Fit for a Bat! – Flagship IEMs Shootout (8:CT6E, 7:H8P, 6:JH13, 5:K10, 4:BD4.2, 3:A12, 2:W500, 1:SE5U) | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:23 AM

Fit for a Bat! - Flagship IEMs Shootout

The Contenders (in alphabetical order)

1964Ears | Adel A12

Advanced AcousticWerkes AAW W500 AHMorph

Clear Tune Monitors CT-6E Elite

CustomArt Harmony 8 Pro

Jerry Harvey Audio JH13 Pro FreqPhase

Lear Audio LCM BD4.2

Noble Audio Kaiser 10

Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate

Eight flagship IEMs. Great. How exactly do you rank so many amazing IEMs against one another? Living with these fellas over the past few months has made me a little crazy. Literally a hundred times, I'd gushed to everyone I knew that this was THE BEST IEM EVER OMG OMG YES! No big deal, if only I wasn’t referring to a different IEM each time. Oops. Long story short- if this shootout had any chance in hell of being done by 2015, I needed to set up some rules.

My Totally Arbitrary Rules

Test with different genres of music. I went from pop to rock; orchestral to jazz; electronica to happy hard-core; live to studio; binaural to monoaural¹. Versatility matters- an IEM has to excel in at least a few genres to rank highly. Variation in cross-genre performance was probably the number one reason I flip-flopped more than John Kerry².
Do A-B comparisons. I refined my scores using this iterative process: first, I’d listen to an IEM and give it a score for a particular trait. Then I would pick a different IEM, volume match (this bit is much more critical than it sounds. Trust me), and score that in relation to the first one. With the first two done, I’d pick a third IEM and score them in relation to the previous two, changing the scores of all three IEMs along the way. To this add #4, #5, #6… Etc. Finally I’d wait a day or two, then redo the exercise again to finalise the scores. Over the past few months I’ve done this again and again and again, going through this process for every single trait I evaluated, until everything seemed right.
Stick to my Chord Hugo. I kept my source constant because I’ve listened to a lot of music (and a lot of IEMs) on it, and have formulated a clear frame of reference with it. Was this the best match for every IEM? Probably not. Could I have tested my IEMs on my other Amps, DACs and even DAPs? Probably- but not this time. I’ve got to draw the line somewhere…
Speaking of drawing the line, I did swap cables around for kicks. It’s just so much easier switching cables than sources, and I couldn’t resist trying some of my Silver-Plated Copper, Copper and Silver cables. But ultimately I kept things simple, and listened most via stock- after all, this is what the manufacturer intended.
I listen pretty loud. It’s what I’m used to, and I find I can best pick out the differences at higher volumes.

[size=17.0300006866455px]My Rating Criteria[/size]

With the rules out of the way, let’s get to the fun stuff. I chose these IEMs for the shootouts mostly because they’d all done similarly well in my previous audition binge. Once I actually started scoring things, though, I got some surprising results. Not only were the performance levels not as close anymore; the final verdict ended up being very different from how I’d initially ranked them (after first impressions). To get to my final score, I rated IEMs in five equally-weighted categories. Each category was further rated in its component parts:

Bass: Speed, decay, detail, slam, authority, tightness, extension and timbre. Subbass and midbass.

Midrange: Energy, evenness, airiness, timbre, clarity, and detail.

Treble: Smoothness, clarity, naturalness, sparkle, speed, and extension.

Spatial: Size of width, depth, and height; airiness; and consistency of soundstage diffusion. Imaging of width, depth and height; and center image.

General: PRaT, balance, note articulation and fullness, musical resonance.

Apart from being relative in nature, my ratings also indicate some sort of absolute quality. Let's say I thought IEM A lost out to IEM B in terms of Treble Smoothness. In this scenario, let's imagine that A was actually pretty good- B was just better. So how do I reflect this reality? How do I indicate that A was good to begin with, but then also account for how much better B was? To solve this I ended up using this scale:

Component Scores

<5 : Bad	8 - 9 : Very Good
5 - 6 : Below Average	9 - 10 : Elite
6 - 7 : Average	>10 : (yes, >10.) Jawdropping
7 - 8 : Above Average

Overall Scores

One last note about scoring. I've also grouped the overall scores into different tiers, which reflect how I felt about the IEMs in each score-range. Bear in mind: to get into the top tier would require an IEM to average >9 across every category. I wasn't sure if any IEM could be that good. Well, we'll find out, won't we?

<50 : Bad	70 - 75 : Good
50 - 55 : Barely Acceptable	75 - 80 : Very Good
55 - 60 : Below Average	80 - 85 : Outstanding
60 - 65 : Average	85 - 90 : Almost Perfect
65 - 70 : Above Average	>90 : "Fit for a Bat!"

The Shootout!

#8. Strange yet fun, meet the Lady Gaga of IEMs

#7. Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee

#6. Remember when the iPhone got a 4" Screen?

#5. Be Water, my Friend

#4. It's a Big, Big World

#3. Beam Me Up Scotty

#2. The Tell-Tale Heart

#1. Welcome to the Temple of Heaven

¹ This is some of the music I listen to:

Beni (JPop)	New Order (Rock)	FREETempo (Electronic)
Davichi (KPop)	Peter Gabriel (Rock)	Monkey Safari (EDM)
G.E.M. (CPop)	The Decemberists (Rock)	Rodrigo Y Gabriela (Guitars)
Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix (Pop)	Jamie Cullum (Jazz)	Cirque Du Soleil (Soundtracks)
Mika Nakashima (JPop)	Jazz at the Pawnshop (Jazz)	Lots of Random Jazz
Utada Hikaru (JPop)	Daft Punk (Electronic)	Lots of Random Happy Hardcore
Chesky Binaural Series (Binaural)	Ulrich Schnauss (Electronic)	Lots of Random Classical/ Orchestral

² I have nothing against John Kerry. It's just that "many times I actually did vote for an IEM, before I voted against it". Kerry would understand.

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:23 AM

#8. Strange yet fun, meet the Lady Gaga of IEMs

You know the type. Them good 'ol guilty pleasures. In the office you shake your head and tell your colleagues, 'What in the world is this?'. But then suddenly you're at a club, you have a few drinks, and now you're dancing to the same Justin Bieber song as everyone else. I know, right? Good thing selfies don't come with audio.

Okay, okay, so the CT-6E is not quite a J.B. (is anything?). But take Lady Gaga, throw in her eccentric fashion sense, and you've got a good feel for this new flagship from Clear Tune Monitors. She's catchy. She's fun. She knows how to grab your attention. She seems like she walked out of an Addams Family dressing room. You take one look at her, and you're not sure what to do. Vivid memories of the day you first tried fried ice cream. Do you love it? Do you hate it? Here we go again...

'What in the world is this?'

IEM: Clear Tune Monitors CT-6E Elite

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1000 USD

Build Quality: Amazing

Fit: Pretty Good. Snug

Accessories: The usual Pelican hardcase, some CTM stickers, and what looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill stock cable

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Clear Tune Monitors

Interviewee: Cesar Milano, Owner and President

What is your company’s history?

As a musician I was in the need for in-ear monitors but I found that they were quite expensive so I started doing my research looking for a way to make them more affordable. After a while and counting with the advice of fellow professional musicians, I set up my shop and started manufacturing custom in-ear and the key here was the "personal" experience. You can buy generic in-ears everywhere, but when you have to take somebody's ear impression and manufacture his everyday tool to his needs, a personal connection is born, and that's what we're all about building an excellent product and making it personal.

Who are the people behind your company?

Mainly me and my wife backed up by an awesome group of artists/musicians in charge of the manufacturing chain. At CTM it's a requisite to be a musician, that way we can guarantee that personal connection since your in-ear are being manufactured by someone who understands the musician's needs.

Can you describe your philosophy for how products should sound, and how you tune or voice them?

Well, it's a fact that everybody listens differently and everybody has a different budget. Our goal is to make the best possible product at any given price point with the tools at hand. If it's a two-driver monitor, we choose the components and adjust the electronics until we're sure it works, and the same process goes for the rest of the line. Some people buy out of budget, some out of listening experience, we just give them the most options we can.

What do you see as different or unique about your flagship?

We believe all our models are flagships, if we didn't we just wouldn't have many models but just one. We build the best monitor we can and then back it up with the best customer experience and it's precisely that experience which makes us unique.

Where do you see the industry headed?

From my audio engineering background I've always seen in-ear monitoring as a blessing. Less noise on stage, better listening experience for the musicians and in consequence for the audience. You used to hear that in-ear would be the future, well now they're the present and no doubt will continue being the future.

Where do you see the most potential for innovation when it comes to IEMs, and why?

As with guitars, for example, a Tele has its sound, a Strat has its sound, a Les Paul, etc.. Everybody chooses their guitar for its sound, so with in-ears the same applies. I believe innovation will come in the form of being able to cater to all those listening tastes, so we're bound to do just that and, as always, keep it affordable.

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

The CT-6E has elite mid-bass that is tight, detailed, and fast- everything you'd want for an exciting, toe-tapping time. While the low-end is extremely fast on the attack, the decay could be better, coming across as a tad too fast to be completely natural. This seems to be a common trait with Balanced Armature IEMs, though, and I must admit it doesn't bother me as much anymore. The bass here also hits with relatively good conviction. I've always thought of bass as playing a critical foundational function, providing a good sturdy structure upon which the rest of the music is constructed. The CT-6E fulfills this job capably, steady as she goes. In terms of timbre, the CT-6E bass performs beautifully, coming across as lush and not too thin- just how I like it to sound. Finally, the sub-bass extends quite far, but there could be a bit more slam.

Bass Score: 8.3 (Very Good)

Midrange

With its unique midrange, the CT-6E throws off her pretense at normalcy and transforms into her alter ego, the one and only Lady Gaga. It possesses the most perplexing set of mids I've ever heard. It's almost as if the musicians at CTM took on a personal challenge to create a midrange that would be both extremely dipped and highly peaked at the same time. A drastic drop in the mids gets to its lowest point smack in the middle of the frequency response, and is immediately followed by a steep incline that gathers speed and finally soars into the treble mountains. In short, yes. This is ski-jumping.

The overall effect of these mids is an unfortunately active experience for a CT-6E user. Entering a subdued portion of your song? Let's get rid of that veil: fingers to the volume control, and up we go. Oops, singers starting to put more into it, and mids now sounding too hot? Fingers out again- let's turn the volume down this time. This was what I ended up doing. Up and down with the volume control, again and again. All together now:

The wheels on the bus go round and round...

Anyhow, once you look past the strangeness of it all, you'll realise that- and this feels like a grudging nod to convention- some technical aspects of the mids remain very good. Details, clarity and energy all score highly. 'Hey, I can play by the rules too!'

Other aspects, however, don't fare so well. Evenness obviously suffers. The best mids are a gentle slope, not the rocky undulating experience that is the CT-6E. Airiness is just about average as well. With that huge cut in the center working against it, the CT-6E's midrange still puts forth a valiant effort, but ultimately struggles to gain enough air as it disperses out across the soundstage. Lastly, the tone of the mids comes across as a bit unnatural.

Midrange Score: 6.8 (Average)

Treble

The treble on the CT-6E is very good indeed, grading out the best of all its sonic qualities. It achieves another juxtaposition- this time a more pleasing one- by presenting both top-notch smoothness and sparkle. Clarity in the treble is also on an elite level. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to the treble on the CT-6E, which manages to be extremely exciting and engaging yet not fatiguing at all. Truly a wonderful combination.

A few aspects were just average, though, dragging down its score in this category. Treble notes are presented in a modestly natural manner, with good but not excellent decay and timbre. Doing less well, treble speed was merely above average- the CT-6E struggles to keep up with lightning fast treble notes, losing definition and smearing a little along the way. But the worst of all its treble traits was its high-end extension, with a treble roll-off that arrives steep and early.

Treble Score: 8.6 (Very Good)

Spatial

The soundstage on the CT-6E is very large and airy... Nah, who am I kidding, this is Lady Gaga part 2. Don't get me wrong, the soundstage is very large and airy, but the overall spatial presentation on the CT-6E is most definitely an acquired taste. Rather than diffusing out naturally to fill the soundstage, there is basically no expansion of the sound. The soundstage is very inconsistent from spot to spot. Some areas flash an extremely dense, meaty sound; while with other positions all you get are airy spatial cues- no music at all. The word that comes to mind again and again is 'holographic'. The sound seems to set up camp at specific, distinct spots around your head, and then never once strays from those spots. It's so opaque and rigid, you can literally see and touch the music. Love it or hate it, you've never heard anything like this before.

Again, look past the eccentricity, and there's stuff to like about the soundstage. The conventional metrics- size of width, depth and height are all outstanding. The soundstage also never presents an empty feeling, instead being beautifully filled with air.

Imaging performance, on the other hand, is a bit of a mixed bag. With its holographic presentation, you would think that imaging would be awesome. Indeed, the CT-6E delivers on this expectation with imaging depth that is absolutely elite, making it extremely easy to make out different layers in the music. However the CT-6E falters a bit in its ability to separate the music distinctly across the stage; and worst among all its spatial qualities, it forms a poor center image.

Spatial Score: 7.4 (Above Average)

General Qualities

Here's that other word in the title at last: fun. The CT-6E has extremely good PRaT, and is a wonderful choice for exciting music. It's pacey with a great sense of rhythm, and running a fast toe-tapping track through the CT-6E is simply a joy to behold.

Where it falls somewhat short in this category, unfortunately, is... everything else. The overall balance in the sound, which rewards the most delicately-tuned and steady IEMs, is merely average, as the inconsistent midrange serves as an uneven sauce for the rest of the dish. The notes also tend to sound a bit transient, lacking a satisfying fullness in each individual note. Finally, there is very little musical resonance in the CT-6E. Missing from the CT-6E is a harmonious bell-like resonance after the initial note is played, and the result is a presentation that sounds crisp and fast, but a bit less musical and emotional.

General Qualities Score: 6.9 (Average)

Comparisons

CustomArt Harmony 8 Pro ($1050)

The CustomArt flagship comes in brighter than the CT-6E, which is not exactly a warm IEM to begin with. The two are most similar in terms of their overall PRaT. Fast-paced music is a delight on both these IEMs, with the H8P being a little better although it's close. Interestingly, they focus on different areas- the H8P is faster, but the CT-6E has better rhythm. Go figure. Apart from PRaT, other clear similarities include the size and airiness of the soundstage; bass speed and tightness; and a similar lack of fullness in the notes played back by both IEMs. Both also rate poorly on mids timbre, and well on low-end timbre.

On the other hand, the midrange on the H8P excels precisely where the CT-6E suffers- it is beautifully even throughout. Spatially, the presentation is a lot more consistently diffused on the H8P pair; and the H8P is also much better at projecting a clear center image. It is however much poorer at imaging depth. In terms of extension, both IEMs have their strengths flipped. The CT-6E is much better at low-end extension, whereas the H8P is clearly superior in high-end extension.

Noble Audio Kaiser 10 ($1599)

The Noble K10 actually has a low-end response quite similar to the CT-6E, with bass that's just a bit slower overall and with a bit less extension but more authority. The treble is also rather comparable, although I found the CT-6E to be slightly better in almost all the treble components that I rate, save for high-end extension.

There are major differences between the two IEMs, however, starting with the midrange. The K10 has a gorgeous midrange, and bests the CT-6E in every single facet of the mids. The K10's mids has much better timbre and detail; and come across as significantly airier than those of the CT-6E. In fact, the improvement in mids going from the CT-6E to the K10 is rather drastic. On the other hand, the tables are flipped when it comes to the spatial presentation. This isn't a major strength on the K10, and the CT-6E outperforms it handily. Stage size and airiness; as well as imaging ability, are all clearly better on the CT-6E. But the biggest gulf between the two lies in the sonic balance. The K10 has a flawless balance, with every frequency working very well in perfect harmony. Switching between the K10 and CT-6E is a stunning juxtaposition, and really highlights the unevenness of the latter.

Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate ($1800)

The SE5 Ultimate and CT-6E both possess large and airy soundstages; and present good PRaT. But that's mostly where the similarities end. The former comes across as a matured, musical IEM; whereas the latter is the fun one you wouldn't bring home to meet your parents.

The SE5 Ultimate has a mesmerizing airiness in its mids that the CT-6E falls far short of. On the other hand there's probably no need to mention at this point that the SE5 Ultimate has better midrange evenness (although what do you know, I just did it anyway). While the CT-6E's treble is pretty good in itself, the SE5 Ultimate comfortably bests the CT-6E, pulling ahead in almost all treble dimensions except for sparkle (more on that later). The imaging on the SE5 Ultimate is also drastically better than the CT-6E in all respects, save for image depth, for which both IEMs acquit themselves extremely well. Finally the SE5 Ultimate presents a fantastic balance, and possesses captivating musical resonance and fullness of note that contribute to its sense of maturity and musicality. The CT-6E simply cannot come close in these regards.

One area that the SE5 Ultimate clearly can't match the CT-6E, however, is in treble sparkle. High-frequency notes sound subdued on the SE5 Ultimate in comparison to the energetic presentation on the CT-6E. In the low-end, the bass is also clearly tighter on the CT-6E. Sparkling treble and tighter bass: probably not a surprise that the CT-6E sounds more fun, no?

Summary

Clear Tune Monitor's latest effort at a flagship IEM has beautiful treble with elite sparkle and smoothness, and comes through as a fun IEM overall with great PRaT. The bass is pretty good, too- fast, detailed, tight and with nice timbre. But be prepared to have a love-it-or-hate-it relationship with the spatial presentation, and consider yourself warned about that unevenness in the midrange.

Pros: Sparkling and smooth treble; large and airy soundstage with very good depth imaging

Cons: Notes a bit transient; inconsistent spatial qualities; has a midrange that will probably render you speechless

Overall Score: 76.0 (Very Good)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the seventh-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:23 AM

#7. Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a Bee

Watching a butterfly 'float' is a bit disconcerting. It flaps its oversized wings furiously, a flurry of activity as it tries to stay in the air. This is certainly no wooden raft drifting leisurely down a stream; nor bald eagle gliding gracefully through the skies. In fact, as its body jerks awkwardly with each flap, it almost looks like its fighting for its life. If this is floating, then I dance like Fred Astaire. Tappity Tap.

And about that tiny needle from a bee's sting. Is that supposed to hurt? Strange choice of weapon, if so. I know, I know, the venom hurts more than the stinger itself, but still. I'd have picked a rocket launcher, a shotgun, some I don't know, bombs or something- anything even slightly a bit more destructive. But hey- if it works for Muhammad Ali, it works for me.

