CanJam SoCal 2018 (April 7-8, 2018) Impressions thread

First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Page 12 of 13
13
Next
 
Last
  1. XERO1
    Yep! That's pretty much what I heard with the Empyrean at the TSAV booth. I reeeally hope the final voicing is identical to that one! :fingers_crossed::pray: :o2smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
    jurumal and moedawg140 like this.
  2. moedawg140 Contributor
    You and me alike! :pray: :fingers_crossed:
     
    XERO1 likes this.
  3. miceblue
    These might be of interest to read about:
    Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect
    https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548
    Cited over 150 times by other peer-reviewed papers since its publishing; not bad at all! But, they were using custom loudspeakers, a specific model amplifier for the high-frequency content with a 0.5-150000 Hz +/- 3 dB frequency response specification, a high-frequency-capable microphone, and music content with prevalent high-frequency overtones (Gamelan). Gamelan is pretty much the single-most widely used music genre for supersonic frequency studies and is what originally got me interested in high sample-rate recordings.


    And here's another interesting paper:
    WHICH OF THE TWO DIGITAL AUDIO SYSTEMS BEST MATCHES THE QUALITY OF THE ANALOG SYSTEM?
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.724.9314&rep=rep1&type=pdf
     
    Wildcatsare1 likes this.
  4. sejsel
    I could then use the paper from the university, that you have kindly provided yourself, and some excerpts from it:

    "This may indicate that we do not need 100 kHz microphones and 100 kHz loudspeakers, but we do need 100 kHz capable recorders. This conclusion, based on listening to
    the audio scene captured and reproduced with microphones and loudspeakers limited to 20 kHz bandwidth, indicates that high-sampling conversion system seems to be more transparent and
    provides a higher degree of fidelity to the analog reference.
    "

    and what Tim de Paravicini sats regarding the same issue:

    "Ten years ago in Stereophile, I said that digital was never going to work well in the chosen format. Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."

    Now, I won't go into dissecting this paper, how it has been done, (at least not for a moment), but what I can notice immediately can be read by anyone rather easily.

    Furthermore:

    "Our listeners also reported that when they were listening to the wider bandwidth, up to 100 kHz, of analog audio converted to digital, they would choose the low-sampling rate of digital audio as sounding more like the analog transmission. "

    100 kHz, and we were talking earlier about what in human hearing - half of this 100 khz (analog) ?
    I believe I would have chosen myself lower sampling rate of the 100kHz signal. Since the sampling is picking of the information of the original audio analog signal. After all, we (and de Paravicini) were talking about 45 - 50 - 40 Khz earlier, if I am not mistaken ?

    Well, I have not read in detail how this analogue (reference) recording was made, which can be an importan factor; after all, I have my own academia to take care of (studies) and am bogged down by it to a large extent, but - there is an analogue, and there is an analogue, even when it comes to recording it:

    "Although de Paravicini will upgrade any tape machine, his favorite is the legendary Studer C37. "It’s a good, reliable workhorse," he says. According to him, the C37 blows away everything else, even an Ampex MR70. The C37’s tube circuitry is simple, with no microprocessors to get in the way. Even before the upgrade, the C37’s specs are notable. The frequency response is rated as 20 Hz to 15 kHz, +1, -2 dB, and S/N is 75 dB (rms, weighted) at 15 ips. After de Paravicini’s modifications, the response is 7 Hz to 35 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and S/N is 90 dB!

    One happy user of a de Paravicini tape deck is Chris Rice, owner of Altarus Records, a classical label. Rice had de Paravicini modify three Studer C37s - two 1-inch and one half-inch. "The heads were custom made to Tim’s specifications," says Rice. "The mechanical modifications he did himself. He stripped the electronics out and rebuilt his own circuitry into the existing modules, doing hundreds of modifications. He uses his own EQ curve. He also provides an AC mains regenerating power supply because the machines are not quartz locked; they depend on mains frequency. By doubling the capstan diameter, Tim doubled the tape speed from 7 1/2/15 ips to 15/30 ips

    What’s the main advantage of your 1-inch analog recorder over digital recorders?

    The sound quality. My analog recorder has four times the sampling frequency! The bias frequency is 160 kHz. The magnetic-particle flow past a playback head is equivalent to a 24-hit word, which is amazing resolution.

    ................

    You've said that we experience sound down to 3 Hz, and that reproduction down to this frequency is essential. Do studio consoles go down that far?

