[cskippy]

@flinkenick I'm really curious about the new EE IEMs. Do you know when they will be in stock?

 

[flinkenick]

@flinkenick I'm really curious about the new EE IEMs. Do you know when they will be in stock?

Glad to hear! They offer a varied lineup. From my understanding, they can be ordered already, but it will take a while before the renewed website is up and running. But not sure TBH.. You could check with EE's customer service.

 

[goodvibes]

The graphs are compensated and slightly smoothed. The disclaimer at the beginning of this thread nicely covers their relevance. I really don't see what the problem is here.

 

[dc655321]

I'm not worried by the graph. I was tagged and asked whether the graph matches the Phantom; I confirmed it does not. The Phantom has bumps and peaks throughout its response, like any other iem.

The posted Phantom graph is an anomaly, so I would imagine it to be viewed with skepticism; hence my comment referring to posts attempting to infer its sound, based on such a graph.

Thanks for responding to my initial query.
The plot looked off, in several ways, so I was hoping to get your input.
I am very much looking forward to hearing the Phantom and EE's other new offerings in a couple of months (AXPONA or Canjam SoCal).

FWIW, I don't view FR plots as indicative of how an IEM would sound in anything other than the most general sense.
Rather, I see them as a measurement of one aspect of a transducer's performance.

 

[ajaxender]

This is getting silly.

These measurements - that is, the whole database - are consistent within appropriate context. That is, using the Dayton mic and only it's own calibration (I assume). I have one of these mics myself. I understand what it produces, and it's limitations.

There is no 'real' graph. What is 'real'? Do you mean calibrated to a standard, like IEC? Then say that. I would indeed expect such a measurement to appear different; we can use Crinacles measurement of the Andromeda and compare to the IEC calibrated graphs that Campfire has provided, as well as the psuedo-IEC calibrated graph produced by Brooko. It appears that, *compared to IEC*, the Dayton mic produces warmer/bassier measurements that have a steady decrease from about 2 KHz onwards, besides a more dramatic roll-off at either end of the spectrum. Let's not even get in to the differences and discrepancies above ~6 KHz, that has been discussed ad nauseum.

I'd expect an IEC graph of the Phantom to portray this IEM as less warm and with a slow rise from about 2 KHz. Would that be more palatable? For myself, I do think the IEC calibration produces a graph for the Andromeda that is more consistent with the balance I hear - but that proves my point; it's only more accurate to me because I have something I can listen to and compare to the measurement. Without that, this standard or any standard would mean very little. It's also not terribly difficult to build my own mental calibration to apply measurements from the Dayton mic.

Within the context of malvinviriya's measurements, I would agree entirely with james444. The general trends of the graphs and in particularly the differences between the Phantom and the Legend X seem to line up pretty well with the currently available reviews and comparisons of these IEMs.

The point of this database is and has always been to create a context by measuring many IEMs, such that it is likely that any given person has heard at least one. They can then use the measurements to compare to IEMs they have not heard, to get an idea of the differences. I think Crinacle has been more than clear about this. I think if anything, the issue in this case is we did not receive impressions from malvinviriya to back up or provide further context to his measurements.

 

[malvinviriya]

The point of this database is and has always been to create a context by measuring many IEMs, such that it is likely that any given person has heard at least one. They can then use the measurements to compare to IEMs they have not heard, to get an idea of the differences. I think Crinacle has been more than clear about this. I think if anything, the issue in this case is we did not receive impressions from malvinviriya to back up or provide further context to his measurements.

First off, yes. I wholly agree with what you said. Here, we are trying to provide as much context as we can by measuring most, if not all of the IEMs we can find. Secondly, yes. I would really like to also apologize for my silence the past few days after posting the measurements. I had my laptop sent in to get serviced so i don't really have a platform to easily write on. However, the conversation really compels me to do a write up. So, armed with a phone and a touchscreen keyboard, here we go.

