malifact
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Posts
- 505
- Likes
- 71
I used to own the IM03 and I also found the isolation disappointing. Not bad for a universal IEM, but definitely a step down compared to its predecessor the CK100PRO.
71 IEM Brief Review thread (incl. Rhine Monitors, Cleartune, CustomArt)
- Thread starter jelt2359
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
There is just something about the audio technica iems. I thought enough of this to make a special note about the horrible fit of the ckr09 and ckr10, which I almost never do since I actually love universals. The IM04 was quite similar in that respect.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
Round 7: Canalworks CW-L51APSTS, Hidition NT 6/6-Pro, Rooth LSX, Advanced Acousticwerkes AAW W500
Canalworks CW-L51APSTS ($1450)
The guy at the counter gave me an apologetic look. As he rummaged through his file, he told me what he was looking for. Turns out the CW-L51APSTS came with the ability to interchange through eleven different resistors to tune the bass, and he needed to refer to a cheat sheet to tell him which resistor was what. Sorry for the trouble, he told me. This is why we typically just let people test with the default resistor. Hm, I thought. Who am I to argue? So like so many others before me, I started listening with the default.
Default Setting (Resistor #8): The CW-L51 has a smooth and slightly warm presentation. This smoothness carries on into the high notes, where the treble is not edgy or sharp at all. On the other end of the spectrum, its bass is less punchy and lighter, but serves up good texture and detail nonetheless. The mids are slightly forward, and are more lush than airy. If you're a fan of mids, however, I must say that the timbre of the mids here is simply magical. It has an amazing tone that just seems to reverberate extremely well. Less good: while its soundstage is relatively big, its imaging is not top notch. This was my preferred setting.
Max Bass Setting (Resistor #1): The sound becomes extremely warm. The bass still doesn't get any punchier, but the texture is still yummy.
Min Bass Setting (Resistor #11): The signature becomes brighter, although it's not as if the bass disappears completely (this should be expected, since the default is closer to "min" than "max"). The sound becomes quite thin, though.
Canalworks CW-L51APSTS Score: 9.6-9.7
Hidition NT 6/6-Pro ($1200)
True story. When I'd asked for the Canalworks with "the interchangeable resistors", the pretty sales assistant gave me the wrong pair. I see resistors inside! She told me. We sorted that out eventually (a nice chap came to help), but there were no such issues with the NT 6. She knew exactly what I wanted. Apart from Unique Melody and FitEar, Hidition is probably the most well-known Asian CIEM company. So you can imagine, I came with high hopes.
NT 6: Like the Canalworks pair, the Hidition NT6 has slightly forward mids. The midrange here is lush, and has above average airiness. Bass is on the lighter side, but it's not lite. The lows are very fast and textured. Very well done, actually. The treble here is extremely good- very energetic, and highly detailed. It's teetering on the brink, but there's no sibilance. More generally, the signature is a touch brighter. Clarity is top notch, and there is never any congestion. The soundstage is big, and the imaging is truly excellent. It is energetic and fast. Impressively, it doesn't sound clinical at all, and despite all the energy, clarity and details, still manages to sound a little smooth.
NT 6-Pro: The 6-Pro has more bass, and becomes a tad punchier and sharper down low. The mids are less forward. The treble retains the energy of the 6, but is just slightly less smooth. The signature gains more warmth, and also becomes a slight bit more energetic and faster.
Update: I had the opportunity to try the NT6 and NT6-Pro again. It is very, very interesting. I actually went back and forth on this many times. The lushness is in the 'mid mids', and not in the lower mids. There were times when I couldn't detect it much, but then there were also many times when I went, "absolutely- there it is". Lushness aside, in general the mids are also a bit recessed. This combination actually ends up making the midrange sound very balanced. The Pro had the lusher mids, but the NT 6 had mids that were more forward and clearer- fantastically clear, in fact. The overall effect is that they sound very neutral in the mids. On a purely subjective point, I'm not actually sure which I prefer. I loved the clarity on the NT6's mids, but I preferred the less forward placements of the Pro.
Update 2: Upon a request from germanturkey, I went back to AB the NT6 and my (own, custom version) Legend R. Doing a direct comparison between the two is quite a shock. The NT6 is slightly bright and possesses crystal clarity, yet somehow manages to avoid sounding clinical, analytical, fatiguing or boring. It is in fact very musical. On the other hand the Legend R has a smooth and obviously darker and warmer signature. Clarity is not as good on the latter, although it possesses a good ability to bring out the micro details and be very resolving. The Legend R, apart from a mild midrange boost and some roll-off in the treble, is also more level across the frequency spectrum, while the NT6 has more peaks- a small one in the midbass, and then again in the mids, and in the lower treble. The Legend R midbass, while not as humpy, has good impact and sounds quite natural and big, adding sufficient structure to the sound.
