[mvw2]

Ok. I recently got the Triple.Fi plus, basically me coming back to IEMs and to a top tier universal. I have mixed impressions of the TF10, mostly personal preference rather then the TF10 actually doing something terribly wrong.

What I like:
-Lower half of the frequency range, great bass presentation, damn near perfect.
-Great transparency, nothing between the source and your ears
-Excellent articulation, definition, detail to notes
-Great placement of instruments, singers, etc., specific points
-Excellent extension on both ends of the frequency spectrum
-Very low microphonics, some of the best I've had on a IEM, even without over the ear

What I dislike:
-Lack in upper midrange and treble response, requires an EQ to balance out
-Laid back top end, not open, airy, or sparkly. I'm a bit spoiled by my Yuin OK1 It comes cross not muffled, but dark and smoothed off. EQing helps gain balance and energy compared to the low end.
-Low isolation, tip dependent maybe as I haven't yet used better options (Olive, Comply) but I've had better
-Lack of openness and space. Everything is presented as if it only exists within a confined space not much bigger then your head where no perception exists beyond this volume.

Basically the bottom half of the frequency response is great. Up to around 1kHz, I wouldn't change a thing. Above 1kHz, midrange needs a good 4dB bump to fill out. The top end comes across a bit laid back, not nearly the same presentation as the lower end of the spectrum. I'm not sure why. EQing helps, but it doesn't completely fix the issue. Top end isn't bad, but I'm a little more used to the openness and sparkle of the OK1 buds which basically do the opposite of the TF10 where the top half is incredible and the bottom half is a little light.

I'm looking for a lot of the same qualities of the TF10 but with a more evenly matched midrange and top end openness, sparkle, and bite.

I know the Audio Technica ATH-CK100 does the top end well and is described more open and even. However, the bass is lost, and comments point towards that it is a bit incapable of lower bass notes, i.e. may not be able to simply EQ it in. I'm not looking for a trade-off. I'm looking for a product that does everything well. The TF10 is pretty close.

The other option that catches my eye is Westone's UM3X. It's a more balanced form of the widely popular W3. I am curious how that compares. Initial digging suggests that it is a little more even and balanced then the TF10 out of the box. I'm not really sure what is gained or lost though. People seem to describe the CK100 is a more refined TF10 where as the UM3X is described as a more refined SE530. However, the UM3X is touted for having great midrange too which leads me to believe it may not be as toned down as the TF10 is.

I'll make a final note on the TF10 EQed. It is very well balanced after doing so. The sound is even and no one part really fights against another. The only gripe I have with it is that the upper end response lacks the openness and air that should exist. The presentation lacks energy and dynamics on the top half of the spectrum and simply isn't qutie as forward/direct as it should be. It may be just the setup. I think it's dual drivers for the low end and only a single driver for the top end. Maybe the single driver they use is simply mild. It may even just be the filtering used. I don't know. I'm probably spoiled by the Yuin OK1 bud for what to expect from the top half of the frequency spectrum. I just don't know if the CK100 would be a step in the right direction, of if I will end up giving up more then I want for that little bit extra. I don't know of the UM3X will give me everything I want either.

I'm still new to the TF10 and plan to keep working on it. I'm mainly curious if these are the best fit available right now or if another product will provide other aspects I may prefer.

So my question for anyone who has run the TF10 and either the CK100 or the UM3X is what do I gain? What do I lose? Well, beyond what I already know. I'm more interested in the UM3X specifically because I've found good comparisons between the TF10 and CK100 already but far less so between the TF10 and UM3X.

 

[mark2410]

hmmm

IE8 would i think give you that treble extension your after, its so much more natural and real sounding in the highs than the triple ever is but its not got the mids you say your after, its very triple like there. bass may be a bit more than you want also, oh and the isolation will not be any better but acoustically im still thinking its the closest to what your after.

um3x i dont think is the one for you, it lacks any airyness and treble is triple like but noticeably inferior. mids are more forward so that may suit you but i just find the um3x to be such a compromise, everything is just good, nothing great. oh and its bass is punchy like the triples but much more forceful like getting randomly kicked in the head by a small child in some songs. gets old v v v v fast

i do think youd like the IE8 more but there isnt a lot between them all

 

[jyle_t]

If you think TF10pro lacks in the upper half, i.e. not enough sparkle, honestly UM3x is gonna disappoint you even more. Not that they have rolled off highs, but the forward mids and warm presentation will make it sound so, especially if you compare it side by side with TF10pro. CK100 has more sparkle i think, but the bass is hardly existent.

