Seems like everyone who’s heard a bright unit finds it hard to believe that there are dark samples floating around, and vice versa. I really want to get measurements of both to at least prove that there are genuinely 2 different variants of it in existence but finding a single Major unit is hard enough, nevermind two.
Aminus hates everything (Or, Aminus rants and reviews stuff)
- Thread starter aminus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iems impressions rants review
Tawek
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Posts
- 560
- Likes
- 741
.
Yes I agree! I'm in Australia so I can't help you much with getting your hands on my Major's! I'm also curious, that out of all the reports received on the Major's, what tips people are using. No doubt these can make a difference and I find IEM's that use DD as the only drivers obtain more change in sound from tip changes.
Personally I use and love the Sedna tips. To put it in prospective, I recently purchased (what is regarded to be one of the best true wireless IEM's) the Sony WF-1000XM3 and found, using the stock tips, the sound was too dark for my liking. Whack on the Sedna tips and these wireless IEM's have certainly left me surprised! Not dark anymore!
Tawek
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Posts
- 560
- Likes
- 741
this is by far the best thread on this forum
64 Audio tia Fourte:
The Fourte is an oddity to me. One of the most unique designs in the modern IEM industry, and some of the flat out best technicalities on any IEM. But the tonality is just... bleh. Let’s take a look at it, shall we.
The Fourte’s bass is, for whatever reason, mediocre. I really liked the woofer on the Trio, but the Fourte feels weak in comparison. Not only does it not have as much quantity, it doesn’t slam quite as hard either. That coupled with how it exhibits a similar dampened attack to the Trio makes it considerably less impressive to me than its cheaper counterpart. The one thing here that might be better to some in comparison with the Trio is the faster decay, but I actually like slow bass decay, making this another negative rather than a plus for me. There is some back venting tech going on with the Trio’s woofer that isn’t present on the Fourte, leading me to believe that’s the dealbreaker between the two. But in either case, the Fourte’s bass isn’t really bad, it’s just not that great either.
The midrange tonality of the Fourte is beyond difficult to describe thanks to just how weird it is, but I will try my hand at it. Similar to the Trio, there’s a gaping hole right between the lower and upper midrange that essentially splits the midrange into two separate tonalities. The lower midrange has quite a lot of honkiness to it, especially with guitars and brass instruments. The upper midrange on the other hand sounds shrill and rough, probably due to the treble emphasis of the Fourte itself. Brass in upper mids has way too much bite and aggression, above and beyond the point of unnaturality. The same goes for violins, which squeak and shriek far more than they ever should. This is the general trend of the Fourte: where the Trio had some oddness and uncanny valley-ness to it, the Fourte is unashamedly colored sounding to the point of not sounding remotely realistic. And where the Trio’s tuning still worked, for whatever reason, the Fourte’s doesn’t even make the attempt. And to add to that, the Fourte has a similar time domain incoherency issue to the Trio, albeit in a different location: between the upper bass and lower mids. This area isn’t quite as glaringly obvious in terms of incoherency as the dead center of the midrange, and the Fourte’s woofer is a good bit faster than the Trio’s which makes the incoherency less obvious, but it still exists.
The Fourte’s treble is harsh and sharp. There’s no getting around it. That, and it somehow has the “drummer is afraid to hit their cymbals” effect that a lack of stick impact imparts. There is simply too much upper-mid treble here, similar in tonality to the Trio’s, but even sharper thanks to the raw amplitude. As mentioned earlier, this too affects the upper midrange, adding roughness to brass instruments and distorted guitars, and adding sibilance and consonance to vocals. It’s incredibly unpleasant, and it makes me think “what could have been”...
...because the Fourte might be one of the most technically competent IEMs I’ve ever heard. Raw detail retrieval is nothing short of impressive to behold, especially so considering I’m already used to a high standard of detail retrieval. Layering is some of the best I’ve ever heard, with incredible proficiency on my most demanding and dense music. Thanks to the boosted treble, resolution is also nothing short of excellent. Staging is unashamedly wide, as expected, and sonic wall-free. But there’s some weirdness in the imaging: I’ve heard it described as a lack of a center image, but I’d call this inaccurate. It’s more like a lack of image sharpness or incision in the center image that’s not present in the extreme ends of the stage. That aside, the Fourte also nails dynamics: none of the compression of the Trio is here. I wouldn’t hesitate to put it next to my beloved U/A12t in terms of dynamics, they’re really that good.