    No. The average console has all these cumulatively rubbish electronics in it. If you cascade 10 amplifiers, each with a response down 1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, you end up with a cumulative 10 dB down from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. So you must minimize all degradation. Since I use a lot of transformers in my stuff, each transformer must be very wideband.

    Unfortunately, the average manufacturer looks at only one piece of equipment, in isolation. They quote a tape machine as having a response of 50 Hz to 15 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and say that's fine. Yes, in isolation. But not as a cumulative system. Tony Faulkner uses a mixing console of mine, full of tubes and transformers, but it's vastly flatter than most of the mixing consoles on the market.

    "

    Now, from the paper you have cited, again:


    These results seem to indicate that the ultra high-frequency content may not be necessary to reproduce audio that sounds more transparent. Supersonic content may contain noise-like artefacts that interfere with the perceived transparency of audio.

    However, to achieve a higher degree of fidelity to the live analog reference, we need to convert audio using high sampling rate even when we do not use microphones and loudspeakers having bandwidth extended far beyond 20 kHz.

    Listeners judge high sampling conversion as sounding more like the analog reference when listening to standard audio bandwidth
    .
    These results suggest that the archiving community should consider using high-sampling conversion to ensure transparency even if the recording is made with standard audio-bandwidth transducers, and when digitizing older recordings made with bandwidth-limited analog systems."

    So, first wee need to filter out the sampling rate discussion vs. the reproducing or playing (bit rate) bandwidth (or call it how you choose) of the digitized file when talking about digital audio, two well known entities.

    We can perhaps (for the moment) leave the discussion about the human perception of "hearable" sound (just for the sake of the argument) outside - just for the moment. Not that I am shying from it at all.

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, but to me there are some obvious similarities in what paper says vs. what de Paravicini says regarding the sampling quality of the analog material (whatever the analog source now is).

    Furthermore, the paper says clearly: These results suggest that the archiving community should consider using high-sampling conversion to ensure transparency
    even if the recording is made with standard audio-bandwidth transducers, and when digitizing older recordings made with bandwidth-limited analog systems."

    On one hand, you have this claim about the standard audio bandwith transducer made recordings, and on the other hand you have a person who was doing this - with the analog recordings and analog recording equipment, capturing the analog signal, (and only then being transferred to digital in some cases) :

    Although de Paravicini will upgrade any tape machine, his favorite is the legendary Studer C37. "It’s a good, reliable workhorse," he says. According to him, the C37 blows away everything else, even an Ampex MR70. The C37’s tube circuitry is simple, with no microprocessors to get in the way. Even before the upgrade, the C37’s specs are notable. The frequency response is rated as 20 Hz to 15 kHz, +1, -2 dB, and S/N is 75 dB (rms, weighted) at 15 ips. After de Paravicini’s modifications, the response is 7 Hz to 35 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and S/N is 90 dB!

    What’s the main advantage of your 1-inch analog recorder over digital recorders?


    The sound quality. My analog recorder has four times the sampling frequency! The bias frequency is 160 kHz. The magnetic-particle flow past a playback head is equivalent to a 24-hit word, which is amazing resolution."

    When you pit these statements "against" or next to each other, anyone can read what they say. No wonder his recorders have been deemed to be more true to the source by some very experienced people in the music industry using his recorder, and no wonder he goes further into saying what we need both in terms of human hearing perception (by the industry) and digitizing the audio.

    I understand that this is only the part of the discussion, for time reasons only (my own time) I have chosen to address this for the moment.

    I have not forgotten other (earlier posts) - more about that later.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  5. miceblue
    Yup, the results seem similar to what de Paravicini stated. The results from those experiments didn't state why the higher sampling rate recordings sounded better to the participants, but perhaps it's due to better transient response playback. That's something I think Rob Watts had mentioned before regarding that plus the ultra-low noise designs of his DAC products.




    Speaking of though, I heard the iSine 20 on the Qutest DAC and Gilmore Lite amp at CanJam, and I was quite impressed with it. I still prefer the iSines with the Cioher cable, but alas I don't have an iDevice to use it with. I'd have to compare it with the iSine 10 again on the same setup to get a better evaluation of the two as I had previously preferred the 10 over the 20 with the regular 3.5 mm cable. On this setup, the 20 sounded very smooth on the treble whereas it was grainier-sounding the last time I heard it on a FiiO X5 gen 3.
     
