[benjamind]

...Well, I just did 150 hours of burn-in with a brand new pair of CM7ti. For burn-in I just used my Xin SuperMini-3 headphone amp (with crossfeed on, bass boost off, impedance switch on), and let them run with my iPod 5G with a Sik Ram din, on a repeating playlist with only 320kbits on that list. Did that more than a dozen times and finally burned them in.

For evaluation I used the SuperMini-3 with cross-feed switched on, bass boost off. With iPod 5G with Sik Ram Din as source. I switched the impedance on for one listening session, and then switched the impedance off for another session. The CM7ti are rated at 16 ohms. I think they can be powered adequately from portables, but probably best used with something that uses a push/pull output stage because they will draw an awful lot of current and quite a few portables will not render them justice because capacitor output stages tend to fall down easily when attempting to provide the current required by lower impedance transducers. The iPod Shuffle (the original design) sounded good with the CM7ti, but the iPod Nano did not sound nearly as good.

My Sensaphonics 2X-S are superb in their own right. For in-ears I think they are extremely good. I use them on buses and trains. They were pretty expensive but well worth their price because the isolation is superb and the bass extends deeply. The isolation on the 2X-S is probably bar none, the best isolation I've had, and I've used many in-ear models, but these are the best in terms of isolation.

But in a quieter setting, I must say I preferred the CM7ti earbuds with their foam covers. And by a long way I might add.

A huge difference between the CM7ti ear-buds and the 2X-S in-ears was the midrange and treble. The CM7ti was far more exquisite in the treble detail. Cymbals sounded fuller and tighter with more extension. The crash of a cymbal just decayed in the right way, just like it would in real life, as I've heard plenty of different cymbals crash in real life as one of my friends had a great drum kit that we'd jam on every now and then. The drums on the CM7ti had more impact and visceral slam, and overall bass region on the CM7ti had more detail. The whole bass region had more visceral slam and roundness than the bass region on the 2X-S. The bass extended deeper on the CM7ti. Although the bass on the 2X-S started to get more powerful in the lowest bass frequencies it could extend to, the CM7ti could extend even further, while providing better overall bass energy, because the CM7ti had a uniform bass energy across the entire bass region whereas the bass on the 2X-S tended to get more energetic the deeper the bass notes went, them dropped off very sharply at about 20hz. This sort of sounded like speakers with a subwoofer where the subwoofer kicked in at say 50hz and then bottomed out at 20hz.

The CM7ti bass went VERY low, right down to about 13hz and dropped off sharply below that, as I couldn't sense anything that really went below that. The difference between the 2X-S bass and the CM7ti bass was basically the CM7ti had much more uniform visceral slam right through the bass region, providing a more pleasant experience. The CM7ti sounded like a transmission line floorstanding speaker setup, whereas the 2X-S sounded like a two satellite plus subwoofer speaker setup.

Some would say the 2X-S is more accurate than the CM7ti, but I'd STRONGLY disagree. At least as far as the treble and tonal accuracy is concerned. I found the treble to reach much, much further on the CM7ti.

But here is by far the biggest difference. The soundstage. I found the soundstage on the 2X-S to be somewhat satisfying, but I would have preferred a wider representation of the stereo image. When playing the right recordings, the ambience, reverb depth, stereo imaging and soundstaging of the CM7ti all beat the 2X-S. I could hear more reverb tail information on the CM7ti. The ambience and reverb on these earphones are rendered with aplomb and withouth a hint of brightness.

All I can say is...the CM7ti is a clear winner. In a quiet setting such as my bedroom, or while visiting relatives, I don't even bother with the 2X-S anymore. The only time I use the 2X-S is when I want lots of isolation when I'm riding on a bus or a train. The 2X-S certainly fare a lot better than the CM7ti in that regard, and of course the 2X-S will sound MUCH better in those situations where lots of isolation is required.

But at the end of the day, when you hear them side by side in a quiet setting, the CM7ti just slaughters the 2X-S. Like a pit bull terrier and a chihuahua. Well, you get the idea. The 2X-S by comparison just lacks treble extension and decay. The bass and midrange definition on the 2X-S is good, but the tonal accuracy, top-end extension, stereo imaging, reverb, and width and depth of the soundstage on the CM7ti is absolutely PHENOMENAL.

And the winner is...well you know.

Ben

 

[jdimitri]

...you're nuts

 

[Esidarap]

Not surprising. I'm close to coming to the conclusion that IEMs are to be avoided unless you absolutely need isolation.

