[james444]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris_ah1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif quick question - how come these weren't recommended for orchestral music?

I think they are really good with orchestral music (soundstage, imaging, detail), but you won't experience the sound pressure that an orchestra can unleash, especially in the lower range. This seems to be a limitation of BA technology. In this regard the SE530 is slightly better than the CK100, however IMO the top dynamic IEMs are much closer to the real thing.

 

[truejoker]

has someone listen to them and compre them to klipsch image ? i would like to know the diffrence
and if you can tell me if the sony ericsson is good aoudio comper to nokia ? or on the d2 ?
thanks in advance ' and pleas forgiv me on my eanglish

 

[toughnut]

truejoker, based on the post above yours (by james444) and his signature, he preferred CK100 over Image X10.

Quote:

IEM ranking (BA, SQ only): Audio Technica CK100 = Shure SE530 > Klipsch Image X10 > UE SF5 Pro

 

[soozieq]

I had the X10 for a while, and from what I remember about the sound signature differences between those and the CK100.... to my ears... is that the X10 is the anti-CK100, totally different in every area.

The X10 has a warm full-bodied sound with an okayish soundstage, pronounced treble (occasionally harsh), warm upfront vocals (too upfront for me), and plenty of bass.

CK100 has a very clean sound signature, better/bigger soundstage, nice sparkly highs (not harsh), decent bass (better than PFE which needed a bass boost with the grey filters), and forward vocals (not UM3X forward!) which border on cool, but are not overly bright like Etys.

The overall sound is very very sweet and pretty, and I preferred them by far to the UM3X due to the livelier and crisper presentation. If the vocals had had a smidgeon more warmth, I would have kept/stolen the ones I had on loan from steviebeehive, and pretended they'd got lost in the post...

Would that have been frowned upon??..

Anyway lol, I liked the CK100 a lot with acoustic, male vocals and instrumental. I didn't like them so much with badly-recorded 80/90s rock (sometimes there IS no decent master), or with strong female vocals, which tended to sound a litte hard to my ears.

But really, it's all about which sound signature tickles your fancy more, and which one is better suited to the genres you listen to

Oh, I forgot to say that I would choose CK100 in a heartbeat over the X10.

 

[toughnut]

Oh, that's pretty late review from u Julie

But better late than never hahaha

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toughnut /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, that's pretty late review from u Julie But better late than never hahaha

LOL! I think I read something similar to that in all my school reports

Well, along with 'Julie should stop distracting the other pupils who wish to learn'... hahahaha, nothing's changed

 

[toughnut]

I learned that from my teachers too

Btw, what stevie doing with his CK100? Bling bling earring? Didnt heard anything bout it from him.

 

[james444]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had the X10 for a while, and from what I remember about the sound signature differences between those and the CK100.... to my ears... is that the X10 is the anti-CK100, totally different in every area. The X10 has a warm full-bodied sound with an okayish soundstage, pronounced treble (occasionally harsh), warm upfront vocals (too upfront for me), and plenty of bass. CK100 has a very clean sound signature, better/bigger soundstage, nice sparkly highs (not harsh), decent bass (better than PFE which needed a bass boost with the grey filters), and forward vocals (not UM3X forward!) which border on cool, but are not overly bright like Etys. The overall sound is very very sweet and pretty, and I preferred them by far to the UM3X due to the livelier and crisper presentation. If the vocals had had a smidgeon more warmth, I would have kept/stolen the ones I had on loan from steviebeehive, and pretended they'd got lost in the post...

Soozieq, I completely agree with your excellent description! The only two things bothering me with the CK100 are slightly too cold mids and lack of isolation. The latter came as a surprise, because according to all other opinions I've read, they ought to have good isolation. Maybe it's due to my rather wide ear canals, but none of the included tips do really fit. Anyway, I hope some de-cored Shure olives will fix this problem.

Oh, and x2 on choosing the CK100 over the X10 in a heartbeat

 

[steviebee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toughnut /img/forum/go_quote.gif I learned that from my teachers too Btw, what stevie doing with his CK100? Bling bling earring? Didnt heard anything bout it from him.

Heh, my earrings are bling enough on their own...

Haven't heard too much from me re CK-100 because I was overtaken by the sheer pleasure of listening to the Victor 500 and Westone 3 which arrived at the same-ish time as SQ returned the ATH's...

My very first impressions, before they went on loan, were horrible. A hard, forward, glassy, shouting midrange on vocals that I just abhorred. OK to pretty good on instrumental music but vocals? Nuh-uh.....Lots of detail in treble, which I expected, and pretty decent bass. But the mids were awful. Worst I'd heard in any high-end IEM (I don't like too-forward mids, btw. Just not my cuppa tea). But......soozieq having put them thru their paces has hopefully remedied at least some of that (fingers x'd). So I just have to fold up the Westone tent, and get to unpacking the ATH camel....will do, soon.

Have to be honest and say that I was so unimpressed by my first listen, I haven't been eager to hear them again. But for all its faults I liked CK-7, so I need to give the 100's a fair shake...We'll see what happens.

And before anyone gets their knickers wet (surely not! ATH fans seem a really nice bunch), the above is only my first impressions over one evening...

