[Ohmboy]

Warm sources are better for this monitor.

^^^ X2 Hybrid tube or maybe iFi based sources work best for me too

 

[mobbaddict]

I'm curious how other people hear how resolving the Timeless is compared to other headphones. For example, how does it compare to the HD650?

Resolving meaning how well it is able to resolve sonic characteristics like detail, layering, and such. This is the innate ability of the headphone. Its resolving ability doesn't change with EQ or processing. If you better notice details when you EQ the headphone that is not what I'm talking about. The resolving ability of the headphone doesn't change with EQ.

As an example, I have a 2011 era LCD-2 rev 2 and consider it to be slightly less resolving than an HD650 with a good amp. I also have a LCD-2 Classic and I consider the LCD-2 Classic to be slightly more resolving than the HD650 with a good amp.

I hear the Timeless as being noticeably less resolving than an HD650. I've been using the Timeless with a PonoPlayer (balanced), Cavalli Liquid Gold X (balanced), and Cavalli Liquid Platinum (balanced).

What's up? Am I not hearing what the Timeless is capable of or is this just the way the Timeless is. I'm going to keep experimenting with other tips to try to get it to improve, but I'm not sure that is going to be successful.

Maybe I should upgrade my amp but out of my fiio K5 pro I hear the timeless as being much faster and more resolving than my HD600, and closer in general to my my full-size planars and electrostats. Maybe dynamic headphones just present details in a different way though, I'm usually more impressed with other technologies. Do you find the timeless much less resolving than the LCD2 too ?

 

[samandhi]

I'm curious how other people hear how resolving the Timeless is compared to other headphones. For example, how does it compare to the HD650?

Resolving meaning how well it is able to resolve sonic characteristics like detail, layering, and such. This is the innate ability of the headphone. Its resolving ability doesn't change with EQ or processing. If you better notice details when you EQ the headphone that is not what I'm talking about. The resolving ability of the headphone doesn't change with EQ.

As an example, I have a 2011 era LCD-2 rev 2 and consider it to be slightly less resolving than an HD650 with a good amp. I also have a LCD-2 Classic and I consider the LCD-2 Classic to be slightly more resolving than the HD650 with a good amp.

I hear the Timeless as being noticeably less resolving than an HD650. I've been using the Timeless with a PonoPlayer (balanced), Cavalli Liquid Gold X (balanced), and Cavalli Liquid Platinum (balanced).

What's up? Am I not hearing what the Timeless is capable of or is this just the way the Timeless is. I'm going to keep experimenting with other tips to try to get it to improve, but I'm not sure that is going to be successful.

Nope. You are right on the money. I have thought from the beginning (since I got mine) that they aren't as resolving as other head-gear that I have. They have a really fun quality, and I love to listen to them, but I would never use them for any sort of critical listening. Combined with boosted bass (moreso in mid-bass region), "V" shaped mids, and some congestion issues, this makes them great for the masses (very close to Harmon tuning), but I still go back to my OG P1 (IEF neutral) more often. It's not to say that I think the Timeless are terrible at any one thing. I simply think they are $200 earphones. They are about as resolving as most lower-mid-tier IEMs are (IE... iBasso IT01S, IT01, etc...).

I find them to not compare to the HD700, Deva, or even the very neutral HE400S (not SE, or I). I also don't find them in the same league as the IT07 or even the DUNU DK2000 IMHO.

That being said, I am not planning on getting rid of them, because they really are an enjoyable listen (to my ears); a very complimentary listen to my other head-gear. I think that if 7Hz used a higher quality driver, they could have a bigger winner with the next Timeless.

 

[Tomm11]

I would bet that this is nothing to do with the driver. They all have minor variations of the same tuning.

Edit: What I'm very interested in what @RIGATIO 's thoughts are on a Harman tuned Timeless vs the MMK2.

If I understand you, you are saying that you think that the lack of dynamics is tuning related and not driver related?

 

[DrewVz]

As I read through some of these posts and look at the comparisons to other IEMs and headphones (P1? HE400? HD650??) , I'm wondering if there isn't a lot more to the upstream source and DAC/amp combo than people want to believe.

When I listen to my Denon AH-D9200 ($1600 flagship) and $1300 Hifiman Arya, neither of them are as deep, resolving, or can produce as broad a stage as the Timeless through my system. The Aryas are more detailed, too be sure, but that comes at the expense of clarity and depth of layers. The Aryas are also much brighter, so the highs can be overwhelming in certain cases. The Timeless are much better balanced all around.

The Denons are great, but as DDs they suffer from congestion and cannot keep up with overlapping rhythms in fast passages nearly as well as the Timeless. Where the Denons excel is timbre, attack, and richness of sound.

I would take the Timeless over both of them if I had to choose. No question about it. That's why I'm baffled at folks who claim that they prefer IEMs like the P1 or headphones like the HD650. There simply MUST be a bigger difference in results from better upstream components than people are willing to admit.

