Ortofon e-Q7 Appreciation Thread - Page 4

e-Q7 sure differs more from the Triple.fi than W3 does. Triple.fi and W3 have similar V-shaped signatures. e-Q7 is a lot more polite in the bass and treble with a more prominent and higher quality midrange.

They do need burn in. Out of the box, the sound is indeed quite rough. Give them at least 100 hours. They should begin to sound noticeably smoother after that, although the unpleasant harshness in the upper mids almost disappears after the first 20 hours or so.

That being said, the e-Q7 is not exactly a butter smooth IEM but it should sound sufficiently smooth with good recordings and out of half decent sources.

BTW, here is my final verdict on the e-Q7 vs. UM3X from another post I made in a different thread a few days ago:

"I listened more to UM3X last night and I changed my mind about them - I am actually quite impressed with them now. The thing about UM3X is that they are very revealing of source and recording quality, more so than any other IEM I've heard so far. Even with my Audigy 2 ZS which is silent with all my other IEMs I can hear hiss with the UM3X. It also easily shows problems with recordings including compressions artifacts. At the same time, it's not exactly a brutally revealing monitor - the highs sound very gentle and smooth, while mid bass and low mids are a bit boosted which gives the sound a nice, even somewhat euphoric sense of warmth. They do sound a bit boring, but that is mostly due to them being so revealing I think. With good recordings and out of a decent source like my Audigy 2 ZS, they can sound really great actually. I can hear nuances in the midrange that I could not hear with any other headphone before. For some reason they even seem more detailed than the ES3X I used to have. Also, I do not feel that the soundstage is small - I think it is quite spacious, especially the depth is very nice.

Anyway, I now understand how some people love the UM3X. I also love many of its great qualities, like a very faithful, extremely detailed midrange reproduction, flat frequency response (they have the least amount of peaks and/or dips in the frequency response of any IEM I've heard, with RE0 being close second), superb separation and excellent imaging, and a pleasant warmth in the bass and lower mids. At the same time, I still feel that the e-Q7 has a more accurate timbre, better dynamic range, better clarity and more treble energy and so I still prefer my e-Q7 overall I think. But I can easily see how one could gravitate towards one or the other - both have outstanding qualities and it's just a matter of personal preference which qualities one considers more important. For me clarity, dynamics and realistic reproduction of real instruments are more important than great separation, flat frequency response and super detail, so I will keep my e-Q7. But in the future, when I will have the money, I may buy UM3X as a reference 'phone for checking source and recording quality, and just for times when I feel like picking out the smallest of small details in my music - there's really no better universal IEM than UM3X for these purposes IMO."

BTW, I forgot to mention that e-Q7 is actually more accurate in the bass - it is tighter and faster than that of the UM3X. UM3X is more accurate in the mids and a little recessed, but still accurate in the treble. e-Q7 has less detail in the mids and is not as smooth in the treble, but it has a more organic tonality, while UM3X sounds a little plasticy by comparison. Also, another observation in regards to soundstage presentation of the two - UM3X images better and has more apparent depth to the stage, while e-Q7 sounds more open due to more prominent treble and clearer mids and also has more apparent depth and dynamics to the actual sounds, not the soundstage if that makes sense.