Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › It's Like UNIVERSAL IEM Deja vu!!! Journey into universal IEMs when I thought I was done...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's Like UNIVERSAL IEM Deja vu!!! Journey into universal IEMs when I thought I was done... - Page 6

post #76 of 155

Agree though I found the EX600's mids more forward and the Copper's more muffled and put back. 

post #77 of 155
Thread Starter 

Well the mids are okay on the TF10 now....I'm still finding (personally) that the FXT90 and the GR07 have the best mids of the universals I own...Then the 7550.....The W4s mids are quite nice too... The TF10's mids aren't bad right now...

post #78 of 155

so what's your opinion on the quads vs TF10?

post #79 of 155
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randius View Post

so what's your opinion on the quads vs TF10?



Right now the W4 is much warmer than the TF10 (not saying that is a bad or good thing); the W4 has much better instrument separation than the TF10; and there is more clarity in the mids of the W4. Bass, I haven't wrapped my ear around which is better yet. with the tips I use on the W4, I get a very deep seal and lots more bass than what some others have reported from the W4. I'm also not sure what I think of the highs between the two yet.

I can say, however, that the W4 is closer to a 3-D sound to my ears. Instrumentation is much closer together in the TF10 than the W4. But horns sound really nice in the TF10, and if there is a instrument solo (like drum solo). Drums, overall, sound better and more natural with the W4. I'm still sorting the rest out. I like the TF10 much better than I did the first time..

post #80 of 155

^ If I'm not mistaken, I believe Randius was referring to the 1964-Q.

post #81 of 155
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by i2ehan View Post

^ If I'm not mistaken, I believe Randius was referring to the 1964-Q.



Oh, my bad....I didn't pay attention... I apologize again.

Well, virtually everything I stated about the the W4 in comparison I would state the same in comparing the 1964-Q... except the Quad isn't as warm sounding as the W4.

Definitely better mids with more space. The bass is far more extended in the Quad. More 3-D sounding with greater separation of the instruments. Better vocals. Now, the TF10's highs aren't smoothed out like in the 1964--Q, but I think highs extension is more in the Quad. Notes are thicker in the Quad and I would have to say that the TF10 is a bit mechanical sounding for a BA as compared to the Quad or W4. The latter two push more toward the sound of dynamic in a BA. I also have to say that the Quad possesses greater clarity and transparency.

post #82 of 155
Thread Starter 

I will add that last night I did some extensive A/Bing of the JVC FXT90 dual dynamic and the UE TF10 triple BA. And to MY EARS the FXT90 handily beat the TF10 in bass, transparency, clarity, instrument separation and micro details. Highs are about a draw to my ears. Oh, mids of the TF10 can't touch the JVC's mids. So comparing them at retail price (UE about $400 and JVC about $115), the dual dynamic is clearly the VFM without the TF10 coming close. If I'm going to compare them for what I actually paid for each of them, The UE is a great value for $100 in a BA, but still the JVC dynamic is a better value at $115. Yet, I'm not compel to rid myself of the TF90. For some things (especially with it better mids to my ears than the first time around) it's a nice IEM.


Edited by ericp10 - 11/30/11 at 1:18pm
post #83 of 155

Anybody reading this have an older TF 10. Looking down the tube, I don't remember seeing a green filter and black filter at different depths. Maybe they changed their "dampeners". I think that what they call them, acoustic dampeners. Probably wrong on that but I, like Eric, also seem to like them a bit better. They do sound different than my Limited Edition with the same exact equipment of which I still have some. 

 

On a familiar SQ scale(the Joker scale), I would give the TF10 a 9 for sound quality. Of my recent phones, they are behind the EX600(foam removed), the SM3, and my SF 5 EB(Westone cable/soft bi-flange). They are on par with my Carvin EM902 though very different sounding. Nothing to be ashamed of being less than the modded 5 EB since those are equal to the SM3 though I prefer the EB's presentation over the Earsonics. The TF 10 has more forward mids than the EB but they aren't as good. The EB is quicker and the notes are tighter/more refined. The separation and imaging is a bit better as well. I really like the TF signature and want to build on it but they are just a bit unrefined and not as transparent as any of the others. They aren't far off from being what I want and I can tell they will be sticking around for a while.

 

Eric, I'm surprised that W4 isn't outclassing the TF10! Not really though. All I've read leads me to believe they are an incremental improvement and not "raising the bar", as Westone loves to say, over the current crop of triple drivers including their own. Haven't heard them though. Gave up on Westone after a couple of tries. Too dark sounding for me, never really as transparent for whatever reason(different for each model), and the Westone mids don't quite float my boat.


Edited by jant71 - 11/30/11 at 1:00pm
post #84 of 155

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post

I will add that last night I did some extensive A/Bing of the JVC FXT90 dual dynamic and the UE TF10 triple BA. And to MY EARS the FXT90 handily beat the TF90 TF10 in bass, transparency, clarity, instrument separation and micro details. Highs are about a draw to my ears. Oh, mids of the TF10 can't touch the JVC's mids. So comparing them at retail price (UE about $400 and JVC about $115), the dual dynamic is clearly the VFM without the TF10 coming close. If I'm going to compare them for what I actually paid for each of them, The UE is a great value for $100 in a BA, but still the JVC dynamic is a better value at $115. Yet, I'm not compel to rid myself of the TF90. For some things (especially with it better mids to my ears than the first time around) it's a nice IEM.

I posted the exact same in the TF10 thread. beerchug.gif

post #85 of 155
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jant71 View Post

Anybody reading this have an older TF 10. Looking down the tube, I don't remember seeing a green filter and black filter at different depths. Maybe they changed their "dampeners". I think that what they call them, acoustic dampeners. Probably wrong on that but I, like Eric, also seem to like them a bit better. They do sound different than my Limited Edition with the same exact equipment of which I still have some. 

