Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Vsonic GR07 MK2 - stunning new cable! | bio-cel tech IEM | now with review - see 2nd post
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vsonic GR07 MK2 - stunning new cable! | bio-cel tech IEM | now with review - see 2nd post - Page 54

post #796 of 974

Just unboxed my brand new GR07 MK2, bought from lendmeurears (very, very quick delivery).

They sounded a bit "harsh" out of the box as expected, but after half an hour of listening (through my Fiio E17, no equalization) they seem a bit smoother already.

Or maybe are just my ears that have set to them.

post #797 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunshane View Post

I finally received the Jays foam tips today.  Definitely the best tip for the GR07 with the MH1c tip a close second.  The Jays foam lets all the treble goodness through, due to wider opening, yet absorbs any resonance/ringing.  The MH1c tips attentuate the treble just bit, due to the smaller bore and have a bit better bass punch, as I find silicone in general has better bass punch than foam.  Thanks for the Jays foam suggestion putente!

 

 

I just ordered a MH1c from Amazon, mainly for the tips. They look like the standard old Sony silicones... I'm hoping they fit the TG!334 too....

post #798 of 974
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

I've had the RE0 for about a month so I've had time to get used to it. What do you think about it?

 

Uh, let's see, I once owned the RE0, RE252 and RE272 at the same time, I preferred the RE252 and the RE272, I have the RE262 on the way to me right now.

 

Let's see, on a non-sonic note I think the RE0 suffered from quite a lot of shilling and high prices, it was reduced like five times eventually to $79, they said...

 

"OK OK it's fixed now, sorry for ripping you off at $199, we'll never reduce this price again now, hihihi...".

 

 

In sound quality, if you haven't noticed yet, I don't think the frequency response is all that vital in an IEM, if you look at the full picture, apart from how extended it is.

 

If all you think about is FR and equalizers, it's all you'll ever hear, since your mind will focus on that, it's inane.

 

It's like if you focused on the colour orange in your daily life, in movies and walking in a park, eventually orange is all you'll see, automatically.

 

Likewise if all you focused on was shadows, then eventually when you look around, all you'll see is shadows, you become a 'shadow receptor'.

 

I don't think a flat IEM in reference to the diffuse field is "analytical" either, apart from the transducers nature to analyze every frequency at once with an even SPL.

 

As soon as one frequency sector has a higher SPL then the transducer is analyzing / revealing that sector above the rest, likewise if one sector is lower in SPL then it won't bleed into the others.

 

Another thing is sound is a fluid 'video', how can you assess the quality of a TV, with a photo?

 

An impulse response shot recorded from 0Hz to 20kHz can become a 3D graphical representation with X, Y and Z, called cumulative spectral decay (CSD), but it's still only a photo and doesn't capture the fluidity of a video, such as the accuracy of one million impulse responses.  Let alone, our mind is very hard-wired to perceive tone (tone as in ASDR, not tonal colour as in FR) which is completely automatic to hear, however impossible to 'see'.

 

You can never 'see' the difference between a clarinet and a flute on paper.  Even if the task of a transducer is transparency, none of them are actually transparent [electrostatic is closer than dynamic though, in my view] which means they all have 'automatic tone'.

 

Like the clarinet and the flute, since we can't 'see' the tone we've just decided Titanium 'sounds nice' so it's a popular acoustic material, which is why, for example, the RE272 sounds better than the RE0, irrespective to FR, THD, IR / CSD.

post #799 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

Uh, let's see, I once owned the RE0, RE252 and RE272 at the same time, I preferred the RE252 and the RE272, I have the RE262 on the way to me right now.

Let's see, on a non-sonic note I think the RE0 suffered from quite a lot of shilling and high prices, it was reduced like five times eventually to $79, they said...

"OK OK it's fixed now, sorry for ripping you off at $199, we'll never reduce this price again now, hihihi...".


In sound quality, if you haven't noticed yet, I don't think the frequency response is all that vital in an IEM, if you look at the full picture, apart from how extended it is.

If all you think about is FR and equalizers, it's all you'll ever hear, since your mind will focus on that, it's inane.

It's like if you focused on the colour orange in your daily life, in movies and walking in a park, eventually orange is all you'll see, automatically.

Likewise if all you focused on was shadows, then eventually when you look around, all you'll see is shadows, you become a 'shadow receptor'.

