Klipsch IMAGE X10 vs UE triple.fi 10 Pro initial & final thoughts

[jbloudg20]

I had owned the Triple.Fi previously, but sold it due to fitment problems. Mostly, I could not get a good fit with any of the UE tips, which of course, gave me a loss of seal.

I recently re-puchased them, and I am using the Shure e2c black silicone tips. These are perfect for me. I get (and maintain) a great seal. With a seal like this, I just can't see how people still manage to say the triple.fi is lacking in any type of bass. These naysayers must also love Darth 'fart' beyers.

[Asr]

Apologies to those who anticipated a future review of these two IEMs, but I'm going to have to cancel it. A full review will not be coming soon or anytime in the future, sorry.

I'll post some closing scattered final thoughts here instead.

1. The Klipsch IMAGE X10 has a much warmer mid-range than the triple.fi, enough that I consider it a stark contrast. I could try to describe the ways in which it's colored but since that's subjective anyway, I'll just say it's very pleasant-sounding.

2. The IMAGE also has considerably more bass output in terms of both extension and force. It extends at least an audible octave lower if not more. It easily pushes plenty of bass around the 40-80 Hz area, enough that it more than satisfies for my electronica music. The triple.fi works well enough for electronica too but it's nowhere near as satisfying with the thumps and booms.

3. In the same way that the IMAGE has bass, the triple.fi has treble. Clear, clean, and articulate - not quite as much treble definition as my full-sized headphones, but still very acceptable and surprising for an IEM. It separates fast sequences of notes easily and closes snaps nicely.

4. Both isolate very well when music is playing. I've tested both on flights & a bus and both worked very well at blocking out at least 85% of ambient noise - the last 10-15% usually being engine noise.

5. Both are very comfortable, for my ears anyway. Achieving a seal with the IMAGE is faster though than with the triple.fi, since the triple.fi's cable is designed to hook over the ear and the tips don't just easily slide in - the IMAGE is more like "poke it in and voila!"

6. The triple.fi is clearly more efficient than the IMAGE and picks up background noise more easily. Its suitability for lower volume settings also makes it more friendly for battery life on portable devices.

7. The triple.fi's cord is a thicker, almost rubberized type that doesn't kink easily, which is nice. In contrast, the IMAGE's cord kinks too easily when being stored haphazardly and it's always a relative hassle un-kinking it.

8. The plastic driver housing of the triple.fi feels cheap. There I said it. The IMAGE doesn't feel as cheap with its metallic housing and its aesthetic actually makes it look state-of-the-art.

9. I'm keeping the IMAGE. There, I said that too! I vastly prefer its combo of mid-range and bass over the cleaner, clearer sound of the triple.fi for my personal application of using it as a single ultraportable solution for all my music genres.

I'll be posting pics of the IEMs and accessories sometime within the next several days.

[antonyfirst]

Thanks for the quick impressions, but I still have some questions:

-I'd like to know if the Image have not only more extended and louder deep bass than the Triple.fi, but also more bloated midbass, that I wouldn't find pleasing for my ears.
-Did you notice any sibilance out of the Triple.fi? If so, how the Image behave in regards to that? How strongly (or weakly) do cymbals crash?
-Are the Image vocals "chesty" by any means (which I wouldn't like at all)?
-Which one has the larger and deeper soundstage and precise imaging (the Triple,fi have some depth thanks to the particular way of insertion)? Can we call it a tie?
-At what treble frequency do you think the Image roll off?

Thanks.

[BloodSugar00]

It was around the time I first discovered head-fi and was uing the wealth of information here in deciding upon my first set of IEM's and indeed high quality audio gear that you put up your poll for a set of IEM's to review the images against and so yes I am gona be openly somewhat disappointed that after such a lengthy period of gestation you've suddenly canned the task. I think you could of at least explained a little as to why rather than just making an empty statement. However, thats selfish disappointment. Your rough thoughts on the two hp's and how they compare and contrast is still pretty thorough and provides some curious reading, so thanks for that! They are both two ets of IEM's I am very interested to try out at some point so I do find the comparison intriguing.

