[mvw2]

Introduction:
 
I started out picking up a couple of my favorites, the UM3X and Triple.Fi 10 after managing to get a hold of the CK100 earphone.  I have used the CK10 and CK90Pro in the past, so my curiosity with Audio Technica products are automatically high.  They just makes very good products.  The UM3X represents one of my favorite earphones and the Triple.Fi 10 represents another of my favorite and highly capable earphones.  I had a few other IEMs lying around like the RE-ZERO and Custom 3.
 
When demoing the CK100 initial impressions at first show that this is not like the CK10 or CK90Pro I've used in the past.  Impressions also started showing it seems to share some of the traits of the UM3X, in fact a lot of traits.  The sound stage, spacing, level of detail, and dynamics all relate quite significantly to the UM3X.  The CK100 reminds me a lot of the UM3X, in essence these are almost brother and sister, more so than most other products on the market.
 
Eye Candy:
 
The CK100 is a very well built,fine material earphone.  It is also quite small for a triple driver earphone.

 
Here's a comparison of the CK100 next to the UM3X.

 
Frequency Response:
 
For this test I decided to run both with their representative single flange tips.  I normally use foam tips, but I am not using the same tips for each and foam unfortunately adds coloration to the earphone.  For the most similar comparison I felt the single flange tips would best equate the two.  The frequency response test is done with a pink noise track at what I'd consider moderate listening levels.  While I tend to EQ a lot of what I use through the same method, the human perception of hearing is never constant.  Along with tips I don't normally use, this makes this response graph unique to this test.  This is what I hear at this moment with these tips at this volume level.  The graph is a rough indicator, but it it best used as a comparison tool.  I will likely revise this a little bit as I like to run through EQing over several days, tends to settle at a repeatable response after a few attempts.
 

 
Comments:
 
Both earphones exhibit exceptional detail, dynamics, seperation, sound stage, and well the list goes on.  In many ways these share many traits, and the overall sound, especially when EQed actually end up quite similar.  The UM3X with its bass emphasis gives dominance to its driving bass line.  The UM3X has some of the best bass in the business, extended, articulate, dynamic, clean.  This tends to give the UM3X a full-bodied presence and just a slightly warm and hearty sound.  While the frequency response indicate the mids are recessed, the UM3X doesn't really sound recessed.  Everything is so clean and separated that it's all still there instead of getting hidden.  The treble is detailed and extended.  The CK100 comes in more balanced, but it is obvious that the mids are more forward than the UM3X.  The CK100 almost sounds mid-centric simply because it is unusually even through the midrange.  So many earphones are V shaped in response, when we do get to an earphone with actual midrange presence it sounds mid-centric instead.  This tends to happen somewhat from the roll off on the bottom end too and if using a foam tip possibly high end roll off too.
 
So how do they actually differ?
 
Even when EQed evenly, the UM3X does offer a heartier bottom end.  The bass notes are just fuller, more robust in presence.  Even when EQed, bass always is perceived as the driving line.  The CK100 tends to drive more dominantly with the midrange.  The UM3X has a little better low end capability.  the CK100 shows more top end air and edge. The CK100 shows a little more dynamic energy while the UM3X is a little more tame and prefers to just be a little fuller in note.  Both are incredibly revealing earphones, able to show through a lot of detail.  Both are great portraying both high energy and subtlety.  The CK100 tends to bring forward the minute sounds just a hair more readily, likely due to it's better dynamic breadth and a hair more speed.  The UM3X articulates information a little better, and you get a little more texture in the notes.  The UM3X has a slightly darker, heavier sense of sound, spaced, big, powerful, showing strength through weight.  The CK100 is more edgy and aggressive, showing strength through dynamics and speed.  While the sound stage is quite good on both, the UM3X has a better sense of spacing due to its heartier note and texture.  The CK100 comes across slightly more forward due to its slightly leaner but aggressive note but has great depth due to its great dynamic range and its willingness to use it.
 
