FreQ Custom IEM: Music Lovers VS. Makers - A Comparison

[G-man]

interesting, but is the minimal difference in sound quality, and the detachable cable worth the extra $110?
what would be a good comparison would be the super.fi 10 vs the the SuperfreQ. i think, including the ear molds, the price difference should be minimal. if only they were in uk, i cant bear to order them from the US, knowing there is a high chance that the molds wont be right.

[chris_ah1]

Originally Posted by slowth

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..

It's quite possible i got confused on the freq models. I agree on the mid bump, and that the bass is not tight with foam complys. With flanges and olives they are much better. especially bi-flanges for bass. As for the high treble i agree too that it is slightly rolled without amplification. With good amplification I find the UM2s lose their signature completely. I never use my UM2s unamped.

I think it's my PErsonal experience with the UM2s that makes me think they are more the MM than ML. Quite simply, UM2s might have a mid bump like ML, but they don't have the strained highs of the MLs.

For me the soundstaging on the UM2s is impeccable (amped) and I can't see the MLs from the review getting close to that.

Then again, i could be hallucinating - I'm going to reread the review and check lol.

[wquiles]

Originally Posted by gautam

interesting, but is the minimal difference in sound quality, and the detachable cable worth the extra $110?
what would be a good comparison would be the super.fi 10 vs the the SuperfreQ. i think, including the ear molds, the price difference should be minimal. if only they were in uk, i cant bear to order them from the US, knowing there is a high chance that the molds wont be right.

I had the UE Triple.fi 10 and now have the SuperFreQs (although with the MM crossover). Hands down the SuperFreQs & MM crossover sounds better than the Triple.fi 10 ever did. More natural, better instrument separation, plus much better isolation, comfort, plus I can listen to the FreQs at lower volume and still hear more detail than with the Triple.fi

[G-man]

lol, that just makes me want to get them more. still, that's in the future. ill let the future take care of itself.

[slowth]

sounds philosophical!

[Mazz]

Interesting...interesting.

I only have my SuperFreqs to play with, and unEQ-ed they sound a bit congested/muddled on some music (as reported on the main thread). Todd has suggested I try the MM crossover (and work on improving the fit, which may have something to do with it too). I'm trying to figure out what to do (as I'd like to minimize the number of times I send them from Australia to The Freq). I thought the MM crossover was even more mid-forward than the ML crossover, but powertoold and Headphone Addict were the two posters who had written descriptions of sound that reminded me most of my experiences. And both now have the MM crossover with a much better experience than before...although we have a couple of people saying the MM puts you "closer" to the mids/vocals.

I have access to the first two of powertoold's review tracks and to a different performance of the third. I just spent some time listening to those tracks using my ML crossover both with and without my current EQ settings for the SuperFreqs. I get something vaguely similar to the review experience for some of the tracks (where EQed is a bit more like the MM crossover is reported to be and un-EQed is a bit more like the ML report). And on Rachmaninov I find it hard to hear what the individual instruments are doing without EQ, and ... less hard with EQ (perhaps not a very good recording for that aspect of the sound).

So...perhaps the MM crossover is worth a try? Decisions, decisions...

[powertoold]

Originally Posted by Mazz

Interesting...interesting.

I only have my SuperFreqs to play with, and unEQ-ed they sound a bit congested/muddled on some music (as reported on the main thread). Todd has suggested I try the MM crossover (and work on improving the fit, which may have something to do with it too). I'm trying to figure out what to do (as I'd like to minimize the number of times I send them from Australia to The Freq). I thought the MM crossover was even more mid-forward than the ML crossover, but powertoold and Headphone Addict were the two posters who had written descriptions of sound that reminded me most of my experiences. And both now have the MM crossover with a much better experience than before...although we have a couple of people saying the MM puts you "closer" to the mids/vocals.

I have access to the first two of powertoold's review tracks and to a different performance of the third. I just spent some time listening to those tracks using my ML crossover both with and without my current EQ settings for the SuperFreqs. I get something vaguely similar to the review experience for some of the tracks (where EQed is a bit more like the MM crossover is reported to be and un-EQed is a bit more like the ML report). And on Rachmaninov I find it hard to hear what the individual instruments are doing without EQ, and ... less hard with EQ (perhaps not a very good recording for that aspect of the sound).

So...perhaps the MM crossover is worth a try? Decisions, decisions...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the MM crossover is more forward than the ML. I think HeadphoneAddict once talked about the mids being too forward, but that was when he was having the ringing/roaring problem. Now that that is fixed, he doesn't feel like the mids are forward anymore.