Alright, introduction over, let me address the thing about what makes me disappointed in the Phantoms, but wowed by the Legend X

The thing with the Phantom is that it's quite unique. I don't personally think it's worth that much money.

Let me start with how it sounds first. It sounds thick, it has quite a lot of midbass vs the subbass. A sizable amount of midrange that may present itself as too heavy when faced with male/female vocals. Treble is there, but to me it seems to peak at around 5-6k where there's sibilance and then it just goes downhill from there. It's not as airy as like my 18+ for example.

Now, the really positive thing about this IEM is that it can sometimes render instruments eerily accurately. It attacks fast enough and has long enough decay to make it somewhat sweet, but not too much that it sounds slow and muddled. I tested Hiroko Kokubu's Pure Heart album and actually was enjoying it out of the Phantoms on several tracks. So that's a plus point for me.

Despite it's natural, non-airy and vaguely warm tilt it's not exactly beneficial from brighter sounding source. Bright sources will definitely increase the treble to the point of uncomfortable sibilance. To me, a trait no S$2500 IEM should even have. The soundstage is also okay. It tends to be circular, and has this impressions akin to a big ball in the middle of the stage. It can image things placed further away at times but it's a hit or miss depending on the song. I won't necessarily say that this has a 3D-like presentation honestly. To me it seems more like a triangular presentation, where there's a ball of bass in the middle, and then the vocalist is put on top of that ball (in that kind of sense. Sorry, I'm not really good at putting words on how things sound like. I can give a nice gesture though if needed). The instruments are then placed around the triangle, filling the rest of the stage

Ok now let's get to the weakest part of the IEM. First off, the sound is really sensitive on the midtreble as stated earlier and different tips may make it sibilant, or not. Additionally it's also very recording specific. It doesn't really work with more modern pop songs nor does it work with quite a lot of MPop songs. Jazz recordings fortunately work with it, and it seems like it'll play ball with classical as well. It somewhat excels in percussion but at the same time, it's not performing everything that well. On that particular album, there's moments where the cymbal hits just sounds so diffused and wrong. Seems like the sibilance peak plays a part in this. Now, as for the bass it works magically on some tracks but it sometimes presents too much of a midbass background that makes everything sound bloated. This may be good for some but personally I'd like my midbass tighter. As for vocals, as I said earlier it doesn't work that well. Especially male vocals. Sometimes it feels as if vocals bleed to the midranges and it also can sound a bit nasal at times.

It seems as if the IEM was tuned specifically to Nic's preference as well as his own sources and songs. So, at this point I do feel compelled to try and replicate his setup and test why it's so good for him. Cos as of now, it is not good for me at this asking price. So, @flinkenick , may i humbly ask what's your setup and preferred songs? I would like to understand the background of where the tuning comes from. Perhaps that way i can provide a fairer assessment, as I realize that sometimes some IEMs and headphones are tuned for specific genres.

As for comparison it's only fair to compare with @Jack Vang 's latest and greatest, since both are released at the same time. And that's why I compared the 2 and came with this conclusion too.

So let's start by comparing with the Legend X. The Legend is definitely a different animal, it's a hybrid vs Phantom's all BA. The Legend's presentation is that of a hyper basshead IEM at first. But if you delve deeper you'll notice that that is actually an impressively capable monitors with amazing sense of resolution. The mids are one of the most tonally correct sounding IEM's I've ever tried.

The bass is tight, precise and never shows signs of it being tired. It extends to the subbass region and even then, makes its presence more felt simply due to the fact that it is a dynamic driver. It's a perfect layering of subbass, midbass and vocals all around. Any track I throw at it, the Legend handles it with finesse. It presents a very solid layering from top to bottom, giving you a nice, firm yet comfortable bass background to my ears and perfect vocal layering. The quantity of the mids are perfect for almost anything, and it works really well with male or even female vocals. It's even tempered due to the somewhat diffuse field tuning of the IEM in the mid to lower treble regions.

