Head-Fi's Sponsors
(Premier Sponsors bolded) |
|
|
Can Jam '09
(2009
International
Head-Fi Meet)
Impressions,
Reviews, Photos |
Can
Jam '09 graphic
courtesy of Edwood
Click on the links below
for Can Jam '09 photos,
impressions and reviews:
blubliss
1,
2,
3
dallan
1,
2,
3,
4
santacore
1,
2
nhat_thanh
1, 2
vpivinylspinner
1,
2,
3
amb
1
augustwest
1
eaglejo
1
johnsonad
1
shellylh
1
Jon L
1,
2,
3,
4
Germancub
1
zippy2001
1
IPodPJ
1
bhd812
1
Edwood
1,
2
abellaw
1,
2
minidiscs
1
atothex
1
HighLife
1
achristilaw
1
SiBurning
1,
2,
3,
4
SiBurning
5,
6,
7
LFF
1
Iron_Dreamer
1
doping panda
1
morphsci
1
ironbut
1
shaizada
1
jasper994
1,
2
jp11801
1
Uncle Erik
1
drubrew
1
(More impressions/photos
still being added.)
|
|
|
Head-Fi Blogs
and Facebook |
|
|
Head-Fi's Sponsors
(Premier Sponsors bolded) |
|
|
|
| Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors Discussion of portable headphones, earphones and in-ear monitors (IEMs). |
06-24-2008, 09:36 PM
|
|
Headphoneus Supremus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,517
|
|
I haven't tested for burn-in whatsoever. If such a thing existed, I can only imagine that the MM would sound better, so I'll still be recommending the MM crossover  I don't think it'll "burn-in" much because out of the box, it is already comparable or better than my SuperFreQs, but of course, I wouldn't mind if it got better with time 
I've used the MM with my iPod for a couple hours and about 30 minutes with my laptop, and it's perfectly fine. I have no complaints with using it with a portable headphone out.
__________________
All hail spritzer, the headphone God!
Current System: Garbage + Garbage = Garbage Synergy => Great Sound
Feedback:
|
06-24-2008, 09:57 PM
|
|
Junior Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westchester, NY
Posts: 5
|
|
I went with the ML crossover in my FS. After reading this, I'm wondering if I made a mistake. I'm a newbie and can't really describe sound well but I'm finding my setup (Ipod Classic / LOD / Ibasso T2) lacking in the treble department. I’m using the treble boost on the Ipod to compensate. I also find voices to be a little forward (would that be similar to a midrange boost?). The bass is fine for my taste.
Thank you for the review. I’m now considering sending these back for the MM crossover.
__________________
Amps: Ibasso T2, Meier Corda 2Move
HP: Shure SCL4, AT ESW9, Denon D5000, FreQ Show
|
06-25-2008, 04:38 AM
|
|
Headphoneus Supremus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,517
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdubyas
I went with the ML crossover in my FS. After reading this, I'm wondering if I made a mistake. I'm a newbie and can't really describe sound well but I'm finding my setup (Ipod Classic / LOD / Ibasso T2) lacking in the treble department. I’m using the treble boost on the Ipod to compensate. I also find voices to be a little forward (would that be similar to a midrange boost?). The bass is fine for my taste.
Thank you for the review. I’m now considering sending these back for the MM crossover.
|
Yes, I find that the voices will be more laid back and less fatiguing. Before you make a decision, you should wait and see what other MM owners have to say about the mids and treble. Maybe I'm wrong
__________________
All hail spritzer, the headphone God!
Current System: Garbage + Garbage = Garbage Synergy => Great Sound
Feedback:
Last edited by powertoold; 06-25-2008 at 04:40 AM.
|
06-25-2008, 04:50 AM
|
|
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 758
|
|
let's see.. i've had my MM FS for about a month now...
I did think that the mids were v forward and like i said in my very initial review, i thought it overcrowded the lower frequencies.. but after some time.. I got used to it and I'm loving it at the moment.. it sounds as if the singer's performing just for me? I feel like i'm rich enough to afford a private concert! haha
the highs are great as well...cymbals shimmer... the crashes ring out, ride and high hats are fast and sharp...chinas are resonant.. it definitely doesn't get too aggresive or harsh ( I tried SE530s couple weeks back and cymbals on the same songs just hurt my ears compared to the FS).. the FS are very nice on those cymbals..
what I can say though is that an amp does help the FS sound.. perhaps not so much for the sound itself.. but defiinitely helps with the stage and separation...
there's alot more "air" on some amps.. and you hear more detail with the amp in terms of reverb and the resonance of some instuments i.e percussion, pianos- you can hear it ring out across the soundstage.
