or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106) - Page 180

post #2686 of 16803

Could you elaborate more on the difference between the two?

(warmth and bass impact vs detail oriented sound)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JxK View Post




Do you like the warmth and bass impact of your cx300? If so, go with the cc51 (if the a151 is in your price range, so are these). If you want less impact and want a more detail oriented sound choose the a151.

 



 

post #2687 of 16803

I can go into more detail, but until you've heard examples of both types of sound signatures, it will be just words. Your cx300 is a very bass heavy IEM. It doesn't have a great deal of sub-bass (the "kick" in bass) but has a great overabundance of mid-bass - which makes for a "thicker", "warmer" sort of sound. The a151 is a balanced armature. It is tuned to also produce some extra midbass "warmth"  but not nearly to the same extent as the cx300. Also, as a balanced armature it will be "faster" - meaning it can respond quicker to small changes in the music...though depending upon what you listen to it's not always a good thing.

 

But as I said earlier, you really have to hear some different headphones/earphones in order to get an understanding of their sound, and in order to develop a preference about the sort of sound you prefer. So at first just decide upon generalities. If you want your next purchase to sound similar, though better, than your cx300 pick the cc51. If you want to gamble and try something different, or if perhaps you've always felt the cx300 was too bassy or thick, try the a151.

 

Or maybe something else? Is there some aspect of the cx300 that particularly stands out, positively or negatively?

post #2688 of 16803

I got my new non-defective SP51 in the mail and Meelec also gave me the M31 as well! Awesome Customer Service! L3000.gif

post #2689 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by JxK View Post


Do you like the warmth and bass impact of your cx300? If so, go with the cc51 (if the a151 is in your price range, so are these). If you want less impact and want a more detail oriented sound choose the a151.


You find the cc51 has more warmth, bass impact and less detail than the a151?  Unless they changed the demo I heard at CES I would switch those around.  blink.gif  


Edited by Anaxilus - 4/23/11 at 10:34pm
post #2690 of 16803

say people

even after reading this multi-review i cant make my mind (im posting this on other thread too...)

any suggestions about which of these ones would be a better buy

 

surise xcape (ver2 seems to be the only one available)
meelec a151

meelec cx21
ecci pr401
fischer audio eterna (though neither version seems to be available)

 

yes i know the prices are different but dont take that on count

i want the best comfort

and also best isolation possible as i need them for bus travel, rush hours and/or very noisy engines

good for vocals, specially jap-female vocals, not laid back please

 

 

another thing. im also considering of getting a ~$150 iem

anyone tried or know about the new Brainwavz B2 (the preorder price seems a good buy)

maybe the FA DBA-02. look similar but i dont know the difference

or the UE triple10

 

same requirments as before comfort/isolation. and but for these they should "shine with female-vocals". the Westone 1, dont seem to be comfort for me

thnks

post #2691 of 16803

Hey Joker. I think DBA-02 is probably rated too highly. I don't think it deserves to be rated above RE252, e-Q7 and ER4S and RE262. I know you may prefer them more, but I think you should be a bit more objective. You reviews are excellent though, just don't necessarily reflect the rating well. I would place all of the aforementioned IEMs on par because I think that choosing between them is just a matter of personal preference. If you have strong reasons why you think that DBA-02 actually objectively beats all of them, then you should state it in your review. Personally, I can easily say that ER4S is more neutral and accurate than DBA-02, which is a bit too bright by comparison. I can also say that ER4S extends deeper in the low end and its low end is tighter and more defined than that of DBA-02. I think e-Q7 has smoother, better textured mids than DBA-02 and tighter, better textured bass as well. I think RE252 is more neutral than DBA-02 and the RE262 has smoother mids and much better dynamics than DBA-02. So overall, I don't see how DBA-02 can be rated higher overall. Is it the best all arounder? I don't think so because its treble can be slightly too bright, the bass is not always as defined as I would've liked and the compressed dynamic range works better with some music than other music.

 

Actually, I would drop ratings altogether. I think that sound is too subjective to be rated on a scale like this. You should just describe the sound of a 'phone and what you feel it does well and doesn't do well and then let the reader decide for himself whether it may be better than some other 'phone you described before based on your description.


Edited by Pianist - 4/25/11 at 1:44pm
post #2692 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post
Actually, I would drop ratings altogether. I think that sound is too subjective to be rated on a scale like this. You should just describe the sound of a 'phone and what you feel it does well and doesn't do well and then let the reader decide for himself whether it may be better than some other 'phone you described before based on your description.


You should just not pay too much attention to the rating without using ljokerl descriptions as context. They definitely cannot be a result of a perfect analysis based on precise and standard characteristics with proper weighted coefficients.

Ratings are indicative, there is always to argue between a 9.3 and a 9.5.

 

What would be very interesting is a ranking by sound signature, like did ClieOS. Because after all, what people seeks most of the times is a recommendation, based on a budget and sound signature. After if people are seeking for a more peculiar trait, they should pay a deeper attention to descriptions.

post #2693 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalmArn View Post


You should just not pay too much attention to the rating without using ljokerl descriptions as context. They definitely cannot be a result of a perfect analysis based on precise and standard characteristics with proper weighted coefficients.

