I’m a horrible photographer so that idea may not be as good as you think it is. I take photos like an old man.
As for comparisons, most of them are done from memory, though almost any comparison with an IEM I currently own is done on the spot, since, well, I own it and am free to compare it. That and a comparison to another IEM in the same lineup, as I can directly compare whatever available demo units there are. Forcing myself to do comparisons only from direct references would be difficult as a lot of benchmark IEMs like say the EX1000 are hard to find demos of, not to mention the fact that IEMs in Singapore are generally spread out between shops, making comparing demo units from different shops nothing short of impossible.
Cutting-edge artisanal in-ear monitors for discerning listeners. Proudly designed and manufactured in Singapore.
Stay updated on Subtonic Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
I think you're making too big a deal of it. Your photography might not be at the same level as your writing, but how hard is it to point your phone at what's in front of you and click? Having said that, I kinda understand not wanting to add something you're not fully satisfied with.
Several people I know overseas have tried it, and the reaction has been... less than stellar. Will look out for when the demo unit arrives in Singapore.
Audio-technica ATH-IEX1:
There’s no hiding it, the IER-Z1R is my favorite IEM. I’ve gushed about it numerous times, given it the highest score of any IEM I’ve ever reviewed, and set it as the benchmark for bass in IEMs, as well as the benchmark in hybrids. Yes, it’s flawed in some respects, and I well accept that and have openly covered it. But it is truly exceptional at everything it does well, and its flaws are certainly outshone by its exceptional elements.
And here we have Audio-technica. Another Japanese company releasing a flagship hybrid IEM, with an eerily similar naming scheme. Hell, if you showed the names of both to a stranger to the IEM world, they’d think they were released by the same company. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that a lot of my presumptions with the IEX1 have a subconscious comparison to the Z1R going on.
But to preface this, I’d like to take the time to point out that this isn’t the first instance of this happening. The first IEM to ever take up the mantle of the Z1R’s rival was none other than Campfire Audio’s Solaris. The hype for that fell short fast following unit variance issues, massive amounts of drama, and just a generally weird and wrong sounding midrange on the Solaris as well as timbral issues in the bass, unit variance or not. To say the Solaris failed to beat its rival would be an understatement; in my eyes it was never worthy to compete to begin with.
The second IEM to pose such a challenge to the Z1R was JVC’s HA-FW10000. Now, not only was the FW10000 a direct competitor (in an antithetical way) to the Z1R in aesthetics, design, and sound signature, it was also hyped as a successor to Sony’s previous IEM flagship, the EX1000. Unfortunately the FW10000 suffered major issues with tonality and transients, having one of the most unpleasant midranges I’ve heard to date in any flagship IEM. It was an all round disappointment considering the hype of it potentially being a new king of single DD IEMs, another category I watch with great interest. I am a bass person, after all.
So today we arrive at the IEX1. To my knowledge, the predecessor for this IEM would be Audio-techica’s ATH-CK2000Ti, which I was quite frankly disgusted by. So perhaps it surprises no one that I don’t really have high hopes for the IEX1, despite the fact that it is the third in a long line of competitors to the Z1R’s title of the best IEM with a DD.
If there’s one thing ATH IEMs are associated with, it’s isobaric DDs. They absolutely love using isobaric DDs in every IEM they release, and the IEX1 is no exception. The results of this choice display themself in the IEX1’s copious amounts of slam with slow decay. Mind you, unlike a lot of other people, slow decay is actually right up my alley with bass. But there is quite an issue here: something about the IEX1’s bass is not quite as clean as the king of this category. At times attacks don’t feel quite emphasized enough despite the strong slam, leading to a slightly odd feeling of mushiness. Maybe it’s the lack of midbass on the IEX1, or just a general time domain issue regarding attack with the IEX1, but something is off here. A shame because the texture and slam are really not half bad.
