or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information) - Page 94

post #1396 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post


It's not confirmed, but supposedly it uses an ED29689 for the highs, a Sonion 3300 (33A007, to be specific, you can see it in Jude's photos) for the mid/lows, and a CI22955 for the lows. Extrapolating from the ER4, the TS842, and others, the highs using the ED should be excellent. The 3300 is an interesting choice for the mids/lows; I'm using them as my low driver in my current project. The CI is pretty much used universally for lows.

 



Can you provide a link to Jude's photos of the 334, or are you referring to video stills?

post #1397 of 4815

Not sure about the Miracle, but I'm pretty sure the Mage and Aero use a TWFK; nothing wrong with that approach --- Westone uses TWFK heavily as well, along with Heir.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post  Can you provide a link to Jude's photos of the 334, or are you referring to video stills?


Yeah, video stills...

 


Edited by tomscy2000 - 4/7/12 at 11:04am
post #1398 of 4815
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post

Oh, trust me, I'm not asking about the 334 because of you or Jude mentioning it! biggrin.gif (seriously!)

 

I've been interested about the 334 customs for almost a year now. I'm intrigued that they use 2 mids with 1 woofer, one tweeter. Very interesting approach.

 

I haven't delved into whether the '2 mids' are 2 entirely seperate mids, or if they're a TWFK-style approach (as in the UM Miracle, for example). I'm guessing they're entirely seperate mid BA drivers, but I'm 'all ears' if anyone knows for certain, one way or the other.

 

Looking at the photographs, the custom 334s look to be absolutely stellar build quality.


I too have been interested in the 334 for a long time as well as some of the other FitEar lineup, before Jude's video. And doesn't the ES5 have dual mids and tweets and a single bass driver?  There are many others that have multiple mid drivers, either as a dual system or crossed over.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroda Tsubasa View Post

You are always welcome!

Yeah, I have already read it. What I mean I would like to see them in your reviews of ciems so that I can see how customs match with Rocoo players. wink.gif Of course, you don't have to do it if you think it's not necessary or takes too much efforts. As long as you let us read your reviews I am happy.


I did think I did review both Hisoundaudio players with some of my custom IEMs, but I haven't gone back and tried with the CIEMs I reviewed prior to getting the players.  But, both players are gone and I will be getting the ROCOO BA which is suppose to sound like the Studio V with the hiss characteristics of the ROCOO D.  I really hope so!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miprasetya View Post

On Em3pro review you mentioned that it has small soundstage but you also wrote that it has spacious depth, from my undertanding these words are contradictive, can you explain more....


I have everything I have reviewed charted with numbers and when I do my comparisons I fine tune the numbers to make sure I have them true to what I am hearing relative to the competition.  Here is an example of some of those numbers:

 

Manufacturer Model Price Soundstage
Fwd Projection Focus Depth Width Ratio
Headphones
Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 $1,000 6.0   70 100 1.43
Audeze LCD-2 $950 5.0   80 90 1.13
Sennheiser HD600 $315 6.0   60 72 1.2
AKG K701 $300 6.5   50 75 1.5
Custom IEMs
Spiral Ear SE 5-way Reference $1,450 5.0 100 84 84 1.00
Hidition NT6 $1,200 4.0 100 80 82 1.03
Earsonics EM4 $1,200 3.5 85 80 82 1.03
Starkey SA-43 $1,050 6.0 85 88 87 0.99
ACS T1 Live! $1,200 4.0 80 78 80 1.03
Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitor $999 5.0 40 82 82 1
Dream Earz aud-5X $565 5.0 70 71 70 0.99
Earsonics EM3 Pro $1,000 1.0 50 84 64 0.76
Universal IEMs, reshelled
Ultimate Ears Triple-fi 10 reshelled by Kozee $270 6.0   30 45 1.5
Universal IEMs
AKG K3003 $1,300 6.0 90 58 60 1.03
Earsonics SM3 $300 1.0   60 47 0.78
Sony EX-1000 $499 7.0   50 85 1.7
Audio Technica CK10 $280 3.0   40 37 0.93

 

The info is how I hear them, of course with the best source for them, so they will sound different in proportion and size with different sources.  Also, the mastering will change how they sound, and I use a fairly large number of songs to come up with the numbers, which is part of why my reviews take so long.  This is still a work in progress, is not complete in IEMs/custom IEMs I have in the chart nor in fields.  I know I don't have height, but in my experience the height goes along with the depth of the presentation, so something that is wide won't usually have good height, but something that has good depth will.  Now, if the proportions between the depth and height are fairly far off, then the soundstage presentation just doesn't sound right to me, so height isn't the most important thing.  Plus, height is the least captured thing in most recordings that I have.  