Personally, compared to the ML crossover, the MM crossover sounds almost like it has recessed mids. The MM crossover is more balanced, and I really love it! From the last few days of listening, I can also tell that the MM crossover has a larger soundstage because the mids aren't getting in the way of the other frequencies that create a larger sense of space. I think the congestion / muddiness that you're hearing is due to the mids being a bit too forward.

I say try to hit two birds with one stone Of course, your problem is likely to be also due to fit problems, if you have any. The fit is very important as you know, and it would be great if you could somehow get the MM crossover and fit problem fixed all in one shipment

[Mazz]

Originally Posted by powertoold

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the MM crossover is more forward than the ML. I think HeadphoneAddict once talked about the mids being too forward, but that was when he was having the ringing/roaring problem. Now that that is fixed, he doesn't feel like the mids are forward anymore.

I'm not sure either - maybe I need to go back and read 50 pages on the Impressions thread to see if I just mis-read it ;-) I remember not paying close attention to the MM crossover when it first came out because it didn't apply to me...

Originally Posted by powertoold

Personally, compared to the ML crossover, the MM crossover sounds almost like it has recessed mids. The MM crossover is more balanced, and I really love it! From the last few days of listening, I can also tell that the MM crossover has a larger soundstage because the mids aren't getting in the way of the other frequencies that create a larger sense of space. I think the congestion / muddiness that you're hearing is due to the mids being a bit too forward.

I certainly think so. When I first noticed it the head stage almost collapsed down to a point, but IIRC applying some EQ helped expand it again. A more balanced/less forward low-mid sounds like it should work a lot better for me.

I also think in the last week or so that my impressions of the sound and headstage on much music has improved a bit further, but I can still find tracks where problems reveal themselves.

Originally Posted by powertoold

Of course, your problem is likely to be also due to fit problems, if you have any. The fit is very important as you know, and it would be great if you could somehow get the MM crossover and fit problem fixed all in one shipment

I think that might be a smart goal. The fit definitely isn't proper on the right side, although it (more or less) seals. It may even need to seal a little better on the left - hard to judge with only written descriptions as a reference. That alone might improve things.

[Mazz]

Originally Posted by powertoold

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the MM crossover is more forward than the ML.

I've read comments from a few different people (e.g. Germania's first FreqShow review, slowth on a Freqs vs Livewires thread, ...) about there being a bump in the mid-range, which may or may not mean the range that disturbs me. Not sure how many of them have heard both ML & MM crossovers, so I may have taken those comments as comparative statements when they weren't meant to be.

I'm about 30% through reading the huge Freq impressions thread from the point where the MM line makes an appearance. There are a bunch of comments that the MM is more neutral (and/or can be more successfully EQed) which sounds promising. I'd like to get a sound signature I can live with without EQ, or using an iPod preset.

More reading...

[slowth]

I've never heard the super freqs.. =)

[Hayduke]

Nice review powertoold

I had already commented on your mini review on the "other thread" before I noticed the link in your signature. Now that I've read it, I think it's pretty accurate. The only way I could describe the difference I noticed was a sense that the MM x-over made the music more open. Not that it was loose. Both lines are very accurate. I guess it just felt spread out more.

Here's how I would describe it. Take a frequency graph from 20 to 20k hz.

20hz|--------------------------------|20khz
This is the SuperFreq "space" on the spectrum.

This is the FreqShow's:
20hz|-----------------------------------------|20khz

It's like you get a higher resolution so the wave that is formed can contain more "data". Because the spectrum is wider (even though still the same end points), more of the frequencies can be represented.

I'm reading this and can't tell if it makes sense. I understand it in my head

Originally Posted by WindowsX

basically, general crossover is all like that. Putting caps, better balance but needs more current to drive to make the sound full which isn't possible from DAP or most portable amps. but in terms of high-fideability and neutrality, I voted for MM kind eventhough most people would go for ML.

This is true that putting more components in the signal path will increase impedance, but this isn't the case. The ML line has a x-over too. The MM line just has a different x-over. The difference between them seems minimal to me. Both are ultra sensitive.

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.

How is your fit? The difference is pretty small, so I'm not sure it would be worthwhile unless you are sending them back for something else? If ou truley don't like the way your SFs sound, then talk to The freQ about it. They will make it right for you.

Originally Posted by WindowsX

I wonder how difference they are to each other inside the crossovers.

If you find any specs, please share

Originally Posted by slowth

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..

