[Inks]

Originally Posted by Music_4321  in blue
And which filter is that? I personally find both "reference" & "high-boost" filters to offer two distinct options and quite good in their own particular ways -- more people seem to prefer the "reference" filter, though.
Reference filter, which already is a bit bright in the higher treble, any more will be flawed. Two options yes, but at the end users settle down to one. Same with my PFEs, don't even use the green filters of those at all. 
 
There was also bias towards AKG, which is now owned by Harman ("Harman Cardboard").
True. Personally, Harman is quite respectable, I am a fan of Sean Olive's work. 
 
Denied? Who by? Is that relevant, by the way?
James, it's not relevant, no, just interesting. It's not that much smoother than the B2 which James though sounded metallic, I really wonder if he inserted them deep enough to the ear's 2nd bend. 
 
It's strange to see you use the term "fun". Can you measure fun?
I stated the specific regions, fun is the effect of that boost. It gives cymbal crashes a bit more presence, making it sound a bit more dynamic, works with some recordings, bad with others which is the trade off with colorations. 
 
Just how important is "transient speed"?
Very important, it's the reason why serious dynamic manufacturers try to make their dynamics as stiff as they can to increase speed. Dynamics in general in the IEM world are slow, this results in blended imaging. The slower dynamic driver on the K3003 makes it sound distinctly different from the truer to the source BA in speed. I can see the "coherency" flaws due to this, but it's the trade off of the design, it's to be expected. 
 
What does Joker's preferred choice of tips have to do with anything?
Joker had all the time in the world to compare tips, unlike I, I had no time to use my tips. Should I have not mentioned the tips at all? It would be sound to think  that I may have a different tip of choice given the time, but it's a relatively shallow inserting IEM and I easily got a seal. 
-------------------------------------
 
I hope at least you liked the colour of the housings; or perhaps the colour of the carrying case; or the packaging (if you got to see it).
Why do the colors matter (mocking?)? Anyways, the housing was much bigger than I expected, it wasn't that comfortable for me because of the weight. 
 
You and I clearly hear things differently and have a different concept of what good sound is, and that's absolutely fine, but if I hadn't tried the K3003s myself, and only read you comments above, I would definitely NOT want to try these IEMs.
Well, you would have to see where I'm coming from and the criteria given, if price isn't a barrier these can be cool to have for their uniqueness, don't think it's a serious performer though for the reasons given. 

Nice tounge-in-cheek mocking by the way. I had to change to color of your text to red because I was using my iPhone to respond and it was the fastest way to distinct it. Hope to keep things serious, no "can you measure fun" attempts. 
 
Purrin's thoughts may not have been a proper review, but why is he at least not linked in the impressions section?

 

[music_4321]

My responses now in GREEN
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Music_4321  in blue
And which filter is that? I personally find both "reference" & "high-boost" filters to offer two distinct options and quite good in their own particular ways -- more people seem to prefer the "reference" filter, though.
Reference filter, which already is a bit bright in the higher treble, any more will be flawed. Two options yes, but at the end users settle down to one. Same with my PFEs, don't even use the green filters of those at all. 
 
I believe Anaxilus, purrin, average_joe and someone else (in one of the links on the first post of this thread) preferred the "high-boost" filter (*Note: I believe purrin only had a chance to try the "high-boost" filter and not the "reference" or "bass-boost" filters).

I personally prefer the "reference" filter for most of the music I listen to, but find the "high-boost" filter excellent with several classical orchestral works (not all classical music, BTW, ie not always that good with chamber or solo works, but that would mostly depend on the mastering/recording type and the performance / execution itself of the music).
 
There was also bias towards AKG, which is now owned by Harman ("Harman Cardboard").
True. Personally, Harman is quite respectable, I am a fan of Sean Olive's work.
 
Denied? Who by? Is that relevant, by the way?
James, it's not relevant, no, just interesting. It's not that much smoother than the B2 which James though sounded metallic, I really wonder if he inserted them deep enough to the ear's 2nd bend. 
 
It's strange to see you use the term "fun". Can you measure fun?
I stated the specific regions, fun is the effect of that boost. It gives cymbal crashes a bit more presence, making it sound a bit more dynamic, works with some recordings, bad with others which is the trade off with colorations. 
 
Not so sure about that one. There seem to plenty of SM3 (and EPH-100) fans out there (not me), who find the Earsonics to be fun, yet the SM3 is one IEM with severely recessed treble. Usually, people who listen at higher volume levels will find 'prominent' treble or 'airy' presentations fatiguing after a little while, so the term "fun" remains a rather personal one, as is the term "colouration" (and by that I don't mean deviating from neutrality or a flat-tish freq curve).
 
