Hi Joker,
 
I think e-Q5 should be rated just a bit higher than the e-Q7. e-Q5 is better technically - it has better treble quality and extension and similar quality mids and bass, but more even and neutral. But this is of course debatable. I just felt that the treble on e-Q7 was clearly grainier and less refined than that of e-Q5. Also, just curious: what makes you give the FX700 a higher score? What do you feel they do better than the e-Q5?
 
BTW, I just got RE0 again - borrowed from a fellow head-fi'er and I am so impressed with them! I compared directly with e-Q5 and I am honestly not sure which one is better at all. RE0 is just so incredibly composed, clear, detailed and transparent. e-Q5 is also great, but is it better than RE0? Honestly, I think it will take a high end source and amp to tell for sure. I only tried RE0 unamped, but we all know how well it scales. In your opinion - what makes the e-Q5 superior to RE0?
 
I just looked over your RE0 review and read this: "They are very neutral with maybe just a hint of warmth, but lack lushness or liquidity." Do you still feel the same way about them? I always thought RE0 had very smooth mids. They may not have the ultra lushness of SE530 or RE262, but they are on par with e-Q5/e-Q7 in this regard and maybe even smoother to my ears. I used to own e-Q7 and RE0 at the same time and I ABed them a lot. I came to the conclusion that RE0 is actually smoother than e-Q7. Again, this is all subjective, but I would never say RE0 lacks smoothness, no matter how I look at it.

It looks like time for a Pianist multi IEM thread. and you know what? I would read it.

Joker please review the ultimate high end universal IEM:  Sony EX-1000   You will not regret it.

high_q said:

Joker please review the ultimate high end universal IEM:  Sony EX-1000

  You will not regret it.

Click to expand...

Maybe you can persuade him by sending him yours for evaluation.

mcnoiserdc said:

It looks like time for a Pianist multi IEM thread. and you know what? I would read it.

Click to expand...

Not as easy as it looks.

I'm gonna go for the following earphones in the next year or so:
 
Meelectronics CC51
Monster Turbine Pro Copper
Hippo VB's
Sony MDR-EX 1000
Westone UMX3
 
I'm gonna need $2,000 to get these. Although I'm serious, I will achieve this because I'm very curious how these sound. 

Joker, could you compare the bass of the Sm2, Custom 3, and the eq-5?  I'm specifically looking at the quantity (they all already have good quality, right?)

 

I'm really grateful to you for this wonderful comparison thread and all the effort and money you've put into comparing IEMs.
 
Is the Stax SR-001 in any of your future plans?

Great review on the E-q5. I've described it as being detailed but with a bit of fill. Your explanation of micro detail is more to the point. Not noticeable unless you've heard something with more air and space between the notes. Never heard the EQ-7 but I think the bass balance VG on the E-q5. Depending on tip there's a very slight lower treble bump and general overall forwardness but these are very minor compared the more prominent character of some other highly regarded IEMs. I also think most sources aren't going to stress these and that they're forgiving while still fun and informative. A great big note IEM though that's over stating it for something with this type of info. A nice balance of attributes other than fit which is so so.

Quote:

mark2410 said:

very, very generous mark to the mc5 if you ask me

Click to expand...

A bit too generous mark if you ask me.
I really appreciate jokers work, but with all due respect I think he's got it wrong when he claims the MC5 to be less sterile than the hf5. The hf5, as the er4, is very good at letting the music through perceptably un-altered. Rich and vivid music will sound rich and vivid, boring music will sound boring.
The MC5, on the other hand, seems to make all music sound boring and lifeless. Now I might have fallen for semantic ambiguities here, as I read "less sterile" to to mean 'more lively'. If jokers intended meaning of the term were to be 'more dirty', I'd heartily agree.
For the record I've tested all three IEMs with a wide selection and tips, with the single flange and Alpine eartips from sensorcom being my favourites.

 
Quote:

b0ck3n said:

Just wanted to point out that the RE-ZERO is rather fit and seal dependant and can be a fatiguing listen if you don't get the right seal. Once that's out of the way the only thing stopping me from wearing them always is that I don't know sign language.

Click to expand...

I think that's true for most IEMs - poor seal means shrill treble (and no bass). The ZERO is perhaps less sensitive than most while the MC5 is more sensitive than average.


Quote:

edmundtyw1 said:

How would you compare the Triple Fi 10 to the DBA-02 since i can get them both at around the same price

Click to expand...

There was an entire thread somewhere comparing the two. 


Quote:

pianist said:

Hi Joker,
 
I think e-Q5 should be rated just a bit higher than the e-Q7. e-Q5 is better technically - it has better treble quality and extension and similar quality mids and bass, but more even and neutral. But this is of course debatable. I just felt that the treble on e-Q7 was clearly grainier and less refined than that of e-Q5. Also, just curious: what makes you give the FX700 a higher score? What do you feel they do better than the e-Q5?
 
