New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio Technica ATH-CK10 - Page 3

post #31 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by james444 View Post
Thanks mate, your post came at the right time! I was just considering buying these even though I already have the CK100.
I know I read somewhere that some1 thinks the ck10 may be more suitable for most than ck100. I beg to differ. While ck10 does have airier mids, ck100 does have better presentation overall.

i am interested to try the e-q7 sometime soon. while the ck100 lacks bass as compared to um3x, it has better soundstage and treble as compared to um3x. think u said somewhere else that you prefer e-q7 to ck100
post #32 of 1506
@iponderous...Well, I don't know, but it seems like the detail is so concise and clear they may be a little too analytical for my ears, that's why I didn't know if it made any sense to say it. Is that possible? I have never heard such resolving IEMs before, and the effect is somewhat startling.

And as Supernova mentioned, there was some sibilance on a couple of tracks, but just by taking down the 16khz slider one tick, it did seem to smooth out.

Again, my impressions were post a long day at the poker tables (11 hours) so my brain was fried. Right now, they are on my PC, burning in for an hour with the IsoTek CD. When they are done and my wife leaves for the afternoon, serious listening (and comparing to W2 and TF10s).

However, to answer your question, with the bass ticked up, the highs down, no, not thin at all. They sounded lush, detailed, impressive. At that point, the main issue for me was the over the ear fit thing. They are very, very good. I know that already. I just have to determine if their "good" meshes with my "good." As I noted, if not, I may sell them and rebuy the ER4), just to have some Etys around (the Etys also work with the UM56 custom sleeves from Westone, another advantage).
post #33 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by supern0va View Post
I know I read somewhere that some1 thinks the ck10 may be more suitable for most than ck100. I beg to differ. While ck10 does have airier mids, ck100 does have better presentation overall.

i am interested to try the e-q7 sometime soon. while the ck100 lacks bass as compared to um3x, it has better soundstage and treble as compared to um3x. think u said somewhere else that you prefer e-q7 to ck100
You're right, overall I like the e-Q7 better than the CK100. The CK100 beat them in treble smoothness, but the e-Q7 have better detail and clarity if you look at the whole frequency spectrum.
post #34 of 1506
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarn06 View Post
@iponderous...Well, I don't know, but it seems like the detail is so concise and clear they may be a little too analytical for my ears, that's why I didn't know if it made any sense to say it. Is that possible? I have never heard such resolving IEMs before, and the effect is somewhat startling.

And as Supernova mentioned, there was some sibilance on a couple of tracks, but just by taking down the 16khz slider one tick, it did seem to smooth out.

Again, my impressions were post a long day at the poker tables (11 hours) so my brain was fried. Right now, they are on my PC, burning in for an hour with the IsoTek CD. When they are done and my wife leaves for the afternoon, serious listening (and comparing to W2 and TF10s).

However, to answer your question, with the bass ticked up, the highs down, no, not thin at all. They sounded lush, detailed, impressive. At that point, the main issue for me was the over the ear fit thing. They are very, very good. I know that already. I just have to determine if their "good" meshes with my "good." As I noted, if not, I may sell them and rebuy the ER4), just to have some Etys around (the Etys also work with the UM56 custom sleeves from Westone, another advantage).

I think I know what you mean. For me, those are the instances I'm drawn into the music, even when I wasn't necessarily in the "active" listening mode.

I don't recall the sibilance. Do you think that it just might be recording dependent?

Please keep us informed of your impressions.
post #35 of 1506
Tstarn,
On the over the ear issues, as you insert them push the body of the CK 10 forward while also exerting pressure inward and you should find that the IEM slides quite deeply into your ear canal. You will have the sense that they are sliding backward and inward into your ears. I have tried a number of tips, and for sure if the seal is good you will get a very full sound with good bass and a smooth, not sibilant treble. When I have tried tips that didn't give me the best seal I got all the effects people have described, from thiness of sound to accentuated, almost hyper detail. These turned out to be fit and seal issues.
post #36 of 1506
Thanks. Trying them now.