And then ATH go off the deep end... literally. To put it succinctly, the IEX1’s midrange has zero lower midrange body to speak of and plenty of upper midrange shout and harshness to seal the deal. While IEMs like EE’s Valkyrie are thin, they don’t exit thinness and enter straight up hollowness the way the IEX1 does. And as earlier mentioned, the IEX1 also has tons of upper mids to round things out (or not). Guitars on the IEX1 are nothing short of sharp and almost piercing sometimes, exacerbated by the absolute lack of a low end body to them. Male vocals are horrible recessed and paper thin, and may as well have exited this dimension and entered the next. And for orchestral music... don’t even get me started. The IEX1’s mids are a perfect example of how not to do a V shaped midrange.
It’s hard to really talk about the IEX1’s treble with how tonally incorrect the entire midrange sounds, because somehow the treble sounds just as off. There is a massive lower and mid-treble scoop going on here that suppresses cymbal crash extremely heavily, made worse by the already overwhelming upper midrange. However, the insertion resonance peak remains, and the IEX1 has some leftover stick impact from the absurd upper midrange boost. The result here is a cymbal response that sounds suppressed, but at the same time has just that one peak that, while not sharp, makes cymbals sound oddly present despite clearly not being there. All this is happening while there’s simply far too much stick impact for its own good in comparison to the cymbal crash. Embarrassing really.
And it’s not even like the IEX1 has the intangibles to save the garbage tonality either. While not as horribly undefined as the CK2kTi, the IEX1 still struggles with proper TOTL level technicalities. Finer details are noticeably lacking, clarity and resolution is muddled beyond saving thanks to the beyond awful frequency domain, and layering ability is next to nonexistent thanks to the combination of a tiny in-the-head soundstage and three blob staging. Time domain incoherency is also beyond offensive here, with almost no attempt made to cover up the differences between the drivers used in the IEM. The major discrepancy between the sluggish bass response and the almost too quick midrange and treble is far too obvious.
So once again Audio-technica try and fail to make a decent kilobuck IEM, and at the same time manage to surpass the already bad CK2kTi in being just all around garbage. Well done.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm jack.
Several people I know overseas have tried it, and the reaction has been... less than stellar. Will look out for when the demo unit arrives in Singapore.
I'm not questioning anyone's opinion because they have every right to have one on the M3.
However I don't hear the same issues regarding the mids (or lack thereof). Admittedly prior to swapping out the stock Noble tips for the ones from the Noble EDC Bell's the mids were less than stellar.
I'm not questioning anyone's opinion because they have every right to have one on the M3.
However I don't hear the same issues regarding the mids (or lack thereof). Admittedly prior to swapping out the stock Noble tips for the ones from the Noble EDC Bell's the mids were less than stellar.
I don’t know anything about how it sounds save vague impressions from people I know which are frankly not an indicator of anything at all. As with everything I will reserve my final opinion on it until I have actually heard it in depth.
Aminus Rants: Scoring; or, counting from 0 to 10:
Often times, a lot of people ask me how my scoring system works. Why there’s no 10/10, or why so few IEMs get high scores to begin with. In this article I will give some transparency towards my grading system.
There is no place better to start than the bottom, and the bottom of the list is where we begin. While my reviews are intentionally uncompromising and harsh, I have been very conservative with giving out 0/10s and 1/10s, for the same reason 8s and 9s and 10s are a rarity. My scale attempts to achieve an approximate bell curve distribution, and so far that’s been fairly successful. To that degree, the 0s and 1s on the scale represent the abysmal worst of the worst. In particular, the 0/10 score is saved for the worst conceivable IEM in existence. The day I hand out a 0/10 will be a dark day indeed, for it will be officially branded the worst IEM I can possibly imagine. As of now, I don’t think I’ve run into any IEM worthy of the score. On the other hand, the 1/10 score can be handed out to more than just one IEM, though it is saved for very, very bad IEMs. Any IEM given a 1/10 can be considered “objectively bad” in the same way an E or F tier on Crinacle’s list can.