 

[benjamind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdimitri /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...you're nuts

Care to elaborate on why you quickly arrived at that conclusion?

Yeah, I admit I paid too much for the 2X-S, I should have stayed with my UM2 which was good enough, I was just so curious about the 2X-S to see how it would perform. Maybe an extra 10% of quality over the UM2, not much more. In short, I spent a lot of moolah on something that wasn't any better. In retrospect (hindsight is just so #$%&ing great, ain't it?) I should have kept the UM2 and got the CM7ti a long time ago.

Seriously, this CM7ti truly blows both of these away, the bass is spectacular if you use the foam pad covers. I don't use bass boost in the Supermini-3 as I find the bass to be perfectly adequate, if not even more than adequate, without that feature. But crossfeed certainly benefits some old recordings.

But bass and low-mids aren't what I was interested in the CM7ti for, it was the upper mids and top-end and of course stereo imaging and depth/width of the soundstage, both of which the CM7ti deliver with aplomb on good recordings. On bad recordings, the CM7ti will show you that it's a bad recording, as they tend to be harsh and nasal on poor recordings. Also, low bitrate MP3 don't shine on the CM7ti either. I wouldn't listen to anything lower than 256kbits on these outrageously good earbuds to be honest.

Of course, *some* fullsize headphones will blow the CM7ti away in terms of tonal accuracy and treble definition. In soundstage, yes, many fullsize headphones produce a wider soundstage, but certainly not a deeper (reverb detail) soundstage. AD1000 only just beats them by a mere smidgeon in terms of definition, and the AD2000 (which is double the price of AD1000) most assuredly blows the earbuds away (better stereo imaging and better timbral accuracy and of course better resolution and better bass energy in the lowest extensions). That is to be expected. Earbuds aren't fullsize headphones so I'm not expecting a wide soundstage. But a seriously deep soundstage? I found the CM7ti to sound better than the vast majority of fullsized headphones I've ever used in that respect. Including the Ultrasone Proline 750 closed headphones!!! I could comfortably say the CM7ti offer the best soundstage depth for just about anything this side of $1000.

Ben

 

[yjs]

I love my CM7ti's but I'm having a bit of a dillema as to whether I should leave the foamies on or off. Bass and isolation is vastly improved with foamies but at the expense of detail and treble, although I do admit the CM7ti's can be a little too bright (but never fatiguing IMO).

 

[jdimitri]

I was joking, sorry it wasn't as obvious as i intended it to be

If you have the time and feeling adventurous, look up my review of Yuin PK1
I think the PK1 easily beats the UM2 in quiet environment

I gave a CM7ti owner a listen of the PK1 and he said the PK1 sounds clearer and bigger.. Hmm i'll give the CM7 a listen one day

My only complaint is that it looks cheap.. oh well

ps. I'm getting ES2, really hope that it'll be at least as good as the PK1

 

[benjamind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yjs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love my CM7ti's but I'm having a bit of a dillema as to whether I should leave the foamies on or off. Bass and isolation is vastly improved with foamies but at the expense of detail and treble, although I do admit the CM7ti's can be a little too bright (but never fatiguing IMO).

I must say my experience with the CM7ti was using the foam covers. I believe it's important to protect the actual drivers. I found no difference in the treble definition and imaging with the foam covers either on or off. But I did notice a slight difference in the visceral slam of the bass response. I think the foam covers do help to provide a better seal. But the covers also function as a protector for the drivers.

The 2X-S canalphones beat all of the canalphones I've heard - Shure E2, E3, E5, Etymotic ER4S/P, ER6i, Westone UM2, and Creative Aurvana, the 2X-S blow all of them away. I think the mid/high frequencies are just more refined on the 2X-S. The 2X-S has phenomenal low bass extension, but this extension seems to come at the cost of uniform response across the bass region and tends to weaken somewhat in the upper bass region. It's certainly very enjoyable. Kills the vast majority of canalphones. It's a custom IEM and the drivers are of very high quality.

But that's where it ends, and where the CM7ti begins. It takes what the 2X-S has, and adds a more uniform bass response across the entire bass region, and a more fluid midrange and much farther extended treble providing a much more detailed reverb tail and definition in treble-heavy objects such as cymbals and chimes. The bass on the CM7ti would easily go down to 15hz, to the point where you will feel vibration on your ears. I couldn't say the same for the 2X-S, but it certainly had great bass extension and energy albeit not as unform across the entire bass range.