The Harmony 8 Pro works for me. The bass floats just like a butterfly- fast, furious and fighting fit. On the other hand the treble stings like a bee- a tiny prick, with a tingling feeling that lingers after. Overall the sound comes at you quick and fast, creating an explosion of sound as detail comes at you from every possible angle. Breathless from keeping up with the butterfly bass; ears still stinging a bit from the trebley-bee; and mind still reeling from the auditory input coming through; one wonders: was this what it was like to fight Muhammad Ali?

IEM: CustomArt Harmony 8 Pro

Form Factor: Silicon Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: €925 (~ $1050 USD)

Build Quality: Very good. A bit harder as Silicon IEMs go (at least compared to ACS; Sensaphonics; and Spiral Ears)

Fit: Perfect

Accessories: The usual Pelican hardcase, and a run-of-the-mill, if pretty (it's whitish-silverish) stock cable

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with CustomArt

Interviewee: Piotr Granicki, CEO of CustomArt

You'd been active on Head-Fi and a fan of audio for a while, why take that jump from "critic" to "chef", so to speak? Chasing a dream? Passion? Not finding the sound you wanted?

I think each of those had a factor, with chasing a dream and passion as the most important. From the day one I got my first true IEM (Westone UM1) I was hooked. BA sounded very different from anything else I'd heard and I wanted to know how and why etc. I began researching BA drivers which at the time was pretty much impossible so I turned to Sonion and KA for help, because I had to understand how those speaker worked =)

Of course that was long time ago, drivers developed a bit more, but I always wanted to know more and more about them =)

I was never the guy that couldn't find the sound, and I also think this is really "overused" in the industry. I loved a lot of IEMs and headphones I had. ATH-M50 was one of my favorite closed headphones, I liked Audeo PFE111, I still have my UM Merlin which are not working properly anymore =( I also got Shure SE535 and Audeo 232 which I use at VERY RARE occasions. I like to listen to IEMs and headphones more for an inspiration. I put them on to try to find something new, some qualities that I might want or may not want in my IEMs. There's also a downside and it can backfire because right now when I put an IEM in I can tell typically almost immediately what drivers (at least driver family) are inside and I really have to concentrate to listen to actual music and try to not let my mind wonder about technicalities. Nonetheless I need an inspiration to work! It can be anything from seeing a car, eating good food, hike in the mountains and there's this "click" and then thought like "oh god! I have to try this design!"

Who are the people behind your company?

Right now 3-person-team in total =) One person is responsible for soldering drivers and engraving your monitors and second is preparing shipments and is partially handling customer service.

I started CA with 3000PLN - it's around $1k. I've never got a bank credit and never used services like Kickstarter. Taking small steps at the time but pushing forward is more enlightening than doing big jump and possibly failing the landing. I think there are things that I wish we could do or develop if I had spare million or two, but I'm happy with what I have. Pushing big ideas with small capital is challenging but it's also very encouraging and it motivates me.

That said I'm not against crowdfunding, but so far we didn't have a need to do it. Maybe it will change in the future, how knows? =)

What have been some of the more key or interesting lessons along the way?

Umm, that's a fair question. I think understanding how to process the material and developing detachable cables system were one of the biggest steps. Purchasing certified measuring equipment was the most important step - it truly allowed me to play around with designs and test what's going on with IEMs how do they really work.

Interesting lessons... hmm definitely working on Single Phase design, especially when I hit the "of course that's so obvious" and then "eureka" moments when developing Pro330v2.

What is this "Single Phase" design?

All drivers are connected in the same phase, but the goals (claims) of our design are a bit different from others who do this (and unfortunately I cannot give away details of this design).

How did you go about thinking about a lineup?

Well, early designs such as Music One, Pro100 and Pro210, Pro330v1 were to prove something, such as different tuning from the same driver, accuracy and smoothness or that 3 drivers can take on 6-driver competitors from big-brands.

Music Two is simply an upgrade, Pro330v2 resolves the technical issues of Pro330v1.

Then we phased out Pro210 and Pro100 because of poor sales, M1, M2 and Pro330 overtook those two by great margin. I decided to keep only those IEMs that people wanted to listen to.

Do you actually think this industry is driven more by actual innovation and performance, or by marketing skill? Or what would you think is the % of each?

It's good that you've asked the second question. Because I think each of those are factors.

I think performance is the most important when it comes to product itself, however my approach was more outside the box. I focused more on relation with customers and I mean relations, so it's not just good customer service I actually made few good pen-pals. I like to be close to my customers to take care of each and everyone and I really enjoy this as much as making IEMs. So we are always praised for how good our customer service is.

CA is not a company that sells products with big words and big claims. I don't use words like "the best in the world" etc. "the most advanced in the world", "it took us 10 years to develop". Those are very buzz-feed-like catchy phrases that leave you underwhelmed with the product. We recognize other manufactures, we are keeping our statements true and cross-checked with reality to avoid claiming false. Sometimes we direct our customers toward different brands if we are sure that what they are looking for is not in our range.

Another important thing is finish/look/design and the whole experience that comes along with product itself. I wanted minimalist products that are eye catching and stand out in the crowd. Silicone cIEM market was quite boring you could only select few colors, and there were no extra options, we broke this by offering high range of colors (over 30) with exciting designs such as wood or carbon, matte finish etc.

Of course that had to go with very good sound.

In my opinion, it would be something like this 45% customer care, 35% sound vs price ratio vs product quality in general; 20% innovation and being up to date with what customers want. Each of those will drive the marketing.

Where do you see the most potential for innovation when it comes to IEMs?

Each of the innovation you see in the industry recently has different purpose and pushes industry further and further. More drivers are the least innovative thing you can do, though. Number of drivers is not as important as careful selection of driver types or driver model.

IMHO the future is in active crossover and DSP.

Any other technologies or interesting ideas you're keen on?

Well I think the future itself is in drivers. Right now (or should I say STILL) majority of drivers for audio are simply slightly tweaked hearing aid receivers. There are very few TRUE pro-audio receivers that were built from ground to be used only in high-end IEMs.

In IEMs that use few crossover points it would be nice to have driver that (by design) cover only 10-200Hz (more like speakers) than what we have now - typical BA woofer cover easily 10Hz-5kHz with 10dB difference between levels.

Right now industry uses mainly full-range or at least semi-full-range drivers that happens to be better at given range.

Click to expand...

Is anyone creating these specialised hi-end audio drivers today?

Well, Sonion, Knowles, Molex and few smaller manufacturers, also Sony. I'd say Sony is the closest to this because they created BA for their audio products.

What kind of tuning were you going for, that you would consider your 'perfect sound' or 'house sound'?

The Harmony 8 Pro is pretty much 'perfect' for me. There's not much more I would wish from my IEMs. It's very balanced, it has bass that I love and clear liquid mids, it sounds spacious, airy and when amped right it's smooth and sounds like an open headphone.

In addition, if you check reviews of our product the most common thing mentioned is "balance".

I think I would pick both Music One and Harmony 8 Pro to show what our house-sound is. The most important thing for me are emotions in sound. We make IEMs to enjoy music not an equipment. If the IEM conveys emotions and you start tapping your toes, bang your head, dance, air band - our goal is achieved =) The second thing is balance. For Music One - simply because people were always telling me "single armature cannot sound good" or "single BA cannot cover the whole spectrum" and I think Music One proves those statements wrong, not only it sounds good with decent bass, smooth mids and highs, open soundstage and vivid presentation but also covers 10-17500 range easily.

For Harmony 8 and 8 Pro the aim was a bit different, we needed a Flagship that combined features of Pro and Music series, so accuracy, musicality and somehow to be still within our house-signature. It also had to be real Flagship with no-compromise design, it had to be the best we've done up to date, with the most broadband frequency - basically all maxed out in terms of possible sound quality.

Click to expand...

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

The hands can't hit what the eye can't see.

Mesmerizing. The bass comes in at the absolute top of this shootout in its speed, detail and timbre. It also has nice tightness, although this is not a standout trait. The combination is pretty amazing- because it comes in so fast, you hear the distinct bass layers separate themselves beautifully, creating a textured- albeit lean and swift- sound you've probably never experienced before. Best of all, it does so with a tone that's absolutely spot on. Bravo.

If only the H8P merely danced around the ring like a Featherweight; unfortunately, it hits like a Featherweight too. Jab, jab, jab. Winding up for a big hook... Nope, jab some more. In fact, there's no overstating it, and I'm gonna have to do it again. The bass here is exactly like a jab. Not only does it hit very light, there's also no follow through at all. Bass decay is swift and sudden, as if the H8P was worried about dodging an incoming counterpunch. Finally, sub-bass is also light as foam, with slam and extension that's both equally frugal.

Such a shame. Beautifully complex decaf coffee is still decaf.

Bass Score: 7.2 (Above Average)

Midrange

The H8P does very well in midrange evenness, clarity and airiness. This is a midrange that is quite agreeable, although it's less energetic than some other mid-forward IEMs, and both detail and timbre could be improved. In terms of detail, you can sometimes hear the midrange gloss over subtle cues that convey great emotion- particularly obvious when playing back singers with raspy voices, for example. On the other hand, I've always thought that one journeys down the same silk road to get to the mids and treble, and that these two traits were inextricably linked. Nowhere is this more obvious than on the H8P- the lingering treble tends to affect the timbre of the midrange, which comes across almost as- for lack of a better word- a tad metallic at times.

That the midrange still scored so well despite these issues, is really testament to just how good the evenness, clarity and airiness is. The H8P was basically elite in all three categories, although not quite entering the 'best in class' category just yet. Anyhow listen closely; past the timbre that could be improved; and beyond the detail that needs refinement; and you'll hear all these other qualities. But are you one of those lucky ones who can listen past these things?

Midrange Score: 8.2 (Very Good)

Treble

The wonderful treble clarity means that it's extremely easy to make out high notes on the H8P, which come served with absolutely no veil at all. There's also great extension, which is a real treat when playing back Electronic music (yummy synthesised treble). Speed, though, the speed. The H8P treble is really quite slow- basically, think about how fast the bass is... Then flip it for the treble. It greets you, hangs around, then stays for dinner. This treble isn't smooth either- it's almost exactly how you'd feel with tiny little bee stings- although to be clear we're talking a little sharp; not 'throw your IEM against the wall' bad.

So, sharp treble with great clarity, and yet the H8P somehow only scores only "above average" in terms of sparkle. Hmm. Also, despite all these issues, how does the H8P treble still manage to sound quite natural? Bermuda triangle me.

Treble Score: 7.6 (Above Average)

Spatial

The best of all its traits, here it is at last. The wonderful spatial presentation of the H8P. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. Soundstage size, consistency and airiness- check, check, check. Coherent center image. Check. Err okay actually that's it. End of a pretty short list, it turns out. But what a list. The quality and quantity of the soundstage here is the second-best¹ among all the IEMs I tested, which is no mean feat at all. Music is very evenly diffused throughout the spacious soundstage, and it also picks up air and breathes as it disperses outwards. You'll find yourself picking out detail from all across the soundstage. Very nice indeed.

The problem here is that the precision of this imaging is actually rather weak. Depth-wise, I hear a mostly flat layer, with little distinction. The H8P does do better on breadth and width separation, although even here it grades out as merely above average. The imaging performance was actually quite a shock to me, and I had to come back to this trait multiple times to confirm what I was hearing. After all, one of the first things that strikes anyone with the H8P is this wonderful 'detail from everywhere'. Turns out, this is not actually indicative of the strength of the imaging- rather, this sauce is special because detail is presented differently on the H8P, getting sent all over the soundstage to be played back. When it comes to the familiar, though- the instruments you know are in that far corner; the voice you remember are two layers back- those just don't image all that strongly. Prepare to be surprised by micro-detail peeking out from areas you've never heard before; and then confused with the way the H8P images the meat and potatoes.

¹P.S. the best soundstage came from an IEM built by another Polish company. Maybe there's something in the air over there...

Spatial Score: 8.5 (Very Good)

General Qualities

The H8P comes in with the highest score in one trait within this category, and the lowest in another. The PRaT on these babies is the best I've heard on an IEM- fast and pacy. Just brilliant. Having said that, this is not the kind of mercurial rhythm you'd find in Blues or Jazz. Instead, it focuses on speed, and is so fast that it almost sounds like it has hit the 'fast foward' button. I hope you like your music imbued with a dramatic sense of urgency.

While the PRaT is a treat, the note articulation is not. The H8P has a distinct thinness of note that comes across as pretty drastic compared to its peers. All in all the music sounds thin and a tad unfulfilling when played back from the H8P, which is a situation not helped by its butterfly-lean bass.

Apart from the PRaT and Note Articulation, balance in the IEM is surprisingly pretty good. Let's see. Lean bass, mids that aren't forward, and mildly hot treble. And yet somehow it all works well together! Shows you that CustomArt probably knew what they were doing, eh? Finally, rounding out the General Qualities, musical resonance was simply not that good- the sound was a bit too lean and dry; and had little of the pleasing bell-like after-notes that I really enjoy.

General Qualities Score: 7.5 (Above Average)

Comparisons

Jerry Harvey Audio JH13 Pro FreqPhase ($1099)

The JH13 Pro was my first ever pair of Custom In-Ear Monitors, and I've since upgraded it to the FreqPhase option that they offer. The JH13 and the H8P really sound quite different, beginning with the bass. The JH13 has a fun, authoritative bass with stronger midbass than subbass, although both are present in much more generous quantities than on the H8P. The JH13 also has a slightly tighter bass. It loses out- just like basically everyone else- in terms of bass speed, detail and timbre to the H8P, but still does quite well nonetheless in these areas.

The mids on the JH13 Pro have much nicer timbre than the H8P, but do much more poorly in terms of airiness. The two IEMs perform similarly in terms of midrange detail and energy (both performing just 'above average'), but overall I preferred the mids on the H8P, which also comes away ahead in terms of clarity and evenness.

Comparing the treble between the two is really getting into the two bottom-dwellers for me in this category, but the JH13 comes out clearly worse. Save for pretty good speed, and just slightly better smoothness, the JH13 loses out to the H8P in every category I rate.

Happily, the two posted quite similar scores in their spatial presentation, although they do so in different ways. The JH13 did better in imaging; posting good scores in layering of depth and center image formation, although being a hair's length poorer in breadth. On the other hand, the soundstage size is significantly smaller on the JH13- in all three dimensions no less; width, depth and height. Consistency of soundstage and airiness are also both poorer on the JH13. Which means basically everything about the soundstage was weaker.

After listing so many differences, I've saved perhaps the biggest difference for the end. The H8P is a lean and fit machine with notes that lack much weight; on the other hand the JH13 has beautifully distinct notes that are nicely articulated and convey a sense of wholeness.

Noble Audio Kaiser 10 ($1599)

Overall, the K10 continues to show its strengths in comparison with the H8P, performing extremely well in terms of the component parts of the frequency response: bass, mids and treble. Starting with the bass, the K10 actually stands up admirably well with regards to the 'magic trinity' of the H8P- here it is again, bass speed; detail; timbre. Moving on to the H8P's weaknesses, the K10 bass hits with much more authority and has a more natural decay. Sub-bass is also better, if not by much.

The mids are also much better on the K10; performing significantly above in terms of energy, timbre and detail. Midrange clarity also goes to the K10, although the disparity is not as big since the H8P was already quite capable. All is not bad, though, and the H8P comes out just a little ahead in mids evenness and airiness. We're talking a bee's-length, though. Splitting hairs.

Treble is a bit more of a mixed bag, with the two being somewhat opposites. Treble extension, naturalness and clarity are all better on the H8P. On the other hand weaknesses of the H8P, like treble speed, sparkle and smoothness, all do better on the K10, by increasing degrees. The K10 is not the fastest but still comes out ahead in speed; sparkle is clearly better on the K10 (the two are not really that close in this regard); and finally the biggest difference lies in the smoothness- switching from the H8P to the K10 is a bit like going from denim to silk.

But move away from the frequency response to consider the spatial qualities, where the H8P is a standout, and the K10 simply cannot compare. Much like with the JH13, the K10 falls short in every single soundstage category- quality and quantity alike. But unlike the JH13, imaging is clearly poorer on the K10 as well when compared to the H8P, coming in worse in terms of breadth and center image, and equally bad in terms of imaging depth.

Rounding up the comparison, PRaT is very good on the K10 but the H8P maintains its position as best in class; on the other hand balance continues to be unmatched on the K10 despite the H8P acquitting itself well enough. Note articulation, a major weakness on the H8P, comes across as much better on the K10; and finally musical resonance on both is unremarkable, although the K10 is slightly ahead.

1964Ears | Adel A12 ($1999)

These two IEMs have a completely different sound signature- the A12 comes in as a much warmer IEM in comparison to the H8P, due in no small part to the bass. Nobody can accuse the A12 of being bass-lite, whereas the H8P is decidedly and unashamedly not for bassheads. Quality-wise, the A12 bass is just as detailed, although its detail comes in the form of generous helpings of rich, velvety layers of chocolate. This is in stark contrast to the H8P, which achieves a raw and edgy bass, stripped of all frivolousness. Getting to areas of weakness for the H8P, the A12 bass possesses much deeper sub-bass extension- and is in fact the only Balanced Amateur CIEM I own that went toe-to-toe with my Hybrid IEMs (which have Dynamic bass drivers) in this regard. The A12 bass also hits with more authority, but you already knew that, and it decays in a more natural fashion as well. On the other hand, the H8P bass retains its crown as the king of timbre, and also grades out significantly faster in comparison.

Pitting the mids on these two IEMs against one another is a short and sweet affair. The A12 matches (evenness, energy) or betters (everything else) the H8P across the board, with a particularly huge difference in terms of mids timbre. The H8P has mids that sound a bit unnatural; while the A12 comes in at the opposite end of the scale, with tonality that's almost perfectly on point for my tastes. Nice.

Comparison of the treble is also not a particularly good look for the H8P. The A12 does better in every respect save sparkle. The A12 treble can sound a bit dull sometimes, even when compared to the H8P and its unremarkable treble sparkle. The H8P treble is also lacking in smoothness, and the A12 is in fact only slightly better. At the same time the A12 treble is distinctly faster, and even manages to nudge slightly ahead on areas of strength for the H8P- treble extension, clarity, and naturalness.

Perhaps the most exciting matchup between these two occurs in their spatial presentation, where the A12 takes the fight to the H8P exactly where the latter is strongest, with mixed results. Soundstage size is slightly bigger on the A12, if not by much, although the H8P hits back with better consistency and sound diffusion. Airiness is a standout on both IEMs. Overall, the H8P takes round one: all things considered, a better soundstage. On the other hand... Imaging, wow that imaging. This is where the A12 simply smokes the competition- the H8P is simply the first victim here. Depth, breadth, center. Everything is marvelous. I really think this is the Adel tech working its magic, but then I have no non-Adel A12 to compare to, so what do I know.