 

On a familiar SQ scale(the Joker scale), I would give the TF10 a 9 for sound quality. Of my recent phones, they are behind the EX600(foam removed), the SM3, and my SF 5 EB(Westone cable/soft bi-flange). They are on par with my Carvin EM902 though very different sounding. Nothing to be ashamed of being less than the modded 5 EB since those are equal to the SM3 though I prefer the EB's presentation over the Earsonics. The TF 10 has more forward mids than the EB but they aren't as good. The EB is quicker and the notes are tighter/more refined. The separation and imaging is a bit better as well. I really like the TF signature and want to build on it but they are just a bit unrefined and not as transparent as any of the others. They aren't far off from being what I want and I can tell they will be sticking around for a while.

 

Eric, I'm surprised that W4 isn't outclassing the TF10! Not really though. All I've read leads me to believe they are an incremental improvement and not "raising the bar", as Westone loves to say, over the current crop of triple drivers including their own. Haven't heard them though. Gave up on Westone after a couple of tries. Too dark sounding for me, never really as transparent for whatever reason(different for each model), and the Westone mids don't quite float my boat.

Hello jant71...I have to reread what I wrote because a busy day in the office and I'm writing fast and not proofing as I usually do, but the W4 is OUTCLASSING  the TF10.. I definitely like the sound of the W4 over the TF10... My point was that I have to do some more A/Bing of the two..

And you know what? Thanks for mentioning those filters, because I also thought I didn't remember seeing those filters there. That could be it too in the changing of the sound. But of all of the BAs I have (SM2 and custom included), the TF10 is still below all of them in sound quality. With that said, the TF10 is not a bad IEM (I want to stress>>> IT IS NOT BAD). Whatever they did, I like it quite better now than I did a few years ago.
 

 

post #86 of 155
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by i2ehan View Post

Quote:

I posted the exact same in the TF10 thread. beerchug.gif



LOL..  Thanks!!

post #87 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jant71 View Post

Anybody reading this have an older TF 10. Looking down the tube, I don't remember seeing a green filter and black filter at different depths. Maybe they changed their "dampeners". I think that what they call them, acoustic dampeners. Probably wrong on that but I, like Eric, also seem to like them a bit better. They do sound different than my Limited Edition with the same exact equipment of which I still have some. 

 

On a familiar SQ scale(the Joker scale), I would give the TF10 a 9 for sound quality. Of my recent phones, they are behind the EX600(foam removed), the SM3, and my SF 5 EB(Westone cable/soft bi-flange). They are on par with my Carvin EM902 though very different sounding. Nothing to be ashamed of being less than the modded 5 EB since those are equal to the SM3 though I prefer the EB's presentation over the Earsonics. The TF 10 has more forward mids than the EB but they aren't as good. The EB is quicker and the notes are tighter/more refined. The separation and imaging is a bit better as well. I really like the TF signature and want to build on it but they are just a bit unrefined and not as transparent as any of the others. They aren't far off from being what I want and I can tell they will be sticking around for a while.

 

Eric, I'm surprised that W4 isn't outclassing the TF10! Not really though. All I've read leads me to believe they are an incremental improvement and not "raising the bar", as Westone loves to say, over the current crop of triple drivers including their own. Haven't heard them though. Gave up on Westone after a couple of tries. Too dark sounding for me, never really as transparent for whatever reason(different for each model), and the Westone mids don't quite float my boat.


yeah is it just me or what, but how can a pair of headphones that have 3 drivers and have such great soundstage as the TF10s manage to have such surprisingly unimpressive instrument separation?!? they are interesting though because they have pretty great bass, but are sound extremely cold and unrefined, but not analytical like ety's HF5. The more i listen to my TF10s the closer i am to considering returning them or selling them, but selling him is unethical. is there any other IEM that you could recommend in the sub $150 price range that has better instrument separation and warmer midrange? i dont really care about bass. I hear that the B2 fits that bill, do u think so?

post #88 of 155
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaqueh View Post


yeah is it just me or what, but how can a pair of headphones that have 3 drivers and have such great soundstage as the TF10s manage to have such surprisingly unimpressive instrument separation?!? they are interesting though because they have pretty great bass, but are sound extremely cold and unrefined, but not analytical like ety's HF5. The more i listen to my TF10s the closer i am to considering returning them or selling them, but selling him is unethical. is there any other IEM that you could recommend in the sub $150 price range that has better instrument separation and warmer midrange? i dont really care about bass. I hear that the B2 fits that bill, do u think so?


How is that unethical?

 

post #89 of 155
Thread Starter 

So my Fiio E10 USB DAC/amplifier came int (24-bit).. Wow!! Much much better than the my original uDAC. I haven't hooked it up the E9 yet to see if it's a better combination than the E7/E9, but I will shortly. This little packs a wallop of a punch though!! I haven't gotten to any IEMs yet. I'm just listening to it with the FA-011 headphones right now....but wow!!

I want to make it clear - too - that I do like the TF10 right now, but not better than the W4 or 1964-Q. I need to A/B it and the SM2 some more before a final decision. Now, what the TF10 is showing me, however, is that it has potential. I have heard how better cables can improve on an IEM, and I think the same thing can happen with the right upgrade cable on the TF10. So right now they are keepers, but they're not replacing any of my favorites.

post #90 of 155


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericp10 View Post




How is that unethical?

 


I assume he is talking about selling it for profit. But I don't see anything wrong if selling at sale price.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › It's Like UNIVERSAL IEM Deja vu!!! Journey into universal IEMs when I thought I was done...