Moving up a tier we have the 2-4/10 range. This range is IEMs I would consider “bad”, in the subjective sense. They may fall flat in tonality, have bad technical ability, or some other caveat. In any sense, I generally don’t like IEMs that are given this score. Some of them I subjectively dislike. For example, the JVC FW10000 is an IEM I have a special dislike for, but at the same time I admit that the dislike is purely on a subjective basis. On the other hand the Audio-technica ATH-CK2000Ti is one I consider “objectively” bad, with poor technical ability and a weirdly botched tuning. Rating handouts at this level are much more liberal than their direct opposites in the 7-8 range, and for good reason: I generally find major issues with the vast majority of IEMs. There is a caveat to this as well though: a $100 IEM receiving a 4/10 score is not as bad from a value for money perspective as a $3000 IEM with the same score. It is for this reason IEMs that I have rated negatively, like for example the MH755, can receive positive recommendations.
The barrier between bad and mediocre lies in the 5-6/10 range. These IEMs are not bad, ranging from eh to somewhat recommendable, though they’re not exactly to my taste. This part of the rating scale has the highest concentration of IEMs, with exactly half of all IEMs rated so far falling under here. The 5/10 score represents IEMs I am ambivalent about, with no real strong feelings towards. This generally is due to a perceived mediocrity (InEar ProMission X) or inoffensiveness (Jomo Trinity Brass). On the other hand, a 6/10 score denotes an IEM that I think is good, but not quite good enough to ascend to the higher tiers (More on that later). This is generally due to personal preference, and a 6/10 score given to an IEM denotes that is a worthy consideration in its own right. Just not good enough in my eyes to climb to the coveted higher ranks.
And now we move into the tier where things start becoming genuinely good. The 7-8/10 tier represents not just an IEM that I think is good, but one that I could personally envision myself using as a daily driver. As one might be able to guess, the number of IEMs that I would tolerate on a daily basis are far and few between, and have to fall in line specifically with my base preferences. The 8/10 score is reserved more for the upper end of this, for IEMs that would meet the criteria for a 7/10, but also perform a step higher. So far only 2 reviewed IEMs have attained this score, though I know of several others that are worthy of consideration of it and may be added in the future.
Then there is the apex, the 9/10 and 10/10 scores. The 9/10 score represents an IEM that matches my preferences almost perfectly, and represents one of the best IEMs today. Only one IEM has managed to attain this, and no other has really come close enough in both tuning and intangibles to be worthy, though I think it’s reasonable to give more than IEM this lofty grade.
But the real prize is the 10/10 score. This is not so much a real score as it is a representation of true perfection. The 10/10 IEM does not exist, save for my idea of what it is. The 10/10 IEM has no flaws, be it in coherency, timbre, dynamics, tonality, tactility, staging, or any other category. It represents the absolute possible pinnacle of IEM engineering, and nothing before or after should be able to surpass it. In this sense, the 10/10 score can never truly be handed out, not until IEMs as an industry have heavily matured. Several have questioned the point of having a score that essentially can never be given, but I maintain that it is necessary to remind oneself that while near perfection can be attained, real flawlessness is always a step ahead. And perhaps to the ambitious manufacturer it is a symbol of what is worth aiming towards, and how to make steps towards it.
One may notice that the rating system is not truly linear in the criteria to achieve each grade. That is, the higher you go, the more and more uncompromising and perhaps unreasonable requirements become. This is on purpose. Not only do I feel like it’s a reflection of my personal approach to audio, I also feel like it makes higher ranks more noteworthy and sought after. The impact of an IEM being given a 7/10 is much more strong when there’s only 4 other 7/10 IEMs, versus say having half your scores be 7/10.
Now that all this is said and done, one might be asking how things are being scored. What separates a 2 from an 8? To keep it succinct, the main things I look out for in my listening are tonal accuracy, timbre, transients, tactility, dynamics, staging and presentation. Things like bizarre tonalities (ie. frequency response suckouts), unrealistic timbre (especially BA timbre), bad transients (usually manifest in the form of blunted attack and poor control, as I actually like slower decay in my bass), poor tactility (such as a lack of bass slam), and low dynamics (which usually leads to a perception of inoffensiveness or boredom) all dock points from an IEM. While I have lots of very specific things I look out for in accordance with my personal preferences, that generally sums out how I like to go about evaluating what makes an IEM good (or bad).