[Asr]

Originally Posted by antonyfirst

Thanks for the quick impressions, but I still have some questions:

-I'd like to know if the Image have not only more extended and louder deep bass than the Triple.fi, but also more bloated midbass, that I wouldn't find pleasing for my ears.
-Did you notice any sibilance out of the Triple.fi? If so, how the Image behave in regards to that? How strongly (or weakly) do cymbals crash?
-Are the Image vocals "chesty" by any means?
-Which one has the larger and deeper soundstage and precise imaging (the Triple,fi have some depth thanks to the particular way of insertion)? Can we call it a tie?
-At what treble frequency do you think the Image roll off?

Thanks.

- Well I don't find the mid-bass of the IMAGE to be bloated. I usually don't like mid-bass bloat and I find nothing really wrong with it on the IMAGE, it's certainly not on level on headphones that I do think have bloat (super.fi 5 Pro, DT770, etc).
- I don't find the triple.fi sibilant at all, not even recording-dependent either. No sibilance on the IMAGE either. The IMAGE has some fairly weak treble compared to the triple.fi so cymbals don't quite crash or simmer that much but it's enough to discern a cymbal crash at least.
- Vocals on the IMAGE are quite chesty, yes. The warm mid-range allows that.
- The IMAGE has the smaller soundstage - intimate and personal. The triple.fi's soundstage is something like the AKG K701's - not as open, wide, and deep of course, but in a similar "open" vein. I like the IMAGE's soundstage though, it's more similar to the AD2000's, my perennial favorite headphone. Vocals are presented in a similarly forward style as the AD2000.
- I'd say the treble starts to drastically weaken above ~14 kHz or so.

Another point I forgot to mention about the two IEMs, the IMAGE exhibits a wider dynamic range rather than a kind of lock-step range that the triple.fi has. Loud and soft contrasts come across clearly on the IMAGE, in fact there's a nice swell to them. The triple.fi tends to act like it's stuck at a volume preset, which is really disappointing for a >$300 IEM.

[HeadphoneAddict]

Originally Posted by Asr

Apologies to those who anticipated a future review of these two IEMs, but I'm going to have to cancel it. A full review will not be coming soon or anytime in the future, sorry.

I'll post some closing scattered final thoughts here instead.

1. The Klipsch IMAGE X10 has a much warmer mid-range than the triple.fi, enough that I consider it a stark contrast. I could try to describe the ways in which it's colored but since that's subjective anyway, I'll just say it's very pleasant-sounding.

My comments in green - Agreed

2. The IMAGE also has considerably more bass output in terms of both extension and force. It extends at least an audible octave lower if not more. It easily pushes plenty of bass around the 40-80 Hz area, enough that it more than satisfies for my electronica music. The triple.fi works well enough for electronica too but it's nowhere near as satisfying with the thumps and booms.

Agreed. The Image reminds me of the SE530 and q-JAYS in sound signature.

3. In the same way that the IMAGE has bass, the triple.fi has treble. Clear, clean, and articulate - not quite as much treble definition as my full-sized headphones, but still very acceptable and surprising for an IEM. It separates fast sequences of notes easily and closes snaps nicely.

Agreed, but the Image do not lack in treble to my ears, with more than the SE530 and q-JAYS but just not quite as much as the Triple.fi.

4. Both isolate very well when music is playing. I've tested both on flights & a bus and both worked very well at blocking out at least 85% of ambient noise - the last 10-15% usually being engine noise.

The Image and Triple.fi still don't isolate as well as the ER6i, q-JAYS, SE530, IM716, etc...

5. Both are very comfortable, for my ears anyway. Achieving a seal with the IMAGE is faster though than with the triple.fi, since the triple.fi's cable is designed to hook over the ear and the tips don't just easily slide in - the IMAGE is more like "poke it in and voila!"

