So my pair arrived today and I have been listening for a few hours. Pretty impressed.
First hands-on Impression:
These IEMS are pretty huge for being cable-down. Material quality is really good, but not entirely sure about the construction quality and design.
I do like how they look though, very sleek. Comfort is good at first but it starts to hurt pretty bad after ~45min.
The earphones have a shallow fit and so the piece kind of rests on your outer ear structure if that makes sense. Eventually your ears become sore from the pressure of the driver housings.
First sound Impression (RANT):
My audio chain is as follows; Win10-->Foobar2000-->WASAPI (event)-->FLAC-->Dragonfly v1.2-->Magni 2 Uber-->Headphone/Earphone
First, what I don't like...
There's some sort of audible disconnection between the dynamic driver and balanced armatures, the bass is figuratively and literally located behind the BA tweeters.
The bass however is veeery fast and controlled with lightning fast decay, probably too fast for its own good and definitely for my taste. Personally, I'm missing some bloom and reverb.
Sound profile is very much up "in your face", again, a bit too close for my taste. Eventually it becomes fatiguing, especially at a moderate to high volume.
Tonality is also a bit too bright, too lean and too vibrant. This makes the overall sound a little artifical and overly excited.
What I DO like!
Pretty good 3D sound. Sound stage width seems to be above average, depth is pretty darn good.
The height of the sound stage is where it falls just a little short, but it's not worse than any other IEM i've heard so it's not a big deal to me but it stands out compared to the above average width and excellent depth.
All in all, pretty outstanding considering it's a $199 closed IEM.
The 3D aspect is not as substantial as that of Nighthawk though, as I cannot make out the "shape" of sounds and instruments as I can through Nighthawk (thanks to its otherwordly imaging capabilities).
I can however sense how close the singer is and whatnot through the Quad, just have a harder time "seeing the contours" and placement of instruments and space inbetween those instruments etc.
If the sound stage on Nighthawk is like looking through a freaking cylinder, the Quad is like an arc, like looking through a ridiculously thick visor.
Imaging is pretty decent, but not amazing. It's better in the centre though, good constriction of vocals.
The detail retrieval and microdynamics are really, really good. Actually quite a bit better than HD650 (driven by Magni 2 Uber and Dragonfly) and almost a whole league above the Nighthawk.
The tuning seems to be a little north of neutral so that helps alot with digging into the mix and conveying microdetails.
Again, the flipside to this is that to my ears, it ends up sounding thinner than need be and just less natural.
The treble extension is quite refreshing, coming from HD650 and Nighthawk. Every sound emitted has air and it sounds effortless and free, but I honestly think it's a bit much sometimes.
I'd personally like more a slightly thicker and little less breathy quality to the sound signature.
When I think about it, this is like the anti-thesis to the Nighthawk.
Nighthawk is very distant sounding, like you're sitting 9 feet from two huge old-school wood floorstanders while the Quad is very present, like sitting at your desk with (mostly) neutral near-field monitors 3 feet away
The Nighthawk is also the opposite of airy and Quad is kind of very airy. In terms of quantity, the bass is overdone in Nighthawk and a little undercooked in the Quad. The Nighthawk is very liquid sounding and has very good macrodynamics I'd say, while the Quad is pretty dry and has very good microdynamics.
You can hear much more and deeper into a mix through the Quads than through the Nighthawk, but what "little" is there on the Nighthawk is just more quality and natural-sounding.
With the addition of the Quad, I can have the best of both worlds and experience a song in two completely different ways!
Fast description of the frequency areas:
Bass: Very fast decay, a bit lean as in not enough quantity, pretty good extension, A bit fuzzy/scattered/ill-defined sounding. Decent quality but lacks that last bit in texture and tightness... Don't confuse decay with tightness. I would like a bit more snap and power. 7/10
Mids: Quite dry and vibrant. Vocals are forward as ****, coming from Nighthawk. Other parts may be a little recessed, but only a bit. Good quality, but needs to take one step back and dial down the brightness a notch. Very articulate! 8/10
Highs: Extended to the stars and then some. Probably. There's no shortage of air if you ask me. Everything sounds quite effortless and freed up. Personally I would reduce the amount of air that surrounds every instrument by a smidge and put some of that energy into the lower mids to give some heft and body to the overall sound.
All in all, I can't find any apparent faults, which is a compliment as the highs in earphones usually are plagued by horrible peaks and sibilance. 7.5/10
Another description would be: Imagine a HD650 if it had no treble roll-off, more even and better extension into the lows, less energy in the mid-bass and a more filled out soundstage with 3D capability.
If I didn't know that the Quad driver is $199, I would have thought the Quad were a ~$350-400 earphone. Disgustingly huge value.