Update:

Okay, now I get it. Only issue now is they sort of hurt, using medium tips. But it pretty amazing how deep you can insert these babies. The outer shell of the IEm is actually parallel to the tragus. I am going to try the small stock tips and the small hybrid tips as well. At least now I get it. And as for sibilance, using the Zune (no EQ, the Sony X is charging), none. If I can get a comfy fit with this insertion technique, I can start to enjoy these IEMs, for sure.

Double update:

Wow, with the small stock tips, they are better (comfort-wise) and plenty of bass, nothing thin about the sound. As is the case with Etys and Ety-like IEMs, you need to go deep with these or you will never really HEAR them, especially the lower end of the sound spectrum. I can not even hear my keys typing his, not even close. But I still want to try the hybrids, since their silicone is softer (and hear any SQ differences).

But any trace of sibilance is gone, real gone. Just listened to my sibilance-inducing track, Angelique Kidjo's cover of Gimme Shelter, and while there is a little ssssing, it's the track, not the phones, I believe. But let's see if the hybrids change that at all.

So it's come down to the small OEM tips or the Hybrid smalls (aqua tubes) for me and the CK10s. But there is a little sibilance with the hybrids, so back to the small OEM silicones.
post #37 of 1506
Man, the way CK10 is being described in this thread, I can't help but think of RE0. RE0 is also highly resolving, fast and crystal clear with proper fit and enough burn in time. I personally thought RE0 has better mids and highs than the dual driver q-jays (and any other dual-driver BA I've heard so far for that matter) and better treble than my $300 Ortofon e-Q7. CK10 is also a dual-driver BA like q-jays, but it can certainly be better than q-jays. But better enough to also surpass the RE0? Unlikely IMO. Now, I guess it could be justified to pay $100+ extra over RE0 for better build quality and isolation though. Maybe CK10 also sounds better unamped.

Oh BTW, how does it sound unamped vs. amped? I there a big difference? Sorry if I missed that part in the original review the OP had posted.
post #38 of 1506
Don't have a decent amp any more, so can't tell you. Joker just posted a review of these phones, maybe he used an amp. Can't tell you if the RE0 is on the same level, but I can tell you that the RE252s are not from a dynamic sound POV. Yes, the 252s are detailed, etc. But once I got these fit right, I could tell they delivered a much more dramatic sound than the RE252s. Best I can do, since never owned the RE0.

Also, highly resolving and uber-resolving may be the difference between the two. I have not owned the RE0, but one person I know who did and sold it but kept the CK10s is Joker. We need to check his review and also maybe he can post on this issue here.
post #39 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarn06 View Post
Don't have a decent amp any more, so can't tell you. Joker just posted a review of these phones, maybe he used an amp. Can't tell you if the RE0 is on the same level, but I can tell you that the RE252s are not from a dynamic sound POV. Yes, the 252s are detailed, etc. But once I got these fit right, I could tell they delivered a much more dramatic sound than the RE252s. Best I can do, since never owned the RE0.
So what exactly do you think CK10 has that RE252s did not? Better depth perhaps? Although personally I have yet to hear a single or dual-driver BA IEM that has great depth to its sound. Only 3+ driver BAs or BA-dynamic mutants like Ortofon e-Q7 have some real depth IMO.
post #40 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post
Man, the way CK10 is being described in this thread, I can't help but think of RE0. RE0 is also highly resolving, fast and crystal clear with proper fit and enough burn in time. I personally thought RE0 has better mids and highs than the dual driver q-jays (and any other dual-driver BA I've heard so far for that matter) and better treble than my $300 Ortofon e-Q7. CK10 is also a dual-driver BA like q-jays, but it can certainly be better than q-jays. But better enough to also surpass the RE0? Unlikely IMO. Now, I guess it could be justified to pay $100+ extra over RE0 for better build quality and isolation though. Maybe CK10 also sounds better unamped.

Oh BTW, how does it sound unamped vs. amped? I there a big difference? Sorry if I missed that part in the original review the OP had posted.
I tried amped and unamped, but these are on 2 separate occasions. When I tried them unamped, the W2 were almost new and had close to zero burn in.

The unamped W2 sounded a little anemic to me. My impressions were as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by supern0va View Post
Disclaimer: I am no expert; the below is my personal opinion from listening to the UM2, UM3X, W2 and W3 (the last 3 pairs in a single sitting).

