[Tex Irie]

Hi all, I’ve had mine for a couple days now. Here’s some first impressions, I’ve been comparing to i4s and Thieaudio Clairvoyance.

As background, my introduction to Audeze was the iSine 10, which lead to i3 then i4. I don’t have experience with their over ear and generally don’t like wearing over ear. They are too heavy and intrusive, for me the i4 disappears (both physically and sonically) and from what I’ve read is close enough to an over ear that I haven’t pursued anything larger. My source equipment is a Valhalla 2 and iBasso dx220, I listen in balanced using an amp 8 on the iBasso.

I purchased the Clairvoyance after some extended flying recently with the i4s . . . I had hoped maybe I could be happy with the i4 or i3 in a noisy environment, but nope, just didn’t work. The Clairvoyane are quite nice, but to my ears just feel kind of forced relative to the natural, relaxed and open feeling of the i4s. I have also been hoping for an Audeze closed back that is at least in the family of the i3/i4’s and ordered the day they were announced.

So far, I believe the Euclids are hitting the mark. For me, very definitely the planar sound I love from the i4s. If anything, they seem more precise and clean than the i4s in some ways, especially in the treble range. Separation and placement are spot on, though different in location from the i4. They are not as open as the i4 or i3, nor is the stage as spacious, which I expected. However, to my ears they have more depth and height. Perhaps this is just a perception relative to the width and is certainly not better, just different. To me the i4s sound like I’m in an outdoor environment with no reflective or absorptive surfaces, the Euclids sound like an enclosed, but properly treated, large room.

I don’t find the Euclids to need EQ in the way the i4 (etc) do. To my ears they are very listenable right out of the box. I do like to EQ almost any transducer and am currently playing with a bit of bass boost and some treble tweaking. As mentioned in the reviews the bass is not on par with the other Audeze earphones, I don’t hear quite the extension and lushness present in the i4, nor the slam. Also as noted in a review, the Euclids don’t seem to respond to bass EQ as much as the i4. It is still very good . . . precise and does hit the low frequencies, given the size difference and being enclosed I’m quite happy with it overall.

Some misc . . . fit for me is good, though I’ve not had any issues with earphones in the past. I built a balanced cable, which sounds much better than the stock to me. I do find that these earphones need volume, not as much as the i4 but more than I expected reading one of the reviews. Oh, and audio I’m listening to . . . a really wide range, from classical to jazz to metal to funk to all forms of electronic. I’d say the single most important aspect of the i4s is that I don’t find they color the sound, very neutral without being analytical like a studio monitor can be. The Euclids are very similar in that regard.

From here, I need to listen a lot more and do some comparing to the i3s. This is mostly to see how the Euclids fit in my current preferred listening pipeline, to me the i3/i4’s aren’t strictly comparable to closed IEM’s. My hope is that the combination of the i4s and Euclids will be my endgame IEM solution for a while.

@eyevapor Thank you for the unexpected and highly detailed impressions against other IEMs I've been looking at.

 

[tinyman392]

After countless delays they finally got to me to join my collection of planar IEMs. My initial thoughts on them were nothing special; nothing exceptional. Nothing seemed to stand out. After about 15 minutes with them the word balance came to mind. Audeze tuned these very well. The bass is very controlled and in the background like something you'd expect from a neutral IEM, then they are pushed forward ever so slightly so they're always present. The treble high hats and cymbals split between offering a softer texture and a metallic one. The midrange has subtle hints of warmth, but they're just that, hints. It's on the brighter side with a focus on detailing and clarity, but not to the point where it's thrown in your face. This seems more like a jack of all trades type of IEM; it does very little wrong.

I will still need some time with these and let the new toy effect wear off. I should also note that my preferred sound signature does lean towards a DF neutral with a slightly toned down treble (2-3 dB). While I don't need it, a slight push in the bass is welcome. I won't lie, these do come very close to that.

