Multi-IEM Review - 281 IEMs compared (VSonic GR07 BE and R02 Silver Added 05/15/13 p.688) - Page 589

i'm wondering which has better sound? creative in-ear 3, shure 215 or ue 700

i noe that they have different sound signature but which is better

i like forward mids and highs, and not too much of bass

all 3 are in the same price range in singapore so ignore the price

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyal1983 

this is probably the right thing to do..

it's just that, from my experience with full size cans.. there is no such thing as a 59$ beating a 450$+ can..

In case of headphones, that's mostly true, but there are cases of ridiculous price tags. (Say, relatively cheap DT770/HD-25-II/DT1350 on one end and not that great Audeze LCD-2 on the other.)

In IEM world, we have $100 VSonic GR07 very close in quality to $600 PFE 232.

I'll hazard saying that RE-ZERO with just the right tips and fit are actually more accurate than either of the two, heck most everything that's possibly not a CIEM. This includes K3003, which is much more expensive. SE-5 is only thing I heard that is comparable when equalized slightly less gritty, more precise and more filled in subbass, but tiny bit less impactful. Whether the 15x price difference (and the need for eq) is worth it is an entirely different matter...

(The difference is almost completely as DF vs ID equalization. Adding DF difference to SE-5 eq gives similar [slightly farther] soundstaging to RE-ZERO. Conversely, cutting DF and fixing some 2.5 dB wide 5k peak from RE-ZERO makes the soundstage further and wider.)

Brainwavz B2 (TWFK) only approaches similar quality after major eq.and with Comply T100. (More than 15 dB wide peak at 5k and highly resonant - Comply reduce this resonance noticeably.) I don't know why TWFK would have such a huge peak, but it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AstralStorm 

In case of headphones, that's mostly true, but there are cases of ridiculous price tags. (Say, relatively cheap DT770/HD-25-II/DT1350 on one end and not that great Audeze LCD-2 on the other.)

In IEM world, we have $100 VSonic GR07 very close in quality to $600 PFE 232.

I'll hazard saying that RE-ZERO with just the right tips (custom silicone or at least their silicone biflange) and deep fit are actually more accurate than either of the two, heck most everything that's possibly not a CIEM. This includes K3003, which is much more expensive. SE-5 is only slightly less gritty, more precise and slightly more filled in subbass (when the rest of the bass is equalized). Whether the 15x price difference (and the need for eq) is worth it is an entirely different matter... (bonus points: RE-ZERO sounds very similar, if slightly bass lighter, with oversize Comply)

Which tips do you think give the best isolation and add a bit more bass for RE-ZERO? Do you recommend MEelectronics M11p tips over stock bi-flange tips?

I haven't tried MEElect M11p tips yet. In what way are they different from other generic silicone biflanges?

They look much the same - this shape of biflange tends to highly irritate my ear canal.

I haven't found yet a way to increase the isolation beyond the shallow inserted stock biflanges without sacrificing highs.

Possibly very long silicone custom tips would be a way. Isolation isn't too bad either way.

--

Suprisingly, both SE-5 and B2 have that ugly 4.5k resonance. SE-5 is very well tuned to hide it as best as possible (It has an FK apparently? Is that the trademark of that armature?), but it's still there giving slight unnatural grain to the sound. B2 is just unbearable without eq.

(peak combined with resonance = ouch. Extra trace of 8k resonance makes it even worse.

RE-ZERO has no resonance, just a small wide peak of, 2 dB, completely equalizable, unlike the armature one which has resonance too.

RE272 had a trace of it, but it was way overdampened - had bass impact dropped and suckout around 3k giving it somewhat weird smooth sound. (this also hid the resonance)

Removing the white foam filter from RE causes the resonance to show up, albeit in less ugly way than the harsh armature one.

By the way, my T70p have a resonance at double that frequency, 9k, and it's also "sharp", but more brittle than grainy.

(It might have a trace of 4.5k resonance too, but not enough to bother me.)

So I been thinking of getting a second custom and outside of the usual companies couldn't think of too many companies until the Alclair Reference was brought to my attention. I currently have the JH5 which I like a lot. It's warm yet balanced but also with a pretty powerful bass but never overpowering. How do you think the Alclair Reference would stack up for me? The bass I'm assuming has a bit more weight and punch than the 1964T which I used to own. Since I only really own the JH5 hard to compare but would you say the bass is at the level of the usual analytical earphones such as the CK10, DBA02, etc or something closer to say the W4.

quantity aside, are the treble, mids, bass quality better on K3003 than FX700?

if K3003 sound better, is the difference in sound quality overall great enough to declare that one is than the other just from memory? without comparing them side by side?

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljokerl 

Probably not on the second question. The K3003 does have certain advantages - slightly better clarity from the BA driver due to the thinner note presentation, better imaging, and impressive treble extension, for example, but it would be difficult to justify the price difference if you've already got an FX700.

So the difference in sound quality can't be compared from memory? has to be compared side by side? 

Well, I don't know if you still have the Monster Turbine Coppers/gold. I had those before JVC FX700. I can still remember the difference in presentation, imaging and and timbre difference between the Coppers and FX700.

Well, the difference is not big though.

Is the difference between K3003 and FX700 greater or less than between FX700 and Monster Turbine Copper/Turbine? 

Thanks

Joker,

Is there an universal IEM equal to Westone 4 but with slightly punchier and flatter bass response extending well in to sub bass region such as UM3X or EPH-100? I like clear (slightly forward) mids with airy and sparkling treble extension.  For reference purposes; EPH-100 is perfect including bass,mids and soundstage however, highs could use a little bit more air and sparkle. I did not like UM3X or SM3 too much because of lack of clarity in the mids and they didn't do wonders with treble extension as well however, UM3X had strong bass response which I liked. I truly enjoyed the clear mids and airy/sparkling treble of Grado G10 but it didn't have the soundstage and bass response for me. Finally I bought W4s. They have fairly clear mids and airy treble with huge soundstage and they are slightly better than GR10s in bass response yet still not upto my taste. Thanks for all your help!

So I thought why not get some headphones this time, and I have read your review on the superlux HD668B, seems to be a good alternative to the re-zero, what do you think?

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljokerl 

Probably a little smaller. I think the FX700 is noticeably better than the Copper but as you've noted the difference between them still isn't that big, especially without comparing them side by side. 

ah man. 

I had the Monster Turbine Gold for a year and the copper for a year and half. I don't have them anymore, but I do recall the the bass is like pretty much the same as FX700. FX700 has more timbre on all the instruments except deep bass. But timbre is only better by a small margin. Well, string instruments sounds much better. It's hard to justify spending 3-4 times as much to get AKG K3003.

and when you compare IEMs, do you use portable devices without amp or with amp?