I do want to point out that aside from the frequency response, these are pretty similar earphones.  The variations are small yet important.  The biggest differences you will hear will be the heartier note and resulting bass presence of the UM3X and the dynamic range and resulting power of the CK100.  There's a little more decay on the UM3X but a little more edge and clarity of detail with the CK100.  Each bring a little something different but at the same time come across more like siblings than strangers, especially when EQed.
 
The Average Consumer:
 
So what does this really mean for the average Joe?  Well maybe not a whole lot.  Comparing the two, the CK100 is a little more balanced out of the box than the UM3X.  This isn't to say the UM3X isn't enjoyable in stock form.  The UM3X's heartier and more pronounced note and bass line that will probably be more liked by the average consumer.  The CK100 will likely come across rolled off on the bottom end, not specifically lean but lacking that visceral sense and shear presence of note.  The CK100's dynamics and speed will be more impressive and less boring for the average consumer which has a little more wow and a little more engagement in the music, but the slightly tamer behavior of the UM3X might make the UM3X a little more pleasant to listen to for a variety of audio of uncertain recording quality.  The price can be a big deal.  The CK100 retails through the few sources that it can be had from for a little north of $400.  It is also much more rare to find in the used market making cheap ones hard to come by.  The UM3X can be found a little cheaper around $50 cheaper and quite a bit cheaper used often at something more towards $75 to $100 difference used.  This can make the UM3X a bit more attractive to purchase.  Is there worth to the CK100 that would justify the price difference?  Well, that may depend on the traits you seek, but the CK100 does offer a very high build quality and some exclusivity of ownership given these are not sold openly worldwide.
 
The CK10 factor:
 
Since I figure this will be brought up, I figure I should address it now.  Should one buy the CK10 versus the CK100?  Well, all I can say is that they are significantly different in sound.  The CK10 has a more textured note and a greater sense of detail and articulation.  However, the CK100 is significantly more dynamic and energetic.  The CK100 is more engaging while the CK10 is slightly passive.  Frequency response between the two aren't all that different, although the treble peak on the CK10 is more significant and troublesome.  A lot of the difference falls in how they differ in presentation of note and this will translate throughout the frequency spectrum.  Both are incredibly fast.  The CK10 just favors texture and micro detail but is dynamically tame yet well balanced.  The CK100 is more aggressive, direct, energetic due to it's better dynamic range but doesn't share the same micro detail due to less texture.  The CK10 certainly has a price advantage and a sizable one at that.  Build quality is similar, so most of the price difference has to do with the extra driver.  There is certainly a lot of value to the CK10 because of this.  In the end, it will still come down to what kind of sound presentation you're looking for.

 

[music_4321]

Seems we've come to similar conclusions regarding the UM3X & CK100 (and the CK10 to some extent).
 
"Both [ UM3X & CK100] earphones exhibit exceptional detail, dynamics, seperation, sound stage..."
 
Interesting that you also note that both CK100 and particularly the UM3X do NOT have a small soundstage as reported by a couple of people, some even calling the UM3X soundstage "claustrophobic" or too "in your head" and saying so over and over again on different threads. I never found the UM3X soundstage small at all. By the same token I didn't find the IE8, SE535 & SM3's soundstage as large as reported by more than a few, particularly the IE8, which is said to have a huge soundstage - not true, IMO. I've found ALL IEMs have an in-your-head type of sound but not in a negative way, and some would sound different depending on how all 3 frequencies are reproduced, how they blend, but no significant differences in terms of soundstage.
 
Might also be worth mentioning to those who may not know that there is also a new UM3X that comes with detachable cables, a 1/8 in. to 1/4 in. plug adapter, an inline volume control, a better carry case and a fit-kit with 10 different eartips. The UM3X you reviewed (the older version) only comes/ came with Comply tips & a carry case, nothing else, making the small price difference quite worthwhile in favour of the new version.
 
With both the CK100 & UM3X I found the soft silicone tips more comfortable and better sounding.

 

[germanturkey]

man, everyone's jumping on the ck100 wagon..  i want to pick up a pair now, but i don't have $400 sitting around

 

[rawrster]

I think one of the reasons they are similar is that they use the same drivers I'm assuming. I remember seeing a picture of the CK100 manual or something similar and it had a picture of what the drivers look like. I know the UM3X uses the TWFK and CI22955 and I believe the CK100 uses the same. It definitely uses the TWFK and a large bass driver which most likely is the CI22955.
 