Regarding the list below for quick comparisons (from left to right). These are short impressions, I may do deeper dives later on:

• AAW Nightingale: don't get these without EQ. I repeat, don't get these if you don't plan to EQ them. OK, you could also use an absurdly bright source as well. Once EQed they can become anything you really want and have absolutely phenomenal bass texturing which makes them somewhat addicting. Out of the entire set, they represent the idea of a planar's bass the best, even when compared to the iSine. They respond extremely well to EQ though, so in reality they can become anything you want them to be so long as your EQ has the bandwidth to do it. That said standing on their own feet, in contrast to the Euclid, they're just dark. Very dark, very veiled... It covers up a lot (nearly all) of the detailing and clarity that the midrange offers and even the upper midrange energy, and even the treble.
• Audeze Euclid
• RHA CL2: Closest to the Euclid in form factor. Another closed-back planar magnetic setup from RHA, but much smaller. It's a beautiful sounding IEM for the most part with most of my music collection (like ⅔), however, on the rest of the music where the upper midrange/lower treble spikes play in they create some really wonky response. If you remove those "features" from the CL2 you end up with something very close to the Euclid when it comes to tonality. With the CL2, that upper midrange spike really seems to distract a lot which is unfortunate since it would be a great IEM otherwise.
• Audeze iSIne 10: These are kind of what I imagine when people talk about the classic Audeze sound signature. And they kind of push that to a tee. I'm running with the Cipher Lighting cable, so that fixes some of the oddities in the frequency response. In contrast the iSine are far smoother, warmer, and offer a bit more bass quantity to them. The midrange is actually very similar between the two with the iSine offering a tad bit more warmth. The treble is a lot tamer on the iSIne in contrast. There isn't as much energy with a much softer overall texturing up high.

Edit: last note that I should make is that my main intent was to use these as a killer TWS setup with something like the Fiio or Shure adapters.

 

[riverground]

After countless delays they finally got to me to join my collection of planar IEMs. My initial thoughts on them were nothing special; nothing exceptional. Nothing seemed to stand out. After about 15 minutes with them the word balance came to mind. Audeze tuned these very well. The bass is very controlled and in the background like something you'd expect from a neutral IEM, then they are pushed forward ever so slightly so they're always present. The treble high hats and cymbals split between offering a softer texture and a metallic one. The midrange has subtle hints of warmth, but they're just that, hints. It's on the brighter side with a focus on detailing and clarity, but not to the point where it's thrown in your face. This seems more like a jack of all trades type of IEM; it does very little wrong.

I will still need some time with these and let the new toy effect wear off. I should also note that my preferred sound signature does lean towards a DF neutral with a slightly toned down treble (2-3 dB). While I don't need it, a slight push in the bass is welcome. I won't lie, these do come very close to that.

Regarding the list below for quick comparisons (from left to right). These are short impressions, I may do deeper dives later on:

• AAW Nightingale: don't get these without EQ. I repeat, don't get these if you don't plan to EQ them. OK, you could also use an absurdly bright source as well. Once EQed they can become anything you really want and have absolutely phenomenal bass texturing which makes them somewhat addicting. Out of the entire set, they represent the idea of a planar's bass the best, even when compared to the iSine. They respond extremely well to EQ though, so in reality they can become anything you want them to be so long as your EQ has the bandwidth to do it. That said standing on their own feet, in contrast to the Euclid, they're just dark. Very dark, very veiled... It covers up a lot (nearly all) of the detailing and clarity that the midrange offers and even the upper midrange energy, and even the treble.
• Audeze Euclid
• RHA CL2: Closest to the Euclid in form factor. Another closed-back planar magnetic setup from RHA, but much smaller. It's a beautiful sounding IEM for the most part with most of my music collection (like ⅔), however, on the rest of the music where the upper midrange/lower treble spikes play in they create some really wonky response. If you remove those "features" from the CL2 you end up with something very close to the Euclid when it comes to tonality. With the CL2, that upper midrange spike really seems to distract a lot which is unfortunate since it would be a great IEM otherwise.
• Audeze iSIne 10: These are kind of what I imagine when people talk about the classic Audeze sound signature. And they kind of push that to a tee. I'm running with the Cipher Lighting cable, so that fixes some of the oddities in the frequency response. In contrast the iSine are far smoother, warmer, and offer a bit more bass quantity to them. The midrange is actually very similar between the two with the iSine offering a tad bit more warmth. The treble is a lot tamer on the iSIne in contrast. There isn't as much energy with a much softer overall texturing up high.

Edit: last note that I should make is that my main intent was to use these as a killer TWS setup with something like the Fiio or Shure adapters.

Man I really wanna try the Nightingale someday!