Ratings are indicative, there is always to argue between a 9.3 and a 9.5.

 

What would be very interesting is a ranking by sound signature, like did ClieOS. Because after all, what people seeks most of the times is a recommendation, based on a budget and sound signature. After if people are seeking for a more peculiar trait, they should pay a deeper attention to descriptions.


Agreed 100%. But the ratings are still there and a 9.3 is still less than a 9.5 and it sure has a psychological effect on people, especially those new to headphones and head-fi. Especially if you then also look at the price. DBA-02 is rated higher than e-Q7 and costs half the price! Which IEM do you think a newbie reading the reviews is more likely to pick. DBA-02 by a landslide.

 

But there are things that e-Q7 does much better than DBA-02 and vice versa. Each of these IEMs has strengths and weaknesses and there is really no better between them. But by rating DBA-02 higher than e-Q7, it is as though Joker assumes that DBA-02 is indeed better than e-Q7 overall, which is not true IMO. e-Q7 has a wider dynamic range, better structured bass and better texture than DBA-02 and that alone can make it worth the extra money over the DBA-02 if those are the qualities that are most important to the buyer. And of course, if one is looking for the sharpest treble with plenty of excitement and aggression up there, then of course DBA-02 is a much better choice and killer value compared to e-Q7 for that individual. But to say that DBA-02 has a higher value and sounds better overall is just wrong. There are plenty of other IEMs in that review, like RE262, e-Q7, ER4S and even RE0 that do some things better than DBA-02 and are thus in at least some ways are worth the money or are a better value than DBA-02.


Edited by Pianist - 4/25/11 at 2:26pm
post #2694 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

Hey Joker. I think DBA-02 is probably rated too highly. I don't think it deserves to be rated above RE252, e-Q7 and ER4S and RE262. I know you may prefer them more, but I think you should be a bit more objective. You reviews are excellent though, just don't necessarily reflect the rating well. I would place all of the aforementioned IEMs on par because I think that choosing between them is just a matter of personal preference. If you have strong reasons why you think that DBA-02 actually objectively beats all of them, then you should state it in your review. Personally, I can easily say that ER4S is more neutral and accurate than DBA-02, which is a bit too bright by comparison. I can also say that ER4S extends deeper in the low end and its low end is tighter and more defined than that of DBA-02. I think e-Q7 has smoother, better textured mids than DBA-02 and tighter, better textured bass as well. I think RE252 is more neutral than DBA-02 and the RE262 has smoother mids and much better dynamics than DBA-02. So overall, I don't see how DBA-02 can be rated higher overall. Is it the best all arounder? I don't think so because its treble can be slightly too bright, the bass is not always as defined as I would've liked and the compressed dynamic range works better with some music than other music.

I'd be happy to offer my view versus the ER4S.  The DBA-02 has better clarity and more pronounced detail from mid to treble because of it.  Listen to the sound of glass breaking on Rush's YYZ and you'll hear one aspect of the DBA's superior timbre in that region.  It actually sounds like someone threw a vase at your head.  Despite being more 'accurate' or 'neutral' the DBA sounds more natural and closer to real life versus the ER4 which sounds like a 2 dimensional recording.  Despite inferior bass extension the DBA is fuller and has more body and impact from the mid bass up which contributes to that natural sound by balancing out the spectrum nicely.  As good as the ER4S is it always sounds like a balanced armature due to it's thinness and inferior transparency (definition 1 or 2 depending).  As always YMMV on tips, fit, seal, musical preferences.  Apart from more linear balance, extension and texture the ER4S does nothing better except maybe 1-2 dB of isolation. 

 

I actually would rate the DBA higher overall because the build quality and isolation potential is superior to say the SM3 IMO.  

 

post #2695 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post


Agreed 100%. But the ratings are still there and a 9.3 is still less than a 9.5 and it sure has a psychological effect on people, especially those new to headphones and head-fi. Especially if you then also look at the price. DBA-02 is rated higher than e-Q7 and costs half the price! Which IEM do you think a newbie reading the reviews is more likely to pick. DBA-02 by a landslide.


I'd pick the DBA over the EQ5 though it would be very, very close.  I'm still not coping well w/ Moving Armature bass presentation.  If the GR10 doesn't improve on the EQ5 low-end I'm not interested.  If I was more focused on classical and acoustic I probably would prefer the EQ5.  For rock, pop, metal, electronic, etc.  DBA-02.

 


Edited by Anaxilus - 4/25/11 at 2:24pm
post #2696 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




I'd pick the DBA over the EQ5 though it would be very, very close.  I'm still not coping well w/ Moving Armature bass presentation.  If the GR10 doesn't improve on the EQ5 low-end I'm not interested.  If I was more focused on classical and acoustic I probably would prefer the EQ5.  For rock, pop, metal, electronic, etc.  DBA-02.

