[ri_toast]

Comply foams have huge soundstage, but dampen to much of the frequency response for me. I love them, but once I try another pair of silicone tips, I realize what's missing. They're nice and all, but just give up too much of the music to be really useful.

I had to center the tips over the stems....once I did that they haven't moved. Also the ones I have are without the wax guard, those might make a huge difference. They are available in both styles.

 

[fablestruck]

What do you think of this opinion: https://www.audioreviews.org/7hz-timeless-analysis/

 

[samandhi]

What do you think of this opinion: https://www.audioreviews.org/7hz-timeless-analysis/

While I don't agree with all of his words, overall, he is spot-on. But he is also seemingly more concentrated on the negatives, and not much into talking about the positives (of which there are many). If the signature fits your preference, then these are fantastic (with or without flaws). It is obvious that his overall preference is nothing like what these offer.

In other words are these flawless? Heck no. Are they fantastic for $200? Yep, sure are.

 

[fablestruck]

While I don't agree with all of his words, overall, he is spot-on. But he is also seemingly more concentrated on the negatives, and not much into talking about the positives (of which there are many). If the signature fits your preference, then these are fantastic (with or without flaws). It is obvious that his overall preference is nothing like what these offer.

In other words are these flawless? Heck no. Are they fantastic for $200? Yep, sure are.

• Untextured, undetailed midbass.
• Unrefined, moderately shouty and fatiguing trebles.
• Scarce midrodynamics and detail retrieval.
• Unsatisfactory instrument separation.

I am no Timeless hyper-enthusiast so to speak, I mean I do have them and enjoy these in-ears among other in-ears BUT I definitely don't think that the above points make any sense to me. In my experience, they are quite resolving in each one of the above.
Could be the fact that he uses foam tips.

 

[mobbaddict]

What do you think of this opinion: https://www.audioreviews.org/7hz-timeless-analysis/

Based on his conclusion I take it he doesn't like the planar sound because that's what the timeless are all about. The planar sound in all its glory. Also he mentions cheap alternative technologies but not which ones. IMO planar iems like the timeless are killing all the BA competition, including the kilobuck ones.

 

[fablestruck]

Based on his conclusion I take it he doesn't like the planar sound because that's what the timeless are all about. The planar sound in all its glory. Also he mentions cheap alternative technologies but not which ones. IMO planar iems like the timeless are killing all the BA competition, including the kilobuck ones.

Well I do not have the know-how nor the experience to make such a strong statement but 'untextured' and ' undetailed' the Timeless are definitely not.

 

[MrYaldi]

Any UK 7hz owners able to recommend a replacement cable?

 

[10000days]

That audioreviews.org review sounds like a bunch of bs to me. Most of the points listed as "cons" are literally the best things about the Timeless lmao. I'd argue that this IEM does instrument separation better than my HE400i (overall) and Sundaras (in the bass-low mids and 6khz+ regions).

 

[51days]

What do you think of this opinion: https://www.audioreviews.org/7hz-timeless-analysis/

It’s an opinion I am definitely not sharing. It’s his opinion, though, and it has to be respected as such. It’s just a pair of (crazy good!!) IEMs, nothing dramatic.

 

[fablestruck]

It’s an opinion I am definitely not sharing. It’s his opinion, though, and it has to be respected as such. It’s just a pair of (crazy good!!) IEMs, nothing dramatic.

Well the thing is that a review is supposed not to be a mere subjective opinion. I mean it has to has to be at least on the fringe of objectivity. And as a reviewer you cannot just express a strong biased view because that beats the purpose of a 'review'.

 

[51days]

Well the thing is that a review is supposed not to be a mere subjective opinion. I mean it has to has to be at least on the fringe of objectivity. And as a reviewer you cannot just express a strong biased view because that beats the purpose of a 'review'.

Do you think his review is strongly biased? Not really my impression. I just think he doesn’t like what planars have to offer, for the moment. I am ok with the fact that a « review » should be as objective as possible. Issue: in the audio world, the term « review » is maybe not the most accurate. I prefer to talk about « impressions » in general. It’s a debatable topic, I agree.