I was quite stunned when I heard it.. had a big smile on my face.. heh
|
06-25-2008, 05:13 AM
|
|
Junior Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16
|
|
Great review - thanks for all of your work, and for sharing it!
john
|
06-25-2008, 05:29 AM
|
|
Headphoneus Supremus
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,517
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict
|
Thanks and yes I did. I posted it to the first page too
I didn't have to do any modifications to my FreQ Show to get rid of the ringing resonance. I guess they figured it out heh.
__________________
All hail spritzer, the headphone God!
Current System: Garbage + Garbage = Garbage Synergy => Great Sound
Feedback:
|
06-25-2008, 06:48 AM
|
|
100+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
hey powertoold> thanks for putting me at ease - i was wondering if I should go with the ML for better bass, but since things are the same, or similar...
also, I'm very happy with the treble on the FS (with MM crossover) - cymbals just sound fantastic. Didn't notice the mids being VERY forward myself, but yes, I do feel closer to the singer now.
|
06-25-2008, 08:36 AM
|
 |
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Thailand
Posts: 641
|
|
I wonder how difference they are to each other inside the crossovers.
__________________
Headphone isn't a toy.....use for music listening only!
There're people who can learn and people who can't...
|
06-25-2008, 05:04 PM
|
|
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 758
|
|
ppl are quite pleased with the highs on the FS.. that's pretty good feedback
there're so many IEMs with complaints about their trebs...
|
06-25-2008, 05:20 PM
|
 |
100+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 238
|
|
Thanks for the review!
|
06-25-2008, 05:22 PM
|
|
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 662
|
|
Great review there - thanks for sharing!
Although I could not do a back-to-back comparison on my SuperFreQs with the ML crossover and then the MM crossover, since my SuperFreQs were upgraded to the MM crossover, I really like the sound from my SuperFreQs a lot more. The MM crossover makes my IEM's sound more natural
I am getting my own FreQ Shows soon - I will post pictures in the (near?) future
Will
__________________
Home: PC > Total Bithead > H-P mini^3 > Senn 580's
Portable: 16GB iAudio 7 > H-P mini^3 > SuperFreQs
DIY projects:
1) M^3 Home Headphone Amplifier (parts arrived - PS finished)
2) Beta 22 (parts arrived)
3) Opus DAC (waiting for parts)
Money spent since joining Head-Fi = I don't want to know/keep track ...
Last edited by wquiles; 06-25-2008 at 05:26 PM.
|
06-25-2008, 05:37 PM
|
|
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London/Oxford
Posts: 766
|
|
What would be really interesting is a comparison of the FreqShows with ML and another pair with MM crossover. that way you could avoid any effects from engineering between the two very different models and just look at the differences in the crossovers.
My UM2s are 'music maker' style phones and I find that they aren't especially neutral, but despite their more 'fun sound' they are fun in a similar way to your description of the freqshows.
In fact, it took a slightly bright and well extended in the bass,mid and trebles (lots of additional extension to the treble end) amp to make the UM2s shine, so that could be similar to why the MM needs an amp to drive all the ranges properly.
Even though I'm more in the ML camp, the harshness and fatiguing nature of it's sound from the description is certainly not what you need for classical music even if it makes it seem more fun/detailed etc.
|
06-25-2008, 05:55 PM
|
|
Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 44
|
|
Amazing review Powertoold.
Thank you so much for spending your time to make us understand the difference between these babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold
FreQ Custom IEM: Music Lovers VS. Makers - A Comparison
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 |
That's exactly what I feel with my Superfreq : I also find the mids unnatural, harsh and tiring. I can't live with them... That's the reason why I will ask for a full refund of my Superfreq...
.. except if Todd accept to replace the ML crossover by the MM one.
|
06-25-2008, 06:50 PM
|
|
500+ Head-Fi'er
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 758
|
|
really? when I was listening to the UM2s i was thinking it was more ML line from the desciprtions...
the UM2 bass is not especially tight.. with some lacking in the highs and a slight bump in the mids.. of course from prev reads the ML has quite forward mids.. but I was thinking the bass and highs were about similar to the ML line...
never had the impression the um2 was similar to my FS...
I've never really understood the fatigue thing either.. if it sounds good it sounds good doesn't it? How does a sound that feels pretty good get fatiguing? and would a more neutral sound mean less fatiguing? i thought ppl get fatigue with their etys as well..
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:11 PM.
|