 

 

While we're doing opposing viewpoints I couldn't stand the DBA-02 for modern rock and metal (my main genres) due to the shrilly treble when crashy cymbals came about. I've never heard a moving armature but I'd love to get my hands on one. If the ER4P sounds at all similar to the iM716 (which it SHOULD, although I've never actually heard one) I think I would take the DBA-02 for detail and very singular music (i.e. not busy, with few instruments going on at the same time, and no cymbals), but the ER4P for a more natural balance and very clinical detail. In comparison the DBA-02 has a more... airy detail, if you know what I mean. It doesn't focus on the detail but by virtue of its speed and treble quantity it is there in spades.

post #2697 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

I'd be happy to offer my view versus the ER4S.  The DBA-02 has better clarity and more pronounced detail from mid to treble because of it.  Listen to the sound of glass breaking on Rush's YYZ and you'll hear one aspect of the DBA's superior timbre in that region.  It actually sounds like someone threw a vase at your head.  Despite being more 'accurate' or 'neutral' the DBA sounds more natural and closer to real life versus the ER4 which sounds like a 2 dimensional recording.  Despite inferior bass extension the DBA is fuller and has more body and impact from the mid bass up which contributes to that natural sound by balancing out the spectrum nicely.  As good as the ER4S is it always sounds like a balanced armature due to it's thinness and inferior transparency (definition 1 or 2 depending).  As always YMMV on tips, fit, seal, musical preferences.  Apart from more linear balance, extension and texture the ER4S does nothing better except maybe 1-2 dB of isolation. 

 

I actually would rate the DBA higher overall because the build quality and isolation potential is superior to say the SM3 IMO.  

 

Interesting. I find ER4S sharper and more detailed overall than DBA-02. Clarity is great on both, but DBA is definitely not clearer to my ears. DBA-02 creates an illusion of extra clarity because of brighter treble and an overall brighter, more forward sound. ER4S is more subtle, textured and neutral. More laid back if you will. ER4S is more dynamic too - quieter passages in recordings have more power with ER4S to my ears. DBA-02 is more 3D, yes, but also less coherent. I sometimes still feel chunks of sounds floating around in the soundstage without being attached to any clear musical content, whereas with ER4, every sound is always a part of the whole.

 

That being said, I do like DBA-02. Its a very nice IEM indeed and a good all arounder for the price. But it just isnt really better overall than an ER4, RE262 or e-Q7 as it does not do everything as well as these IEMs.

post #2698 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflac View Post

 

While we're doing opposing viewpoints I couldn't stand the DBA-02 for modern rock and metal (my main genres) due to the shrilly treble when crashy cymbals came about. I've never heard a moving armature but I'd love to get my hands on one. If the ER4P sounds at all similar to the iM716 (which it SHOULD, although I've never actually heard one) I think I would take the DBA-02 for detail and very singular music (i.e. not busy, with few instruments going on at the same time, and no cymbals), but the ER4P for a more natural balance and very clinical detail. In comparison the DBA-02 has a more... airy detail, if you know what I mean. It doesn't focus on the detail but by virtue of its speed and treble quantity it is there in spades.


That's funny, the ER4P would shred my ears after more than 15 minutes.  I couldn't stand them, much shrillier than my DBA.  ER4S is great though.  Just goes to show, ears, tips, fit, gear.  All relative.

 

post #2699 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

Interesting. I find ER4S sharper and more detailed overall than DBA-02. Clarity is great on both, but DBA is definitely not clearer to my ears. DBA-02 creates an illusion of extra clarity because of brighter treble and an overall brighter, more forward sound. ER4S is more subtle, textured and neutral. More laid back if you will. ER4S is more dynamic too - quieter passages in recordings have more power with ER4S to my ears. DBA-02 is more 3D, yes, but also less coherent. I sometimes still feel chunks of sounds floating around in the soundstage without being attached to any clear musical content, whereas with ER4, every sound is always a part of the whole.

 

That being said, I do like DBA-02. Its a very nice IEM indeed and a good all arounder for the price. But it just isnt really better overall than an ER4, RE262 or e-Q7 as it does not do everything as well as these IEMs.


I stand by my comments and weight the natural sound of the DBA over the more clinical and technical performance of the ER4.  If you can provide a philosophic basis for how you weight one metric over another feel free.  Many phones excel at putting checks in boxes.  My highest weighted criteria is how a phone sounds compared to how my ears hear without phones.

 

Hell, I've seen people go on and on about the fruity notes of X wine over Y and blah, blah, blah.  By the time they're done w/ their pretentiousness I need a good freaking Scotch.  I'll take a Lagavulin over some hyped, watered down, grape juice anyday.  But that's just me.  Slightly OT.  tongue_smile.gif

 


Edited by Anaxilus - 4/25/11 at 3:01pm
post #2700 of 16803

@ Pianist, you seem a bit too agressive... I mean the guy rates the earphones according to his hears and knowledge, and when you add that to the fact that the sound is "subjective", your objection makes little to no sense...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)