Just how important is "transient speed"?
Very important, it's the reason why serious dynamic manufacturers try to make their dynamics as stiff as they can to increase speed. Dynamics in general in the IEM world are slow, this results in blended imaging. The slower dynamic driver on the K3003 makes it sound distinctly different from the truer to the source BA in speed. I can see the "coherency" flaws due to this, but it's the trade off of the design, it's to be expected.
 
Well, I still wonder how important transient speed really is. I find your "coherence" issues to be exaggerated. There is indeed a difference in sound AND feel between a dynamic and BA driver reproducing low (and mid & high) frequencies; I find the blending of these drivers in the K3003s has been done brilliantly. I find the 'visceral' aspect of the K3003 dynamic driver in the low frequencies to be quite a strength, and adding better timbre, tonality & greater extension.
 
What does Joker's preferred choice of tips have to do with anything?
Joker had all the time in the world to compare tips, unlike I, I had no time to use my tips. Should I have not mentioned the tips at all? It would be sound to think  that I may have a different tip of choice given the time, but it's a relatively shallow inserting IEM and I easily got a seal. 
 
I still fail to see the relevance of mentioning Joker's preferred choice of tips.
 
-------------------------------------
 
I hope at least you liked the colour of the housings; or perhaps the colour of the carrying case; or the packaging (if you got to see it).
Why do the colors matter (mocking?)? Anyways, the housing was much bigger than I expected, it wasn't that comfortable for me because of the weight. 
 
No, no mocking, it was just a way to ask: Was there anything --one thing, at least-- you actually liked about the K3003?
 
You and I clearly hear things differently and have a different concept of what good sound is, and that's absolutely fine, but if I hadn't tried the K3003s myself, and only read you comments above, I would definitely NOT want to try these IEMs.
Well, you would have to see where I'm coming from and the criteria given, if price isn't a barrier these can be cool to have for their uniqueness, don't think it's a serious performer though for the reasons given.

 
Nice tounge-in-cheek mocking by the way. I had to change to color of your text to red because I was using my iPhone to respond and it was the fastest way to distinct it. Hope to keep things serious, no "can you measure fun" attempts.
 
Tongue-in-cheek? Yes. Mocking? Definitely not.
 
Purrin's thoughts may not have been a proper review, but why is he at least not linked in the impressions section?

In the previous K3003 thread I started (now deleted) I did add purrin's impressions to the first post in said thread once he actually bothered to write some 'proper' impressions, rather than the 'non-review' he'd written in a reviews-dedicated area of HF. If purrin chooses to post again here and express the very same views he expressed in that (deleted) thread, rest assured I will certainly link to them again.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Could you two please not argue. You're both messing up an otherwise informative thread. By the way you've both been here longer then me so I'm guessing one of you would know. Is purrin and LFF the same person? At times when I'm reading their posts it seems like I'm reading posts from the same person.

 

[music_4321]

^  Inks and I are not arguing.

 

[ProjectDenz]

So nobody has compared this to the higher end JH customs?

 

[Inks]

Originally Posted by Music_4321  in green I believe Anaxilus, purrin, average_joe and someone else (in one of the links on the first post of this thread) preferred the "high-boost" filter (*Note: I believe purrin only had a chance to try the "high-boost" filter and not the "reference" or "bass-boost" filters).
  Interesting, I found the reference filter already a bit hot in the higher treble, wouldn't want more of that. I'm sure the treble filter helps the midhigh presence and extension as I can tell in the GE graphs, that would be a plus. 
 
Not so sure about that one. There seem to plenty of SM3 (and EPH-100) fans out there (not me), who find the Earsonics to be fun, yet the SM3 is one IEM with severely recessed treble. Usually, people who listen at higher volume levels will find 'prominent' treble or 'airy' presentations fatiguing after a little while, so the term "fun" remains a rather personal one, as is the term "colouration" (and by that I don't mean deviating from neutrality or a flat-tish freq curve)
   I pretty much just wanted to mention that it has the potential of making certain recordings that are subdued in the treble more dynamic, but mileage varies of course. Still, it's far closer to flat than the SM3's subdued treble. Coloration as I use it, means boost or dips that add to the recording instead of an attempt to being truer to the source, so yes, deviating from neutrality. 
 
