Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › REVIEW | TDK BA200 | 'BACK TO BLACK'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REVIEW | TDK BA200 | 'BACK TO BLACK' - Page 5

post #61 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealSlimSeto View Post

Personally I don't trust those reviewers. What I heard from the BA200 was in line with ClieOS and tomscy2000's impressions. No sibilance or whatsoever to speak of too.



+1....No sibilance ever for me....what tha!  I totally disagree with the review....don't hear it that way at all, and my tube amp is 8 ohm....MEEL DF tips dude, you need a spacer to fit tips with a large hole....makes the BA200 a totally different animal, just for starters.  These are my favorite BA's! 

post #62 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

That was a part that surprised me. But there is more 6-9k on the BA200 though, so it's definitely more forward in the sibilance region to the BA100, but I would also relate it to the recordings as well. Sibilance can be a very controversial factor and the levels really have to be heard in relation to your recordings to really know the truth. It could be just fine with a lot of recordings, but nowadays a lot of music is less balanced and compressed, so even something that doesn't emphasize there but gets closer to flat may be perceived as offensive. They did say it was more detailed because of it, so that's the nature of the double-edged response there. Could just be more revealing than naturally sibilant. 



 Inks,  Have you heard the BA200?

post #63 of 174

Just a little follow-up. The other points have been well argued back and forth, and I'll leave it for Head-Fi members to make up their own minds.

 

When we test IEMs, I present the panelists with all of the manufacturer-supplied tips and encourage them to experiment to get the best possible fit. I seldom track what tips they use; unless you have data about the shape and size of each panelist's ear canal, I don't believe knowing what tips each panelist used would allow you to come to any useful conclusions. To the best of my recollection, Geoff and I used the Comply tips with the BA200, while Lauren and Will used the silicon tips. On occasion, since I have more time with the products than the panelists do, if I can't get a good fit with supplied tips, I'll experiment with other tips. Bottom line: We always take all reasonable measures to assure each panelist experiences each product's characteristic performance. We rarely take herculean measures - modifications, applications of third-party accessories, EQ, etc. - to get products to work right. We don't have the time or resources to do that, nor should we have to do it.

 

My blogging agreement with Sound+Vision stipulates that I deliver a 700+ word article on some A/V-related topic every other Monday, and does not require me to provide artwork. This article was 2,100+ words, with measurements, with pictures I shot and edited myself. Far beyond the call of duty, and far more effort than any reviewer I know would go to for what I'm paid. (How many freelance reviewers even own or know how to use audio measurement gear in the first place?) I wish I had time to do 5,000-word reviews that explore every technical angle, but I already take a significant income hit by spending so much time on S+V website reviews rather than pursuing my more lucrative work.

 

Thanks, everybody, for reading the review and taking the time to comment on it. I do take your comments to heart. Even the ones I don't agree with sink in. And this is a process; we only started doing regular headphone reviews on S+V last year, and we're now in the works of assessing what we've done and improving it.

post #64 of 174

Just goes to show how reviewers can make or break a product.....just boils down to....you have to listen for yourself and then decide!  We all hear differently!  The reviewers get paid by......

post #65 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbutterworth View Post

Just a little follow-up. The other points have been well argued back and forth, and I'll leave it for Head-Fi members to make up their own minds.

 

When we test IEMs, I present the panelists with all of the manufacturer-supplied tips and encourage them to experiment to get the best possible fit. I seldom track what tips they use; unless you have data about the shape and size of each panelist's ear canal, I don't believe knowing what tips each panelist used would allow you to come to any useful conclusions. To the best of my recollection, Geoff and I used the Comply tips with the BA200, while Lauren and Will used the silicon tips. On occasion, since I have more time with the products than the panelists do, if I can't get a good fit with supplied tips, I'll experiment with other tips. Bottom line: We always take all reasonable measures to assure each panelist experiences each product's characteristic performance. We rarely take herculean measures - modifications, applications of third-party accessories, EQ, etc. - to get products to work right. We don't have the time or resources to do that, nor should we have to do it.

 

My blogging agreement with Sound+Vision stipulates that I deliver a 700+ word article on some A/V-related topic every other Monday, and does not require me to provide artwork. This article was 2,100+ words, with measurements, with pictures I shot and edited myself. Far beyond the call of duty, and far more effort than any reviewer I know would go to for what I'm paid. (How many freelance reviewers even own or know how to use audio measurement gear in the first place?) I wish I had time to do 5,000-word reviews that explore every technical angle, but I already take a significant income hit by spending so much time on S+V website reviews rather than pursuing my more lucrative work.