  6. Mark Up
    I felt they isolated enough. Definitely the most isolating, nowhere near what you get on noise reducing cans. Compared to the HD800S or any open back or semi open, it was significantly more isolating to my ears. These aren't cans for "the loud subway or street". Their being closed is more for those who don't want to bother someone nearby, or reduce outside noses, like televisions in the next room, a window air conditioner. In the studio where these have the most potential, it can be used both for recording (as not to bleed sound into the microphone), as they'll use much worse sounding closed cans for, and you can also mix or master on it (I would rarely say this about any headphone). It's proper low end extension is a big part of that, as well as the clear yet not hyped or peaky treble. I can't stress how the lack of midrange resonances (reflections, ringing, hollow or boxy sound) will put them above many other closed cans.
     
    miceblue likes this.
  7. miceblue
    It does have a mighty impressive sound given that it's a closed-back headphone for sure. I wonder if they tried different curvatures of glass to get its tuning just right. I don't think I've seen a headphone with a concaved earcup before.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
    Mark Up likes this.
  8. greenmountain
    Higher sampling rate have a positive effect on the audible range because the artifacts of digital filters are moved further to inaudible frequencies and the transients maybe better albeit some experts deny that.
     
  9. greenmountain
    I was reading a comment that the curvature was optimsed to disperse the back reflection of the driver and absorptive materials is surrounding it.
     
  10. JabenZ
    I think in one of the interviews (maybe the audio 46 in canjamNY one) said the same thing.
     
  11. alffla
    Hey guys. A little late to the party, but life got in the way of things and I didn't have time to write up all my impressions. But finally, here they are !!

    It so happened that work brought me over to Los Angeles in Sunny Southern California, and so I could not miss the opportunity to attend my first CanJam.I arrived at around 11:45 and promptly went to pick up my press pass for Accessible Audio; there was simply no time to waste. I knew there were going to be too many IEMs and not enough time.

    [​IMG]

    I saw many familiar faces such as Campfire Audio’s Ken Ball right next to the entrance. There were exciting new products from CFA to try, but I wanted to expand my perspectives and try something from a brand I’ve never tried before, so my first stop was…

    Note: I tested all the below products with an Ipad Pro 12.9″

    ADVANCED
    Advanced M4

    • This was my first time trying Advanced’s products, so I didn’t know what to expect. I was quite impressed by the M4 as they told me it was one of their first products. They mentioned that it is one of their biggest hits, and in my opinion rightfully so. It offers great value for money and I recommend it for a solid budget purchase.


    [​IMG]
    • Form factor kind of like Yamaha EPH-100
    • Full, well rounded and warm slightly V-shaped sound.
    • Vocals are slightly recessed
    • Impedance is a little high, not surprising of dynamic drivers but it’s still easily drivable by mobile devices.
    Advanced S2000


    [​IMG]
    • Even lower price point than the M4 at 25usd.
    • Much muddier sound, especially in low frequencies.
    • Loose impact.
    • No sibilance, very warm sound.
    • Stiff competition from ChiFi offerings.
    • Comfortable shape.
    Advanced Model 3


    [​IMG]


    • Detachable MMCX cable for wired and Bluetooth wireless use.
    • Prominent warm, V shaped sound.
    • Bass goes quite deep. Overall solid but slightly boomy in subbass.
    • Female vocals sound slightly nasal.
    Advanced Model 3D

    [​IMG]
    • Hybrid 1DD + 2BA design.
    • Prototype stage, has replaceable tuning filter
    • Much snappier mids than the Model 3
    • Slight bass bleed but overall well balanced
    • Nice metal housing
    • Bass a little more solid impact than 1More Triple Driver.
    • Vocals are a little recessed, low mids are a little muddy.
    Advanced M5 1DD
    • 399USD
    • Quite a wide soundstage
    • Nice airy vocals
    • Very neutral sound
    • Leans bright
    • Good sense of height
    Advanced M5 Hybrid


    [​IMG]
    • 599USD
    • Bass is more solid and highs and mids way more defined
    • Slight sibilance
    • Male vocals a little thin and distant
    • Snare impact a little weak when song gets busy
    • Good detail retrieval in the highs
    Advanced M5 11 driver

    • Bass is just north of neutral
    • More detail oriented listening
    • Quite a smooth sound
    • Overall very neutral sound signature
    • Can get a little congested at busier moments
    Advanced GT3


    [​IMG]
    • Mid to mid-high centric
    • Sounds sort of like a balanced armature due to mid and high focused sound.
    • Soundstage oriented
    • Good build quality
    • Rather thin sounding
    Advanced GT4

    [​IMG]