Well, I still wonder how important transient speed really is. I find your "coherence" issues to be exaggerated. There is indeed a difference in sound AND feel between a dynamic and BA driver reproducing low (and mid & high) frequencies; I find the blending of these drivers in the K3003s has been done brilliantly. I find the 'visceral' aspect of the K3003 dynamic driver in the low frequencies to be quite a strength, and adding better timbre, tonality & greater extension.
  Don't know if you're simply being stubborn, but it's very very important. It's the main reason why the Ety MC series is far inferior to the HF series despite the former being a bit more flat. The drivers have different functions, so they are going to have a different feel and tone, it's the speed where they had the potential to differ and it's evidently there. TWFKs are like a single BA in terms of coherency, the dynamic driver sounds like the odd one out, it isn't huge though, though you could interpret what I said as such. I think the TF10s bass driver in relation to the other drivers may be less coherent than the K3003 bass driver in relation to the others, and the former is an all BA set-up. 
 
I still fail to see the relevance of mentioning Joker's preferred choice of tips.
It's more like a tidbit. 
 
No, no mocking, it was just a way to ask: Was there anything --one thing, at least-- you actually liked about the K3003?
  When I evaluate IEMs, I focus on the negatives when it comes to sound, you'll see that on the my A161P and EX1000 reviews. If I were to ignore it's price, I'll say it's a solid product, not a performance king by my criteria, but far better than a lot of stuff out there. I do think it's performance is higher than the EX1000 and all the Heaven series FADs I've heard. 

In the previous K3003 thread I started (now deleted) I did add purrin's impressions to the first post in said thread once he actually bothered to write some 'proper' impressions, rather than the 'non-review' he'd written in a reviews-dedicated area of HF. If purrin chooses to post again here and express the very same views he expressed in that (deleted) thread, rest assured I will certainly link to them again.
  That makes sense, good to know.
 
What's with all the color changes, seriously...

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music_4321  in green  
Well, I still wonder how important transient speed really is. I find your "coherence" issues to be exaggerated. There is indeed a difference in sound AND feel between a dynamic and BA driver reproducing low (and mid & high) frequencies; I find the blending of these drivers in the K3003s has been done brilliantly. I find the 'visceral' aspect of the K3003 dynamic driver in the low frequencies to be quite a strength, and adding better timbre, tonality & greater extension.
  Don't know if you're simply being stubborn, but it's very very important. It's the main reason why the Ety MC series is far inferior to the HF series despite the former being a bit more flat. The drivers have different functions, so they are going to have a different feel and tone, it's the speed where they had the potential to differ and it's evidently there. TWFKs are like a single BA in terms of coherency, the dynamic driver sounds like the odd one out, it isn't huge though, though you could interpret what I said as such. I think the TF10s bass driver in relation to the other drivers may be less coherent than the K3003 bass driver in relation to the others, and the former is an all BA set-up. 
 
No, no mocking, it was just a way to ask: Was there anything --one thing, at least-- you actually liked about the K3003?
  When I evaluate IEMs, I focus on the negatives when it comes to sound...

 
No, I don't think I'm being stubborn, Inks, but perhaps you are being a bit stubborn yourself. Perhaps even too stubborn? This is not meant as a personal attack. Honestly. I think you place far too much importance on transient speed, measurements, graphs and several very clinical aspects of audio -- useful, yes, very useful at times even, but the impression I've been getting is that your interest isn't always all that healthy -- what I personally regard as healthy, of course. Or, it is becoming less and less healthy by the day, if you like. No, you don't have to agree with music_4321 so that I can 'label' you "healthy / healthier". You say "When I evaluate IEMs, I focus on the negatives when it comes to sound" --- I think that's a pretty wrong approach; equally wrong to primarily focus on the positives.

My ears seem to indicate that what I'm getting from this hybrid IEM, the K3003, is quite remarkable, and it is quite the performer. The best performer? I've no idea as, although I've tried some excellent IEMs, there are still several I haven't tried. Would I prefer a better performer? Who knows. What I do know is that I have heard several so-called good / excellent performers --or so they were described by some seemingly experienced members-- and my ears told me they didn't quite render music the way they should. Is it just because music_4321 likes colouration in his IEMs? I'm sure Inks would think so. I personally wouldn't call it that.

I have issues with labels, jargon, and the use, abuse and misuse of such terms -- I sometimes have issues with graphs and how they are used to 'shove down' a point. The term "colouration" has recently made me cringe several times, "micro-details" has made me cringe hundreds of times, "articulate", "lush" & "liquid" are also among the ones I don't particularly enjoy -- most of the time they just seem either like attempts at being clever, or attempts by (very) young, inexperienced members wanting to play the adult / "audiophile" -- the term "audiophile" is probably the one that causes a stronger physical reaction.

