Latest Thread Images

My review of Audio Technica ATH-CK9 and ATH-CK10
Aug 24, 2009 at 7:49 AM Post #16 of 76
I use them with short stem triflanges which give very good isolation and also a tad bigger bass impact, while still maintaining the smooth and detailed overall sound.

For some reason I just can't get along with foamies in any way or form.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM Post #17 of 76
Can any CK10 owners comment on performance with "female trance" music?
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM Post #18 of 76
Also, how do the CK10 highs compare with the PFEs?

This was the one decent shortcoming of the CK7 in my opinion.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM Post #19 of 76
I don't really have any female trance music in my library, unless the newer Madonna stuff, Milk Inc. and the likes, can be classed as trance? All vocals sound very good with the CK10's, that I can assure you.
CK7's are dynamic and CK10's are dual armatures, there are bound to be differences in their performance.

ETA
I haven't heard the PFE's so can't comment on that, but I would be surprised if they outperformed the CK10's.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 4:03 PM Post #20 of 76
So many IEMs to consider. Has anyone compared the CK10's to the SE530's and the Triple.Fi Pro 10's? (I already have the SE530's but I'm looking for another flavour of IEM with more extended highs - hence the interest in the Trips and now perhaps the CK10).
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 7:40 PM Post #22 of 76
Haven't heard the 530's, but what I have read their highs are a tad rolled off, this is definitely not the case with the CK10's.

Can't really say anything about the IE8's, but I am 99% sure that the CK10's have better detail and highs.

ETA
Oh, almost forgot, the CK10's are built like tanks, absolutely top class build quality, which is always a big plus when splashing out on expensive gear.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 7:48 PM Post #23 of 76
Thanks for the response. How are the mids and bass on the CK10s? I can't stand my CK9. I've listened to them for it a solid hour after receiving it and never touched it again because of the bass - or rather, the lack of. The highs on the CK9 are splendid but when it comes to the bass, it's almost non-existent in my book. But this may be because of my accustom to the IE8.
 
Sep 5, 2009 at 8:04 PM Post #24 of 76
Mids are very detailed and great for vocals, both female and male vocals sound very natural, guitar and synth based music sounds brilliant. Bass is very high quality, but probably not anything like the quantity of the IE8's. With bass boost they can become real bass cannons, relatively speaking.
CK10's sound like a beefed up CK9, they do everything a bit better.
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 7:10 AM Post #26 of 76
the ck10 is without a doubt the best universal iem i have tried for trance of any flavour. it has sparkle, space, great phase dynamics. the only thing a big trance head might really want is bigger bass, but i was satisfied.

what do you mean by intrusive? fit for me is amazing with the ck10 which litterly disappear into my ear canals. they ave very comfortable.

just found my old review: CK10 review
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 8:29 AM Post #27 of 76
Hi there. Being a sound isolating canal phone, I find the fit of the SE530 somewhat intrusive in that it penetrates the ear canal. I might be a little sensitive to earphones like the SE530 and the UM3X for that matter. I was just wondering if the CK10 is similar in that regard.

So the CK10 is well suited to trance. How would it do with acoustic based music like jazz and country?

Thanks for the link to your review. I'll take a squiz.

EDIT: Just read your review, which was thorough and insightful as usual. Would you say that the CK10's have more in common with the sound of dynamic earphones than the SE530 and the UM3X? I ask this because I think I might favour the sound traits of dynamic earphones over balanced armatures.
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 8:39 AM Post #28 of 76
Used with Sony hybrids the ck10 is very shallow inserting and almost forgettable. They are very small and light, you won't notice them, at all. I use mine with Shure triflanges, and I find them very comfortable even then.

In my experience they are very well suited for acoustic and vocal music.



Maybe we could ask shigzeo for a ck10 vs se530 head on comparison?
wink.gif
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 9:59 AM Post #29 of 76
Deep insertion is a matter of getting used to. The HF5s go too deep, let me tell you!

At first I thought I' d never get used to this situation but I really enjoy it now. It blocks 100% external sounds. So in a crammed bus I am a happy man. The depth has to do with their performance as well. Being designed as such, if they rest in shallow depth they underperform.

The CK10 on the other hand (as far as the pictures show) are meant to rest on the outer canal which means more comfort.

@shigzeo: we would love a comparison (CK10-SE530) !!!
 
Sep 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM Post #30 of 76
^ Each to their own I suppose. I enjoy wearing my CX95 because it does not insert deeply into my ear canal; the SE530 less so because it does. Hence my query about how the CK10 sits in the ear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top