    • Disappointing, typical thin and unrefined single balanced armature sound that BAs get a bad rep for having.
    Campfire Audio
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Campfire Audio Comet

    • Mid-centric sound, with really smooth mids.
    • Not a lot of sub-bass, it sounds kind of distant, giving a slightly wide soundstage
    • Not too metallic or unnatural sounding; Campfire Audio has somehow worked their magic again to make a smooth sounding balanced armature design
    • Not an over ear design
    • I tried to push it with some bass heavy music like trance and it was actually able to give some decent bass impact
    • Great for vocals!
    Campfire Audio Atlas

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    • Has some big, big, phat sounding bass
    • The Atlas has taken the edge off the highs that were present in the Vega, that many people complained about as it was sibilant for some.
    • Snares have a strong impact
    • Overall a slightly darker sound than the Vega.
    • In my opinion the bass is a little too much, slightly too bloated for my liking.
    • Weighs more than the Comet slightly
    Campfire Audio Cascade
    • Only tried this briefly as I wanted to move on to try more IEMs but my experience is basically a more open sounding, headphone version of the Lyra 2 or the Vega!
    • Has Campfire’s signature sound, tight bass with well extended highs.
    • Really comfortable to wear
    Meze
    Meze Rai Penta

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    • Fun but very tight and solid bass. The mids are really nice, slightly warm but quite neutral with a nice fullness.
    • Slightly forward mids but not too much.
    • Overall quite balanced sound signature.
    • Would compare it to the Acoustune HS1551 CU but with a tighter bass and slightly crisper mids
    • Not a huge soundstage
    • Bass goes deep but also fades decently quickly great bass texture
    • Really comfortable fit, easy to drive. And cool design too!
    • Super coherent. I can’t even tell it’s a hybrid
    DUNU


    DUNU used to be a Chinese OEM manufacturer for other brands, until one day they thought – why don’t we make our own designs? They’ve slowly built up a following, although they’re still not very mainstream but I highly recommend their products. Their pricepoint may be higher than most cheap, budget “ChiFi” products you see around on the market, but they definitely give you your money’s worth in terms of build quality, sound, design, and packaging. And you know they’re not just ripping off a design from other brands. *cough KZ*

    DUNU Falcon C

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    • -220USD – really competitive sound, design, and build quality for its price point, I give it a good value for money rating.
      -Nice grippy braided cable
      -I used Spinfits for testing
      -Massive sound with solid bass and slightly brighter mid highs . Great snappiness in mid highs as well.
      -Not a super phat subbass but really nice impact
      -Vocals not the most forward, neutral positioning.-Really comfortable fit
      -Slightly bright female vocals
    DUNU DK-3001


    [​IMG]
    • A little bassier and warmer than falcon
    • Overall fuller sound than the Falcon-C, and vocals are more fleshed out.
    • But less lively in mid highs
    • Highs are nicely extended, edging on sibilance at certain moments though.
    • Very coherent for a hybrid design
    FiiO
    [​IMG]

    FiiO FH5 prototype

    • Hybrid 1dd 3ba
    • Incredibly coherent
    • Gentle bass and overall smooth and non aggressive sound
    • Pretty smooth and laid back and good for long listening sessions.
    • Slight roll off in highs for extra smoothness
    • Good amount of detail retrieval in lows and mids
    • 200USD – I’m confident this is going to be a huge hit when it comes out.
    • Rather large form factor; won’t fit everyone.
    FiiO F9 pro


    [​IMG]
    • Tested with Comply foam tips
    • Bass goes low but not very strong solid impact
    • Vocals sound a little distant
    • Decent soundstage and high extension
    • A little grainy but good for price
    • Slight sibilance
    • Maybe a little too laidback mids
    Empire Ears
    I was super impressed by the new X Series; they are not lying when they say the bass is simply physical. Those W9 subwoofers (dynamic drivers) in the X Series line are no joke. They promised the bass and they definitely brought it, but somehow the tuning is so perfect that it still has an audiophile quality to it and not just pure bass head muddiness. Please try them for yourself; words aren’t enough to describe the feeling.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Empire Ears Bravado

    • Very warm bass, with a lot of separation from mids and highs
    • Very physical feeling bass
    • Amazing sound for just 2 drivers
    • That subbass…
    • Decent soundstage
    • Vocals not the most well resolved but still decent
    • Slight dip in low mids
    • I have to reiterate. This is really amazing for 2 drivers design. The price is high but I haven’t tried any other dual driver hybrids that sound anything like this.
    Empire Ears Vantage

    • So much sense of air in the lows
    • More well resolved than the Bravado in terms of bridging the lows and mids.
    • Better vocals
    Empire Ears Nemesis

    • Still has that signature X Series slammin’ bass
    • Much more defined highs than the previous IEMs.
    • Nice warm mids, and non sibilant highs.
    Empire Ears Legend X

    • Vocals more forward and really really intimate and lively
    • Great soundstage
    • That bass…my god.
    • Female vocals didnt seem as nice as male vocals though
    • Nice detail up top and mids
    • Nice discreet porting for DD
    Empire Ears Phantom

    • Much tighter BA bass than X series
    • Still a very full low end
    • Very warm sound
    • Vocals are well resolved.
    • Well, everything is well resolved. The Phatnom just has a dry, rather clinical tone
    JH Audio

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Jerry Harvey Audio Lola

    • Adjustable bass tuning
    • Bass at the highest tuning gets pretty boomy, but at the low and middle tuning the bass generally stays in the background
    • Mids are definitely very well resolved and have natural timbre
    • Highs are pretty smooth, decently extended
    • Very coherent sound. You would be hard pressed to tell that it’s a hybrid design.
    Brainwavz
    [​IMG]

    Brainwavz B400

    • Overall dry, clinical tone with neutral sound signature
    • Slightest bass boost
    • Laidback, and ideal for long listening sessions
    • Smooth, slightly rolled off highs.
    Brainwavz B200

    • More V-Shaped than the B400 for sure
    • Warmer, more fun sound.
    SIMGOT
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Simgot EM5

    • Hybrid 1DD+4BA design
    • 499USD
    • A little distant sounding with a wide soundstage kind of effect
    • Warm but gentle low end with a subbass focus. Doesn’t have a big impact, but can bring the bass when needed.
    • Crisp highs, but sometimes gets a little harsh.
    • Mids are a little recessed and distant sounding, but at the same time the EM5 isn’t really V-shaped.
    • Decent seperation
    • Vocals are quite airy rather than full sounding; probably a dip in low mids.
    Simgot EM2

    • Hybrid 1DD+3BA (?? This wasn’t on display but I was given it to demo, so I’m not sure about the specifications).
    • 130USD
    • Much bassier than the EM5
    • But overall grainier, less well resolved sound
    • Rather dark sound signature
    Simgot EN700 Bass

    • Slightly grainy, but warm comfortable sound
    • Generally well resolved
    • Bassy but not that boomy
    Simgot EN700 Pro

    • Much less grainy sounding than the EN700 Bass, overall much higher resolution
    • Rolled off towards highs
    • Basically same sound signature as the EN700 Bass, just better.
    Hifiman

    [​IMG]
    Hifiman RE2000

    • Really nice, smooth, well resolved mids and vocals.
    • Slightly high impedance, needs a bit more volume to reach the levels I’m used to
    • Not a huge subbass
    • Great upper mids and smooth, gentle highs
    • Snare impact is not super snappy and impactful, however. Recommend for vocal tracks, not so much for rock.
    Massdrop
    [​IMG]

    Massdrop x Noble Luxe

    • Well resolved sound, not grainy sounding for a budget priced offering
    • Powerful bass, with good rumble but not a lot of bass bleed
    • Lots of air
    • Vocals slightly recessed
    • Weakest point probably would be the upper mids and seperation, but overall a really solid single dynamic driver choice
    • Good sense of positioning as well
    • Above average detail retrieval
    Massdrop Plus

    [​IMG]

    • 4 Balanced armature design
    • Slightly above average soundstage
    • Nice, detailed vocals
    • Very well balanced sound that leans warm
    • Good amount of air in bass, and also sounds very natural akin to dynamic driver bass but slightly cleaner
    • Highly recommend this!
    Massdrop x NuForce EDC

    [​IMG]

    • A little dark sounding
    • Low and low-mid focused sound
    • Smooth and rolled off up top
    • Solid purchase!
    Massdrop x MeeAudio Pinnacle PX

    [​IMG]

    • Spacious sound, a little distant sounding
    • Lows sound like they come from afar
    • Moderate detail retrieval
    • Quite a fun, lively sound, slightly V shaped.
    • Slightly high impedance, will need to raise volume a little more.
    Massdrop x Noble X

    [​IMG]

    • Most detail oriented sound out of the Massdrop IEMs
    • Not a very strong bass, but very clean and tight
    • Moderate soundstage
    • Very clean, crisp, snappy sound
    64 Audio

    All tested with foam tips!

    64 Audio Tia Trio

    [​IMG]

    • Really nice, powerful bass with good amounts of detail and texture, and goes really deep into subbass territory, while having a wide soundstage effect.
    • Highs are a little harsh at certain moments with louder cymbals, but overall very detailed and very crisp
    • Average to wide soundstage
    • Male vocals are slightly thin
    • Snare impact is crisp but not the most powerful
    • Fun, lively sound ideal for live recordings!
    64 Audio A12t

    [​IMG]

    • Cleaner bass than the Trio, but still very substantial and good sense of air
    • Goes very deep
    • Much smoother in high frequencies than Trio with no hint of harshness
    • Mids are better resolved
    • Very well balanced sound
    64 Audio Tia Fourte

    [​IMG]

    • Most spacious out of the 4 IEMs here, and very detailed mid-highs
    • Very realistic, spacious sounding bass
    • Also ideal for live recordings like the Trio
    64 Audio A18t

    [​IMG]

    • Very well resolved, and extremely balanced
    • Honestly hard to find any fualts
    • Slightly tighter bass than the A12t
    • Great timbre in every frequency
    • Nothing really stands out from the other frequencies
    Final Audio
    Final audio E2000

    [​IMG]

    • Single micro dynamic driver
    • Natural sounding with slight vocal boost
    • Substantial amounts of low end, slightly less than something like the Noble Luxe but still very ample.
    • Good highs, decent extension but rolled off slightly
    • Nice airy vocals
    Final audio E3000

    [​IMG]

    • A little darker and subdued than the Final Audio E2000
    • Slightly lower mid frequency focused
    • Fatter subbass
    • Highs more rolled off
    Earsonics
    Earsonics ES5

    [​IMG]

    • One of my favourites from the show!
    • 5 balanced armature design
    • Chunky, very well textured bass that somehow finds a sweet balance between big dynamic driver bass that’s sometimes too boomy, and clean balanced armature bass that’s sometimes too clinical.
    • Really well resolved low-mids to mids
    • Highs are slightly rolled off
    Conclusion
    Overall, I was very impressed by most of the things I tried. The average level of quality in audio companies is getting higher and higher, competition is stiffer than ever- and this is all great news for consumers and audiophiles such as myself. We’re in a time when we can get high quality audio products for prices more affordable than ever, and for the folks who want the best of the best there are high end, pricier options for those who are willing to shell out that amount of money as well.

    My top picks from CanJam SoCal 2018 are the following:

    Empire Ears X Series Nemesis – more well rounded than the Bravado and Vantage, but more affordable than the Legend X which only has smaller, incremental improvements in my opinion. The bass in the X Series is just something different, guys. You have to try it for yourself.

    Meze Audio Rai Penta – simply lovely mids and a well balanced tuning encased in a beautiful and ergonomic package. I’m really looking forward to this release.

    FiiO FH5 – Really impressed by the sound from this nice hybrid. So smooth and well resolved, and most importantly, very affordable.

    DUNU Falcon C – another very affordable product from w Chinese company, I highly recommend this to anyone who doesn’t want to shell out too much for good audio.

    64 Audio tia trio – while the A12t, A18t, and tia fourte are technically better in terms of resolution, I enjoyed the tia trio as it had a more unique and fun sound with a little more oomph in the bass department.

    Earsonics ES5 – I was pleasantly surprised by this 5 BA IEM. It has a darkish sound but really nice and solid, chunky yet detailed bass and mids that just make you want to keep listening

    Massdrop X Noble Luxe – I was curious what a budget dynamic driver offering from Noble audio would be like; after all, they have always been known for very high end balanced armature designs like the K10 and the Katana. Pleased to say that the Noble Luxe is a great, affordable product, and that the folks over at Massdrop have pretty good taste.

    Click here to read the full report with all the photos and proper formatting !
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  12. danny.ho
    Thanks a lot! I am so going to buy the Fiio FH5 when these come out.
     
    alffla likes this.
  13. alffla
    Yeah, I really enjoyed listening to them, and they;re great value for money!
     
  14. Hansotek
    Cagin, Mkoll and weissja36 like this.
  15. Zachik
    Dave - being "a little late" is forgiven due to your GREAT write-up (as usual) :wink:
    Hope to see you at RMAF my friend...
     
    Hansotek likes this.
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Page 12 of 13
13
Next
 
Last

Share This Page