IMO only customs can give more sparkle while still stay balanced throughout the frequency spectrum.

 

[milford302009]

save for customs, u wont look back, playing around with high end IEMs is an expensive business, got straight for the best IEMs can offer
stay with the TFs for a while since they're not broken or anything...
if you trust Chinese companies, then u can prob get a really good custom at the price of these universals

 

[toughnut]

If you dont have any comfort/fit issues with TF10P, hold on to it. I dont have any issues with TF10P but just itching that time and bought CK100. Do i regret it? No, not with both IEMs. TF10P sounded fun and energetic, CK100 sounds neutral and VERY transparent (to my ears and brain, of course

)

Regarding the cons u mentioned,
1. Yeah, it's kinda weird. Sometimes the midrange sound right and yet terribly wrong when a song played a certain frequency causing the midrange to sound recessed. I recalled someone mentioned TF10P has ladder step frequency response on its midrange hahaha.

2. I found TF10P to be quite open, airy, AND sparkly... compared to my previous IEMs. CK100 not as sparkly/lively as TF10P but definitely more transparent and open.

3. Isolation quite good with the stock silicon. I actually LOVE it... IE8 much more worst in isolation.

 

[mvw2]

Yeah, I just don't like having to EQ a headphone if I don't have to. Once EQed, it's pretty good. It's something I can use quite contently. However, unEQed, no, it's too off, and they just bug me too much.. For example, here's my EQ for the TF10 as of now:

31Hz : 0 dB
62Hz : 0 dB
125Hz : -3 dB
250Hz : 0 dB
500Hz : 2 dB
1kHz : 2 dB
2kHz : 5 dB
4kHz : 7 dB
8kHz : 7 dB
16kHz : 7 dB

Now the response will vary some depend on tip, but this is what I end up with using the small, single flange tip. The response was set using a stereo pink noise track and what I perceived as even intensity throughout. Running through music, it sounds pretty good, and I have a hard time complaining about anything.

Frequency response plays a big roll in a headphone sounding good or off with various songs, so it becomes a major gripe for me if I have to do a lot of work to get it to sound good. Now something like the TF10 isn't bad. Response is decently smooth and with no dramatic spikes cuts, so it response well to EQing. It does mean I don't get to use my Meier 2Move though. Then again, the TF10 is very sensitive, so amping isn't necessarily. I just do like the onboard DAC though and do get a slightly better presentation with it then my laptop. It's a little bit of a shame.

From the way it sounds, I should just stick with the TF10. However, I really don't know the preferences of the individuals commenting and why they have come to their own specific conclusions. For example, why is the TF10 better then the UM3X? What does it actually do better? And is it something that is or is not correctable? I don't mind things I can fix with EQ though. I do mind things I can't fix. For example, would an EQed IE8 beat an EQed TF10? If the frequency response is eqivalent, what does the IE8 do better that would make it a choice over the TF10? The same goes for the CK100 or UM3X. It's less of a matter that it isn't there out of the box. It's a problem when I can't get it no matter what I do.

One thing I don't like about the TF10 that I can't get over is it's stage space. It's very closed in. Now I'm comparing to my Yuin OK1 buds because that's what I have, but also because they are also rather quite good. One thing the OK1 does very well is present a life-like and open presentation where the stage space is what I could say as limitless. It's still centralized in your head but there is otherwise no end. You create a good mental image of the space that stretches out forever. The best way I can describe it is like you're daydreaming. You know it's in your head, but at the same time, the space is boundless. If you forget you're listening to it, the mental picture becomes realistic.

Comparatively, the TF10 stops right in front of your eyes. The TF10 has this enclosed feel to the space where you know absolutely that it doesn't exist any farther then a very well defined boundary. Your perception is more like you're in a room. The sound can be great, the picture quality vivid, but in the end, you're still in this well defined, closed space and all the experiences remain in this space. I'm a bit spoiled by the OK1 because it does space so well. It is basically the only earphone I've used where I'll actually mistake audio sounds for real life sounds because the space is so boundless.

The CK100 becomes intriguing to me because it seems to be more like this, although I don't know how far, and I don't know how fixable the low end response via EQing or if it's as non-existent as it's made out to be. I'm not looking for a ton, just existent and well presented. The boundless and life-like space is something I do like to strive for. I also don't know how something like the IE8 or UM3X or even the SE530 fair in this regard either. I can fix frequency response. It's the other aspects like stage presentation that I can't. Things like localization, separate, and mental space are things I can't fix with a simple EQ.