 

[truejoker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had the X10 for a while, and from what I remember about the sound signature differences between those and the CK100.... to my ears... is that the X10 is the anti-CK100, totally different in every area. The X10 has a warm full-bodied sound with an okayish soundstage, pronounced treble (occasionally harsh), warm upfront vocals (too upfront for me), and plenty of bass. CK100 has a very clean sound signature, better/bigger soundstage, nice sparkly highs (not harsh), decent bass (better than PFE which needed a bass boost with the grey filters), and forward vocals (not UM3X forward!) which border on cool, but are not overly bright like Etys. The overall sound is very very sweet and pretty, and I preferred them by far to the UM3X due to the livelier and crisper presentation. If the vocals had had a smidgeon more warmth, I would have kept/stolen the ones I had on loan from steviebeehive, and pretended they'd got lost in the post... Would that have been frowned upon??.. Anyway lol, I liked the CK100 a lot with acoustic, male vocals and instrumental. I didn't like them so much with badly-recorded 80/90s rock (sometimes there IS no decent master), or with strong female vocals, which tended to sound a litte hard to my ears. But really, it's all about which sound signature tickles your fancy more, and which one is better suited to the genres you listen to Oh, I forgot to say that I would choose CK100 in a heartbeat over the X10.

thanks a lot . i don't realy like to have 2 earphone (to costly

),but after i reading this ' i will save and bay the CK100 ' and i will use both
Quote:

Originally Posted by toughnut /img/forum/go_quote.gif truejoker, based on the post above yours (by james444) and his signature, he preferred CK100 over Image X10.

thanks

 

[kwang411]

I agree with Soozieq.
I really love the transparency of Ck100, and that is probably why I prefer these over IE8. In fact, i try to find similar sound with the IE8 by adjusting the EQ (I know that ruins the original sound of IE8, but i can't help it!

). Also, Ck100 is the only pair of headphones that i do not need to adjust EQ to get the sound i like (with exception of clearbass on my A728), it is simply the perfect sound signature for my ears!

I also prefer the soundstage of Ck100 over IE8 as well, even though IE8 is a bit wider. Ck100 has the depth and height that is missing on the IE8, which i think is important to create concert-hall like qualities. I think its becuase IE8 makes me feel like i'm in front row seats, while Ck100 feels like second or third row, but without the vocal being lost within the music. If more than anything, Ck100's vocals are always more prominent than background music.

However, i prefer IE8 when i'm listening to rock or classical because CK100 is simply too clean and transparent, which lacks passion and enthusiasm.

Also, CK100 is one of the least fatiguing IEM i've ever heard. I can listen to them for hours without feeling fatigue, while I can't really listen to IE8 for more than an hour or two. Isolation is also great, i basically can't hear any ambient noise when i'm walking outside if the music is on. My only complaint is that because it isolates so well, when i'm walking i can hear my own footsteps very clearly...

 

[Sayajin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by googleli /img/forum/go_quote.gif And of course there may be an upgrade to CK100, but I doubt any further upgrades would be able to transplant the overall SQ of CK100. For those who are into digital cameras (not DSLRs), I believe CK100 will become like Fujifilm's F30/F31 FD - a true legend that won't be beaten for years to come. (F30/F31 FD is a digital camera which came out years ago with only 6 megapixels, yet its picture quality is still considered the best after all these years - not even Fujifilm's own upgrades, including F40, F50, F100 and even the recent F200EXR could beat it.)

F30? damn, I remember I was so close to get this camera but I was too late. Now I have been using f40fd for a while.
Back to tropic.
Thanks for your impressions guys. I'm also very interested in these. So bad nobody carry these in Europe.

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by steviebee /img/forum/go_quote.gif My very first impressions, before they went on loan, were horrible. A hard, forward, glassy, shouting midrange on vocals that I just abhorred.

Yes, yes and yes!! Not only that, but the vocals seemed totally disconnected from everything else, like they were dropped in as an afterthought. That was the worst part for me initially. Thankfully, they 'joined up' later lol, or else I adapted, but I don't think I could have adapted to that to be honest.

And on vocals, I think I may be more picky (um... obsessive?)... about vocal placement and tone than the majority of people, in that it mustn't be too far back, or too far forwards, or too warm, or too cold, or too thin or too fat lol. Other than that, I'm not fussy at all

But I do think the vocals improved quite a bit from the first few listens, when quite frankly, they scared me

Quote:

(I don't like too-forward mids, btw. Just not my cuppa tea). But......soozieq having put them thru their paces has hopefully remedied at least some of that (fingers x'd). So I just have to fold up the Westone tent, and get to unpacking the ATH camel....will do, soon.

Me neither, as you know from my UM3X bleatings

But the CK100 still have very forward mids. All that changed (to my ears)... was that the vocals blended in better and didn't scare me as much... they were still too 'cool' for my liking and somewhat hard with vocalists like Freyda Epstein and Joan Baez. Nothing to do with recording quality because one of those is a brilliantly-produced binaural recording, and the other is a really nicely mastered MFSL version. I just found the CK100 + strong vocals a little too much for me. But since vocals are considered by many to be one of their strengths, I would just put that down to an extreme intolerance of any perceived loud vocals on my part.

Oh, and after a few days of storage up my cat's bum, I found the bass really came alive with more impact and more extension... do you think it could have been placebo???

 

[steviebee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and after a few days of storage up my cat's bum, I found the bass really came alive with more impact and more extension... do you think it could have been placebo???

I see.




Cat.





I wondered what that smell was when they came back. Couldn't place it....I experimented with my neighbour's dog, but it just wasn't the same. Couldn't get that same aroma despite feeding him olive oil for an hour (result: he, er, pressure-washed their garden a nice shade of khaki, most entertaining). Softened the tips up a treat tho....

 

[truejoker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and after a few days of storage up my cat's bum, I found the bass really came alive with more impact and more extension... do you think it could have been placebo???

it could be a burn in that neccesery to them to give the full potenial