What could have been, because I cannot help but admire how the Fourte does dynamics and layering. The Fourte almost has enough technicalities to win me over and make me ignore the glaring tonal flaws. But almost just isn’t enough. No matter how much I hear it, the Fourte’s flaws simply show themselves too much. An IEM that borders on greatness, but fails to really grasp it because it fails at basic things that it shouldn’t.
I’m left at a little bit of a loss here because it’s not like the Trio is an all around superior version to the Fourte either. Sure, the tonal balance isn’t as wonky, but what the Fourte does so well, that is, the sheer detail retrieval and layering capability and the stage width of it, feels diminished. And the Trio doesn’t come close to replicating the Fourte’s dynamics. This makes me feel a little underwhelmed by both: the Trio’s far less wonky tonality makes me prefer it, but it’s decidedly milquetoast in comparison to the bombastic and explosive, yet highly flawed Fourte. I end up wanting to purchase neither, even though I can appreciate both to an extent.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm jack.
All this combined with the absolutely ridiculous price of the Fourte makes it impossible to recommend. Perhaps if one absolutely prioritized raw technicalities over tonal balance (which very few people do) the Fourte would be more palatable, but even so the tuning of the Fourte pushes into offensive territory for many. As such, it’s a difficult IEM. Difficult in tuning, difficult in price, difficult to appreciate. And that’s just how it is.
Score: 4/10
Note: Regarding the Fourte Noir, I admit a lot of my disdain for it was a reaction to the majority of its changes being for the worse, and the price hike. I stand by my revision of its score from 2/10 to 3/10, as it certainly isn’t absolutely terrible, it’s just a more veiled, more muddled and less expansive version of the Fourte. As such, the Fourte Noir’s score is staying as is.
The Fourte is an oddity to me. One of the most unique designs in the modern IEM industry, and some of the flat out best technicalities on any IEM. But the tonality is just... bleh. Let’s take a look at it, shall we.
The Fourte’s bass is, for whatever reason, mediocre. I really liked the woofer on the Trio, but the Fourte feels weak in comparison. Not only does it not have as much quantity, it doesn’t slam quite as hard either. That coupled with how it exhibits a similar dampened attack to the Trio makes it considerably less impressive to me than its cheaper counterpart. The one thing here that might be better to some in comparison with the Trio is the faster decay, but I actually like slow bass decay, making this another negative rather than a plus for me. There is some back venting tech going on with the Trio’s woofer that isn’t present on the Fourte, leading me to believe that’s the dealbreaker between the two. But in either case, the Fourte’s bass isn’t really bad, it’s just not that great either.
The midrange tonality of the Fourte is beyond difficult to describe thanks to just how weird it is, but I will try my hand at it. Similar to the Trio, there’s a gaping hole right between the lower and upper midrange that essentially splits the midrange into two separate tonalities. The lower midrange has quite a lot of honkiness to it, especially with guitars and brass instruments. The upper midrange on the other hand sounds shrill and rough, probably due to the treble emphasis of the Fourte itself. Brass in upper mids has way too much bite and aggression, above and beyond the point of unnaturality. The same goes for violins, which squeak and shriek far more than they ever should. This is the general trend of the Fourte: where the Trio had some oddness and uncanny valley-ness to it, the Fourte is unashamedly colored sounding to the point of not sounding remotely realistic. And where the Trio’s tuning still worked, for whatever reason, the Fourte’s doesn’t even make the attempt. And to add to that, the Fourte has a similar time domain incoherency issue to the Trio, albeit in a different location: between the upper bass and lower mids. This area isn’t quite as glaringly obvious in terms of incoherency as the dead center of the midrange, and the Fourte’s woofer is a good bit faster than the Trio’s which makes the incoherency less obvious, but it still exists.
The Fourte’s treble is harsh and sharp. There’s no getting around it. That, and it somehow has the “drummer is afraid to hit their cymbals” effect that a lack of stick impact imparts. There is simply too much upper-mid treble here, similar in tonality to the Trio’s, but even sharper thanks to the raw amplitude. As mentioned earlier, this too affects the upper midrange, adding roughness to brass instruments and distorted guitars, and adding sibilance and consonance to vocals. It’s incredibly unpleasant, and it makes me think “what could have been”...
