ck100 vs um3x vs triple fi: which to buy for a classical/electronica lover?
Aug 28, 2009 at 11:16 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 9

Antony6555

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Posts
733
Likes
16
I am looking for an iem with good imaging, detail, treble extension, and bass that is punchy, detailed, and controlled. I mainly listen to downtempo/trippy electronica and classical. When I listen to electronica, the most important things to me are detail, good highs and textured mids and bass. For classical, the most important things are imaging, detail, treble extension, and natural-sounding bass. I HATE flabby or overemphasized bass.

I don’t have much experience with iems (the only real iem I have owned is the er-4 and I’m looking for something different), but hopefully my experience with full-sized phones will give you a satisfactory idea of my preferences. My biggest problem with the er-4 is lack of bass presence and lack of textured mids.

AKG K701:

Treble: Superb extension, airy, very good overall.

Mids: Very detailed and textured, somewhat recessed compared to the rest of the spectrum the rest of the spectrum.

Bass: Too much bass quantity. They’re sometimes boomy. Extension could be better. Still it’s fairly well controlled and I like the textured quality.

Detail: Very good, better than the er-4 but not quite at the level of the lambda.

Imaging: The soundstage is huge for a headphone. Instrument separation is also very good, but the lambda is better.

Conclusion: U-shaped, with high and low emphasis. Still, they’re good for classical, and very good for electronica. The more balanced phone.



Lambda Pro:

Treble: Absurd extension, noticeably better than the k701 and also more airy. It’s also smoother. There’s an obvious treble emphasis, which is sometimes sibilant.

Mids: Super recessed. They lack the texture of the k701 mids.

Bass: Quantity is less than the k701 and perfect for classical/acoustic music. Quality isn’t very good-it’s messy and uncontrolled. Extension is also weak.

Detail: Amazing, even better than the k701.

Imaging: Soundstage is much smaller than the k701. But the instrument separation is better.

Conclusion: Similarly U-shaped response, but with more of a high end emphasis and more recessed mids. Despite the high end emphasis, with acoustic music they are extremely natural sounding. These are my favorite phones for classical, but they’re not as good for electronica.





So what do you guys think?
 
Aug 29, 2009 at 3:26 AM Post #2 of 9
I think Ck100 serve better for these two genres because some calls it's refind version of ER4P/S with punchy, refind bass and mids has better extention with some texture. It's airy and natural sounding IEMs so overall you get extended highs (like ER4P/S) and full detailed mids(ahead of SE530) and deep punchy bass(more quantity and quality than UM3x). Also soundstage is deep and wide, it's well defind and puts each instrument in good space(separation is great). BTW bass on CK100 goes deep but it's fast and good for electronica in this sense.
 
Aug 29, 2009 at 7:35 AM Post #3 of 9
The ck100 are easily the most detailed of my IEMs, the only ones comparable to the Etys. I also believe the bass would fit your bill, not overemphasized, fast, controlled and never boomy. Soundstage is great and presentation overall very airy. But I have to disagree slightly with ZARIM about the mids. They are not as uncomplicated as the SE530's, depending on fit/tips/source they can be very touchy. With a warm source and the right tips they are neutral and textured, get it wrong and they can sound coldish and unnatural. IMO this is the one risk/drawback you have to take with this otherwise excellent IEM.
 
Aug 30, 2009 at 4:32 AM Post #5 of 9
Mid and details are better on ck100 than tf10. For soundstage, tf10 will have wider soundstage if u have perfect seal using silicon tips. CK100 smaller soundstage but with more depth and height to it. More rounded if u know what i meant.

In term of bass, tf10 has more than ck100. I will say tf10 better for bass heavy music enjoyment, it's more fun to listen to. Ck100 bass more accurate, enough for Daft Punk or van Buuren type of musics but will lack in term of bass impact.

Both iem fit the bill but choose ck100 if u prefer mid>bass or tf10 if u prefer bass>mid.
 
Aug 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM Post #6 of 9
I'm with Toughnut on this.

Dunno about the UM3X but I got the CK100's and the highs are nice and clear, staging is good.
Mids are upfront and nice, good for classic/vocals, AVB, Tiesto, PVD, Corsten have enough bass but hip hop doesn't work as well due to the lack of bass impact. Bass is detailed and quite defined but somewhat lacking though depending on source and how much Bass boost/EQing can be applied you can make it more impactful. My X5 has this midrange forwardness that becomes too forward when paired with the CK100. I think it sounds better with my brief experiences with colder/more neutral sources.
 
Aug 31, 2009 at 2:28 AM Post #7 of 9
Yeah I've pretty much eliminated the um3x. A "refined se530" doesn't appeal to me. But I'm having trouble deciding between the ck100 and triple fi. I'm considering custom molds, or at least custom tips. Which would be the best with custom molds/tips?
 
Sep 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM Post #9 of 9
Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony6555 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
bump for more advice


If you are looking for more advice, here's mine for what it's worth...

I have tried the TF10s briefly and was extremely put off by the recessed mid range that did not lend itself well to getting into the grit, texture, and feeling of a recording. It has glossy highs and deep bass, both ranges are great, but the mids are just not there for me.

If you are considering that price range, plus custom tips, why not go customs???

I am continually amazed at the amount of people spending for um3x, tf10, se530 plus custom tips when you can have Fidelity Customs/Livewires for $250 or so plus the cost of impressions.

I am sitting here listening to a track from Mayer's Continuum (fantastic audio engineering on that record) with my Fidelity duals, wondering what more you could want from an IEM......

Tight, controlled bass is there, so much transparency and detail in the mids, and extended, detailed, but never artificial or harsh highs. Sounds kind of like what you are looking for in an IEM to me.

Just something to think about...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top