[m8o]

@Owludio , you try the Comply tips?

I'll also reiterate an observation I shared earlier. This iem produced the biggest change in 'tonality' of any full sized can or iem I own when used with the numerous daps and headamps I own. Your thought of anemic bass was mine too, with certain sources, and the silicone tips (tho after some more burnin I will revisit those again). And completely satisfying with other amplification. That empirical evidance suggests some may be current limited or otherwise affected by the low 14 ohm [measured, not 12 ohm] resistance. Most devices are speced from 32 ohms up; some 16 ohms. That doesnt mean they stop operating at 12 or 14 ohms; but it's more than possible they are not operating in their optimal range.

 

[Owludio]

@Owludio , you try the Comply tips?

I'll also reiterate an observation I shared earlier. This iem produced the biggest change in 'tonality' of any full sized can or iem I own when used with the numerous daps and headamps I own. Your thought of anemic bass was mine too, with certain sources, and the silicone tips (tho after some more burnin I will revisit those again). And completely satisfying with other amplification. That empirical evidance suggests some may be current limited or otherwise affected by the low 14 ohm [measured, not 12 ohm] resistance. Most devices are speced from 32 ohms up; some 16 ohms. That doesnt mean they stop operating at 12 or 14 ohms; but it's more than possible they are not operating in their optimal range.

Thanks a lot! I will try complies later, but as a last resort as I don't tolerate foam tips well. You're also right about sources. It was absolutely underwhelming with iBasso DX160, but is pretty good with BTR5 & Qudelix both wired and wireless. Euclid is more forgiving to BT compression than similarly resolving BA & EST IEMs. Was also pretty good with Xduo Link2. Not so much with UP4 which BTW has 0.3 Ohm OI, but to be fair, -treble resolution and not the bass was not up to Euclid standards.

I don't think anyone in this thread (so far) is a reviewer or has been given a review sample (those that have already posted their full reviews).

Yes, agree, I just felt that at least 2 reviews online let me down(or have they now?), even though I should've seen this coming. What I didn't expect is that Euclid dynamics so far refused to scale.
My desktop source may seem like nothing special, just THX Creative USB card but it made every other IEM that I've tried so far to soar. ier-M9 on it got that "cannot believe it's BA" dynamics, ier-z1r was simply unforgettable, Semper bass started to behave(more or less), M3 from screechy mess went to stellar clarity and fun. CL2 also gained improvement in dynamics and lost that 3K shoutiness without an EQ. Tin P1 also scaled pretty well there. P1 actually has better dynamics of the bass, but I understand that vented design makes it easier to push.
CL2 is not vented, yet has better dynamics but it's not fair to compare - Euclid is vastly superior to CL2 even with lower dynamics. If I had to chose, Euclid is no-brainier even with price difference.

To summarize - Euclid is likely a keeper for me because of insane quality of the mids and treble(I also expect treble to improve and didn't do cable matching yet).
It's warping my brain making it very hard to switch back to any of my other IEMs. I will have to make a special playlist with all the songs with great dynamic range - for just not be tempted to switch back too quickly, which already happened today. Switched to MEST at work, and while MEST was fabulous, 30 min later I was back with Euclid.
So, as much as I'm upset about dynamics, that supposed to be at least better than $800 CL2 and $150 P1, it's still stellar IEM and I no longer envision letting it go.
Also, burn in is working with this one. Treble continues to improve and after another night of 50mWt burn, I noticed improvement in dynamics as well.

 

[m8o]

The buzz around this iem is a head scratcher.

 

[jburks725]

I quite like mine, but I'm not really finding any desire to listen to it analytically. I'm just enjoying listening to the music (which I take as a very good sign). Not sure why there are so few reviews here, though.

 

[tinyman392]

The buzz around this iem is a head scratcher.

I quite like mine, but I'm not really finding any desire to listen to it analytically. I'm just enjoying listening to the music (which I take as a very good sign). Not sure why there are so few reviews here, though.

I know Audeze’s website said the first batch would be limited. Not sure how limited, but that could have something to do with it.

 

[m8o]

Hope Audeze is working on the next hand-crafted small batch of these. More people need take the journey I've taken...

So, update on that journey.

A. I'm back to using/liking the gummy/silicone tips. Burn-in is a real thing with this iem. And the wide-open unobstructed tip nozzle is really doing it for me! Where right out of the box I thought the upper-mid / lower treble had a bit of accentuating + a bit of gritty bite. So I went on a tip rolling journey to tame that. That has completely abated. And the silicon tip no longer has an edgy grit in the region I originally thought.

IMO Audeze should only loan-out well burned-in pairs for review! (Should they ever do so again).

B. I am over the moon with the balanced cable I bought for this and how this iem reacts to it. It's hard for me to put it into a few words as to what it is. I'll describe it this way:

Where with the stock cable, for a visceral experience I would all too often find myself listening to this too loud to bring fulfilling satisfaction. Which often would come with a bit if buzziness from pushing the amp too hard into its demanding 14 ohm load.