 

Also, I recently added focus to soundstage as it is how I hear the precision within the soundstage, which I feel is different than imaging.  Think focus on a TV...it could look fine until you see a sharper, more focused image.  Anyways, something for you guys to check out and keep you entertained for at least a little while hopefully!

 

So, in the chart, the EM3 Pro is tied for second for depth of the presentation, but the width isn't very impressive.  Most tracks have more width to the presentation the ultra depth, so when those tracks are playing, the impressive depth of the presentation isn't taken advantage of resulting in an overall smaller sounding soundstage.  When there is good depth, the proportions can really recreate sounds far away.  Does that make sense?  If you have recordings that have a lot of depth, the EM3 Pro is great!  Please let me know if you have any other questions.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post

Thanks for the detailed clarification.

 

BTW, reading back through my previous post (which you quoted, above), I realise it is open to misinterpretation - I didn't mean to imply that the UM Miracle uses actual TWFK for midrange frequencies.

 

I really hope to see an in-depth review from Joe, on the 334s, since he has a very large collection of CIEMs with which to compare it.

 

It's a pity Fitear seem so reluctant to deal with international CIEM customers. Still, the 'To-Go' 334 variant appears to be a good product in it's own right, if preliminary impressions prove to be valid.


I would like to review the 334, but am making no promises.  But, it does sound very promising!  


Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

Not sure about the Miracle, but I'm pretty sure the Mage and Aero use a TWFK; nothing wrong with that approach --- Westone uses TWFK heavily as well, along with Heir.

 

Yeah, video stills...


There is too much that is made of the sound of each driver IMO.  Drivers can be custom tuned and the tuning (via sound tubes, placement, filter, crossover, etc.) can have as much if not more of an effect on the final sound.  I remember not too long ago some people were saying a certain IEM didn't have a specific driver because it didn't sound like one, but I know for a fact it does have that particular driver ;)  I want to base things on what my ears tell me...

post #1399 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

I too have been interested in the 334 for a long time as well as some of the other FitEar lineup, before Jude's video. And doesn't the ES5 have dual mids and tweets and a single bass driver?  There are many others that have multiple mid drivers, either as a dual system or crossed over.


I would like to review the 334, but am making no promises.  But, it does sound very promising!  


There is too much that is made of the sound of each driver IMO.  Drivers can be custom tuned and the tuning (via sound tubes, placement, filter, crossover, etc.) can have as much if not more of an effect on the final sound.  I remember not too long ago some people were saying a certain IEM didn't have a specific driver because it didn't sound like one, but I know for a fact it does have that particular driver ;)  I want to base things on what my ears tell me...


It's true what you say --- sound tubes, placement, acoustic dampers, all factor into the sound, but the driver determines how much you can play with the sound to begin with. Manufacturers choose certain drivers for that frequency range because their resolution and 'flatness' are the best in that specific range. Capacitors/resistors can then be added to shape the baseline sound. Usually output matching is difficult because using too large a resistor to cut down on output actually decreases resolution AFAIK, so that's why certain manufacturers will designate specific impedances for their 'proprietary' drivers.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that know what drivers are setup relative to the other gives us a good idea of the 'range' of sound able to be tuned when, say, a TWFK and CI are put together, regardless of position, length of tubing, color of damper added, etc. Good design is good design, and obviously the TWFK+CI combo is one of the most commonly used, in customs and in universals, so there is a huge gamut of sounds able to be produced.

 

People talking about how a TWFK always sounds the same have merit; with different acoustic dampers, it still has the baseline sound, as dampers usually only cut down on the treble. So people hearing that 'metallic tinge' to their TWFK drivers have their merits. So the crossover circuit in certain customs that allow for better head room in that driver, allowing a heavier damper to be used, or what not.

 

I'm sure another designer using the same exact drivers as the MH334 can make an earphone that sounds bassy and U-shaped, or even completely mid-centric, but obviously, FitEar chose these drivers for a reason, and they choose to place their drivers super close to the sound bores for a reason as well.

 

That's why I also said that there was nothing wrong with using a TWFK, because there isn't. Yes, it has its limitations, but it's the implementation that's the key to the sound.