Note that in using an aftermarket cable and tips, but even still, the Timeless IS capable. And I've owned the Anole VX, and sold it because the Timeless is just plain better. In my system, at least.

 

[logiatype]

If I understand you, you are saying that you think that the lack of dynamics is tuning related and not driver related?

That's my guess based on how small these drivers are. It seems a bit odd that 1.5cm and relatively rigid drivers are so vastly different. I don't think EQ is accurate enough to tell so I'd really like to see a Harman tuned planar for comparison.

I can't grasp why a "faster" and more accurate driver putting out the same SPL across an FR can have worse dynamics. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't the driver respond better to differences much better? Or am I way off here?

 

[ExTubeGamer]

As I read through some of these posts and look at the comparisons to other IEMs and headphones (P1? HE400? HD650??) , I'm wondering if there isn't a lot more to the upstream source and DAC/amp combo than people want to believe.

When I listen to my Denon AH-D9200 ($1600 flagship) and $1300 Hifiman Arya, neither of them are as deep, resolving, or can produce as broad a stage as the Timeless through my system. The Aryas are more detailed, too be sure, but that comes at the expense of clarity and depth of layers. The Aryas are also much brighter, so the highs can be overwhelming in certain cases. The Timeless are much better balanced all around.

The Denons are great, but as DDs they suffer from congestion and cannot keep up with overlapping rhythms in fast passages nearly as well as the Timeless. Where the Denons excel is timbre, attack, and richness of sound.

I would take the Timeless over both of them if I had to choose. No question about it. That's why I'm baffled at folks who claim that they prefer IEMs like the P1 or headphones like the HD650. There simply MUST be a bigger difference in results from better upstream components than people are willing to admit.

Note that in using an aftermarket cable and tips, but even still, the Timeless IS capable. And I've owned the Anole VX, and sold it because the Timeless is just plain better. In my system, at least.

Hm. It truly depends on the source used for the Timeless. Just minutes ago I used my Timeless on the Nintendo Switch. Sounded good but nowhere near as good as on a good DAP. Now I am sitting at my PC where a single DD IEM sounds magnitudes better then my Timeless.

 

[samandhi]

As I read through some of these posts and look at the comparisons to other IEMs and headphones (P1? HE400? HD650??) , I'm wondering if there isn't a lot more to the upstream source and DAC/amp combo than people want to believe.

When I listen to my Denon AH-D9200 ($1600 flagship) and $1300 Hifiman Arya, neither of them are as deep, resolving, or can produce as broad a stage as the Timeless through my system. The Aryas are more detailed, too be sure, but that comes at the expense of clarity and depth of layers. The Aryas are also much brighter, so the highs can be overwhelming in certain cases. The Timeless are much better balanced all around.

The Denons are great, but as DDs they suffer from congestion and cannot keep up with overlapping rhythms in fast passages nearly as well as the Timeless. Where the Denons excel is timbre, attack, and richness of sound.

I would take the Timeless over both of them if I had to choose. No question about it. That's why I'm baffled at folks who claim that they prefer IEMs like the P1 or headphones like the HD650. There simply MUST be a bigger difference in results from better upstream components than people are willing to admit.

Note that in using an aftermarket cable and tips, but even still, the Timeless IS capable. And I've owned the Anole VX, and sold it because the Timeless is just plain better. In my system, at least.

There is a reason that the HD800, 650, 600, HE400 series, etc... and P1 were so popular, and are still around, and being compared to.

 

[DrewVz]

There is a reason that the HD800, 650, 600, HE400 series, etc... and P1 were so popular, and are still around, and being compared to.

I'm not understanding your point. I think most would agree that the Arya is much better than the HE400, and in my judgment the Timeless is better than the Arya. So I'm not getting the point you're making with the 400.

 

[Tomm11]

That's my guess based on how small these drivers are. It seems a bit odd that 1.5cm and relatively rigid drivers are so vastly different. I don't think EQ is accurate enough to tell so I'd really like to see a Harman tuned planar for comparison.

I can't grasp why a "faster" and more accurate driver putting out the same SPL across an FR can have worse dynamics. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't the driver respond better to differences much better? Or am I way off here?

I don't know the exact answer, I was just wanting to make sure I understood what you wrote. Tuning probably is the answer to some degree. I just don't think "we" are going to see the best that planar iem's have to offer at the $200 price point. I think that improvements in design, materials and implementation are yet to come with planar iem's (if manufacturers continue to think it's worth the effort). Seems to me that planar technology in a regular iem shell is pretty much still in it's infancy. They didn't get the tuning right (or pretty right) until now.

 

[RIGATIO]

Guys even compared to the Monarch 2, the Timeless are very special. Its not the same level, it doesnt have the same magic, even if you EQ them. BUT, i personaly think that they play in a league of 400+ bucks. At least. These iems are a gem and i encourage everyone to keep them and have fun with them!