Now with this balanced cable I'm listening at many decibels less (-10dB ?) yet completely fulfilled at the clarity, rich tonality and musicality; the most ever since owning this. And this is with me using my aging, midrange level, nominally powered, Opus #1 DAP.

I highly recommend a cable upgrade for your $1300 iem purchase!

For any who may ask, I didn't have one for MMCX yet. I got this one off Amazon (a long wait for delivery):

Linsoul Euphrosyne Litz Type 6 5N OCC Silver Plated OCC Cable (MMCX, 2.5mm, Blue)
140 cores 5N OCC + 240 core silver plated OCC.

Looks fantastic. Works better!

 

[tinyman392]

@m8o I swapped my tips (SpinFit to Audeze silicone) to see if anything changed in preference. Still prefer the SpinFit for me. The bass is ever-so-slightly thicker with the SpinFit with a hint more warmth in the midrange. The upper midrange and treble is still on the hotter side, but still very well balanced. Still happy with the IEM, Audeze did a great job balancing everything out. The Audeze tips provide a bit of delicacy to the bass and in turn also provide a bit more energy overall in the mids and highs. I still haven't used the Comply tips though. I've always found them cumbersome to put on and their life was always somewhat annoying for me too (smaller ears probably doesn't help either of these).

I'm still running these in a TWS setup though But they do seem somewhat picky with source though (I think a few people have mentioned this already).

 

[Vitandus]

Any more feedback? Any other buyers?

 

[tinyman392]

Any more feedback? Any other buyers?

Audeze's website is still showing "pre-order" for their April run. So I'm not sure if anyone else has received them. Those that ordered more recently are likely waiting until maybe May?

 

[m8o]

I don't believe this had been shared here yet. I found another FR measurement graph.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...:audeze-euclid-earphones&catid=263&Itemid=203

( subject review: https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/equipment/earphones/275 )

Similar to Crinacle's measurement. Just a) deeper peak & trough in the lower treble, b) maybe more notably at different frequencies. Which would have a significant bearing on the correct frequency to use in parametric equalization.

I'd been using Crinacle's graph for all my AutoEQ parametric equalizations. I'm about to give this one a try. To see if my ears feel this one gets the frequencies right in the lower treble or Crinacle does.

I'm definitely going to have to rig something up tho and use my AudioToolbox 3C and measure mine. As it will be something I rigged up, I don't expect a super accurate measurement. but I do expect it to at least show me at what particular frequencies mine has peak(s) and trough(s) in the response.

 

[EMINENT]

@Owludio , you try the Comply tips?

I'll also reiterate an observation I shared earlier. This iem produced the biggest change in 'tonality' of any full sized can or iem I own when used with the numerous daps and headamps I own. Your thought of anemic bass was mine too, with certain sources, and the silicone tips (tho after some more burnin I will revisit those again). And completely satisfying with other amplification. That empirical evidance suggests some may be current limited or otherwise affected by the low 14 ohm [measured, not 12 ohm] resistance. Most devices are speced from 32 ohms up; some 16 ohms. That doesnt mean they stop operating at 12 or 14 ohms; but it's more than possible they are not operating in their optimal range.

Curious, since i4 have been known to scale with higher power, has anyone tried testing if Euclid does as well with something like an M8 or desktop grade dac/amp?

 

[tinyman392]

I don't believe this had been shared here yet. I found another FR measurement graph.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...:audeze-euclid-earphones&catid=263&Itemid=203

( subject review: https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/equipment/earphones/275 )

Similar to Crinacle's measurement. Just a) deeper peak & trough in the lower treble, b) maybe more notably at different frequencies. Which would have a significant bearing on the correct frequency to use in parametric equalization.

I'd been using Crinacle's graph for all my AutoEQ parametric equalizations. I'm about to give this one a try. To see if my ears feel this one gets the frequencies right in the lower treble or Crinacle does.

I'm definitely going to have to rig something up tho and use my AutoToolbox 3C and measure mine. As it will be something I rigged up, I don't expect a super accurate measurement. but I do expect it to at least show me at what particular frequencies mine has peak(s) and trough(s) in the response.

I think Audeze had linked to that review earlier on before they shipped them out to customers. Unless that was a different review with measurements in it.

 

[m8o]

Curious, since i4 have been known to scale with higher power, has anyone tried testing if Euclid does as well with something like an M8 or desktop grade dac/amp?

Yes. McIntosh MHA-100. Both from the front 3.5mm out with amp set to low gain, and its autoformer set to the 8 - 40 ohm tap, as well as direct from its power devices thru its 50wpc @ 8ohm speaker taps (with very measured judicious use of the volume control). That is what solidified my supposition that these things luuv POWER and produce the best fullest most solid bass response they are capable of when the amp is not current limited to say less than 100ma typical of a DAP with limited low impedance drive abilities.

