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 46

post #676 of 16803
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by idvsego View Post

pretty easy when you do a spreadsheet and the line counts don't add up.  I thought I had just missed one. 

 

Oh, and this very useful thread has led to me buying a set of visang R02.  Very excited.  Now I am looking at new sources.  I like my Zune but dont love it.


Yeah, the spreadsheet would work for keeping track if I didn't have in there earphones that haven't been added to the thread yet . Hope you like the R02! Looks like you did a good job of reading the table as they are the earphone I'd rate highest in value among the budget sets.



Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict View Post

|joker| - great reviews as usual.  I agree with most of your impressions as well, but I've maybe heard 15-20 of the IEM you've reviewed.  I just want to interject my thoughts on a couple of things here.

 

After listening to the UM3X with removable cable for the past week non-stop, I'd have to say that I think the bass quality and transparency is a little better than what I read in your descriptions.  But I understand that you must not think those areas are actually bad when you gave them a sonic score of 9.75/10.  I also think the UM3X with removable cable is a better value than the ones you reviewed since it does come with the full tip fit-kit for only $20-25 more.  I posted a UM3X review in the product section recently this week as well.  

 

Also, with the Monster Turbine Pro Gold Vs the Copper I might actually prefer the Gold over the Copper.  While treble and detail was improved over the Gold, I didn't like the decrease in bass vs the Gold.  I didn't think the UM3X were any more forward sounding than the Copper, but to me the UM3X were more transparent and realistic sounding.  The Copper also seemed to have a very slight closed headphone sound or some other coloration that my Gold don't have, and this hurt their transparency for me.  

 

So I think the 9.75/10 you gave the UM3X is deserved, and they were better than the Copper to me.  But I might have scored the the Copper slightly lower than you did, because even though the Copper were more detailed and balanced than the Gold I just didn't enjoy them as much as the Gold.  (I own the gold and the copper were loaned to me by rawrster, same as you).  

 

In my case I'd go nuts trying to give numerical scores to the reviewed gear, because two or three IEM could have the same score but sound somewhat different and appeal to different people.  It's easier for me to rank things in order of my "personal preference", but I have gotten away from putting things on a scale of 1-10 these days.  I think that your descriptions of the IEM sound is the most helpful part, and I would hate to see someone pass up a 9.25 IEM in favor of a 9.5 without reading the actual review which is the best part.

 

Keep up the good work!


Thanks for your thoughts. I really hope it doesn't sound like I didn't like the bass of the UM3X - I did. I have almost no technical issues with the sound of the UM3X - it's the presentation I don't like. And yeah, the removable-cord UM3X would probably have scored higher. Hopefully those who are considering buying the removable-cord ones can make the appropriate mental substitution (or use idvsego's handy chart). 

 

Also I think I mentioned that I like the Gold more than the Copper if not in the review, then from one of the early posts after it was posted. To me the Coppers sound like they're trying too hard but I really try to keep personal preferences out of it, which is why the Coppers scored higher. 

 

As for your last thought, I really can't stress that enough. It even says so right under the table but I don't think anyone reads that part.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post

That explains it.  Well at least the math works out now.

 

Small note, feel free to remove my edits if you feel they are off.  In the spreadsheet I did up isolation on the IE8 by 1 and lower it's price to $350.  I always felt the isolation is actually quite good on them just as long as you have a good seal.  I will agree that the stock tips aren't necessarily the best.  I ran a small bi-flange, and I didn't have much use for most of the others.  If I were to own a pair in the future for some reason I might plop on a Comply T-500 tip or a decored Olive instead.  When sealed well, they did block out sounds well.  I know I read a lot of comments about this even before I owned a pair and was aware of what people said as I tested them.  I found isolation to be on par, but I so seldom maintained a good seal.  With the heavy bass, you never really notice it loosening up.  Even a leaky fit still has good bass with them.  They were on par with others in my eyes, but feel free to rank as you see fit.  I also felt the $350 price tag was much better.  I saw the IE8 for $350 all the time and deals seem to pop up quite often for them sold sub $300, sometimes as low as $240 new.  For day to day, I think something in the $300 to $350 range is more fitting in terms of available price.