...because the Fourte might be one of the most technically competent IEMs I’ve ever heard. Raw detail retrieval is nothing short of impressive to behold, especially so considering I’m already used to a high standard of detail retrieval. Layering is some of the best I’ve ever heard, with incredible proficiency on my most demanding and dense music. Thanks to the boosted treble, resolution is also nothing short of excellent. Staging is unashamedly wide, as expected, and sonic wall-free. But there’s some weirdness in the imaging: I’ve heard it described as a lack of a center image, but I’d call this inaccurate. It’s more like a lack of image sharpness or incision in the center image that’s not present in the extreme ends of the stage. That aside, the Fourte also nails dynamics: none of the compression of the Trio is here. I wouldn’t hesitate to put it next to my beloved U/A12t in terms of dynamics, they’re really that good.
What could have been, because I cannot help but admire how the Fourte does dynamics and layering. The Fourte almost has enough technicalities to win me over and make me ignore the glaring tonal flaws. But almost just isn’t enough. No matter how much I hear it, the Fourte’s flaws simply show themselves too much. An IEM that borders on greatness, but fails to really grasp it because it fails at basic things that it shouldn’t.
I’m left at a little bit of a loss here because it’s not like the Trio is an all around superior version to the Fourte either. Sure, the tonal balance isn’t as wonky, but what the Fourte does so well, that is, the sheer detail retrieval and layering capability and the stage width of it, feels diminished. And the Trio doesn’t come close to replicating the Fourte’s dynamics. This makes me feel a little underwhelmed by both: the Trio’s far less wonky tonality makes me prefer it, but it’s decidedly milquetoast in comparison to the bombastic and explosive, yet highly flawed Fourte. I end up wanting to purchase neither, even though I can appreciate both to an extent.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm jack.
All this combined with the absolutely ridiculous price of the Fourte makes it impossible to recommend. Perhaps if one absolutely prioritized raw technicalities over tonal balance (which very few people do) the Fourte would be more palatable, but even so the tuning of the Fourte pushes into offensive territory for many. As such, it’s a difficult IEM. Difficult in tuning, difficult in price, difficult to appreciate. And that’s just how it is.
Score: 4/10
Note: Regarding the Fourte Noir, I admit a lot of my disdain for it was a reaction to the majority of its changes being for the worse, and the price hike. I stand by my revision of its score from 2/10 to 3/10, as it certainly isn’t absolutely terrible, it’s just a more veiled, more muddled and less expansive version of the Fourte. As such, the Fourte Noir’s score is staying as is.
Hidition NT-6:
The Viento is one of my favorite IEMs ever. It’s unforgivingly intense and aggressive, with some seriously impressive bass from a BA and an excellent, if slightly lean, tuning. The number of reference or midforward IEMs I like are far and few between, but the Viento’s midrange is genuinely good enough to hook me onto an IEM that, by all accounts, I shouldn’t really care much about. But further down the Hidition lineup lies the NT-6, a 6BA that’s almost 7 years old now but remains a favorite amongst many even today. Some people I know prefer it to the Viento, which is of course heresy to me, but also intriguing. An examination of just what this old timer does right is in order.
The bass on the NT-6 is quite a letdown considering just how damn good the Viento’s bass is. I can sometimes imagine myself just using the Viento and forgetting about DD bass, though that never happens because it just doesn’t quite have DD levels of bass texture nor timbre. Unfortunately, the NT-6 isn’t nearly as good of a DD substitute as the Viento is. Not only does it have the same timbral and textural issues as its older brother, it also doesn’t slam as hard, nor does it come close to matching it in transients nor extension. And sure, this is BA against BA and it’s really a lesser of two evils situation here. But when the Viento (and later on the Violet) has such impressive bass for a BA, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed.
The NT-6’s midrange is lean. Really lean. I almost want to call it thin but that feels a little unfair, because it doesn’t suffer all that much in the upper midrange. But the lower midrange is extremely lacking in presence and body. At times this ends up pushing into shrillness territory with the upper mids, though it’s never truly piercing or cringe inducing like it can be with other upper mid forward IEMs. I do find it a little unnatural as a tonal balance, there simply isn’t enough body in the lower mids. On certain tracks this isn’t as immediately obvious, but my classical stuff is not all that pleasant on here. The Viento, while a little thin, isn’t nearly as lean here, though it is quite a bit more aggressive. More on that later.