Anyway, we finish with some familiar themes. PRaT is better on the H8P, note articulation superior on the A12. Nothing surprising here.

Summary

The H8P is a lean, mean, jabbing machine. Its footwork is like magic: pay attention now, for the bass will come and go before you know it. Micro-detail is also presented in a unique way, bringing to mind that audiophile cliché, 'detail from everywhere'. But can you get past the slow speed of the treble; the svelte figure cut by the bass; and the thinness of the notes that it plays?

Pros: Super fast PRaT; big, airy and consistent soundstage; amazingly detailed, natural and quick bass

Cons: Slow lingering treble; music comes packaged in thin, unfulfilling notes; bass that brings a knife to a gun fight

Overall Score: 78.0 (Very Good)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the sixth-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#6. Remember when the iPhone got a 4" Screen?

The Original

The iPhone 4 was a legendary phone. I remember it vividly, because the original JH13 Pro- my virgin pair of Custom IEMs- and iPhone 4 both arrived in the exact same year. Ah, what a beaut. Years of research and development, of brilliant minds working on a problem, had come down to this. Accelerometer, Gyroscope, spanking new 3.5 inch screen, freaking Retina display, I simply had to have the iPhone 4 and I did. Game changer.

But you're probably wondering why I'm telling this story. Well, this was also exactly what the original JH13 Pro felt like. We'd only ever seen what, 3 drivers in an IEM, and someone now had the audacity to double that. Six. The JH13 was so outrageous, the number 12 (6 drivers on each side) was not big enough for it. No, it needed a bigger name. A bigger number. Thirteen.

The Sequel

There is a saying in Chinese- "if the old is not discarded, the new cannot be obtained". Fast forward two years later, and 5-inch Androids were seemingly everywhere. My beloved iPhone was looking more and more dated, and I'd begun entertaining some nasty thoughts of breakup. Fortunately it was at this precise moment- like a dramatic cloud descending from the skies- that Apple decided to discard the old. Finally, no more living with a 3.5" screen! All hail the new iPhone 5!

Stop me if you've heard this before. That exact same year... I mean seriously, just take a wild guess what happens next. That exact same year... wait for it...

Bringing eargasms to grown adults since 2012. JH Audio proudly presents: the new JH13 Pro, now with Revolutionary FreqPhase Technology!

IEM: Jerry Harvey Audio JH13 Pro FreqPhase

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1099 USD

Build Quality: Good. Shell is not very consistent in terms of transparency, but for the most part it's okay

Fit: Perfect

Accessories: Don't know. Mine was an upgrade of the JH13 (non-FreqPhase), so it came with just a cable and a pouch

(Post-script...)

Somehow, cool as a cucumber, I've resisted the siren-call of the JH13 Pro FreqPhase all these years. I already owned the JH13 Pro, and I wasn't going to pay full price for an upgraded crossover. Besides, my JH13 was fine as it was. Keep calm and carry on listening.

But then you probably already know how this story really ends. A few months ago, the fat lady burst magnificently into sweet, sweet, song, as Jerry Harvey Audio begun to offer an upgrade for their original JH13/JH16 series to the FreqPhase version. This calls for a Haiku.

Resistance is fu...
...tile. FreqPhase FreqPhase FreqPhase!
Please take my money?

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

Give the man some bass! These five words earned a cool $3 billion dollars for Dr Dre, and it seems the guys from JH Audio have their eye on the prize as well. The bass on the JH13 hits with great authority, and was the BA IEM that came closest to matching my Hybrids CIEMs in power. Quite a feat, considering how much more air dynamic drivers can move. In terms of quality, the bass is also nice and tight-rope tight, with nice tonality to boot. Sub-bass was okay- despite all this bass, the JH13 doesn't set out to be a particularly warm IEM. Speed, detail and decay were also all compliant- no complaints, but nothing to write home about either.

Bass Score: 8.4 (Very Good)

Midrange

Listening to the mids on the JH13, one gets the distinct impression that these were not voiced to break any records in technical performance. Evenness and timbre on the JH13's midrange are both pretty good, contributing to an experience that would typically be rather emotional and musical. "Typically" being the key word here. You know how the best Tom Yum soup comes with a fiery, almost angry, kick that's simply impossible to miss? That's not what you get here. The mids on the JH13 are more like chicken soup- linear, soothing, but not the most energetic and engaging.

Clarity and detail is also not the best. Despite the good evenness, there's somewhat of a veil throughout the mids. Weather forecast: a bit cloudy here. The detail (probably the key indicator of technical performance in my book) is also unfortunately lacking compared to the other Top of the Line IEMs in this shootout.

Make no mistake, though, this is still a Top of the Line IEM, and the mids still perform at least above average on all these metrics (this is where it's important to remind you again that my scores have both an absolute and a relative component). The sole area where the JH13 mids are actually just average on the larger scale of things, and where it makes up the wagging-tail-end (aka last) of the shootout: mids airiness.

Midrange Score: 7.7 (Above Average)

Treble

...And then there was the treble. Apart from speed, which is actually quite good, the JH13 struggles with everything else here. Sparkle performance? Middling at best. Naturalness? Not so good. Etc, etc. You get the drift. Interestingly, a few (bad) contradictions reveal themselves in the JH13. It somehow manages to both lack sparkle in the treble, and yet, somehow, don't ask me how, just somehow, also lack smoothness. So it straddles the unlucky duality of being both a bit dull yet a bit piercing.

BTW, you know how they say language is like clothing, and your mother tongue is like pajamas? No? That's just me? Well, too bad. It's after work, I'm in my pajamas, and so are my language skills. Here comes a Singaporean term, PM if you need translations. The treble extension cannot make it. The clarity? Also cannot make it.

To sum up, the treble could be more exciting and clear; comes across as a bit piercing; has tonality that's a bit off; and has a roll-off that arrives early to the party. Probably not a surprise that the JH13 was the treble bottom-dweller among the 8 CIEMs in this shootout.

Treble Score: 6.8 (Average)

Spatial

Now that's more like it! Great imaging, just shy of the top, let down by an average performance in terms of separating instruments on a 2D plane. The JH13 does a marvelous job separating layers of depth and in creating a center image, but when trying to pick out sounds across the breadth of the sonic field... Not as good.

The soundstage is good, but others were better. I liked the airiness of the JH13's spatial presentation, with subtle spatial 'air' sprinkled all over the stage, and it does a good enough job being consistent in the diffusion of the sound, too. The soundstage size is perhaps it's most interesting trait- I sometimes felt distinctly like the JH13 had created a column of sound- nice depth and height. In terms of width, though, while it still performed above average, it fell short of the others in the shootout. Very intriguing, actually, since most IEMs do best with width and worst with height.

Spatial Score: 8.6 (Very Good)

General Qualities

I really, really enjoyed the full, well-articulated notes of the JH13. They're almost at the top in this regard. Unfortunately, because there's a lack of musical resonance, the JH13 comes across as a gorilla walking in a swamp. You'll still be able to make out the awesomely distinct outlines of every note, but the musical energy seems trapped, almost unable to extend out freely and cleanly.

PRaT is okay, although far from the best. The overall balance also could be better. It feels like the midrange would prosper in the hands of a less measured, more energetic chef. On the other hand the treble needs to be seasoned with a lighter touch, but bring with it a heavier kick. Asking for too much?

General Qualities Score: 7.8 (Above Average)

Comparisons

Clear Tune Monitors CT-6E Elite ($1000)

The CT-6E and JH13 are both 6-driver acrylic IEMs Made in USA. The two have bass that's relatively on-par. The CT-6E has better quality (speed and detail) mid-bass that sacrifices some firepower in comparison to the JH13, but then again most do. Conversely the JH13 does better in sub-bass, especially sub-bass slam, although extension is rather close. Timbre of the bass is very good on both.

The mids on both sets are also relatively similar, although if you read my review on the CT-6E, by this point you wouldn't be surprised that the JH13 has much, much more even mids. Overall, the energy is similar, but even with a huge dip to hold it back, the CT-6E nudges ahead- if only barely. Both IEMs have mids that are not very airy, and while the JH13 has much better timbre and tone in the midrange, the situation is reversed for clarity and detail, for which the CT-6E come out in front, although by a smaller margin. All in all, these are the two lowest scoring sets of mids in this shootout.

The treble of the two couldn't be more different. Like, seriously. The CT-6E's treble is stunningly good, with clarity, smoothness, and sparkle that's so much better than the JH13 that I had to censor this sentence to remove the adjectives I really wanted to use. The CT-6E treble also sounds much more natural overall. The two are just about on-par, though, where it comes to speed (good) and extension (not good).

While the CT-6E owns the JH13 in the treble, the Empire Strikes Back where it comes to spatial performance. While the CT-6E has a bigger soundstage, it suffers tremendously on a lack of consistency and natural diffusion of the sound. The JH13 does much better in this regard. Both have good airiness in the spatial presentation and have relatively similar imaging of depth and breadth, but the JH13 forms a strikingly better center image that's much more coherent and precise.

In terms of general qualities, the differences are probably not surprising. I wrote that the CT-6E had wicked good PRaT (or something to that effect, depending on what I pulled out of my bottomless pit of adjectives). The JH13 on the other hand has PRaT that's a solid single, but I wouldn't try to go for that second base if I were you. Ironically, even though the JH13 is not really all that balanced, the CT-6E is worse. The same goes for musical resonance, although the gap is tinier here. I've saved the biggest canyon between the two for last, however. Compared to the JH13, the CT-6E has notes that are significantly less distinct and well-articulated.

Lear Audio LCM BD4.2 ($1290)

The bass compares mostly as expected, given that the Lear LCM BD4.2 posts not one but two dynamic drivers. In the default position (which was my favourite, and I'm guessing Lear's too) the BD4.2 just edges the JH13 in terms of authoritativeness, but does much better in decay and sub-bass- two traditional areas of strengths for dynamic bass drivers. The two reproduce bass timbre with equal aplomb, although the BD4.2 has marginally better bass detail. One clear area where dynamic drivers tend to fall behind, however, is speed, and the JH13 takes due advantage, showing up to the fight with bass that's clearly quicker and faster. Overall, I actually had the JH13 slightly ahead on mid-bass, but behind on sub-bass. Not a bad showing at all.

On the other hand, the mids on the Lear simply smoke the JH13. The JH13 is bettered in every single department, with the biggest gaps in performance coming in clarity and detail. Even though the JH13 has relatively even mids, the BD4.2 does even better, coming in as one of the top performers in this regard. In fact, in this head-to-head, mids on the BD4.2 really come across as beautifully even and clear throughout. Nice. On another area of strength for the JH13- mids timbre- the BD4.2 also manages to poke its nose slightly in front, although this was very much a photo-finish. Summing up, in two areas where the JH13 is not strong- mids energy and airiness- the BD4.2 performs better, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think you would label the BD4.2's midrange as overly energetic or airy either.

The treble is a similar story. Save for speed, where the JH13 actually does quite well and the BD4.2 shoots a bogey, the BD4.2 is a much stronger performer overall. Smoothness and clarity are top notch on the BD4.2 treble- night and day from the JH13, really. Sparkle is also much better on the BD4.2. These traits combine for a treble on the BD4.2 that's much more fun and exciting, yet unlike the JH13, never bursts the dam of sibilance. There were two areas where I felt neither IEM separated itself, though- treble extension and naturalness.

The Empire Strikes Back again (maybe I should start calling the JH13 "Darth Vader") in the spatial arena. Not unlike with the CT-6E, the BD4.2 has a bigger soundstage than the JH13, in all three dimensions to boot. Airiness is also better on the BD4.2, although this is not a slight against the JH13 but more an acknowledgement of just how much the BD4.2 manages to fill the air with sublime, analog cues. Consistency is better on the JH13, though- with the BD4.2 sounding a little diffused in comparison. Where it comes to imaging, the two are basically opposites. The JH13 does extremely well in depth and centre; whereas the BD4.2 creams the crop with the separation of the breadth. Overall, the JH13 comes out ahead in terms of spatial presentation.

Finally, if not for the beautifully distinct notes on the JH13, the BD4.2 would win the comparison in the general qualities. In fact, next to the BD4.2, it almost seems like the JH13 has been going to the gym over the course of this review, building up even more definition in its notes, with the BD4.2's notes being far less articulated. More happily, the BD4.2 has much better musical resonance, more harmony in the frequency response, and just ever so slightly keener PRaT.

Advanced AcousticWerkes AAW W500 AHMorph ($1111)

It's close, but the AAW W500 has the edge in the mid-bass, mostly because of much better authority. Given how much power the JH13 already has, this is mind-blowing. The AAW W500 mid-bass is like a rocket launcher. You know that trail of air you see in the movies as the rocket is launched? That's the AAW W500's super-natural decay, and the JH13 has no chance. Besides, the AAW W500 hits like a rocket launcher, too. Moving on, when it comes to sub-bass, the AAW W500 had this fight at 'hello', with significantly better slam and extension all around. On the plus-side, the JH13 has better timbre overall in the bass and marginally better speed and detail.

Where it comes to the mids, this is gonna be short and sweet. Apart from detail, where the JH13 is so slightly ahead that I'm tempted to just call it a tie, the AAW W500 comes out ahead in everything else. Switching between the JH13 and AAW W500, the biggest difference in the mids is in the clarity, although the first thing that will probably strike you about the AAW W500 is how beautifully even the mids are. Incidentally, I wrote above that the JH13 had good mid evenness too- well, the AAW W500 is better. The AAW W500 also has a significantly more energetic midrange, and marginally better airiness and timbre. For those keeping count at home, that's basically everything.

If you've read the Lear BD4.2 treble comparison, it's the same story here. AAW clocks in with slower speed, but with better everything else. Clarity, smoothness, naturalness, sparkle and even extension are all clearly worse on the JH13, and frankly it's not even close. Actually I'm going to save some ink here because the next paragraph is where the Empire has now Struck Back twice and that may be more interesting.

It's been a while since I watched the Star Wars trilogy, but I do remember that Darth Vader was seemingly all-mighty before Luke Skywalker came along. Well, that's also the story of the JH13 spatial presentation meeting the AAW W500's. How much better is the AAW W500? Let me count the ways. One: bigger soundstage (mainly 'cos of better width). Two: better diffusion. Three: better airiness. Four: better imaging, especially breadth. So what's the verdict? I jest, I jest- just felt like throwing in a classic rhetorical question to keep things interesting...

Lastly, the AAW W500's notes are actually very well articulated in their own right- the JH13 is just more so. Shifting gears, PRaT on both IEMs are good, although the JH13 is faster than rhythmic and the AAW W500 is the opposite. The AAW W500 does perform better in some general areas, though. When it comes to overall balance, the AAW W500 can count itself among the elite, and comparison with the JH13 really shows how much more the latter has to work on. Finally, the AAW W500 also has much better musical resonance (no swamp-like dampening here).

Summary

With a nice bass presentation and spatial qualities that are actually pretty good, it's a bit of a shame that the JH13 is let down by its mid-range and treble. Overall, though, this is still a capable IEM, and after all these years, the JH13 still manages to go toe-to-toe with the other flagships, acquitting itself relatively well in the process.

Pros: Authoritative bass for a Balanced Armateur driver; strong depth imaging; relatively big and airy soundstage; thick, weighty notes

Cons: Treble that's both a tad dull and piercing; mid-range could do with a bit more air, detail and energy

Overall Score: 78.4 (Very Good)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the fifth-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#5. Be Water, my Friend

Nothing like a cold beer on a warm summer day. But let's say you're just plain thirsty. Wadya got? Gun to your head, you're in a desert and I'm giving you a choice of a gallon of water or beer. What do you take?
Say whattttt? You choose the stuff of life? Yeah, that's what I thought.

There's no flash in this thing. It quenches your thirst, and it just keeps coming back. You know how this beer can't go with that food, or that wine doesn't pair well with that meat? Well, if that floats your boat, you're not gonna want to take the Kaiser 10 out to sea. I'm sorry, but water goes with everything.

Drink up, and enjoy this quote from the master:

The Kaiser 10 is shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Be water, my friend.

IEM: Noble Audio Kaiser 10

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1599 USD

Build Quality: Pretty good, but feels a little light

Fit: Unique. Loose-fitting on the outer ear portion, but very deep in the canals. It basically hangs on via the canals

Accessories: A very big hardcase- biggest I've seen so far- a soft pouch, some stickers, and a standard stock cable

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Noble Audio

Interviewee: Dr. John Moulton, Owner and Founder

What is your company’s history?

My dad was an audiologist by training, and when he saw Westone got started he wanted to do it too. He didn't have the chance to but I did. We partnered with Heir Audio to start with, because we had a partner in China who was a personal friend of my family and especially my dad. But when that when south we branched out on our own, keeping our former employees in China as partners.

Can you describe your philosophy for how products should sound, and how you tune or voice them?

I try to go for a range of products. Noble 6, Noble 5... They all sound different. I started getting into audio when I was 8. At that time my family had 12-inch speakers, Fischer speakers. Also had a Toshiba at one point. Growing up, I had different genres of music that I liked, that each played best on different speakers. Country Western for example didn't do so well on 12-inch speakers, because you get vocals that are a bit muddy. I also liked Guitars, RnB, Hip Hop (does great with 12-15 inch cones), Rap. Each one of these genres sounded different, and worked best in different speakers. So I took this personal experience as a starting point to design my range.

What do you see as different or unique about your flagship?

The K10 was actually first conceived in Thailand- even before the Heir Audio days. It was going to be my 10-driver design, but then when Noble Audio was formed, we did more experimenting, Kaiser came into the picture, and we modified it somewhat from my original design. In terms of how it sounds: I wanted the bass to be tight and quick, and somewhat 'hidden'- there but not always there. The highs had to be clean, good quality, and the bass shouldn't interfere with that. What you end up with, with these in mind, is an all-rounder that basically works for all genres. I didn't want my flagship to be pigeon-holed into a specific genre of music. Ironically, some people ended up being not overwhelmed exactly because of this. But it was important to me that our flagship not be polarising. The 8a, from the Heir Audio days, for example was a bit polarising. The lows were fantastic, but that was pretty much it.

PS, as an aside, I think the Savant's reached that as well. Some think the K10 is still better, and others think the Savant probably has a bit more high-end extension. I could probably support both those views. Rounding off the top three IEMs in my lineup that I think are really representative, is the Noble 4.

Where do you see the industry headed?

You'll probably be getting more and more small hearing aid companies entering this market with little to lose. What would be interesting to see is if the big hearing aid companies enter this market as well. At this point, the IEM market is way more competitive than the hearing aid one. For hearing aids, audiologists have to be registered, licensed, trained, certified, etc, and so they can charge high prices. Not the case in the IEM world.