I don't think a flat IEM in reference to the diffuse field is "analytical" either, apart from the transducers nature to analyze every frequency at once with an even SPL.

As soon as one frequency sector has a higher SPL then the transducer is analyzing / revealing that sector above the rest, likewise if one sector is lower in SPL then it won't bleed into the others.

Another thing is sound is a fluid 'video', how can you assess the quality of a TV, with a photo?

An impulse response shot recorded from 0Hz to 20kHz can become a 3D graphical representation with X, Y and Z, called cumulative spectral decay (CSD), but it's still only a photo and doesn't capture the fluidity of a video, such as the accuracy of one million impulse responses.  Let alone, our mind is very hard-wired to perceive tone (tone as in ASDR, not tonal colour as in FR) which is completely automatic to hear, however impossible to 'see'.

You can never 'see' the difference between a clarinet and a flute on paper.  Even if the task of a transducer is transparency, none of them are actually transparent [electrostatic is closer than dynamic though, in my view] which means they all have 'automatic tone'.

Like the clarinet and the flute, since we can't 'see' the tone we've just decided Titanium 'sounds nice' so it's a popular acoustic material, which is why, for example, the RE272 sounds better than the RE0, irrespective to FR, THD, IR / CSD.

Kiteki you're hilarious. You often use all these fluffy descriptors but then drop huge knowledge bombs out of nowhere.

I looked up ASDR but you'll have to help me out. Are you referring to attack sustain decay release?

Anyway I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the tone of a flute different from the tone of a material used to reproduce the tone of a flute? The material in an IEM driver needs to reproduce the tone of every instrument, so how is individual instrument tone relevant? If I'm listening for the tone of a flute, I should also be aware of the tone of the driver? And your saying the tone of the driver concerning ASDR is more discernable than something like a 10k spike?

Besides the issue of tone that should be clarified, it seems to me that FR has the biggest effect on sound, given that other measurements are within acceptable limits, which they usually seem to be.

What is the first thing noticeable when listening to the fxd80 versus the gr07? I can't imagine anything other than the 80's sharper treble, recessed mids and lessened mid-bass. What is more obvious to you than FR differences between the two?
post #800 of 974

Sigh. They only accept billing address in the US or Canada so I can't have it sent to my MyUS.com address frown.gif

I'd be really appreciate if anyone would help buying and sending them to Thailand. Really want to try them on my GR07 MK2 tongue.gif
Edited by kong - 12/1/12 at 1:28am
post #801 of 974
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by gnarlsagan View Post

Kiteki you're hilarious. You often use all these fluffy descriptors but then drop huge knowledge bombs out of nowhere.

I looked up ASDR but you'll have to help me out. Are you referring to attack sustain decay release?

Anyway I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't the tone of a flute different from the tone of a material used to reproduce the tone of a flute? The material in an IEM driver needs to reproduce the tone of every instrument, so how is individual instrument tone relevant? If I'm listening for the tone of a flute, I should also be aware of the tone of the driver? And your saying the tone of the driver concerning ASDR is more discernable than something like a 10k spike?

Besides the issue of tone that should be clarified, it seems to me that FR has the biggest effect on sound, given that other measurements are within acceptable limits, which they usually seem to be.

What is the first thing noticeable when listening to the fxd80 versus the gr07? I can't imagine anything other than the 80's sharper treble, recessed mids and lessened mid-bass. What is more obvious to you than FR differences between the two?

 

I think I should clarify your points first.

 

- If I'm listening to the clarinet, why should I be aware of the driver?

- FR seems to have the largest effect on sound, and the others seem to be within acceptable limits, so FR > the others, so FR is the most important.

 

Is this correct?

 

Also...

 

"Isn't the tone of a flute different from the tone of a material used to reproduce the tone of a flute?"

 

Yes it is.

 

"The material in an IEM driver needs to reproduce the tone of every instrument, so how is individual instrument tone relevant?"

 

The point was mostly it's not possible to decipher the tone of a flute versus clarinet on paper, it's not really possible to decipher any tone on paper.

