I will have to check some of those out - never heard any of them. Thanks

Sorry to hear this. I find it a pretty balanced set. I would be curious what treble you do like, of your large collection.

Good thing it doesn't need EQ for those who love it! Also "super thin and sibilant" treble? Really? This sounds a little extreme to me, but hey, you heard what you heard.

Um, it does? Tuning categories add up to 100% and Tech categories add up to 100% This was actually an attempt on my part to delve into the utterly subjective variables of it all, the exact opposite of standardization.

This might be an interesting way to share our different focal points when it comes to listening. For me I would say: Tuning: Bass: 50% Mids: 35% Treble: 15% (just cannot be sibilant) Tech: PRaT: 20% Timbre: 20% Dynamics: 15% Imaging/Depth/Soundstage/Background: 45% As you can probably guess...

Sure. This is an approach like any other - it's your subjective approach to finding what's best for you. Graphs, to me, are just another language we use to describe something that cannot be fully captured in language. Personally, I have also found a lot of joy in discovering sets outside a...

Bonneville being anemic is certainly strange. My set has a wide, powerful, all-encompassing, mid-bass/lower mid presence. I think campfire dips the mid-mids to compensate, with a steeper rise to upper-mids. But I'm not sure this is a suck-out. I listen to a lot of rock on the Cascaras, for...

That picture is way off, what can I say. It looks nothing like that in real life. Also, I resent the implication that I am selling something that is not what I have described. Please take this to PM and I can answer any questions you may have.

Okay, that makes sense. Still not sure about "way less resolve and details" but fine. As for technical, I hear great technicals, especially with a 1-bit or R2R source that allows their great depth and holography to stand out...

Funny I don't hear the Monachaas as super musical and lush / not focussed on technicals.. They are musical, to be sure, and they have an analog timbre, but they are quite revealing and also quite detailed. Plus, as far as technicalities like imaging, layering and soundstage go, they are top...

I don't know what you mean. They are copper, not red. They till have the protective plastic on them, as indicated, so perhaps they look a bit less vibrant than in the pictures on the Bloom site. I can provide all documentation of purchase directly from Bloom if you have any doubts.

I really have to listen to XE6 again. Maybe it was the GPS cable or the tips, dunno, but I would have loved them had I heard the treble response you describe. *Edit: Sitll maintain that I have yet to hear the peakiness in the Trifectas - if anyone's keeping score, haha

I agree, tho. More defined edges in the treble - that's how I heard XE6. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word peaky. And, like I said in my initial response, every once in a while I wish for that with the Trifectas, which are also, yes, raised in the presence region, which I normally don't love...

I know I know. What can I say? Those were my impressions. To my ears the Trifectas present a smoother experience in the upper registers compared to XE6... Overall more coherent and balanced. Maybe it was associated with driver timbre as well, not sure... Don't mean to mislead anyone...

They are both top of the game for that description. Depends where you want your warmth and your punch. I feel ike XE6 punches more toward lower mids/upper-bass while Trifecta is more even moving from sub-bass to lower mids... Treble presentation is different from memory. I found XE6 treble more...