creamsoda
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Posts
- 88
- Likes
- 16
mids are definitely not recessed. i love mids. they're not as forward as shure se535s, but more forward than a neutral iem like the westone 4.
the quads are definitely more bang for your buck than the es5... they cost almost 300 less than the ES3X even if you factor in the soft canal fee (upcharge for 1964, standard on westone).
the quads are $125 more than the Jh5, a two-way, two driver model. how does that sound to you in terms of bang for the buck?
by nature, neither will have a gigantic soundstage as they're both meant as stage monitors. two reasons:
so 1) both the es5 and quads are purposed as stage monitors, so there will not be pronounced treble as part of their sound signature, as they require forward mids and bumped bass to save the musician's hearing when used at high volumes onstage,
and 2) monitors generally sound intimate for more perceived detail, and to allow a musician to track any and all instruments in the band/mix. i'm a musician, so i prefer being on stage with the musicians rather than a few rows back in a concert hall. personal preference!
that said, a crucial factor that makes a good stage monitor is instrumental separation - and this is found as a strength of all good stage monitors, ES5, Quads, JH5, UM3X.
the es5 will have better imaging, separation and apparently mids, going by people's impressions. but of course, it's almost $400 more!
here's a related post i found on the soundstage of the es5:
Originally Posted by b0ck3n
What you call soundstage is immediately affected by frequency response. The distance between instruments, the size of the accoustic "room" etc, is a product of the recording. What's likely making the IERM portray a larger soundstage is the bumped response in upper treble over the ES5 - high frequences hold the cues by which we interpret distance.
In other words - you can't have the ES5 with the "soundstage" of the IERM.
the quads are definitely more bang for your buck than the es5... they cost almost 300 less than the ES3X even if you factor in the soft canal fee (upcharge for 1964, standard on westone).
the quads are $125 more than the Jh5, a two-way, two driver model. how does that sound to you in terms of bang for the buck?
by nature, neither will have a gigantic soundstage as they're both meant as stage monitors. two reasons:
so 1) both the es5 and quads are purposed as stage monitors, so there will not be pronounced treble as part of their sound signature, as they require forward mids and bumped bass to save the musician's hearing when used at high volumes onstage,
and 2) monitors generally sound intimate for more perceived detail, and to allow a musician to track any and all instruments in the band/mix. i'm a musician, so i prefer being on stage with the musicians rather than a few rows back in a concert hall. personal preference!
that said, a crucial factor that makes a good stage monitor is instrumental separation - and this is found as a strength of all good stage monitors, ES5, Quads, JH5, UM3X.
the es5 will have better imaging, separation and apparently mids, going by people's impressions. but of course, it's almost $400 more!
here's a related post i found on the soundstage of the es5:
Originally Posted by b0ck3n
What you call soundstage is immediately affected by frequency response. The distance between instruments, the size of the accoustic "room" etc, is a product of the recording. What's likely making the IERM portray a larger soundstage is the bumped response in upper treble over the ES5 - high frequences hold the cues by which we interpret distance.
In other words - you can't have the ES5 with the "soundstage" of the IERM.