 

No transducer is a 100% pure window, if they were we wouldn't really need to have discussions like these.  Can you show me any IEM with a perfectly clean impulse response?

post #802 of 974
Yes that summarizes my points. I see what you're saying though. Instrument tone, driver tone, and the replicated instrument tone are all separate factors. And the RE0's driver tone sucks. I suppose that affects instrument tone in a different way than FR, and in a way that can be more obvious when a/b'ing and with CSD plots (although I'd disagree with this point unless FR's were really similar). Thanks for answering my questions.

I'm still curious what difference is most obvious to you when a/b'ing the fxd80 and gr07. And how about gr07/RE0?
Edited by gnarlsagan - 12/1/12 at 9:58am
post #803 of 974

.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 12/1/12 at 10:11am
post #804 of 974

Yesterday at work I was quite content with the audio quality my basic work combination iMac and GR07 MK2... the Mac runs with Audirvana, so helps out sound quality substantially. But I loved that I was back to just plugging in a pair of earphones to the computer, and letting music go for a while. No external DAP, amp, or DAC, or wire bundles... This is after becoming completely accustomed to the high caliber sound of the TG!334 earphones at many times their price.

 

Still a great earphone even after the level of the Fitears, and they hold their own against many of the high end IEMs.

post #805 of 974

Getting back to the RE0 vs. GR07 for a minute, because I think it's worth talking about. The RE0 are without question the better bang-for-buck IEMs, but whether or not they are better is up for debate. 

I'll do a quick comparison.

Bass:

It's no secret that the RE0s are rolled off here. The quality is excellent, however; it extends fairly well given the roll off, and remains quick, controlled, and detailed all the way down. I've no problem whatsoever with the quantity of bass in the RE0. Somewhere between the RE0 and GR07 is the sweet spot for quantity. What I don't like is that the RE0s have a very soft, liquid-like bass that doesn't sound quite as precise. 

The GR07 certainly have far more impact and sub-bass, but unlike the RE0, the bass sounds very solid and well-textured. It's also amazingly quick for a dynamic; kick drums really snap and it sounds wonderful. It is not without fault though. There is an obnoxious boost somewhere in the ~400-600 Hz range which makes them sound muddy at times and adds and unnatural, "thickness" to the vocals. If you EQ this region down some, the bass fantastic. 

Despite that unfortunate boost, I'd still have to give the edge to the GR07. The combination of impact, extension, speed and texturing is just too good to overlook. 

Mids:
 

The RE0 do a much better job at keeping other frequencies from bleeding into the midrange. The mids of the GR07 can sound bloated and muddy do the aforementioned boost, and there are semi-frequent bouts of sibilance. Higher-pitched vocals can sound a bit rough and aggressive because of the uneven lower treble. Overall though, the mids are still very good and balanced nicely within the spectrum.

The mids of the RE0 are leaner, obviously, but are by no means thin and cold. They are extraordinarily smooth and nearly neutral in tone. The upper mids are slightly more prominent than they otherwise would be  because of the lighter bass, they don't suffer from the same roughness or sibilance that occasionally plagues the GR07. I'd even say that they are slightly darker in tone despite the leaner presentation. They like to be amped. Without an amp the mids can seem a bit dark and withdrawn, but when properly amped (ideally with something neutral to not destory the RE0s wonderful tonality) the mids come forward and liven up considerably.

It's a tough call here. The mids on the GR07 are rich in tone and can be incredibly engaging, but there are times when I downright hate them. The mids on the RE0 aren't quite as rich or engaging, but they are also never offensive. On average I'd have to say that they're more or less even here. I might give a very slight edge to the RE0 just for consistency and for sounding every so slightly more natural. The GR07s sound a bit "artificially enhanced" in comparison.

Treble:

No contest here, the RE0 outright wipes the floor with GR07 where the high end is concerned. I'd like to punch anyone who says that the RE0 are bright or brittle-sounding. The treble here is spectacularly good. It is extraordinarily smooth, soft without being excessively so, microdetailed, very well-controlled, and extends endlessly without effort. Stunning. Free of any sibilance, piercing spikes, or excessive ringing. The GR07, by comparison, sound rough, harsh, and unrefined. That's not the say that the GR07 treble is bad, just that the RE0's treble is extraordinary. The GR07 has some trouble in the lower treble, but extends up far and is actually more refined as you go higher into the treble.