Yeah, I agree, it seems like customs might be in my future at some point. I was trying to stay away from something so dedicated if possible. I think I would still be EQing them anyways, and I don't know what kind of control I'd have over design and setup. Right now, I I think I'll stick with the TF10 and just wait for my better tips to arrive in the mail (T-500 and Olives). I just always have curiosity towards other things and if the grass is greener on the other side so to speak. I may end up still trying a couple other options. I figure I'll still give a couple other of the top dog universals a try. The hard part is I tend to find user reviews and comments only partially reveiling, and I keep finding out new aspects I haven't come across. As well, I tend to find out new things about myself in terms of preference and what I am and am not willing to live with. Stage presence has become an aspect I heavily seek. I want that space. I want the mental realism, not so much a fake recreation. I really liked the ER4S because of this and my OK1s. I want to try the TF10 in the best light first as well as give it more time. I feel the tips will improve aspects a bit. However, I do see myself testing out other earphones too because the TF10 does show aspects I do not like that may or may not improve.

I am being very, very critical here, but it's something I will do given that what I am discussing should be some of the top level universal IEMs on the market. They should effectively do nothing wrong, or at least as close to that as possible giving any mechanic constraints.

 

[toughnut]

That's a good read and i really interested to try out TF10P with your EQ profile. And OK1 too.

Regarding the stage space, CK100 doesnt really fare better than TF10P or IE8. There's still a limit to the space, boundary is still noticeably there. But within this boundary, the sound placement is very accurate. The low end of CK100 shouldnt be a problem since i noticed u reduced 125Hz on TF10P.

 

[mvw2]

The low end will vary depending on the tip used, so I don't know how helpful that may be. I used the ER4S and was plenty content with the bass on that. It was actually pretty good. It just simply rolled off early at around 60Hz which cut out a bit of information many folks expect.

Yeah, that seems to be the challenge. I like the openness of the OK1. It may be simply because they're buds, and the presentation will simply be different then an IEM. It's been a little while, but I recall the ER4S having really good stage presence, one I would call better then the OK1. The TF10 has really good placement and decent separation, but I think the ER4S faired better in this regard, as does the OK1. I can say the TF10 has a better frequency range then either, but it's a shame the presentation is so enclosed.

The Virtual Barbershop is a good example of the variation and limitations some earphones have. I've listened to that with pretty much every earphone I've owned. Some were poor with defining location. Some the stage space is too closed in or oddly shaped. It's hard to get a good presentation of space, not only around in a circle but also distance away. The OK1 performs very well with this test, as does the ER4S. The TF10 is an entirely different experience though, very limited in distancing, and the space isn't circular. Placement is just off. Again, maybe a different tip will create a different experience. IEMs are notorious for being tip sensitive, and this can affect many factors of the presentation.

If any of you guys want to run through the Virtual Barbershop with your CK100, UM3X, and IE8 and describe in some detail how the earphone presents the virtual space, placement, distancing, etc. I'd appreciate it. This is one aspect I don't really see discussed in great detail.

 

[mvw2]

I'm trying something new...

Equal loudness contours and audiometry - Test your own hearing

I'm toying with this with the TF10 and my EQing.

I get a very different end response, lol, VERY different.

31Hz : 15 dB
62Hz : 15 dB
125Hz : 5 dB
250Hz : 0 dB
500Hz : -3 dB
1kHz : -4 dB
2kHz : 1 dB
4kHz : -1 dB
8kHz : -1 dB
16kHz : 4 dB

I'm not caring about the bottom end. A lot of it will vary by tip. For example, I can hear the TV in the other room, and it's quite with the earphones out of my ears, lol. A good seal, and that bass EQing will flatten down. How much, I'm not terribly sure. I played some songs to see how it sounds. Frankly, it's sounding damn good. It sounds much more...real. Something like the Virtual Barbershop does indicate better balance and range in stage space. I'm getting something much more similar to what the OK1 presents in distance. It's kind of interesting. I haven't really toyed with frequency response in relation to stage presentation. It's significantly better, although, the OK1 is still a little better.

Sometimes pink noise bugs me. It takes a bit of time getting used to being able to hear all the frequencies at once and then being able to evenly balance them. It's quickly useful for creating a smooth response curve but hard to balance out tonality. I find myself being a bit mean to the low end. You sort of get into moods in frequency response and will end up at different settings each time you go through it until you've done it enough. Although the top half is the shape I've set it very much like a couple times already, the bottom end is very different.