Reading this you may think that the Legend R may be more boring to listen to. Not true. It actually possesses very good and natural rhythm and PRaT- quick, but never sounding lean. This is a good match and balance to its warmer signature. Coherence is also wonderful, giving it a very well-rounded musical experience. The NT6 is actually similarly well-balanced, with its natural decay rounding out the brightness and adding more texture. I guess this is how it avoids sounding lean or clinical.
Soundstage-wise, the Legend R is decent, but uniquely, gains some of it simply by having a less forward sound. This is why it continues to sound quite focused, and not diffused at all. The NT6 on the other hand has a more traditionally big soundstage, with the sound gaining some air and wings in comparison.
Throwing the Viento R into the mix (original impressions here), the Hidition pair with the switches is less energetic in both the lower and upper treble. The NT6 has more peaky treble in comparison to its sibling, and also overall slightly- by a hair- higher resolving ability. Upper treble is more rolled off on the Viento-R. In terms of resolving ability, in fact, the detail levels between the NT6 and Legend R are quite similar, although the former seems better at first due to its brighter signature and increased clarity. Not true.
Hidition NT 6/6-Pro Score: 9.7
Rooth LSX ($1350)
I feel like I'm writing this a lot today, but the Rooth LSX also belongs into the 'smooth' camp. Not as smooth as the Canalworks, though. The bass was good and punchy. It was fast, and had good quantity that was not overdone (that's a delicate balance). Nice texture on these lows, too. If it seems like I'm writing a lot about the lows, it's because that was probably the Rooth's best feature. Heading up the frequency spectrum, the midrange was not as forward. Sadly, both lushness and airiness were not quite as good in these mids. The treble was edgy- especially when compared to the Canalworks pair- but managed to avoid sibilance. In terms of the soundstage, the LSX is merely above average. Its imaging, though, is good- but not the best. Overall, the signature was quite warm, and a little less energetic than I'd have liked.
PS: For those who haven't heard of them, Rooth is a sister company of Unique Melody. So technically, this is the first Unique Melody IEM I have ever heard.
Rooth LSX Score: 9.4
Advanced Acousticwerkes AAW W500 AHMorph ($1150)
The World's First Hybrid with a Continuously Adjustable Signature! The AAW W500 was the biggest mystery to me, but apparently only me. Although I'd read almost nothing about them to date, the shopkeeper told me matter-of-factly that this was their best seller among all those I'd tried. There was a catch, however- the version that sold the best was the W500 without the adjustable signature. Hmmm. I'm sure the cool $150 less that the W500 NoMorph goes for has to be enticing, but that probably also means that the default sounded pretty good. So once again, that's what I started with.
Default: The soundstage is very big, and the imaging is elite. It has an enveloping, 3 effect to the sound. Very very impressive. Its signature is slightly warm, and once again- here comes that word- smooth. The bass here is of the lighter variety, but still punchy. The lows could be faster and clearer. The mids are a bit recessed. They retain good airiness, and also sport very good timbre- although not quite up to the level of the Canalworks pair. The treble here is also very well done- energetic, with good tone, and never edgy or sibilant. One thing I noticed, though- the AAW W500 is not generally as involving or energetic.
Zero Power to the Dynamic Drivers: This sounds pretty drastically different from the default. The mids come forward, and the bass suffers. The sound gets sharper overall, and it seems to almost be straining at times from the effort.
Maximum Power to the Dynamic Drivers: The change from the default to this is much more subtle. The mids become slightly more recessed, and the bass punch and impact increases.
Update: Formulated some more impressions on extension at both ends after more listening. The subbass was great- natural and extended. Treble extension was also pretty good, even without being peaky.
Advanced Acousticwerkes AAW W500 AHMorph Score: 9.6
Canalworks CW-L51APSTS ($1450)
The guy at the counter gave me an apologetic look. As he rummaged through his file, he told me what he was looking for. Turns out the CW-L51APSTS came with the ability to interchange through eleven different resistors to tune the bass, and he needed to refer to a cheat sheet to tell him which resistor was what. Sorry for the trouble, he told me. This is why we typically just let people test with the default resistor. Hm, I thought. Who am I to argue? So like so many others before me, I started listening with the default.
Default Setting (Resistor #8): The CW-L51 has a smooth and slightly warm presentation. This smoothness carries on into the high notes, where the treble is not edgy or sharp at all. On the other end of the spectrum, its bass is less punchy and lighter, but serves up good texture and detail nonetheless. The mids are slightly forward, and are more lush than airy. If you're a fan of mids, however, I must say that the timbre of the mids here is simply magical. It has an amazing tone that just seems to reverberate extremely well. Less good: while its soundstage is relatively big, its imaging is not top notch. This was my preferred setting.
