[ljokerl]

 

Quote:

Thanks joker!

EDIT: One last thing joker.  Do you think it would be better to EQ up the bass on the e-q5 or get the SM2?  I'm looking to upgrade my KC3, and I feel that the bass is just a tad too light, but my main beef is that its too thick and has not enough sparkle.  This makes me feel that the e-q5 would be a good fit.  Any thoughts or comments are appreciated as always.

 
Not sure about EQing up the bass on the e-Q5 (haven't had the need) but I don't think the SM2 has more sparkle than the KC3, either. e-Q5 defiitely seems like a better fit on that front.

 
 
Quote:

Hi, I was just wondering of the iem's that you have tested which have been the best for rock and metal, and have great build quality and low microphonics.
Thanks

Unique Melody Miracle.

 
 

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljokerl /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Unique Melody Miracle.

 
That said, someone should really compile a list of "FAQs" for this thread... it seems like the same four pages repeat over and over ad nauseum.
 

 

[xtremetechuk]

I have just returned my RE0, they seem to distort at high volumes regardless of source.

I'm now considering the Phonak PFE 122 and Sunrise Xcape Impressive Edition. Can anyone help me choose? I listen to trance and metal.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

I have just returned my RE0, they seem to distort at high volumes regardless of source.

I'm now considering the Phonak PFE 122 and Sunrise Xcape Impressive Edition. Can anyone help me choose? I listen to trance and metal.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

If the Xcape IE is anything like the V1 Xcape or the RE0, it'll be good. If you liked the RE0 the Sunrise should sound very similar. I haven't caught up on the nuances behind the IE though, so I'm not sure what exactly is different.
 
The PFE122 is another great IEM that tend to prefer over the RE0. It sounds "faster" partly due to its balanced armature.  I listen to a lot of metal and the PFE122, while it can be a little bit harsh in the treble sometimes, has performed admirably well.
 

 

[james444]

Quote:

I don't think 'sterile' has a bad connotation... most would fine the CK10 and HF5 sterile, and those are still my favorite earphones at their respective price points. The MC5 is not as analytical, not as clean, and not as cold. That makes it less sterile but not really lively. I have custom tips for use with the HF5 and (with some twisting and pushing) the MC5. As for the score, I cannot dock points for 'boring' sound - that's far too subjective.

Interesting post. It somehow explains why I find myself agreeing more often with your descriptions than your ratings. Nothing bad about that btw, since this is your thread and at that an extraordinary piece of work.
 
As for me, sterile has definitely a bad connotation, unless the music was meant to sound that way in the first place. However, I don't believe many recordings were made with that intention and certainly no live concert I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I've been to several really bad ones, but sterile? Not that I can remember. So in my book a sterile presentation is undoubtedly a weakness in music reproduction. Just my 2c.

 

[limpidglitch]

That was more or less what I was tring to get at. It all boils down to what you mean by 'sterile'
To me it means that no matter what kind of music is played, they won't come 'alive'
To joker it seems to mean more or less 'clean', as in no coloration?

 

[xtasi]

As always, thanks joker for your advice!
 
That seems to be about it as far as questions go

 

[jackmccabe]

Hi, sorry I forgot to mention my budget is about $250.
 

 

[ljokerl]

 
Quote:

That said, someone should really compile a list of "FAQs" for this thread... it seems like the same four pages repeat over and over ad nauseum.

You haven't seen my PM box...


Quote:

Interesting post. It somehow explains why I find myself agreeing more often with your descriptions than your ratings. Nothing bad about that btw, since this is your thread and at that an extraordinary piece of work.
 
As for me, sterile has definitely a bad connotation, unless the music was meant to sound that way in the first place. However, I don't believe many recordings were made with that intention and certainly no live concert I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I've been to several really bad ones, but sterile? Not that I can remember. So in my book a sterile presentation is undoubtedly a weakness in music reproduction. Just my 2c.

