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 17

post #241 of 881
^ Well I don't know about that. Obviously the UM3X Appreciation Thread is full of praise for this phone but as I often say, I have to rely upon what my own ears are telling me because they're the only ones I have. We're really going over old ground here Spyro. I know that you are an unabashed fan of this phone but I don't share your enthusiasm for it. I wrote my candid impressions of it in the UM3X v SE530 thread. I found its instrument separation marginally better than the SE530's at best. However, I find the instrument separation of the TF10 more impressive than either of those phones.

Instrument separation is just one factor in assessing an IEM's performance. I prefer the sound signatures of the TF10, IE8 and the SE530 to the UM3X for a variety of reasons. That's why I kept them and not the UM3X. I am one of the people who found the UM3X's presentation too "closed-in" for my taste. I think that its narrow soundstage tends to negate the effect of its famed instrument separation to my ears. I also found that its sound signature just dulled the music in a way that I haven't encountered with any other phone that I've heard. Yes it is designed for stage monitoring and that's part of the reason why I think it is not ideally suited to recreational listening. Anyway, let's not divert this thread any further.
post #242 of 881
I think SE530, Triple.fi and UM3X are all about on par in terms of instrument separation. Or at least, like iponderous said, the differences are marginal.
post #243 of 881
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post
wow is the ortofon eq7 that difficult to get a good fit ?
Hi, this issue is explained in the fit section of post #1.
post #244 of 881
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by soozieq View Post
[B]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.
I just listened to the CK10 again and you're spot-on. What I called unrealistic "bass texture" is perhaps mainly caused by lack of reverb. Bass impact is there (and sufficient for me), but I absolutely agree with you that "it's there and it's gone". IME this goes quite well with electronic music like Trance, but leaves a lot to be desired with Acoustic or Jazz.
post #245 of 881
So how does the overall SQ of E-Q7 compare to that of CK100? My UE18 Pro is still due to ship as UE said it will experience a slight delay. Is e-Q7 worth playing with for a couple of weeks while I am waiting for my 18 Pro to arrive?
post #246 of 881
Thread Starter 
^ You wanna provoke me into quoting posts #1 and #2?
post #247 of 881
Hi James, not a hint of doubt of your great review, but have you tried running in the CK100 for a bit? The CK100s were quite different in around 6 months for me. Its mids and highs worked incredibly well with my Nokia N97 but the bass is as you say like knocking on the door. On my N97 the smoothness of mids and highs are never experienced in any other IEMs by me. Just wonder whether Ortofon eq7 can beat that? If so I am going to get a pair during the holidays. On the other hand if I connect the CK100 to my notebook, the bass comes back to life, and the bass is better than my TF10 Pro and SE530 on the same source (definitely much deeper than SE530's bass), probably due to proper amping when compared with the N97. But when they are connected to my laptop, I notice the mids are a bit recessed as said in your review. I've yet to find a source which can provide the CK100 with the bass like my notebook does (Acer 1810TZ) and not losing its beautiful mids and highs which are only apparent which it is connected to N97 or Cowon D2. CK100 is my favorite so far (I have er4p, SE530, TF10 Pro, Westone 3, and auditioned IE8 and X10) - would Ortofon E-Q7 be even better?
post #248 of 881
Thread Starter 
TBO I do not listen all too often to the CK100 these days. Granted, their highs are extremely good, smooth, detailed, you name it. Their bass is a bit underwhelming, still not a deal braker. But their mids are colored and in being so strangely source dependent. Your story about shifting SQ among sources matches with my CK100 experiences.

The e-Q7 on the other hand is no such sensitive prima donna, IME you can pair it with any source and it will sound great. The Ortofon doesn't beat the CK100 in highs (I've yet to hear a phone that does), but it's not far behind. Plus the rest of the frequency spectrum is better IMO, plus it's much more tolerant about sources. That's why I prefer it over the CK100 in the end.
post #249 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post
TBO I do not listen all too often to the CK100 these days. Granted, their highs are extremely good, smooth, detailed, you name it. Their bass is a bit underwhelming, still not a deal braker. But their mids are colored and in being so strangely source dependent. Your story about shifting SQ among sources matches with my CK100 experiences.

The e-Q7 on the other hand is no such sensitive prima donna, IME you can pair it with any source and it will sound great. The Ortofon doesn't beat the CK100 in highs (I've yet to hear a phone that does), but it's not far behind. Plus the rest of the frequency spectrum is better IMO, plus it's much more tolerant about sources. That's why I prefer it over the CK100 in the end.
FWIR CK100 has more bass quantity, higher resolution and more details compared to CK10. Is it the case for you?
post #250 of 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by javajive View Post
Its expensive because these sellers are significantly marking them up. They sell for about ¥23,000 (about $250) which is just a few thousand yen more than the CK10
.

I disagree, 339 USD for e-Q7 earphones is just 80 USD more expensive then what you pay for them in Japan. You have to consider the fees that the companies pay to import the merchandise plus taxes, Shipping and all the marketing they have to do to sell...
Cheapest e-Q7 in Japan cost around ¥23,200 (including Shipping) which is $260 USD on Amazon.jp
post #251 of 881

On my ear

Attachment 26093

Attachment 26094

nice picture???
LL
LL
post #252 of 881
Hmm, they dont look as big as i thought they would be (or....you have somehow large ears?). Nice pictures yeah, and helpful to get a better idea of their fit (first picture of them being worn that i see)
post #253 of 881
E-Q7 more natural and comfortable than JH5Pro.
post #254 of 881
The person is me. I just use my blackberry to take this picture.haha!
post #255 of 881
If X10 is black, then E-Q7 is white.I think they are the same level. Because I used X10 before. But it was very easy broke the tail.
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)