Going to the treble region you're gonna be presented with an expanded treble, without any signs of sibilance. It's also very engaging and airy. It's one of the most joyful experiences I had with an IEM. Due to its tuning you are presented with a natural sounding treble with nigh-perfect decay and attack speed. It sounds believable in presentation, and I really like its forwardness. Hi-hats are rendered with absolute speed and precision, giving it a very convincing place in its stage, and cymbal hits are now in a correct place vs the Phantom's shimmery blur.

As for the soundstage, these are not the widest sounding IEM ever. Especially with the bass boost.That said, it extends out sufficient enough to not make it congested, and it's small enough to give you the feeling of being in a studio room. EQ-ing the treble down and then you'll get this soundsig akin to an Etymotic that has been hitting the gym regularly. If you think Etymotic perfected IEMs, then Jack Vang takes that IEM and forged it to be better. I don't know how he did it, but he did. It has all the basic qualities of what makes an Etymotic great, and now you get to enjoy a dynamic driver slam on it, that are even faster than an already fast Etymotic, it also takes the treble that one may find a bit enclosed, and not airy enough, and throws in more air. Best of all, you don't even need a complex PEQ to enjoy these. It's just as simple as popping the EQ on on your Spotify app, or iTunes, or whatever the app you're playing your song with! Trimming the bass region by 5dB to me gives that supercharged Etymotic presentation and I love the fact that because the EQ is so simple, you don't need a DAP or complex EQ applications to enjoy that. Even if you can't use an equalizer or even simply refuse to touch it with a 10-metre pole, you're still be facing with what I would consider THE perfect hybrid IEM. The best that I've ever had the pleasure to try so far.

Now, as a context, my setup is quite simple. I'm running everything through an Onkyo DP-X1A through its balanced output.

I'm sorry to hear you didn't like the Phantom. It was indeed not received particularly well in Singapore. Fortunately, the opposite was true for Canjam New York. There was a lot of interest and positive feedback (example). The Phantom is not a one size fits all, as is the case with most iems. Different people, different preferences. Can't win em all.

It's alright. Perhaps different regions have different preferences, and perhaps the folks at CanJam NY loves the Phantom's tuning more and us Singapore based audiophiles prefer the Legend X. I don't think I have that much skills and capability understanding the why and how of it, but perhaps it may have something to do with the noise floor? The launch in Singapore happens mostly in a quieter place, while the ones in NYC was done in a relatively louder venue. Perhaps the views will change as the Singapore CanJam comes by.


Lastly as for the other models of the new EE lineup (ESR, EVR, Nemesis, Bravado and Vantage), I'm still writing it up. Although I may need another thread. I don't want to hijack @crinacle 's thread too much (This is too much already for me personally)

 

[echineko]

It's alright. Perhaps different regions have different preferences, and perhaps the folks at CanJam NY loves the Phantom's tuning more and us Singapore based audiophiles prefer the Legend X. I don't think I have that much skills and capability understanding the why and how of it, but perhaps it may have something to do with the noise floor? The launch in Singapore happens mostly in a quieter place, while the ones in NYC was done in a relatively louder venue. Perhaps the views will change as the Singapore CanJam comes by.

Whew, what a post. Not going to get into the specifics and comparisons, as I have not tried any of these myself, but for this particular point at least I can add my own 2cents worth. Having personally attended Canjam in NYC and also SG several times, and various other events in several regions, the other possible factor I'd also submit is access for auditioning and contrasting equipment like TOTL IEMs, DAPs etc all year round, vs just during specific events. This is a luxury for much of the US/EU, but pretty normal/routine for Asia, and especially in places like Singapore and Japan.

