[tomscy2000]

  Those are pretty precise rules for soundstage width lol. Is there a place where I could read up on this?

 
Not really that precise; those are really big margins (look at the numbers), and they're basically just general rules for relatively accurate mids and god treble extension. Also, I should say that these are rules that I made up --- based on all the reading that I've done (there is lots of reading material, but it's everywhere and there's no "Bible for IEM Design", so you'll have to synthesize it together yourself), and the hundreds of IEMs that I've heard. If you ask an IEM maker whether these "rules" are good, they'll say, "Yeah, but it's hard to achieve". These "rules" are more like ideals. I'm just giving out general principles of sound acoustic design.

 

[Love Music]

 
I can't predict what you mean by vocals, but I don't think you'd have a problem with respect to forward, "airy" vocals with the IM04. The IM03 has the possibility of sounding a little hollow, however, but I can't guarantee that you'll feel the same way. No issues with soundstage size, either. In general, I don't quibble about size of soundstage unless it's purposely made big, e.g. IE8/80, 1Plus2, etc. For all others, The general rule of thumb for soundstage width is linear treble extension, a reasonable 800-2500 Hz boost ~9-15 dB, and non-recessed 3-4 kHz region, i.e. doesn't drop more than 4.5 dB from the 2.5-2.7 kHz peak. Also, no big phase shifts in the midrange, e.g. sudden 0-90 degree room phase shift. All of this probably doesn't mean much to you, but if I were to guess, you wouldn't have a problem with the vocals or soundstage of either the IM03 or IM04.

I see. That's really interesting I will try using this eq to see what happens to the sound later on. How is the soundstage compared to the Parterre and the 334's? Also I forgot to ask is the IM04 less bassy than the Parterres reviews seems quite mixed about the Parterres mids and bass. Some say it's recessed in the mids, but others say that it's neutral or a bit forward.

 

[quartertone]

I'm wondering when cables for these are going to be available. 

 

[cwk88]

bought IM03 last week. my CK10 is time to rest 

 
size comparison IM03 & CK10:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/690/nzqs.jpg

 

[tomscy2000]

  I'm wondering when cables for these are going to be available. 

 
Just be patient. With a company like ATH banking half their entire enthusiast IEM portfolio on this new cable setup, at the very least we'll see companies like Oyaide and Furutech come out with aftermarket cables. It's a matter of making the negative master mold for that connector head.
 

  I see. That's really interesting I will try using this eq to see what happens to the sound later on. How is the soundstage compared to the Parterre and the 334's? Also I forgot to ask is the IM04 less bassy than the Parterres reviews seems quite mixed about the Parterres mids and bass. Some say it's recessed in the mids, but others say that it's neutral or a bit forward.

The IM04 is perhaps a little more bassy, but also more mid-forward than the Parterre. The Parterre is very slightly mid-recessed. The IM04 is slightly less mid-forward than the 334, and is a tiny bit more laid-back in the treble. I don't like to comment on soundstage because people tend to define their subjective perception of soundstage quite differently.

 

[AkiTAKA]

Audio-Technica says that they have gone with this style of cable because they wanted to make the cables be as durable as possible with emphasis on the joint. these IEMs are not manufactured with the intent of recabling the IEMs but rather to improve the longevity of the IEM as a whole 

 

[quartertone]

Huh? Then why make them detachable?

 

[Love Music]

 
 
The IM04 is perhaps a little more bassy, but also more mid-forward than the Parterre. The Parterre is very slightly mid-recessed. The IM04 is slightly less mid-forward than the 334, and is a tiny bit more laid-back in the treble. I don't like to comment on soundstage because people tend to define their subjective perception of soundstage quite differently.

No problem. Just wondering how the IM03 and IM04 compares to your CK100PRO since you seem to rate them highly.

 

[audionewbi]

  No problem. Just wondering how the IM03 and IM04 compares to your CK100PRO since you seem to rate them highly.

he extensively compared them on one of his post. In summary IM03 is ck100pro with a tunning that is less harsh and IM04 is a different tunning with a more of a lower end present with better overall presentation, he did not mention soundstage as he found that is very subjective.
 
He recommend IM04 as an overall. 

 

[tomscy2000]

  he extensively compared them on one of his post. In summary IM03 is ck100pro with a tunning that is less harsh and IM04 is a different tunning with a more of a lower end present with better overall presentation, he did not mention soundstage as he found that is very subjective. He recommend IM04 as an overall. 

This is a very good synthesis of what I wanted to get across --- couldn't have put it better myself!
 
For the record, I have not owned the CK100PRO in over a year, but I have heard others on occasion since then.

 

[Love Music]

Ah ok thanks. Is there any reason why you liked the CK100 PRO more than the IM03? Is it because it sounds more hollow in the mids or that you like a much brighter sound? 

 

[audionewbi]

This is a very good synthesis of what I wanted to get across --- couldn't have put it better myself!

For the record, I have not owned the CK100PRO in over a year, but I have heard others on occasion since then.

I told you a while back I am fan of your work I just didn't want to show how much of a fan I am, could be a scary thing.

 

[tomscy2000]

Ah ok thanks. Is there any reason why you liked the CK100 PRO more than the IM03?

I like the CK100PRO because it's prettier.​

​

That's all.​

 

[Sinocelt]

You're such a superficial person.

 

[cwk88]

hmm.. i still like my CK10 because voice & instrument clearer than IM03. maybe my IM03 still new & not yet "open". i hope so