I think this summarizes my general approach to scoring IEMs, and why certain things are given the rating they have. Perhaps this clears up any sort of misconceptions or misunderstandings one might have towards what’s really a complicated system.
Noble Kaiser Encore: This review was requested by @Redcarmoose
Don’t think it’s ever been a secret that I’m no Noble fan. Nothing they’ve made has interested me, and their entire marketing gimmick has always felt like a form over function deal. So perhaps it’s no surprise that it’s taken so long for me to finally get around to reviewing one of their IEMs. After all, they mostly specialize in full BA setups, and my interest is in DDs. But something about the Kaiser and the Kaiser Encore seems to be worth mentioning. After all, it is one of the ex-hypetrains of Head-fi, albeit one thats mostly died down now, and is Noble’s greatest claim to fame. They haven’t seemed to have been able to live up to the original Kaiser. The Khan was mostly forgotten due to its notoriously splashy treble and horrible build and QC, and nothing else they’ve made aside from that has tried to usurp Noble’s past glories with the Kaiser. So let us consider this a trip down memory lane, of the current status of what was once one of the most beloved IEMs in the industry.
The Kaiser Encore has no bass. And yes, I get that it’s a BA and all, but even by BA standards, the Kaiser Encore’s bass is flabby, weak, impactless and just all around pathetic. Kickdrums sound like plastic caricatures of the real deal and surface level bass texture is smoothened out. Make no mistake, the Encore’s bass is not merely bad, it’s bad even by BA standards. An especially insulting reminder because there genuinely is good BA bass out there. The Encore just ain’t it.
The midrange of the Kaiser Encore is almost reminiscent of my all time favorite full BA, the Viento. Except for the fact that it sounds oddly sharp and resonant, and feels weirdly lacking in lower mids. The former seems to be an artifact of the Encore’s treble, though I can’t really explain the latter. In either case, the Encore’s pinna compensation is attempting to go for a reference-y sound, and it mostly achieves that if you ignore the dismal lower midrange. It’s weird, because the lower mids sound scooped, but at the same time the upper mids aren’t thin or boosted like such a frequency response would normally imply. I can’t explain it but it certainly threw me off at first, and it did take me quite a while to pin down what was so off about it.
But nothing on the Kaiser Encore is more distinctive than its treble, and boy do I really mean it when I say distinctive. The Kaiser Encore’s treble is sharp and sibilant, and beyond unpleasant to listen to. Cymbals are piercing and brass is violently harsh. On top of that, there is clearly a level of haziness to the Encore’s sound akin to some of the worse offenders in planar treble (looking at you, HE-6) that makes the already offensive treble on the Encore even more apparent. I really don’t know what the point of such an intense treble boost is, because it makes me strongly not want to listen to the Encore.
On the other hand though, the Encore is fairly technical. Aside from the atrocious bass detailing, the Kaiser Encore has solid detail retrieval and good resolution thanks to its upper mid and treble focus. It also layers pretty damn well. Staging is about as wide as the shell (as is typical for tubed IEMs). There do seem to be dynamic issues with the Encore, as it just feels dead boring in general. But to sum it up, there’s no denying that the Encore is a good technical performer. The tuning just sucks.
And this leads me to question the following: why not just buy a Viento? Quite honestly, the Encore is just a way brighter and all around worse version of Hidition’s ex-flagship. Both are going for a reference-esque sound, yet the Encore has some of the worst bass I’ve ever heard along with some damned harsh treble. If you want this kind of pinna compensation and midrange tonality, the Viento is essentially the same concept but better. And it’s way cheaper too. The Encore’s value proposition is basically nonexistent in comparison.
All listening was done with the WM1A’s 3.5mm jack.
Buy a Viento instead and use the remaining grand to buy yourself a nice source and a good cable. Seriously, this is a waste of time.