 

Thanks, everybody, for reading the review and taking the time to comment on it. I do take your comments to heart. Even the ones I don't agree with sink in. And this is a process; we only started doing regular headphone reviews on S+V last year, and we're now in the works of assessing what we've done and improving it.


Thanks Mr. Butterworth.  I wish all professional journalists/reviewers have your dedication, participate in the head-fi community, and open to feedback.

Even though some may not agree with your method and result, I think we can all agree that taste in sound is very subjective.

 


Edited by jjmai - 2/28/12 at 4:45pm
post #66 of 174

 

Originally Posted by cute View Post

 Inks,  Have you heard the BA200?

Please, re-read my posts carefully.

 

Cool that you mention the wider bore tips though. I noticed that they can actually reduce sibilance and open up extension, the GR10 went from mildly sibilant to mostly polite with the change. 
 

Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

I still think 5 ohm is too high for IEM these days (*they were fine almost a few years ago when IEM impedance were generally higher). BA200 might be borderline fine but what about most of the 16 ohm universal and 12ohm custom out there? I can only imagine the new Sony XBA line with their single digit impedance will not sit well with an 5 ohm output impedance. For the least, a 1 ohm or less measurement should be included as well.
Good mention about the eartips - EB950 comes with Comply T400 as stock, BA100 comes with single flanges as stock and BA200 comes with bi-flanges as stock. We all know eartips can make or break an IEM sometime, but that usually varies from person to person. I just re-linstened to all three and find myself reaching the same conclusion that I prefer EB950 and BA200 over BA100. I can only imagine those who prefer BA100 would like a richer, more mid centric presentation. I know I like the soundstage and extension on the EB900 and BA200 more, even though the vocal is not quite as sweet. No sibilance for me as well.

I too think 5ohms is probably a bit high, though there are many people out there still using players with such a high OI, so their use as a reference seems fine but not perfect. I can understand your concern in regards to the lower impedance IEMs, but the bigger factor is their changing curve that is usually hinted with the impedance phase graph. You can for example drive the 8ohm ClarityOne with a high OI source and it will have less change than the 16ohm HF3 because of it's linear impedance phase, it really doesn't change much at all with added impedance. Of course that's a dynamic and those usually don't change characteristics as mentioned before, but sometimes the impedance phase actually complements the frequency response which can lead to an improvement. If for example an IEM is v-shaped but has the nature of reducing both bass and treble with dampening, than the high output impedance may be desired. I for one really hope this is the case for the upcoming multi-BA Sonys and it will make more sense as most Sony players are high OI. The single BA has already been graphed with the change and it doesn't change favorably, but it could be completely different from the 2-4s. 
 

 

post #67 of 174

 

Originally Posted by bbutterworth View Post

Just a little follow-up. The other points have been well argued back and forth, and I'll leave it for Head-Fi members to make up their own minds.

 

When we test IEMs, I present the panelists with all of the manufacturer-supplied tips and encourage them to experiment to get the best possible fit. I seldom track what tips they use; unless you have data about the shape and size of each panelist's ear canal, I don't believe knowing what tips each panelist used would allow you to come to any useful conclusions. To the best of my recollection, Geoff and I used the Comply tips with the BA200, while Lauren and Will used the silicon tips. On occasion, since I have more time with the products than the panelists do, if I can't get a good fit with supplied tips, I'll experiment with other tips. Bottom line: We always take all reasonable measures to assure each panelist experiences each product's characteristic performance. We rarely take herculean measures - modifications, applications of third-party accessories, EQ, etc. - to get products to work right. We don't have the time or resources to do that, nor should we have to do it.

 

My blogging agreement with Sound+Vision stipulates that I deliver a 700+ word article on some A/V-related topic every other Monday, and does not require me to provide artwork. This article was 2,100+ words, with measurements, with pictures I shot and edited myself. Far beyond the call of duty, and far more effort than any reviewer I know would go to for what I'm paid. (How many freelance reviewers even own or know how to use audio measurement gear in the first place?) I wish I had time to do 5,000-word reviews that explore every technical angle, but I already take a significant income hit by spending so much time on S+V website reviews rather than pursuing my more lucrative work.

