New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Monster Turbine Pro - Page 6

post #76 of 334
Almost kinda less of everything..

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Monster Turbine Pro Gold In-Ear Headphones
Monster Turbine Pro Copper In-Ear Headphones
Monster Turbine Pro Copper In-Ear Headphones with ControlTalk
post #77 of 334
...which is why we need something more than a graph to let us know how these things actually sound. ajmiarka, have yours come in yet?
post #78 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epithetless View Post
...which is why we need something more than a graph to let us know how these things actually sound. ajmiarka, have yours come in yet?
Not yet. Michael said mid to late October. I saw that they were in stock at MonsterCable.com for a couple days but they are now out. Hope that means they have at least been shipping out to the other stores.
post #79 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmiarka View Post
Not yet. Michael said mid to late October. I saw that they were in stock at MonsterCable.com for a couple days but they are now out. Hope that means they have at least been shipping out to the other stores.
Pins and needles, my friend. Pins and needles!
post #80 of 334
Thread Starter 
Here are more reviews

AES 2009: Monster Turbine Pro Impressions [Continued] | Ask A Sound Guy

Don't know about the Gold vs Copper difference. I thought they were the same thing but different color?

Another review
Monster Turbine Pro In-Ear Headphones: Review by Chris Chiarella on BigPictureBigSound
post #81 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmiarka View Post
Here are more reviews

AES 2009: Monster Turbine Pro Impressions [Continued] | Ask A Sound Guy

Don't know about the Gold vs Copper difference. I thought they were the same thing but different color?

Another review
Monster Turbine Pro In-Ear Headphones: Review by Chris Chiarella on BigPictureBigSound
That is kind of weird.
From AES 2009: Monster Turbine Pro Impressions | Ask A Sound Guy
"Copper is the “pro” standard, meant for extreme audiophiles and recording/mix engineers. Gold is supposedly a half-step down from Copper, meaning it’s a little cheaper and made more for audiophiles/your everyday iPod listener."
post #82 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjmai View Post
That is kind of weird.
From AES 2009: Monster Turbine Pro Impressions | Ask A Sound Guy
"Copper is the “pro” standard, meant for extreme audiophiles and recording/mix engineers. Gold is supposedly a half-step down from Copper, meaning it’s a little cheaper and made more for audiophiles/your everyday iPod listener."
Greeeeaaat...so now we (I) need impressions of two sets of Turbine Pros?
post #83 of 334
I wouldn't worry about it. Audiophiles are fine with gold. We don't need the same quality/fidelity a pro does and probably wouldn't figure out the difference anyway, if there even is one.
post #84 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
I wouldn't worry about it. Audiophiles are fine with gold. We don't need the same quality/fidelity a pro does and probably wouldn't figure out the difference anyway, if there even is one.
The same link also says "gold version is geared toward audiophile listeners who prefer extraordinarily punchy, impactful bass, while the copper version provides unsurpassed accuracy for an ideal professional reference listening experience."

Seeing how there a lot of people here prefer the balanced sound, while many others are bassheads, I'd say it's going to a hard pick. Gosh I really hope the writer got this fact wrong, or some indecisive people may ending up having to buy both.
post #85 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
I wouldn't worry about it. Audiophiles are fine with gold. We don't need the same quality/fidelity a pro does and probably wouldn't figure out the difference anyway, if there even is one.
Heh heh.
post #86 of 334
Gold has worse electrical properties (e.g. resistivity is 33% worse), but audiophiles believe in other things anyway.
A reason why gold is preferred is that it's more "chemically inactive" than copper.
post #87 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
Gold has worse electrical properties (e.g. resistivity is 33% worse), but audiophiles believe in other things anyway.
A reason why gold is preferred is that it's more "chemically inactive" than copper.
I don't think the gold and copper refer to materials used on Turbine Pro. It's just color, I thought.
post #88 of 334
From the AES 2009 article:

Quote:
Much much lower noise floor than cheapie ear buds. I got a chance throw in my ten dollar Skull candy ear buds and compare.
Skullcandy.

You have a $250 pair of top-shelf phones, and your point of reference is Skullcandy? What, exactly, were you expecting to learn?
post #89 of 334
Funny, we were all going on the Monster site descriptions. Now that press release states a difference between the two colors as far as sound.

Might be nice to have some differentiation other than just choose a color from a drop down list.

Still a no-go at $280 though. And still the color only denotes different signatures. It says gold-toned metal not real gold. Maybe worth $280 if it was real gold in them thar' parts!
post #90 of 334
Thread Starter 
So now they've updated their article:

AES 2009: Monster Turbine Pro Impressions | Ask A Sound Guy

"In addition to the different cosmetic styles, each version will offer astute listeners a choice in audio dynamics. For instance, with its slightly more pronounced low-frequency response, the gold version is geared toward audiophile listeners who prefer extraordinarily punchy, impactful bass, while the copper version provides unsurpassed accuracy for an ideal professional reference listening experience."

Thank goodness I picked the gold and enjoy punch, impactful bass!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Monster Turbine Pro Gold In-Ear Headphones
Monster Turbine Pro Copper In-Ear Headphones
Monster Turbine Pro Copper In-Ear Headphones with ControlTalk