The NT-6’s treble is unfortunately sibilant to me. No doubt this is because of the weird shape of Hidition’s universals, as I noticed a similar discrepancy between the Viento’s universal and my personal CIEM unit. At the same time though, I have an itching feeling that the NT-6 simply is more tipped towards the treble than I’m comfortable with. In particular, the NT-6 seems mid-treble focused in exactly the wrong place, and the resonant insertion peak is only worsening it. Cymbals are harsh, and not merely your average harshness but the sharp kind of harsh. In contrast Viento’s mid-treble emphasis is lower down, and while not by much, makes a world of difference in terms of treble sharpness. Now, I must emphasize that sibilance varies from person to person, and not everyone will have as glaring of a problem with the NT-6’s treble as I do. But it’s a genuine dealbreaker issue for me, and essentially ruins my experience of NT-6 as an IEM.
Technicalities wise, it’s clear that the NT-6 is a younger brother of the Viento. Both have an incredibly clear and pristine presentation with excellent texturing, transient attack, and solid layering. But the NT-6, in a direct comparison, doesn’t layer quite as well, nor is it quite as wonderfully textured as the Viento. It’s just a hair behind in both departments, but the discrepancy definitely exists. The other point of difference between the two is that the Viento is much more forward and aggressive in presentation than the NT-6, which is decidedly more laidback and relaxed, even with the tipped up treble. Those that find the Viento fatiguing may prefer the NT-6’s less intense presentation of sound, though ultimately I’m a glutton for punishment when it comes to my preferred presentation in transducers. The NT-6 may be a hair more dynamic than the Viento. I’m willing to toss it up to volume matching, but in either case I find the NT-6 to be at least on par with my A12t in terms of raw dynamics. That is to say, some of the best I’ve heard.
I almost like the NT-6. It has a lot of what I like about the Viento in its DNA. But yet, its tonal balance is just too upsloping and sharp for me to enjoy. I guess that’s just how it is.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm and 3.5mm jacks.
I feel like I’m not a suitable arbiter for the NT-6. Me finding its particular treble peak sibilant means I can’t recommend it in good faith, but I know for a fact others don’t have this problem, and perhaps they may have no issue at all with the NT-6. But as it stands, I stick staunchly by the Viento as my favorite Hidition IEM, and one of my favorite BA IEMs in general. Long live the king.
Score: 5/10
The Viento is one of my favorite IEMs ever. It’s unforgivingly intense and aggressive, with some seriously impressive bass from a BA and an excellent, if slightly lean, tuning. The number of reference or midforward IEMs I like are far and few between, but the Viento’s midrange is genuinely good enough to hook me onto an IEM that, by all accounts, I shouldn’t really care much about. But further down the Hidition lineup lies the NT-6, a 6BA that’s almost 7 years old now but remains a favorite amongst many even today. Some people I know prefer it to the Viento, which is of course heresy to me, but also intriguing. An examination of just what this old timer does right is in order.
The bass on the NT-6 is quite a letdown considering just how damn good the Viento’s bass is. I can sometimes imagine myself just using the Viento and forgetting about DD bass, though that never happens because it just doesn’t quite have DD levels of bass texture nor timbre. Unfortunately, the NT-6 isn’t nearly as good of a DD substitute as the Viento is. Not only does it have the same timbral and textural issues as its older brother, it also doesn’t slam as hard, nor does it come close to matching it in transients nor extension. And sure, this is BA against BA and it’s really a lesser of two evils situation here. But when the Viento (and later on the Violet) has such impressive bass for a BA, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed.
The NT-6’s midrange is lean. Really lean. I almost want to call it thin but that feels a little unfair, because it doesn’t suffer all that much in the upper midrange. But the lower midrange is extremely lacking in presence and body. At times this ends up pushing into shrillness territory with the upper mids, though it’s never truly piercing or cringe inducing like it can be with other upper mid forward IEMs. I do find it a little unnatural as a tonal balance, there simply isn’t enough body in the lower mids. On certain tracks this isn’t as immediately obvious, but my classical stuff is not all that pleasant on here. The Viento, while a little thin, isn’t nearly as lean here, though it is quite a bit more aggressive. More on that later.
