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 18

post #256 of 877
2/12/10 at 1:13am

E-Q7

Quote:
Originally Posted by googleli View Post
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?
Voice fullness→IE8，No highs→X10，Voice fullness but the mid nice than IE8→W3，Bring on it likes alien but it is not good to listen pop→TF10，just have nice mid→SE530,Ear killer→ER4
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #257 of 877
2/12/10 at 3:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard-iu View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by daouda View Post
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)
This picture is indeed very helpful, because it demonstrates the fit when your ear canal opening is >9mm in diameter. In this case a good part of the corpus slides into the opening. But if your ear canal is too narrow for that, you'll most likely have poor fit with the e-Q7. So, IMO it's highly recommended you check this with some cylindrical object of 9mm diameter (pen, etc.) before you buy the Ortofons.

@Richard-iu: thanks for the picture, glad you like your e-Q7!
Reply
post #258 of 877
2/12/10 at 4:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLS View Post
FWIR CK100 has more bass quantity, higher resolution and more details compared to CK10. Is it the case for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
The CK10 may have more bass emphasis: whether that is due to it being easier to drive, or because the mids are elevated in the CK100, I have no idea. It is probably the most neutrally balanced IEM I have heard. More so than the tweaky ER4 from ETY and ever so much more smooth.
Ok, luckily I found some time to do an extensive listening session with the CK10 and CK100. I played flat from my Cowon i9, because the Fuze and CK100 don't like each other (see post #2). First thing I noticed, IMO shigzeo is wrong about the bass. He's one fellow head-fier who's opinion means much to me and I second most of his conclusions - but here I have to disagree. The CK10's bass is significantly lighter than the CK100's. And yes, I was having a perfect seal with both. But then again I believe he didn't have them side by side when he posted his CK100 review.

Having said that it's worth mentioning that bass is not a strong point on both these phones.

The rest of my impressions as follows: Mids are very smooth on both but a bit colored/coldish on the CK100 even from the i9. Highs on the CK100 are super-smooth, the best I've ever heard (I know I'm repeating myself), but the CK10 is no slouch too. Both have very good detail though the CK100 is better by a small margin. Same goes for soundstage and airiness which are pleasing on both, but the CK100 again has the upper hand.

So overall (and quite a bit surprisingly for myself) my nod goes to the CK100 for the slightly better phone, with one single caveat: its "infamous" mids. Depending on source and personal preference these can be anything from strong point to deal braker. I've heard folks rave about them and others hating them. So, that's for you to decide...
Reply
post #259 of 877
2/12/10 at 5:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by soozieq View Post
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.
Hi soozieq, I hate to disagree with you, but...

After an extensive listening session with the CK10 and CK100 yesterday evening, I went back to the e-Q7 tomorrow morning. Put on Christian Mcbride's "Kind of Brown" (mainstream Jazz) and was instantly hooked. We must have different conceptions of clarity, because IME the Ortofons are clearer than both Audio Technicas. Maybe you mean clarity derived from from brightness whereas I mean from transparency. With the ATHs I'm always aware that I'm listening to a phone. With the e-Q7 I feel instantly immersed in the music, forgetting about the phone.

As for smoothness, the e-Q7 can really be buttery-smooth with music like Christian Mcbride's. But next on was the energetic Indie Rock of The Gaslight Anthem's "The '59 Sound" (recommended for Springsteen lovers). This record is packed with soaring guitars, thumping bass and pounding drums, and the Ortofons deliver it in spades. IMO there's more to aggressive music than forward highs and the CK10 would "pee its pants" producing bass and drum sound like this.

So, no more beating around the bush, I've been acquiring quite a few phones lately and love switching between them, but the Ortofon e-Q7 remains the single best IEM I've heard so far.
Reply
post #260 of 877
2/12/10 at 6:33am
I think that it's easy to confuse the use of clarity and transparency when attempting to describe what we hear from a headphone. I associate clarity with definition and sharpness of image. Whereas for me, transparency suggests clarity and neutrality. The image is clearly defined and uncoloured.

For example, Grado's are known for their clarity, but they are also regarded as a coloured phone. They impart a sonic characteristic to the sound that was not there originally. The Sennheiser HD800 on the other hand, is often described as a transparent phone. It is described as having remarkable clarity but it does not colour the sound. It adds nothing, nor does it take anything away. It is like a window through which, the sound passes.

I have no evidence to support this notion, but I tend to think that phones with a U shaped frequency curve create the illusion of clarity and transparency, simply because the midrange is recessed. Phones with pronounced treble, recessed mids and strong bass presence tend to sound cleaner and clearer than those that have more midrange.

