1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Earbuds Round-Up

  1. hungphi93
    Thank you for the suggestions! The price checker is necessary to see what happens :)
    seanc6441 likes this.
  2. DynamicEars
    So 3 of you prefer MK1 over MK2? what makes MK1 so special, i got asked the seller but the answer isnt really detail enough so i got confused, he only stated if you like bass go get MK2.

    actually i prefer clarity, clear mids, mids are my preferences just like @mbwilson111 i listen to jazz, pop jazz, rock jazz, groove, blues, vocals. But i also dont want mids to be thin, got enough textured sub bass / mid bass without bleeds, not particularly must be very big in quantity but decent, not too light. and i just scared there are lack of bass because i used to iem. That is my preferences.
    So am i better getting Mk1 or MK2 in this case?

    Thank you so much for this extended questions really appreciate and you guys save my time and money!
  3. jogawag
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2019
    DynamicEars likes this.
  4. coolice
  5. seanc6441
    I don't really agree with this assesment of the mk2's midrange. The mids are not particularly warm or emphasised in the low mids like suggested here. Infact they are slightly subdued in contrast to the mid bass and sound slightly leaner in the low vocal region. The bass bleeds slightly into the mids but is still well defined, the actual midrange is recessed slightly but raises in the middle-upper mids to neutral levels so it's not too distant. He gives the treble a 6 without mentioning why, I've heard better treble than the mk2 but it's fairly neutral and pleasant overall.

    But I guess everyone hears differently.


    If I had to visualise the mk2 signature it would be like this


    Sub bass: as neutral as it gets for earbuds, meaning it's got great sub bass compared to most of the competition.

    Mid bass: detailed but slightly exaggerated. Punchy AF lol. But not obnoxious or too bloomy with the thin foams supplied.

    Low mids: overshadowed by the big mid bass, slightly recessed.

    Mid-high mids: neutralish, but abive the low mids and low treble slightly which makes them slightly agressive on detail

    Treble: mostly balanced with a few dips and raises. I'd say the low treble dips ever so slightly to avoid harshness in the presence region, and it doesn't have much of a peak above 10khz to promote air. But it's clean and detailed overall. With the main body of the treble region being neutral and in balance with the mids.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2019
    KarmaPhala, Bartig, Matarro and 2 others like this.
  6. DynamicEars

    Thank you for these.. yeah actually i've already read that one since there is not so many review around about this willsound, but that review is a bit make me confuse which one got better mids
    "...But yes compared to mk2 or mk3 it feels the vocal has taken a step backward resulting in a rather v shaped sound...." (MK1)
    "...the vocal is bolder and more forward especially in the lower mid region while tehere’s a subtle rolloff around the upper mid to treble area that makes it sound full and somewhat laidback..." (MK2)

    so is the vocal is recessed on MK1 but clearer? beacuse he said MK1 is best for vocal.

    @seanc6441 Thank you for your explanation and handmade FR lol.. appreciate it that
  7. seanc6441
    I just wish I had the mk1 on hand to compare, but there's some inconsistency in that review.
    DynamicEars likes this.
  8. Matarro
    I wonder about that review that's been linked, is it on early versions of WillSounds? That could explain why some seem to disagree with it.

    I agree with your description of the MK2 but keep in mind that I've only listened to the MMCX version and mostly with balanced cable. I agree that the mid bass can overpower the low mids but I've never found the low mids absent, just in the backseat if that makes sense. I guess that depends on your type of music maybe?

    I'd say that the MK1 is quite similar but warmer and smoother. I read on Rholupat that the MK1 has more bass but I don't agree with that, I think they have similar bass but the MK2 is punchier. Willy also gave me the impression that the MK1 has more bass but he also hyped the MK1 a lot in general. It seems to be his favorite daily driver and I can totally understand that, it's got a smooth and confortable sound without being veiled. I've ended up using my MK1 on my computer where I mostly watch movies, play games and stuff like that and my MK2 with my ES100 where I mostly listen to music. They both do both jobs about as well though. To be honest they're both so close to me that it's hard to pick one over the other. MK2 is slightly more aggressive and maybe just a litle bit more detailed, MK1 is slightly smoother. If WillSound has a house sound they certainly both have it. Someone with a better ear might be able to say more but that's my take on it, you can't really go wrong here.
  9. chinmie
    that's pretty much it. i also prefer the MK2 because it is more detailed and more extended. the MK1 is (to my ears) smoother, and seems fatter because the midbass, but to me the MK2 has a deeper reach and more "slam" . my order of favorite willsounds based on most usage recently now are PK16 > MK2 or MK3 (tied) > MK1
    HungryPanda and assassin10000 like this.
  10. assassin10000
    How would you compare the MK3 vs the MK2/MK1?
  11. rkw
    mbwilson111 and jogawag like this.
  12. DynamicEars

    Thank you for pointing this, that is exactly what i need, detail , clarity and extention to sub bass, deeper reach to low end.
    So i think if im going pick willsound i will try with MK2 first.
    but is EBX is huge increment over willsound MK2? there is an anniversary sale coming soon, EBX is on sale with a good price, should i just straight away take EBX or go with willsound?

    i want clarity, details, sub bass that dig down deep, soundstage and imaging. quantity can be adjusted through EQ. Is the different price is justified to take EBX over MK2?

    sorry for so many questions over this, even though im in this audio world for more than 10 years, but Im a newbie on earbuds.
  13. Dabbaranks
    Showing my mk2s some love today

  14. Marcos Fontana
    Imho EBX is better than MK2 (clarity, subbass and other aspects), but one complicated thing about the EBX is the fit. If you plan to move alot while using EBX, probably you will have some problems. In my case, I can't use EBX out of my desk. The shell is really huge for me while MK2 fits really well. Plz, don't forget to take the fit in account.
    wskl, chellity, jogawag and 2 others like this.
  15. DBaldock9
    When I received my Zen 2.0 ZOE and Asura 2.0s AOE, recommendations here were to listen to them without foams, or just using the rubber rings), so I installed the rings.
    I also installed the rings on my Blur hALF/hALF and K's 500 - since they're also MX500 shells.
    When the rings are nice and clean, they provide a better seal than without the rings, and the earbuds sound really good - however the rings are not as comfortable as foams.
    So, I've gone back to using Hiegi donut foams on the Blur and K's earbuds.
    They may have a slight emphasis to the Mid-Bass now, but they're quite a bit more comfortable to wear.

Share This Page