 

Thanks, everybody, for reading the review and taking the time to comment on it. I do take your comments to heart. Even the ones I don't agree with sink in. And this is a process; we only started doing regular headphone reviews on S+V last year, and we're now in the works of assessing what we've done and improving it.

Why is there a feeling of trying to discredit the review? Yes, even your favorite BAs have flaws and are not always perceived so favorably. Basically the review said the BA200 needs more bass and less sibilance, which could be true for some and shouldn't be a big deal. Do I agree? No, based on the graphs , but they have solid grounds to stand by as it does have less bass and more sibilance compared to the BA100. Could easily see the GR10 having more 6-9k in the treble compared to the 200s, yet it's not as sibilant as the reviewers were saying of the BA200. Still, there is the benefit of doubt if you squeeze in possible tip resonance or recordings. 

 

Keep up the good work and if you could squeeze in time, try to graph each iem with different sets of tips. Your impedance difference graphs are very helpful by the way. 

 

 


Edited by Inks - 2/28/12 at 3:17pm
post #68 of 174



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

 

Why is there a feeling of trying to discredit the review? Yes, even your favorite BAs have flaws and are not always perceived so favorably. Basically the review said the BA200 needs more bass and less sibilance, which could be true for some and shouldn't be a big deal. Do I agree? No, based on the graphs , but they have solid grounds to stand by as it does have less bass and more sibilance compared to the BA100. Could easily see the GR10 having more 6-9k in the treble compared to the 200s, yet it's not as sibilant as the reviewers were saying of the BA200. Still, there is the benefit of doubt if you squeeze in possible tip resonance or recordings. 

 

Keep up the good work and if you could squeeze in time, try to graph each iem with different sets of tips. Your impedance difference graphs are very helpful by the way. 

 

 


I use a Parametric EQ to adjust upward at 30hz and 60hz about +3db.  I think if you look at the graphs for a lot of IEM/s there is a mid bass hump, like +5db that shows on the graph I have of the BA200.  I set a Q at 125hz of 1, and reduce the gain at that Q by -5db, this along with the MEEL DF tips results in a totally different/better to my ears BA200. I like sub bass and a subwoofer sound.  I like real , full bass.  But I need to add, without a full sounding bass, spacial and soundstaging cues are missing. By a full bass, I don't mean rumble and so on. That should be well left to the the movies. With the Home Movie systems being more popular and the uses of sub woofers, I feel people are confusing what real bass is.  Real bass is not crash, bang and wallop! Real bass doesn't increase bass lines, nor, make it more prominent or give a bigger whack on drums etc. All real bass does is give a better interpretation of spacial cues. Soundstaging becomes more 3 dimensional, you hear the borders of venues better, there is better fill to the music. .

 

My home gears allows that, and the synergy I get works for me because of the way my total system is designed......although I us Rockbox Fuze V2 for those same settings, and it works for me there as well.  BA200's are way under rated on this thread, or maybe it's just me, YMMV that's for sure.  I know most reviews are done on the stock offering.....but that is not the whole story, just a starting point with any IEM!
 

 

post #69 of 174
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

Why is there a feeling of trying to discredit the review? Yes, even your favorite BAs have flaws and are not always perceived so favorably. Basically the review said the BA200 needs more bass and less sibilance, which could be true for some and shouldn't be a big deal. Do I agree? No, based on the graphs , but they have solid grounds to stand by as it does have less bass and more sibilance compared to the BA100. Could easily see the GR10 having more 6-9k in the treble compared to the 200s, yet it's not as sibilant as the reviewers were saying of the BA200. Still, there is the benefit of doubt if you squeeze in possible tip resonance or recordings. 

 

Keep up the good work and if you could squeeze in time, try to graph each iem with different sets of tips. Your impedance difference graphs are very helpful by the way. 


I fully admit to having initially felt slighted when the original guy linked the review and basically implied that I was perhaps getting the worst deal of all by proclaiming that the BA200 was a very good earphone. I was probably wrong to have just gone and attacked an article by saying it was full of crap without contacting the author first. Interestingly, the author found us, presumably having felt the need to defend his own words from the salvos I initiated.

