Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Top-Tier Universal IEM Comparison Chart, Frequency Response Charts, & Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Top-Tier Universal IEM Comparison Chart, Frequency Response Charts, & Discussion - Page 5

post #61 of 785
Ok. I see what you mean, average joe is the OP, and I don't know if that's his take, or if some one alse said it to him. I don't really see it as overdone, maybe joe will shed some light on his thoughts. Keep in mind.. a true consensus is not going to happen on any iem...
post #62 of 785
westone 3!!! **** IE8. owned for like 2 months, thought they were great, then the W3 came into my life
post #63 of 785
no love for the MTPG?
post #64 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcpk View Post
As it is, I think it just showed what a rip-off in terms of design and build quality the Triple.Fi had been all along.
What a ridiculous statement. The TF10 is no more of a "rip-off" than any other expensive IEM that I own. All of the so called "top tier" IEMs are overpriced for what they are. At $99 the TF10 was a steal and the Amazon sale was a one-off after all. When you can purchase an SE530 for half of the msrp these days, I think that should give even you some idea of the premium that we are paying for all of these products, not just the TF10.
post #65 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by StereoIntegrity View Post
no love for the MTPG?
Sure, I think they have an argument, maybe I'll loan mine out, get more impressions.
post #66 of 785
In an attempt to slow the flames, let's stop all trashing of the triple.fi's. some think the Monster are a rip-off, I don't think price is really the point, I can point out way too many iem's I think are way overpriced.........why so serious?
post #67 of 785
I just want to know, what internals were changed on the TF10?, is there anyone else with information about this. Is there any SQ differenses?
post #68 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
IMO one of the biggest issues is that people have not heard all or even most of these and stick to the one that they have heard as being the best, or top-tier. I have to admit I only have listened to the UM3X and SE530 for about 20 minutes each and if I had them for an extended period of time, my view might be different. That is why I am relying on others to form a consensus.

Thank you for your input. Seems you hear things differently than I do (not just in this thread) so I will wait on a consensus on some of the products, and if the majority rules, so be it! But thank you for all the details.

To others (that have not already), do you agree or disagree that the CK10 and SE530 are "top-tier" IEMs, or "near-top-tier?" And I do agree with the super car analogy, but some super cars are clearly superior to others.
Yep, this is largely a personal opinion matter. Every person here has their own breadth of personal experience that they can measure against. Sometimes this breadth is limited or skewed. Sometimes it's well rounded. Sometimes it's decent but lacking on one end or the other. Really, I only see a couple people on this forum with the shear range of experience to adequately scale these kinds of products. I've used a couple dozen products, including much of the top level products, but I still don't consider myself experienced enough to offer a well balanced review that's correct compared across the spectrum. 99.9% of the people here simply can't accurately scale and describe these earphones to a correct, appreciable level. Even my own comments are skewed to the limited selection of products I've used, and there are a LOT of products I have not used. I've been lucky enough to used a good portion of the products under consideration here. I've also owned the UM3X, SE530, IE8, and Triple.Fi 10 at the same time, for months, for back to back comparison over hundreds of songs. I consider my understanding of those as rather significant simply because I could directly compare and do so for a significant period of time over and over. My experience with the CK10 and RE252 are only about a week so far, and I no longer own must of the other earphones to directly compare any more. Memory is never the most accurate of course. I did write in quite a bit of detail about each in another thread, written only after extended use and during the time I still owned them. My comments on the CK10 and RE252 are relatively short term. I can relate back to the Triple.Fi 10 that I still own, but that's it.

As far as top tier, I personally have a hard time defining a product as top tier if it (a) doesn't do something amazingly well, better then any other product available or (b) is significantly "flawed" in some way. A top tier products should be able to do everything well.

I have a hard time saying that the CK10 does anything specifically better then all other products. I simply don't have an "oh my god" sense from it, but it's also a very good product all-around. I see many aspects as very good, but I don't see it doing anything specifically better. The only definitive better is a better defined in a "numerical" sense. It's like saying the IE8 has the biggest, most spacious sound stage. It's a measurable (mentally perceived) value. Can anyone think of another IEM that beats it? Can anyone say brand/model X is bigger? With the CK10 I can't think of a single "numerical" measure that is greater then another product out there. I can say it subjectively does certain things great, but I can't definitively say it does any one thing better then everything else out there. I see the Custom 3 as a similar product. It's another earphone that does pretty much everything well, but at the same time, it just doesn't do anything amazing.