 

So I'm in agreement with you! bigsmile_face.gif

post #1400 of 4815
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

It's true what you say --- sound tubes, placement, acoustic dampers, all factor into the sound, but the driver determines how much you can play with the sound to begin with. Manufacturers choose certain drivers for that frequency range because their resolution and 'flatness' are the best in that specific range. Capacitors/resistors can then be added to shape the baseline sound. Usually output matching is difficult because using too large a resistor to cut down on output actually decreases resolution AFAIK, so that's why certain manufacturers will designate specific impedances for their 'proprietary' drivers.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that know what drivers are setup relative to the other gives us a good idea of the 'range' of sound able to be tuned when, say, a TWFK and CI are put together, regardless of position, length of tubing, color of damper added, etc. Good design is good design, and obviously the TWFK+CI combo is one of the most commonly used, in customs and in universals, so there is a huge gamut of sounds able to be produced.

 

People talking about how a TWFK always sounds the same have merit; with different acoustic dampers, it still has the baseline sound, as dampers usually only cut down on the treble. So people hearing that 'metallic tinge' to their TWFK drivers have their merits. So the crossover circuit in certain customs that allow for better head room in that driver, allowing a heavier damper to be used, or what not.

 

I'm sure another designer using the same exact drivers as the MH334 can make an earphone that sounds bassy and U-shaped, or even completely mid-centric, but obviously, FitEar chose these drivers for a reason, and they choose to place their drivers super close to the sound bores for a reason as well.

 

That's why I also said that there was nothing wrong with using a TWFK, because there isn't. Yes, it has its limitations, but it's the implementation that's the key to the sound.

 

So I'm in agreement with you! bigsmile_face.gif


Yes, we are in agreement.  I just wanted to add that any driver could be used for any part of the spectrum, however that obviously isn't the ideal situation.  For example, TWFKs are used as bass drivers in many dual BA IEMs (that can be considered bass light by dynamic driver standards).  Engineering usually always involves tradeoffs.

post #1401 of 4815

Jeez, I turn my back for a few minutes (OK, maybe a few months or more....) and this thread becomes nearly 100 pages. But there's so much good info and discussion going on! I had always intended to pay more attention here but just lost track of things. I'm going to try and stick around from now on - I get a ton of PMs about customs (as I'm sure Joe does too) and from now on, I'll just direct people here so the group can participate in the discussion.

 

It's cool that there are starting to be various people besides just Joe and I who have multiple customs, who can speak to the various strengths and weaknesses they hear from each model. Comparisons are always good to hear from more viewpoints. 

post #1402 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

Yes, we are in agreement.  I just wanted to add that any driver could be used for any part of the spectrum, however that obviously isn't the ideal situation.  For example, TWFKs are used as bass drivers in many dual BA IEMs (that can be considered bass light by dynamic driver standards).  Engineering usually always involves tradeoffs.


I woundn't say any, but most, yes. That sentence is true for tweeters or full-ranges but hardly applies to woofers. Take f.e. CI driver which rolls-off at 4-6kHz or 3800 with "nothing" after 8kHz. Though in most situations you can use any driver as a woofer - f.e. GQ - consisting of ED as a woofer (noramly full range or tweeter) and FK driver - tweeter

 


Edited by piotrus-g - 4/12/12 at 1:20am
post #1403 of 4815
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

Jeez, I turn my back for a few minutes (OK, maybe a few months or more....) and this thread becomes nearly 100 pages. But there's so much good info and discussion going on! I had always intended to pay more attention here but just lost track of things. I'm going to try and stick around from now on - I get a ton of PMs about customs (as I'm sure Joe does too) and from now on, I'll just direct people here so the group can participate in the discussion.

 

It's cool that there are starting to be various people besides just Joe and I who have multiple customs, who can speak to the various strengths and weaknesses they hear from each model. Comparisons are always good to hear from more viewpoints. 


Hey there project86, great to see you!  Yea, this has been slowly growing, and there is a lot of great input from many sources.  Yes, I too get my fair share of PMs about custom IEMs; I guess we are splitting the workload!  And thanks for sharing this thread for discussion purposes; the more people that can answer the better!