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

The Noble K10's bass is pretty good overall, although the sub-bass is really not up to par. Extension and slam in the lowest registers doesn't measure up even to the other Balanced Armature bass driver IEMs. This is a real weakness on the Kaiser 10, and I docked it major points for this. On the other hand, I like what Noble Audio referred to as the 'hidden' bass- it's clean and controlled, comes with great detail, and has wonderful timbre. Best of all, when the bass does make its appearance, it hits with great authority! Your music will sound structured and sturdy, yet come infused with measured quantities of bass. Wonderful combination. Bass speed is also pretty good, although I wouldn't quite call it a standout traits. Bass decay on the other hand is rather typical of a BA IEM- less natural than that of Dynamic bass drivers.

Bass Score: 8.0 (Very Good)

Midrange

The mids are world-class. Me like. Coming in top of this shootout, they excel in practically every area. They have the best detail of any of the mids in Fit for a Bat, and you'll be able to hear every. single. breath. in your music. Timbre is also beautiful- the tone of these mids are extremely natural. On top of sounding detailed and natural, they also possess great evenness, energy and clarity, coming across as pure, clear and pristine. The one possible area of improvement is the airiness. The mids were still quite airy overall, but in this respect they fall short of the top.

All in all, I think if you've set out to make an all-rounder (as Noble said they set out to do, in the interview on the previous page), then the key aspect to get right would probably be the mids. After all, our hearing is most sensitive in this frequency range, and if you get this right, you're well on the way to a pleasing sound that will suit almost any genre.

This is definitely where the Kaiser 10 earns its money.

Midrange Score: 9.2 (Elite)

Treble

Ask around, and you'll find some people who find the Kaiser 10 to have treble that's a bit too sparkly. On the other hand others find it a bit too muted and smooth. For what it's worth, I think both groups are right, and at least in the Kaiser 10 that's a good thing. The treble here is ever-present, has nice sparkle, but yet manages to be smooth and silky. This is a wonderful duality, not often achieved, but when it is reached (as with the Kaiser 10), you'll find yourself in for a treat. Great job here by the folks from Noble Audio. In fact, not only does the Kaiser 10 present harmonious treble that's sparkling yet smooth, it also does so with very nice clarity- only just shy of the best.

But while the tuning of the treble is delightful- level and well-balanced- I thought the technical aspects could be improved. Treble extension doesn't quite measure up to the other TOTLs; I've definitely heard faster treble; and the overall tone of the treble- while overall still okay- is not yet the most natural.

Treble Score: 8.3 (Very Good)

Spatial

The Kaiser 10 has some real limitations in the spatial arena. The soundstage is consistently smaller than the best- in all three dimensions; width, depth and height. Here's where it's important to put some context, though- it's actually still pretty good all things considered. It just couldn't measure up against the other TOTLs in this shootout. Similarly for soundstage consistency and airiness. These traits all hit a solid single, so to speak (or rather, so to speak baseball). The sound has acceptable diffusion; the air and spatial cues overall are still alright; soundstage size is okay but clearly smaller... You get the drift.

Where it clearly doesn't do that well though is the imaging. Whether in its ability to create good depth or breadth in the music; or even to form a coherent center image, the Kaiser 10 rated at the bottom of this shootout. Those who enjoy surgical, pinpoint imaging will not find what they're looking for here. Instead the Kaiser 10 just seems to focus on playing music- musical recreation and harmony in particular seems prioritised above precise spatial cues that can help locate your music. That's probably not going to be a problem for everyone, though. When listening to ballads or pop music, for example, this wasn't much of a problem for me. But if you're the type who likes to analyse your music- or even the type who likes a surrounding, immersive effect- then maybe look elsewhere. Listening to the Kaiser 10 reminded me a bit of the traditional 'technician' vs 'musical prodigy' debate. No prizes for guessing- this IEM is very much in the latter camp.

Spatial Score: 7.2 (Above Average)

General Qualities

Finally. What would you expect a general all-rounder (again, Noble Audio's goal) to excel in? "General" qualities! I'm happy to award the prize for "Best Balanced IEM" to the Kaiser 10 right now. The mix of frequency responses is simply sublime to my ears. Everything is in perfect sync and perfect harmony. Perfect amount of bass. Perfect amount of mids. Perfect amount of treble. Well, okay, not "perfect" in the sense that I've never heard better, but rather everything blends and mixes in brilliant harmony. Listening to the Kaiser 10, I kept thinking that this was the closest I'd ever get to a musical conductor setting up camp in my ears, carefully directing and controlling the overall presentation of the music.

PRaT is also very good- I know I mentioned that the Kaiser 10 worked well for ballads and pop in the section above, but really, don't restrict yourself to that. The Kaiser 10 is well capable of keeping pace with fast, rhythmic music. It also does so with relatively thick notes, which is very good in conveying lushness. On the other hand note articulation- the ability to clearly distinguish each note from each other- is not the best, and neither is the musical resonance- the sound doesn't 'carry' as well, so to speak, unlike a beautifully reverberating instrument.

General Qualities Score: 8.5 (Very Good)

Comparisons

Jerry Harvey Audio JH13 Pro FreqPhase ($1099)

The JH13 Pro has bass that's just a bit stronger than that on the Kaiser 10, although it doesn't have that unique 'hidden' element that the Kaiser 10 bass has. The JH13 Pro bass is always there, and always strong. Overall, the Kaiser 10 might have bass that's actually better, depending on your preferences. Detail and timbre- good signs of quality- are better on the Kaiser 10, but decay and bass tightness goes to the JH13. The biggest difference between the two, however, lie in the subbass. The JH13 has much better slam and extension in the lowest registers.

Where it comes to the mids, you already know that the Kaiser 10 bests everyone in this shootout, but the JH13 at least comes near on the evenness of its mids (near, but no dice). Timbre is also pretty good on the JH13 though the Kaiser 10 is clearly better. In every other aspect, be it energy, airiness, detail or clarity, the Kaiser 10 takes home the prize, and it's not close.

The JH13 doesn't do well in the treble, with poor smoothness, sparkle, and clarity. On the other hand it just so happens that these are exactly the treble traits where the Kaiser 10 does best- better especially with smoothness and sparkle, but still very good on treble clarity. Overall, the Kaiser 10 also has a treble that sounds more natural and has better extension than the JH13, though the speed on the JH13 treble is just slightly ahead.

On the other hand, the JH13 was pretty revolutionary with its FreqPhase-bestowed imaging abilities, and it pulls cleanly ahead of the Kaiser 10 in this regard. The separation across the breadth of the stage is not a strength with either IEM, but where it comes to depth and center image, the JH13 is convincingly better. In terms of soundstage size, both are quite similar, although the JH13 is taller than wide (which is kinda rare), and the Kaiser 10 is the opposite (much more common among IEMs). The JH13 however has better soundstage airiness overall.

Finally, where it comes to general qualities, the tables are turned. The Kaiser 10 pulls ahead in every single metric, with the biggest difference coming in terms of musical balance. The Kaiser 10 is very harmoniously tuned, whereas the JH13 has treble that's a bit too hot and mids a tad too recessed- actually, let's just call it a bit too v-shaped. Note thickness is also quite obviously better on the Kaiser 10. Whereas the JH13 has notes that are a bit thin, the Kaiser 10 has nice, thick notes- not quite the absolute thickest, but certainly among the top.

Lear Audio LCM BD4.2 ($1290)

With dual-dynamic bass drivers, the LCM BD4.2 has really authoritative bass that can move good air, and I honestly don't think that a BA IEM would be able to go toe to toe with it- but the Kaiser 10 comes close. While it loses slightly on authority, the Kaiser 10 does possess better bass timbre and bass detail. Bass timbre and detail doesn't naturally convey advantages to either BA or Dynamic bass drivers, so I take this as a very positive sign for the Kaiser 10. The LCM BD4.2 clearly pulls ahead on traditional areas of strength for Dynamic drivers- clocking in with more natural bass decay, as well as stronger and more extended subbass. On the other hand the Kaiser 10 does better on areas of strengths for BA bass drivers, having tighter bass and much faster bass speed. Overall though, I rated the LCM BD4.2 ahead.

Mids-wise, the game is closer. The LCM BD4.2 actually has better clarity and simply flawless evenness of energy, but comes in behind in terms of detail, timbre, airiness and mids energy. The LCM BD4.2's mids were actually one of my favourites, but it lacked the all around excellence of the Kaiser 10's midrange. For example, the Kaiser 10 scored consistently well across all the mid-range factors that I rate, but the LCM BD4.2's airiness in particular was merely 'above average'. The sound on the LCM BD4.2 was clear and distinct, but didn't quite float on a cloud around your ear. It isn't heavy, mind, it just doesn't quite have wings.

I give the treble to the Kaiser 10, just by a hair. Before we get there, I must applaud the LCM BD4.2 for possessing one outstanding trait where it comes to the high notes- treble clarity is amazing, far better than on the Kaiser 10. BTW, that's really more of a reflection of how good the clarity is on the LCM BD4.2, than a slight against the Kaiser 10. The LCM BD4.2 also manages to match the Kaiser 10 in terms of treble smoothness, which was an area of strength for the Kaiser 10. It has a tiny bit less sparkle than the Kaiser 10, though. Extension is also slightly poorer on the LCM BD4.2, but, and here we finally get to why the LCM BD4.2 eventually lost the treble race, the speed and naturalness on the treble of the LCM BD4.2 is really just average. I don't mean 'average for a TOTL'. I really mean average. The Kaiser 10 is so much better in just these two categories, that it more than makes up for all the plus points of the LCM BD4.2's treble.

The soundstage on the LCM BD4.2 is wider, deeper and taller. It is also much airier. For soundstage presentation alone, the LCM BD4.2 is hard to beat, and the Kaiser 10 is not up to the task. It's not all bad, though. The consistency of the sound diffusion on both IEMs is pretty much on par, and I actually found that the LCM BD4.2 didn't perform all that well in terms of depth imaging and center imaging- in fact, it did worse than the Kaiser 10. Where it came to separation in terms of breadth, though, the LCM BD4.2 really did a marvelous job, far outperforming the Kaiser 10 in this regard- wonderful, pinpoint accuracy of instruments across the left-right pane of the soundstage.

Wrapping up the comparison, the general qualities of the LCM BD4.2 really aren't bad. The Kaiser 10 comes so far ahead in two areas, though, that this comparison ends up not being all that close. First, the Kaiser 10 has brilliant musical balance, but you already knew that, and the LCM BD4.2 is merely 'very good'. Second, the Kaiser 10 has very good, thick and lush notes, whereas the LCM BD4.2 has very thin notes that really lack the satisfying richness I expect in a TOTL. In the other traits, though, it's all pretty close. PRaT is very good on the LCM BD4.2, although the Kaiser 10 is just a bit better, whereas note articulation and distinctness, as well as musical resonance, are all slightly better on the LCM BD4.2.

Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate ($1800)

Bass goes to the SE5 Ultimate. Most obviously, sub-bass is not a strength of the Kaiser 10, and it shows up in the comparison with the SE5 Ultimate. It's not really that the SE5 Ultimate is strikingly better; rather, it does rather well for a Balanced Armateur in terms of low-end extension and sub-bass slam; whereas the Kaiser 10 is rather typical for a similar type of driver- that is, not all that good. The SE5 Ultimate also has fantastic bass decay, rivaling the Dynamic drivers in this regard- quite a surprise I must say- whereas the Kaiser 10 falls short. Finally, the SE5 Ultimate also has better bass speed and marginally better timbre and tone. All is not bad, however. I rated authoritativeness and tightness- both important for an enjoyable toe-tapping time- in favour of the Kaiser 10, and bass detail (a good indication of technical quality if any) is also in its favour.

The tables are flipped for the mid-range. The Kaiser 10 bests the SE5 Ultimate in every single facet, save for one standout trait that the SE5 Ultimate has- I'll get to that later. Mids energy, evenness, and timbre, all important traits for a properly emotional experience, are in favour of the Kaiser 10 (although the two are quite close on evenness). In the technical aspects, clarity is just slightly better on the Kaiser 10, although detail is clearly, markedly, in favour of the Noble Audio IEM. As for the SE5 Ultimate's standout trait, it has mid airiness that is second to none. Amazing air and lift in that midrange- much better than on the Kaiser 10.

Treble is really, really, good on the SE5 Ultimate. One caveat, though- if you're the type who likes your treble hot and spicy, then look elsewhere. The treble here is not about heavy-handed sparkle, and in that respect the Kaiser 10 does better. Rather, there is flawless clarity and naturalness- wonderful quality- and the Kaiser 10 simply cannot compare in these areas. The Kaiser 10 also has rather smooth treble as it is, but the SE5 Ultimate is even better. You won't get any fatiguing or piercing sibilance here. Finally, in the more technical aspects, treble speed and extension are all significantly better on the SE5 Ultimate.

Ah, space. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate. Buckle in, because you're in for a spatial treat with these. You already know that the Kaiser 10 does not excel in this regard; well, the SE5 Ultimate does. Soundstage size is bigger in all dimensions on the SE5 Ultimate- depth, width, height. The consistency of diffusion is also a real delight on the SE5 Ultimate. If you're not sure what this means, imagine your favourite classical band playing in Carnegie Hall (or any proper concert hall, really), vs playing at an open-air concert. The "Carnegie Hall" experience is what I'd call proper diffusion, and the SE5 Ultimate has it in spades. The Kaiser 10 is okay- but the SE5 Ultimate is just so good, it isn't really close. It helps also that the SE5 Ultimate has good airiness and spatial cues across its soundstage, although here its lead on the Kaiser 10 is much smaller. But the biggest difference between the two IEMs is probably in the imaging. The SE5 Ultimate excels across the board, doing an amazing job with depth layering, separation in a 2D plane, and forming a centre image. Comparing the two in terms of imaging really shows out how the Kaiser 10 actually images pretty poorly for a Top-Of-The-Line.

Finally we wrap up with the general qualities. The Kaiser 10 retains its crown as the king of harmony and balance in its frequency response; although the SE5 Ultimate comes very close indeed. PRaT is almost too close to call- both are good- but the SE5 Ultimate nudges ahead in a photo-finish. More clear-cut, the SE5 Ultimate has beautiful note articulation, with each note coming across as clearly formed, distinct and present- much better than the Kaiser 10. The SE5 Ultimate also has much better musical resonance, with the sound of each note being lifted and extended gently, while the Kaiser 10's resonance is merely above average. Finally, the Kaiser 10 has rather nice thick notes, making music sound slightly creamier than on the SE5 Ultimate.

Summary

Noble Audio set out to build an all-rounder, and I'd say they succeeded. All across the board, the Kaiser 10 seems to have taken the hippocratic oath- first and foremost, do no harm. At the same time, it has some standout traits. That midrange is fantastic and, for my money, will probably make fans out of most of the music-loving world. Like a perfectly seasoned dish, the harmony and balance of the frequency response on this IEM are also top-notch. But the Kaiser 10 is not perfect. If you're the type who loves me some good soundstage; imaging; or sub-bass; this IEM won't cure your malady. Which malady, you ask? We audiophiles call it upgraditis...

Pros: Treble that achieves the rare duolity of being both sparkling and smooth; world-class midrange; amazing harmony in frequency response; and authoritatitive yet detailed bass

Cons: Spatial qualities- both soundstage and imaging- could be better. Sub-bass slam and extension also does not rate well

Overall Score: 82.1 (Outstanding)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the fourth-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#4. It's a Big, Big World

The best experiences find a way to become more- more than themselves. A soldier and a nurse- strangers, too- share a kiss in immortal Times Square, and a single photograph comes alive with endless layers of emotion. In the genius hands of Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa looks more human, more lifelike, than if she were there in the flesh. And as if the spoken word were a prison, Chaplin breaks free into silence, invoking tears of joy and sorrow from a place deeper than life.

The Lear LCM BD4.2 is not the next Charlie Chaplin, but this IEM reaches within you and finds, buried underneath, something more. Music is an auditory experience, but the Lear makes it a metaphysical one as well. It constructs a tall, soaring dome of sound around you- a technicolor movie that you're seeing in IMAX for the first time. Musical notes appear all over, as clouds of air capably fill the stage with sound. It is a rich, involving episode- the sort that, at the last, makes you sigh wistfully at what could have been. Like a Sunday-afternoon trip to the flea market, you never know what you're gonna get with the Lear, as delightfully standout traits and middling performances are displayed unassumingly side by side. The Lear transports you to an IMAX theatre, but, like a devout member of the old guard, refuses to focus on 3D imaging, focusing on 2D breath over 3D depth. Clouds of air form everywhere, but at the same time they congregate in pockets- some empty, some oversaturated. At the last, some people will RSVP on account of the standout traits; others will end up deleting their copy of Flappy Bird in frustration.

Da Vinci creates a better reality on canvas. The Lear, on the other hand, is virtual reality. You can hear (and see) what its trying to do, but in this case art imitates life, and never quite nails it completely. So where does it excel? Let me count the ways...

IEM: Lear Audio LCM BD4.2

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1290 USD

Build Quality: OK. A bit "rough" around the edges. Not literally rough, but this is not jewelry.

Fit: Perfect. Ear Impressions matter a lot. After getting my Lear back (with a perfect fit), I decided to reuse the impressions for my JH13. Perfect as well. I've been sold on this guy ever since (and he's not even an audiologist- he's just a shop assistant at the CIEM place!)

Accessories: Standard hardcase, jeweler's screwdriver to adjust the bass, and stock cable with memory wire turned the other way due to reversed polarity on the CIEM.

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

Two dynamic bass drivers. The bass better sound awesome and it does. Oh boy it does. Beautiful natural sounding bass with top-notch decay and timbre, the bass here is about as life-like as you can get. It comes dressed with gobs of detail, so you can hear every little nuance in the notes- good thing too, 'cos the one thing it lacks is speed. The bass here is slo-mo, coming in as the slowest of the lot. As it drags out, taking its own sweet time to present the music, you'll hear every teeny bit of delicious detail presented like a million-course dinner. For those who like their coffee black, the stronger the better, the sub-bass here is also plenty good. It extends really far, into deeper places than 'most every other IEM out there. The slam is also nice- not just deep, but dark as well. One caveat- the LCM BD4.2 has adjustable bass, but I listened to it mostly on default position, and found that that's probably the highest I'd go. It's not a problem of quantity, I like my bass, but as the amount of bass increases on the Lear, it loses some definition and sounds a little loose. As it is, even in the default (middle) position there was great weight and authority, so I stuck with it.