 

Whatever the impetus was, Mr. Butterworth is a contract journalist; he's perhaps not getting paid enough for his services to warrant more effort into a review, and I didn't know beforehand that writing for S+V wasn't his day job. I can sympathize with him; if I poured every ounce of passion and care into every patient that I saw, I wouldn't last a year in my chosen profession. However, I'm also in a field where anything but the best possible care will be met with severe repercussions, far greater than criticism from the readership of a magazine. For us, the call of duty is exactly that; for us, we can't rise to a baseline level because above and beyond is what is constantly expected of us. In the same vein, Sound and Vision Magazine is nevertheless a mainstream publication that sees circulation far greater than what this review, or any other one on Head-Fi will ever see. Thus, an article like this can and will be linked to this forum for further discussion. Every comma, semicolon, and ellipsis will be examined and analyzed.

 

At the end of the day, a review is a review, and nothing is as perfect as it should be. Mr. Butterworth's is not, and neither is mine. Just as I cannot possibly provide measurement data to anyone, neither of us can possibly cater to the needs of all. The BA200 has its flaws, too. I just happen to disagree with S+V about their interpretation and listed my reasons. The stark, contrasting views between the S+V review and other, current and past users of the BA200 highlight exactly why audio is such a personal endeavor.

 

A last note to Mr. Butterworth: I think your article, despite my opposition to it, was very helpful in helping prompt further discussion of the BA200 and I certainly mean no ill will toward you nor anyone else with opposing views. I trust that we've helped you figure out ways to better prepare your reviews, and I'm sure you'll do a better job next time around.

post #70 of 174



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post


I fully admit to having initially felt slighted when the original guy linked the review and basically implied that I was perhaps getting the worst deal of all by proclaiming that the BA200 was a very good earphone. I was probably wrong to have just gone and attacked an article by saying it was full of crap without contacting the author first. Interestingly, the author found us, presumably having felt the need to defend his own words from the salvos I initiated.

 

Whatever the impetus was, Mr. Butterworth is a contract journalist; he's perhaps not getting paid enough for his services to warrant more effort into a review, and I didn't know beforehand that writing for S+V wasn't his day job. I can sympathize with him; if I poured every ounce of passion and care into every patient that I saw, I wouldn't last a year in my chosen profession. However, I'm also in a field where anything but the best possible care will be met with severe repercussions, far greater than criticism from the readership of a magazine. For us, the call of duty is exactly that; for us, we can't rise to a baseline level because above and beyond is what is constantly expected of us. In the same vein, Sound and Vision Magazine is nevertheless a mainstream publication that sees circulation far greater than what this review, or any other one on Head-Fi will ever see. Thus, an article like this can and will be linked to this forum for further discussion. Every comma, semicolon, and ellipsis will be examined and analyzed.

 

At the end of the day, a review is a review, and nothing is as perfect as it should be. Mr. Butterworth's is not, and neither is mine. Just as I cannot possibly provide measurement data to anyone, neither of us can possibly cater to the needs of all. The BA200 has its flaws, too. I just happen to disagree with S+V about their interpretation and listed my reasons. The stark, contrasting views between the S+V review and other, current and past users of the BA200 highlight exactly why audio is such a personal endeavor.

 

A last note to Mr. Butterworth: I think your article, despite my opposition to it, was very helpful in helping prompt further discussion of the BA200 and I certainly mean no ill will toward you nor anyone else with opposing views. I trust that we've helped you figure out ways to better prepare your reviews, and I'm sure you'll do a better job next time around.


We just have to remember, a review is just one persons views/opinion, and should be treated as such!  Just as there is no perfect IEM with no flaws, there is no perfect review with no flaws!
 

 

post #71 of 174

 

Originally Posted by cute View Post


I use a Parametric EQ to adjust upward at 30hz and 60hz about +3db.  I think if you look at the graphs for a lot of IEM/s there is a mid bass hump, like +5db that shows on the graph I have of the BA200.  I set a Q at 125hz of 1, and reduce the gain at that Q by -5db, this along with the MEEL DF tips results in a totally different/better to my ears BA200. I like sub bass and a subwoofer sound.  I like real , full bass.  But I need to add, without a full sounding bass, spacial and soundstaging cues are missing. By a full bass, I don't mean rumble and so on. That should be well left to the the movies. With the Home Movie systems being more popular and the uses of sub woofers, I feel people are confusing what real bass is.  Real bass is not crash, bang and wallop! Real bass doesn't increase bass lines, nor, make it more prominent or give a bigger whack on drums etc. All real bass does is give a better interpretation of spacial cues. Soundstaging becomes more 3 dimensional, you hear the borders of venues better, there is better fill to the music. .

