or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › KEF M500/M200 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KEF M500/M200 Impressions Thread - Page 31

post #451 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifimiami View Post

Not if you use it in your office.....I've tried out of the X3 directly and there is no comparison in SQ when connected to the Neco V4 portable amp.

That's fair. But for desktop listening with closed cans, I go with my TH -900s (they respond quite a bit more to my desktop rig). I use my m500s exclusively as portable on the go headphones. smily_headphones1.gif
post #452 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallaby1170 View Post
 

I prefer not to use a headphone amp for the M500 when listening to an iPhone 5 or MacBook Pro.  The FIFO E17 seem to slightly degrade the sound quality of the M500 instead of improve it.  The soundstage sounded wider and the instrument separation was more pronounced when I plugged the M500 directly into the iPhone 5 or the MacBook Pro.  Maybe using the Aux Input on the E17 was the reason why.  I wasn't able to use the USB with the iPhone 5 because of the lightning connection being incompatible.  

If you are using using the headphone jack on the iPhone 5 to connect to the E17 then it would sound bad because you are double amping.

 

With iOS7 you can connect the iPhone 5 to an external DAC with the Lightning to USB Camera adaptor. See here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/682222/ios7-iphone-and-apple-cck

post #453 of 1186
Man I i need to invest in either an x3 or a dx50 sometime...i think theres a pretty large issue with htc one driving these. It just seems really congested and closed in.
post #454 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darknet View Post

Man I i need to invest in either an x3 or a dx50 sometime...i think theres a pretty large issue with htc one driving these. It just seems really congested and closed in.

 

Yeah, if the M500 sounds congested, you really need to try it on another source. It indeed sounds like it's your HTC One that's the problem here. Because when I tested the M500 it sounded anything but congested and closed in.

post #455 of 1186

My M500's just showed up today -- they're great right out of the box. I've been wearing them for a few hours -- just listening to a mix of songs on my iPod Classic (latest version) - amped (FiiO E12/E17) and unamped -- I think amping makes things a little smoother, but I'm happy with what I'm hearing right out of the iPod.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing them after a few days burn-in -- the highs seem just a touch subdued...

post #456 of 1186
Listening to the kef m500 out of an iPad mini definitely has some major differences. Definitely none of the veiled, congested feelings I've had with the htc one. It does seem a tad bassy like this but it's probably because I've been using the q701 for so long that I've gotten used to its sound. Definitely a large Improvement from the mdr 1r I previously used as my main portable. Though the 1r might have been a bit smoother, the dynamat mod really makes the sony much better than the unmodded reviews would imply.

But I know what I'm saving up for this Christmas haha.
Edited by Darknet - 10/4/13 at 3:38pm
post #457 of 1186
Thread Starter 
For fun I just did an A/B between the R3 and the KEF M200 on the Colin James tune "Down in the Bottom"

The R3 has slightly more forward mids and ever so slightly more treble presence with slightly less bass presence and punch. If you want more neutrality the R3 is the more neutral of the 2 IEM's. If you want more bass impact then the KEF M200 is a better choice. Both IEM's offer similar levels of detail and refinement. This makes the R3 an excellent value considering it's quite a bit cheaper than the M200.

Comfort wise I think the R3 is also a winner. Build wise I prefer the strain reliefs and the angled jack of the R3 as well but the KEF M200 does have a lot of refinement and high end materials in their construction as well.

I will say though I like both IEM in regards to signature and can't say one is "better" than the other. They just offer slightly different signatures with similar levels of detail. But for those who are worried about the bass level of the KEF M200 or who own it and definitely find it has to much bass the R3 is an excellent alternative.
post #458 of 1186
What is a R3?
post #459 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by notraces View Post

What is a R3?

Brainwavz latest dual driver release.

post #460 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by notraces View Post

What is a R3?
 
Quote:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrypt View Post
 
  • Bowei006:  
  •  
  • Thanks for the detailed impressions of your cursory listen (to be followed by even more detailed impressions, apparently!). Very helpful.
  •  
  • I'm curious about the voicing of the R3s.  When you say the bass is "off set," it sounds as if you might be indicating either a delay, compensation for a delay, or an effect intended to create a wider soundstage. 

 

The fact you're even comparing these to the Tzar350 and LCD3 (unless you're just having fun underscoring the hilarious severity of the earlier distinction betweenrefined and unrefined) says rather good things about the R3s.  Here I was expecting comparisons to the RE-400 and (since Raz has mentioned them repeatedly) the TF-10s!

