[B9Scrambler]

Other than the fact it was good that it ended, no.

Oh, come on. That beat! Those vocals! Instant classic. M'thinks we need an extended version.

 

[audio123]

Geek Wold GK3 Review is now on Head-Fi & my website. Enjoy reading!

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/geek-wold-gk3.23213/reviews#review-20606
https://audio123blog.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/geek-wold-gk3/

 

[thejoker13]

Thanks for the nice review!

I've got one question for you: how's subbass extension and impact on them compared to the B400?

Thank you Peter, that means alot coming from someone I look up to here and respect.
I find the B400 to have a significant rolloff in the subbass, considering the elevated midbass. The T4 has better extension on both ends in comparison to the B400. The bass is more linear from subbass through to the lower mids, meaning to me, it sounds like the subbass is equal in quantity to the middbass. It has more subbass impact than the b400, but less midbass impact.
I hope that helps!

 

[thejoker13]

Also, thank you all for your input via PM. I appreciate you all taking the time to help me learn and do better reviews going forward. I won't be doing as many as audio123, but I will do several more of iem's that I believe deserve more exposure. Thanks again all!!

 

[peter123]

Thank you Peter, that means alot coming from someone I look up to here and respect.
I find the B400 to have a significant rolloff in the subbass, considering the elevated midbass. The T4 has better extension on both ends in comparison to the B400. The bass is more linear from subbass through to the lower mids, meaning to me, it sounds like the subbass is equal in quantity to the middbass. It has more subbass impact than the b400, but less midbass impact.
I hope that helps!

That helps a lot, thanks!

If I manage to not spend every penny I own on my upcoming vacation I'll get a pair, otherwise I'll have to wait for a while but I'm really curious about them.

I've got a nice 5BA and a really nice 6BA that I would like to compare them with

 

[boost3d]

Has anyone tried the ADAX HT07 yet?

 

[thejoker13]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/toneking-t4.23212/reviews

Here's an updated review, with comparisons and also some other cleanups. Thanks again for all of your help guys!

 

[OopsWrongPlanet]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/toneking-t4.23212/reviews

Here's an updated review, with comparisons and also some other cleanups. Thanks again for all of your help guys!

Could you compare to Hisenior B5+ ?
Thanks,

 

[thejoker13]

Could you compare to Hisenior B5+ ?
Thanks,

I haven't heard the b5+ yet unfortunately. I would like to get them at some point though.

 

[Otto Motor]

On Balanced Sound

The old discussion of balanced sound has been coming up on a thread where I don't have posting privileges. I'd like to throw this old one in with a bit of an update.

Many reviewers and head-fiers use the term "balanced" sound signature. But similar to the shape of the FR curve (U-, V-, W-; discussion here: https://goo.gl/8wPg4q) the term is used inconsistently, which causes confusion.

First, how is "balanced" used - since it is nowhere defined:

1. One writer claims that there are two kinds of "balanced" sound". It refers to "flat" or "neutral"(same) with no frequency emphasized. Balanced sound can also refer to a V-shaped sound (human ears are more sensitive to midrange, therefore some of usprefer boosted bass and treble; the latter is also called "fun" signature.

2. Some writers consider only V-shaped sound as balanced, whereas others distinguish between the two terms (balanced and V-shape are different signatures).

3. To me, none of the above applies: balanced to me means round, even, and harmonic sounding (the pierce in the ZS6 makes this one unbalanced sounding).

I consulted HifiChris for discussion.

Our Conclusions:

1. We both try to avoid wishy-washy terms, therefore we don't like the term "balanced".
2. "Balanced" is a tuning above neutral that sounds realistic and natural, it constitutes a mild V- shape not far away from neutral.
3. We therefore disagree with point 1. above.
4. A detailed description of the sound and the frequency response is more accurate and conclusive than a crude, poorly defined and therefore ambiguous term such as "balanced".

In short: balanced is if none of the bass, mids, and treble is "oversalting" the sound signature and all three harmonize. It covers a wider range than neutral as it is less specific.

 

[Qualcheduno]

On Balanced Sound

The old discussion of balanced sound has been coming up on a thread where I don't have posting privileges. I'd like to throw this old one in with a bit of an update.

Many reviewers and head-fiers use the term "balanced" sound signature. But similar to the shape of the FR curve (U-, V-, W-; discussion here: https://goo.gl/8wPg4q) the term is used inconsistently, which causes confusion.

First, how is "balanced" used - since it is nowhere defined:

1. One writer claims that there are two kinds of "balanced" sound". It refers to "flat" or "neutral"(same) with no frequency emphasized. Balanced sound can also refer to a V-shaped sound (human ears are more sensitive to midrange, therefore some of usprefer boosted bass and treble; the latter is also called "fun" signature.

2. Some writers consider only V-shaped sound as balanced, whereas others distinguish between the two terms (balanced and V-shape are different signatures).