 

My home gears allows that, and the synergy I get works for me because of the way my total system is designed......although I us Rockbox Fuze V2 for those same settings, and it works for me there as well.  BA200's are way under rated on this thread, or maybe it's just me, YMMV that's for sure.  I know most reviews are done on the stock offering.....but that is not the whole story, just a starting point with any IEM!

Yes, most IEMs do have a midbass hump, some accompanied by linear subbass, some without. How can you have full bass without rumble? rumble is a fancy word for the 20-60hz region, subbass presence, so you need it if you want good extension. Pretty much of all your descriptions, lead to me to believe you think having bass with good depth is important, they's really no other magic in bass beside range, speed and punch, it's that simple. 
 

BA200s are underrated because TDK doesn't care about selling them in the US. 

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post


I fully admit to having initially felt slighted when the original guy linked the review and basically implied that I was perhaps getting the worst deal of all by proclaiming that the BA200 was a very good earphone. I was probably wrong to have just gone and attacked an article by saying it was full of crap without contacting the author first. Interestingly, the author found us, presumably having felt the need to defend his own words from the salvos I initiated.

 

Whatever the impetus was, Mr. Butterworth is a contract journalist; he's perhaps not getting paid enough for his services to warrant more effort into a review, and I didn't know beforehand that writing for S+V wasn't his day job. I can sympathize with him; if I poured every ounce of passion and care into every patient that I saw, I wouldn't last a year in my chosen profession. However, I'm also in a field where anything but the best possible care will be met with severe repercussions, far greater than criticism from the readership of a magazine. For us, the call of duty is exactly that; for us, we can't rise to a baseline level because above and beyond is what is constantly expected of us. In the same vein, Sound and Vision Magazine is nevertheless a mainstream publication that sees circulation far greater than what this review, or any other one on Head-Fi will ever see. Thus, an article like this can and will be linked to this forum for further discussion. Every comma, semicolon, and ellipsis will be examined and analyzed.

 

At the end of the day, a review is a review, and nothing is as perfect as it should be. Mr. Butterworth's is not, and neither is mine. Just as I cannot possibly provide measurement data to anyone, neither of us can possibly cater to the needs of all. The BA200 has its flaws, too. I just happen to disagree with S+V about their interpretation and listed my reasons. The stark, contrasting views between the S+V review and other, current and past users of the BA200 highlight exactly why audio is such a personal endeavor.

 

A last note to Mr. Butterworth: I think your article, despite my opposition to it, was very helpful in helping prompt further discussion of the BA200 and I certainly mean no ill will toward you nor anyone else with opposing views. I trust that we've helped you figure out ways to better prepare your reviews, and I'm sure you'll do a better job next time around.

That is very honest and respectful. I don't think you can compare his review to what was said here though, the format of his review was pretty different and focused on the flaws they found rather than trying to describe everything. 
 

 

post #72 of 174



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

 

Yes, most IEMs do have a midbass hump, some accompanied by linear subbass, some without. How can you have full bass without rumble? rumble is a fancy word for the 20-60hz region, subbass presence, so you need it if you want good extension. Pretty much of all your descriptions, lead to me to believe you think having bass with good depth is important, they's really no other magic in bass beside range, speed and punch, it's that simple. 
 

 


My point was, I like natural bass, natural mids, and natural highs.....when the bass gets boomy and one note, it spoils the rest of the presentation!  My focus is "natural/real" sound!  Simple as that, a lot of IEM's don't do bass right, those IEM's I no longer own!

 

Rumble is for movies!


 

 


Edited by cute - 2/28/12 at 7:42pm
post #73 of 174

"Natural bass", the problem is that this is broad and more in the realm of the subjective. Not very helpful if trying to deduce what specific characteristics are desired. 

post #74 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

"Natural bass", the problem is that this is broad and more in the realm of the subjective. Not very helpful if trying to deduce what specific characteristics are desired. 



 Well now we are getting off topic and into personal preference.....I am just stating my opinion, which is not specific to the wonderful BA200 that I feel lucky to own and enjoy!

post #75 of 174

Huh? but you were the one who brought up the mention of bass preferences, quite contradictory there. You are stating your opinion, but that's not the point, I was just trying to narrow down a broad cloudy description.

 

Anyhow, it's crazy how these just aren't entering the US market at all, huge lack of interest by TDK, same for the EB950 it seems. I wonder how only the BA100 somehow made it in. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › REVIEW | TDK BA200 | 'BACK TO BLACK'