Might be coincidence, then again might not

 

[goodvibes]

To all that will do us the service of impressions from Canjams or other events. Please be very clear that these are rather short impressions and not reviews. Tips, DAP etc type associations can change that impression and without enough time or privacy to give these a proper evaluation, these shouldn't be called 'reviews'. To be less clear about this would be somewhat of a disservice to the manufacturer that has gone to some length to offer these up for a listen. Also writing impressions without having a device on hand for another quick listen to clarify your thoughts is somewhat limiting. We all want to hear and appreciate your thoughts but context is very important.

p.s. I'd probably find both the Legend and Phantom too warm for my personal tastes. Bravado, EVR, Zues and Spartan would likely be closer to my tastes. Viva la difference. Folks really need to hear these for themselves and thank god EE is great about doing their traveling road show thing.

 

[flinkenick]

The thing with the Phantom is that it's quite unique. I don't personally think it's worth that much money.

Let me start with how it sounds first. It sounds thick, it has quite a lot of midbass vs the subbass. A sizable amount of midrange that may present itself as too heavy when faced with male/female vocals. Treble is there, but to me it seems to peak at around 5-6k where there's sibilance and then it just goes downhill from there. It's not as airy as like my 18+ for example.

Now, the really positive thing about this IEM is that it can sometimes render instruments eerily accurately. It attacks fast enough and has long enough decay to make it somewhat sweet, but not too much that it sounds slow and muddled. I tested Hiroko Kokubu's Pure Heart album and actually was enjoying it out of the Phantoms on several tracks. So that's a plus point for me.

Despite it's natural, non-airy and vaguely warm tilt it's not exactly beneficial from brighter sounding source. Bright sources will definitely increase the treble to the point of uncomfortable sibilance. To me, a trait no S$2500 IEM should even have. The soundstage is also okay. It tends to be circular, and has this impressions akin to a big ball in the middle of the stage. It can image things placed further away at times but it's a hit or miss depending on the song. I won't necessarily say that this has a 3D-like presentation honestly. To me it seems more like a triangular presentation, where there's a ball of bass in the middle, and then the vocalist is put on top of that ball (in that kind of sense. Sorry, I'm not really good at putting words on how things sound like. I can give a nice gesture though if needed). The instruments are then placed around the triangle, filling the rest of the stage

Ok now let's get to the weakest part of the IEM. First off, the sound is really sensitive on the midtreble as stated earlier and different tips may make it sibilant, or not. Additionally it's also very recording specific. It doesn't really work with more modern pop songs nor does it work with quite a lot of MPop songs. Jazz recordings fortunately work with it, and it seems like it'll play ball with classical as well. It somewhat excels in percussion but at the same time, it's not performing everything that well. On that particular album, there's moments where the cymbal hits just sounds so diffused and wrong. Seems like the sibilance peak plays a part in this. Now, as for the bass it works magically on some tracks but it sometimes presents too much of a midbass background that makes everything sound bloated. This may be good for some but personally I'd like my midbass tighter. As for vocals, as I said earlier it doesn't work that well. Especially male vocals. Sometimes it feels as if vocals bleed to the midranges and it also can sound a bit nasal at times.

It seems as if the IEM was tuned specifically to Nic's preference as well as his own sources and songs. So, at this point I do feel compelled to try and replicate his setup and test why it's so good for him. Cos as of now, it is not good for me at this asking price. So, @flinkenick , may i humbly ask what's your setup and preferred songs? I would like to understand the background of where the tuning comes from. Perhaps that way i can provide a fairer assessment, as I realize that sometimes some IEMs and headphones are tuned for specific genres.

Well obviously we are hearing two different iems. Maybe you can add what source you listened with? My sources are the Lotoo Paw Gold, AK380cu, and WM1Z. But I also listened extensively with the DX200, and Ultima Cu and SS. If you are listening with a bassy source like the X3 or perhaps smartphone that struggles to drive it properly, the bassy characteristic you describe is likely due to the signature of the source or its impedance.

