Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [Review] MEElectronics A161P - Intro Into Neutrality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Review] MEElectronics A161P - Intro Into Neutrality - Page 4

post #46 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nulliverse View Post

Enjoying most elements of these but am struggling with the soundstage proportions, which are lacking depth. Will continue to experiment with after market tips, as those included are rather limiting (suprising, given the variety and quantity that MEElec produce).
Still, I'd say i'm very impressed. They're far more cohesive than the dual BAs i've heard, which more than makes up for the sacrifice in treble extension. Bass reaches down very well and is beautifully placed. Expectedly, decay time is shorter than I'm used to, but by no means unnatural. The mids offer exceptional clarity, at least by my standards.
More when I've matched better tips.

I am interested in some comparisons from you with SM3, DBA-02, GR07, FXT90, RE262 and PFE 112. I have all except for the PFE and I have just bought A161p. I would be delighted if you could tell me some about them compared to the A161p.

post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lar View Post

I am interested in some comparisons from you with SM3, DBA-02, GR07, FXT90, RE262 and PFE 112. I have all except for the PFE and I have just bought A161p. I would be delighted if you could tell me some about them compared to the A161p.

 

I would only be able to compare the B2 (in place of DBA-02) and PFE 022 + grey filters (in place of PFE 122).  

post #48 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nulliverse View Post

Enjoying most elements of these but am struggling with the soundstage proportions, which are lacking depth. Will continue to experiment with after market tips, as those included are rather limiting (suprising, given the variety and quantity that MEElec produce).
Still, I'd say i'm very impressed. They're far more cohesive than the dual BAs i've heard, which more than makes up for the sacrifice in treble extension. Bass reaches down very well and is beautifully placed. Expectedly, decay time is shorter than I'm used to, but by no means unnatural. The mids offer exceptional clarity, at least by my standards.
More when I've matched better tips.

 

Thanks for the impressions.  Looking forward to more and glad to see you back and active here!

post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyman392 View Post

 

I would only be able to compare the B2 (in place of DBA-02) and PFE 022 + grey filters (in place of PFE 122).  

That's a start. Thanks, would be great.

 

I also own B2 instead of DBA-02. How much more musical does the A161p sound?

post #50 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lar View Post

That's a start. Thanks, would be great.

 

I also own B2 instead of DBA-02. How much more musical does the A161p sound?

 

It's a little late now, I'll do comparisons tomorrow ;)  

post #51 of 90

Thanks and happy listening.

post #52 of 90

I'm afraid I can't do a meaningful comparison S0lar, as I don't have any of the mentioned phones at hand.

 

Soundstage is now fixed through good tip matching, and signature now significantly warmer / sweeter. Even more impressed now, and am genuinely surprised that a little single armature can cover the spectrum so well. Quite an eye (or ear) opener!

 

Bass, I feel, is better qualitatively than any other BA universal I've owned, barring perhaps that of the SM3. The body and texturing on offer here really is pleasing, and whilst it lacks the rumble I'm used to, it punches very well. It's tight enough to maintain great speed whilst not making big sacrifices in weight, a balance I felt the DBA and B2 failed to achieve (relative to my preference). EDM is presented fantastically on these, as is rock / metal.

 

Mids slap me with a sweetness that shotgunshane aptly describes as "slightly aggressive". Riff crunch is good and leads wail with real conviction. In typical sweet fashion vocals are brought to the forefront, but never over power. Detailing is very good and the slight upper mid emphasis gives very good clarity, despite the boosted bass. The mids appear to present a near perfect balance in that they are neither liquid nor dry, whilst still coming across as both accurate and musical.

 

Treble roles off a little earlier than I'm used to, but retains just enough extension to convincingly present those all so important transients. I wouldn't call it smooth but detect no grain, as some people have, and certainly no sibilance. Sparkle is minimal, though with a signature like this, I really don't miss it. Indeed, it's understated nature helps to make the overall signature so pleasingly non-fatiguing.
 

Soundstage is the only thing that fails to impress, though do I recognize that of late I've been spoiled with immersive presentations. The width feels average, whilst the depth does feel a little lacking, flattening the overall space a bit. Excellent imaging negates this somewhat as does great separation. At no point does the A161p present as congested or confined.

 

Overall I'd say I'm impressed. Very impressed. Thank you Shotgunshane, Tinyman392, Flysweep and Inks for influencing this excellent buy!

 

post #53 of 90

Thanks for writing your impressions.

 

My ultimate IEM (at the moment, from what I have heard and can imagine) would have the isolation, forward mids, sweetness, instrument separation, soundstage and imaging of the SM3. SM3 is perhaps a little too laid-back and gentle and hisses slightly.

EQ5 beats the SM3 only in bass quantity and the presentation of stringed instruments. I just want punchy, tight bass that shows when needed but nothing too bass-heavy. Guitars and sorts sound very fleshy and present on the EQ5.

RE262 does vocals slightly better but less spot-on-center and forward then the SM3. Treble extension is also better on RE262 to my ears.

 

shotgunshane compared with FXT90 and I think I know what he means be its aggresiveness. To me it's a kind of analytical-like thing where the IEM impresses you with particular details to the point you can mistake it for aggresiveness an analytical IEM showcases treble. FXT90 lacks a certain musicality and sweetness although it has a warm sound so that's something I find very odd.

post #54 of 90
Although I don't own the SM3 anymore, I remember it being distinctly thicker and darker than the A161p, which although sweet, is closer to neutral. Although I'd put them on par in terms of imaging, their soundstages differ vastly. Whilst the SM3 might be more impressive technically, in all it's immersive on-stage'isms, I actually prefer the more traditional audience positioning of the A161p, despite it's smaller size. Like you, I also found the SM3 to be too laid back and gentle.

