I was in the same situation as you a couple of months ago. Tried out the CK10 and other earphones like the Triple.fi 10, but they just didn't feel like a complete jump from the Q-Jays. After that, I saw a thread here about the Ortofon e-Q7 and I got quite interested with it and bought a pair.

Since then, I've never looked back. It has some of the characteristics of the Q-Jays, but with a definite improvement in the mids.
 

Never used PRaT because I don't know what it means, here or in the UK.
 
Impact? I didn''t see the word bass in front of the word impact. Guess I missed that. I just saw the word impact, which to me is a very undefined term as it was used. Bass impact is much more definitive.
 
I am just trying to enjoy my DBAs without someone who has never heard them making comments about them is all. I didn't begin the discussion, but the inference that I favor thin, clinical IEMs is frankly just plain wrong. I favor what my ears tell me sound best, impact or PRaT (and I didn't use the term in this thread) mean little to me.
 
Quote:

soozieq said:

To be fair, I've heard you refer to 'PRaT' and 'impact' in many of your posts, so 'Bill from the Hills' must also be referring to people like you then?

 
Have you really never felt some phones present more impact than others? Bass for example, when you use Bass Boost on your Touch, do you do it so the bass has more weight, so you can feel it more? Didn't your Atrios have bass impact?
 
As for 'PRaT'... in the UK, 'prat' is to us what 'jerk' is to you.
 
So the beginning of your last paragraph....
 
"This is Bill from the Future. PRaT"
 
... reads something entirely different to me than it does to you

 
And I think he is.

Click to expand...

No "bass impact" here, just impact. To me, the DBAs have plenty of impact, but no, they are not bass cannons. Which is fine with those of us who own and like them.
 
Quote:

cn11 said:

From what I've seen during your several years here, you've always derived more enjoyment from earphones which have less impact, prat, etc., and reside more on the thin/clinical side. No matter. Our tastes differ obviously. I was merely trying to understand this IEM better. I will defer to other owners' descriptions going forward. Next.

Click to expand...

Quote:

slaters70 said:

Never used PRaT because I don't know what it means, here or in the UK.

Click to expand...

You must have forgotten posting this in one of the soundstage threads:
 
"I've read a lot of posts on Head-Fi, most of them about in-ear phones, and until the IE8 came along, soundstage was just one factor in a positive IEM experience. Now, it sort of has become the driving force behind owning an top tier IEM, it seems. Am I oversimplifying? Does the soundstage now render all of those other critical listening factors (detail, PRAT, etc.) as secondary?"
 
So PRaT was a critical listening factor for you back then? But you don't know what it means? Anyway, I tend to stick with simple descriptions because I'm a simple prat

  pace rhythm and timing. Generally good when a vew things go right together,.

.

 
[size=medium]

Of course, I knew you already had found this from another lifetime. So be it. You got me. I believe I owned the IE8s two years ago. I didn't really know what I was talking about then (when I used it, I did sound like someone with headphones at a wine tasting), to be honest.

 I have since left behind all those mystical "audiophile" words/acronyms because when you get right down to it, listening is what works best. Describing always falls short for me.
 
In this case, for the umpteenth time, cn11 posts comments, drawn from inference, not experience, about a pair of phones he has not in fact listened to, trying his best to paint them as cold and clinical for the OP. When I say they are fun (and others agree, check the DBA thread), he needs an explanation? I explain, and he persists.
 
He has every right to comment on the Coppers, since he has owned them, but no such option on the DBAs. My guess? Despite being not for him, he will be ordering them shortly (shades of the AMP3), and I hope he does, because he will be able to hear for himself how nice and clear, balanced they sound, and how they have plenty of impact, bass or otherwise, and dare I say .... nope, not going to use that term because I still don't know, nor really really care. what it means.
 
The real irony is that the term actually was misused, because I don't recall it ever being decided anywhere that "cold, clinical" IEMs (BAs?) would have less of said arcronym than other IEMs (dynamics). Correct me if I am wrong. The inference is that only one type of IEM can have those two qualities mentioned in the post. Not true, I believe.
 