You've never felt tired of listening to a pair of headphones?
My HD580s are amazing and very non-fatiguing, but even those can cause fatigue. It usually takes high volumes and sometimes a poor recording though. When you listen to your music loud (I know we're not supposed to, but we all "rock out" once in awhile hehe), don't you feel a sort of relief when you take them off? This is fatigue. A bad headphone/system will cause fatigue even at comfortable volumes.

Originally Posted by gautam

interesting, but is the minimal difference in sound quality, and the detachable cable worth the extra $110?
what would be a good comparison would be the super.fi 10 vs the the SuperfreQ. i think, including the ear molds, the price difference should be minimal. if only they were in uk, i cant bear to order them from the US, knowing there is a high chance that the molds wont be right.

I'm not sure about your math here. SuperFreqs are $239.99. Triple.Fi's are ~$350. My impressions only cost $20 and many people get theirs for less or even free. Even if you paid $50 (the most I would think even remotely reasonable), the SuperFreqs are still ~$80 cheaper.

Let's set aside the fact that SuperFreqs are cheaper and look at everything else. There have been some posts by folks that prefered their Triple.Fis, but there are far more that prefer the SuperFreqs.

So let's assume the SQ is identical. Not likely, but let's take it out of the consideration. The SuperFreqs are custom made to your ears. They will always be more comfortable and easier to use. If you haven't worn them, you can't imagine the difference. I borrowed some Shure IEMs from a buddy. The SQ didn't bother me too much because I was so bothered trying to get them to fit well. If I got a good seal, they were uncomfortable. I can wear my FreQs all day long and forget they are even there

Now is it worth $110 more for the FreqShow? I prefer the new x-over myself, but I wanted the detachable cable. The cable on my SuperFreqs fell apart on me. The new upgraded one looks the same as the MM line, so it is probably fine. I didn't feel confident site unseen, so I opted to upgrade. Todd was going to remake my SuperFreqs and throw in the cable upgrade for free, but I still paid the extra.

The big question I'm still unsure on is, can you get the MM x-over in the SuperFreq?

[slowth]

oh oops!
I rarely bring the volume up!! haha so after long times I don't get fatigued... heh or maybe my tolerance is just very high..

[Mazz]

Originally Posted by powertoold

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the MM crossover is more forward than the ML.

IIRC others also had that impression from reading the thread (IIRC Hayduke as well as direcow, flargosa). But then Hayduke - after trying both - thought the MM was more neutral. But wquiles has tried both and EQs everything but the mids up a little for the MM but flat for the MM (which sounds like the MM has a little more mids).

I think I also mentally filed away Todd's comments that you quoted back on the impressions thread:

Whereas, the Music Makers crossover is designed for use with amplifiers. You would need to listen to your source a little louder than you would with the Lovers crossover. The sound signature is a little different as well. Some have described it as "very warm".

That could mean a number of things in relation to the low-mids, so perhaps I misinterpreted it. Technically it's NOT a comparative statement with regard to the ML crossover - but if it's not that would mean that the ML crossover is "very warm" or warmer still.

There was also:

Originally Posted by slowth

mids are VERY pronounced...which I think sometimes crowds out the lower registers so it sounds very cluttered... makes the bass slightly less distinct.

Again, not a comparative statement and slowth hasn't heard the ML crossover (as was recently reiterated). Slowth later clarified it wasn't meant to imply "super pronounced"...and later still that the seal wasn't "that great".

And slightly OT, but killkli said the FreqShow had more controlled bass and more restrained treble than the SuperFreqs (which if anything allows more mids to be heard, at least in comparison). Killkli later said he (?) has the MM crossover (and that compared to Livewires the mids were a little more forward - but still not comparative to SuperFreqs.) The treble comment is interesting because I find I want 1-2dB more at the top end with my SuperFreqs, even after I EQ down the offending mids.

Then EyeAmEye said

The FreqShow puts vocals and guitar right in your face while the UE11 pushes them back into the mix. [...]and if you're a mid freak, you simply cannot go wrong.

...but didn't say which crossover, and I may have assumed it was the MM.

It's very late here in Sydney. Now that I've finished reading the second half of the impressions thread I'll come back and read my posts tomorrow and see if I can make any sense of the situation ;-)

[slowth]

hope this doesn't become hostile... =)

[EyeAmEye]

Originally Posted by Mazz

Then EyeAmEye said


...but didn't say which crossover, and I may have assumed it was the MM.

I have the ML crossover, and the midrange is very prominent.