I tried the W2 at an audio store using both shure olives and the Westone single flange silicone tips, and was disappointed. It does not have the wide sound stage and bass of the W3, nor the full-bodied sound or the bass impact of the UM3X (and arguably the UM2, but I didn't listen to both at the same time).

BUt do note that the shopkeeper did comment that the pair of W2 I tried was open only 2 days ago, so it may not have had enough burn-in (if you believe in burn-in esp for earphones with BA drivers) .

But on a separate occasion, with an amped W2, compared to amped UM3X, IE8, CK10 and CK100, I said the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by supern0va View Post
I just did a quick demo of a few high-mid to top tier universal iems today, and would like to share my findings/conclusions.

I tested the Westone 2, Sennheiser IE8, AT CK10 and AT CK100 together with my trusty Westone UM3X. I have also owned the Phonak PFEs (1st gen, the easy-to-break ones) and Westone 3 previously. All IEMs are tested with the iBasso B4 amp (modded to be warmer), and with 3-4 tracks.

Westone UM3X
Well this is my benchmark 'cos this is the one I've been listening to daily. Excellent separation, very rich/warm mids, nice tight and impactful lows. My main complaint is that the treble is lacking somewhat, and the soundstage is quite congested.

Westone 2
My first impressions (abt 2 mths back) weren't good at all. Found the sound too thin and bass lacking. But that was without an amp!
With an amp now, it actually sounds very nice, I must say. Mids are slightly below the UM3X, still very rich, and the treble exceeds that of UM3X. Definitely sounds more crisp. Soundstage was also better. Separation is slightly below UM3X, and the most stark difference is the bass. Doesn't hit hard enough, but generally acceptable. Definitely a pair of phones I will consider "downgrading" to

AT CK10
The mids are quite airy, but I feel they are a little thin. Highs are way too siblant for my liking. When I listen to "I'm Yours" (Jason Mraz) there is a lot of siblance; and this is even worse with a Chinese track "tong hua (fairytale)" (Guang Liang). I think even the Westone 3 had less piercing siblance, and the Westone 3 was generally better than the CK10 is most aspects. Wasn't impressed.

AT CK100

This is certainly a very nice pair of phones. The mids and high had a very lush feel, and the treble was certainly very crisp. A little more siblant than Westone 2. Mids were very comparable to the UM3X.. in fact I think in the longer run I may prefer the AT CK100's. Soundstage was better too. But the bass was quite lacking. Very little impact, though speed was there. I cannot decide if I like this or the Westone 2.

IE8
This is a very interesting pair of phones. It sounds no where near all the other ones tested, or even the Westone 3 that I used to own. The mids and highs sounded very soothing and warm. I think the separation isn't as good as UM3X and most of the other phones above, and the bass is too overpowering. But the soundstage was fantastic. Best I've ever heard in a pair of IEMs. But needs to get used to the sound, which I'm not.

Summary
Treble: CK100>Westone2>=IE8>UM3X>CK10 (largely cos CK10 is too siblant)
Mid: CK100>=UM3X>Westone2=IE8=CK10
Lows: UM3X>IE8 (more quantity but wayyyy too much) >Westone 2>CK100>=CK10
Separation: UM3X>CK100>Westone 2>CK10>=IE8
Soundstage: IE8>Westone2>CK100>=CK10>=UM3X


All in all, I think my UM3X is here to stay. I would consider the AT CK100 if it were cheaper (but its about US$350 where I am), and would seriously consider getting a pair of Westone 2 if I want to downgrade.
post #41 of 1506
@ supernOva Sorry, but I was asking about CK10, not W2.
post #42 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post
@ supernOva Sorry, but I was asking about CK10, not W2.
oops sorry. next time then
post #43 of 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by supern0va View Post
oops sorry. next time then
No probs.
post #44 of 1506
Ok, I just realized that Westone UM2 has a good amount of depth in its sound - but it's not very detailed. All single or dual driver BAs I've heard so far are either detailed but do not have enough depth, or have depth, but lack detail.
post #45 of 1506
This thread is beginning to do my head in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: