No driver flex for me, I am using Sedna Shorts.
Good seal, no issues.
Campfire Audio Trifecta
- Thread starter bigbeans
- Start date
Good seal, no issues.
broopa
Head-Fier
I might need to order a set, I have the xelastec in sm and lg because I lost the medium, I don't have any issues with them, just can't get a good seal.
edit: Has anyone tried the SpiralDots?
Last edited:
Xelastecs would be the worst tips to use if you're trying to avoid flex as they provide the most airtight seal of any tip. My personal faves are sednafit crystals but any sedna tip should work.
In other news special HK edition with gold accents:
broopa
Head-Fier
Man, I love that smoked/worn look of the acrylic.Xelastecs would be the worst tips to use if you're trying to avoid flex as they provide the most airtight seal of any tip. My personal faves are sednafit crystals but any sedna tip should work.
In other news special HK edition with gold accents:
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
I think that is the smokey black version, isn`t it?
broopa
Head-Fier
It might be the 4 Imperial stouts I just drank but these feel tailor made for MF DOOM tracks.
So far my favorite tips have been the Spinfit W1 but I have a few more coming in the mail to test. Next up is a modular cable and a new DAP since the Alpha just sounds too sterile.
So far my favorite tips have been the Spinfit W1 but I have a few more coming in the mail to test. Next up is a modular cable and a new DAP since the Alpha just sounds too sterile.
X-posted to the Cooler thread.
Campfire Trifecta vs. Unique Melody Multiverse Mentor – Clash of Two Titans
I have the pleasure of hosting a Mentor unit for my tours so I thought it was a good opportunity to do a comparison. The results are some thoughts I've gathered over the course of a few hours of listening spread over the last week or so. All listneing done through the Shanling M6U.
Obvious Caveat: Trifecta is my favorite IEM. It seems to have emerged from the heavens taylored more to the exact needs and desires of my heart than any other IEM I've yet come across. So obviously I'm heavily biased here (not that most reading this aren't already aware, but I digress.)
Some thoughts on EQ
As is the case with many of us in this hobby who have been at it a long time the more I engage with IEMs, sources etc. in a systematic way my sense of my own preferences becomes both broader and more fine-tuned. Many of us like to tweak sound in various ways before it reaches our ears. This is done through sources, tubes, cables, tips, EQ and probably other things I’m forgetting. It also seems to me to be true that, more often than not, most of us are fixated on one or more area of the FR to a greater extent than the rest. In my early days in this I was fixated mostly on bass. It is thus not surprising that early on I became fixated on Campfire Audio, a company whose house sound is quite often defined by a robust and dominant bass response. Later on through exposure to companies like VE & Oriolus I came to understand the charm and importance of a clear, present and seductive midrange—often with either male or female vocals taking centre stage. It’s interesting that while I wouldn’t say my library is particularly fixated on vocals I have found that IEMs tuned around vocals tend to have everything else fall into place in a way that is generally very appealing and engaging to me. This doesn’t diminish my fixation on bass in any way…as at the end of the day it’s probably the area of the FR I’m most picky about when it comes to a “main” IEM. I supposed in that way I fall neatly into the stereotype that as a “westerner” I require a foundation of deep and satisfying bass to be happy. In any case I tend to place a higher premium on bass & mids than treble. This isn’t to say highs aren’t important to me-- I have deeply appreciated a very well executed treble in IEMs like the IER Z1R, Elysium, Ragnar, Annihilator and Gaea—it’s just that I think at most an IEM can master one, maybe two areas of the FR with the third taking more of a supporting role.
In my review of the Trifecta I noted that its primary cons for me were that at times vocals were a bit recessed or lacking some of the emotion and seduction I’d come to crave thanks to my exposure to VE & Oriolus tuning. So why is it my favorite IEM in light of the above? Because the bass is just that good. People talk all the time about technicalities with a focus on midrange resolution or upper air, refinement and sparkle. What you don’t hear mentioned as much is technicalities in the bass and in this Trifecta reigns supreme on the current market in my estimation. I have never heard bass so layered, with so much air, so well textured and with nuance and detail emanating in waves out of a centre of 3-d space. What’s even more remarkable is that this is an IEM that is an unapologetic homage to classic DD sound. No neutering of the DDs to speed them up, coat them in beryllium or make them sound closer to BAs—here the dynamic drivers are unleashed on their own terms and the result, for those of us drawn to such a sound, is glorious.