Bass Score: 8.8 (Very Good)

Midrange

The mids are really good. In particular, they really take the cake in clarity. Clarity-wonks, meet the Lear LCM BD4.2 Retina. It's almost like every other IEM has you looking through a window to experience the mids, and here, the window is just wide open. It's a bit rough and tumble and probably not for everyone, but you get in return is a pure unadulterated experience. The detail on these mids, as you'd expect for such a revealing IEM, is also top-class. Fortunately the mids are extremely even and not wild or splashly, so it's never an uncomfortable ride. One thing though- they're not the most emotional out there, focusing instead on technical brilliance. They sound pretty natural, with good timbre and tone, and reasonably good energy, but none of these are top of the class. I could really do with more airiness as well- the mids here don't disperse very well.

Midrange Score: 9.0 (Elite)

Treble

As with the mids, treble clarity here is off. the. charts. This is String Theory in your ears. Every note seems like a tiny string vibrating, and you'll hear every small micro-movement in the "twang" of the string. It's also margarine-smooth, as in really smooth, but not quite at the level of butter. This smoothness comes at a cost, though- sparkle, while good, is a half-notch below the best. It never sounds dull, but you're not going to get an Explosion of Treble in your ears. But in other aspects the treble doesn't do so well. The downside of this amazing clarity is that the treble sounds rather unnatural, with too much- almost artificial- detail and sheen. The speed of the treble is also slow. Coupled with the lumbering bass, really, I would stay away from this IEM if you're into genres like Happy Hardcore. Lastly, treble extension is quite poor as well (I use 'poor' in the context of this shootout- overall it's more like 'average').

Treble Score: 8.1 (Very Good)

Spatial

The soundstage is an elephant-giraffe chimera. Wide, deep, and tall. The Lear's got it all, resulting in the biggest soundstage in Fit for a Bat. If you're really nitpicking (why would you? That's my job!), it's deeper than it's wide, and taller than it's deep. That's actually a really good combo- most IEMs have it the exact opposite, width > depth > height. Pity that it doesn't diffuse very well. What you hear are pockets of music mixed with bits of darkness, a bit of a yin-yang effect, rather than a natural, consistent, ever-present sound across the stage. On the other hand, the airiness on display is also best in class- as instruments are strummed and voices ring out, you'll experience a voluminous burst of air as the music explodes to fill the stage. Very nice indeed.

Unfortunately, as wonderful as the soundstage is, the imaging just ends up being above average. First, the good- separation across the stage is jawdropping. Instruments separate themselves distinctly and clearly in the left-right space, smugly skewing the result-curve with its horizontal brilliance. But then in life one should never be too smug, and the Lear pays the price by being rather poor at situating instruments in terms of depth. The center imaging is also, surprisingly, subpar- akin to when you try to watch a 3D show without googles. It's lacking in coherency, and the image just doesn't gel.

Spatial Score: 8.1 (Very Good)

General Qualities

The Lear is stick-thin in its sonic presentation. Notes come across as a bit aneroxic- that's how skinny they sound! Honestly I sometimes felt like asking the Lear to go eat a buffet- or at least find itself a nice lush and rich tube amp to marry, thank you very much. That being said, this was probably a conscious choice. Many of its great traits- wonderful clarity, horizontal separation- seemed only further enhanced due to the Lear's lack of girth. Anyway, end result, thinnest IEM in this shootout. In the other areas, the Lear does good not great. PRaT, sonic balance, note articulation and musical resonance are all decent. The PRaT was a nice surprise- I'd feared the worse given the slo-mo bass, but it turned out alright. On the other hand I must admit that I'd expected the Lear to do a bit better in general note articulation, given its overall slim figure. That being said, although not the best it still performed quite well in this respect. Maybe I'm asking for too much?

General Qualities Score: 7.7 (Above Average)

Comparisons

Clear Tune Monitors CT-6E Elite ($1000)

The CT-6E's bass is the polar opposite of the LCM BD4.2's in one aspect- speed. The CTM IEM has a good pair of legs down low, and gets to its destination flash-quick, in and out before you know it. Quite a distinct difference from the 350 pound monster offensive-lineman-of-a-Lear. As well, as you'd probably expect from that last sentence, bass authoritativeness and weight is significantly better on the Lear (although still pretty good on the CTM). On the other hand, as typical of BA drivers, the CTM rates out with tighter bass overall. Where it comes to bass decay, the CTM is just okay, whereas the Lear is outstandingly natural- not too fast, not too slow. Changing gears, the Lear is a monster of the abyss, thriving 20,000 leagues under the sea where the bass is darkest and calls for deep extension; whereas the CT6E is pretty average- more like a recreational diver than something from a Jules Verne novel. Finally, the two performed quite similarly in terms of bass detail and bass tone / timbre. Overall, the Lear came out ahead.

In terms of the mids, the Lear is better across the board, so there's really not much to say, although the two are going for very different things. The CT6E is a love-it-or-hate-it proposition, constantly bringing new interpretations to your music. Sometimes it hits upon a moving, emotional rendition, and you'll find like you've just hit gold. On the other hand the Lear is a technical maestro. Everything is exactly as it were, as it should be- in short, great for analytical presentations.

Moving on to the treble. The CT6E has amazing presentation up top, and manages to be both more sparkling and smoother than the Lear, a remarkable combination. The speed on the CT6E high notes is also, while not necessarily a standout, just that bit ahead of the Lear. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two is the naturalness. High hat notes for example have a nice natural shimmer on the CT6E, whereas the Lear portrays these notes as a bit metallic and just a tad too thin. The two are just about even on extension, although the Lear nudges ahead by just a few millimeters; and although the clarity on Lear is best in class, the CT6E can still hold its head up high, acquitting itself plenty well. Overall, CT6E wins.

The CT6E has a rather large soundstage, but when going against the Lear- it's like comparing the park in Jurassic World (plenty big, no?) with the Death Star. Sorry, Jurassic Park is big, but it's no planet-sized starship; and the Lear grades out slightly ahead in all three dimensions. The two also carries beautiful air in the soundstage (Lear slightly ahead), and has issues with consistency and naturalness of diffusion (CT6E being particularly problematic on this account). They also grade out quite similarly in imaging, although with difference strengths. The CT6E is really really good at placing instruments in terms of depth; but just okay in terms of the 2D left-right stage. The Lear is the opposite. Interestingly, both have similar problems with forming a clear and coherent center image. In general, while the two are quite similarly spatially, the Lear grades out as an overall better version.

Finally, in the general qualities both have their strengths and weaknesses. The CT6E has outstanding PRaT that's really suited for fast pace music. The Lear does a good job given its heavier bass legs, but just cannot compete with this world-class sprinter of an IEM. The Lear is also rail-thin, and comes across as a bit unnatural, whereas the CT6E has significantly nicer body and thickness to its sound. On the other hand, the Lear is better balanced in terms of its frequency response. It also has better musical resonance, with notes that glide relatively well and do a nice job extending to the furthest corners of your ears. The LCM BD4.2 also has clearer diction and articulation- playing back music that separates itself in a more surgical manner, from one note to the next.

Advanced AcousticWerkes AAW W500 AHMorph ($1111)

The AAW W500 and the Lear LCM BD4.2 are the two CIEMs in this shootout that are hybrids, pairing dynamic drivers for the bass; with BA drivers for the rest of the spectrum. The AAW W500 has one dynamic bass driver, while the Lear LCM BD4.2 boasts two. Little wonder that I frequently got people asking me about how the two compare. Well, the Lear has some of the bass best I've ever heard, but the AAW W500 is even better. The AAW's bass hits like a sledgehammer, with more weight and authority than any other IEM I've heard- including the Lear. Its bass is also a bit faster, and decays in an even more textbook fashion. Interestingly, while it's a bit like an uber-dynamic in the above qualities, it also is tighter and cleaner than the Lear's low-end. It's not all negative for the Lear, though- its bass has a naturalness of tone that's clearly better; and also boasts a bit more detail. Getting to the sub-bass, it's safe to say that both these IEMs easily reach into the deepest reaches of the sea, feeding on hapless minions for breakfast. But the AAW has better slam in the darkest corners of the bass, with a more enveloping and bountiful presentation.

Both these IEMs have mids that are pretty similar. Notable differences include: the AAW's midrange being more energetic and lively; whereas the Lear's had clearly more detail. Moving on to traits where they rated very similarly, were extremely even in their performance; although the Lear's had slightly more airiness and clarity; whereas the timbre was better on the AAW.

The AAW has very good treble, being both a bit smoother and more sparkling than on the Lear. But the Lear's treble is astoundingly clear, and the AAW is just average in this regard, docking it points. Another big difference between the two is the naturalness- the Lear comes across as a bit metallic, whereas the AAW is beautifully lifelike and natural. Rounding up the comparison, both are rather slow; and are just okay- not great- with treble extension, although if you're keeping score the AAW does better in both.

The AAW has a large soundstage, but this is probably a common theme now if you've been reading the rest of the review- the Lear is handily bigger, width, depth and height all. The quality of the soundstage though is where the tables are hugely turned. The AAW portrays a very natural and even diffusion of the music, what I'd called a '9.8' in the Carnegie-Hall factor, whereas the Lear, while still doing above average in the grand scheme of things, never comes close to sounding like a world-class acoustically-treated arena. (The Lear does have more air, though...). Where it comes to imaging, the AAW W500 is a real standout, performing admirably in all the factors I rate. It scored a bit below the Lear for 2D imaging, but was still outstanding overall, and it also paired this with a wonderful ability to spot instrumental depth, as well as to create a consistent centre image. Overall, the AAW W500 wins this one.

In terms of general qualities, the AAW W500 does about equally on PRaT (to be precise, it scores just a bit worse), although I have to caveat that the AAW W500's portrayal is unique- it brings to the table fantastic rhythm, and earns major scores in the "R" part of the PRaT equation while losing some points in "Pace". On all the other traits the W500 does better: it has better balance in the frequency response; articulates and distinguishes notes in a clearer manner; plays music that resonates in a more graceful, sustained fashion; and has distinctly thicker notes.

1964Ears | Adel A12 ($1999)

And so another wonderful bass prodigy signs up for a comparison. The A12 comes with a new technology that, to my ears, basically makes it the king of bass detail. The Lear is no slouch in this department either, but all bow to the king! The speed on the A12 bass is also above average, which is enough to make it clearly faster than Mr. Slo-mo in that other corner. On the other hand, bass decay goes handily to the Lear- again, probably a Dynamic vs BA thing, but that the Lear was clearly better with decay, really made me wonder what the Adel technology would do to a dynamic bass driver.... Hmm... Moving on from mad scientist comments, the Lear is just a bit better at the other bass aspects, which is in some cases surprising, some not. First, probably not a surprise that the Lear, with two huge dynamic bass drivers, hits with more weight and authority, moving more air than the A12. I must say though that the A12 does pretty well for a BA. Next, the Lear reports for duty with better bass timbre, sounding more pleasant than the A12. But on to the unexpected. The Lear actually has tighter bass than the A12- surprising because bass tightness is typically a BA specialty. The A12's bass is beautifully textured and detailed, but more of the type that envelopes you in its comforting dark layers. It's not of the taut tightrope variety. As well, the A12 basically goes toe to toe with the Lear in terms of sub-bass performance. This was my only BA IEM that managed such a feat. It dived just as deep, and hit with a slam that was almost as full as satisfying. Nonetheless, on balance bass is a win for the Lear.

The mids on both these IEMs are extremely even, a big plus. The Lear impresses overall as a detail monster, pulling ahead of the A12 in terms of clarity and detail, although to be clear the A12 does not lack for these traits either. The mids on the Lear are also a bit more energetic overall. On the other hand the A12 wins the matchup where it comes to the more 'emotional' traits, posting better scores in airiness and timbre. All in all, the two are just about tied in this region, although they really bring completely different approaches to the table.

Compared to any other IEM, the A12 would be crowned king of treble clarity. Not so with the LCM BD4.2, which laps the rest of the field in this regard. In other technical aspects though, the A12 continues to fare well, and the Lear falters. For example, treble speed and extension are both top-notch on the A12, and the lumbering and short BD4.2 just cannot measure up. The treble on the A12 also comes served in a beautiful, organic tone, sounding distinctly more natural than the Lear. The Lear has some fight in it, though, hitting back with treble that's both smoother and has nicer sparkler all things considered.

If you want something lifelike, that images better than anything out there... Go buy the A12 immediately. It achieves top grades in every single imaging category, and truth be told, it's not difficult to discern. Listening to the A12 is as much an exercise in seeing as well as hearing. You'll be phaser-stunned for a while because you probably won't be able to process your music suddenly sounding so real, life-like, as if you can reach out and touch it. The Lear still grades out marginally better in 2D imaging, but the A12 achieves such all round excellence in every single imaging category, that the overall result is nothing short of remarkable. Soundstage-wise it's a bit more mixed; but the Lear comes out ahead. The A12 excels with depth, playing music that extends endlessly in the Z-dimension, but the Lear has it beat in terms of breadth and height and grades out with slightly bigger size overall. The Lear also has better ability to fill the soundstage with air- subtle cues that breathe life into your music- although the A12 wraps up this fight with slightly better soundstage consistency, sounding a bit more natural in the way it creates the soundstage.

In terms of general qualities, the first thing that struck me about the A12 is just how thick and lush its music was. OTOH the Lear is very much the opposite in this regard, coming across as the thinnest model in town. The difference between the two IEMs in this regard is actually remarkable. Other big departures include resonance, for which the Lear does better. For all its thick lushness, the A12 can sound a bit weighty, and music played on it lacks the lift that the Lear brings to the table. Weightiness does have its fringe benefits though, such as improving an IEM's ability to articulate each note as a distinct, succinct entity- something that the A12 excels in, grading in better than the Lear. In terms of both balance and PRaT the two IEMs are close, although the Lear is slightly better.

Summary

My stage is as boundless as the sea, my bass as deep; the more I give to thee the more I have, for both are infinite. I thought it fitting to borrow a few words from the bard himself to wrap up this review. Romeo and Juliet is a story that borders on cliche, but it's a classic for a reason. Shakespeare utilises the iambic pentameter to great effect, wielding exceptional technical skills in writing sonnet after sonnet to describe the story of Capulet and Montague. The Lear is much the same. Star-crossed from the start, it wows you with sweet serenity to open the play: what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Lear is the sun. (P.S., as it so happens, an adolescent, skinny-jeans Claire Danes would also be the perfect protagonist in any movie of the Lear LCM BD4.2. There will be no fat music from this IEM.) Building on the strong opening, through acts one to four of the play the Lear continues singing softly to remind us that, like the Bard, it brims with technical brilliance. Yet as we enter the fifth and final act, we become awakened to its subtle flaws and it is only then that the true story of the Lear takes its final form. When the curtains come down, the Lear exits the stage still a hero- but a tragic hero. The epitaph of its performance goes as so: "Tonight we witnessed a fusion of genius and shortcoming; it was a bed of sweetness, potential, and melancholy."

Pros: Biggest soundstage around; deep, authoritative bass with very natural decay; unmatched clarity in mids and treble

Cons: Lack of depth in imaging; unnatural treble; bass swings its bat in slow-motion

Overall Score: 83.1 (Outstanding)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the third-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#3. Beam Me Up Scotty

There is a scene in the movie American Beauty where the camera is held captive in front of a brick wall. For more than a minute, we sit behind the two protagonists, slowly and deliberately gathering our rosebuds while we may. It is one minute away from snowing, the movie tells us, and the invisible hand of lightning lingers in the air, puppeteering the surprisingly graceful dance of a plastic bag. The effect is electrifying- launching the viewer into a bout of sudden, uncontrollable reflection.

The 1964Ears Adel A12 has a similar kind of effect. It seizes you by your ears, delightfully coaxing you to rediscover the music that you've apparently taken for granted all these years. Singers and musicians seem to materialise around you, and your mind panics for a moment as it frantically tries to regain its balance. But then that moment passes, you start to calm down, and for the first time you stop listening and begin experiencing. With the curiosity of a newborn baby, you find the A12 has harry-pottered you to the studio, the club, or the stadium where your music was recorded. It is a staggering experience, sweet yet sour. Your music may sound the same with other IEMs, but somehow it will never feel the same.

If this is the future of IEM technology, then the future is bright as white, and I can't wait to see what else the Adel technology can do. American Beauty indeed!

IEM: 1964Ears | Adel A12

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1999 USD

Build Quality: Outstanding! Smooth everywhere with no blemishes whatsoever.

Fit: Good. Very comfortable, does not go so deep, more relaxed than tight.

Accessories: Mine was a kickstarter edition, and as of today I've only received a 1964 softcase and a stock cable. I appreciated that the case was a red/black colour combination, making it unique and thus easier to distinguish from all my other cases.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with 1964Ears

Interviewee: Vitaliy Belo, Owner and Founder

How did you get started in audio?

My family and I are immigrants from the Ukraine. We came to the US in 1992- with 8 kids in tow. Anyway, my family came to the US with $5 in my dad's pocket. We spent it on a Coke at the JFK airport and had no more money. My Dad’s brother helped out by taking us in- he already lived in the US, and had 3 kids of his own. So after adding us eight siblings, as you'd imagine, the household became really huge!

Our family continued growing, and my parents had four more kids which brings the total to 12!. My parents had no business background, as my dad was a factory worker and my mom was stay-at-home. I am the second-oldest, so, interestingly and fortunately enough, I've always had to work for everything I wanted in life. I had to learn the language, the culture and seized any opportunities I could.

From an early age (13-14) I had an extreme passion in music & electronics and tech. When young I even took my mom's watches apart for fun. As I got older I started to learn about mixing, and began to make my own mixing boards. I would buy parts and put them together, to do what the big boys were doing. I'd say it was an interesting journey into in-ear monitoring. The first time i held a pair of customs I was instantly captivated by how an IEM was built, and wanted to know how it worked. So I cracked one open, and learned how BAs, dampers, sound tubes and so on affected sound. It was quite a journey.

In July 2010 I finally started 1964Ears, and tried to be as good as the other guys in the field. I had to work ten times harder than everyone else, since many of the others have had decades of experience and knowhow. Although, throughout the years I've made many good contacts in the industries, and am friends with many other CEOs. Today, 6 of my brothers work with me and a sister as well. Our other colleagues are also people we know, friends of people we know... It's quite a family business. I have over 40 employees, and continue to love building close relationships with people. A huge part of my success is my wife's support, who also happens to be one of the twelve kids from her family (it's typical of Christian Ukraine people to have large families)!

Do you have a house sound?

Usually we try to push the envelope with new product releases, but sometimes it's also market-led, where we see a need and try to fill it. But sound is subjective- there's no right or wrong, and as the CTO, I have to give my stamp of approval, I have to like it, before it gets released. In general I like a warmer sound, which is more suitable for musicians. It brings out the character in the music, with rich tones. It has to be balanced, but not balanced in an uninviting way.

