[maik]

thanks for the awesome review, I will be picking one of your recommendations for my next purchase

 

[estreeter]

Sensational effort - I get tired simply reading the comparisons : imagine how exhausting it would have been to put them together ! 
 
I came to this thread with my heart set on the RE262, but you've pushed me toward the RE-ZERO : it never ends. Anyway, thanks for this incredible contribution to Head-Fi.

 

[Mad Max]

ZERO is a good choice.
I sold mine off though, lol.
I wanted to try HD25 and felt ZERO's sound is a unique collection of qualities similarly exhibited by MTPC, TF10, and RE252, just slightly lesser.

 

[kkl10]

mvw2?! Where are you?
 
Please help me on this subject:
 
I'm searching for the most transparent and natural sounding IEMs, within a budget of 200USD, that serves me as an upgrade from the RE0.
 
I have some particular questions to you:
 
How would you compare the sonic performance between the Yuin OK1 and the RE-Zero/RE0?
How do you compare their bass performance?
Which one responds better to equalization, or do they respond equally well?
Is the OK1 able to match the RE-262 dynamic range performance?
Did you find any major flaw on OK1's sound besides it's lack of sub-bass?
Do you find that the CK10, DBA-02 and OK1 have similar sound signatures? Which one do you like the most?
 
I know that you have ljokerl's Vsonic GR07, by the way...
How do you find that it compares to the OK1? Is it able to match the OK1 or RE-252 transparency, realism or sonic resolution?
Does the GR07 respond well to parametric equalization?
 
Thank you!

 

[Redwing24]

excellent write up, thank you for spending the time and money on doing so.

 

[mvw2]

Quote:

mvw2?! Where are you?
 
Please help me on this subject:
 
I'm searching for the most transparent and natural sounding IEMs, within a budget of 200USD, that serves me as an upgrade from the RE0.
 
I have some particular questions to you:
 
How would you compare the sonic performance between the Yuin OK1 and the RE-Zero/RE0?
How do you compare their bass performance?
Which one responds better to equalization, or do they respond equally well?
Is the OK1 able to match the RE-262 dynamic range performance?
Did you find any major flaw on OK1's sound besides it's lack of sub-bass?
Do you find that the CK10, DBA-02 and OK1 have similar sound signatures? Which one do you like the most?
 
I know that you have ljokerl's Vsonic GR07, by the way...
How do you find that it compares to the OK1? Is it able to match the OK1 or RE-252 transparency, realism or sonic resolution?
Does the GR07 respond well to parametric equalization?
 
Thank you!

Well, if you can pay $200, you can probably pay $250 or $300.  This basically allows you to buy pretty much anything out there as long as you don't mind buying used.  This pretty much means just about everything out there is an option.
 
The OK1, RE0, and RE-Zero are all a bit different from each other.
 
The RE0 tries to do everything and in so struggles at the extremes.  You hear high highs and low lows, but the quality of the information isn't 100%.  The overall signature is slightly dark, edgy, and well detailed.  It's textured but not all that articulate.  It's not very dynamic which does help it show out more of the quiet stuff.  I was not a personal fan of this earphone.  I owned it for two weeks right when it came out and sold it.  I had a slew of cheaper and crappier earphones that I would prefer to own, and that's kind of bad.  This isn't to say the RE0 isn't good.  It is a decent jack of all trades sort of earphone, not doing anything terrible wrong.  In that, it has its strength and user following.  Personally, the lack of dynamics, dark signature, need for more amperage than I could provide at the time, and limited quality of sound at the extremes made me let it go.
 
Next comes the RE-Zero.  It, in my eyes, fixes many of the issues of the RE0.  It's more neutral, more dynamic, doesn't try so hard, doesn't need wattage to not sound weak and tiny, and it's still quite well detailed and revealing.  I personally feel it's a better incarnation.  Well, it's not trying to be a better RE0.  It simply is better as itself.  The presentation is natural, playful, a little forward (limited dynamics but more than the RE0), and at the price point is rather good.  It doesn't try to produce a 30Hz tone.  It doesn't try to pierce 15kHz through the air, but what it does do, it does naturally and well.
 
