals are amazing. They have a nice sparkle to them that spreads around the auditorium - just like in a live concert. It seems the cymbals are the most audible. During the bass line, it does not sound bloated at all. You can hear every note. After listening with the FreQ Shows, I didn't feel fatigued at all. The sound is very refreshing. I'm not going to say it's balanced because I haven't listened to it live, but I will say that it doesn't sound bloated or harsh.
SuperFreQs: The cymbals do not sound as extended or spicy. The piano does not seem full; it seems rather dark. In this case, the piano is more emphasized than the cymbals. I don't have to concentrate to hear the bass; cymbals, piano, and bass are audible at the same time. The emphasis on the piano is tiring. The bass solo is similar to the FS - except each of the notes do not seem as discrete. At times, I felt overwhelmed by all the instruments with the SF; this was not so with the FS. I know that the cymbals don't sound as realistic as live (with the SF) because the first time I heard a live jazz concert, the first thing I noticed was how the cymbals had a long decay and sparkled throughout the auditorium. This is not the case with the SuperFreQs. The cymbals are short lived and do not have as much sparkle - think of a soda that has lost a bit of its carbonation.
Listen #2 )
SuperFreQs: The clapping before the piece starts sounds closed in with the SF. The piano sounds unnaturally forward and strained. All the instruments seem to be closed into a small space. That's why I said I felt overwhelmed at times during listen #1.
FreQ Show: Clapping sounds the same with the FS. The instruments definitely feel more spaced apart with the FS. The cymbal comes from its own nice place on stage. The piano does not sound as forward. It sounds great in balance with the cymbal and bass.
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> CONCLUSIONS <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
I doubt you read all those descriptions and comparisons
If you did, then it should be obvious that I think the Music Makers crossover is a large step forward from the Music Lovers crossover, especially with the Eliane Elias piece. The MM does almost everything better than the ML, especially with the cymbals, which are very juicy and enticing. I've always thought my SuperFreQs had great treble for an IEM, but after the FreQ Shows, I'm just speechless. The treble on the FreQ Shows is amazing! The sound is also more balanced in my opinion. Although I haven't been to any live orchestral concerts as of late, I know that the MM crossover is able to better replicate the graininess of live orchestral violins.
From my time at Head-fi, I've found that I'm prone to make quick conclusions when it comes to hardware, so now, I try to find repeatable differences that are made through side by side comparisons in a small timeframe. I can almost say for certain that the ML crossover has more forward of a midrange than the MM. The midrange emphasis of the ML is unnatural for me, especially after listening to the FreQ Shows. The ML is in your face with the midrange, and it does become fatiguing sometimes. Before the FreQ Shows, I thought the harshness of the ML midrange was a residue of the resonance ringing I was hearing at times, but now, I just think that the ML midrange is unnatural and harsh in general
I think that the MM crossover has a much more refined and refreshing sound. No part in the spectrum seems to overpower another. The treble is extended and spicy when it needs to be - especially when you have cymbals. Did I already mention that the cymbals are amazing?!
If I had to make a recommendation to anyone, I would recommend getting the MM crossover - even if you don't plan to use an amp. There is no dramatic difference in SQ or driving strength with unamped sources. Not using an amp is not a reason to get the ML crossover at all!
*** Caveat: Again, I want to emphasize that my SuperFreQs are built differently than my FreQ Shows. It seems that the FreQ has learned a lot about sound reproduction over the past few months and made alterations to their construction as necessary. It is possible that many of the improvements I hear are due to the differences in construction. However, I think I can confidently say that the ML has a more forward midrange compared to the MM.
FreQ Custom IEM: Music Lovers VS. Makers - A Comparison
