kukkurovaca
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Posts
- 1,456
- Likes
- 985
Just for s**** and giggles, and because it's always good to occasionally re-check your preferences to see if they've changed, I'm doing some quick comparisons now between my current two most-used IEMs (Advanced GT3 Superbass and BQEYZ Spring 1), and the closest thing I have on hand to a T2 in terms of bass roll-off (going by graphs, at least), which is the Koss KSC75.
The KSC75 has rolled-off bass, the GT3 Superbass -- despite its over-the-top-name -- has relatively linear bass with slightly elevated subbass, and the Spring 1 has more forward midbass and lower mids (with still good subbass extension).
With bass roll-off, most things sound thin and dry to me. I'm not even sure I'd say it's an improvement for analytic listening purposes. Particularly as regards any detail or texture within the bass frequencies themselves. However, when the midbass is too much, as on the Spring 1, that certainly also negatively impacts detail. So for me, what seems to work best is midbass that's about level with the mids, give or take, and subass that is elevated to taste -- which in my case is usually by quite a bit.
The only time I want less subbass is when I'm listening to a track that happens to have just a vulgar amount of bass on its own. : )
In case anyone's morbidly curious, here's what I'm listening to, which includes double bass (tracks 3-4), pipe organ (tracks 8-9), and electronic music with strong bass (tracks 15-18) alongside other tracks where bass isn't necessarily a prime feature.
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/2a8f042a-c535-4f05-82f3-4bbe1d41101b
Anyway, not a judgment on anyone else's preferences, just where my (bass?)head's at.
The KSC75 has rolled-off bass, the GT3 Superbass -- despite its over-the-top-name -- has relatively linear bass with slightly elevated subbass, and the Spring 1 has more forward midbass and lower mids (with still good subbass extension).
With bass roll-off, most things sound thin and dry to me. I'm not even sure I'd say it's an improvement for analytic listening purposes. Particularly as regards any detail or texture within the bass frequencies themselves. However, when the midbass is too much, as on the Spring 1, that certainly also negatively impacts detail. So for me, what seems to work best is midbass that's about level with the mids, give or take, and subass that is elevated to taste -- which in my case is usually by quite a bit.
The only time I want less subbass is when I'm listening to a track that happens to have just a vulgar amount of bass on its own. : )
In case anyone's morbidly curious, here's what I'm listening to, which includes double bass (tracks 3-4), pipe organ (tracks 8-9), and electronic music with strong bass (tracks 15-18) alongside other tracks where bass isn't necessarily a prime feature.
https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/2a8f042a-c535-4f05-82f3-4bbe1d41101b
Anyway, not a judgment on anyone else's preferences, just where my (bass?)head's at.