Latest Thread Images

Screenshot_2023-08-17-19-04-33-96_1ca21e2ee732f9da83c601a5800f37c7.jpg
Editor_qRDZqp47YF.png
WnhhSaOgDC.png
6Tq8VMAqLz.png
Editor_OmSvdUPWeH.png
3D6158F8-BFF3-48BB-8C98-FA7AC16F21C6.jpeg
851EEE1E-BE53-42B9-AE1E-D7B81B966B56.jpeg EC3ED340-E1C9-4DC6-B4B0-902FD964203A.jpeg PXL_20221123_123353685.jpg Editor_FnkPP2T5yP.png Editor_NIVeDZlHbW.png 1658527734992.png eq apo.png wavelet.jpg
See full thread gallery...
Audeze iSINE 10 & iSINE 20: Audeze releases two new IEM planar magnetic earphones
Sep 24, 2016 at 10:26 PM Post #439 of 7,352
So the iSine 20 WAS there but I didn't get a chance to hear them.

At the $399 price point, the 10 surpised me quite a bit. From what others at the event said, the 20 has a warker sound.

To me the biggest surprise by far was how expansive the soundstage was. I typically don't like in-ears because of how closed in and congested they are. Maybe it was because of the open-back design, maybe the planar magnetic design, but it was pretty amazing to hear. The instrument separation and imaging were a bit blurred compared to what I'm used to hearing in an earphone though.

In terms of the frequency response, the 10 was just a bit bass-shy to me, but very linear through the lower-mids. The bass was some good stuff though, very clean and dynamic with decent slam (nothing like an LCD headphone though).

The mids were a bit forward, so they had a nice presence, both upper and lower mids. Towards the high-mids, it was sibilant to me though.

And transitioning to the treble, it was smooth overall albeit a bit grainy. Either it was the upper-mids or a peak in the lower-treble but the timbre of the upper registers seemed a bit off to me, sounding a bit steely.

So overall I was really pleasantly impressed with the 10 with a few nitpicks (the biggest one being the odd timbre for the upper-mid/treble area). For music that involves bass notes, the lower-mids like male singers or lower notes of guitars/pianos/etc., recordings in large venues or epic soundtracks, I really, really, really enjoyed the 10. Epic soundtrack music and orchestral works sounded amazing as a whole with the 10's expansive sound for an in-ear. For some female vocals/upper-midrange sounds, it can sound a bit sibilant; and some upper-frequency instruments had an odd timbre to them.


I'll post some photos and video a little later.
 
Sep 24, 2016 at 11:05 PM Post #440 of 7,352
^stock silicone tips? foams?
 
Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM Post #442 of 7,352
Yes I know...
it had tips but no idea what was tried, all I was curious about.
( could they try their own, what was supplied etc )
 
Sep 24, 2016 at 11:46 PM Post #443 of 7,352
I thought they would have a real product by now to show. I guess it would still be a proto at RMAF. I don't understand why they keep showing a prototype that may sound different from the finished one. That graininess was noticed before by another person but was brushed aside by the Audeze person here. So its real.
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 1:01 AM Post #444 of 7,352
miceblue said:
In terms of the frequency response, the 10 was just a bit bass-shy to me, but very linear through the lower-mids. The bass was some good stuff though, very clean and dynamic with decent slam (nothing like an LCD headphone though).
 
Click to expand...

Well that's all i needed to hear, unsubscribed.
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 1:17 AM Post #445 of 7,352
I guessed the 10 would be the bass heavier character signature one for the 'masses' and the 20 the flat-liner more purist tuning. That's a surprise.
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 2:06 AM Post #446 of 7,352
I was able to audition the IEMs. A few points come to mind:
  • For open back IEMs the isolation works well. However this wouldn't be a great choice for a very loud environment. And with music playing, the isolation is enough that you , as the user, won't notice all but the loudest of noises.
  • The most notable difference between the i10 and the i20 is CLAIRITY. Both have the same characteristics, but the i20 sounds more clear, crisp and refined vs the i10. While everything sounds good with it, the i20 really shines with vocals and precision instruments. If you listen to a lot of jazz or music that has subtle details you'll really enjoy the i20 more than the i10.
  • No sound leakage, at least not any more than a regular IEM.
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 AM Post #448 of 7,352
No surprise given the price difference that 20 would perform better in purist reproduction.
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 4:13 AM Post #449 of 7,352
miceblue said:
So the iSine 20 WAS there but I didn't get a chance to hear them.

At the $399 price point, the 10 surpised me quite a bit. From what others at the event said, the 20 has a warker sound.

To me the biggest surprise by far was how expansive the soundstage was. I typically don't like in-ears because of how closed in and congested they are. Maybe it was because of the open-back design, maybe the planar magnetic design, but it was pretty amazing to hear. The instrument separation and imaging were a bit blurred compared to what I'm used to hearing in an earphone though.

In terms of the frequency response, the 10 was just a bit bass-shy to me, but very linear through the lower-mids. The bass was some good stuff though, very clean and dynamic with decent slam (nothing like an LCD headphone though).

The mids were a bit forward, so they had a nice presence, both upper and lower mids. Towards the high-mids, it was sibilant to me though.

And transitioning to the treble, it was smooth overall albeit a bit grainy. Either it was the upper-mids or a peak in the lower-treble but the timbre of the upper registers seemed a bit off to me, sounding a bit steely.

So overall I was really pleasantly impressed with the 10 with a few nitpicks (the biggest one being the odd timbre for the upper-mid/treble area). For music that involves bass notes, the lower-mids like male singers or lower notes of guitars/pianos/etc., recordings in large venues or epic soundtracks, I really, really, really enjoyed the 10. Epic soundtrack music and orchestral works sounded amazing as a whole with the 10's expansive sound for an in-ear. For some female vocals/upper-midrange sounds, it can sound a bit sibilant; and some upper-frequency instruments had an odd timbre to them.


I'll post some photos and video a little later.
Click to expand...

i am a bit confused, first you say its bass shy then you say the bass was good stuff
 
then you mention then you say the high mids are sibliant which is to me in my books something I would not go close to, but then you say the treble is smooth
 
I am now confused what you heard
 
Sep 25, 2016 at 4:30 AM Post #450 of 7,352
^ Seems clear to me. Bass quantity is light but quality good. High mids are sibilant but the highs (treble) - which sit above high mids - are good. Informative, detailed first impression I thought. Obviously your mileage isn't the same, which is fine of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top