BTW, I just got RE0 again - borrowed from a fellow head-fi'er and I am so impressed with them! I compared directly with e-Q5 and I am honestly not sure which one is better at all. RE0 is just so incredibly composed, clear, detailed and transparent. e-Q5 is also great, but is it better than RE0? Honestly, I think it will take a high end source and amp to tell for sure. I only tried RE0 unamped, but we all know how well it scales. In your opinion - what makes the e-Q5 superior to RE0?
 
I just looked over your RE0 review and read this: "They are very neutral with maybe just a hint of warmth, but lack lushness or liquidity." Do you still feel the same way about them? I always thought RE0 had very smooth mids. They may not have the ultra lushness of SE530 or RE262, but they are on par with e-Q5/e-Q7 in this regard and maybe even smoother to my ears. I used to own e-Q7 and RE0 at the same time and I ABed them a lot. I came to the conclusion that RE0 is actually smoother than e-Q7. Again, this is all subjective, but I would never say RE0 lacks smoothness, no matter how I look at it.

Click to expand...

Didn't you say that the FX700 should be rated higher than it is a couple of pages back? 
 
While I do like the e-Q5 better than the e-Q7, I feel that it gave up some of the midrange detail and weight of the latter in striving to be smoother and more balanced, which is not necessarily a good thing for everyone. The RE0 (or  is a very good earphone but it doesn't quite have the speed or clarity of an e-Q5, nor the ability to throw distance cues as far. It is also less revealing when it comes to low-end detail, especially in the bottom octave. I like the RE0, always have, but it doesn't fare all that well in direct comparisons to top-tier earphones with a similar signature. If I had time I would re-write my old reviews with more detail but as it stands I have quite a backlog and it doesn't seem to be getting any shorter.
 
I don't think the RE0 lacks smoothness, not at all, but lushness is going above and beyond. Lush-sounding earphones usually have an upper-bass or lower-midrange lift, which the RE0 does not.


Quote:

xtasi said:

Joker, could you compare the bass of the Sm2, Custom 3, and the eq-5?  I'm specifically looking at the quantity (they all already have good quality, right?)

Click to expand...

Quantity: SM2 >> e-Q5 ~ KC3
 
The KC3 and e-Q5 are both pretty flat. SM2 is very bassy in comparison (probably the bassiest armature aside from the W3) but as a result it also sounds the most bloated of the three. The bloat is not overbearing in the least but is rather unavoidable with that much bass. 


Quote:

jashanjeet said:

I'm really grateful to you for this wonderful comparison thread and all the effort and money you've put into comparing IEMs.
 
Is the Stax SR-001 in any of your future plans?

Click to expand...

No, not at the time. I don't really see myself walking around with that thing (says the man who wore earpollution nerve pipes with zebra pads out and about).

 
Quote:

limpidglitch said:

A bit too generous mark if you ask me. I really appreciate jokers work, but with all due respect I think he's got it wrong when he claims the MC5 to be less sterile than the hf5. The hf5, as the er4, is very good at letting the music through perceptably un-altered. Rich and vivid music will sound rich and vivid, boring music will sound boring.
The MC5, on the other hand, seems to make all music sound boring and lifeless. Now I might have fallen for semantic ambiguities here, as I read "less sterile" to to mean 'more lively'. If jokers intended meaning of the term were to be 'more dirty', I'd heartily agree.
For the record I've tested all three IEMs with a wide selection and tips, with the single flange and Alpine eartips from sensorcom being my favourites.

Click to expand...

I don't think 'sterile' has a bad connotation... most would fine the CK10 and HF5 sterile, and those are still my favorite earphones at their respective price points. The MC5 is not as analytical, not as clean, and not as cold. That makes it less sterile but not really lively. I have custom tips for use with the HF5 and (with some twisting and pushing) the MC5. As for the score, I cannot dock points for 'boring' sound - that's far too subjective. The value score is also not as dependent on sound quality as most seem to assume - there's simply nothing that is better-built or more isolating at the MC5's price point.

Thanks joker!

EDIT: One last thing joker.  Do you think it would be better to EQ up the bass on the e-q5 or get the SM2?  I'm looking to upgrade my KC3, and I feel that the bass is just a tad too light, but my main beef is that its too thick and has not enough sparkle.  This makes me feel that the e-q5 would be a good fit.  Any thoughts or comments are appreciated as always.

Quote:

ljokerl said:

I don't think 'sterile' has a bad connotation... most would fine the CK10 and HF5 sterile, and those are still my favorite earphones at their respective price points. The MC5 is not as analytical, not as clean, and not as cold. That makes it less sterile but not really lively. I have custom tips for use with the HF5 and (with some twisting and pushing) the MC5. As for the score, I cannot dock points for 'boring' sound - that's far too subjective. The value score is also not as dependent on sound quality as most seem to assume - there's simply nothing that is better-built or more isolating at the MC5's price point.

Click to expand...

It appears that we do agree then

Hi, I was just wondering of the iem's that you have tested which have been the best for rock and metal, and have great build quality and low microphonics.
Thanks

This is a stunning post, so much effort going into, great stuff.
 
Could I make a suggestion, it would be nice if you could include the Y-Split in the photo of the earphone, it is always interesting to see how manufacturers implement them.