[nayt94]

The full review with demo is here! Despite how overly warm it sounds in the demo, the Timeless have more apparent texture and detail in real life. Just saying!

Finally there's some quality content came up. I feel like Mest on your recordings sounds even better than mine IRL
Lets hope the Timeless is not as muffeld as demo shows up. Maybe theres some lucky owners to validate the differences?

 

[raymanh]

Finally there's some quality content came up. I feel like Mest on your recordings sounds even better than mine IRL
Lets hope the Timeless is not as muffeld as demo shows up. Maybe theres some lucky owners to validate the differences?

The guy kept repeating that it doesn't sound as muffled IRL as does in the demo, so I'd take his word for it.

 

[nayt94]

The guy kept repeating that it doesn't sound as muffled IRL as does in the demo, so I'd take his word for it.

I almost sure it's truth, just curious. I mean no way Crin rated them 5/5 after the first impressions if they sounded like this.
Almost all other reviewers also rating them pretty high, so it might be just an interesting aspect of recording planars.

 

[holsen]

Finally there's some quality content came up. I feel like Mest on your recordings sounds even better than mine IRL
Lets hope the Timeless is not as muffeld as demo shows up. Maybe theres some lucky owners to validate the differences?

I've only auditioned the MEST so I cant do any back to back comparisons but I had the IMR Astra (DD + BC + EST x 2) - a planar is never going to give the same level of upper end crispness and air as an EST - but 1) to be honest, so far to me I havent heard an EST that sounds natural to me - and I love crisp upper end and 2) that's not to say that a planar cannot and does not extend. They can and they do and this one in the Timeless certainly does. Tips make a huge difference on most IEMs and on the timeless, narrow bore tips will choke off the upper register. I've been tipp rolling all week. Medium-Wide and Wide Bore are the way to go with this baby. Cymbals, Maracas, Shakers are clean clear articulate, spacious and NATURAL - mids, vocals, strings are liquid and there's plenty of bass impact where the track has it. Also, I've said it before and I reiterate it again - I've been through lots of planars and burn in is real on them; mine have gone from good out of the box to absolutely brilliant after a couple of hundred hours with them. If you want to fast track the process, just plug in your source and let them play on a loop when you're not using them. I continue to be amazed at what 7Hz has pulled off for $200.

 

[nayt94]

I've only auditioned the MEST so I cant do any back to back comparisons

Oh, I just ment validating the difference of a real life sound with the recorded demo. I'm giving myself a report that it's barely a real competitor to the Mest.

mine have gone from good out of the box to absolutely brilliant after a couple of hundred hours with them. I've you want to fast track the process, just plug in your source and let them play on a loop when you're not using them. I continue to be amazed at what 7Hz has pulled off for $200.

It's really nice to see that you like them so much, I hope that what you telling will also a valid representation of my impressions when they came up

 

[-rowan-]

My Timeless has only about 60 hours on it so far and we know planars need way more than that to settle, but it’s shaping up so nicely I couldn’t resist posting a few impressions.

This thing needs power so either run it through an amp or balanced. I do think it has become noticeably easier to run with a little burn in though and I don’t find myself turning up the volume as much now.

It has all the hallmarks of fast, clean, almost “hyperreal” planar sound, as well as coherent, even-handed tuning, and it already sounds more extended with a few hours burn in. Instruments sound realistic; I particularly like how it does pianos, which a number of BAs don’t quite nail, imo.

The Timeless has already been roasted for its wall of sound, pancake flat stage and I needn’t repeat that. Yep I don’t see this being the monitor of choice when pinpoint 3D placement is key. But I find myself reaching for it at almost all other times.

Bass quality (note: as opposed to quantity) in particular is frankly addictive. It doesn’t do jaw-rattling slam like your basshead DD bass. But its sub bass is effortlessly visceral and dives deep with an amazing amount of texture and detail. Massive Attack’s Angel is a classic bass test track, but Man Next Door in the same album is where the Timeless really shines, and it will make you hear and feel those subterranean thuds before the bass comes in. (Go back to Angel after that and it feels all mid bass in comparison.)

Compared to the iSine 20, it’s immediately obvious the Audeze is the more resolving of the two. On the other hand, the Timeless beats it effortlessly for natural timbre, extension (both treble and bass), comfort and pretty much everything else. Especially that sub bass. And we need not speak of the famously wonky tuning of the iSine.

I am a bit of a cable and tip roller so am slightly surprised to be quite happy (for now) with the stock cable and acoustune-looking stock tips. I have masses of unused stock cables and tips because I usually switch them out almost as soon as I get them; the fact that I didn’t for the Timeless probably speaks to how well they are matched.

 

[raymanh]

My Timeless has only about 60 hours on it so far and we know planars need way more than that to settle, but it’s shaping up so nicely I couldn’t resist posting a few impressions.

This thing needs power so either run it through an amp or balanced. I do think it has become noticeably easier to run with a little burn in though and I don’t find myself turning up the volume as much now.

It has all the hallmarks of fast, clean, almost “hyperreal” planar sound, as well as coherent, even-handed tuning, and it already sounds more extended with a few hours burn in. Instruments sound realistic; I particularly like how it does pianos, which a number of BAs don’t quite nail, imo.

The Timeless has already been roasted for its wall of sound, pancake flat stage and I needn’t repeat that. Yep I don’t see this being the monitor of choice when pinpoint 3D placement is key. But I find myself reaching for it at almost all other times.

