Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › XBA-3/ XBA-30..The Appreciation thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

XBA-3/ XBA-30..The Appreciation thread. - Page 70

post #1036 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandasaputra View Post
 

How does the t-peos and the philips sound?:blink: or is it because they don't fit to your ear?

They both fit fine. The T-PEOS has a little bit of driver flex, but not too bad for a bullet shaped IEM. The S2's fit good with the stock foam olives that are included. The rest of the tips are pretty much useless because you have to have an airtight seal for them to sound high end. 

post #1037 of 1167

finally have a pair of xba30, and first impression is that the treble has improved... It may have taken away from its wow factor though

post #1038 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyostrow View Post
 

finally have a pair of xba30, and first impression is that the treble has improved... It may have taken away from its wow factor though

The T-PEOS are better for transparency, bass, and more natural timbre in the treble. The treble of the XBA-30's is so tinny and metallic, but they have that fun factor for listening for long periods. 

post #1039 of 1167
I have xba-30 sound more bassy more voluminous and treble not sawing brains, any kind of music to listen very nicely. xba-3 have more treble and bodily.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEMagnet01 View Post
 

The T-PEOS are better for transparency, bass, and more natural timbre in the treble.

 

Is it H-100 or H-200?

post #1040 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimer View Post
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEMagnet01 View Post
 

The T-PEOS are better for transparency, bass, and more natural timbre in the treble.

 

Is it H-100 or H-200?

H-100. never heard the 200, but with the 200 being a dual TWFK driver, i imagine that the mids and highs are that much more clear and transparent. 

post #1041 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMagnet01 View Post
 

H-100. never heard the 200, but with the 200 being a dual TWFK driver, i imagine that the mids and highs are that much more clear and transparent. 

I listened to H-100 and to my ears it's terrible. bad tuned drivers I heard the joint between BA and dynamic driver. They have disappointed me. I want to hear H-200 say they are good.


Edited by stimer - 12/10/13 at 6:19pm
post #1042 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimer View Post
 

I listened to H-100 and to my ears it's terrible. bad tuned drivers I heard the joint between BA and dynamic driver. They have disappointed me. I want to hear H-200 say they are good.

To be honest, that's what i thought at first. See my early impressions, but after a day of sitting and experimenting with EQ, I boosted the mids nicely to match the "joint", and slightly dropped the highs, and left the low end alone, and I got this really nice clear, transparent, and exciting IEM. Similar in sound signature to the TF 10. 

post #1043 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMagnet01 View Post
 

To be honest, that's what i thought at first. See my early impressions, but after a day of sitting and experimenting with EQ, I boosted the mids nicely to match the "joint", and slightly dropped the highs, and left the low end alone, and I got this really nice clear, transparent, and exciting IEM. Similar in sound signature to the TF 10. 

You're right, they deserve attention but very specific. From what I've heard xba-30 for me it's next level, further earsonic sm64.

post #1044 of 1167

h100 have alot of potential with EQing. xba30 are a great pair no doubt, but sm64 good? i wouldnt know of such things

post #1045 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyostrow View Post
 

h100 have alot of potential with EQing. xba30 are a great pair no doubt, but sm64 good? i wouldnt know of such things

I liked frequency response earsonic sm64 but they are hard to get to listen, do you think they are bad?

post #1046 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimer View Post
 

I liked frequency response earsonic sm64 but they are hard to get to listen, do you think they are bad?

i thought the Brainwavz Delta's were hard to listen to

post #1047 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMagnet01 View Post
 

i thought the Brainwavz Delta's were hard to listen to

Brainwavz Delta hahaha good joke.

post #1048 of 1167

One thing I noticed with the Vsonic VSD1S is that you cannot EQ it much at all. It's got to be flat, with the slightest bass and treble boost, or it will distort or become colored in a negative way. Especially on the Sansa. Just the opposite of the XBA-30.

post #1049 of 1167

I noticed that sansa weak source need an amplifier or expensive player ibasso DX50 or something like that.

 

My:

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 75

post #1050 of 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimer View Post

I liked frequency response earsonic sm64 but they are hard to get to listen, do you think they are bad?
the sm63? I have no idea, but I would assume they are pretty good
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › XBA-3/ XBA-30..The Appreciation thread.