Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Impressions of the Ortofon e-Q7 versus the IE8, CK100, SE530, FX500 and X10 (plus CK10 discussion from post #120)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Impressions of the Ortofon e-Q7 versus the IE8, CK100, SE530, FX500 and X10 (plus CK10 discussion... - Page 16

post #226 of 881
Instead of multiplying the drivers which introduces cross-over issues, the best of both world could very well be this new BA-dynamic hybrid type driver that equips.... the E-Q7, hence its price. That's what pianist meant by "newly developed moving armature driver". It's not just a single BA driver IEM.
post #227 of 881
ck10s while listening to above and beyond podcasts anyone? are the ck10s truly the best iems available solely for trance?
post #228 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post
Yea, it seems all the Japanese IEM's are grossly overpriced. Heck the Shure E4 also had a finely machined 2-piece aluminum housing with a very unique filter changing design. No big deal.... Whether it's machined from metal or molded from plastic the tooling cost about the same.

So while the dynamics have apparent great tibre and attack, it sounds like they are looser and sloppier sounding than the BA's? It would seem a multi-driver BA is the best of both worlds covering the entire frequency spectrum while still exhibiting great articulation.
Did you read the OPs comparison on page 1 of this thread? e-Q7 is anything but sloppy and competes easily with top multi-driver BA IEMs.
post #229 of 881
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
Meh, every earphone sound significantly different from any other. It's too broad of a comment to compare BA and dyamic in such large chunks.

BA can't produce cymbals? BA can't produce drums? Don't blame the driver. Blame the intended design of the earphone not matching your specific "ideal" sound.

The TF10 is a poor example of good drums from a BA. They roll off a little early to create a full presentation. The top end might be to light and sparkly and lack overall dynamics and energy to really create a real impressive crash of a cymbal.

You might look at something more like the Westone W3 or UM3X for more extended bass and more dynamic range and energy. For example, the UM3X is very nearly on par with the IE8 in terms of bass. The IE8 has a little more sensitivity, but the UM3X has more detail and energy. The IE8 can be at times...soft around the edges. The TF10 can be too in terms of dynamics. The Westones are far more in your face.
You're right, I haven't heard enough BA phones to support this claim. Still, some similarities look like a pattern to me. Shigzeo, who has heard a lot more phones than me uses a trance track called "Mainstage" (Markus Schulz) for his tests. There's some deep low bass rumble in this track. He once said that in his experience no BA phone can produce this rumble. I've repeated his test with my phones and found his claim true. Even though I can hear/feel the SE530 down to 15Hz on a frequency sweep there's no rumble to speak of. By contrast even some budget DD IEMs that won't reach as low on a frequency sweep produce a very nice rumble with the same track. So it's not an issue of bass roll-off but a driver specific phenomenon.

And there are others, like that overly "metallic" coloring iponderous has been mentioning, that I can hear too with cymbals, solo piano or steel string guitar - only with BA phones. But again, I've heard too few BA phones to declare it a quirk of BA technology in general.
post #230 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
Meh, every earphone sound significantly different from any other. It's too broad of a comment to compare BA and dyamic in such large chunks.

In your opinion, which you are welcome to but I don't happen to share, based on my own listening experience.

BA can't produce cymbals? BA can't produce drums? Don't blame the driver. Blame the intended design of the earphone not matching your specific "ideal" sound.

No one said that. And why wouldn't two drivers that are radically different in design and engineering reproduce sound differently? It's not about apportioning blame to drivers for performing the same function in a different way, but acknowledging the differences, which are apparent to my ears. I've found that BA driver earphones do share sound traits, just as dynamic driver phones do. The metallic quality that I referred to is a sound trait common to every BA driver phone I've heard. However, it is not present in any of the dynamic driver phones that I've listened to. Mine was a comparative assessment of how dynamic and balanced armature phones reproduce the sound of drums and cymbals, using real drums and cymbals as a point of reference. If real equates to "ideal" in your parlance, then so be it.

The TF10 is a poor example of good drums from a BA. They roll off a little early to create a full presentation. The top end might be to light and sparkly and lack overall dynamics and energy to really create a real impressive crash of a cymbal.

I disagree. The TF10 renders drum sounds pretty convincingly to my ears for a BA phone, and better than any other that I've heard to date. I thought the TF10 was renowned for its highs? I do not detect any high frequency roll-off whatsoever with the TF10, whether I'm listening to cymbals or anything else. With respect, I don't understand your use of the terms "dynamics" and "energy" within this context.

You might look at something more like the Westone W3 or UM3X for more extended bass and more dynamic range and energy. For example, the UM3X is very nearly on par with the IE8 in terms of bass. The IE8 has a little more sensitivity, but the UM3X has more detail and energy. The IE8 can be at times...soft around the edges. The TF10 can be too in terms of dynamics. The Westones are far more in your face.

I can't comment on the W3, but your descriptions of the UM3X's sound signature in this and other posts, bears little resemblance to the phone that I owned for a brief time and quickly sold off. So again, I disagree. And your use of the term "dynamics" here is again odd. Are you saying that the TF10 doesn't reproduce changes in music volume very well?
I do wish that you'd begin to qualify your didactic pronouncements with an "IMO".
post #231 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post
Shigzeo, who has heard a lot more phones than me uses a trance track called "Mainstage" (Markus Schulz) for his tests. There's some deep low bass rumble in this track. He once said that in his experience no BA phone can produce this rumble. I've repeated his test with my phones and found his claim true.
Hi james,

Shigzeo also said that CK10 bass was rather like a knock on the door more than anything else. I actually likened the kick drum in Hotel Cali to a tap on the door, so I totally agree with him about the bass (and lack of impact).