Max Bass Setting (Resistor #1): The sound becomes extremely warm. The bass still doesn't get any punchier, but the texture is still yummy.
Min Bass Setting (Resistor #11): The signature becomes brighter, although it's not as if the bass disappears completely (this should be expected, since the default is closer to "min" than "max"). The sound becomes quite thin, though.
Canalworks CW-L51APSTS Score: 9.6-9.7
Hidition NT 6/6-Pro ($1200)
True story. When I'd asked for the Canalworks with "the interchangeable resistors", the pretty sales assistant gave me the wrong pair. I see resistors inside! She told me. We sorted that out eventually (a nice chap came to help), but there were no such issues with the NT 6. She knew exactly what I wanted. Apart from Unique Melody and FitEar, Hidition is probably the most well-known Asian CIEM company. So you can imagine, I came with high hopes.
NT 6: Like the Canalworks pair, the Hidition NT6 has slightly forward mids. The midrange here is lush, and has above average airiness. Bass is on the lighter side, but it's not lite. The lows are very fast and textured. Very well done, actually. The treble here is extremely good- very energetic, and highly detailed. It's teetering on the brink, but there's no sibilance. More generally, the signature is a touch brighter. Clarity is top notch, and there is never any congestion. The soundstage is big, and the imaging is truly excellent. It is energetic and fast. Impressively, it doesn't sound clinical at all, and despite all the energy, clarity and details, still manages to sound a little smooth.
NT 6-Pro: The 6-Pro has more bass, and becomes a tad punchier and sharper down low. The mids are less forward. The treble retains the energy of the 6, but is just slightly less smooth. The signature gains more warmth, and also becomes a slight bit more energetic and faster.
Update: I had the opportunity to try the NT6 and NT6-Pro again. It is very, very interesting. I actually went back and forth on this many times. The lushness is in the 'mid mids', and not in the lower mids. There were times when I couldn't detect it much, but then there were also many times when I went, "absolutely- there it is". Lushness aside, in general the mids are also a bit recessed. This combination actually ends up making the midrange sound very balanced. The Pro had the lusher mids, but the NT 6 had mids that were more forward and clearer- fantastically clear, in fact. The overall effect is that they sound very neutral in the mids. On a purely subjective point, I'm not actually sure which I prefer. I loved the clarity on the NT6's mids, but I preferred the less forward placements of the Pro.
Update 2: Upon a request from germanturkey, I went back to AB the NT6 and my (own, custom version) Legend R. Doing a direct comparison between the two is quite a shock. The NT6 is slightly bright and possesses crystal clarity, yet somehow manages to avoid sounding clinical, analytical, fatiguing or boring. It is in fact very musical. On the other hand the Legend R has a smooth and obviously darker and warmer signature. Clarity is not as good on the latter, although it possesses a good ability to bring out the micro details and be very resolving. The Legend R, apart from a mild midrange boost and some roll-off in the treble, is also more level across the frequency spectrum, while the NT6 has more peaks- a small one in the midbass, and then again in the mids, and in the lower treble. The Legend R midbass, while not as humpy, has good impact and sounds quite natural and big, adding sufficient structure to the sound.
Reading this you may think that the Legend R may be more boring to listen to. Not true. It actually possesses very good and natural rhythm and PRaT- quick, but never sounding lean. This is a good match and balance to its warmer signature. Coherence is also wonderful, giving it a very well-rounded musical experience. The NT6 is actually similarly well-balanced, with its natural decay rounding out the brightness and adding more texture. I guess this is how it avoids sounding lean or clinical.
Soundstage-wise, the Legend R is decent, but uniquely, gains some of it simply by having a less forward sound. This is why it continues to sound quite focused, and not diffused at all. The NT6 on the other hand has a more traditionally big soundstage, with the sound gaining some air and wings in comparison.
Throwing the Viento R into the mix (original impressions here), the Hidition pair with the switches is less energetic in both the lower and upper treble. The NT6 has more peaky treble in comparison to its sibling, and also overall slightly- by a hair- higher resolving ability. Upper treble is more rolled off on the Viento-R. In terms of resolving ability, in fact, the detail levels between the NT6 and Legend R are quite similar, although the former seems better at first due to its brighter signature and increased clarity. Not true.
Hidition NT 6/6-Pro Score: 9.7
Rooth LSX ($1350)
I feel like I'm writing this a lot today, but the Rooth LSX also belongs into the 'smooth' camp. Not as smooth as the Canalworks, though. The bass was good and punchy. It was fast, and had good quantity that was not overdone (that's a delicate balance). Nice texture on these lows, too. If it seems like I'm writing a lot about the lows, it's because that was probably the Rooth's best feature. Heading up the frequency spectrum, the midrange was not as forward. Sadly, both lushness and airiness were not quite as good in these mids. The treble was edgy- especially when compared to the Canalworks pair- but managed to avoid sibilance. In terms of the soundstage, the LSX is merely above average. Its imaging, though, is good- but not the best. Overall, the signature was quite warm, and a little less energetic than I'd have liked.