I'm not going to fiddle with it more tonight. I kind of want to get it down to where I match it with pink noise too, but it's been a lot time since I've used pink noise to tune. It takes a little time of constant listening to wrap your head around all frequencies all at one time unless you've been doing it often. I don't know if I feel like sitting down and listening to pink noise for an hour non-stop to help re-acclimate myself.

It's a cool tool when you're used to it.

 

[jkozlow3]

Wow...that site is pretty neat. It seems as though I may have some serious hearing loss at 16 khz though. I had to boost the slider by around 40db to keep the volume consistent at 16 khz. Is that normal for a 31 year old??

Sorry...not trying to hijack your thread. Just thought you might know.

 

[mvw2]

You also have to consider the frequency response of the headphone you are using. Many headphones aren't capable of producing a 16kHz tone with any meaningful amount of output. You only blame hearing when it's not the hardware's fault.

 

[mvw2]

I'll give you a side example of the OK1 worked through using the loudness contour thing.

31Hz : 15 dB (0)
62Hz : 15 dB (0)
125Hz : 3 dB (2)
250Hz : -1 dB (-1)
500Hz : -1 dB (-2)
1kHz : -3 dB (-1)
2kHz : -5 dB (6)
4kHz : -5 dB (4)
8kHz : -7 dB (6)
16kHz : 11 dB (-7)

The top end rolls off just early enough to be aided with tuning but otherwise isn't noticeable. The low end noticeably rolls off early. These buds are known to be slightly bright, so the downward slope is expected.

The (x) indicates how much more or less frequency response the OK1 has relative to the TF10. For example, the TF10 has a couple dB more at 500Hz then the OK1. However, the OK1 is a whopping 6dB louder across the upper midrange and low treble range. The TF10 has a little more extension on the very top end.

It does kind of indicate that the OK1 is a little bright (no surprise). The above response in the previous post of the TF10 also indicates that the TF10 is not bad right out of the box short its lower midrange punch which is very noticeable to me unfortunately. It also shows I do need to get a better seal which I am well aware. I just don't like using the stock foam, and the little single flange really doesn't give much of a seal.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For example, why is the TF10 better then the UM3X? What does it actually do better? And is it something that is or is not correctable? I don't mind things I can fix with EQ though. I do mind things I can't fix. One thing I don't like about the TF10 that I can't get over is it's stage space. It's very closed in. Comparatively, the TF10 stops right in front of your eyes. The TF10 has this enclosed feel to the space where you know absolutely that it doesn't exist any farther then a very well defined boundary. Your perception is more like you're in a room. The sound can be great, the picture quality vivid, but in the end, you're still in this well defined, closed space and all the experiences remain in this space.

TF10 has a more open soundstage than UM3X. It sounds LESS closed in.

I am pretty surprised you think TF10 sounds closed in. It has one of the larger soundstages of all the IEM's out there. You may want to stear clear of UM3X.

Oddly I am surprised you like ER4S soundstage since it too has a narrow, smallish soundstage.

 

[mvw2]

It may simply be my definition of sound stage. I don't know. For example, with the TF10, I get a pretty definite end point to the overall size of the space. It's kind of like all the sound is stuck in a room and nothing exists beyond the walls of that room. You hear a guy clapping or whistling in the audience in a live recording, it doesn't sound like he's 50 feet away. It sounds like he's at the wall of the room. It's been a while since I've owned my ER4S, but the presentation was more spacious where someone out in the audience sounded out in the audience.

I know poor isolation can cause issues, so my words are preliminary until I use better tips and get a good seal. However, these issues are largely transparent when compared to a product that has a broader range. I'll agree that the sound is spacious in the center of the presentation where you have the singer, instruments and such. However, once you step beyond the stage you sort of hit a wall rather then a continual progression into empty space. Something like my OK1 or the ER4S (upon memory) doesn't have this wall. There was significant distance beyond the stage.

 

[mvw2]

Complys came today.

I tried the small first, a little too small and sat deep but slightly loose in my ear giving only a partial seal. I swapped out for the mid size and that worked well.

Now I finally have good isolation.

Bass response of course improved a lot. EQing needs on the bottom end dropped off. The Comply tips do soak up some of the highs though, so I'm still using a lot of EQ on the very, very top.

Comfort is good.