The OK1 was my replacement to the RE0 back when I traded it in.  The OK1 arrived, and I was blown away.  Around this time I also got the ER4S and PFE as other things to try out.  The OK1 is extremely textured, very fast, aggressively energetic, but dynamics are a bit constrained, and it does need amperage to drive well, had me go and buy a Meier 2Move amp in fact.  The OK1 is bright.  Really it can be a lot of things.  It's a bud, so it depends on ear shape and such.  Normally, it's bright.  Bass is light but aggressive.  The amount of texture and details is significant.  It pretty much takes something like the CK10 to beat it.  It also has a very realistic sound which can be hard to come by.  Shortcomings?  Sure.  The thing benefits from EQing if you've got it.  The driver is a little tight limiting dynamic breadth and along with the aggressive presentation does make it a little forward and a bit in-head in terms of sound stage.  The lack of dynamics is the biggest shortcoming, but that isn't uncommon with a lot of analytical earphones.  Many tend to be highly controlled to ensure clarity.  The RE0 is like this, the RE-Zero is like this, the RE252 is like this, and so is the OK1.
 
Not much matches the dynamics of the RE262.  We are talking an effortless amount.  To give you an idea of what competes with the RE262: PFE, SE530, and C700.  That's basically it.  These are the only other products I've used that sound limitless in breadth.
 
The CK10, DBA-02, and OK1 do some things similarly.  All are very fast, detailed, but the DBA-02 doesn't have the texturing.  I view the DBA-02 as much like the RE0.  It has a strong leading edge to the note but that's it.  It lacks the fullness and texturing that should be there.  It's one thing I didn't like about the RE0 and the DBA-02 as well.  The CK10 and OK1 have texture and in turn flesh out reality better.  I do feel the CK10 is the most "correct" earphone I've used.  It sounds very realistic, is well balanced short a strong, narrow peak at 10kHz, has excellent detail, texturing, and dynamics.  It does a lot of things right.  As far as this making it my favorite, not quite.  I did prefer the RE252 personally over the CK10.  The CK10 isn't a very engaging earphone as odd as that may sound.  It's more of a passive listening experience.  Frankly I still really like the OK1, but I see it as a needy product.  It benefits from amping and benefits from EQing, and if you have neither, you aren't getting as good a sound as you could.
 
The GR07 is a lot like the RE252.  In terms of what I've used to date, the GR07 and RE252 are most similar in terms of what they try to do.  They are both very well balanced earphones, trying to present sound evenly across the spectrum.  They do approach the task differently though.  The RE252 is very stark and aggressive.  The GR07 is a little more laid back, smoother.  The RE252 is more detailed overall, trying to present every little detail.  The GR07 doesn't really attempt that.  This isn't to say the GR07 lacks detail and speed, but it certainly isn't trying to be absolute about it like the RE252.  The GR07 is a better choice for someone who is looking for the same level of balance but in a little more easy going format.  Mind you the GR07 is still energetic, dynamic, and not particularly a laid back, smoothed out earphone.  It's just not to the extreme of the RE252.

 

[mvw2]

Quote:

excellent write up, thank you for spending the time and money on doing so.

Time is taken, yes, but money is temporary.  Most of what I've done over the last few years is try to find products I'm most happy with.  I've purchased thousands of dollars of equipment, not all at once mind you, but I also sell back what I don't keep.  The investment is temporary, basically cash => liquid assets => cash.  It's a method I've repeated several times to allow me the luxury of owning many expensive products without really losing out in the end.  The only problem is I always have to let them go.  In the end, my goal is to simply own the one product that fits me best.  At this time, that's been the e-Q7.  For what I seek at least, it offers the most of the key details at the correct proportions for my taste.

 

[kkl10]

mvw2, do you find the OK1 to have a very irregular FR or is it relativelly flat but umbalanced towards bright?
Is the graph on the first page an accurate representation of it's FR or is it just an aproximation that neglects minor details?
After EQed do you find the OK1 to sound even more realistic and transparent sound, without any distortion on bass?
 
Assuming that both are EQed to flat and well amped, RE252 - OK1:
Which one does sound the more transparent and more realistic to you?
And if you can answer to this which one is technically more proficient?
And which one suffers less from dynamic compression (lack of dynamic breath) at higher volumes?
 
Since the OK1 is an earbud (do you actually wear it like that?) doesn't it sound more spacious and airy or spatially coherent than most IEMs?
Your description of it as "The driver is a little tight limiting dynamic breadth and along with the aggressive presentation does make it a little forward and a bit in-head in terms of sound stage." puzzles me a bit...
 
My RE0 right channel just died, that why I'm looking for a new IEM...
Do you find the RE-252 or OK1 a clear step up in overall sound quality compared to the RE-Zero or do you find the improvements minimal? Just to be sure...
 