I tried listening with no EQ for a few hours, but to be honest, I hated it. The bass is just too quiet for me, and without the quantity and impact, I feel like half the music's missing.

As for bass quality, well, I get confused about this. It has no reverb to speak of at all (to my ears. It's there and it's gone, which doesn't sound natural to me). In some tracks with deep rumbling bass, there is still no reverb even with EQ on - so boosting it doesn't change its nature, it just makes it louder. I actually prefer the CK100 bass to the CK10, but the e-Q7 is better than both in my opinion, with a less inhibited and more realistic presentation of how drums and bass guitars actually sound.

Having said all that, I really do like the CK10's glass-like treble, which I can certainly imagine isn't everyone's cup of tea. It's definitely the dominant frequency, and on brightly-recorded albums like some Ryko remasters I have, it's a little too shrill to listen to without wincing. Fortunately, I don't have many of them so it's not really an issue, just pointing out when the treble can be 'too much'.

But... I do love the clarity of the overall sound signature, possibly more than the e-Q7's. I think I've been gradually veering away from a smooth sound to something brighter and more aggressive, and the CK10 are definitely not as smooth as the UM3x, IE8 or e-Q7. I'm still in the honeymoon period at the moment though, so my thoughts might change

Oh, and it seems almost sacrilegious to bring this into the equation - but I tested the CK10 and e-Q7's on my Nokia E52... yes, a lowly phone... and I was amazed at how different they both sounded. The E52 is very warm sounding, and it made the e-Q7 and CK10 sound much fuller but with with a smaller soundstage. It took any 'edge' off the CK10 treble too. If I hadn't known I'd changed source, I would have thought I was listening to different gear! I'm going to test with my other Sony daps for no other reason than mindless curiosity
post #232 of 881
Hi soozieq,

Your thoughtful and balanced posts make for a welcome change from the didacticism to which, some Head-Fiers are prone. How does the treble, mid-range, detail retrieval, instrument separation, soundstage and overall clarity of the e-Q7 compare to the CK10? I think that about covers it as you've already commented on the bass. And I have to ask, do you have a preferred phone out of the two?
post #233 of 881
You take away the incredible instrument separation characteristic of UM3X and it becomes a very ordinary (almost boring) IEM IMHO.
post #234 of 881
Thread Starter 
Hi soozieq, I remember you having fit issues with the Ortofon. So, are you honeymooning with both the e-Q7 and CK10 or are the Ortofon's days already numbered?
post #235 of 881
I started having some wired channel disbalance issues on my e-Q7. This may have to do with fit. The right channel is usually less clear and quieter than the left, which can be very annoying at times. When I switch the sides, the problem persists - the right is still quieter, so it's not a problem with the IEM itself. It's also not a problem with my ears, since I actually have weaker hearing in my left ear. So must be the fit I guess. Also, I notice that I get moisture accumulation around the filters even after using the e-Q7 for a short period of time (under 30 minutes). I wonder if this may harm the driver.
post #236 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyro View Post
You take away the incredible instrument separation characteristic of UM3X and it becomes a very ordinary (almost boring) IEM IMHO.
I didn't find the instrument separation of the UM3X "incredible". It also had a small soundstage that was bordering on constricted to my ears. I did regard it as a "boring" listen that seemed to suck the life out of the music.
post #237 of 881
wow is the ortofon eq7 that difficult to get a good fit ?
post #238 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post
wow is the ortofon eq7 that difficult to get a good fit ?
For me yes, but I have very narrow ear canals, especially in my right ear. I had even bigger problems fitting Shure SE530 and Westone 3 into my ears. With W3 sound was terribly congested, while with SE530 the pressure in my ears was very painful I couldn't stand wearing them for more than 30 minutes.

The only IEM that fit me really well was q-jays.
post #239 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post
I started having some wired channel disbalance issues on my e-Q7. This may have to do with fit. The right channel is usually less clear and quieter than the left, which can be very annoying at times. When I switch the sides, the problem persists - the right is still quieter, so it's not a problem with the IEM itself. It's also not a problem with my ears, since I actually have weaker hearing in my left ear. So must be the fit I guess. Also, I notice that I get moisture accumulation around the filters even after using the e-Q7 for a short period of time (under 30 minutes). I wonder if this may harm the driver.
I've seen somewhere that if moisture is absorbed by the drivers of an earphone that it may deteriorate the sound over a period of time since it adds mass/weight (non scientific distinction) to the transducing element ( driver). Greater mass to the drivers implies that they may not be able to start and stop as precisely since their is more inertia. This may among other things affect bass performance, transient attack, ckarity etc. While I do not disagree with such a proposition I am not sure how applicable it is to a hybrid "Dyna-armature"
post #240 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by iponderous View Post
I didn't find the instrument separation of the UM3X "incredible". It also had a small soundstage that was bordering on constricted to my ears. I did regard it as a "boring" listen that seemed to suck the life out of the music.
You may be the first poster on Head-Fi to not agree that their instrument separation isn't WAY above normal. It's the first thing everyone points to. I have never listen to any IEM that was even close to the instrument separation of UM3X. ER4S starts to get close but still not on the same caliber.

Regarding soundstage, it's designed to be a stage monitor so it's not suppose to have a large soundstage and yes, it can sound too closed in and congested to some people.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Impressions of the Ortofon e-Q7 versus the IE8, CK100, SE530, FX500 and X10 (plus CK10 discussion from post #120)