The NT-6’s treble is unfortunately sibilant to me. No doubt this is because of the weird shape of Hidition’s universals, as I noticed a similar discrepancy between the Viento’s universal and my personal CIEM unit. At the same time though, I have an itching feeling that the NT-6 simply is more tipped towards the treble than I’m comfortable with. In particular, the NT-6 seems mid-treble focused in exactly the wrong place, and the resonant insertion peak is only worsening it. Cymbals are harsh, and not merely your average harshness but the sharp kind of harsh. In contrast Viento’s mid-treble emphasis is lower down, and while not by much, makes a world of difference in terms of treble sharpness. Now, I must emphasize that sibilance varies from person to person, and not everyone will have as glaring of a problem with the NT-6’s treble as I do. But it’s a genuine dealbreaker issue for me, and essentially ruins my experience of NT-6 as an IEM.
Technicalities wise, it’s clear that the NT-6 is a younger brother of the Viento. Both have an incredibly clear and pristine presentation with excellent texturing, transient attack, and solid layering. But the NT-6, in a direct comparison, doesn’t layer quite as well, nor is it quite as wonderfully textured as the Viento. It’s just a hair behind in both departments, but the discrepancy definitely exists. The other point of difference between the two is that the Viento is much more forward and aggressive in presentation than the NT-6, which is decidedly more laidback and relaxed, even with the tipped up treble. Those that find the Viento fatiguing may prefer the NT-6’s less intense presentation of sound, though ultimately I’m a glutton for punishment when it comes to my preferred presentation in transducers. The NT-6 may be a hair more dynamic than the Viento. I’m willing to toss it up to volume matching, but in either case I find the NT-6 to be at least on par with my A12t in terms of raw dynamics. That is to say, some of the best I’ve heard.
I almost like the NT-6. It has a lot of what I like about the Viento in its DNA. But yet, its tonal balance is just too upsloping and sharp for me to enjoy. I guess that’s just how it is.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm and 3.5mm jacks.
I feel like I’m not a suitable arbiter for the NT-6. Me finding its particular treble peak sibilant means I can’t recommend it in good faith, but I know for a fact others don’t have this problem, and perhaps they may have no issue at all with the NT-6. But as it stands, I stick staunchly by the Viento as my favorite Hidition IEM, and one of my favorite BA IEMs in general. Long live the king.
Score: 5/10
Last edited:
Focux
1000+ Head-Fier
I felt the U12T was actually pretty good but Tia Trio & Fourte rubbish in comparison O.0
Astell & Kern T9iE:
The Xelento is one of my favorite single DD IEMs. Thick, textured bass, good technical ability, and one of the most likable V shapes on the market. Considerably more palatable than, say, the Acoustune house sound. Consider my interest piqued when I was told that they were making a successor to it, and furthermore when it was actually neutrally tuned. Neutral single DDs are a rarity, and the Xelento’s driver is competent enough to catch my interest in turning it into a decent neutral single DD.
Unfortunately, I should have paid attention to the fact that it was A&K tuning it, not Beyerdynamic. Whoops.
The T9iE’s bass response sounds poorly extended for a DD. Rather than having deep subbass texture like the Xelento did, it almost feels like it rolls off at the lowest octave. It attempts to take on a more flat bass response than the Xelento, but doesn’t quite achieve the same level of texturing and detail as the Xelento did. It does slam fairly hard, but due to the rolloff it’s just midbass impact rather than having any subbass to really back it up. In comparison to the Xelento which was such a standout in bass... it feels weak. What should have been a standout of this driver is instead a pitfall of it, probably because of A&K’s excessive use of venting.
The midrange struck me as odd from the outset. It sounds weirdly telephonic and almost a little honky. This affects vocals, guitars, keyboards... everything really. The midrange pinna comp doesn’t sound well done at all. Thanks to the bass rolloff as well, the entire FR sounds midcentric, further emphasizing the general uncanny valley-ness of the midrange. The Xelento didn’t have much in the way of mids, but whatever it did didn’t sound as outright wrong as this does. It’s disappointing and somewhat confounding honestly.
The treble response of the T9iE is also a marked downgrade from its predecessor. It borders on a little sharp at times, and the shallow fit of the T9iE (made worse by the cable’s thickness and stiffness) only damns it further. It’s never enough to really make me cringe, but what it does introduce is splashiness. The T9iE lacks all of the treble control and finesse that stood out on the other end of the Xelento’s frequency spectrum, and still has the same flaw: high frequency rolloff. I’m left wondering what the point of the T9iE is; sure it’s not as V shaped as its predecessor, but everything about the tonality is worse.