I have issues with the recent labels / descriptions given to the K3003s: a "consumer-oriented" product, a "fun-sounding" IEM. The problem with such descriptions is the connotation behind them, the connotations within the 'audiophile' community, where there can be snobbery, arrogance, BIG egos, condescension, etc. But, we also see plenty of BS, parroting, regurgitation, sweeping generalisations, exaggeration, hype, nonsense, etc. You get the Apple-bashing crowd, the Beats-bashing crowd, the Bose-bashing crowd, etc. -- if we talk about an esoteric product, then it's got to be good, excellent, and so on. This also happens with many 'serious' music enthusiasts, i.e. the more obscure the music, the better it's got to be. In a forum of so-called audiophiles, a consumer-oriented product is the equivalent of having a Big Mac; a fun-sounding IEM is the equivalent of drinking Coke. Why did AKG decide to develop three different filters? To emulate Phonak? To offer consumers Coke, Pepsi & Fanta? I doubt it. Why not just a single "fun-sounding", "consumer-oriented" filter, ie a Big Mac & a Coke? Or, was it just to try and somehow justify the K3003 'ridiculous' price? Or was it to satisfy the 'needs' of those young wealthy males who mostly listen to pop, soft rock, rap or trance, and those of wealthy middle-aged males who only listen to 'catchy' Beethoven & Mozart symphonies, 'The Four Seasons' by Vivaldi and 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis? That leaves the "bass-boost" filter, which I guess was created for those who find the now 'popular' SM3 an incredibly good sounding IEM -- perhaps it is the "bass-boost" filter that is the true "audiophile" filter.

 

[Inks]

Quote:

 
No, I don't think I'm being stubborn, Inks, but perhaps you are being a bit stubborn yourself. Perhaps even too stubborn? This is not meant as a personal attack. Honestly. I think you place far too much importance on transient speed, measurements, graphs and several very clinical aspects of audio -- useful, yes, very useful at times even, but the impression I've been getting is that your interest isn't always all that healthy -- what I personally regard as healthy, of course. Or, it is becoming less and less healthy by the day, if you like. No, you don't have to agree with music_4321 so that I can 'label' you "healthy / healthier". You say "When I evaluate IEMs, I focus on the negatives when it comes to sound" --- I think that's a pretty wrong approach; equally wrong to primarily focus on the positives.
  Transient speed and frequency response are the biggest factors of performance when someone listens to an IEM, pretty important stuff. I can see where you are coming from, but sorry for being broad but it isn't what I meant. I feel I need to be elaborate when I mention what I consider flaws, the positives I'm more brief about. I try to balance it, but it depends a lot on the IEM, it's a case to case thing. The K3003 may not be that transparent or neutral, but it really doesn't do anything terribly wrong that's why I find it hard to mention a specific thing. Unlike like the EX1000 per say that has the midhigh issue which I consider a somewhat big issue. The TF10 has many flaws but I will point to that higher treble as one of the best out there. 
 

My ears seem to indicate that what I'm getting from this hybrid IEM, the K3003, is quite remarkable, and it is quite the performer. The best performer? I've no idea as, although I've tried some excellent IEMs, there are still several I haven't tried. Would I prefer a better performer? Who knows. What I do know is that I have heard several so-called good / excellent performers --or so they were described by some seemingly experienced members-- and my ears told me they didn't quite render music the way they should. Is it just because music_4321 likes colouration in his IEMs? I'm sure Inks would think so. I personally wouldn't call it that.
    What else would you call it? It's clearly a preference thing.  There's nothing wrong if you don't want a neutral response. It's a big part of how I rate performance because it's tangible and easier to evaluate universally. Professionally speakers are rated this way except its harder in that realm since they're looking into many possibilities of gear that are already neutral, it's more of how much more neutral is an already neutral loudspeaker to the other.....