 

I also upped the build quality on the OK1.  For as cheap as it looks, the material choices and build quality is actually quite good.  It's not something I'd notice on casual use, but they are smartly built.  Mind you I've owned them for almost 2 years now and as a main product I've used on a daily basis.  They still look like new.  I know you picked on the cord some, but two years, no case, and just stuffing them in pockets, bags, or burying them under piles of crap on my deck has done nothing to them.  No nicks, no memory/kinks/twists, nothing.  For as budget level as they look, the materials were picked smartly.  I know I'm nitpicking.

 

I also noticed my remarks didn't move with the earphones, so where my comments are no longer correlates to which earphone I was commenting about.


Ah yes, the shifted edits. I had some fun trying to figure out where each one belongs. I don't have a problem with them but I won't be modifying my review. I still don't see an authorized retailed for the IE8 that consistently sells them at under $399. If you can find one I'll drop the price. I know ecost has them for $240 but it's easier to maintain consistent pricing and consider sales a bonus.

 

Doesn't your OK1 have electrical tape on the cords? I really don't have a problem with the build personally but you have to agree that for a $230 product it's just not very impressive. Also, I know people who have had a pair of ibuds for 3+ years with nary an issue. I still wouldn't call ibuds well-built, though. 

post #677 of 16803

I put the tape on the right side to tell me which was right in the dark. :p

post #678 of 16803

99 or 100, I dont care.  its fantastic work and a herculean effort...and it is much appreciated.  Not by my wife though, as I have about 3 other sets in my sights now.

post #679 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post

I put the tape on the right side to tell me which was right in the dark. :p


I was considering doing this with my RE-ZERO. Is there a better way to do it? My previous IEMs had a J-cord, so it wasn't a problem.

post #680 of 16803

Well you can't tell the difference in the dark unless  you show some light on it or do something similar to that where one side is different than the other.

post #681 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

I have to say I am on my 3rd pair of Monster Turbine Pro Copper's and all three have sounded different due to burnin process differences. My first pair was burned in playing music at regular listening levels and that pair had a slightly recessed midrange that made it very dry to listen to and sucked a bit of life out of the vocals in my opinion. My 2nd pair I deliberatly burned in the IEM with a brown noise centric burnin file consisting of brown, pink, and white noise doubling up the brown noise. I increased the volume throughout the burnin process from 10% to 15% volume on my computer. This pair ended up having a pretty heavy bass with a hump in the mid-bass and lower midrange making the pair warmer sounding than the first pair with a more forward midrange at least in the lower midrange. I liked this version more than the first pair but did find the added midbass a bit to much to handle over time. Fortunately the IEM started to have the same physical flaw as some of the other early MTPC's and was breaking wher the two halfs of the IEM are joined together so I warrantied them and recieved a new pair. This latest pair I changed up my burnin routine by creating a burnin file based off of my P-W-B-P-W burnin file, to this file I added 1 minute heavy drumming intervals every cycle and 3 minutes of cymbals every cycle. I used this for the first 5 or so hours and had a listen and found the midrange was not changing as much as I had hoped so I switched to my brown centric burnin file and let the IEM's burn for about 15 hours and the midrange was just about perfect more forward but no big midbass hump. I then set up my system to rotate between my new burnin file and the brown burnin file, set the volume to 15% and left on holidays for 2 and half days. I have since been listening to these headphones on and off and have to say they are much better than my first two. I have never seen a pair of headphones respond to differences in the burnin process so much.


Wow, I didn't even know that was possible. I thought, burn in was burn in, it would all turn out the same in the end.

 

So, could this mean one might be more careful on how to burn in their headphones (these specifically) because of the permanent sound that eventually breaks in?

 

I think I'm a bit frightened. I do want my Turbine Golds to sound their best...

post #682 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katun View Post


Wow, I didn't even know that was possible. I thought, burn in was burn in, it would all turn out the same in the end.

 

So, could this mean one might be more careful on how to burn in their headphones (these specifically) because of the permanent sound that eventually breaks in?

 

I think I'm a bit frightened. I do want my Turbine Golds to sound their best...