Intangibles wise, the T9iE is also a step down from what came before. Detail retrieval and texturing is just not as good in comparison to the Xelento, which had standout bass detailing. Layering and staging are just as bad, if not worse than the Xelento, which was never exactly great at either, though it never felt smeary or splashy like the T9iE. Dynamics feel compressed, though this driver has never been particularly good at dynamics to begin with. What the Xelento driver is, is a technical single DD with hard hitting and textured bass. The T9iE neuters that, and turns it into an off sounding “neutral” single DD that does nothing right.
What a disappointment. I didn’t know it was possible to screw up one of my favorite IEM drivers this badly.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm jack.
Not recommended. At all.
Score: 3/10
The Xelento is one of my favorite single DD IEMs. Thick, textured bass, good technical ability, and one of the most likable V shapes on the market. Considerably more palatable than, say, the Acoustune house sound. Consider my interest piqued when I was told that they were making a successor to it, and furthermore when it was actually neutrally tuned. Neutral single DDs are a rarity, and the Xelento’s driver is competent enough to catch my interest in turning it into a decent neutral single DD.
Unfortunately, I should have paid attention to the fact that it was A&K tuning it, not Beyerdynamic. Whoops.
The T9iE’s bass response sounds poorly extended for a DD. Rather than having deep subbass texture like the Xelento did, it almost feels like it rolls off at the lowest octave. It attempts to take on a more flat bass response than the Xelento, but doesn’t quite achieve the same level of texturing and detail as the Xelento did. It does slam fairly hard, but due to the rolloff it’s just midbass impact rather than having any subbass to really back it up. In comparison to the Xelento which was such a standout in bass... it feels weak. What should have been a standout of this driver is instead a pitfall of it, probably because of A&K’s excessive use of venting.
The midrange struck me as odd from the outset. It sounds weirdly telephonic and almost a little honky. This affects vocals, guitars, keyboards... everything really. The midrange pinna comp doesn’t sound well done at all. Thanks to the bass rolloff as well, the entire FR sounds midcentric, further emphasizing the general uncanny valley-ness of the midrange. The Xelento didn’t have much in the way of mids, but whatever it did didn’t sound as outright wrong as this does. It’s disappointing and somewhat confounding honestly.
The treble response of the T9iE is also a marked downgrade from its predecessor. It borders on a little sharp at times, and the shallow fit of the T9iE (made worse by the cable’s thickness and stiffness) only damns it further. It’s never enough to really make me cringe, but what it does introduce is splashiness. The T9iE lacks all of the treble control and finesse that stood out on the other end of the Xelento’s frequency spectrum, and still has the same flaw: high frequency rolloff. I’m left wondering what the point of the T9iE is; sure it’s not as V shaped as its predecessor, but everything about the tonality is worse.
Intangibles wise, the T9iE is also a step down from what came before. Detail retrieval and texturing is just not as good in comparison to the Xelento, which had standout bass detailing. Layering and staging are just as bad, if not worse than the Xelento, which was never exactly great at either, though it never felt smeary or splashy like the T9iE. Dynamics feel compressed, though this driver has never been particularly good at dynamics to begin with. What the Xelento driver is, is a technical single DD with hard hitting and textured bass. The T9iE neuters that, and turns it into an off sounding “neutral” single DD that does nothing right.
What a disappointment. I didn’t know it was possible to screw up one of my favorite IEM drivers this badly.
All listening was done out of the WM1A’s 4.4mm jack.
Not recommended. At all.
Score: 3/10
Something something bass bass something.
There you go.
That’d be an interesting one. It’s been quite a while since I last heard a Legend X but I fondly recall it being nothing but bass and lower treble. Let’s see if my opinions change this time around.
It’s also interesting what you think about Hyla Sarda and Final Audio A8000.
Last edited:
I’ve heard both, but not for as long as I’d like. Based on preliminary listening the Sarda is yet another CE-5/TE-5 variant, but this time I actually think it might be worthy of going up against the original. Need more eartime to confirm. The A8000... I won’t comment on that until the review itself, but let me just say that it’s beryllium in name only.
Modwright01
Member of the Trade: Hifi-Portable
Most ridiculous review in history.
Fourté Noir is an absolute masterpiece. You like or you don't but do not say bulls*it. Just seriously. There is nothing like this in the market. This tuning is just truly incredible and anyone who can, should listen to it once. Just legendary.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