Can you describe your philosophy for how products should sound, and how you tune or voice them?

I normally start with an idea in my head before I start messing around. Actually I can more or less tell how something is going to sound before I even start tinkering! But then you gotta do your research, reference older stuff, to make sure we're not going backwards with our work. In the past, we mostly went after the musician market because that's where my passion is at, as a former sound engineer. 1964Ears was born out of that passion. But these days, we're looking more at the audiophile market.

What do you see as different or unique about your flagship?

It's the Adel tech! With this new technology, the reference sound- that wasn't my preference in the past- now sounds great without being thin or analytical. I've found a new appreciation for the reference sound.

Let's talk about the Adel tech. How did you and Stephen Ambrose meet? How did this technology get to interest you?

I was in Israel in the summer, and someone forwarded me a link to Asius' website. I quickly understood the concept and was intrigued about how this makes the ear perceive sound differently. Everyone else had been focusing on the production of sound, and not the mechanics of the ear. I then decided that we had to have this technology in our products. And once I actually heard it, there was no going back. We’ve been working non-stop since then to get this tech in our products.

What are the plans for Adel going forward?

This specific audio application for the Adel tech has never been seen by anyone. In the past Stephen has introduced the Adel technology in hearing aid, ear protection products, and many other embodiments. But then he talked to major IEM companies, other audio companies, those guys weren’t interested. This technology is a bit threatening to the whole in-ear audio world, because it’s based on science and not hype. The removable, replaceable module design is co-collaborated only with Stephen. Its also nice that this technology is fully patented. This is like penicillin for the audio world- our goal is eventually for everyone to be able to use it. 1964 is exclusive licensor currently, but there are plans to release this to others in the industry.

So how does it sound?

We’ve had to retune our products because the Adel tech makes them sound different. We started with creating brand new products, and had to change the way we tune. It’s not night and day, but the stereo image is different. Open, dynamic, unrestricted. It’s a bit like listening to MP3 compared to DSD or FLAC. The Adel tech restores dynamic range, and makes things sound more natural.

Why the move towards more reference products?

It's really about the demand. People nowadays want to use their CIEMs in the studio, for premixes, for portable music production. They want to have a tool that they can use. This just coincided with what we were looking at. We've had it in the works before, just to fill that niche in the market, but demand has really increased for this sound. Between our two new flagships, the A10 is the reference, and the A12 is the warmer version- the A12 is the bigger brother, closer to a stage sound. It's just a little bit dark on top, to give it a richer sound signature. In general, concert speakers are different from studio speakers- the former are not tuned to be as reference; rather, they're tuned to be more fun, vs more accurate. I've worked an equal amount in studio and in concert mixing. The studio monitors are crisp, high-resolution, whereas the concert monitors are juicier, bigger. This is what I was going for with the A10 and A12 pair.

Click to expand...

How was the Kickstarter experience? Would you do it again?

It wasn’t a bad experience, and I'm obviously grateful for people believing in the technology, and new people coming on board. I would do it again, but I'd do some things differently- for example, I'd offer more products in the custom fit lineup, and have reviews lined up well in advance. Kickstarter takes a big toll on a company that already exists. It takes over the business for a while. As we started getting into the actual manufacturing and fulfilling the orders, it was a bit difficult to juggle that well, along with handling the Kickstarter bit. Communicating better, especially with the backers, will be a key for us in future. We think there will be room for improvement in future, and if we do it again, we’ll definitely put more prep in ahead of time.

Where do you see the industry headed?

Musician markets are growing fast- especially in the mid to lower end. Audiophiles tend to go for higher end. Both markets are really growing as an appreciation for high quality audio has improved.

Click to expand...

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

It takes a master swordsmith several weeks to forge a samurai's katana. Layers after layers of steel are heated, hammered, and folded upon themselves, as the blade strengthens and purifies with each succeeding repetition. Before the end, a million individual layers would have been created, and only then will the katana find its lasting form as a seamless, complete, whole. This is the bass on the A12- there are a million layers of bass in the thing. Forswear it, sound! For I ne'er heard true bass till this night. If it isn't clear yet, the detail on this bass is remarkable, although the detail comes in the form of neverending layers; rather than being born of raw fibrous emotion. Subbass is also the best I've heard from a BA bass driver, driving deep and slammin' as hard as a dinosaur's egg. Sadly in other aspects it doesn't do that well- speed is just above average, decay is about par for the course for a good BA IEM but nothing special... In fact, this story also repeats itself for bass authority, tightness and timbre. It's as if someone took a legendary katana, and then sharpened it only casually; and didn't have time to polish it too thoroughly. So much potential...

Bass Score: 8.4 (Very Good)

Midrange

The timbre on this midrange is breathtaking: my instruments and vocals sound more lifelike, more natural and just all-around more pleasing on the A12 than any other IEM I own. *Rubs my hands in glee*. This satisfying timbre is also served on a steady platter of evenness, which allows you to relax after dinner and enjoy every beautiful tone like a soothing massage. The airiness is also sublime, and unlike a lesser ground-bound IEM, this midrange seemingly glides itself effortlessly into your ears. But the A12 is not just an artist; it's a technician, too. It achieves very good levels of detail that are played back, like His Master's Voice, with unfaltering clarity. One thing though- these mids are smooveeeeee operators. They're refined and measured rather than wild and passionate; and may not appeal to the hardcore midnatics out there.

Midrange Score: 9.0 (Elite)

Treble

The best pole vaulters in the world combine speed, strength, and a clean stroke to propel themselves skyward and beyond. Okay, so the A12 is more like an elite NCAA pole vaulter, but she's got some of these traits all the same. This IEM combines top class speed, crystal clarity and limitless extension in its treble. The A12 also passes the eye test, always seeming to hit every height with a beautiful, natural tone. She is an athlete with great potential, and she knows it. The only thing keeping her from breaking world records is a lack of sparkle in her approach; and movement that could be smoother. But everyone has something to improve in their technique, right?

Treble Score: 8.5 (Very Good)

Spatial

The imaging on the A12 is real as Aliens. Let's face it: Aliens are awesome. If you meet them you'll be awestruck; and when describing what had happened you'd probably sound like a monkey on steroids. Err... erm... ooh... ahh... It's similarly gonna be difficult to explain how the Adel's imaging could sound so real. Nonetheless when in doubt, mom always said that the simplest explanation was best. So here we go. After careful consideration and deliberation, I've decided that the most likely explanation is that this Adel tech comes from outer space. Specifically, my money's on Pluto. After all, there was that Nasa flyby recently...

Put all that freaky realism in a cup, and add two spoonfuls of the deepest soundstage I've ever heard- one that retains great air across the stage. Mix thoroughly, and serve. What you now possess is the precious recipe for Aladdin's magic carpet ride, one that can take you all the way to Pluto, no less. The other aspects of soundstaging- width, height, naturalness of diffusion- are all rather good as well, although I'd hesitate to say "oh Genie my Genie".

Spatial Score: 9.6 (Elite)

General Qualities

I hope you like some meat on the bone, cos' the A12 is full-bodied and proud of it. The music it plays is forever thick but never muddy. In fact, it was the thickest sounding IEM in this shootout. Fortunately, it has beautiful articulation of notes. As if a part-time newscaster, the A12 relays every word distinctly, clearly and precisely. The combination of a thick, lifelike presentation with fantastic diction is really quite a sound to behold. But other general qualities drag her down. The PRaT is merely above average- although treble speed is outstanding, bass speed is not quite as good, hence dragging down her overall ability to keep pace. The overall balance in the tuning and frequency response of the A12 is also just above average. Finally, musical resonance is not the best, probably because all that girth keeps the IEM from dispersing subtle cues gently into the outskirts of your brain.

General Qualities Score: 8.0 (Very Good)

Comparisons

Clear Tune Monitors CT-6E Elite ($1000)

If the A12 is the king of bass detail, then the CT-6E is the prince. The CTM bass is really detailed, and does a good job of presenting a high-quality, Speedy-Gonzalez type of bass. The A12 on the other hand is no Usain Bolt. You can see it hits the gym regularly, but the absolute best you can say about its speed is 'that's quite good'. Compared to the sharp and punchy bass on the CT6E, the A12 presents a marshmellow low-end, the type that envelopes you in a rich and lush flavour after some slow-roasting over a campfire. Yummy.... Anyway, to my ears the CT-6E bass has a much more natural tone, sounding more pleasantly real-to-life. It also is beautifully taut and tight- whereas the A12 sounds a bit rounded and less clearly defined in comparison. The two are quite similar in decay; and present bass with about the same authority although ultimately, the A12 puts just a bit more weight into the note. Sub-bass is no contest. The A12 is a real BA standout for extension in the lowest registers, and the CT-6E can neither dive as deep nor slam as convincingly.

Mids are not close. A12 wins across the board. The CT-6E's mids are just slightly more energetic and detailed, but otherwise it's Rounds 1 to 12 to the A12. The CT-6E has a very unique presentation of mids that will be unlike anything you've heard before- it's emotional, it's raw, it's prone to wild swings of the bat. It's the type of hitter that goes for the home run over solid singles, but as a result it will swing, and it will miss, more often. Three areas in particular stand out, where it lags way behind the A12- partly because all three are major strengths on the A12. Namely, these three areas are: the CT-6E's mids are much more uneven; lacking in air; and have an overall tone that's rather unnatural.

Treble is much closer; although the duo present a would-be listener with interesting, contrasting choices. The CT-6E wows with its overall tuning- remarkable sparkle fused with incredible smoothness. On the other hand the A12 impresses with Formula One speed and its freakishly long vertical reach. In addition, where the one excels, the other stumbles. The CT-6E is weak precisely in speed and extension; the A12 could do with more sparkle and smoothness. Choices, choices. Both perform about equally (very well) in clarity and naturalness of tone, though, so if those traits are what matters most to you, you really can't go wrong with either.

In the spatial realm both have soundstages that are about equally big, although the A12 is deeper, and the CT-6E is taller and wider. Both also have pretty good air, although like a bumpy car ride, the CT-6E is let down by a very inconsistent diffusion of sound. Imaging is no contest, so we can probably skip right along, although the CT-6E comes closest to the A12 in its ability to place instruments accurately in terms of depth.

The A12 has a fantastic combination of thickness and articulation, grading out far ahead of the merely average CT-6E in both. Both don't do very well in musical resonance, with notes that seem to disappear almost immediately after the main harmonics. In terms of overall balance, the A12 performed ahead, but not by much- this was not a standout trait for either IEM. It's not all bad for the CT-6E, though. It comes out way ahead in terms of PRaT. If you're a frequent listener of rapid, pacey music, I'd probably pick the CT-6E over the A12.

Noble Audio Kaiser 10 ($1599)

The bass on the K10 has beautiful tone and timbre, and pitting it against the A12 does nothing to change that state of affairs. The A12 bass is an onion-like, peel-back-the-layers-and-weep-at-the-realness type of affair, but in terms of sheer enjoyability of bass tone, the K10 has it comfortably beat. In the sub-bass region though the opposite is true, and the result is a walkover for the A12. Interestingly enough in all the other bass areas (speed, detail, decay, authority, tightness) the pair are like BFFs, so close to be virtually inseparable.

Mids is a very competitive matchup between the K10 and A12. If you like 'em spicy, out of the two you'd pick the K10 in a heartbeat. Detail (which really lends itself to emotion) is also a clear win for the K10. On the other hand if you like your mids airy, even and measured, then the A12 will probably be more your cup of tea. Nonetheless both IEMs have mids with very natural and enjoyable timbre, and overall both rank at the top of the shootout. Apples or Oranges... Chocolate or Vanilla... Trump or Bush...

The technical aspects of the treble go clearly to the A12. Extension, speed and clarity are all firm winners for the A12, which grades out as a more proficient and capable treble-maker. The A12 also has better naturalness of tone, giving treble notes a gentle pleasing shimmer that never sounds metallic. On the other hand the K10 is masterly tuned, with smoothness and sparkle that complement each other in perfectly-mixed quantities. In fact the K10 is so much better than the A12 in these aspects that on balance the treble comparison ends up being basically a wash.

Imaging is a K10 weakness; and an overwhelming strength of the A12. Need I say more about how these two compare spatially? Well probably since this is a review- but let's focus our efforts on soundstage 'cos that verdict is a bit less obvious. (TL

R Imaging A12 Win... Perfect). But even in the soundstage, the K10 still ends up losing to the A12 in almost every aspect. Be it width, depth or height, the A12 comes across as bigger all around. The A12 soundstage is also much airier and more capably filled with spatial cues. The one area where the two are about even is in the consistency of the stage- both IEMs are able to intermix pockets of sound and silence about equally (quite well).

The K10 is a maestro of balanced tuning, and the A12 is clearly not its match in this regard. PRaT and musical resonance are also wins for the K10, which has notes that are faster, more rhythmic, and have more 'carry' in the air. Yet where it comes to overall general qualities, it's not all bad with the A12. The Adel-equipped IEM produces a rich, full sound for which you can make out clearly distinct notes at every turn, and achieves markedly higher grades than the K10 in terms of note thickness and articulation.

Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate ($1800)

The SE5 Ultimate has an interesting bass presentation. It has a sub-bass ignition driver that kicks in later, and boy can I hear the difference. It's the only BA driver IEM I have that comes anywhere close to the type of natural, smooth decay that dynamic drivers can muster. In this respect it certainly beats the A12 as well. It also has bass that travels long distances in short periods of time- ie it's fast; faster than the A12. But on other aspects the distance between the two is quite small- for example, the A12 hits with slightly tighter bass that's also more authoritative and weighty than on the SE5 Ultimate. Finally, the timbre on the SE5 Ultimate bass is simply flawless, and achieves perfect tone and pitch. Wait, why 'finally'? Why did I skip right by bass detail and sub-bass? TBH I thought I'd save some ink because it's pretty clear who won. This is less a slight against the SE5 Ultimate than an ongoing testimonial to just how good the A12 is in these aspects. The SE5 is plenty good itself, with detail and sub-bass that would probably best most other IEMs- just not the A12.

The SE5 Ultimate is the king of airy mids. Just the freakin' king. I mean, put on some vocals, and you'll hear voices that reverberate as endlessly as that glass of water in the movie Jurassic Park. The A12 isn't so poor either, with airiness on display that is like a teenage (rather than fully-grown) T-Rex stomping towards your car. Anyway, many of the midrange skirmishes between the two end in draws. Both have about the same amount of energy in the mids; have about equal clarity; and are close in detail and evenness. (Although I gave the A12 an advantage for those last two traits). Mids timbre is the biggest difference between the duo. The A12 has mids that are overall much more natural and lifelike in its tone, and the SE5 Ultimate just cannot compete.

Treble is where the SE5 Ultimate takes the fight to the A12. It almost manages to catchup with the A12 in terms of speed and extension, but then manages to outpace the A12 in clarity and naturalness of tone, two traits for which the A12 can normally be justifiably complacent about. The SE5 Ultimate also has treble that's so smooth I can't believe it's not butter! It never sounds sharp or peaky- very good indeed, and clearly better than the A12. It's also- slightly- more sparkling in the high notes, although if you're the type who likes strident treble then really neither of these need apply.

Listening to these two go at it in the spatial realm is like watching Ali v Frazier. They're so equally matched that at the end of the day both probably deserve a spot in the Spatial Hall of Fame. Soundstage-wise, the SE5 Ultimate is generally peerless, although it is "out-peered" in terms of depth by the A12. The SE5 Ultimate depth is still astoundingly good, though, and it also wins on width and height. In addition the SE5 Ultimate almost seems to have written the book on how to create a consistent and natural soundstage, with an ability to diffuse sound out so naturally and perfectly that the A12 is left in its dust. On the other hand soundstage airiness, a strong suit of the A12, continues to favour the Adel-equipped IEM in this comparison. Changing gears, in imaging it's mucho closer, but once again, no prizes for guessing who wins. The SE5 Ultimate is a capable IEM that can leave the imaging comparison with its head held high. It has put up a valiant fight, doing extremely well in imaging... Unfortunately nobody is beating the A12 in this fight. Nobody.

In the general qualities the SE5 excels across the board, posting admirable scores in PRaT, Balance, Articulation and Resonance. In all four of these categories it has the A12 handily beat, with the difference being particularly stark in Resonance. The SE5 Ultimate is the very definition of bell-like, with notes that ring out heartily and then continue to sing and fade gently away; whereas the business-like A12, with notes that don't hang around even a microsecond more than is necessary, simply cannot compare. One special note on articulation. I'd written previously that the A12 performed splendidly in both articulation and thickness. When stacked against the SE5 Ultimate, the A12 continues to show how it clearly has the fuller, richer and thicker set of notes, a big plus in its favour. But its articulation now seems to fall a little short. The SE5 Ultimate just seems to speak more cleanly and with better diction, revealing itself to be an expert enunciator of music. No shame against the A12, really, but it's a bit like that fight in the imaging section, except reversed.

Summary

If you've read the rest of my review, you probably know by now that this Adel stuff is some freaky alien tech. Rumours are that an IEM and an alien transporter had a passionate affair, and conceived this lovechild of an IEM. I hope you like exploring, because the A12 will whisk you away, taking your ears where no man has gone before. You'll explore bold soundscapes and find fascinating music, coming across brave new worlds as you wander. Some experiences will be invigorating; others will be pretty mundane. But remember your first kiss beneath a crescent moon? You may not stick with her. Heck, you may not even end up liking her all that much. But this is an IEM you're never gonna forget.

Pros: Imaging!! Bass detail!! Also possesses full, thick notes with great articulation; has great extension in both treble and bass; and present mids that sound very natural and even

Cons: Treble lacks sparkle and smoothness; unlike a bell, music does not resonate well after the note

Overall Score: 86.9 (Almost Perfect)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the second-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#2. The Tell-Tale Heart

The AAW W500 recalls a classic story of macabre and awe, authored by the incomparable Edgar Allen Poe. In The Tell-Tale Heart, a madman writes lucidly about how he had found discomfort in the gaze of an old man -- this eye was like a vulture, pale and blue, with a film over it -- and hence in order to free himself of this chilling gaze, had murdered this nameless man.

But after death the old man's heart would not stop beating. As a watch enveloped in cotton, the sound of his heartbeat could only be muffled, and not contained. And so the madman tore up a few planks from his floor, and buried the corpse many feet under. At length the heartbeat finally ceased.

By and by three officers knock on the door. Neighbours had heard a shriek (that of the old man, as he was getting butchered), and they wanted to know if everything was okay? Smiling, the confident madman -- he had cleaned things up, of course -- bids them welcome. He shows them around the house, and sits them in the living room for some chit-chat of familiar things. In the wild audacity of his perfect triumph, the madman places his chair above the corpse just buried.