I have issues with labels, jargon, and the use, abuse and misuse of such terms -- I sometimes have issues with graphs and how they are used to 'shove down' a point. The term "colouration" has recently made me cringe several times, "micro-details" has made me cringe hundreds of times, "articulate", "lush" & "liquid" are also among the ones I don't particularly enjoy -- most of the time they just seem either like attempts at being clever, or attempts by (very) young, inexperienced members wanting to play the adult / "audiophile" -- the term "audiophile" is probably the one that causes a stronger physical reaction.
 If there's an issue with a term I use I am open for someone calling me out on how I define it and pretty much answer to it. You should know that well, but yes, there's a lot of users that use terms that they themselves can't pin-point to anything tangible, making it useless. Coloration can be iffy when a boost is there but doesn't stray that far from a flat response, I give the benefit of the doubt there, I use it when I feel the boost strays enough using a flat IEM in that specific region as a benchmark. Microdetails is a horrible term, it can mean anything. Lush and liquid usually mean more 200-300hz giving more warmth, but it can also be a combination of this and treble combination, bad term indeed. Articulate is also horrible and I abhor when someone says X IEM is more "refined" which is far too broad. 

I have issues with the recent labels / descriptions given to the K3003s: a "consumer-oriented" product, a "fun-sounding" IEM. The problem with such descriptions is the connotation behind them, the connotations within the 'audiophile' community, where there can be snobbery, arrogance, BIG egos, condescension, etc. But, we also see plenty of BS, parroting, regurgitation, sweeping generalisations, exaggeration, hype, nonsense, etc. You get the Apple-bashing crowd, the Beats-bashing crowd, the Bose-bashing crowd, etc. -- if we talk about an esoteric product, then it's got to be good, excellent, and so on. This also happens with many 'serious' music enthusiasts, i.e. the more obscure the music, the better it's got to be. In a forum of so-called audiophiles, a consumer-oriented product is the equivalent of having a Big Mac; a fun-sounding IEM is the equivalent of drinking Coke. Why did AKG decide to develop three different filters? To emulate Phonak? To offer consumers Coke, Pepsi & Fanta? I doubt it. Why not just a single "fun-sounding", "consumer-oriented" filter, ie a Big Mac & a Coke? Or, was it just to try and somehow justify the K3003 'ridiculous' price? Or was it to satisfy the 'needs' of those young wealthy males who mostly listen to pop, soft rock, rap or trance, and those of wealthy middle-aged males who only listen to 'catchy' Beethoven & Mozart symphonies, 'The Four Seasons' by Vivaldi and 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis? That leaves the "bass-boost" filter, which I guess was created for those who find the now 'popular' SM3 an incredibly good sounding IEM -- perhaps it is the "bass-boost" filter that is the true "audiophile" filter.
  Consumer oriented or fun usually means more v-shaped than neutral, I will give these that label with this definition. But then people are crazy to think that the mids will somehow be recessed which is more of an extreme case, hope this makes it clear that it isn't so. I think the filters options are there because the potential was there in design. Can never know for certain why AKG used filters, but pretty much every IEM can have multiple tuning by changing filters or changing the venting in a dynamic, so it's always nice to have as an extra but if there's a goal I feel one is always prominent. 
 
 
Popularity doesn't equal quality....

 

[average_joe]

Quote:

My responses now in GREEN
 
I believe Anaxilus, purrin, average_joe and someone else (in one of the links on the first post of this thread) preferred the "high-boost" filter 

 
I have no preference between the Reference and High Boost ports as for me the reference sounded more tonally accurate while the high boost port was technically better due to better driver coherence and a flatter treble frequency response.
 
Quote:

So nobody has compared this to the higher end JH customs?

 
My user name isn't nobody 

, but I have compared the K3003 to the JH16.

 

[Anaxilus]

Anybody know what happened to Bizkit's K3003 tour?

 

[Audio-Omega]

Who has got the best price ?

 

[music_4321]

^   If you're based in Australia, that's where you might get the best price and perhaps, also, the most sensible option. Otherwise, you might get them cheaper from Stereo in Singapore, who will ship to many countries outside Singapore, but import duty and/or taxes might make them more expensive for you. Also, bear in mind that if you get them in Australia, any warranty issues you may have will be dealt with much more easily there.

On a side note, if you're seriously considering getting a set of K3003s, I suggest you get the non-remote/mic version of it (same price according to AKG Austria). Stereo in Singapore is one of the very few places that sell both models (the non-remote being only slightly cheaper), but I'm sure if you contact AKG Australia, they may order/get the "non-i" model for you (you might just have to wait a bit longer).

 

[Audio-Omega]

Yes I might have to buy them in Australia because of warranty claim and import duties.  Beside that, I'm hoping for a price drop.  

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Yes I might have to buy them in Australia because of warranty claim and import duties.  Beside that, I'm hoping for a price drop.  

 
No idea, but I suspect that's unlikely.

 

[Audio-Omega]

Is the non remote version more reliable ?