omastic
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Posts
- 728
- Likes
- 134
Did the smaller dimension result in a better fit compared to the original? One of my complains for the original was that it was kind of tricky to get a good fit in my ears.
I believe people have been talking about it being more V shaped than the non J. So, less mids.
Did the smaller dimension result in a better fit compared to the original? One of my complains for the original was that it was kind of tricky to get a good fit in my ears.
I believe people have been talking about it being more V shaped than the non J. So, less mids.
Do you mean those ERJI impressions? Or where have you read other impressions? To me, the DN-2000J sounds less V-shaped than the normal "non-J" version. But it is "colder" in some ways --- definitely brighter up top, so the DN-2000 might come off as more "mid-centric" by comparison. However, both are still V-shaped responses, and unless they changed the tuning by a lot this final time, I feel the DN-2000J is clearly a step forward to the regular DN-2000 on the technical side. I wouldn't call it a "reference response", because that would connote very flat tuning, but it's very good and very, very detailed.
Did the smaller dimension result in a better fit compared to the original? One of my complains for the original was that it was kind of tricky to get a good fit in my ears.
It is very slightly better fitting, but mostly because of the weight distribution in the ear. It torques less, so it'll fall out less. The difference isn't huge, though --- quite subtle.
Is it more detailed then the titan1![]()
Yes, and wider soundstage. You wouldn't think so unless the two were directly compared, though.
Actually I think they are!! I think that's the impression I got since the last email I got from them
Have these popped up anywhere yet?
(which basically means our super-verbose-that-I-could-only-understand-30%-of-what-he's-saying OP tomscy will be one of the first ones to check it out)