Slowly at first, the madman soon fancies hearing a ringing. As he continues chatting with the officers, it grows more and more distinct. He speaks louder to try and free himself of that dreadful sound, but no -- that sound is not within his ears. It is that immortal heartbeat, starting up again! The madman now grows very pale, but still the men talk pleasantly. Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this the madman thought. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! He could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! He felt that he must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!

"Villains!" He shrieks, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!"

Consider yourself warned. If you choose to proceed -- brave man, you -- prepare to be haunted by the incessant heartbeat of the AAW W500. All ready? Good. Here we go. As the owl clock strikes midnight, twelve times again and again, look into a mirror and bite slowly into a blood-red apple. Welcome to the indelible and potent world of AAW's dynamic driver...

IEM: Advanced AcousticWerkes AAW W500 AHMorph

Form Factor: Acrylic Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1111 USD

Build Quality: Very good! Carbon Fibre weave very nicely done as well.

Fit: Perfect.

Accessories: Two jewelers' screwdrivers to turn the knob to adjust the bass; pelican case; Null Audio's special, in-house cable

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with AAW

Interviewee: Kevin Wang, Co-Owner and Co-Founder

Who are the people behind your company?

AAW was started at the end of 2013 by a core team of 4 NTU (a university in Singapore) graduates, including 2 Phds in Material Science Engineering and Electronics Engineering respectively. Each of the members is a fanatic music lover and does appreciate the higher performance audio gears’ ability to help audiophiles enjoy music to a further extent. The Custom In-Ear Monitor audiophile industry is a relatively young and developing industry, although there are mature professional musician markets in many countries. We definitely see the void of presence of such industry in the SEA region despite a strong demand developing in the consumer segment.

Therefore AAW was started with a focus on the consumer market, which is reflected on the pricing on the entry range. Our goal is to broaden the recognition of CIEM concept and increase the awareness for consumers who would not even consider CIEM in the past.

What do you feel about this industry?

One thing we realised quite quickly is that there is a lot of similarities between different products. Everyone is using BA drivers made by Sonion and Knowles. This is especially the case if you want an IEM with more drivers. There just aren't that many choices out there. There are other companies making drivers, for example in China, but we're not really sure about their reliability just yet and so we can't take the risk. That being said, Sonion and Knowles have done a fantastic job, investing a lot in R&D. But nonetheless we felt that in order to do something different we had to go the customised route, and that meant designing and producing our own in-house dynamic driver. Everything's built in-house, from the injection moulding, CNC process, and so on. In fact, this extends to almost our entire IEM line. Apart from maybe the pins on the cable connector, everything is done in-house. We take real pride in this.

Do you have a “house sound”? What would you describe it as, and what are its inspirations?

The design of hybrid IEM will more likely to lead to a perception of bass heavy, warmer sound signature. However, each of AAW’s products is tuned to cater a different taste in music presentation. For instance, being dual driver models, A2H and A2H-V are distinctively designed to emphasize on different frequency range. If we really have to pick a true representation of a ‘house sound’, I presume it should be the design which our designer’s heart really lies with, which is the W300AR and W500 AHMorph at its default setting.

Can you describe the sound of the AAW W500?

The W300 and W500 are quite similar. They're both quite reference, with a slight bump in the 2-3k region. Between the two, the W500 has just a bit more treble and soundstage, but also a smoother treble response.

Both of them use a dynamic bass driver. Dynamic bass drivers just sound different- more natural- from BA bass drivers. BA bass drivers have their advantages in the mid-bass region, though. So in order to take advantage of the best of both worlds, we've overlapped the two types of drivers to create a bass where the dynamic driver focuses on the bass and a bit of the lower mids region, while the BA drivers take care primarily of treble, but also overlap a bit in the bass and the mids.

Is it easy to make customs?

Not at all! It typically takes 2 months to train someone to know how to make a custom IEM; and six months to be an expert. It's more an art than science, to figure out where to place the drivers in every earpiece, so that it not only fits but delivers the exact sound that we had intended. It also takes real skill to process a set of ear impressions properly so that the user will get a perfect fit. So yes, it all takes time...

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

The bass is bone-chilling. Could it be the heartbeat of that old man who's freshly murdered? No, deep down you know the truth. This is not someone else's heartbeat; this is your own terrified heart beating as furiously as a guilty man sweats under a blinding spotlight. With the W500 in your ears, the bass reaches deep into your chest, wantonly squeezing and bending your heartbeat to its will. Prepare to be possessed by this devilish bass...

Let's get technical. The bass decays in a freakishly natural way, and hits with such authority that you're probably still reeling from the bass note from two songs ago. The sub-bass is also incomparably good, possessing oodles of darkness and depth alike. Bass timbre, speed, tightness and detail are all very good as well, though they don't quite reach the splendid heights of the other bass traits.

Bass Score: 9.2 (Elite)

Midrange

Look, I get it. Sometimes it's really fun to go for a 'boom or bust' type of midrange. It could equally soar like an eagle (thanks, R Kelly) or crawl like an earthworm (argh, that's the best I can do); but what keeps you coming back is that when it's good, it's really good. That limitless potential somehow always cajoles you to look past all the maddeningly inconsistent flaws.

The W500's midrange is the exact opposite. Like a blue-chip stock, you always know what you're gonna get. This is not a box of chocolates- sorry, Forrest Gump. The mids are beautifully even, always and forever. They are passionately energetic, with leading clarity and naturalness of tone. All is not perfect, however. All that steadiness keeps them a bit too grounded, and I felt that they could do with a bit more air. As well, detail could be improved. One interesting thing to note- the AHMorph boasts a tuneable system to direct more or less power to the Dynamic or BA drivers. Turns out, the more juice you give to the dynamic drivers, the more the mids (not just the bass) come alive- weighty, rich, lush. Yes, these mids have both a dash of both Dynamic and BA in them! Yummy...

Midrange Score: 8.7 (Very Good)

Treble

The best airport runways of the world and a top-notch treble tuning share one critical trait. They're both flat. The treble on the W500 is impossibly so, concocting a dizzying plateau of smoothness and sparkle. It also sounds very natural, with a tone and decay that's makes high-hat notes sound very lifelike, for example. On the other hand, its extension and clarity is only 'good', which in this shootout actually ranks it as rather middle of the road compared to the others. The speed of this treble is also unfortunately slow. All and all this was a bit of a shame- I've seldom heard a flatter treble, which is extremely important in getting treble done right. If only everything else did just as well.

Treble Score: 8.3 (Very Good)

Spatial

The W500 is not a size monster- its soundstage, while reasonably large, was not among the biggesin this shootout. Its width was top-notch, but depth and height both fell a bit short. But the quality of that soundstage, mamma mia. It is beautifully consistent, with sound that naturally diffuses out in every direction- among the best I've ever heard in this regard. It also boasts great air, with subtle sonic cues capably filling the stage all around. The imaging is another real standout trait, coming in second only to that secret alien Adel technology that 1964Ears stole from Area 51. Be it layering of depth; imaging across the left-right plane or forming a coherent center image, the W500 handles all of your imaging needs with equal aplomb.

Spatial Score: 9.6 (Elite)

General Qualities

Doing well across the board, the W500 comes across yet again as a good, steady performer. It scores in the top quartile in everything, but doesn't actually win the race in any one trait. For example, it has great balance across the frequency spectrum, but there are probably just the one or two IEMs I'd pick over it if this was my primary concern. Similarly for note articulation; the ability to have the note resonate with strong musicality after the initial harmonics; and the thickness of the notes. All in the top echelon, but not the leader of the pack.

Perhaps because of the strong dynamic driver influence, however, one thing that the W500 didn't do quite as well in was in PRaT. Let me qualify that, since PRaT has multiple facets (Pace, Rhythm and Timing). The W500 boasts a fantastic, toe-tapping sense of rhythm. This is not merely a rhythm or timing that endeavours to be accurate to the Nth-degree of millisecond-count, either. It has its own soul, and imbues the music with some great fun- think jazz, not classical. Where it comes to speed, however... Let's just say I've heard faster.

That being said, the W500 is a hybrid IEM, and you can hear the different presentations between the dynamic and hybrid drivers. I personally think it ends up helping rather than hurting; adding to the W500's ability to separate the musical notes from one another more clearly and succinctly. I could see why some people may think this lacks in coherence, though. Caveat emptor!

General Qualities Score: 8.7 (Very Good)

Comparisons

CustomArt Harmony 8 Pro ($1050)

These two IEMs are almost complete bass opposites. The H8P is a lightning fast fencer, attacking with quick parries and trust that pierce without hurt. On the other hand the AAW W500 is a bass thunderer, swinging with a big axe that maims. The H8P excels on speed; detail; and tone. The W500 takes the cake with decay; authority and overall sub-bass. Both IEMs score similarly with good bass tightness, although the W500 is just slightly better. Overall, the W500 scored much better because of the resounding victory in the sub-bass, but I could see different people liking one or the other.

The difference continues on to the mids. The W500 is much more energetic overall in the midrange; has better clarity; and also presents much more natural tone and timbre. That last point is a real weakness on the H8P, while being one of the W500's big strengths. On the other hand the H8P is much arier in the midrange; and also boasts of slightly better detail retrieval- although neither are real standouts in mid detail. All in all, both have about equal evenness and consistency in the mids.

In terms of treble, both of them excel in very different ways. The W500 has significantly smoother and more sparkling treble; whereas the H8P is much clearer and has gobbles more extension. Both have a very natural sound with the ability to recreate cymbals and high-hats with aplomb; but both are also very slow (W500 just a bit faster) in the high registers.

The W500 is not really a size demon, and in this respect the H8P has it beat, with a deeper and taller (though slightly narrower) soundstage. Both of them also do very well with the presentation of said soundstage, with the W500's being just a pinhead more consistent and the H8P's being just a ant's-breadth more airy. Really, though, splitting hairs. Imaging is perhaps where the two have the starkest difference. The H8P suffers from poor ability to place instruments accurately in terms of depth and width, and falls far behind the W500 on both counts. The H8P does redeem itself somewhat in terms of center image coherency, but the W500 is a real standout in this area and hence still manages to nudge ahead.

The H8P has amazing PRaT, and if that was your primary concern I'd probably choose it in a heartbeat (heh). The W500 has better balance overall though, and significantly betters the H8P in its ability to articulate each note clearly and succinctly. It also boasts much better musical resonance, and the same notes that flutter on the W500 almost seem to lose steam and peter out in comparison on the H8P. Finally where it comes to thickness there is really no contest. The W500 is not the thickest out there but it has quite a bit of girth- the H8P in comparison is frankly a little aneroxic.

Noble Audio Kaiser 10 ($1599)

The subbass on the K10 performs quite typically of a BA driver- light and shallow. Its really not a fair fight pitting it against the W500 heavyweight. Not surprisingly, the Noble IEM cannot compete with the W500 in terms of naturalness of decay or authority of bass- both typical areas of strength for a dynamic driver. On the other hand, the K10 bass does well on some other areas: it is clearly more detailed than on the W500; and has much better timbre. The two are just about even in terms of speed and tightness, though. Overall, the bass on the W500 wins, by quite a distance.

In the mids the situation is reversed. The K10 has a sublime midrange, with detail retrieval miles ahead of the AAW W500. What this means in practice is that you'll hear every nuance in the breaths that the singer takes between notes; and if you listen to raspy voices in particular, they'll sound much more raw and emotive on the K10. The K10 also has better timbre, with a tone that overall sounds more natural; and much better airiness and 'carry', a difference which is especially pronounced when the singer or musician hits a stunning vibrato note. On the other aspects- evenness, energy and clarity- the W500 scored higher, if only by an atom.

Both these IEMs excel at pairing a sparkling high-end with a smooth presentation, although the W500 is just slightly better, especially at that 'smoothness' part. The W500 also boasts clearly better naturalness, with notes that ring more true; and possesses slightly better extension. The K10 in turn has better clarity, with notes that ring clearer overall, and faster speed. Putting everything together, it was a tie in the treble.

Soundstage is not close. Well, actually, I take that back. The size was quite close- apart from width being clearly better on the W500, depth and height are actually quite similar on the two, with the K10 nudging slightly ahead on depth and vice versa on height. But soundstage quality isn't close. The W500 creams the K10 in terms of both consistency and airiness across the stage, creating a beautiful presentation that's constantly bubbly and alive. On the other hand- and no qualifiers this time- imaging really isn't close. The W500 firmly beats the K10 on all facets, be it ability to image depth; width; or form a coherent center image. Fact is, if imaging matters to you- pick the W500 and don't look back.

Where it comes to balance across the frequency spectrum, the W500 is good, but the K10 is just that bit better. As a pure-BA IEM, the K10 also boasts clearly better PRaT and, rather impressively, has good thickness that's just a smidgen ahead of the W500. But the latter has its strengths too, posting much better scores in both note articulation and musical resonance. It is able to enunciate each note with great precision, and also has those 'butterflies' (not in your stomach) that seemingly help a note float gently outwards after the initial harmonic.

1964Ears | Adel A12 ($1999)

The A12 bass is plenty good for a BA-driver, but nonetheless the usual suspects emerge, as far as conclusions go anyway. The tiny bass drivers of the A12 simply can't push enough air to best the W500's shining dynamic driver in terms of bass authority or sub-bass slam. As well, the A12's bass decay is significantly less natural than the W500's. The one area where the A12 is clearly better is bass detail. The magical Adel port helps crowns the A12 "king of bass layering and detailing", and putting it next to the W500's bass- which is not really a top performer in this regard- only serves to further highlight just how good the A12 is. On other metrics- speed, tightness, timbre and extension- the two are just about neck and neck. Indeed, the A12 is the only BA driver to come anywhere close to the two dynamic bass drivers- the Lear LCM BD4.2 and the W500- in terms of sub-bass extension. Overall, the A12 puts forth a valiant effort, but it's a victory for the W500.

In the mids the tables are turned. The A12 comes in as much, much airier and with slightly better timbre and tone overall. It also conjures up more detail and emotion than the W500. In addition, the best trait of the W500 mids- its steady evenness- is matched blow for blow by the A12. On the other hand the W500 has better mids energy- the A12 clearly aims to be more linear (and accurate), as opposed to presenting a set of energetic and forward mids. The W500 also nudges ahead by a hair for mids clarity, although both are really very good. All things considered, the A12 takes this round.

Up there in the clouds- aka treble- these two seem to be doing a yin-yang dance. They're basically polar opposites. It may be easiest to start with the areas where they're similar. For one, both have a beautiful naturalness of tone to the treble that's very lifelike and enjoyable to listen to. For two, erm... That's it! Wow that was fast. On to the differences. 1) Whereas the W500 could probably do with a lot more clarity, the A12 is crystal clear; 2) while the W500 is as fast as a slow-moving boulder, the A12 is as fast as a shrieking banshee; and 3) whereas the W500 treble extension is really quite middle-of-the-road as far as flagship IEMs go, the A12 is the tallest, most extended of the bunch. Flipping sides, the W500 excels precisely in the two areas where the A12 stumbles- namely, serving a treble that's both a) sparkling and b) smooth. Between the two, I'd suggest that a treble-natic better be clear what he's looking for, cos' they really couldn't be more different.

Both IEMs have marvelous spatial presentations. The W500 is wider, but simply cannot come close to the curve-skewing, mind-blowing depth on the A12. The two are quite similar in their height. The duo also boast just about equal amounts of pleasant, airy, spatial cues in the stage; but the W500 does a much better job sprinkling that air consistently and evenly all across your music. But while soundstage goes narrowly to the W500, imaging is a different story. The A12 uses Adel technology that's so good it should probably be illegal; and while the W500 puts up a valiant struggle (even winning one round: center image coherency), it must ultimately tap out, outdone in particular by the amazingly accurate depth on the A12.

The twosome are just about equal in PRaT, although I rated the W500 just slightly ahead because of its almost mercurial sense of rhythm. I also gave the W500 significantly higher scores for its better balanced-tuning across the frequency response spectrum; and much better ability to have music resonate outwards like a gentle mist that is content to takes its time to dissipate. On the other hand, the A12 is the king of girth, managing to play back thick and lush notes of blue-cheese that simply captivates. The A12 also has slightly better note articulation and diction, although both are ranked among the top in this regard.

Summary

It doesn't always have to sound morbid. Heartbeats are what sustain us. They are the ultimate sign of life- a happy by-product of an indispensable organ sending blood and oxygen through our bodies. In the same vein, the AAW W500 is an IEM teeming with life. Its unmistakable heartbeat pulses passionately through every note of your music; imparting it a vigour and vitality like no other. If you like your music mild, timid and docile, then just look elsewhere. But if you've got a strong temperament and don't back away from a challenge, the hauntingly wonderful AAW W500 awaits...

Pros: Bass. Bass. Bass. So good I had to say it three times. Bass. There I go again. Also, awesome soundstage!

Cons: Although the rhythm is great, the speed is overall not the fastest

Overall Score: 88.8 (Almost Perfect)

In the next installment of "Fit for a Bat!": the top-ranked IEM. Stay tuned!

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

#1. Welcome to the Temple of Heaven

Beginning from the 16th Century, the Emperor of China would undertake a twice-yearly pilgrimage across Beijing to fulfil his sacred role as the son of Heaven. The ceremony was always shrouded in secrecy, and ordinary folk like you and I would not have been allowed to observe, much less partake. But even if we’d been privy, it would all have seemed a bit strange. Religious buildings are typically grand, towering monuments, designed to astound the gods with the sheer richness of our sincerity. Not so the Temple of Heaven. It only needs to spotlight a single man- the emperor- when he prays to the heavens, and seems appropriately sized for the task. Not helping, the temple is situated within a vast courtyard of grass, which serves to further juxtapose just how small that temple really is.

Yet look closely, and a different picture starts to emerge. The key is in the shapes. The grounds of the temple, that unremarkable grass courtyard, is a square, signifying earth. It is big, much bigger than the temple itself, and meant for the more numerous laity. On the other hand the temple is a perfect sphere; circles symbolize heaven, and heaven was open only to the privileged. The Chinese character for ‘heaven’ is tien, also meaning ‘sky’, and everyone could raise their heads and see the firmament, stars and all. But the Chinese were very clear about this- everyone could see the heavens, but only one man could enter.

Enter the Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate. Now you, too, can gain access to the sky above us. Big. Airy. Heavenly. BTW, did you know that the Temple of Heaven was acoustically treated, to improve the sonic resonance when the emperor made his prayers? In short here we have a building that echoes sounds endlessly towards the celestial sphere. That’s pretty much exactly what the Spiral Ears sounds like. I rest my case.

IEM: Spiral Ear SE5 Ultimate

Form Factor: Silicon Custom In-Ear Monitor

Damage: $1800 USD

Build Quality: Perfectly finished, smooth everywhere. Does not even look remotely handmade.