Bass quality (note: as opposed to quantity) in particular is frankly addictive. It doesn’t do jaw-rattling slam like your basshead DD bass. But its sub bass is effortlessly visceral and dives deep with an amazing amount of texture and detail. Massive Attack’s Angel is a classic bass test track, but Man Next Door in the same album is where the Timeless really shines, and it will make you hear and feel those subterranean thuds before the bass comes in. (Go back to Angel after that and it feels all mid bass in comparison.)

Compared to the iSine 20, it’s immediately obvious the Audeze is the more resolving of the two. On the other hand, the Timeless beats it effortlessly for natural timbre, extension (both treble and bass), comfort and pretty much everything else. Especially that sub bass. And we need not speak of the famously wonky tuning of the iSine.

I am a bit of a cable and tip roller so am slightly surprised to be quite happy (for now) with the stock cable and acoustune-looking stock tips. I have masses of unused stock cables and tips because I usually switch them out almost as soon as I get them; the fact that I didn’t for the Timeless probably speaks to how well they are matched.

Re the power requirements, I've read the opposite, that they are easy to drive, even a phone 3.5mm sounds good.

 

[-rowan-]

Re the power requirements, I've read the opposite, that they are easy to drive, even a phone 3.5mm sounds good.

It doesn’t sound bad for sure, just that a phone 3.5mm likely won’t bring out the best of its abilities. Kind of like looking at a drawing on an under inflated balloon vs inflating said balloon a bit more.

 

[laleeee]

My Timeless has only about 60 hours on it so far and we know planars need way more than that to settle, but it’s shaping up so nicely I couldn’t resist posting a few impressions.

This thing needs power so either run it through an amp or balanced. I do think it has become noticeably easier to run with a little burn in though and I don’t find myself turning up the volume as much now.

It has all the hallmarks of fast, clean, almost “hyperreal” planar sound, as well as coherent, even-handed tuning, and it already sounds more extended with a few hours burn in. Instruments sound realistic; I particularly like how it does pianos, which a number of BAs don’t quite nail, imo.

The Timeless has already been roasted for its wall of sound, pancake flat stage and I needn’t repeat that. Yep I don’t see this being the monitor of choice when pinpoint 3D placement is key. But I find myself reaching for it at almost all other times.

Bass quality (note: as opposed to quantity) in particular is frankly addictive. It doesn’t do jaw-rattling slam like your basshead DD bass. But its sub bass is effortlessly visceral and dives deep with an amazing amount of texture and detail. Massive Attack’s Angel is a classic bass test track, but Man Next Door in the same album is where the Timeless really shines, and it will make you hear and feel those subterranean thuds before the bass comes in. (Go back to Angel after that and it feels all mid bass in comparison.)

Compared to the iSine 20, it’s immediately obvious the Audeze is the more resolving of the two. On the other hand, the Timeless beats it effortlessly for natural timbre, extension (both treble and bass), comfort and pretty much everything else. Especially that sub bass. And we need not speak of the famously wonky tuning of the iSine.

I am a bit of a cable and tip roller so am slightly surprised to be quite happy (for now) with the stock cable and acoustune-looking stock tips. I have masses of unused stock cables and tips because I usually switch them out almost as soon as I get them; the fact that I didn’t for the Timeless probably speaks to how well they are matched.

"Bass quality (note: as opposed to quantity) in particular is frankly addictive"
What it's mean ? The bass quantity is not addictive ? The Timeless has not enough bass ? Bass weak ?

 

[Musicoflife]

Re the power requirements, I've read the opposite, that they are easy to drive, even a phone 3.5mm sounds good.

They do sound good, very good on phone 3.5mm. But they sound amazing with better drive and SQ from a good source.

 

[sabloke]

Sounding great out of BTR5 at 22/60 high gain mode. I wouldn't say they are hard to drive at all but like any other planar, it scales nicely with better amplification. Soundstage could be better though

 

[holsen]

"Bass quality (note: as opposed to quantity) in particular is frankly addictive"
What it's mean ? The bass quantity is not addictive ? The Timeless has not enough bass ? Bass weak ?

It means they are not bass cannons, but they have plenty of bass. They sound fantastic, full, textured, layered. detailed in the bass (and other frequencies) - it's quality bass response in all its fullness but it wont blow your brains out if that's what you're after.

 

[holsen]

Re the power requirements, I've read the opposite, that they are easy to drive, even a phone 3.5mm sounds good.

They are easy to drive and will sound good out of a phone. They have low impedance and relatively high sensititivity. Unlike some IEMs that do require more output power to sound good, higher impedance / lower sensitivity IEMs will sound anemic out of a phone. Not these .... BUT ... they scale incredibly well which means that the more power you give them the fuller and more detailed they are going to sound. So, yes the Timeless do scale with power (whereas some IEMs will crack up with power) but they are easy to drive and will sound good if you dont have more than a phone or dongle. It's just that the more power you can offer them the more potential you'll get out of them. Does that make sense?

 

[Lokiiami]

It means they are not bass cannons, but they have plenty of bass. They sound fantastic, full, textured, layered. detailed in the bass (and other frequencies) - it's quality bass response in all its fullness but it wont blow your brains out if that's what you're after.

I personally felt the bass is far better in terms of quantity and quality than the MEST 1. It's very very satisfying.. wish there is more top end sparkle though but that will sound abit unnatural.

 

[jibberish]

I'll echo the sentiment that the Timeless does better with high quality amplification. They sound perfectly fine using the Apple Lightning dongle from my phone, but they become much more "alive" when running them from my desktop amp on high gain at moderate volume.