3. To me, none of the above applies: balanced to me means round, even, and harmonic sounding (the pierce in the ZS6 makes this one unbalanced sounding).

I consulted HifiChris for discussion.

Our Conclusions:

1. We both try to avoid wishy-washy terms, therefore we don't like the term "balanced".
2. "Balanced" is a tuning above neutral that sounds realistic and natural, it constitutes a mild V- shape not far away from neutral.
3. We therefore disagree with point 1. above.
4. A detailed description of the sound and the frequency response is more accurate and conclusive than a crude, poorly defined and therefore ambiguous term such as "balanced".

In short: balanced is if none of the bass, mids, and treble is "oversalting" the sound signature and all three harmonize. It covers a wider range than neutral as it is less specific.

So, basically what I said here https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chi...phones-and-iems.820747/page-826#post-13792315

 

[MDH12AX7]

I guess balanced or not depends on our perception. Our ears are most sensitive to midrange, especially 2khz to 4khz. If an IEM was truly tuned to a ruler flat response, we would perceive it to be too loud in the midrange. I guess I consider balanced to mean that the bass and treble are boosted sufficiently as to sound as loud as the mids. (v shaped) I have heard some studio monitors tuned flat and while they might be a valuable tool in the studio, I found no joy in listening to them.

This only gets more convoluted when we throw in the fact that everyone's ears and perception are unique and our perception varies at different volumes. Remember the old loudness buttons on stereo gear? They were designed to simulate the bass/treble boost perception that occurs naturally at higher volumes. This also means that what I hear as neutral may be vastly different to someone else's perception if we listen at vastly different volume levels.

Anybody that wants more info on the subject can look up the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curve.

 

[Otto Motor]

The TRN V80 are small and beautiful. Housings are all metal.

First listening impressions: good and different from the other $30-40 earphones I know! Very sparkly, vivid, three-dimensional, natural sound with a good slam in the nicely textured and focused bass that is very pleasant (to addictive) on my ears. Treble may be a bit much in some situations, not sure yet. Bigger stage than (my) average. Much more life in these than in my (replacement) V60.

These are definitely good, enjoyable earphones with a refined sound...and not the disappointment reported by some. An unexpected winner! Details in a later review.

Second listening impressions: Boy that controlled bass is real quality, a little bass miracle. The best bass not for bassheads? This earphone is all about bass quality. Addictive listening session here in Calgary...

 

[crabdog]

On Balanced Sound

The old discussion of balanced sound has been coming up on a thread where I don't have posting privileges. I'd like to throw this old one in with a bit of an update.

Many reviewers and head-fiers use the term "balanced" sound signature. But similar to the shape of the FR curve (U-, V-, W-; discussion here: https://goo.gl/8wPg4q) the term is used inconsistently, which causes confusion.

First, how is "balanced" used - since it is nowhere defined:

1. One writer claims that there are two kinds of "balanced" sound". It refers to "flat" or "neutral"(same) with no frequency emphasized. Balanced sound can also refer to a V-shaped sound (human ears are more sensitive to midrange, therefore some of usprefer boosted bass and treble; the latter is also called "fun" signature.

2. Some writers consider only V-shaped sound as balanced, whereas others distinguish between the two terms (balanced and V-shape are different signatures).

3. To me, none of the above applies: balanced to me means round, even, and harmonic sounding (the pierce in the ZS6 makes this one unbalanced sounding).

I consulted HifiChris for discussion.

Our Conclusions:

1. We both try to avoid wishy-washy terms, therefore we don't like the term "balanced".
2. "Balanced" is a tuning above neutral that sounds realistic and natural, it constitutes a mild V- shape not far away from neutral.
3. We therefore disagree with point 1. above.
4. A detailed description of the sound and the frequency response is more accurate and conclusive than a crude, poorly defined and therefore ambiguous term such as "balanced".

In short: balanced is if none of the bass, mids, and treble is "oversalting" the sound signature and all three harmonize. It covers a wider range than neutral as it is less specific.

If you're going to do that then you might as well do the same for every single term commonly used to describe audio. Warm, bright, sharp, transparent, resolving, punchy, sparkly, rich etc etc etc. People's own interpretation of each term is going to vary so I think it's important to look at the context they're used in. Most likely though it will just be another endless debate because people generally assume that their opinion is always the correct one and tend to make mountains out of molehills. First world problems ftl.

 

[Otto Motor]

If you're going to do that then you might as well do the same for every single term commonly used to describe audio. Warm, bright, sharp, transparent, resolving, punchy, sparkly, rich etc etc etc. People's own interpretation of each term is going to vary so I think it's important to look at the context they're used in. Most likely though it will just be another endless debate because people generally assume that their opinion is always the correct one and tend to make mountains out of molehills. First world problems ftl.

Yes! That's why I use these glossaries to be as little ambiguous as possible:
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/describing-sound-a-glossary.220770/

It is a very ambitious undertaking to describe a sonic perception with words and not miss the forest for the trees.