Unusual for me with planars is, I preferred this experience via the autoformer output. I listen to my HE-1000 and Ether Flow C pretty much exclusively via the speaker taps for example. But the autoformer output gives the listening experience of the Euclid a better three dimensionality to the already wide soundstage.

I also have a Woo WA-22 and Mjolnir gen-1 I need to wire-up and fire-up and give a try. Don't know why I haven't yet. Lazy? Procrastinating? Really need to try these driving the Euclid.

I have at least used these with my Mojo and M9xx dac/amps (edit, and E1DA PowerDAC v2 too; see below). Both had plenty of power driving the Euclid -- more than all the DAPs I have -- but of course not as much as the MHA-100. I liked the M9xx better driving it than the Mojo.

Oh! but p.s. how could I forget! Regarding portable/small dac-amps. The E1DA PowerDAC v2 is by far the most capable device I've come across to drive the Euclid (it's a digital amp, sorta class D, but not). And not by a small subtle margin. The bass drive has authority and slam you get right away, with no EQ or tone control engaged, when switching from using a DAP with its internal amp, to just using it as a source and letting the PowerDAC do the heavy lifting, is dramatic and addicting. I highly recommend it as something that gives desktop amp like drive to the Euclid in an insanely tiny robust package, with powerful DSP added in for good measure. Downside is you must use a funky USB Y cable and external battery pack.

I bought a AM3D (has a THX AAA-78) amp module for the FiiO x7 I had packed away (already had the AM1, AM3 and AM5, and tried them all; all were lacking in various ways). Playing via USB Audio Player Pro installed on the X7 with the Toneboosters parametric EQ using the 10-band mode and parameters calculated with AutoEQ from data I generated via WebPlotDigitizer from both Crinacle and SoundStage graphs , compensation target of "harman in-ear 2019v2", I've actually been -really- happy with the combo. Not so much straight without EQ. And ultimately not as much drive as the PowerDAC v2. But higher fidelity and smoothness thanx to that THX amp.

 

[m8o]

I'm definitely going to have to rig something up tho and use my AudioToolbox 3C and measure mine. As it will be something I rigged up, I don't expect a super accurate measurement. but I do expect it to at least show me at what particular frequencies mine has peak(s) and trough(s) in the response.

In reply to my earlier post ... definitely better results measuring this than I expected! Not hating these measurements... (raw, uncompensated measurements)

EDIT: FR images removed. As I discovered my coupler's length was a source of major error. See the next post from me.

Using this: (measured using pink noise.)

With this makeshift mic to iem coupler:
(hard to believe but couldn't be more perfectly sized heat-shrink tubing, both in sliding snugly over the mic and for the silicon tip)

The seal is great. And results are pretty inline sorta similar with other measurements regarding the peaks and dips and overall curve. Unhappy to see ...
- Presence region dip is way deeper than others's measurements. An anomaly specific to my rig? Maybe not. Calls for more experimentation with the coupler.
- My sample's two major peaks are at different frequencies than the two previous measurements that have been made. That doesnt bode well for me making a parametric EQ that's universally usable for everyone's Euclid. Tho maybe it's my makeshift coupler. I'll have to play with the distance between iem and mic end, and type of tubing, and straight vs. bent, to see if the peak frequency changes.

More once I've made a parametric EQ using the average of the measure curves in AutoEQ, then tweaking the parameters by measuring it and adjusting live against the target. I've already made an EQ estimating the Harman target and it was definitely smoother by getting rid of those peaks with high Q and amplitude cuts. Higher than I'd used before. But, it sounds much better with them.

 

[m8o]

Made a

Presence region dip is way deeper than others's measurements. An anomaly specific to my rig? Maybe not. Calls for more experimentation with the coupler.
- My sample's two major peaks are at different frequencies than the two previous measurements that have been made. That doesnt bode well for me making a parametric EQ that's universally usable for everyone's Euclid. Tho maybe it's my makeshift coupler. I'll have to play with the distance between iem and mic end, and type of tubing, and straight vs. bent, to see if the peak frequency changes.

Okay, I focused in on this today and sure enough discovered my makeshift coupler is introducing error. Its length has major bearing on the resonance peaks and dips in both magnitude and frequency.

Measurement with a shorter coupler:

(Better aligns with the two previous measurements published)

Measurement with an even shorter coupler:

(also diverges from the two previous measurements published, so probably is also inaccurate as what I originally shared but then deleted in the previous post.)

Tho, it does seem that the frequencies at least, if not magnitude, of the peaks and dips at and immediately above 5300 hz, as well as the big dip near 16KHz are not affected by the coupler length. Leading me to believe those are not being introduced by the measurement rig, are real and are always there. So candidates for parametric EQ'ing.

I will try to measure a number of iems that I have with different coupler lengths to try to discover which best gives me measurements that correlates with measurements others have made (found in the AutoEQ github distribution). Atm before that, it seems at least my "shorter but not shortest" coupler is my best so far.