I do have amp and I'm a proponent of parametric equalization.
Sorry for so many questions, I just turned into analysis paralysis mode...
 
Will try to not make anymore questions, I promess.
 
Thank you!

 

 

[mvw2]

Well the OK1 as a bud is sensitive to ear shape and placement.  This means it will sound a little different from person to person.  As it gets closer and closer to a "seal" bass raises up.  However, the IEM format of the earphone is way too bass strong.  I am sure there is a certain person out there that the OK1 would end up sounding pretty balanced.  For most, it will simply be bright.
 
The frequency response is simply me running a pink noise track and EQing with some software that basically lets me make whatever EQ shape I want.  I typically stick to around 10 bands as a basic guide, although I can add more points and shape the curves better if needed.  The EQ graph I get is an inverse of what I add/remove using the software, and the graph represents what I personally hear as flat (equal intensity across frequencies) for that earphone.  Pink noise is just noise and is set in a way to output equal intensity across the entire audio spectrum.  White noise is another option and is equal volume of all frequencies, although high frequency intensity ramps up.  I've used both and like pink noise.  I've used it a lot and EQed with it a lot.  I will say that my results are my own, specific to me and my ears.  It really isn't an exact science.  I will be the first to tell you that human hearing is not static.  I can wait a month, EQ again, and end up with a different result.  Hearing doesn't exactly stay static, and it does vary some based on what is "normal" for it.  It's the kind of thing where someone has a car stereo with a big sub in the back, and they want to buy earphones and pretty much require a high amount of bass just to have it sound "normal."  Someone can also use very bright earphones for a while and get accustomed to them and find an even slightly bass heavy earphone quite strong in bass.  The same goes for mids, highs, whatever.  It's all based on what you're used to and expect.  I've often liked pink noise because it's neutral.  It's just broad spectrum noise and tends to kind of reset your balance.  It just takes time though.  Having never used it or rarely using it, you could sit there for an hour just fiddling with the EQing before you start getting good results.  It's mental exercise, training so to speak.  This also why I've often liked to have a wide selection of earphones on hand during reviews to actually provide me a reasonable spectrum of products and sound signatures.  This helps you not get used to just one and settle into that as your "normal."  In the end, the EQing and the resulting frequency response graph I get is simply an interpretation of what I hear.  It is not exact.  It likely isn't correct.  However, it's what I hear at that time, with those products, at that volume level.  I have often gotten somewhat close to tested specs or at least picked up on the main shape.  Sometimes I end up way off but can't tell you why.  Sometimes I can EQ the same earphone again months later and end up very close to what I EQed before within a dB or two across the spectrum.  Sometimes I'm way off from what I got before.  At worse, the frequency response graphs are simply a comparison of these specifically reviewed products.  They were all EQed at the same time, so my perception between them is equal.  The shape may not be exact, but it is a rough representation of the differences between them.  Also, as I said before frequency response is only one part of the equation.  Something as simply as decay time will have influence of the tonality and presence of the earphone.  You can take a bass light earphone but give the note a lot of decay and end up with a warm, bassy sounding earphone simply because the low frequencies are so full in presence and not specifically because the volume level is louder.  One thing I do use is the difference in perceived tone and the frequency response I get to indicate how heavily presented an earphone is.  You will often find the earphones with a more natural amount of decay will be more in sync with what the frequency response shows.  An earphone with a very short decay time will sound lean and bright regardless of having a flat and extended low end.  An earphone with a lot of decay time will sound warm and bassy even if the low end sensitivity rolls off some.  A good example from above is the Custom 3.  Its signature is overall bassy in presence, but the sensitivity isn't doing it.  It's the thick note that's doing it.  It's also specifically why Klipsch bumped up high frequency sensitivity some in order to compete against that thicker note.  It actually sounds more even unEQed and technically "bring" simply because that sensitivity bump up top is needed to match the note thickness and presence on the low end.
 