Still, with the Trifecta in its native tuning I was contemplating rounding out my collection with a more purely mids-focused IEM. While playing around with the EQ I made some adjustments in the bass & mids to preserve the grandeur and impact of the bass but to shift the FR a little towards the mids bringing vocals forward a bit and taming the mid-bass just a wee bit. The result has been a game changer for me and has turned the Trifecta from a fundamentally bass centric IEM to a more balanced presentation that is both a mids and a bass powerhouse. This is the first IEM that has fully satisfied me with its midrange and bass presentation simultaneously. Essentially with a little EQ I have taken the Trifecta and added a good dose of EXT like magic. Thus I have an IEM that effectively masters three of my main fixations— 1) a foundation of epic, technical yet natural bass, 2) open, clear and seductive mids, and 3) all mixed up with an extremely technical, massive full bodied analogue sound. The Trifecta for me takes a single classic DD sound and elevates it to the highest level.
When it came to the Multiverse Mentor my issue with the FR was almost an inverse of that with the Trifecta. With Mentor sometimes for me there is a touch too much upper mids and not enough mid-bass or bass in general. Thus I have also applied some EQ here to good effect to turn the IEM into something more satisfying in the bass and less fatiguing up top. Unfortunately though this improvement, while notable, overcome my main gripe with the IEM—its limp and in my opinion quite average BA bass response. In the case of Trifecta I applied some tweaks that unleashed something already inherent in their very capable drivers. With Mentor I was hamstrung by the limitations of the drivers themselves. It’s not their fault per se—this is purely a matter of my personal taste and preferences.
The point of my writing the above, beyond wanting to flesh out some thoughts, is that when I compare Trifecta and Mentor I will be comparing them after having EQ’d them in the way I described. I believe that when assessing an IEM I should do so under the circumstances where it sounds its best to me. (FWIW I EQ most of my IEMs.)
Mentor vs. Trifecta: General Thoughts
The reason I have titled this writing “clash of two titans” is because I think what we have here are respective epitomes of two different sonic ideals. Mentor, with its BCD augmentation, takes an all BA sound and elevates it to a very high level. Trifecta conversly takes a classic DD sound and elevates that to a very high level. Interestingly, Trifecta achieves a result similar to what I have heard with BCD only instead relying on 3 highly capable dynamic drivers in each earpiece inspire by some sacred geometry and all fixated on a single point.
Comparative strengths and weaknesses:
Mentor
+ More precise imaging
+ More resolving up top than Trifecta
+ A little more resolving in the mids than Trifecta
+ Instrumental and vocal timbre very good
+ From the perspective of highs and high mids renders complex passages more deftly than Trifecta
- Stage is wide and tall but not as deep or holographic as Trifecta
- Bass response is wide but lacks resolution and the solidity and foundational depth/impact of a DD
- Instrumental and vocal timbre is good—especially pianos—but cannot compete with the full-bodied analogue naturalness that Trifecta’s DDs can produce
- sound is very matter of fact and technical and lacks soul and substance—like a movie with epic production values but very little in terms of story.
Trifecta
+ Massive spherical 3-d stage with excellent layering and holographic presentation
+ Summit fi bass response
+ Class leading instrumental and vocal timbre
+ For a lover of bass driven, natural analogue sound without equal on the current market
+ Quite resolving for a warm, bodied dynamic signature
- Imaging not as precise as Mentor
- Not as resolving as a pure BA set like Mentor
- treble detail lags behind Mentor—mostly noticeable in complex passasages
Similarities
Trifecta and Mentor are similar in some respects, most notably in that they are both warm leaning IEMs and both notable for their massive staging.
Key Differences
The most profound difference between the IEMs in my book stems from what I said earlier about one being an epitome of BA driven sound and the other an epitome of DD driven sound. I have often referred to a comment made by Caleb Roseneau of Campfire in which is says that BAs are better at describing sound and BAs are better at making you feel it. This to me captures the essence of Trifecta vs. Mentor in a nutshell. Mentor- with its clarity, resolution and precise imaging-- is providing a fundamentally descriptive sort of sound. Trifecta, on the other hand, just envelops you with its full bodied, impactful layers of sound.
Techicalities
When I first received the Trifecta I hadn’t heard Mentor for some time. My lingering thought of it was of an IEM that wowed one with its technical impact but was wanting in terms of emotional connection. The line I used in my Trifecta review that I feel sums up the two IEMs quite succinctly is listening to each “with Mentor I’m more fixated on the precision in the imaging and with Trifecta I’m more fixated on the groove” or the soul of the music. Having spent the past week with both IEMs I still feel that this is the best way to really capture the differences between the two IEMs, beyond that Mentor is natively more of a mids and treble IEM and Trifecta is more of a bass centric IEM with great mids.
One thing that jumped out at me over and over again while a/b’ing the two IEMs is how well Trifecta held its own against Mentor in terms of its technical chops. Yes Trifecta does not have quite the level of imaging s that Mentor has but it has a deeper, more layered stage and ultimately is more natural and “correct” sounding to me on the whole due to its more analogue driven timbre. To my ears everything just sounds so right and poignant on Trifecta. Furthermore, while it is true that there is more resolution and detail up top with Mentor, the same could be said for the bottom end on Trifecta. Further, yes it is the case that there is a greater degree of native transparency in the mids on Mentor, the extra body and thickness you get on Trifecta gives it a more natural and seductive timbre and overall sound. There is obviously a heavy degree of bias here as I am someone with a strong preference for mids & bass DD sound generally. Conversely someone more interested in mids and highs or with a fixation on imaging will just by default prefer the tonality and presentation of the Mentor. In terms of value I think both IEMs offer a lot to people drawn to their respective strengths but in terms of technical capacity—a measure commonly associated with value or worth of an IEM—I must say I had a very hard time understanding how the Mentor could justify costing $1200 more than the Trifecta. At the end of the day both IEMs succeed very well at what they set out to do and whichever one prefers will be a function of their own tastes and ideals.
Some songs used in my comparisons:
Carmannah - Long Way Home
Dire Straits - Setting Me Up
Moonraker Soundtrack – Flight into Space
St. Germain – Land Of…
Daft Punk - Get Lucky
Metallica - Orion
Campfire Trifecta vs. Unique Melody Multiverse Mentor – Clash of Two Titans
I have the pleasure of hosting a Mentor unit for my tours so I thought it was a good opportunity to do a comparison. The results are some thoughts I've gathered over the course of a few hours of listening spread over the last week or so. All listneing done through the Shanling M6U.
Obvious Caveat: Trifecta is my favorite IEM. It seems to have emerged from the heavens taylored more to the exact needs and desires of my heart than any other IEM I've yet come across. So obviously I'm heavily biased here (not that most reading this aren't already aware, but I digress.)
Some thoughts on EQ
As is the case with many of us in this hobby who have been at it a long time the more I engage with IEMs, sources etc. in a systematic way my sense of my own preferences becomes both broader and more fine-tuned. Many of us like to tweak sound in various ways before it reaches our ears. This is done through sources, tubes, cables, tips, EQ and probably other things I’m forgetting. It also seems to me to be true that, more often than not, most of us are fixated on one or more area of the FR to a greater extent than the rest. In my early days in this I was fixated mostly on bass. It is thus not surprising that early on I became fixated on Campfire Audio, a company whose house sound is quite often defined by a robust and dominant bass response. Later on through exposure to companies like VE & Oriolus I came to understand the charm and importance of a clear, present and seductive midrange—often with either male or female vocals taking centre stage. It’s interesting that while I wouldn’t say my library is particularly fixated on vocals I have found that IEMs tuned around vocals tend to have everything else fall into place in a way that is generally very appealing and engaging to me. This doesn’t diminish my fixation on bass in any way…as at the end of the day it’s probably the area of the FR I’m most picky about when it comes to a “main” IEM. I supposed in that way I fall neatly into the stereotype that as a “westerner” I require a foundation of deep and satisfying bass to be happy. In any case I tend to place a higher premium on bass & mids than treble. This isn’t to say highs aren’t important to me-- I have deeply appreciated a very well executed treble in IEMs like the IER Z1R, Elysium, Ragnar, Annihilator and Gaea—it’s just that I think at most an IEM can master one, maybe two areas of the FR with the third taking more of a supporting role.
In my review of the Trifecta I noted that its primary cons for me were that at times vocals were a bit recessed or lacking some of the emotion and seduction I’d come to crave thanks to my exposure to VE & Oriolus tuning. So why is it my favorite IEM in light of the above? Because the bass is just that good. People talk all the time about technicalities with a focus on midrange resolution or upper air, refinement and sparkle. What you don’t hear mentioned as much is technicalities in the bass and in this Trifecta reigns supreme on the current market in my estimation. I have never heard bass so layered, with so much air, so well textured and with nuance and detail emanating in waves out of a centre of 3-d space. What’s even more remarkable is that this is an IEM that is an unapologetic homage to classic DD sound. No neutering of the DDs to speed them up, coat them in beryllium or make them sound closer to BAs—here the dynamic drivers are unleashed on their own terms and the result, for those of us drawn to such a sound, is glorious.
Still, with the Trifecta in its native tuning I was contemplating rounding out my collection with a more purely mids-focused IEM. While playing around with the EQ I made some adjustments in the bass & mids to preserve the grandeur and impact of the bass but to shift the FR a little towards the mids bringing vocals forward a bit and taming the mid-bass just a wee bit. The result has been a game changer for me and has turned the Trifecta from a fundamentally bass centric IEM to a more balanced presentation that is both a mids and a bass powerhouse. This is the first IEM that has fully satisfied me with its midrange and bass presentation simultaneously. Essentially with a little EQ I have taken the Trifecta and added a good dose of EXT like magic. Thus I have an IEM that effectively masters three of my main fixations— 1) a foundation of epic, technical yet natural bass, 2) open, clear and seductive mids, and 3) all mixed up with an extremely technical, massive full bodied analogue sound. The Trifecta for me takes a single classic DD sound and elevates it to the highest level.
When it came to the Multiverse Mentor my issue with the FR was almost an inverse of that with the Trifecta. With Mentor sometimes for me there is a touch too much upper mids and not enough mid-bass or bass in general. Thus I have also applied some EQ here to good effect to turn the IEM into something more satisfying in the bass and less fatiguing up top. Unfortunately though this improvement, while notable, overcome my main gripe with the IEM—its limp and in my opinion quite average BA bass response. In the case of Trifecta I applied some tweaks that unleashed something already inherent in their very capable drivers. With Mentor I was hamstrung by the limitations of the drivers themselves. It’s not their fault per se—this is purely a matter of my personal taste and preferences.
The point of my writing the above, beyond wanting to flesh out some thoughts, is that when I compare Trifecta and Mentor I will be comparing them after having EQ’d them in the way I described. I believe that when assessing an IEM I should do so under the circumstances where it sounds its best to me. (FWIW I EQ most of my IEMs.)
Mentor vs. Trifecta: General Thoughts
The reason I have titled this writing “clash of two titans” is because I think what we have here are respective epitomes of two different sonic ideals. Mentor, with its BCD augmentation, takes an all BA sound and elevates it to a very high level. Trifecta conversly takes a classic DD sound and elevates that to a very high level. Interestingly, Trifecta achieves a result similar to what I have heard with BCD only instead relying on 3 highly capable dynamic drivers in each earpiece inspire by some sacred geometry and all fixated on a single point.
Comparative strengths and weaknesses:
Mentor
+ More precise imaging
+ More resolving up top than Trifecta
+ A little more resolving in the mids than Trifecta
+ Instrumental and vocal timbre very good
+ From the perspective of highs and high mids renders complex passages more deftly than Trifecta
- Stage is wide and tall but not as deep or holographic as Trifecta
- Bass response is wide but lacks resolution and the solidity and foundational depth/impact of a DD
- Instrumental and vocal timbre is good—especially pianos—but cannot compete with the full-bodied analogue naturalness that Trifecta’s DDs can produce
- sound is very matter of fact and technical and lacks soul and substance—like a movie with epic production values but very little in terms of story.
Trifecta
+ Massive spherical 3-d stage with excellent layering and holographic presentation
+ Summit fi bass response
+ Class leading instrumental and vocal timbre
+ For a lover of bass driven, natural analogue sound without equal on the current market
+ Quite resolving for a warm, bodied dynamic signature
- Imaging not as precise as Mentor
- Not as resolving as a pure BA set like Mentor
- treble detail lags behind Mentor—mostly noticeable in complex passasages
Similarities
Trifecta and Mentor are similar in some respects, most notably in that they are both warm leaning IEMs and both notable for their massive staging.
Key Differences
The most profound difference between the IEMs in my book stems from what I said earlier about one being an epitome of BA driven sound and the other an epitome of DD driven sound. I have often referred to a comment made by Caleb Roseneau of Campfire in which is says that BAs are better at describing sound and BAs are better at making you feel it. This to me captures the essence of Trifecta vs. Mentor in a nutshell. Mentor- with its clarity, resolution and precise imaging-- is providing a fundamentally descriptive sort of sound. Trifecta, on the other hand, just envelops you with its full bodied, impactful layers of sound.