 

[logiatype]

I don't know the exact answer, I was just wanting to make sure I understood what you wrote. Tuning probably is the answer to some degree. I just don't think "we" are going to see the best that planar iem's have to offer at the $200 price point. I think that improvements in design, materials and implementation are yet to come with planar iem's (if manufacturers continue to think it's worth the effort). Seems to me that planar technology in a regular iem shell is pretty much still in it's infancy. They didn't get the tuning right (or pretty right) until now.

I think we will see it at sub-200. Especially when the influencers start getting involved with tuning Planar Chi-Fi. It will be interesting to see HiFi players try to charge $1,500 based on "intangibles".

 

[samandhi]

That's my guess based on how small these drivers are. It seems a bit odd that 1.5cm and relatively rigid drivers are so vastly different. I don't think EQ is accurate enough to tell so I'd really like to see a Harman tuned planar for comparison.

I can't grasp why a "faster" and more accurate driver putting out the same SPL across an FR can have worse dynamics. Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't the driver respond better to differences much better? Or am I way off here?

You aren't wrong in your theory here. But, that is assuming all things are equal. Each companies driver has characteristics of its own. There are just so many factors that could be in play here, no one can answer that question (definitively) without reverse engineering these. Wiring, solder, membrane make-up, acoustics from the shell, etc... Those are just to name a few. That is why you may have two IEMs tuned almost the same, but one can exhibit these qualities we are discussing, while the other may not (not talking about among the same model here).

SPL (like graphs) isn't the end-all for telling us the whole story here. It is really only half the story (and on paper at that). It really only tells us how loud a driver CAN get with acceptable distortion (.5% THD or less), not how loud it WILL get, or how it will behave in between that maximum SPL level, or how fast it can get there, or etc... In this case implementation, tech, materials, etc... makes the other half of the story. Tuning can only go so far in giving the illusion of better dynamics (though it CAN help or hinder it a bit). Take the low quality .mp3 for instance. No matter how you tune a driver, you CAN'T add more dynamics to that file. This is much the same with a given driver. If it isn't capable, you can't tune it in or out.

 

[ToneDeafMonk]

Nope. You are right on the money. I have thought from the beginning (since I got mine) that they aren't as resolving as other head-gear that I have. They have a really fun quality, and I love to listen to them, but I would never use them for any sort of critical listening. Combined with boosted bass (moreso in mid-bass region), "V" shaped mids, and some congestion issues, this makes them great for the masses (very close to Harmon tuning), but I still go back to my OG P1 (IEF neutral) more often. It's not to say that I think the Timeless are terrible at any one thing. I simply think they are $200 earphones. They are about as resolving as most lower-mid-tier IEMs are (IE... iBasso IT01S, IT01, etc...).

I find them to not compare to the HD700, Deva, or even the very neutral HE400S (not SE, or I). I also don't find them in the same league as the IT07 or even the DUNU DK2000 IMHO.

That being said, I am not planning on getting rid of them, because they really are an enjoyable listen (to my ears); a very complimentary listen to my other head-gear. I think that if 7Hz used a higher quality driver, they could have a bigger winner with the next Timeless.

Bang on my thoughts I love my Timeless but when I really want more detailed vocal jamb I reach for the Obsidian.

 

[samandhi]

I'm not understanding your point. I think most would agree that the Arya is much better than the HE400, and in my judgment the Timeless is better than the Arya. So I'm not getting the point you're making with the 400.

That's why I'm baffled at folks who claim that they prefer IEMs like the P1 or headphones like the HD650.

My comment was in answer to your (semi)question about understanding why people prefer that head-gear over something like the Timeless, or that they compare using said head-gear. They hold these devices as the gold standard. And for good reason; hence the comment about them being around for so long, and still selling.

I don't know that I would agree that "most" think they are just simply better. Yes, they do a lot of things better and they are great, but as you said, there are compromises that are made (which is typical of summit-fi(ish) gear). Just like you liking the Timeless better than the Arya, there are those that like the HE400 series better (for instance).

To you, the Timeless sound better than hugely overpriced head-gear. I get that, and I am super stoked that you have found your end(ish) game with these. But, if you listen with a subjective mind (and hearing), and know how to listen for these things, they ARE deficient in certain ways that (a lot of) higher end gear will do better. If you don't hear it, it is wonderful, and I am truly happy for you. But please don't be offended if someone points out that they DO have deficiencies?!

I am certainly not trying to detract from YOUR enjoyment of these, but one needs to consider that if this thread were nothing but glowing statements about how good they were, and that they had 0 flaws, I think potentially new buyers might get the wrong idea. I think they need to see both sides (if there are two sides, of which there ARE). Are they fantastic IEMs? Yes for sure! Are they better than true summit-fi gear? Absolutely not! Would I get rid of these? Again, absolutely not! But, at the same time, I am not likely to sell off all of my other head-gear either.