As for the OP, if it comes down to Coppers or DBAs, the DBAs are to me the better choice. And I have owned both.
​

[/size]


Quote:

soozieq said:

You must have forgotten posting this in one of the soundstage threads:
 
"I've read a lot of posts on Head-Fi, most of them about in-ear phones, and until the IE8 came along, soundstage was just one factor in a positive IEM experience. Now, it sort of has become the driving force behind owning an top tier IEM, it seems. Am I oversimplifying? Does the soundstage now render all of those other critical listening factors (detail, PRAT, etc.) as secondary?"
 
So PRaT was a critical listening factor for you back then? But you don't know what it means? Anyway, I tend to stick with simple descriptions because I'm a simple prat

Click to expand...

I think prat is used as something more related to a music's boogie or goosebump factor than anything too "audiophile" which, by the way, is not a dirty word if you like accurate.

if im honest i cant say i had really come across the term prat till a few weeks ago, i had thought it was slaters70 that first brought it up but with everyone now having the same avatars i cant tell whos who half the time

Nope, never mentioned it. And still don't know what it REALLY means. But it has been around for a long time, based on my search/google for the term.

Guys, can we stop this?
 
And, for mark2410, well, that's simply what I hear. In comparison to the DBAs, these have a more laid back presentation. That is, after all, a BA - Dynamic comparison, which pretty much signs off that the dynamics will be more relaxed right from the start. They're just not as intimate. They're more like a Senn, and the DBAs are like a Grado. Grados have that rocking mid, the Coppers have a more liquidey mid that's more in the distance. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure, compared to the IE8 and the likes, the Coppers aren't very relaxed, but if you're considering the whole spectrum of IEMs, most dynamics simply are more relaxed by nature. That is, of course, not counting the RE0 and MC5, which were made to be special dynamics. I listened to the Coppers for half an hour to help me write this (still have them in my ears as I type).
I can't ever see these being harsh or strident, so maybe it's the tips I use or something. I think it's what we all are used to. If it's the harshest IEM that someone has, then yes, that will become their standard for harshness. Just like bass-heads and treble lovers. It's because that's just what they are used to.
 
Just switched back to the DBAs, and well, they aren't a lot more forward. At least out of this source, the soundstage is similar.
So, my thoughts at the end of this, there isn't a lot of difference in how engaging or forward they are. The Coppers simply sound like a dynamic, and the DBAs simply sound like armatures. The dynamics sound smooth, with focus on the bass and warmth. Mids are like liquid, not as intimate. The BAs sound refined, having the focus on the mids, which are detailed and intimate. With female vocals, they make me want to sing along. The mids are more engaging compared to the Coppers, which engage via the bass. It's a different type of engagement for each. The Coppers have the bassy, bouncy kind of engagement, whereas the DBAs engage with the intimate mids. I feel the mids carry a lot of emotion, which is what does it for me. I imagine that's what people like of the eQ-7.
 
So yeah, it's not a huge difference in regards to overall engagement, I just figured out through this little A/B session that it's simply a different type of engagement. If you like the dynamic or BA engagement, that's your preference. I don't feel the same emotion in the Coppers, it's more a beat based engagement. It could be the DBAs having a higher dynamic range, as BAs have more control than dynamics. The dynamic engagement is probably fueled by it moving more air and being less controlled than a BA.
 
I hope that despite my wandering with this post that it was helpful in explaining the two. I might add to this a bit later, have to run at the moment.

Nice impressions Ethan.  Much respect for putting the DBAs up against the Coppers in AB.  I concur w/ pretty much everything you said about the Coppers.  The mids as smooth as they are were not as intimate and engaging as the rest of the spectrum.  Major reason why I went w/ the MDs along w/ slightly better quality bass among other things.  It is a matter of personal preference and personal reference.
 
I'm glad I have the DBA on order, Jokers review has me feeling that they may be better than the ER4S across the board.  We shall see.  

So does PRAT actually stand for anything, as an acronym in the audiophile context?

Ethan has a such a great ability to describe sound from his IEM's - I can easily relate to his descriptions. Thank, you, sir!
 
(I won't weigh in on the DBA versus Copper comparison, being a confirmed lover of the former, and no experience with the latter)

 
[size=medium]

Quote:

grokit said:

So does PRAT actually stand for anything, as an acronym in the audiophile context?

Click to expand...

PRaT - Pace, Rhythm and Timing
 
​

[/size]