RE252 to OK1, the OK1 is more energetic, more textured, faster, more detailed.  It is also more laid back and non-fatiguing.  The RE252 is more stark, more absolute.  Frankly they both suffer from compressed dynamics and for a similar reason, being heavily damped.  The OK1 just ends up a little better because it's more energetic, more powerful.  the RE252 on the other hands doesn't need the amperage nor the EQing to be as good as it could be.  The OK1 has dependencies.  On sound alone, I personally prefer the OK1 over the RE252.  Volume isn't an issue for either.  Volume is an issue when the drivers lack linear travel.  Then you can get dynamic compression and increased distortion.  I'm not calling the RE252 or OK1 dynamically compressed but rather dynamically limited.  The range simply isn't there in the first place, and this is often an indicator that the driver is heavily damped.  High damping isn't bad unless you also pair it to a weak motor.  Paired to a strong motor, the presentation is strongly driven by the motor (electrical damping >> mechanical damping), but it is also well controlled when the motor isn't being a strong driving force (not overly loose or sloppy).  For this, I tend to like earphones that start off with a strong motor.  This kind of setup is powerful, authoritative, more exact.
 
As far as sound stage, in-head is in-head.  What I mean by this is you hear a sound, and you can spatially put that in a place.  That place will not be outside of your head.  For the OK1 and most dynamically limited earphones you will find that they will do two things.  First, they are often a little forward due to the smaller dynamic range.  Everything just gets compressed together and presented louder.  What's loud and close is close.  What's quiet and far is louder and closer.  Everything's pulled forward in the sound stage, and the presentation is more up front, aggressive, forward.  The second aspect is dynamic range defines distance.  Loud to quiet represents distance when it comes to sound.  If you reduce the dynamic range, you reduce what the earphone can replicate for distancing.  If it can't do quiet, it can't do far.  The sound stage shrinks and everything is pulled forward.  Dynamically limited earphones tend to be more in-head where a lot of the sounds perceived have much less distance to them.  You will find that as long as an earphone is good about quiet stuff to a reasonable extent (subtlety), there is at least still a hint of endless depth.  The RE252 is good about this.  The OK1 is good about this.  On the whole, neither are big in sound stage size, but both have the perception that the depth is there but simply a much more feint sense of it rather than absolute placement within that distance like the e-Q7 or UM3X does for example.  Something like the RE262 sounds big and spacious simply because it does have a huge dynamic range.  It can actually represent that depth.  The only shortcoming for the RE262 is the lack of a thick note which means texturing and decay is short enough not to convey some reverb/echo information that is also used as an indication tool for size and spacing.  Texturing is something that allows an earphone to present the in-between sounds, the noises, echos, etc. of the room or space to provide placement and distancing cues.  We hear a guy talk in a room, and we only know where that guy is due to the echoes from the room telling us where he is placed.  This information is in the mix of sound, delayed, so we need good note decay and detailed texturing of that information to hear those subtle cues and flesh out the space.  Earphones like the OK1 and RE252 fair well in this regard offering reasonable note thickness and detailed texturing.  The RE262 lacks the decay length and ends up losing a bit of this.  This is also why the UM3X is extremely good about sound stage.  It has both the dynamic range and the decay and texturing to present that information clearly.  In essence, if you want a good sound stage you are looking for good dynamics, good note thickness, and good texturing and speed of detail to convey all the little bits well.  If you have everything, the earphones fleshes out the sound really well.  There can be a big, spacious sound stage, and you will often find that the earphone can sound pretty realistic as well, although you might need to do some EQing to get the tonality right.
 
I was not a fan of the RE0.  I felt the RE-Zero fixed a lot of the major "problems" I heard with the RE0.  It's more natural and dynamic and doesn't need an amp.  The RE-Zero will sound a bit different from the RE0 though, but I feel it's a better product.  The step from the RE-Zero to something like the RE252, RE262, OK1, or other high end products is a noticeable step up.  At the same time, the RE-Zero is good in that it simply does a lot of things right, so it's worth a look in its own right.  At the same price point, there's also products like the Sunrise Xcape that also compete and offer excellent sound quality at that budget price level.  The problem with high end is that you are buying a specific product for the specific traits you seek.  It means you're spending the cash to not only get better but also to get a specific sound signature.  In this lies the challenge of finding the correct sound signature.  It is part of why I've used several does high end earphones in my few years in the head-fi hobby.  It's also why I settled well on the e-Q7 as what fit my goals and preferences most closely.  Why buy the OK1 specifically?  Why buy the RE252 specifically?   What about other options like the GR07?  In the end, that is the challenge.  Frankly, I don't know what's better for you.  I can simply say that a lot of these products are very good, but they each offer different things.  You stop looking at what's better and start looking at what's more fitting.  I can't specifically suggest the RE252 or OK1 to you as a better option.  I don't really know exactly what you like and specifically what you seek from these products.  Either will impress you but will do so in different ways.  But same goes for the RE262, UM3X, CK10, and a pile of other earphones.  They're all really good, but they're really good in different ways.  For example, why have you asked nothing about the CK10?  I've demoed Joker's pair a while back, even wrote a review for it.  I feel it's technically one of the most "correct" sounding earphones on the market, very good in its own right, but it's not in this conversation.  Why isnt it?  Why aren't 20 other high end options?
 