I noticed that soozieq commented favourably about the CK10's "glass like" treble. Yet, she doesn't regard the CK10 as a neutral phone, due to its treble emphasis at the expense of bass presence. So at the risk of misrepresenting soozieq, perhaps she finds that the CK10 has clarity but lacks transparency.
Reply
post #261 of 877
2/12/10 at 7:04am
Thread Starter 
^ Great explanation, thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by iponderous View Post
It is like a window through which the sound passes.
That's the e-Q7 to my ears. Though its midrange is certainly not recessed.
Reply
post #262 of 877
2/12/10 at 7:45am
^ That's just my take on it. I'm sure there are others here vastly more qualified than I who will vehemently disagree. So the e-Q7 gets your vote over the CK10? Now I wonder if soozieq will deign to furnish us with her final judgement?
Reply
post #263 of 877
2/12/10 at 8:27am
I am beginning to get worried about the ck10 treble and all the talk about it's
emphasis,I just hope it's not like the fx500.we'll see what happens this week when I receive them.
Reply
post #264 of 877
2/12/10 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by midoo1990 View Post
I am beginning to get worried about the ck10 treble and all the talk about it's
emphasis,I just hope it's not like the fx500.we'll see what happens this week when I receive them.
I have a brief listening with the FX500 (please bear in mind just a mere 5 minutes), it highs do pierce my eardrums. I am pretty sensitive to sibilance, but CK10 doesn't hurt me, provided you have a good seal.
Reply
post #265 of 877
2/12/10 at 11:10am
Thx KLS that's reassuring,I think I will be happy with it....I hope
Reply
post #266 of 877
2/12/10 at 11:48am
E5C also is a good IEM.
Reply
post #267 of 877
2/12/10 at 11:50am
Thanks James et al for your great advice.

I bought myself a pair of e-Q7 and a Ray Samuel Black Bird SR71A portable amp today as my own Chinese new year present.

I always thought my CK100 would be my last pair of universal IEMs since I ordered UE18 Pro last month. The 18 Pros are yet to be shipped, and now I got e-Q7... This should really be my last pair of universal IEMs, I hope. So far, e-Q7 really gives completely different sound from CK100. Trying to burn in both e-Q7 and the Black Bird using the STS Kharma burn-in CD now. Can anyone give me the approximate burn-in time for the e-Q7 and the Ray Samuels Black Bird?
Reply
post #268 of 877
2/12/10 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by midoo1990 View Post
I am beginning to get worried about the ck10 treble and all the talk about it's
emphasis,I just hope it's not like the fx500.we'll see what happens this week when I receive them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLS View Post
I have a brief listening with the FX500 (please bear in mind just a mere 5 minutes), it highs do pierce my eardrums. I am pretty sensitive to sibilance, but CK10 doesn't hurt me, provided you have a good seal.
I 2nd that. The CK10 is not like the FX500. I can listen to the CK10 for hours, the FX500 makes me want to take them out after minutes.
Reply
post #269 of 877
2/12/10 at 12:08pm
thx joe,now i am at peace
Reply
post #270 of 877
2/12/10 at 1:20pm

A ramble and a half :)

Hi iPondy, sorry to keep you waiting. I'm here and I'm 'deigning'

Hi james - sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I guess I do tend to equate treble sparkle with clarity, but only as far as the overall sound signature is concerned. The CK10 puts out so much sparkle that the whole signature comes across as sharper and more twinkly than the q7, which to my ears makes it appear clearer, even if there's no more actual detail than the q7.

I haven't done nearly as much extensive testing as you (thanks to the crappy q7 fit!) but I don't especially hear either phone as being more detailed than the other, unless bass resonance counts as detail. When I had the IE8, I always maintained that the detail was all there, but the warmth tended to mask any sparkle. It's the same with the q7. They're very detailed, but with a softer and smoother tone than the CK10. I do hear more accuracy from the q7, because bass is portrayed more realistically to my ears. Does that mean the q7's are more detailed as well as more accurate? I don't know. I get lost with the whole sound glossary thing sometimes

As for the mids, I definitely prefer the q7 for those. The vocals are more forward and have more body to them, which really lends itself well to 'thin' voices such as David Bowie, Robert Plant and Neil Dung (!) for example. They're a little sharper to listen to with the CK10.

And treble - I like the pronounced sparkle of the CK10 better. I find the q7 treble to be extremely smooth and listenable, but I prefer the exaggerated sparkle I hear with the CK10. It gives them an almost bell-like quality which I really enjoy. While I was listening to Joe Satriani's 'Circles', there are some tinkly things like a chime tree or something at about 2.24 - 2.26. You can hear them start on the right and sweep across to the left very fast. With the CK10, the chimes are pronounced and you can almost 'feel' them move. By comparison, the distinction isn't quite as noticeable on the q7. The chimes still sparkle but the movement from right to left is less obvious and the sound is just softer - but the bass line on that is great with the q7, and really faint with the CK10.

Choosing a favourite between the two is fairly easy because the q7's are too big for my ears which gets them a huge minus point to begin with. I hadn't realised before just how much discomfort could cloud my enjoyment of the music, but it does, because there comes a point when I can't 'hear' the music anymore as I just want to yank the things out of my ears! Mind you, although the CK10 are really small and easy to wear, they're actually so small that it's sometimes hard to find the right spot since there's still room for manoeuvre even after they're in.

So, in conclusion, I prefer the CK10 treble and fit - and the q7 bass and mids. I'll be holding on to the CK10's for now since I actually can't wear the q7 for any longer than an hour. But... I don't honestly hear the CK10 as the be all and end all of all phones like some people do. They are very very nice, but not without their flaws. And the flaws sound quite obvious to me. But I still find them enjoyable to listen to once I'm not listening critically (which I only really do for reviewing purposes anyway). The CK10 treble is quite enchanting, really


midoo - I was tolerant to the FX1000/500 highs, but the CK10 treble is certainly more musical and easier to listen to. I think you'd prefer the CK10 highs, provided (as KLS stated) you get a good fit.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

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)