My review won't be that much more detailed in terms of explaining terms, but it will be layered and sectioned off with each sonic section about the length of what I wrote for that above.See my site for more reviews in the 'reviews' tab at the top

http://pandatechreview.com/index.html

 

The R3's uses dual dynamic drivers. First one is the 'acoustic' one, while the second one is for bass. Basically, they created a dynamic IEM that operates like a linear armature one. The vocals and highs are more 'near' to the person in terms of imaging and positioning, whilst the bass is almost like there is a subwoofer farther away from you that produces a muffled, but tight bass sound. Imagine two speakers right in front of you by a few feet and then a subwoofer about 2-3 feet behind it. You get the impact of the well controlled bass, but it isn't in your face. Not bad, it may take some who are used to the normal IEM's some getting used to it. I was like that for all of 30seconds before I did.

 

I used Tzar 350 and LCD-3 as a comparison for its mid and high range, its clarity there and neutrality. The Tzar 350's are purpose built UIEM's. They have close to no bass and are fit for a very set genre base whilst the R3 is a bit more genral(but still restricted) in its genres it works well with due to its addition of the bass driver.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post



Delta = slightly elevated mids and treble but grain is readily apparent. But they sound very good considering their price and they offer a an excellent option for anyone wanting to try something that is not bass heavy in the $20 price range.

S1 = a mild V shaped sound that does not sacrifice the midrange to achieve it's bass and treble levels. When I first got the S1 I wasn't that impressed with them but as time goes on I am starting like their signature a lot and am starting to think they offer an excellent FUN signature that also offers a good mix of detail. For the song I tested I actually liked the S1 the most.

R3 = most neutral sound with the most detail. This headphone is very smooth and clean. It's design is also the most unique necessitating the memory wire to help get a good fit. This IEM will always require a bit of fiddling to get a good seal that stays but if you can use them without having to take them out of ear all the time the comfort and smoothness mean they will never be a fatiguing IEM.

I do agree with this. It's the fine points of the R3 that I slightly disagree with. I personally heavilly prefer the S1 to all the IEM's here but that is for multi genre situations and when I want to enjoy music as a consumer and not as an audiophile. If its the later, the R3's are the best bet.

 

For $100-$120, the R3's have some of the most neutrality and detail WITHOUT harshness or freq imperfections that plague many IEM's at its tier. Compare the neutrality and detail of these to say reference headphones and some things can be noted in the clarity and detail departement.

 

 

 

 

post #461 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

For fun I just did an A/B between the R3 and the KEF M200 on the Colin James tune "Down in the Bottom"

The R3 has slightly more forward mids and ever so slightly more treble presence with slightly less bass presence and punch. If you want more neutrality the R3 is the more neutral of the 2 IEM's. If you want more bass impact then the KEF M200 is a better choice. Both IEM's offer similar levels of detail and refinement. This makes the R3 an excellent value considering it's quite a bit cheaper than the M200.

Comfort wise I think the R3 is also a winner. Build wise I prefer the strain reliefs and the angled jack of the R3 as well but the KEF M200 does have a lot of refinement and high end materials in their construction as well.

I will say though I like both IEM in regards to signature and can't say one is "better" than the other. They just offer slightly different signatures with similar levels of detail. But for those who are worried about the bass level of the KEF M200 or who own it and definitely find it has to much bass the R3 is an excellent alternative.

 


have you heard the hifiman re-400's before? just curious because i'm going through a little upgraditis right now and looking for something new to try out. went from the vsonic gr07 mk1's to the hifiman's (also have bought the vsonic vc02's and sony mh1c's between). just wondering if you could do a comparison of the re-400's to the kef m200's and the brainwavz r3's. i like the re-400's a lot because i listen to a lot of different genres and they work well across the board, but sometimes i feel they lack a little in dynamics.

 

 

post #462 of 1186
Thread Starter 
sorry I have not heard that particular IEM so can't help...
post #463 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

sorry I have not heard that particular IEM so can't help...

 

have you heard the gr07's?

post #464 of 1186
Thread Starter 
I owned the original GR07 and tried the MK2 as well but it has been a while since I heard either one. The bass of the M200 would be more like them than the R3 from memory. I think both of these IEM's are brighter sounding with the R3 being the brightest. Neither of these phone achieves the unique presentation of cymbals you get from the GR07 MK1.

I enjoy both M200 and R3 but have to say they both require a bit louder volume than I like to use to achieve their dynamic full potential.
post #465 of 1186

How does the m500 compared to the beyer DT1350?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › KEF M500/M200 Impressions Thread