I consider the SE530 flawed. I say this only because it is a 3 driver earphone and it has a significant lack of frequency response range and is instead very akin to a single driver earphone. It's not that the SE530 is bad. It's not that it doesn't do something special. It's that it is specifically limited for its design. For a top tier product I personally define the need to do everything well, which the SE530 doesn't( low end frequency response, strange sound stage depths), and do something better then anything else, which the SE530 does(midrange). Yes, there is an "oh my god" sense from it. But there are also things it simply lacks. How would you define it? Could you still call it a top tier product?
post #69 of 785
For the SE530, could mids also be listed under weaknesses and in the notes section?

Just look at the chart and imagine it.
wink_face:
post #70 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post
Entirely unnecessary comment if you understand the term "I ... think"
I beg to differ grokit. Let's take another look at the sentence in question: "I actually really like my Super.fi 5 Pros, and think they sound better stock than the TF10s as they are more balanced and less extreme sounding." The bolded section is where your sentence shifts from an expression of opinion to a statement of fact.

May I suggest the following changes to avoid any misinterpretation in future: "I actually really like my Super.fi 5 Pros, and think that they sound better stock than the TF10s as I find them more balanced and less extreme sounding."

Thank you.
post #71 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post
Yep, this is largely a personal opinion matter...
I would say that it is completely a matter of personal opinion.

Really, I only see a couple people on this forum with the shear range of experience to adequately scale these kinds of products...
Just a couple, of which you would be one?

99.9% of the people here simply can't accurately scale and describe these earphones to a correct, appreciable level...
What evidence do you have to support this sweeping statement?

As far as top tier, I personally have a hard time defining a product as top tier if it (a) doesn't do something amazingly well, better then any other product available or (b) is significantly "flawed" in some way. A top tier products should be able to do everything well...
Every "top tier" universal IEM that I have heard has strengths and weaknesses. I am yet to hear one that does everything perfectly well to my ears. Based on your criteria, there is no "top tier" universal IEM currently available.

I consider the SE530 flawed. I say this only because it is a 3 driver earphone and it has a significant lack of frequency response range and is instead very akin to a single driver earphone. It's not that the SE530 is bad. It's not that it doesn't do something special. It's that it is specifically limited for its design. For a top tier product I personally define the need to do everything well, which the SE530 doesn't( low end frequency response, strange sound stage depths), and do something better then anything else, which the SE530 does(midrange). Yes, there is an "oh my god" sense from it. But there are also things it simply lacks. How would you define it? Could you still call it a top tier product?
The SE530 has strengths and weaknesses and is no different to the other "top tier" universal IEM contenders in this regard, in my opinion.
Judging by the widespread acclaim that the JH/13 PRO is receiving, it may be the only IEM worthy of "top tier" status based on your criteria. Unfortunately, it's not a universal IEM and therefore ineligible for consideration in this thread.
post #72 of 785
IE8

Strengths: extremely wide sound stage, deep bass extension, smooth treble and midrange. Very comfortable to wear and light. Modular cable design.
Weaknesses: midbass hump colors midrange making them sound warm, treble lacks detail of other top end IEM's, midrange can sound veiled if not turned up to a louder volume or used in conjunction with a headphone amp. Bass can be overwhelming in comparison to the rest of the sound frequencies.

TF10

Strengths: Very detailed highs, decent sound stage, strong bass. Modular cable design.
Weaknesses: Recessed midrange, bass can be messy, highs while detailed are almost to polite. Physical design and comfort very poor in comparison to most IEM's I have owned.

Monster Turbine Pro Gold

Strengths: Detailed highs, slightly forward intimate mids that are detailed, strong bass that is accurate and only present when the music has bass. Strong instrument seperation and a decent sound stage. Very comfortable to wear.
Weaknesses: Getting the proper insertion into the ear takes practice and can come loose. Heavy in hand and have a tendency to clack together if not carefull.

As can be seen out of the 3 IEM's I have owned the MTP Gold are the only ones I have no sonic weakness listed. This is because for me they represent the most complete sound I have heard. Their only weakness is a slightly smaller sound stage compared to the IE8 but that sound stage is still large enough to more than satisfy me. They manage to bridge the gap between the IE8 and the TF10 while also bringing the mids more forward than either the TF10 or the IE8. From what I have read the copper may be even better in tyhe mids and treble area compared to the Gold. If so they would be even higher than the Gold in my opinion. But for me the Gold is the new standard. I will listen to them for the next couple of days along with my IE8, if they continue to impress I will be selling my IE8.
post #73 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeluiz22 View Post
If you mean best of the best, I'll throw my hat in for the MTP Copper, which I just chose over the IE8's (sold on the FS forum(.

