Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Review of Audio Technica ATH-IM01, ATH-IM02, ATH-IM03, ATH-IM04, ATH-IM50, & ATH-IM70
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review of Audio Technica ATH-IM01, ATH-IM02, ATH-IM03, ATH-IM04, ATH-IM50, & ATH-IM70 - Page 49

post #721 of 2985
how does 50 and 70 compare to turbine pro gold and copper. especially bass, thanks
post #722 of 2985
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by radqb View Post

Yesterday I tried the JVC Spiral Dots to my ATH-IM03. The sound really good! In my opinion, the treble was smoother than Sony Hybrid eartips.

Great! I Should try larger bore tips with IM50, maybe can add some clarity.
post #723 of 2985
I have been using my IM50s for 2 weeks with my C3 & BH combo during my commute to work and must say it does not disappoint considering the price. The bass rumble goes deep and separation is good but the vocals is what surprised me the most and pleasantly at that.

Unfortunately I got some fit issues, I need to fiddle it around a bit for the housing to sit properly on my ear. I am using the foamies that comes with it. I slightly prefer the IM50s presentation than my FXT90 but the latter has better fit for me.

Btw, I auditioned both IM50 & IM70 and in those few minutes I preferred the IM70 but the fit is really bad on my ear so I compromised and got the IM50 because I can get a good seal on it (with some effort) and cannot seem to get a good fit with the IM70s.

Now to read up on those tip rolling advise. Cheers!
post #724 of 2985
I don't understand how you could get a good seal with the IM50 but you couldn't with the IM70 as the housings are the same size?
post #725 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Simpson View Post

I don't understand how you could get a good seal with the IM50 but you couldn't with the IM70 as the housings are the same size?

Not really, the IM70 housing is slightly deeper than the IM50, though the shape is relatively same. this added bulk makes the IM70 difficult to sit in my ear, it feels like it will drop out. 

 

As I said, I did tried both of them and A-B ed both for 30mins tops at the local headphone shop and at the end of the day found that I can get the IM50 fit my ear (with a bit of trial and error) than the IM70.

 

But then again it is my ear shape/size causing this fit issues so I think people with bigger ears or the appropriate ear shape will not encounter this issues then definitely go for either of this great value iems from ATH.

post #726 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taveren View Post

Not really, the IM70 housing is slightly deeper than the IM50, though the shape is relatively same. this added bulk makes the IM70 difficult to sit in my ear, it feels like it will drop out. 

As I said, I did tried both of them and A-B ed both for 30mins tops at the local headphone shop and at the end of the day found that I can get the IM50 fit my ear (with a bit of trial and error) than the IM70.

But then again it is my ear shape/size causing this fit issues so I think people with bigger ears or the appropriate ear shape will not encounter this issues then definitely go for either of this great value iems from ATH.
The tip mod definitely does help to achieve a good isolation and fitting.
post #727 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaddictionx View Post


The tip mod definitely does help to achieve a good isolation and fitting.

Thanks bro, I will be looking into it and hoping it works on me unwashed ears.  :wink_face:

post #728 of 2985

Looks like Golden ears just did a measurement on the IM-02s!

 

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Earphones&document_srl=49122

 

I am a bit confused reading the bar graph at the bottom under reviewer's opinion though. When the IM02s were mentioned being compared to the etymotics, I had assumed the transparency/coloration to be greater than 0 but it's only at 0!

 

I have the UE900 and when I read the measurement for it, I thought the veil in the mids I was hearing was relevant to the transparency/coloration rating! (it was rated 0)

 

Anyone able to give their opinion on their clarity of im03s as I am about to order again but still trying to read a bit more before i order? Would be helpful for it to be compared to the UE900s!

 

Thanks


Edited by sibilantz - 6/22/14 at 9:04pm
post #729 of 2985
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibilantz View Post
 

Looks like Golden ears just did a measurement on the IM-02s!

 

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Earphones&document_srl=49122

 

I am a bit confused reading the bar graph at the bottom under reviewer's opinion though. When the IM02s were mentioned being compared to the etymotics, I had assumed the transparency/coloration to be greater than 0 but it's only at 0!

 

I have the UE900 and when I read the measurement for it, I thought the veil in the mids I was hearing was relevant to the transparency/coloration rating! (it was rated 0)

 

Anyone able to give their opinion on their clarity of im03s as I am about to order again but still trying to read a bit more before i order? Would be helpful for it to be compared to the UE900s!

 

Thanks

 

Thanks for the link! Interesting!

IM02 frequency response varied greatly with the players output impedance. I think we can assume the amp used for the measurement has very low output impedance.

 

IM03 sounds clear to me, no veil at all, although IM02 sounds a tad clearer.  IM04 when compared to IM03, might sounds a tad veiled.

post #730 of 2985

Can someone do a comparison between the TDK BA200 or FAD Heaven V and the IM02? They are all around the same price range and pretty difficult to choose. 

post #731 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by earfonia View Post
 

 

Thanks for the link! Interesting!

IM02 frequency response varied greatly with the players output impedance. I think we can assume the amp used for the measurement has very low output impedance.

 

IM03 sounds clear to me, no veil at all, although IM02 sounds a tad clearer.  IM04 when compared to IM03, might sounds a tad veiled.


That is the same impression I got.  IM02 is a bit more clear/analytical, while IM03 a bit warmer but in no way it was veiled (low frequency well controlled and occupy their space without spilling into lower mids, and upper mids had a lot of clarity/details - great rendering of vocals).

post #732 of 2985

wrong thread.

post #733 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister6 View Post

while IM03 a bit warmer but in no way it was veiled

Quote:
Originally Posted by earfonia View Post

IM03 sounds clear to me, no veil at all, although IM02 sounds a tad clearer.  IM04 when compared to IM03, might sounds a tad veiled.

Great, thank you!

 

Im04 sounding a bit like the UE900s lol .. Also I had been enquiring with ATH and for some odd reason Australian dealers are only getting IM01, 2 and 4.. and the IM50/70s

All except the IM03, which is the only one I am considering! I'll use a forwarder anyway but still it's a bit odd haha

post #734 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibilantz View Post
 

Looks like Golden ears just did a measurement on the IM-02s!

 

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Earphones&document_srl=49122

 

I am a bit confused reading the bar graph at the bottom under reviewer's opinion though. When the IM02s were mentioned being compared to the etymotics, I had assumed the transparency/coloration to be greater than 0 but it's only at 0!

 

 

Wow, serious phase lead/lag on the IM-02's.

Anyone who has IM-02 find it distracting?

post #735 of 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnjy View Post
 

 

Wow, serious phase lead/lag on the IM-02's.

Anyone who has IM-02 find it distracting?

Honestly, I cant really say if the phase lead/lag has any effect on the IM02's sound. I dont think it is detectable to an average listener. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Review of Audio Technica ATH-IM01, ATH-IM02, ATH-IM03, ATH-IM04, ATH-IM50, & ATH-IM70