I must say that for the price ($120-130 US dollars), the CM7ti is a steal! Some would say it's overpriced, but I found that it's quite underpriced for the quality you can achieve, provided you use a decent amp like the SuperMini-3 and a decent source. It's refined to the point where it's totally pointless for any other earbuds or canalphones, and even some fullsized headphones to compare to the CM7ti.

Ben

 

[jlingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... A huge difference between the CM7ti ear-buds and the 2X-S in-ears was the midrange and treble. The CM7ti was far more exquisite in the treble detail. Cymbals sounded fuller and tighter with more extension. The crash of a cymbal Ben

Hi Ben, may I know when did you acquire your sensaphonics 2X-S? I believe the newer 2X-S has upgraded their high frequency driver as well. Resulting in a much more detailed high compared to its predecessor. The soundstage is also much bigger than before.

But hey congratulations for being content with USD$130.- earbuds, certainly save your wallet greatly. I don't think I can go back to anything lower than Custom IEM nowadays. The isolation is very critical in my case. Whenever I don't need much isolation, I go ahead and use my HD600 or Klipsch iFi.

 

[CuriousVoiger]

I enjoyed the CM7ti immensely, especially with well encoded mp3’s or out of cd’s, their tonal have really something special/magical (kudos to ATH), not so much with poor encoded mp3’s though.
But better than the 2X-S? Wow

However, I’d take my E500 over them any time of the day, not even in the same league afa my hearing is concerned.

cheers!

 

[benjamind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlingo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Ben, may I know when did you acquire your sensaphonics 2X-S? I belieirve the newer 2X-S has upgraded the high frequency driver as well. Resulting in a much more detailed high compared to its predecessor. The soundstage is also much bigger than before.

Hi Jilingo. I believe my 2X-S were made in November 2005 and were shipped from the USA. Are these the upgraded drivers?

My CM7ti runs rings around them in top-end definition. I heard canalphones can't go much higher than 16k from what I understand which does have an impact on stereo imaging and depth of the soundfield as well as the harmonic structure of instruments, but these CM7ti easily reach 30k or so, they are rated to go to 45k so they might actually reach those frequencies. They just sound so much more refined. Shame they don't isolate.

Ben

 

[Question]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdimitri /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 

 

[niknik]

Damn you Ben, I gotta hear these now

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif My CM7ti runs rings around them in top-end definition. I heard canalphones can't go much higher than 16k from what I understand which does have an impact on stereo imaging and depth of the soundfield as well as the harmonic structure of instruments, but these CM7ti easily reach 30k or so, they are rated to go to 45k so they might actually reach those frequencies. They just sound so much more refined. Shame they don't isolate. Ben

IMHO, the specs are completely useless. They probably detected the 45k at -10dB or something. They're extremely optimistic specs and I have learned to ignore them. It's a bit like Sony and their equally ridiculous FR specs. It's what you actually hear that counts. FYI, the E500 canal phones are rated up to 19kHz. Anyhow, you got me interested in these earbuds! While I refuse to believe that they sound better than custom IEMs (I guess I'm biased), I'm glad that you've found a much cheaper alternative. Too bad you had to find out the hard way

I wonder how the CM7ti compare to its successor, the CM700ti (only 10-24k FR

)

 

[jlingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjamind /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Jilingo. I believe my 2X-S were made in November 2005 and were shipped from the USA. Are these the upgraded drivers? My CM7ti runs rings around them in top-end definition. I heard canalphones can't go much higher than 16k from what I understand which does have an impact on stereo imaging and depth of the soundfield as well as the harmonic structure of instruments, but these CM7ti easily reach 30k or so, they are rated to go to 45k so they might actually reach those frequencies. They just sound so much more refined. Shame they don't isolate. Ben

That should be the older version. Mine is on October 2006 version. There is another member who confirmed on this change as well in 2X-S sonic signature.

 

[benjamind]

Yeah, it's the older version. The highs just suck compared to the CM7ti. They just don't extend far enough. It's not like the highs are subdued, they are completely cut off compared to the CM7ti. I guess they won't be willing to upgrade it for a minimal fee? Not something insanely outrageous like $600 US dollars? Am I wrong?

The CM700ti are not as good as the CM7ti. I spoke to a friend who used both models. He assumed the CM700ti were upgraded CM7tis but he was proven wrong. He said the CM700ti have recessed highs compared to the CM7ti, and the midrange isn't as good and the bass is different - not better or worse - but different in some way that he can't describe. He says they're a cut below the CM7ti. Someone else was talking about them and indeed they were right. They also cheaped out on the 1/8" plug!

Ben