 

[tinyman392]

One thing I should probably note that I didn’t before is that my right earbud looks to have come with a small cosmetic blemish on it (the white section in the copper ring). Nothing huge though; not worth crying about I guess.

 

[Alpha1Ric]

Just perfect

 

[m8o]

Surprised there aren't more first impressions here or other reviews lined up

Exactly what I thought. Nevertheless I was about to splurge and get them at Audio46 w/o many user impressions . Only to find they are back ordered.

Hi all, I’ve had mine for a couple days now. Here’s some first impressions, I’ve been comparing to i4s

Oh, nice. An i3/i4 owner's perspective was really all I was hoping for.

So far, I believe the Euclids are hitting the mark. For me, very definitely the planar sound I love from the i4s.

Sold! bummer I can't walk in and buy them today as I thought I would tho.

 

[AlwaysForward]

I’m pretty sure that this thread isn’t actually active because it’s in the Sponsor forum

@KMann see above

 

[m8o]

I’m pretty sure that this thread isn’t actually active because it’s in the Sponsor forum

@KMann see above

Tho, the other thread was closed.

 

[jburks725]

Just received mine last night. I've only gotten a couple hours of listening time in (stupid work!), but these sound very nice with my iFi Diablo. So far I'm using it single-ended on normal with no hiss (no need for the iEMatch like my Andromedas), and I find the sound to be pretty balanced. This is my first set of planars, so I have a lot to learn here, but I'm pleasantly surprised and optimistic for these as I continue to burn them in (or my ears).

The bodies are a little larger than I prefer, but the fit seems pretty good. I haven't tried different tips yet, but I have had good success with SpinFits in the past and am looking forward to trying them here. I also want to try out some of my balanced cables and see how the sound changes.

 

[tinyman392]

Exactly what I thought. Nevertheless I was about to splurge and get them at Audio46 w/o many user impressions . Only to find they are back ordered.

Oh, nice. An i3/i4 owner's perspective was really all I was hoping for.

Sold! bummer I can't walk in and buy them today as I thought I would tho.

Audeze made it seem like the first batch might be a limited run when I was ordering through their website, so that would limit impressions IMO. I am surprised they didn't pass the headphones to more reviewers though.

Just received mine last night. I've only gotten a couple hours of listening time in (stupid work!), but these sound very nice with my iFi Diablo. So far I'm using it single-ended on normal with no hiss (no need for the iEMatch like my Andromedas), and I find the sound to be pretty balanced. This is my first set of planars, so I have a lot to learn here, but I'm pleasantly surprised and optimistic for these as I continue to burn them in (or my ears).

The bodies are a little larger than I prefer, but the fit seems pretty good. I haven't tried different tips yet, but I have had good success with SpinFits in the past and am looking forward to trying them here. I also want to try out some of my balanced cables and see how the sound changes.

Spinfits made the sound a bit warmer for me (tamed the upper midrange/lower treble) which is what I'm running now. I'm also kind of learning how to situate them in my ear better too; the headphones seem to like a shallow fit over a deep one IMO.

 

[eyevapor]

How do they compare to the Clairvoyance sonically? I understand that the actual sound signature will be very different, but in terms of technicalities.

In terms of detail and resolution, they sound almost identical . . . I’m not hearing anything different between the 2, both seem to pick up the most subtle of sounds and an equally detailed range of instruments.

Where they start to differ is in soundstage and imaging. The Euclids are more open, and in particular have more depth and height. Instruments have quite a bit better separation and very well defined placement in the Euclid’s presentation.

The Euclids do a great job of maintaining control regardless of volume and complexity, very fast and dynamic tracks still hold instrument separation and placement nicely. I find the Clairvoyance to get a bit muddy and the layers tend to blend together on complex tracks, especially noticeable in the lower frequencies. Also, compared to the Euclids I find the Clairvoyance notes to be a bit soft vs the very clean and precise delivery from the Euclid.

The more I listen the more I appreciate how effortlessly balanced and capable the Euclids are. I found that tracks seemed to just flow by, nothing pulling me out of the music. The wider variety of music I listen to the better they sound. The downside of course being that there are other headsets that sound better with specific kind of music or instrumentation. For really energetic, electronic or newer rock the Clairvoyance seem to fit better, the individual drivers just hit harder with certain frequencies. At the expense though of clarity and separation. Related, I’m very sensitive to certain treble frequencies, I usually can’t listen to brassy trumpets or certain timbres of vocals. Several jazz tracks were unlistenable for me on the Clairvoyance but enjoyable on the Euclids.