While there is no way to prove conclusively my findings because I can't afford to buy enough pairs to do a true sampling, I am pretty sure the coppers as least respond very well to different burnin techniques. For the Golds I would probably recommend starting with my P-W-B-P-W Flac file as it should not over emphasize the mid-bass and lower midrange which is already strong in the golds. But if you want even more in that area by all means try the brown based file. Actually download both and try one for a about 5hrs and have a listen to see if the phones are changing the way you would like and then switch if your not happy. But take a read through "A tale of 2 IEM's" first, I would also recommend putting respones in that thread so as to not get this thread to far off topic. BTW I have put a tip mod at the end of that thread you might also find very interesting to try out.

post #683 of 16803

It would be hard to compare.  There are many assumptions associated with the experiments.  For one, you assume all the sets sounded very close to each other in the start.  Driver variation could very well have one set sounding a little different than another.  I really have no clue where Monster gets their drivers and if the company tests their samples for consistency.  Second, there is the assumption that all burn in methods completely burnt in the earphones.  Maybe one method simply doesn't do as much as another.  While one may sound different than another after the burn in it may turn out that all equal out through normal listening later.  Third, we has humans have terrible memory of sounds.  What we thought we heard and what we hear now are two different things.  Both our perception of sound and our memory of sound vary with time.  Human hearing is an adaptive, auto-tuning system, so it gets incredibly hard to perceive the same way twice.  A form of "pallet cleanser" can help though.  I find pink noise to both be a good tool for EQing but also resetting the mental perception of sound.  When you spend an hour or so listening to static through several headphones, it tends to wash away any skew you may have had.  There are a few product I've had for a very long time, and I've used them in the mix as I try out new hardware.  It is interesting to experience changes in perception with time.

 

I think the only good test is to literally buy a bunch of earphones, run all of them immediately and write down how each sound overall and in relation to each other.  If all of them sound the same or at least close enough to not casually be aware of which earphone you have in your ears at any given time, you can step into the burn in.  It would be helpful to do listening evaluation blindly with random testing of the bunch.  I would also wait a while and randomly test again once or twice more and just write down everything.  If it is in the head, we will describe one earphone different every time we hear it.  If it is from the burn-in, we should be able to describe the same earphone the same way every time no matter what order we listen to them.in a blind test.  Repetition of the test weeds out random chance and actually shows a pattern.  At the end of the burn in process they should sound different if the method is important.  I would also suggest after this point to swap the burn in process for each and run them through again.  They should get more alike if they all share the same process.  There might be a control earphone on the side of all of this testing that measures just normal musical use and time.  If they all equal out over time, it would just be a use issue.  It may just be that one burn in method is just quicker getting to the end result. 

post #684 of 16803

Last post on this subject from me in this thread as the A tale of 2 IEM's is the right place for this discussion. My full response to mvw2 will be in that thread.

post #685 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

I have to say I am on my 3rd pair of Monster Turbine Pro Copper's and all three have sounded different due to burnin process differences. My first pair was burned in playing music at regular listening levels and that pair had a slightly recessed midrange that made it very dry to listen to and sucked a bit of life out of the vocals in my opinion. My 2nd pair I deliberatly burned in the IEM with a brown noise centric burnin file consisting of brown, pink, and white noise doubling up the brown noise. I increased the volume throughout the burnin process from 10% to 15% volume on my computer. This pair ended up having a pretty heavy bass with a hump in the mid-bass and lower midrange making the pair warmer sounding than the first pair with a more forward midrange at least in the lower midrange. I liked this version more than the first pair but did find the added midbass a bit to much to handle over time. Fortunately the IEM started to have the same physical flaw as some of the other early MTPC's and was breaking wher the two halfs of the IEM are joined together so I warrantied them and recieved a new pair. This latest pair I changed up my burnin routine by creating a burnin file based off of my P-W-B-P-W burnin file, to this file I added 1 minute heavy drumming intervals every cycle and 3 minutes of cymbals every cycle. I used this for the first 5 or so hours and had a listen and found the midrange was not changing as much as I had hoped so I switched to my brown centric burnin file and let the IEM's burn for about 15 hours and the midrange was just about perfect more forward but no big midbass hump. I then set up my system to rotate between my new burnin file and the brown burnin file, set the volume to 15% and left on holidays for 2 and half days. I have since been listening to these headphones on and off and have to say they are much better than my first two. I have never seen a pair of headphones respond to differences in the burnin process so much.

 

|

 

 

just curious , but what kind of music do you listen to ?