 

It is most definitely a good thing, and I talk to several of those people via PM about their combinations, many of which have one or no overlap with my collection, which makes for good buildup of knowledge, confirming certain things about how two CIEMs compare and being able to get different perspectives.  I have also heard several more demo units as of late and the knowledge of the real thing from owners is great perspective.  There appears to be very nice growth in the custom IEM market and your contribution is also greatly appreciated! 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post

I woundn't say any, but most, yes. That sentence is true for tweeters or full-ranges but hardly applies to woofers. Take f.e. CI driver which rolls-off at 4-6kHz or 3800 with "nothing" after 8kHz. Though in most situations you can use any driver as a woofer - f.e. GQ - consisting of ED as a woofer (noramly full range or tweeter) and FK driver - tweeter


Yes, as the current build, yes.  You obviously have a better grasp about BA drivers as I am not focused on the drivers themselves (but eventually would love to learn more), but couldn't a CI be tuned to reproduce treble?  Not that anyone would want to since there are better options, but I figure it is possible or is the moment of the arm within the housing not conducive to high frequencies?  I know a dynamic driver that has more surface area can reproduce high frequencies, so there has to be something physically limiting a CI driver, right?  It seems like BAs are more like typical speaker drivers in the sense that many are specialized (so could a CI be tuned to reproduce treble, but doing so is undesirable, not unlike a 12" speaker for treble?).

 

post #1404 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post

Yes, as the current build, yes.  You obviously have a better grasp about BA drivers as I am not focused on the drivers themselves (but eventually would love to learn more), but couldn't a CI be tuned to reproduce treble?  Not that anyone would want to since there are better options, but I figure it is possible or is the moment of the arm within the housing not conducive to high frequencies?  I know a dynamic driver that has more surface area can reproduce high frequencies, so there has to be something physically limiting a CI driver, right?  It seems like BAs are more like typical speaker drivers in the sense that many are specialized (so could a CI be tuned to reproduce treble, but doing so is undesirable, not unlike a 12" speaker for treble?).

 

Kind of. But I'd say this is more or less spot on. CI has specyfic design which aim is to reproduce high output at lower and mid frequencies. If you put really big resistor in series you could probably achieve something that sounds like treble. But as I said it won't have anything above 8kHz. One CI alone could sound like muffled SE530 or more bass-oriented Westone UM1. UM1 has very similar roll-off at highs - just to give you an idea

post #1405 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post

Kind of. But I'd say this is more or less spot on. CI has specyfic design which aim is to reproduce high output at lower and mid frequencies. If you put really big resistor in series you could probably achieve something that sounds like treble. But as I said it won't have anything above 8kHz. One CI alone could sound like muffled SE530 or more bass-oriented Westone UM1. UM1 has very similar roll-off at highs - just to give you an idea



A new one to add to the list: Lear Audio. HERE is my review of their LCM-2B dual driver model, which I find to be quite nice for the $400 price. Along with the Earproof Atom, it is probably tied for being my favorite dual driver model. 

post #1406 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

A new one to add to the list: Lear Audio. HERE is my review of their LCM-2B dual driver model, which I find to be quite nice for the $400 price. Along with the Earproof Atom, it is probably tied for being my favorite dual driver model. 


LOL... I just found out about this brand 5 hours ago on my own! They announced a five-driver model just yesterday!

 

post #1407 of 4815
Quote:
Originally Posted by average_joe View Post
 

Hey there project86, great to see you!  Yea, this has been slowly growing, and there is a lot of great input from many sources.  Yes, I too get my fair share of PMs about custom IEMs; I guess we are splitting the workload!  

 

Unless the same people send PMs to both of you. wink.gif

post #1408 of 4815
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post

Kind of. But I'd say this is more or less spot on. CI has specyfic design which aim is to reproduce high output at lower and mid frequencies. If you put really big resistor in series you could probably achieve something that sounds like treble. But as I said it won't have anything above 8kHz. One CI alone could sound like muffled SE530 or more bass-oriented Westone UM1. UM1 has very similar roll-off at highs - just to give you an idea


Thanks!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post

A new one to add to the list: Lear Audio. HERE is my review of their LCM-2B dual driver model, which I find to be quite nice for the $400 price. Along with the Earproof Atom, it is probably tied for being my favorite dual driver model. 


Great review, thank you for sharing!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

LOL... I just found out about this brand 5 hours ago on my own! They announced a five-driver model just yesterday!


Too funny.  I must be losing my touch.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post

Unless the same people send PMs to both of you. wink.gif


Which is probably the case half the time.  I know there is overlap between myself and some other head-fiers in PMs.

post #1409 of 4815

When I asked Rooth for a price list, he forwarded my email to UM o.O

 

Edit: But I got a different price list than UM with much more options

 

post #1410 of 4815
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post

When I asked Rooth for a price list, he forwarded my email to UM o.O

 

Edit: But I got a different price list than UM with much more options


Tomo from HFI is very helpful and has some options for Rooth products that Rooth isn't selling except through HFI.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-Custom In-Ear Monitor Review, Resource, Mfg List & Discussion (Check first post for review links & information)