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... - Page 288

post #4306 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post
 

But on a serious note, several of my friends who has owned or auditioned LCM BD4.2, none of them really liked it. On the opposite, most of them hated it. hmm. There might be a difference between the custom and universal versions. So I am actually surprised it's ranked so high. 

wow, that's harsh

post #4307 of 4320

The differences between LCM and LUF version also bothers me a lot too.. I wonder how the all thing will turn out at the end. If the LUF version will come close to the LCM, I might actually try to find a way to get it, otherwise I have another universal in my list.

post #4308 of 4320

As a different example, I recall very substantial differences being noted, in relation to the Merlin/Miracle customs vs universal-fit-demonstrators (and not just by Joe)...

 

Psychoacoustics is such a vastly-complex issue, and there's so much room for variation in the interface between the human ear and a foreign object being inserted into it, at varying distances, varying degress of seal, varying angle, etc, etc.


Edited by Mython - Today at 8:52 am
post #4309 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

As a different example, I recall very substantial differences being noted, in relation to the Merlin/Miracle customs vs universal-fit-demonstrators (and not just by Joe)...

 

Psychoacoustics is such a vastly-complex issue, and there's so much room for variation in the interface between the human ear and a foreign object being inserted into it, at varying distances, varying degress of seal, varying angle, etc, etc.


Apparently the differences between custom and universal BD4.2 is pretty huge so.. I don't know but it doesn't smell nice at the moment :frown:

post #4310 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberOzL View Post
 


Apparently the differences between custom and universal BD4.2 is pretty huge so.. I don't know but it doesn't smell nice at the moment :frown:

It's reasonable, because tips play such a crucial parts. Just like my 1+2, I can make it sound from fantastic to unlistenable with different tips

post #4311 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post
 

But on a serious note, several of my friends who has owned or auditioned LCM BD4.2, none of them really liked it. On the opposite, most of them hated it. hmm. There might be a difference between the custom and universal versions. So I am actually surprised it's ranked so high. 

 

I actually had the opportunity to audition the BD4.2 at Treoo about a week back, together with some of LEAR Audio's other CIEM demos. To put it simply, I found myself preferring the LCM5 to the BD4.2. Granted, it was a short testing session, but if I were to describe the sound of the BD4.2 in a single word, it would be 'disharmonious'. The lows, mids and highs didn't seem to mesh very well into a single sound spectrum, and I just put off by it. I don't wish to comment on the technical ability of the BD4.2, because I don't consider myself able to discern such things sufficiently well enough as of yet.

post #4312 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

As a different example, I recall very substantial differences being noted, in relation to the Merlin/Miracle customs vs universal-fit-demonstrators (and not just by Joe)...

 

Psychoacoustics is such a vastly-complex issue, and there's so much room for variation in the interface between the human ear and a foreign object being inserted into it, at varying distances, varying degress of seal, varying angle, etc, etc.


I measured recently demo Miracle and they are very close to custom.

post #4313 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post
 


I measured recently demo Miracle and they are very close to custom.

 

Mmmmm, but psychoacoustics does some really, really weird things, that a measuring coupler might not reveal...

 

But, of course, I know you know that :smile:

post #4314 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

Mmmmm, but psychoacoustics does some really, really weird things, that a measuring coupler might not reveal...

 

But, of course, I know you know that :smile:

it's not only psychoacoustics

I observed that small changes in CSD my change the sound quite a bit and tips, (some) cables or IEM materials do have impact on CSD plots.

So yeah that's possible that they may sound different but it will not be big margin.

post #4315 of 4320
I am very intrigued. A few reliable friends on the 4.2 demo tour said it sounded worse than a 50$ iem. They asked for another pair and it was the same. And now it ranks above SE5 and NT6, which I know. So either these are not very consistent in quality, either they are very polarising taste wise, either there is alien intervention...something is not right.
post #4316 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

I am very intrigued. A few reliable friends on the 4.2 demo tour said it sounded worse than a 50$ iem. They asked for another pair and it was the same. And now it ranks above SE5 and NT6, which I know. So either these are not very consistent in quality, either they are very polarising taste wise, either there is alien intervention...something is not right.

 

Worse than a $50 IEM is stretching it. It's not a bad CIEM per se; it just sounds... uniquely/bizzarely different.

post #4317 of 4320

Something is fishy with the LUF version. As long as Lear doesn't fix it, I doubt we will see many sales. LCM seems completely fine though, even scoring higher than SE5way and NT6 family.