 

seems to me you are a little more 'anal' than required to simply enjoy the music with its tiny flaws and errors


to be honest , reading your post i imagined you living in an air-sealed room wearing special isolation uniform...

 

it's music dude , it's not nuclear physics...

 

 

 

on topic

 

 

can the mods make this a 'sticky' thread ?

 

This is really useful , when wanting to compare different IEM's.....

post #686 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by proedros View Post



 

 

just curious , but what kind of music do you listen to ?

 

seems to me you are a little more 'anal' than required to simply enjoy the music with its tiny flaws and errors


to be honest , reading your post i imagined you living in an air-sealed room wearing special isolation uniform...

 

it's music dude , it's not nuclear physics...

 

 

 

on topic

 

 

can the mods make this a 'sticky' thread ?

 

This is really useful , when wanting to compare different IEM's.....


Nope, pretty common place around here.  Head over to the burn-in, impedance, 16 v 24bit, threads in the sound science forum.

post #687 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by proedros View Post



 

 

just curious , but what kind of music do you listen to ?

 

seems to me you are a little more 'anal' than required to simply enjoy the music with its tiny flaws and errors


to be honest , reading your post i imagined you living in an air-sealed room wearing special isolation uniform...

 

it's music dude , it's not nuclear physics...

 

 

 

on topic

 

 

can the mods make this a 'sticky' thread ?

 

This is really useful , when wanting to compare different IEM's.....



Not often that a nubie almost gets my hackles up. Thought about posting something in the same vein of "humor" but decided not to...

 

I suspect from your 4 whole sentences of dribble you haven't figured out your on a website dedicated to hi-fi listeners of music. Half the threads on this site focus on the "tiny flaws and errors" so I guess the other members of this site must also be in "an air-sealed room wearing special isolation uniform" as well, but wait... your on this same site too, does that mean your also in an air-sealed room wearing special isolation uniform?

 

Hey wait a minute, I said I wasn't going to go down the same vein of "humor"... oh well

 

Have a good night proedros...

post #688 of 16803


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvw2 View Post

One thing I keep saying, if someone wants to see a review done on an earphone, someone just needs to loan you a pair.  Want a review of the FI-BA-SS or SM3?  Well, people have them lying around.  Send a pair to Joker and it will go up.  Simple.

 

p.s. Joker, count your list again.  Tell me what number you get to.

 

It wasn't my intent to coax Joker into doing yet another review. I was replying to rawrster, who said the CK100 were dead last in value. The CK100 earned a 10/10 in SQ, so it's easy to predict that the $1000+ FI-BA-SS would set a new low record in value.

 

Speaking of which, I'll be lending these to dfkt next week and already wonder whether he'll pull them to pieces like the other FADs. After that, I might lend them to one or two other trustworthy Head-Fiers in case they're still interested, hehe.

 

p.s. @mvw2 copy/paste 'what your mother said last night Trebec' into google and tell me what comes up.

post #689 of 16803
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoetheArachnid View Post


I was considering doing this with my RE-ZERO. Is there a better way to do it? My previous IEMs had a J-cord, so it wasn't a problem.


I've used a small drop of nail polish in the past. With some practice I could 'feel it out' in the dark to tell which earphone is which. But tape is easier and easily reversible.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by proedros View Post

can the mods make this a 'sticky' thread ?

 

This is really useful , when wanting to compare different IEM's.....

 

I don't believe the concept of a 'sticky' exists under the new (Huddler) platform. It's been replaced by Wikis
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by james444 View Post

 

It wasn't my intent to coax Joker into doing yet another review. I was replying to rawrster, who said the CK100 were dead last in value. The CK100 earned a 10/10 in SQ, so it's easy to predict that the $1000+ FI-BA-SS would set a new low record in value.

 

Speaking of which, I'll be lending these to dfkt next week and already wonder whether he'll pull them to pieces like the other FADs. After that, I might lend them to one or two other trustworthy Head-Fiers in case they're still interested, hehe.

Well, unless the inclusion of the FI-BA-SS forces me to re-scale my system in such a way that the CK100 ends up with a 5/10 in SQ


Edited by ljokerl - 8/28/10 at 3:00pm
post #690 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post

I don't believe the concept of a 'sticky' exists under the new (Huddler) platform. It's been replaced by Wikis/


It's been done in the FS forum now, just noticed it this morning.

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)