PS: For those who haven't heard of them, Rooth is a sister company of Unique Melody. So technically, this is the first Unique Melody IEM I have ever heard.
Rooth LSX Score: 9.4
Advanced Acousticwerkes AAW W500 AHMorph ($1150)
The World's First Hybrid with a Continuously Adjustable Signature! The AAW W500 was the biggest mystery to me, but apparently only me. Although I'd read almost nothing about them to date, the shopkeeper told me matter-of-factly that this was their best seller among all those I'd tried. There was a catch, however- the version that sold the best was the W500 without the adjustable signature. Hmmm. I'm sure the cool $150 less that the W500 NoMorph goes for has to be enticing, but that probably also means that the default sounded pretty good. So once again, that's what I started with.
Default: The soundstage is very big, and the imaging is elite. It has an enveloping, 3 effect to the sound. Very very impressive. Its signature is slightly warm, and once again- here comes that word- smooth. The bass here is of the lighter variety, but still punchy. The lows could be faster and clearer. The mids are a bit recessed. They retain good airiness, and also sport very good timbre- although not quite up to the level of the Canalworks pair. The treble here is also very well done- energetic, with good tone, and never edgy or sibilant. One thing I noticed, though- the AAW W500 is not generally as involving or energetic.
Zero Power to the Dynamic Drivers: This sounds pretty drastically different from the default. The mids come forward, and the bass suffers. The sound gets sharper overall, and it seems to almost be straining at times from the effort.
Maximum Power to the Dynamic Drivers: The change from the default to this is much more subtle. The mids become slightly more recessed, and the bass punch and impact increases.
Update: Formulated some more impressions on extension at both ends after more listening. The subbass was great- natural and extended. Treble extension was also pretty good, even without being peaky.
Advanced Acousticwerkes AAW W500 AHMorph Score: 9.6
ZzmadzZ
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Posts
- 455
- Likes
- 213
Jelt all can be tested at null audio? The latest batch 7 you demoed seems to be the type of sound signature I like lols!
Sirenia
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Posts
- 160
- Likes
- 60
Have you had a chance to test out the Rooth LS8+ Jelt? Thanks for those feedbacks anyways, pretty interesting as always and definetly new info I'll be using in my quest 
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
There will be a last CIEM I'll be looking for this year: a custom with a warm signature and a smooth midrange.
I still can't find the perfect candidate for now, but I have a few in mind: the Something Audio 10.As, the Rooth LS8+/LSX, the Noble K10 or the Fitear MH335DW/SR.
The problem is that the one from Something Audio won't have any reviews around here, the Rooth Customs do not get the same love as the others, people are way too enthusiastic over the K10 and the Fitear may be a bit expensive for one sole custom.
Have you had a chance to test out the Rooth LS8+ Jelt? Thanks for those feedbacks anyways, pretty interesting as always and definetly new info I'll be using in my quest
Not yet. I am thinking of looping back to that shop to test the Canalworks CW-L05QD and AAW W300 anyway. I'll look into the Rooth LS8+ at the same time... PS, you're welcome!
shotgunshane
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Posts
- 6,062
- Likes
- 1,820
Mimouille
Headphoneus Supremus
I own the NT6 and these impressions are quite aligned with what I hear, except that I do not find the mids particularly forward, and certainly not very "lush". Anyways that is a vaguee qualifier so people an different things by it.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
By "lush" what I mean is that the midrange has a good energy and presence to it. This description from the Head-Fi glossary is similar to what I'm thinking.
Lush
- Very Rich/Full.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
Yes, given what I've read about your preferences, I suspected you would be! Will post back.
Sirenia
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Posts
- 160
- Likes
- 60
Mimouille
Headphoneus Supremus
By "lush" what I mean is that the midrange has a good energy and presence to it. This description from the Head-Fi glossary is similar to what I'm thinking.
Lush- Very Rich/Full.
Yes ok, so definitely not lush
I do not hear the SE5 as having lush mids either
The only fairly lush mids in my iems are the MH335DW
shotgunshane
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Posts
- 6,062
- Likes
- 1,820
Typically lush is used for emphasis in the lower midrange, making it richer and fuller; and sweet is used for emphasis and energy in the upper midrange, making it livelier and perhaps airier throughout.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 719
Good definition. I make the exact same distinction in the midrange between 'lush' and 'airy'.
Users who are viewing this thread