Fit: Perfect.

Accessories: Pelican case, stock cable

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Spiral Ear

Interviewee: Grzegorz Baran, Owner and CEO

What is your company’s history? Why did you guys decide to start this company?

Spiral Ear has set out with an idea of re-creating the best sound possible, with no compromises and a fresh approach to conventional acoustics, among other aspects. I believe it had actually begun in my childhood when being not satisfied with the sound of earphones and headphones existing back then I have always been striving for better sound quality ever since. It’s been music itself which had put me on that path and which has been one of the greatest driving forces in my life. It’s been a lifelong and music-driven project. There are also various philosophical hints to the very name- Spiral Ear, for those willing to dig deeper.

Who are the people behind your company?

People with likewise passion for music and sound, perfectionists and artists (I mean real fine-art artists).

Do you have a “house sound”? What would you describe it as, and what are its inspirations?

Our “house sound” derives from music and nature itself, as simple as that. The goal has always been to recreate the most natural and neutral sound possible; the right tools for our own monitoring purposes/music production and for personal listening alike.

What do you see as different or unique about your flagship? Why did you choose to do it this way?

5-way Ultimate are unique in a sense that, in my opinion at least, the monitors are as transparent as they can be, they disappear and you are left with a signal ‘hard-wired’, so to speak, directly into your brain. They take what we’ve achieved earlier on with 5-way Reference and spiral outwards even further. Spiral Ear’s products have been distinctive and unique because we’ve introduced the new way of multi-bore implementation years before everyone else, starting with the first true 3-way configuration and so on. A lot of other solutions have also been introduced during that time so as to achieve what SE monitors can do today, but we cannot disclose them, obviously. They cannot be copied either.

Where do you see the industry headed? What kind of role do you see your company playing in shaping this?

We cannot disclose our vision regarding that, I’m afraid. Spiral Ear will certainly try to push the limits, evolve and progress as it’s happened over the years already. We’ll see what the future holds and we’re quite excited about it!

Sound

Disclaimer: My scores are awarded after extensive comparisons with different IEMs. The scores below reflect the results of this exercise, and do not indicate my personal preference for one IEM over another. Depending on your sonic tastes, category scores may also be more relevant than the overall score. For example, a basshead should look primarily to the "Bass" sub-section; a soundstage nut should look at "Spatial", and so on. Finally, the overall scores are an average of all the sub-section scores combined. Read more about how I did these comparisons, and about my overall scoring methodology.

Bass

I've always admired ninjas. They drift seemingly in and out of existence, appearing and disappearing like shadows that seek light if only to avoid it. The SE5 Ultimate has a subbass that hides in plain view, within the shadow of the main bass note. It appears only after the note has subsided, and disappears before your ears have the chance to raise the alarm. This apparently comes from a delayed ignition subbass driver that the SE5 Ultimate possesses, and boy can I hear it. It's an unforgettable experience, resulting in a decay so natural that I almost forgot that this was not a dynamic bass driver. Almost. For apart from the decay; there are other aspects to bass. Most clearly, bass speed, not typically a standout trait for dynamics, is blazingly fast on the SE5 Ultimate. Sub-bass performance- both slam and depth- also falls short of the IEMs that fill the "Dynamic Bass Driver" hall-of-fame. Overall, this is a bass that is actually rather light and fluffy. Authoritativeness and tightness of the bass are merely okay- so bassheads probably need not apply. Interestingly, with the SE5 Ultimate, Spiral Ears seems to have made a deliberate choice to trade absolute technical performance and detail for emotional impact. Accordingly, the detail in this bass is very average, but the timbre and tone comes in at the top of the class.

Bass Score: 8.4 (Very Good)

Midrange

If you've never heard Julie Andrews sing, drop everything now and go YouTube it. The hills are alive with the sound of music... Godly airiness is on display in the SE5 Ultimate, with a voice that reverbs. and reverbs. and reverbs. Even as you read this sentence, faint echoes endure... Clarity is also pretty good, timbre very natural, and overall the sound is even and measured all round. That being said, the mids could do with a tad more energy, and are also not the most detailed around. Well, one can't have everything, right?

Midrange Score: 8.6 (Very Good)

Treble

Top of the shootout. I'm running out of superlatives, so I'm just gonna list the amazing traits on display here. 1) Baby-bottom smooth. 2) Naturalness of tone. It's as if you're standing right there, listening to the original musician play the perfect, unfiltered, note right into your ears. 3) Clarity like the prestine waters of an untouched Hawaiian beach. Seriously. 4) Extension as tall as Jack and his beanstalk. 5) Screeching speed like Schumacher flying into a corner at top gear.

Let's put it simply- you're going to enjoy this. Actually, scratch that. If you enjoy quality over quantity in your treble, then you're going to enjoy this. The one thing that could maybe improved a bit? Sparkle wasn't quite there. This IEM is not for the treblenatics that luxuriate in a red hot treble-bath. For everyone else, though.... I said, for everyone else, though.... You really gotta try this!

Treble Score: 9.1 (Elite)

Spatial

There is a specific moment in the movie Gravity when the audience is jolted into a sudden realisation of just how good this movie is. George Clooney had cut off his cord, and begun floating away, but his voice continues to pipe into Sandra Bullock's intercom. You know he's already dead, but he's not yet dead dead- the bugger is still talking, for god's sakes. I have never felt a more endless, more infinite sense of space than at that moment in time. This is soundstage of the Spiral Ears SE5 Ultimate.

Now take this unspeakable vastness of outer space and fill it with mind-bogglingly consistent music. The sound in the SE5 Ultimate diffuses across your brain like the smell of a masterly vintage decanting for a few minutes before nirvana. As the wine sits silently, its subtle yet glorious aroma wafts gently from the outstretched arms of the decanter; filling the air with the aroma of sweet nectar. Pair this with a competent amount of airy spacial cues- not the best, mind you, but more than enough- and you get a soundstage that teeters on the brink of perfection.

And then there's the imaging, which is almost an afterthought by this point. It's basically flawless in all aspects- pinpoint accuracy in depth; width; and coherence in the center. One or two other IEMs- *hint hint* alien Adel technology- are slightly better, but the SE5 Ultimate is right up there. Not bad for an IEM that I've heard is made right here at home, on Planet Earth.

Spatial Score: 9.8 (Elite)

General Qualities

Let's see now. Light bass. Light mids. Light treble. Why is it not surprising that the SE5 Ultimate comes across as supremely balanced? The company's stated goal was to come up with a more reference and linear version of their flagship, and by golly they've succeeded. All the frequencies complement each other in just the perfect quantities, with neither bass, mids or treble taking the show. This is an IEM that understands teamwork, and those -heads who love their bass, mids or treble to take centrestage would do better looking elsewhere.

The articulation and diction is another real standout trait on the SE5 Ultimate. If you haven't had the chance to try it before, it'll be quite a shock. Every note is perfectly and cleanly articulated in the distinct comfort of its own skin. As well, the musical resonance is amazing. This IEM seems to have written the very book on how to let the music resonate on, and on, and on after the initial note. Finally, PRaT is very good, and was a pleasure on my faster, more rhythmic happy-hardcore tracks. Oh, the one small area of improvement? The sound wasn't all that thick.

General Qualities Score: 9.7 (Elite)

Comparisons

CustomArt Harmony 8 Pro ($1050)

Rare is the IEM that can go gear to gear against the H8P for speed, but somehow the SE5 Ultimate succeeds. The SE5 Ultimate also matches the H8P in bass timbre, with both IEMs coming in as the absolute best where the sheer beauty of the tone is concerned. The H8P still pulls clearly ahead of the SE5 Ultimate in terms of bass detail, though. In fact the H8P ties with the A12 for the most detailed bass I've experienced to date (although in very different ways- the A12 is layered like a Michelin Baby; the H8P is raw and fibrous like a stalk of celery). On the other hand the SE5 Ultimate's bass detail is just 'pretty good'- nothing to write home about. In other areas however the SE5 Ultimate does much better. Bass decay is splendid on the SE5 Ultimate, the best I've ever heard in a BA driver, and certainly much better than the H8P, whose bass disappears quicker than an infant bolt of lightning. The SE5 Ultimate also, while not being particularly bass strong itself, nonetheless has much more authoritative bass, which tells you something about just how light the H8P's low end is. Finally, the SE5 Ultimate does significantly better in both sub-bass extension and slam. While the SE5 Ultimate's sub-bass is plenty good for a BA driver (although not for a dynamic), the H8P is plenty light even for a BA driver. Wrapping up, the two are about even in terms of bass tightness.

The pair are much closer technically where it comes to the mids; swapping seats in many regards. The H8P is just a teeny tiny bit more energetic, whereas the SE5 Ultimate is just a weeny winy bit more clear. The H8P is more even; the SE5 Ultimate is slightly more detailed. Perhaps the biggest difference between them are in airiness and timbre- with the SE5 Ultimate being much more capable in both.

The treble isn't close. The SE5 Ultimate scores top marks in clarity, smoothness and naturalness of tone. Of these three traits, the H8P comes admirably close in terms of clarity, but falls short in terms of tone and far short in terms of smoothness. The H8P really has an almost metallic, edgy treble, and it's quite a stark contrast switching between it and the baby-cheeks smooth high notes on the SE5 Ultimate. The SE5 Ultimate's treble is also much pacier, which becomes even more obvious when compared to the glacial-slow H8P. One area where both fared wonderfully well in, though, was treble extension. And it wasn't all bad for the H8P either- its treble was clearly the more sparkling of the two.

Where it comes to size, the H8P loses in width (especially in width) and depth, although it does have a slightly taller stage. The H8P also has slightly more air across the stage. On the other hand, the SE5 Ultimate is just so freaking good in terms of how it spreads the sonic cues around. It's as if an Iron Chef himself had spread the peanut butter on your delicious sandwich (oh look how consistently it's been done!), and the H8P, while reasonably good itself, just doesn't hold a candle. Imaging-wise, the SE5 Ultimate is simply masterful at accurate pinpointing of instruments, and is able to place music precisely across 2D (left and right) and 3D (front and back) space alike. In these respects it pulls far ahead of the H8P. Both IEMs display a similar ability to create a coherent center image.

The H8P is the king of PRaT, being swift as electricity, but the SE5 Ultimate actually came rather close to keeping pace. Close, but no cigar. Anyhow, the balance of frequencies is clearly better on the SE5 Ultimate, which also has notes that are a bit thicker overall. But the biggest differences lie in musical resonance and articulation. Both of these are huge strengths for the SE5 Ultimate, and giant weaknesses for the H8P.

Lear Audio LCM BD4.2 ($1290)

With its delayed-ignition subbass driver, the SE5 Ultimate actually has a decay that matches the Lear LCM BD4.2's dual dynamic bass drivers in bass decay. Respect! But it doesn't come close to matching the authority or power that the LCM BD4.2 can belt out, and cannot reach as deep or slam as hard in the sub-regions. The SE5 Ultimate also has worse bass detail. Nonetheless the SE5 Ultimate does notch a few wins of its own, running circles around the lumbering LCM BD4.2 for speed and also belting out bass that has a nicer, more pleasing and natural tonality. The duo are about equal in terms of tightness.

The LCM BD4.2's midrange betters the SE5 Ultimate in almost every regard. The former's mids are slightly more energetic; just that bit more consistent; has markedly higher clarity and detail; and portrays a thumbprint's worth of better tonality and overall timbre. The SE5 Ultimate does much better in mids airiness, evoking a neverending story with its souffle-like mids; but the LCM BD4.2 just proves to be more capable overall.

In the treble the situation is decidedly the reverse. The SE5 Ultimate comes across as a bit smoother; a lot faster; more extended; and more natural. It's just a much higher quality treble. The SE5 Ultimate does lose out on sparkle, though, and cannot quite match the world-leading LCM BD4.2 in treble clarity. A word about that last point- the SE5 Ultimate is almost as good as it gets for treble clarity... the LCM BD4.2 is just better. Both are world-class.

These two IEMs are tip-top in terms of soundstage size, although the LCM BD4.2 is a bit taller and the SE5 Ultimate is a bit wider and deeper. The two also post great quality in their stage, and while the LCM BD 4.2 can't quite rival the SE5 Ultimate's amazing soundstage consistency, it has the latter vanquished in terms of sheer quantity of airiness and spatial cues. Imaging is where things get a bit dicey- if you're the LCM BD4.2, that is. It has middling ability to pinpoint images in 3D space (depth) and to form a coherent center image; and cannot contend with the SE5 Ultimate on either count. It's simply blown away. On the other hand the LCM BD4.2 is the class valedictorian of imaging width, and betters the already capable SE5 Ultimate.

The general qualities are better in the SE5 Ultimate- all across the board. The difference is biggest in terms of articulation and musical resonance (isn't it always, with the SE5 Ultimate?), where the LCM BD4.2 does pretty well, but still struggles against the best of the best. There is also a clear gap in terms of thickness in favour of the SE5 Ultimate, although here it is much more a case of the LCM BD4.2 being extremely extremely thin than the SE5 Ultimate being a star performer. The two are closest where it comes to PRaT, and to a lesser extent overall balance in the frequency response. Both perform rather well in these two areas, but the SE5 Ultimate still comes out ahead.

Advanced AcousticWerkes AAW W500 AHMorph ($1111)

As I set out to write this comparison, I realised just how similar it was going to turn out to the comparison with the Lear LCM BD4.2's bass. That's probably not surprising given that both the LCM BD4.2 and the W500 are proud hybrid IEMs, with big dynamic boom-box drivers for their bass. To recap: the SE5 Ultimate has better bass speed and timbre. The W500 has just a bit better decay (it actually does better than the LCM BD4.2 in this regard), authority, bass tightness and sub-bass extension + slam. Both have just about equal level levels of detail. There, done. I swear, I didn't just copy the LCM BD4.2 bass comparison from above!

The two have mids that I rated just about equal, although they get there in different ways. The W500 has an energetic midrange that lacks a bit of airiness; on the other hand the SE5 Ultimate is a more linear, reference (read: less forward) set of mids that excels with great air. The two play to a draw on evenness, detail, clarity and timbre, although if you're really keeping score the W500 comes out ahead on evenness and detail and the SE5 Ultimate is just a bit better in clarity and timbre. All in all, pick the W500 if you want a more in-your-face, spice-girls type of approach; choose the SE5 Ultimate if you'd prefer something more cerebral.

Treble smoothness is a real strength on both IEMs, and nothing separates the duo here. But there are other differences. The W500 is impressive exactly because it pairs this smoothness with a shining treble, whereas the SE5 Ultimate presents a more muted, less sparkling experience. On the other hand, in all other facets the SE5 Ultimate wins, pacing comfortably ahead in terms of speed, extension, naturalness and clarity. I've mentioned this before, but the SE5 Ultimate is an other-worldly treble experience, and while the W500 does quite well on most aspects (exception: plodding speed) the final result is quite decisive.

The soundstage is bigger on the SE5 Ultimate (which is something I can say about almost every IEM that's matched up against the Spiral Ear Flagship). The SE5 Ultimate is so wide it feels a bit like when Johnny Depp traveled to the end of the world in Pirates of the Caribbean- in fact it's numero uno in this shootout. The depth (ha-ha, see what I did there?) is also scene-stealing, except that there's a level-10 master thief in the Adel-equipped A12 lurking, and the SE5 Ultimate finishes the shootout race at number 2. (For the bean counters out there, that means it's ahead on the W500 on both counts). In terms of height the SE5 Ultimate is a bit more humble (if you can count 'top 3' as humble), but this isn't a strength of the W500 so make that 3-0 to the SE5 Ultimate. The quality of the staging is a bit more of a flip-flopping affair, with round 1 (consistency) going to the SE5 Ultimate; and round 2 (airiness) taken by the W500. Switching gears, in terms of imaging both are genuine curve-skewers, with nothing to separate them from each other but everything to separate them from the rest of the pack (exception: the previously-mentioned Adel A12, once again...).

In general, both of these are really well-balanced IEMs, although you'll need to pick your poison. More an ultra-rich, belgian-chocolate type of guy? Go with the W500, which has strong bass, energetic mids, and sparkling treble. Prefer a laid-back, palette-cleansing sorbet? Take the SE5 Ultimate- light bass, light mids, and you guessed it, light treble. In terms of articulation, the W500 can be counted upon to be really precise... But the SE5 Ultimate is just better. Plain old better. No IEM is going to best the SE5 Ultimate's ability to render each musical note into its own, distinct, separate entity- not the W500, nor any other IEM. As for musical resonance, the W500 is similarly top-notch, and is again simply unfortunate to encounter the record-setting SE5 Ultimate. On the SE5 Ultimate, faint echoes, of that note just played, linger longingly like the subtle basenotes of an Eau de Parfum. Sublime. Wrapping up, the two are much closer on PRaT (winner: SE5 Ultimate, thanks to its fast speed) and thickness (winner: W500, by a drop of sweat).

Summary

The Spiral Ear SE5 Ultimate takes top spot in my first Flagship IEM shootout. It achieved the top scores in three out of the five categories I rate- treble, spatial and general qualities, while clocking in with good scores in mids and bass as well. If there was ever an IEM that deserved to be called 'Fit for a Bat!', suitable for those with bat-ears hearing, this is it. The SE5 Ultimate is a temple, a stunning monument that pays homage to the one thing that matters most in this hobby- amazing music. So just put them in your ears, sit back, and relax. Welcome to Audio Heaven.

Pros: Treble. Spatial Presentation. General Qualities.

Cons: "-heads" of all sorts (bass, mids, treble) need not apply

Overall Score: 91.3 (Fit for a Bat!)

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM

Reserved

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 6:01 AM

Reserved

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM

Reserved

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM

Reserved

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM

Reserved

jelt2359 · May 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM

Reserved

Latest Thread Images

Headphoneus Supremus

My Totally Arbitrary Rules​

The Shootout!​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Clear Tune Monitors​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with CustomArt​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Noble Audio​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with 1964Ears​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with AAW​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Spiral Ear​

Sound​

Comparisons​

Headphoneus Supremus

Headphoneus Supremus

Headphoneus Supremus

Headphoneus Supremus

Headphoneus Supremus

Headphoneus Supremus

Users who are viewing this thread

My Totally Arbitrary Rules

The Shootout!

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Clear Tune Monitors

Sound

Comparisons

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with CustomArt

Sound

Comparisons

Sound

Comparisons

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Noble Audio

Sound

Comparisons

Sound

Comparisons

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with 1964Ears

Sound

Comparisons

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with AAW

Sound

Comparisons

Straight from the Horse's Mouth: An Interview with Spiral Ear

Sound

Comparisons