The best I can say is you know what you're seeking.  Read all the reviews you can on the available products and get a good idea of what they offer.  There isn't much else I can tell you here that I haven't already written, so the information is already there.  The information is there for all the other products you might be interested in.  In the end you simply pick something based on an educated guess.  Maybe you'll like it.  Maybe you won't.  In the end you at least tried the product and know what it offers.  From there you can move on to something different.  I suggest buying used simply to keep costs down, so you can buy and sell with minimal to no loss of investment.  Just try what you have interests in and see what you like.  Don't think that you are bound to just one option.  You can buy 3 different products, compare, and simply sell off what you don't intend to keep.  Repeat the process.  That's all I've down over the years.

 

[kkl10]

Thank you very much for your insights, mvw2!
 
Why am I interested on the OK1 specifically?
It's just that it's the easiest to get in my country (along with the DBA-02) and also because it is selling at a surprisingly low price, almost as cheap as the RE0.
The DBA-02 sells for it's normal price so probably I will skip it.
This along with the fact that several reviewers rank it consistently among some of the most transparent and realistic (which is what I'm looking for) sounding sub -300USD earphones.
 
Build quality, fit and comfort uncertainty and amp requirement still hold me back, though...

 

[mvw2]

I've liked the OK1 for a long time.  I've held onto it for good reason.  I will say that amping isn't absolutely necessary, but the OK1 does scale with power, and in terms of how well it can sound, it is detailed enough to scale with better DACs and audio player.  This isn't to say that you can't simply hook it up to a phone or walkman and just listen to music.  You certainly can.  As well, it's not as stark and raw as the RE252 when it comes to presenting details, so there is some forgiveness in the presentation of sound.  Despite being bright, detailed, and energetic, it is oddly non-fatiguing.

 

[Pianist]

I wonder if this has been discussed before: the new version of RE0 not only has a different cable, but also a modified housing, that is shorter front to back, more "squashed" than the original RE0 housing. I am not sure exactly when the change was made - I got a pair of this new RE0 version from a friend to try out and he bought it in May of last year I believe, so it's been around for a while now. Judging from pics, the new RE0 housing looks exactly like that of RE-ZERO, except for the color.
 
But anyway, I feel that the new RE0 is amazing - definitely better SQ than the old one in many ways to my ears. Well, at least unamped. I feel that the RE0 I am listening to right now sounds way more enjoyable straight out of something like the Clip than the previous revision. In particular, the bass is much tighter and seems to reach deeper as well, the mids and highs are more refined and better focused. The soundstage seems to have lost some width compared to old RE0, but gained depth and sounds more 3D and immersive. Dynamic range is also wider and unlike old RE0, the new one is not lacking dynamics at all to my ears, which is great! I felt that compressed dynamics was the biggest weakness of the old version and even amping didn't help much - the new one is way better in this regard.
 
Now, I am really curious how the new RE0 compares to RE-ZERO as the two seem to share exactly the same housing (although I may be wrong). People claim that RE-ZERO is warmer, has more bass and mids than RE0, but then I haven't seen anyone state which version of RE0 they have. To my ears, the old and new revision share the exact same sound signature, but the new 0 seems much superior in overall SQ.

 

[mvw2]

I can't say anything about the RE0 change.  I owned it back at the start.  The RE0 and RE-Zero are quite alike for the housing anyways.  The RE-Zero is simply just a touch smaller overall but basically the same proportions miniaturized 15%.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

I can't say anything about the RE0 change.  I owned it back at the start.  The RE0 and RE-Zero are quite alike for the housing anyways.  The RE-Zero is simply just a touch smaller overall but basically the same proportions miniaturized 15%.

 
Well, yes the housing is pretty similar, but what matters of course is that the new RE0 sounds better than the old one - no question about it to these ears. You need to give it a try.

 

[kanuka]

does anyone  knows what the ok1 pack includes? i ve seen 2 different boxes of the ok1 , one is brown and the other green-yellow
im pretty sure it doesnt include foam covers, but i m not sure about the rubber covers, 2 pairs?