I think Shotgunshane's fxt90 comparison is apt, as the A161p sounds more like it than anything else I've owned. I'd also agree that it is technically better in everyway, barring perhaps soundstage, which I thought the fxt90 did very well. Again, I'd say that the A161p is closer to neutral, with less boost in mid bass and treble.
post #55 of 90

I should add that I find the A161p to be class leading in isolation and comfort. They're as comfortable as the EPH-100 and GR07, but isolates better than either. Very impressive. They also have very little sound leakage, unlike the B2 and DBA-02, which leaked too much noise for in-bed listening (provoking hostile reactions from my wife). I can listen to the A161p's at double the volume without her even noticing. Leakage is probably a negligible factor to most, but for me a lot of my listening is done in bed, so excessive sound leakage is a deal breaker.   

post #56 of 90

Well, I wouldn't call it exactly class leading but it does have a very good isolation although comparing it to dynamic driver iems that even with the smallest vent hole are still vented is kinda unfair. The a161p is very comfortable though - way more than something like the B2 with its too much angled nozzles. Also, the a161p is a lot more forgiving to bad recordings than B2 or the ety iems. I have to admit that I like the meelec's presentation and overall non-fatiguing sound more than B2 and GR07. For me the a161p has only one major drawback and that's beard microphonics , which can be very annoying.

post #57 of 90

Nice to hear this.

I didn't find the GR07 very comfortable and too harsch and grainy sometimes. B2 doesn't isolates good and because of the small nozzle I can only use a few tips. I can't use it on-the-go.

B2 ias too analytical for me for listening in my bed, it's downright sibilant on a few Dylan tracks.

 

SM3 is indeed excellent and the imaging is the best I have heard, so great news that the A161p resembles that kind of imaging.

I do prefer an intimate sound than a very great soundstage presentation. The GR07 would be my choice for live rock albums.

 

FXT90 sounds impressive but is lacking somewhat and it sounds more impressive than it technically is. That is perhaps one of the reasons I find them to sound aggressive and even analytical.

I used shure olives a while because of the increased comfort and more musical tone it gave the FXT90. But mids get presented further back and the impressiveness disappears so now I use single flanges mostly, the fit is a bit hit or miss.

 

I will probably receive the A161p this week or next week. I am really looking forward and I'll write down my impressions after a few days of listening. I won't be able to compare them directly to SM3, GR07, IE8 and several others because I have lended a lot of my IEMs to friends. I only have one pair of ears :).


Edited by s0lar - 1/9/13 at 3:12pm
post #58 of 90

By "class leading" I was referring to price range. Anything else I've tried in this price range, vented or otherwise (PFE, B2, DBA) hasn't isolated nearly as well. The only universal I've owned that's isolated better is the ASG-1, which is many times it's price. But everyone's canals are different, not to mention choice of after-market tips.

 

Looking forward to your impressions s0lar! I didn't find the FXT90 analytical, which is something I associate with brightness or treble emphasis. I can understand you finding them aggressive in their presentation - they're anything but laid back. Much like the A161p, I found them to be a good choice for rock / metal, and faster / harder forms of EDM. That said, I'd say the A161p are more versatile, conveying ambience and subtleties more convincingly. 

 

I also agree on the B2 / DBA being to analytical for relaxed sessions in bed. Casual listening phones they are not!

post #59 of 90

Sorry for the delays in this comparison.  It of course is the Brainwavz B2 vs the MEE A161p.  I do see that someone else has done one above, so don’t discount his information.  Even if it differs at all, both opinions still should hold validity as sound has the unstable tendency to change greatly under the smallest of conditions.

 

The sound signatures of the two differ slightly with the Brainwavz B2 being more balanced, some say analytical, while the MEE A161p will be a sweeter, warmer overall sound.  To the consumer market, the A161 will definitely be the preferred, but there may be more to the story.

 

We’ll start down on the low end.  The bass of the A161 has a larger body than the B2.  The result is that the bass has better presence through the entire spectrum.  The texturing on the A161 is strong, large, but also delicate.  The B2 has good depth into the deeper ranges however, just doesn’t have the quantity to back it.  The A161 offers a much stronger impact and is amply tight with a strong punch.  The B2 has the same strong punch, but is tighter in comparison.

 

The midrange of the A161 is a little more upbeat than the B2s.  The B2s offer great detailing and detail retrieval in the lower midrange, a little above that of the A161.  In the upper ranges though, the B2 seem to not have the energy or clarity the A161s have.  The vocals of both a great, but the A161s have better dynamics in general.  

 

In the upper end, the B2s increase, the A161s decrease, in quantity in the upper highs.  The splashes are shown beautifully by both IEMs, separation as well.  The A161s just don’t always have the presence up here they need.  In the lower highs, both have a strong presence and great extension.  The B2s can backfire though as they can become sibilant, the A161s don’t have this problem.

 

To answer of the question of which is more musical, that’s really more of a subjective manner.  I do feel, however, that the added bass presence of the A161, and the controlled highs, really do make them the more musical choice.  

post #60 of 90
" both opinions still should hold validity as sound has the unstable tendency to change greatly under the smallest of conditions." Oh so true!

I also agree with your comparison on all counts, Tinyman.

I'll be recieving the TDK IE800 this week, which should make an interesting comparison.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › [Review] MEElectronics A161P - Intro Into Neutrality