For starters, I would not describe the Phantom as bassy nor thick. In one of the earlier impressions on the EE thread someone complained about a lack of bass, and it sounding too bright. He was listening with one of the brightest tips and the Ultima SS, so I would not agree with that description either. The Phantom has an average quantity of mid-bass, that is nowhere near the level of something like the A18 (with M20 module) or original K10. In fact, we were initially worried it might have too little bass, so we experimented with a version with more mid-bass, but stuck with the original. This is also the first time I've ever heard the mention of sibilance, so I would be hard-pressed to relate that to the Phantom itself, rather than the specific combination with your setup. With my sources, the Phantom is more transparent and airy than the UE18+. However, the UE18+ has a lift in its upper/mid treble, giving its treble notes an extra touch of clarity despite its warm signature. So yes, by all means please do replicate it with one of my sources for yourself.

It's alright. Perhaps different regions have different preferences, and perhaps the folks at CanJam NY loves the Phantom's tuning more and us Singapore based audiophiles prefer the Legend X. I don't think I have that much skills and capability understanding the why and how of it, but perhaps it may have something to do with the noise floor? The launch in Singapore happens mostly in a quieter place, while the ones in NYC was done in a relatively louder venue. Perhaps the views will change as the Singapore CanJam comes by.

I agree with the first part. However, I have my doubts that all the people at Singapore heard it more properly than New York because of a lower noise floor. Based on my experience beforehand with the Singaporean people and dealers I know, I did not expect the Phantom to be a widescale success there locally. In general, Singapore is on average a younger crowd (below 30) than New York, and influenced by brighter genres like K-pop and J-pop. Accordingly, they have a preference for brighter tunings. The Phantom's upper treble has great extension, but is tuned linear for timbre rather than brightness. I only started appreciating timbre and naturalness at a later stage, but at that point it became increasingly more important. However, I can still relate to people valuing sparkle and clarity, as I also do on occasion for certain genres. For people accustomed to extra clarity, the Phantom can sound to laid-back. It will shine for different genres and people.

 

[goodvibes]

Right and since I'm here, here's the data for my new toys:

Rhapsodio Zombie
Soranik SK3

Impressions will of course be posted in my other thread.

SK3 curve is rather impressive for what it is.

 

[Lucif6r6th]

Well obviously we are hearing two different iems. Maybe you can add what source you listened with? My sources are the Lotoo Paw Gold, AK380cu, and WM1Z. But I also listened extensively with the DX200, and Ultima Cu and SS. If you are listening with a bassy source like the X3 or perhaps smartphone that struggles to drive it properly, the bassy characteristic you describe is likely due to the signature of the source or its impedance.

For starters, I would not describe the Phantom as bassy nor thick. In one of the earlier impressions on the EE thread someone complained about a lack of bass, and it sounding too bright. He was listening with one of the brightest tips and the Ultima SS, so I would not agree with that description either. The Phantom has an average quantity of mid-bass, that is nowhere near the level of something like the A18 (with M20 module) or original K10. In fact, we were initially worried it might have too little bass, so we experimented with a version with more mid-bass, but stuck with the original. This is also the first time I've ever heard the mention of sibilance, so I would be hard-pressed to relate that to the Phantom itself, rather than the specific combination with your setup. With my sources, the Phantom is more transparent and airy than the UE18+. However, the UE18+ has a lift in its upper/mid treble, giving its treble notes an extra touch of clarity despite its warm signature. So yes, by all means please do replicate it with one of my sources for yourself.


I agree with the first part. However, I have my doubts that all the people at Singapore heard it more properly than New York because of a lower noise floor. Based on my experience beforehand with the Singaporean people and dealers I know, I did not expect the Phantom to be a widescale success there locally. In general, Singapore is on average a younger crowd (below 30) than New York, and influenced by brighter genres like K-pop and J-pop. Accordingly, they have a preference for brighter tunings. The Phantom's upper treble has great extension, but is tuned linear for timbre rather than brightness. I only started appreciating timbre and naturalness at a later stage, but at that point it became increasingly more important. However, I can still relate to people valuing sparkle and clarity, as I also do on occasion for certain genres. For people accustomed to extra clarity, the Phantom can sound to laid-back. It will shine for different genres and people.