RE the Copper, I disagree that they have a problem with transparency and am shocked that anyone would find the bass to be too much. They are really fluid, sweet but revealing phones. And the bass just sounds real. Not big, though.
I'll third the polite request for more info from Average_Joe about the coppers with respect to the chart (by the way--this is a very interesting topic and great chart, A_J!).

The issue of overall space is interesting. I think people have mostly said that the MTPC (or MTPG, as with dweaver's review) has a smaller soundstage than the IE8, but that it's still quite reasonably sized. So, not a weakness, just not the best of all.

I don't think it's really been mentioned that the MTPC's have too much bass (?). This, perhaps, should be removed as a weakness (particularly with the PFE tips).

I'm also interested in the transparency (have people been commenting on this and I've missed it?), because instrument separation is listed as a strength and I would have thought that transparency and separation are related.

One weakness of the MTPC (and again, mentioned in dweaver's review of the MTPG) that I think should definitely be listed, as many people have commented on it, is that the stock tips are hard to fit (and/or don't give the best possible sound). I have "stock ear canals", so everything fits perfectly, but I found the sound of the PFE eartips (and the auvio's, for a different sound signature) were the first to really show me what the MTPC could do and be very comfortable to wear.
post #74 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by iponderous View Post
Judging by the widespread acclaim that the JH/13 PRO is receiving, it may be the only IEM worthy of "top tier" status based on your criteria. Unfortunately, it's not a universal IEM and therefore ineligible for consideration in this thread.
Yes, we are excluding customs, although we probably shouldn't feel compelled to do so. One could say those are the true super cars of the head-fi world. I think some of their extreme cost leaves the vast majority of the people without ever hearing them. Some customs are actually quite affordable, Livewires for example, but at that point are you back to the same level again as the unversals but just with a better fit and seal? I've seen some say yes.

To answer:
Completely a matter of personal opinion? That's going a bit too far. This matter can be judged beyond simple personal preference. You can hate a product and still think it's a very good product. An example is the RE0. It's an earphone that is very unlike my ideal and I would have a slew of functionally worse earphones over it. I still see it as a largely good product that does very little wrong. For the price, it's one of the best functioning options available...but I still dislike it personally.

ClieOS is an example of a person who's used/tested/reviewed a LOT of products. Joker's another who has used/tested/reviewed nearly 50 IEMs, although limited to low and mid level products. These are the kinds of levels of experience that give a person a broad spectrum view of the head-fi world and what it has to offer.

Most people can't accurately define a product. Our perception is based off our experience. It can be based off some logical conclusions too. We create this measuring stick and stick our experieces on it and define a scale. This stick can only measure what we know or can understand logically. We are effectively bound by our own individual takes on reality. My measuring stick is different then yours. My points of experience are in different places and scaled along my stick differently. My perceptions of bright, warm, crisp, muddy, fast, smooth, etc. will be different. What I define as high level and low level will be different. Sometimes you don't know better unless you've had better and realized what you were missing. To accurately measure a product and place aspects in a more true to reality manner, one must have a very well defined measuring device, one with a high resolution of points and spread over a wide spectrum that covers most of the actual realistic range. If you've used 50 or 100 earphones, you have a pretty well defined measuring tool. If you've used 4, it might be pretty crappy. This measuring device has more then one dimension too. It might have 10 or 20 dimensions defining things like level of detail, speed, transparency, impact, stage size, etc., and every single earphone only adds one point in some spot on this measuring stick for each dimension. It's simply that for someone's words to be realistically accurate, they have to have vast experience. 99.9% of the people here simply do not.

My definition of top tier didn't say weakness. It said flaw. I also want to clarify that flaw can not be a subjective value. Frequency response isn't subjective. It's objective, measurable, numerical. I can put a value to it. Subjective could be me saying the IE8 is too laid back, and I could by opinion call that a weakness. However, to someone else's own opinion it could be a strength and a desirable attribute. My perception of how laid back would also be scaled differently. I can't say the IE8 is flawed because it was geared a certain way. Even the midbass hump could have been specifically geared into the product. I can't exactly hold those things against it. I pick on the SE530 because it rolls off heavily in the lower frequencies, pretty much starting at 1kHz. I could say it was "geared" that way, and it sort of was by driver choice, but it's also a 3 driver earphone that completely lacks low end sensitivity. I actually does worse off then some single driver earphones. In my eyes, something like that is a fundamental flaw. There's absolutely no reason it should be that way or still be that way even after revisions.
post #75 of 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2410 View Post
erm no, you may like the FX500 but in no way is it top tier or really any where close to it
Why not?give me some reasons.and why does the ck10 in this table,I have no idea.it is not a top tier iem,I think it high mid level but not top.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Top-Tier Universal IEM Comparison Chart, Frequency Response Charts, & Discussion