Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Klipsch IMAGE X10 vs UE triple.fi 10 Pro initial & final thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Klipsch IMAGE X10 vs UE triple.fi 10 Pro initial & final thoughts - Page 2

post #16 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
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.
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
- 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 clearer picture of what's going on with the Image.
The chesty vocals seem to depend on the heavily recessed treble (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.

EDIT: I have eventually bought them, impressions here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5088605-post39.html
post #18 of 56
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
post #19 of 56
I think, that's no problem with it.
post #20 of 56
Just checked with their website and I don't think the Shure EA120 foamies will fit because the nozzle and their ear gel (silicon flange) design has locking ring a bit like tongue and groove interlocking method. So you need to buy the Klipsch original ear gel if you need replacement.

Big dissapointment for me
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
- 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.


Any other triple owner's feel volume is stuck at the same level, whether there are lows and highs present in the music? I think I've experienced what ASR is describing. For instance, on The Diaries of Alicia Keys, first song (Piano intro), when the other instruments come in, there are parts where Alicia purposefully plays a few keys hard several times. It really shows up when I play it on regular speakers but it is hardly noticeable on my triples.
post #22 of 56
Hi ASR,
nice comparison. A job well done. Your review concisely states what I gathered from other threads. If only you could've posted it earlier when I was tossing and turning between what to buy!
post #23 of 56
At 50 ohms is it fair to say the Klipsch really require an amp to sound great?

I feel this way about TF10 and if TF10 are more efficient than the Klipsch....
post #24 of 56
The Image are sounding good right out of my 5.5G ipod video headphone jack, at 50-60% volume for normal listening.
post #25 of 56
Thread Starter 
Pics as promised:







post #26 of 56
Nice pix, Asr
But no case? I love those gunmetal Triple Fi cases!

Edit\ and Triples become seriously sexy with the clear cable
post #27 of 56
I want to love TP10 but they are way TOO HUGE for my small ear

I like the review of the Klipsch and thanks! Might look forward to get one soon. But ER4P + APS cabling is just tempting either.
post #28 of 56
Hi,
I know this is slightly off-topic but can anyone tell me if the sound quality from the Klipsch Image is on a par with higher end full sized headphones, specifically the Ultrasone HFI 780's. The Ultrasone's have really punchy, deep bass with very forward mids and crystal clear trebles (some say too much) and a pretty good soundstage. However, they are HUGE and the Klipsch's were suggested as a portable alternative. Can anybody tell me what the differences are and whether any sound quality is sacrificed due to IEM's tiny size?
Many thanks.
post #29 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviebee View Post
Nice pix, Asr
But no case? I love those gunmetal Triple Fi cases!

Edit\ and Triples become seriously sexy with the clear cable
I took 2 pics of the case but deleted both because I couldn't get the lighting right - it's too reflective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tayloran9 View Post
Hi,
I know this is slightly off-topic but can anyone tell me if the sound quality from the Klipsch Image is on a par with higher end full sized headphones, specifically the Ultrasone HFI 780's. The Ultrasone's have really punchy, deep bass with very forward mids and crystal clear trebles (some say too much) and a pretty good soundstage. However, they are HUGE and the Klipsch's were suggested as a portable alternative. Can anybody tell me what the differences are and whether any sound quality is sacrificed due to IEM's tiny size?
Many thanks.
I heard the HFI-780 at a recent meet and it cannot be compared to the Klipsch. The 780 is a closed headphone and it had some similarities I've heard from other closed headphones, mostly in the area of bass.

I've heard only a few IEMs to date (all listed in my profile) but of the ones I've heard, the IMAGE X10 has the deepest, most quantitative bass, if that's a quality you're looking for. As for comparison between IEMs and full-size, that can only really be done on a case-by-case basis, not in general.
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
... I heard the HFI-780 at a recent meet and it cannot be compared to the Klipsch. The 780 is a closed headphone and it had some similarities I've heard from other closed headphones, mostly in the area of bass.
Sorry, when you say they can't be compared to the Image 10, do you mean that the Image's sound quality is better than the Ultrasone's closed backs or worse?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Klipsch IMAGE X10 vs UE triple.fi 10 Pro initial & final thoughts