I don’t agree with a lot what he wrote, though.

 

[samandhi]

Do you think his review is strongly biased? Not really my impression. I just think he doesn’t like what planars have to offer, for the moment. I am ok with the fact that a « review » should be as objective as possible. Issue: in the audio world, the term « review » is maybe not the most accurate. I prefer to talk about « impressions » in general. It’s a debatable topic, I agree.

I don’t agree with what he wrote, though.

I agree with what your saying. But I also agree with what he is saying. If you listen to kilobuck iems, or even headphones, then all that he said is true comparatively speaking. Because when I first got these (and before burn-in) I thought the same thing. I have, since then, changed my mind some.

They aren't as resolving as others I have heard. They are a V signature. They do have a midbass hump that is less resolving as it is boom in nature. There isn't any depth in the staging. Congested songs effect the imaging. But that is where the agrreances end. They aren't sharp at all, and the lower bass does have some texture. With less busy tracks, they sound fantastic. The bass is very fun and just dreamy sometimes. Tonality is really good. Soundstage can be fairly wide. For $200 these are fantastic.

Edit: In other words, It it my opinion that he didn't review them for what they are but compared to $1k-$3k IEMs and was expecting to hear the same. Because if I put my IT 07 up against these, all the things he said can be said as true. But also note that he didn't mention to what extent he thinks there is no midbass texture (for instance). Meaning, to him it is black and white. While I agree there is not a lot of midbass texture, but it is certainly not without it at all.

 

[10000days]

Strange how people hear everything differently with IEMs. I guess it's part of the charm. I will keep the Timeless because they never sounded congested to me. For example, in the linked Tool song, at the part starting at 8:01, instruments sound in-your-head, the soundstage is quite narrow, yet all sounds are perfectly separated and never congested like they do on 95% of my headphones. Just my opinion. The way this IEM deconstructs complex passage is effortless af, and I will die on this hill.

This is how the Timeless sounds to me: narrow-medium soundstage with average imaging, near perfect instrument separation (instruments share the same rather small space yet permeate each other instead of lumping together and congesting); mids are slightly recessed and cold; highs are bright to very bright; bass is boosted but not excessively, low bass S tier, mid bass B+/-A, just a bit too pillowy; clarity - clear and dry all over the frequency range, very focused sound, micro-detailed to the bone; tonality is hit and miss (but usually hit).

I'd give them an A+. I'm a person who hates narrow soundstages the most in headgear, so the fact that I love them makes them a very special one to me.

 

[MrYaldi]

Strange how people hear everything differently with IEMs. I guess it's part of the charm. I will keep the Timeless because they never sounded congested to me. For example, in the linked Tool song, at the part starting at 8:01, instruments sound in-your-head, the soundstage is quite narrow, yet all sounds are perfectly separated and never congested like they do on 95% of my headphones. Just my opinion. The way this IEM deconstructs complex passage is effortless af, and I will die on this hill.

This is how the Timeless sounds to me: narrow-medium soundstage with average imaging, near perfect instrument separation (instruments share the same rather small space yet permeate each other instead of lumping together and congesting); mids are slightly recessed and cold; highs are bright to very bright; bass is boosted but not excessively, low bass S tier, mid bass B+/-A, just a bit too pillowy; clarity - clear and dry all over the frequency range, very focused sound, micro-detailed to the bone; tonality is hit and miss (but usually hit).

I'd give them an A+. I'm a person who hates narrow soundstages the most in headgear, so the fact that I love them makes them a very special one to me.

Your breakdown sounds critical yet you give A+. It reads like a 7/10 lol

 

[10000days]

Your breakdown sounds critical yet you give A+. It reads like a 7/10 lol

Understandable but that's only because I've omitted writing about their value. If they were 500$, then yes, they'd be a 7 or 8/10, but they're about 200$, which makes them an insane deal in my books. + the Timeless excel at things that I didn't knew I care about.