 

@average_joe Do you think it is possible for you to get completely new LUF BD4.2?

post #4318 of 4320

The universal 4.2 I heard was awful. Awful by any metric. I've said it before, but even the EarPods are a galaxy away in terms of musicality compared to the 4.2. You can take that and print it. I'm not sure if the CIEM version is any different, but I'd caution anyone to at least audition one before unhanding a fistful of skrilla to the wind. 

post #4319 of 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post
 

it's not only psychoacoustics

I observed that small changes in CSD my change the sound quite a bit and tips, (some) cables or IEM materials do have impact on CSD plots.

So yeah that's possible that they may sound different but it will not be big margin.

Really? I have a 19AWG iem cable, which should mean that it should make a noticeable difference in sound to a say...30 AWG one? Right now that 19awg copper cable sounds like it me that it sucked the bass out of my UERM, but I cannot be sure if it is psychological reasons or not. 

post #4320 of 4320
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakur1996 View Post
 

AJ is it possible to see how each CIEM scores in each particular category and not only the overall scores? I can't find this info on theheadphonelist.com.

 

Not currently.  It would take too much work at this time, especially since I am in process of several other reviews.  In due time...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post
 

But on a serious note, several of my friends who has owned or auditioned LCM BD4.2, none of them really liked it. On the opposite, most of them hated it. hmm. There might be a difference between the custom and universal versions. So I am actually surprised it's ranked so high. 

 

My ranking holds equal weight for many characteristics such as transparency, coherence, imaging, detail, resolution, imaging, soundstage size/proportions, clarity, dynamics, bass capability, bass quality, midrange quality, treble quality, ADSR, and dynamic range.  The new CIEMs have some characteristics that are superior to a previous 100, therefore they score higher.  For example, the LCM BD4.2 has a 102 in transparency and scores quite high in every other category.  Overall technical score doesn't translate to "better."

 

I feel it is also worth mentioning that certain comparisons can make something sound better/worse than it does in in general.  For example, the Hidition Viento-R has much better center focus and imaging (not necessarily overall imaging though) than the Lear LCM BD4.2, which makes the Lear sometimes sound a bit hollow as mentioned in the review.  I didn't hear this in comparison with the other Hiditions or any other CIEM for that matter.  Is it an issue?  Only if you have the Viento-R and switch between the two.

 

If I had the time I would redo my ratings with a better grouping and weighing system, but time doesn't permit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post
 

It's reasonable, because tips play such a crucial parts. Just like my 1+2, I can make it sound from fantastic to unlistenable with different tips

 

Ear tips can make a huge difference, and do with the LUF BD4.2.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyx11 View Post

 

I actually had the opportunity to audition the BD4.2 at Treoo about a week back, together with some of LEAR Audio's other CIEM demos. To put it simply, I found myself preferring the LCM5 to the BD4.2. Granted, it was a short testing session, but if I were to describe the sound of the BD4.2 in a single word, it would be 'disharmonious'. The lows, mids and highs didn't seem to mesh very well into a single sound spectrum, and I just put off by it. I don't wish to comment on the technical ability of the BD4.2, because I don't consider myself able to discern such things sufficiently well enough as of yet.

 

Thanks for your feedback.  The issue I have with the LUF BD4.2 with foam tips is the soundstage isn't coherent, doesn't have a realistic shape (it almost sounds folded over itself), and is presented from an odd perspective.  I can see these characteristics leading to coherence issues from a frequency response perspective.  I have only tried 2 different ear tips with the LUF BD4.2, and the other (triple flange) sounds much better.  While the soundstage isn't what it is with the LCM version, it approximates much better.  You can read more if you haven't already in the LUF and LCM comparison on page 2 of my review.

 

What was the bass setting of the demo?  Were the sound tubes blocked?  Was it a newer version (larger adjustment knobs and side vents) or an older one?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrus-g View Post
 

it's not only psychoacoustics

I observed that small changes in CSD my change the sound quite a bit and tips, (some) cables or IEM materials do have impact on CSD plots.

So yeah that's possible that they may sound different but it will not be big margin.

 

Define big :)  The Miracle universal demo I heard was absolute trash while joker's custom fit, which I shoved in my ears, sounded far, far superior.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyx11 View Post

 

Worse than a $50 IEM is stretching it. It's not a bad CIEM per se; it just sounds... uniquely/bizzarely different.

 

Are you talking about the CIEM (LCM) or universal fit version (LUF)?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xymordos View Post
 

Really? I have a 19AWG iem cable, which should mean that it should make a noticeable difference in sound to a say...30 AWG one? Right now that 19awg copper cable sounds like it me that it sucked the bass out of my UERM, but I cannot be sure if it is psychological reasons or not. 

 

In my experience it isn't remotely that simple.


Edited by average_joe - Today at 10:03 pm
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)