Techicalities
When I first received the Trifecta I hadn’t heard Mentor for some time. My lingering thought of it was of an IEM that wowed one with its technical impact but was wanting in terms of emotional connection. The line I used in my Trifecta review that I feel sums up the two IEMs quite succinctly is listening to each “with Mentor I’m more fixated on the precision in the imaging and with Trifecta I’m more fixated on the groove” or the soul of the music. Having spent the past week with both IEMs I still feel that this is the best way to really capture the differences between the two IEMs, beyond that Mentor is natively more of a mids and treble IEM and Trifecta is more of a bass centric IEM with great mids.
One thing that jumped out at me over and over again while a/b’ing the two IEMs is how well Trifecta held its own against Mentor in terms of its technical chops. Yes Trifecta does not have quite the level of imaging s that Mentor has but it has a deeper, more layered stage and ultimately is more natural and “correct” sounding to me on the whole due to its more analogue driven timbre. To my ears everything just sounds so right and poignant on Trifecta. Furthermore, while it is true that there is more resolution and detail up top with Mentor, the same could be said for the bottom end on Trifecta. Further, yes it is the case that there is a greater degree of native transparency in the mids on Mentor, the extra body and thickness you get on Trifecta gives it a more natural and seductive timbre and overall sound. There is obviously a heavy degree of bias here as I am someone with a strong preference for mids & bass DD sound generally. Conversely someone more interested in mids and highs or with a fixation on imaging will just by default prefer the tonality and presentation of the Mentor. In terms of value I think both IEMs offer a lot to people drawn to their respective strengths but in terms of technical capacity—a measure commonly associated with value or worth of an IEM—I must say I had a very hard time understanding how the Mentor could justify costing $1200 more than the Trifecta. At the end of the day both IEMs succeed very well at what they set out to do and whichever one prefers will be a function of their own tastes and ideals.
Some songs used in my comparisons:
Carmannah - Long Way Home
Dire Straits - Setting Me Up
Moonraker Soundtrack – Flight into Space
St. Germain – Land Of…
Daft Punk - Get Lucky
Metallica - Orion
KKNAYANA
Head-Fier
I tried some portable amps a few days ago at a local gathering in Seoul, Korea. IMHO, ALO CDM sounded best with Trifecta. Somewhat hot treble of Trifecta got smoothed just right, and the warm and euphonic character was intensified. It sounded very pleasant and organic to me. I recommend trying out ALO CDM 
It was a very satisfying experience that I bought a used one right away!!
It was a very satisfying experience that I bought a used one right away!!
I tried some portable amps a few days ago at a local gathering in Seoul, Korea. IMHO, ALO CDM sounded best with Trifecta. Somewhat hot treble of Trifecta got smoothed just right, and the warm and euphonic character was intensified. It sounded very pleasant and organic to me. I recommend trying out ALO CDM
Nice is the CDM readily available used over there? I've been curious about it for a while and they're practically unicorns over here lol
KKNAYANA
Head-Fier
CDM is quite rare in Korea, too. A used CDM comes out once a few months. I was quite lucky to find one. So I bought it right away, even though it was a little expensive.
jwilliamhurst
Headphoneus Supremus
I have been on the hunt for a CDM also!! One day I will have my precious. heh!
In the name of “science” and “ridiculous” cable experimentation, I’ve asked my friend to try a silver-based cable (in this case, Centurion) with Trifecta. He has positive things about this pairing. Just thought to share if some are wondering what cable pairings are worth experimenting on
jwilliamhurst
Headphoneus Supremus
I am curious about what cable pairings will bring out of trifecta although I do love the stock cable. I have heard the Chiron pairs well but aesthetically not so great. Trifecta needs a pleasing to the eye pairing IMOIn the name of “science” and “ridiculous” cable experimentation, I’ve asked my friend to try a silver-based cable (in this case, Centurion) with Trifecta. He has positive things about this pairing. Just thought to share if some are wondering what cable pairings are worth experimenting on
Yes, I think another friend (maybe same friend haha) also mentioned Chiron is a good pairing when I talk about cable pairings, I hope I don’t come off as dissing or treating stock cables with disdain; I just like experimenting with synergies a lot 
when I talk about cable pairings, I hope I don’t come off as dissing or treating stock cables with disdain; I just like experimenting with synergies a lot
jwilliamhurst
Headphoneus Supremus
Not at all, your posts are always very genuine and respectful. I like experimenting also, I wish we had more cable tours!Yes, I think another friend (maybe same friend haha) also mentioned Chiron is a good pairing
Users who are viewing this thread