Presentation:

I've always considered presentation to be what separates the good headphones from the great ones. This, even moreso than the bass, is where the GR07 handily bests the RE0. Soundstage width, clarity, and separation are about the same. Actually, the RE0 has slightly better separation and clarity, though that's likely due to the leaner tone and well-behaved treble. The GR07 is much, much better at layering, and the soundstage has more depth. Imaging is better on the GR07 as well; audio cues are easier to locate in the grand scheme of things.

Overall, I'd have to give the edge to the GR07. Not a $100 edge, but an edge. They can be more engaging and perform a bit better on average. I really wish I could transplant the RE0 treble into the GR07, though. The GR07 also don't care about being amped, while the RE0 are a bit more fond of amping. 


 


Edited by Alondite - 12/2/12 at 10:47pm
post #806 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post



Awesome comparison. Agreed on just about all points, especially your take on the RE0's mids. It is such an important part of the sound, and is what initially made me place the RE0 above the GR07.

I wonder about the treble though, and Inks' statement that hifiman has some qc issues has me concerned. When analyzing iems to this degree a lack of qc can be a real problem.
post #807 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alondite View Post

Treble:

No contest here, the RE0 outright wipes the floor with GR07 where the high end is concerned.

This, this, and this. I agree with almost everything you wrote, but this part stands out the most to me. Sorry, GR07 fans, but when it comes to treble GR07 is average at best. RE0's treble is mind-boggling when you consider that these IEMs cost less than $90! To my ears, I still consider the RE0 the absolute value king for the thrifty on-the-go audiophile. I loved the RE0's midrange, although I sometimes felt its 800Hz-2kHz region was a bit too much. Being that I prefer flat bass, rather than a slightly emphasized bass, I thought the RE0's bass was still pretty good. A little bit more bass extension (approx 3dB in the 30-40Hz) and it would've been ideal.

 

ADD: Going from the RE0 to the SM3 was such a major disappointment. On the technical side, they're about equivalent. On the personal preference side, it was a steep downgrade, and $300 thrown out the window. Not sure why I didn't return the SM3. I guess I was hoping its sound would grow on me... it never did.


Edited by tigon_ridge - 12/3/12 at 5:48am
post #808 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigon_ridge View Post

This, this, and this. I agree with almost everything you wrote, but this part stands out the most to me. Sorry, GR07 fans, but when it comes to treble GR07 is average at best. RE0's treble is mind-boggling when you consider that these IEMs cost less than $90! To my ears, I still consider the RE0 the absolute value king for the thrifty on-the-go audiophile. I loved the RE0's midrange, although I sometimes felt its 800Hz-2kHz region was a bit too much. Being that I prefer flat bass, rather than a slightly emphasized bass, I thought the RE0's bass was still pretty good. A little bit more bass extension (approx 3dB in the 30-40Hz) and it would've been ideal.

 

ADD: Going from the RE0 to the SM3 was such a major disappointment. On the technical side, they're about equivalent. On the personal preference side, it was a steep downgrade, and $300 thrown out the window. Not sure why I didn't return the SM3. I guess I was hoping its sound would grow on me... it never did.

I agree that the the treble is the weakest part of the GR07's signature.  I really wish the later revisions they made fixed that, it would make the IEM pretty much perfect for me.

post #809 of 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBomb77766 View Post

I agree that the the treble is the weakest part of the GR07's signature.  I really wish the later revisions they made fixed that, it would make the IEM pretty much perfect for me.

Well, let's be fair. You can't have everything and have it still <$200. The GR07 is still a great value, and to improve its treble significantly while maintaining its current price would probably be revolutionary, a word I have never used (that should say a lot).

post #810 of 974

I just got the pair of Jays foam tips that I bought recently off shotgunshane.

 

The man is right! They're definitely the best sounding tips I've heard used on the GR07. I'm always a bit hesitant to use foam tips because they tend to muffle the overall sound.

 

Not this one. I'm noticing just about as much clarity vs the MH1C tips, and soundstage doesn't seem to have suffered.

 

The best part about these tips is that they seem to smooth out the frequency response by taming any resonant peaks that may be present.

 

I think I might invest in my own pack (or two) now, just so I'm covered for the foreseeable future.

 

Thanks to putente and sgs

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Vsonic GR07 MK2 - stunning new cable! | bio-cel tech IEM | now with review - see 2nd post