Overall, I guess for me I prefer a more balanced and neutral earphone that handles everything equally well at the expense of a perhaps more unique listening experience when pairing earphones with genres/instrumentation. And again, still happy with how the Euclids fit with the i4s for my listening kit.

 

[Vitaly2017]

In terms of detail and resolution, they sound almost identical . . . I’m not hearing anything different between the 2, both seem to pick up the most subtle of sounds and an equally detailed range of instruments.

Where they start to differ is in soundstage and imaging. The Euclids are more open, and in particular have more depth and height. Instruments have quite a bit better separation and very well defined placement in the Euclid’s presentation.

The Euclids do a great job of maintaining control regardless of volume and complexity, very fast and dynamic tracks still hold instrument separation and placement nicely. I find the Clairvoyance to get a bit muddy and the layers tend to blend together on complex tracks, especially noticeable in the lower frequencies. Also, compared to the Euclids I find the Clairvoyance notes to be a bit soft vs the very clean and precise delivery from the Euclid.

The more I listen the more I appreciate how effortlessly balanced and capable the Euclids are. I found that tracks seemed to just flow by, nothing pulling me out of the music. The wider variety of music I listen to the better they sound. The downside of course being that there are other headsets that sound better with specific kind of music or instrumentation. For really energetic, electronic or newer rock the Clairvoyance seem to fit better, the individual drivers just hit harder with certain frequencies. At the expense though of clarity and separation. Related, I’m very sensitive to certain treble frequencies, I usually can’t listen to brassy trumpets or certain timbres of vocals. Several jazz tracks were unlistenable for me on the Clairvoyance but enjoyable on the Euclids.

Overall, I guess for me I prefer a more balanced and neutral earphone that handles everything equally well at the expense of a perhaps more unique listening experience when pairing earphones with genres/instrumentation. And again, still happy with how the Euclids fit with the i4s for my listening kit.

Hi is that the lcd i4 you have along side now with euclid?

I am trying to figure out how the euclid stands it self against the flagship i4?

What would be their main differences? Can euclid be a flagship?

 

[tinyman392]

@eyevapor definitely agree with the Euclid's ability to separate instruments and it's ability to more or less handle any sort of track that's thrown its direction. Regarding the effortless balance... I remember when I first started listening to them, the first thing that popped into my head is that nothing really stood out. As you listen to them, that sort of becomes part of their charm IMO. It really is a true jack of all trades IEM. About an hour into getting them I definitely started to respect the time Audeze had to have put into tuning these to get this particular balance out of them. Lots of aspects of the sound seem to be driven to the edge of something, then brought back just enough so it's not a hinderance on the signature.

 

[m8o]

Spinfits made the sound a bit warmer for me (tamed the upper midrange/lower treble) which is what I'm running now. I'm also kind of learning how to situate them in my ear better too; the headphones seem to like a shallow fit over a deep one IMO.

Glad you shared this. I found these tips to be quite to my liking. As I too did not care for the "hot" upper mid / lower treble. (Turns out I was able to buy them today after all. Bought the open box Audio46 had, which they just opened to review them. So, how about that! Haha)

It must be due to the exit bore size. Which I find ironic. As with the iSine20 I like the opposite. Disliked spin fit with their smaller bore opening on the iSine; liked any tip with a very large bore opening, mostly comply tips that I pushed extra far onto the shaft which opened the tip end up more.

 

[eyevapor]

Hi is that the lcd i4 you have along side now with euclid?

I am trying to figure out how the euclid stands it self against the flagship i4?

What would be their main differences? Can euclid be a flagship?

Yes, I have the LCD i4 along side the Euclids . . . I think the main differences can be explained by the physical size of the driver and being a closed back. Tuning and technicalities seem broadly similar (ie Audeze), but just can't ignore a 3x larger size driver and closed back.

Flagship . . . depends on the definition. Flagship closed earphone ? Maybe, I haven't heard enough of the true flagships to make an accurate assessment. It will be really interesting to see what Audeze does with this new design, second and third generations could be quite amazing.

FYI I have some more detailed comments vs the LCD i4 earlier in this thread