For me sterile is very closely related to 'analytical', with perhaps a bit of a warning overtone for those who like other signatures. Ideally, a good analytical listening device will portray exactly what is on the track without adding to or holding anything back from the recording. "No coloration", as limpidglitch put it. It's not about recreating live sound (unless it was a live recording to start with) or adding some specific flavor to the sound, "audiophile" or not (isn't that what Bose tries to do?). It is also why I've kept the AKG K601 around as my one real full-size can despite 'technically superior' sets coming and going. Don't get me wrong, there's room for all sorts of signatures, but it can be argued that 'fun' can possess a negative connotation just as 'sterile' can. 

 

[Ikarios]

Quote:

Hi, sorry I forgot to mention my budget is about $250.
 

Well there you go - Joker has ratings for value, MSRPs (although not always accurate, should give you a good idea of what to look for), build quality, and microphonics. Read the reviews yourself.
 

 

[jackmccabe]

I have, but I was just asking for a suggestion specifically for metal and rock.

 

[ljokerl]

 
 
 
Quote:

I have, but I was just asking for a suggestion specifically for metal and rock.

The problem is that genre preferences and sound signature preferences don't necessarily go hand in hand. There are hip-hop lovers who don't mind the beats being in the background as long as they can hear every detail of the lyrics... and then there is the majority of hip-hop listeners. Rock & metal is 80-85% of what I listen to on my own time and the CK10, DBA-02, and e-Q5 are all very much to my liking. GR07 is not far behind, either.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

The RE0 (or  is a very good earphone but it doesn't quite have the speed or clarity of an e-Q5, nor the ability to throw distance cues as far. It is also less revealing when it comes to low-end detail, especially in the bottom octave. I like the RE0, always have, but it doesn't fare all that well in direct comparisons to top-tier earphones with a similar signature.

 
So you can hear more bass detail with e-Q5? Have you done direct AB between the two? Have you amped the RE0 and do you have the latest version of this IEM? I find that the latest version which has a more "squashed" housing compared to the older one (similar to RE-ZERO now) sounds more dynamic and has better imaging. I personally can't hear any more bass detail with e-Q5 than RE0. In fact, its the other way around - I hear details easier wit RE0 due to better separation. I think RE0 reaches just as low and is at least as tight too. I think RE0 has great speed and clarity and I am not sure e-Q5 surpasses is in speed although clarity is a bit better on the e-Q5. I think during complex music passages RE0 sounds more effortless due to better separation. I think RE0 will also scale better with better sources and amps. So far, I have not found anything that e-Q5 really does better than RE0. So far, it just sounds like different presentations/signatures to me.

 

[jackmccabe]

Ok, thanks. I have the dba-02 and quite like it sound but find it to be a bit too aggressive so I think I will go with the e-q5.
Thanks

 

[james444]

Quote:

That was more or less what I was tring to get at. It all boils down to what you mean by 'sterile'
To me it means that no matter what kind of music is played, they won't come 'alive'
To joker it seems to mean more or less 'clean', as in no coloration?

That's exactly what I was trying to say and it's obviously something different from being clean/uncolored/analytical. The MC5 aren't less colored than several other analytical phones out there, but to my ears they're noticably less lifelike. To put it bluntly, even 'live' recordings won't come 'alive' with them and that's definitely a weakness in my book. The term 'coloration' usually refers to (peaks or dips in) frequency response, but there are more variables in the equation, as mvw2 illustrates in this brilliant post. To my ears the MC5 are pretty good at reproducing a sine sweep, but pretty bad at reproducing lifelike music.

Quote:

For me sterile is very closely related to 'analytical', with perhaps a bit of a warning overtone for those who like other signatures. Ideally, a good analytical listening device will portray exactly what is on the track without adding to or holding anything back from the recording. "No coloration", as limpidglitch put it. It's not about recreating live sound (unless it was a live recording to start with) or adding some specific flavor to the sound, "audiophile" or not (isn't that what Bose tries to do?). It is also why I've kept the AKG K601 around as my one real full-size can despite 'technically superior' sets coming and going. Don't get me wrong, there's room for all sorts of signatures, but it can be argued that 'fun' can possess a negative connotation just as 'sterile' can.

I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my post, I wasn't trying to make a case for fun sound (see above). But nevermind, I don't want to detour your thread, so I'll leave it at that.