You are right about the CK10 and CK100 sounding pretty different enough to warrant one over the other. I liked the CK10 better as I didn't like the mids of the CK100 too much and it had some bad synergy with my gear at the time.

 

[mvw2]

Sorry.  I wasn't trying to go into a whole lot of detail of the CK10.  I have reviewed it elsewhere and mainly wanted to comment on some key differences.  The biggest people will experience is the better note texture of the CK10 or the better dynamics of the CK100.  The frequency range is similar, but the CK10 focuses more dominantly on the top end.  The CK100 has a greater midrange sense.  The CK100 does sound stage better, and the CK100 does come out more engaging and direct.  I wish I could go into great detail between the two, but I haven't had the CK10 for over half a year.
 
I agree on sound stage of the CK100 and UM3X.  I do understand where the claustrophobic description comes from, but the sense will vary from person to person.  Some earphones place the sounds a good distance from you.  The IE8 is an extreme example.  The "close" sounds are presented far away.  The IE8 is in many ways watching a bad on stage in a theater where you're way back up on the balcony.  Something like the UM3X brings you right up on stage and surrounds you with the music.  This may be unusual for some people and in a way claustrophobic.  What earphones like the UM3X offer is depth and separation.  The sounds end up excellently spaced and distanced, close is close, far is far, and there's a good, measurable space between them.  The depth makes the sound stage perceptibly big in size and a sound can exist in front of your nose or 30 feet away in perception.  This ability not only helps create size but also separation and layering plus lets the earphone individualize sounds and keep complex information clean and separate.
 
I can't say which drivers the CK100 uses.  I know the drivers you speak of seem to be used in quite a few high end earphones, apparently well liked.  I haven't come across any specific information that indicates what the CK100 uses.

 

[rawrster]

I remember in music_4321's thread about various earphones there was a manual with the CK100. If accurate and my assumptions are correct that's what they use but it is just assumptions. Although I don't know of too many big bass drivers and a small dual driver that has one sound tube other than those drivers I mentioned.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511135/ck100-um3x-se535-sm3-ie8-a-journey#post_6909981

 

[mvw2]

Assumptions are just that, but yeah guessing could very well lead you to that idea.  Is it correct?  Beats me.

 

[mvw2]

Some additional observations:
 
UM3X
-slightly more revealing.  The best way I can describe it is that there is more emptiness between the sounds that let the fine details show through better.  The smallest of details show through.  This is an ability that is unmatched by any other earphone I've ever used.
-the ability to create a solid sense of emptiness lets this earphone separate absolutely everything very, very well.
-the bass presence can be...overwhelming with some material.  I was watching some movie trailers, and one big thing was how overpowering the bass is with the UM3X.  I can't say it's not likable because frankly it is and can be a whole lot of fun to listen to, but it's not balanced and becomes blatant when used for material that favors balance.  There is of course always EQing.
 
CK100
-balance is a big part of the game here, one of the few big aspect that pulls the CK100 apart from the UM3X.  With the slight top end emphasis, a foam Comply tip functions well here.  I'm actually using one from the newer Triple.Fi 10 accessories package.  It's the soft, gray foam and has the correct nozzle size to work on the CK100.  The low end is well pronounced and well extended, not as hearty as the UM3X but also not actual lean or thin either like other analytical eaprhones.
-there is a specific directness to the information.  This is especially true with video where the image and sound must sync to pull you into the scene.  This is one area where the CK100 really shines versus many other earphones, including the UM3X or even its CK10 brethren.  This really aids the CK100 in pulling you into the video you're watching.
-while the CK100 doesn't quite share the absolute separation of the UM3X, sense of depth is better and sounds exist in a roomier sound stage.  Sounds seem to be able to exist both closer and farther away than what the UM3X portrays.  Now part of this is dynamics, and the CK100 does tend to come out a little more aggressive and ranged.  Another part is frequency response, and a more linear response can even out perceived placement of sounds.  This can help even out tone and perception of location and distancing.
 