Agreed, adding that I must use foam tips with Triple.fi for comfort but the silicone with Image are fine.

6. The triple.fi is clearly more efficient than the IMAGE and picks up background noise more easily. Its suitability for lower volume settings also makes it more friendly for battery life on portable devices.

Agreed - the Image, q-JAYS and IM716 require a bit more power to achieve the same volumes as Triple.fi

7. The triple.fi's cord is a thicker, almost rubberized type that doesn't kink easily, which is nice. In contrast, the IMAGE's cord kinks too easily when being stored haphazardly and it's always a relative hassle un-kinking it.

Agreed

8. The plastic driver housing of the triple.fi feels cheap. There I said it. The IMAGE doesn't feel as cheap with its metallic housing and its aesthetic actually makes it look state-of-the-art.

Agreed

9. I'm keeping the IMAGE. There, I said that too! I vastly prefer its combo of mid-range and bass over the cleaner, clearer sound of the triple.fi for my personal application of using it as a single ultraportable solution for all my music genres.

Agreed - but the Image I have here are borrowed. I sold the Triple.fi in Jan, and will likely buy some Image in the near future now that I have sold the q-JAYS and Super.fi too.

I'll be posting pics of the IEMs and accessories sometime within the next several days.

Thanks for your comments - we're almost in complete agreement! In my "7 IEM 7 AMP Synergy" review (see link in my profile) I'll be adding the Image and Sleek SA6 that I'll be testing tomorrow, along with the D2 Boa, HR Micro Amp and TTVJ Portable Millet Hybrid, making it 10 IEM and 10 Amps looking for Synergy.

[antonyfirst]

Originally Posted by Asr

- Well I don't find the mid-bass of the IMAGE to be bloated. I usually don't like mid-bass bloat and I find nothing really wrong with it on the IMAGE, it's certainly not on level on headphones that I do think have bloat (super.fi 5 Pro, DT770, etc).
- I don't find the triple.fi sibilant at all, not even recording-dependent either. No sibilance on the IMAGE either. The IMAGE has some fairly weak treble compared to the triple.fi so cymbals don't quite crash or simmer that much but it's enough to discern a cymbal crash at least.
- Vocals on the IMAGE are quite chesty, yes. The warm mid-range allows that.
- The IMAGE has the smaller soundstage - intimate and personal. The triple.fi's soundstage is something like the AKG K701's - not as open, wide, and deep of course, but in a similar "open" vein. I like the IMAGE's soundstage though, it's more similar to the AD2000's, my perennial favorite headphone. Vocals are presented in a similarly forward style as the AD2000.
- I'd say the treble starts to drastically weaken above ~14 kHz or so.

Another point I forgot to mention about the two IEMs, the IMAGE exhibits a wider dynamic range rather than a kind of lock-step range that the triple.fi has. Loud and soft contrasts come across clearly on the IMAGE, in fact there's a nice swell to them. The triple.fi tends to act like it's stuck at a volume preset, which is really disappointing for a >$300 IEM.

Thanks for this one great post. Now I have a clear picture of what's going on with the Image (and that I don't need them, but that's another story).
The chesty vocals seem to depend on the heavily recessed upper mids (by how you are describing cymbals... I'm sure there's no sibilance either).
In fact, your description of the image mirrors how I felt that the RE1 sound, save that the RE1 have as big soundstage as the TRIPLE.FI.
Your description of the dynamic range is very welcome, and makes the Image more interesting, but I have had enough of headphones of this very coloration. It's very hard (I found it impossible in fact) to find a IEM with flat upper midrange. These and the RE1 seem very recessed, while my impressions of the Triple.fi (as well as their frequency response) are that upper mids are overrepresented and often harsh (like every othre armature IEM I personally tried).

Cheers.

[4agze]

Thanks for the review but have 1 quick question, can I fit the Shure EA120 yellow foamies on this IMAGE? I dont like those silicon flange.

Thanks

[Cannabizzz776n99]

I think, that's no problem with it.