I guess I'm one of the few Singaporeans who preferred the Phantom
Then again, timbre is very important to me. I got little sick of brighter tunings... \(ツ)/

 

[flinkenick]

I guess I'm one of the few Singaporeans who preferred the Phantom
Then again, timbre is very important to me. I got little sick of brighter tunings... \(ツ)/

Glad to hear you liked it! I have actually spoken to 2-3 Singaporeans who liked it as well, so there is hope yet hehe.

 

[FranTBW]

I don't want to burst your bubble, but having spent about 3 hours in total listening to the Phantom itself on multiple occasions, I wish to chip in my own impressions. And...

However, I have my doubts that all the people at Singapore heard it more properly than New York because of a lower noise floor.

I'm sure given the time I had to play around with tips and various DAPs, graciously provided by the wonderful Zeppelin & Co., I still have not found a single combination that has shown the Phantom in the light you paint it to be. Cable changes, tips, source, hell I've tried genres of songs from Jazz to Rock, Electronic to Pop, Classical and even Indie songs, and not once did I think it had any standout quality with regards to tuning, technicalities, and overall listening experience. If I were to describe it in one word, it'd be middling. I could go further and elaborate why I describe as so, but I have other things to do.

and influenced by brighter genres like K-pop and J-pop.

And fyi, this is quite false within my knowledge and experience, but I wouldn't know for sure. I mean, I do know some Singaporeans, but who am I to speak, right?

oh...

 

[thatonenoob]

I don’t know where you got the idea that Singapore was a younger crowd @flinkenick . The small proportion of Sg headfiers posting here is far from representative of the general population -something I’m sure a person with background in some form of scientific studies would understand. In fact, I would argue that the Singapore iem segment is far more developed - by nature of necessity, Singapore, Japan and HK have generally been seen as being on the forefront of the iem scene. This is a point that has been reiterated by makers like JH in the past.

I invite you to visit canjam Sg if possible, and acquaint yourself with one aspect of the Asian audiophile scene. You might find it enlightening, yet.

 

[flinkenick]

I don't want to burst your bubble, but having spent about 3 hours in total listening to the Phantom itself on multiple occasions, I wish to chip in my own impressions. And...



I'm sure given the time I had to play around with tips and various DAPs, graciously provided by the wonderful Zeppelin & Co., I still have not found a single combination that has shown the Phantom in the light you paint it to be. Cable changes, tips, source, hell I've tried genres of songs from Jazz to Rock, Electronic to Pop, Classical and even Indie songs, and not once did I think it had any standout quality with regards to tuning, technicalities, and overall listening experience. If I were to describe it in one word, it'd be middling. I could go further and elaborate why I describe as so, but I have other things to do.



And fyi, this is quite false within my knowledge and experience, but I wouldn't know for sure. I mean, I do know some Singaporeans, but who am I to speak, right?

oh...

You're not bursting my bubble. I have repeated several times that it will not be for everybody, including in my own review of the Phantom. Do you think your impression is definitive proof that it sounds terrible? There will never be consensus over any iem, if not there would only be one type of signature that sells. I might be wrong about the type of music you listen to, but I would argue that the more important factor is the trend for a brighter type of signature.

I don’t know where you got the idea that Singapore was a younger crowd @flinkenick . The small proportion of Sg headfiers posting here is far from representative of the general population -something I’m sure a person with background in some form of scientific studies would understand. In fact, I would argue that the Singapore iem segment is far more developed - by nature of necessity, Singapore, Japan and HK have generally been seen as being on the forefront of the iem scene. This is a point that has been reiterated by makers like JH in the past.

I invite you to visit canjam Sg if possible, and acquaint yourself with one aspect of the Asian audiophile scene. You might find it enlightening, yet.

Of course, my perspective might have been biased by the limited people I speak to. Besides, I was going off of the pictures I saw of the launch. I was simply indicating that there are different characteristics between the two types of crowds that can result in different preferences. If this particular factor was a wrong assumption I admit my mistake.