 
I will likely tweak the frequency response graph in a little bit.  I like to run through the process over a few days and see if I settle on a consistent setting that I can accept.  The above graph is a first run through, decent, but I may end up a dB up or down here and there.

 

[DaEMoNteNTAcLe]

aha..
mvw2's take on the ck100. Nice and detailed as always.
 
since i own ck10, and i compared ck100 before getting ck10 and also once more recently, a few weeks back.
here's my take;
 
ck100 upper mids is more forward than ck10.
sound balance in ck100 is more focused on the mids and upper mids, but bass and treble never seem lacking. it is more level.
ck10 sound balance is more on treble, bass is more often seems to lack a bit, so always seems like a slope going upwards.
ck100 seems to have better overall air from bottom to tops, ck100 bottoms always feels a bit lacking.
ck10 sounds fuller overall to my ears, ck100 sounds thin, sometimes shrill. i cant tolerate the aggressiveness of ck100.
bass on ck100 is evidently more solid sounding.
i also always found that everything i try after ck100, even ck10 will sound recessed in the mids.
soundstage and imaging is similar on both.
 
comparison was done un-eq. I prefer ck10 smoothness. i still found ck10 to sound fuller than any other BAs i tried.
i think ck100 is sound is more BAish similar to dba-02, ck90, um3x, etc..
 

 

[mvw2]

The CK10's texture and level of detail are uncanny.  The treble peak is quite strong, but foam tips tame it a good bit.  I also end up doing the same with the CK100.
 
One key aspect I kind of look for is a directness of sound with video.  Some earphones produce a disconnected sound where you see the image and hear the sounds, but they don't seems linked.  It doesn't come across direct, immediate.  The CK10 unfortunately had this sense.  The UM3X does too.  However, the CK100 is better where what you see and what you hear are sensed as one and the same.  While this doesn't matter with music, it does matter with video.

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Quote:

Interesting that you also note that both CK100 and particularly the UM3X do NOT have a small soundstage as reported by a couple of people, some even calling the UM3X soundstage "claustrophobic" or too "in your head" and saying so over and over again on different threads. 

 
I must be one of those people because that describes my UM3X experience. The CK100 might be more my cup of tea.
 

 

[germanturkey]

ah yes, raising the mythical status of the CK10 and CK100 even more.  I don't particularly mind the treble peak the CK10s have, because it seems to be where lots of female voices and electric guitars seem to be.  and for me personally, that's the part of the music i enjoy the most.  while it is a little bass light, you can hear the bass all the way down to the bottom, there's just no thud.  i've always wanted to a/b the 100 and 10, but i've never had the chance to.

 

[mvw2]

Yeah, I typically define stage size as how big a mental space an earphone can create.  While it may start in your head, if it can portray depth really well, it can space out sounds and give excellent perception of distance.  It ends up actually creating a well sized space that the sounds exist within.  Personal preference may play a role in how intimate you may want the earphone to be though.  Some to come across more forward than others and place close information really, really close.  This is part of what makes some of these earphones like the UM3X get that stigma.  Not everyone wants that.  Earphones like the Custom 3 tend to not be so up front and I could say distance sounds out a little more natural or should I say expected.  Other earphones portray information much more distant, like the IE8 for example.  There is no close with that earphone.  Close is perceived 30 feet away.  That kind of perception is what makes it sound so big and open, yet at the same time it destroys a lot of the ability to layer and space out sounds.  Everything is so far away to start, a lot of range is already lost and a lot of the information sits on top of each other instead of being layered and spaced out.  There's a very, very feint since of depth with them, but everything is pretty much just far and that's it.  It's neat.  It's unique.  It's likable.  Yet, there is something lost in doing so.  I tend to find earphones like the UM3X, CK100, Custom 3, ER4S, RE-ZERO, C700/C751, etc. more interesting as they give you more layering, more separation, more space for the sounds to exist within and given the ability exist individually.
 
 
I don't call the CK10 or CK100 mythical.  They simply do a lot of things right.  Still personal preference plays a huge role in what you will actually like.  For example, I like the RE252 better than the CK10.  That's my preference.