Noble Kaiser Encore: This review was requested by @Redcarmoose
Don’t think it’s ever been a secret that I’m no Noble fan. Nothing they’ve made has interested me, and their entire marketing gimmick has always felt like a form over function deal. So perhaps it’s no surprise that it’s taken so long for me to finally get around to reviewing one of their IEMs. After all, they mostly specialize in full BA setups, and my interest is in DDs. But something about the Kaiser and the Kaiser Encore seems to be worth mentioning. After all, it is one of the ex-hypetrains of Head-fi, albeit one thats mostly died down now, and is Noble’s greatest claim to fame. They haven’t seemed to have been able to live up to the original Kaiser. The Khan was mostly forgotten due to its notoriously splashy treble and horrible build and QC, and nothing else they’ve made aside from that has tried to usurp Noble’s past glories with the Kaiser. So let us consider this a trip down memory lane, of the current status of what was once one of the most beloved IEMs in the industry.
The Kaiser Encore has no bass. And yes, I get that it’s a BA and all, but even by BA standards, the Kaiser Encore’s bass is flabby, weak, impactless and just all around pathetic. Kickdrums sound like plastic caricatures of the real deal and surface level bass texture is smoothened out. Make no mistake, the Encore’s bass is not merely bad, it’s bad even by BA standards. An especially insulting reminder because there genuinely is good BA bass out there. The Encore just ain’t it.
The midrange of the Kaiser Encore is almost reminiscent of my all time favorite full BA, the Viento. Except for the fact that it sounds oddly sharp and resonant, and feels weirdly lacking in lower mids. The former seems to be an artifact of the Encore’s treble, though I can’t really explain the latter. In either case, the Encore’s pinna compensation is attempting to go for a reference-y sound, and it mostly achieves that if you ignore the dismal lower midrange. It’s weird, because the lower mids sound scooped, but at the same time the upper mids aren’t thin or boosted like such a frequency response would normally imply. I can’t explain it but it certainly threw me off at first, and it did take me quite a while to pin down what was so off about it.
But nothing on the Kaiser Encore is more distinctive than its treble, and boy do I really mean it when I say distinctive. The Kaiser Encore’s treble is sharp and sibilant, and beyond unpleasant to listen to. Cymbals are piercing and brass is violently harsh. On top of that, there is clearly a level of haziness to the Encore’s sound akin to some of the worse offenders in planar treble (looking at you, HE-6) that makes the already offensive treble on the Encore even more apparent. I really don’t know what the point of such an intense treble boost is, because it makes me strongly not want to listen to the Encore.
On the other hand though, the Encore is fairly technical. Aside from the atrocious bass detailing, the Kaiser Encore has solid detail retrieval and good resolution thanks to its upper mid and treble focus. It also layers pretty damn well. Staging is about as wide as the shell (as is typical for tubed IEMs). There do seem to be dynamic issues with the Encore, as it just feels dead boring in general. But to sum it up, there’s no denying that the Encore is a good technical performer. The tuning just sucks.
And this leads me to question the following: why not just buy a Viento? Quite honestly, the Encore is just a way brighter and all around worse version of Hidition’s ex-flagship. Both are going for a reference-esque sound, yet the Encore has some of the worst bass I’ve ever heard along with some damned harsh treble. If you want this kind of pinna compensation and midrange tonality, the Viento is essentially the same concept but better. And it’s way cheaper too. The Encore’s value proposition is basically nonexistent in comparison.
All listening was done with the WM1A’s 3.5mm jack.
Buy a Viento instead and use the remaining grand to buy yourself a nice source and a good cable. Seriously, this is a waste of time.
We both own and love the (very opposite) IER-Z1R, still I was thinking you would rate the Encore at least at 5? They are not for everyone. You pegged the way they leave the midrange alone and drop the lower midrange out........and noticed the unique treble experience.
The kick drums have to be polar opposite from what your used to. I add 3 notches on bass with the Sony tone controls and it’s the only EQ I ever do all year. You also noticed the slight haze they glaze over it all.
In slight defense......going balanced 4.4mm with a copper cable helps them....and the added weight of the 1Z helps get them in line. Still they are a wild ride being very different.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
