ChrisGoatpher
New Head-Fier
They benefit from being amped properly.
Earbuds Round-Up
- Thread starter ClieOS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- akg akg-k-319-in-ear-bud-headphone-dark-charcoal audio-technica-ath-cm707 baldoor-earbell-e100 bang-olufsen-a8-earphones blox-anv3 blox-m2c blox-tm7 blue-ever-blue-328r creative-aurvana-air-headphones-over-the-ear crossroads-hr1 dunu-alpha-1-hybrid-earbuds-dynamic-balanced-armature-high-fidelity-headphones earbuds hifiman-electronics-es100-vintage-style-earbud-with-15mm-driver-blue rose sennheiser sennheiser-mx-580-stereo-headphones-with-intergrated-volume-control sennheiser-mx-581-stereo-stereo-headphones-with-intergrated-volume-control sennheiser-mx-760 sennheiser-mx-90-style-series-in-ear-headphone-with-volume-control sunrise-audio sunrise-audio-charm venture-electronics-ve-zen yuin-pk1-earphones yuin-pk3-earphones
acap13
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Posts
- 222
- Likes
- 107
I'm actually quite insterested to hear the positive sides of Blur earbuds because I've heard it before and it was indeed very good. Btw, I heard and saw people talking negative things about the Blur in a weird way. Have you heard those before and what do you think about their findings?
ChrisGoatpher
New Head-Fier
Like the guy who said they sound like his $20 K's 300? That was hilarious
acap13
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Posts
- 222
- Likes
- 107
Like the guy who said they sound like his $20 K's 300? That was hilarious
That was hilarious indeed. Dont mean to derail the old issue here but the attitude to keep comparing and stress out how comparable his Blur to the $20 K300( which he was actually modded with other pricier cable) made me nauseated. Unfortunately, that is only one part of the equation. Theres another one person PM'ed me his finding about Blur which I found to be as fishy as the first guy did. I smell tuna around. Hope its not another political agenda and solely based on their opinion. Therefore, brought me to my initial question above.
Last edited:
chaiyuta
1000+ Head-Fier
Every brands has their own fan loyalty. A lot of people here like DIY Graphene whilst I am not and I already resale it (therefore the person who bought from me he might heard before and like it). A lot of people resale thier Rose Mojito while I already tried and I am going to buy it. If you have DIY skill or have a guy who can do instead of you. You can do tuning&modding with various plug, cable, soldering wire. So I've never feel surprised why the guy who bought Blur stated likes that since he can DIY by trial&error with various things until he get his preference sound.
93EXCivic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Posts
- 395
- Likes
- 101
If the Shozy BK doesn't work out for me, I am going to just buy a crap ton of different drivers, tuning supplies and some PK2 style housings and just build my own earbuds that are perfect for me.
RyanM
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Posts
- 87
- Likes
- 112
I'll post some reviews that I did of the Blur buds via the Earbuds Anonymous Group on Facebook:
Review: Blur 64 SPC
People may be want to know the difference between a Top of The Line earbud and a more budget oriented offering. Let's be clear; music is a very intimate experience - far be it for me to tell you what you should prefer, in terms of musical presentation. To my ears, the difference between more expensive earbuds and cheaper is commonly found in spacial representation and fine tuning. With both Blur earbuds, the sense of depth and space is on another level. A level that is not usually achieved in the sub $100 where the push is on tweaking upper treble and eeking as much as possible out of bass extension, likely at the expense of overall fidelity. To be sure, that's not hi-fi. That said, it's okay too. It takes a special type of crazy (see: obsessive compulsive disorder) to be constantly chasing a new sound. Remember, perfection is the enemy of good enough.
The thing about warm earphones is that - if the tuning is not handled with care - it belies the clarity of your listening experience. Sometimes this creates a pleasant experience, however, it's not always an experience that's transferable to all genres of music. So you could say that a warm earphone does not have the same dexterity as a slightly brighter, analytical counterpart. Some older recordings can get a bit muddied by the warmth. Moreover, they aren't as agile in their source pairing, in that a warm source and a warm earphone can lead to the same overall muddy presentation. With that in mind, and already being a proud owner of the original Blur, I'm aware of the magic that can happen when you've achieved ultimate musical clarity. One ever-so-sleight caveat to that statement - the original Blur takes a non-aggressive counter stance on bass. While bass sits in the cut nicely, it's by no means the star of the show. Welcome to audiophile consumer counter culture, where boomy bass is somewhat frowned upon. I'm fine either way to be frank, being a fan of varying genres of music from hip-hop to classical, I have space for varying types of tuning. But, at the time, this did require a slight mental adjustment upon my first few auditions with the Blur. My previous experience with a TOTL earphone was the VE Zen 2 3.5mm balanced, and the presentation of the Blur was quite different. In a nutshell the Blur pulled a pile of details, sounded much airier and spacious, however the Zen sounded bigger, and more akin to an over-ear experience.
With this in mind, when Wong Kuan Wae started posting in Earbuds Anonymous, about a the Blur 64 having more bass (ie different tuning), I was intrigued. To be sure, I didn't necessarily NEED more bass, personally (I wasn't asking for it) but, wierdly, my wallet was ready (not really) and my mind was set (really). A master in full tinkering mode should not be discounted or ignored. Support and spread the word, I say. The Blur 64 SPC is the best earphone I've ever heard, for my preferences. It's not really close, in fact. It's EXACTLY what I was hoping it would be - a slightly warmer experience whilst retaining almost all the clarity of the original Blur. And make no mistake, here we have bass. Let's break it down.
The SPC cable is beautiful and soft and supple with zero microphonics. Does it make a difference to the sound signature? Ask 6 people and they'd probably be split down that middle on that, so let's not. I will say that I've done A/B comparisons between the VE Monk Plus and it's premium Monk Plus SPC variation, and I would bet that I can tell a difference in a blind test. That aside, the Blur 64 retains its signature copper coil splitter, which acts as both an aesthetic signature and a useful weight which is perfectly balanced so as to keep the MX500 shell in your ears while not being heavy enough to be unpleasant over long listening sessions. I believe Wong's wife is responsible for the beautiful handmade leather pouch and we have a variety of foams included, of typical thickness. I'd recommend experimenting with VE thin foams and donuts. For the Blur 64 SPC, I think I've finally settled on single donuts for my preferences.
Bass: The bass is represented with an extremely fast resolving push. There's not a lot of decay, however, the impact is quite profound. It doesn't push into the midrange whatsoever, but the upper treble is rolled slightly (not in a bad way), so the impact from bass could be considered more prominent due to overall tonality. In a subjective way, the midrange and and wonderful treble tuning are still a dominent force in overall presentation, but the impact of the bass is more noticeable than the Blur Ver. 1. The texture of the low end is of a very high quality and responds well to EQ, furthermore.
Treble: The treble is represented perfectly. Whereas the original Blur could be considered as leaning on bright, the presentation here is more musical so to speak and this is likely due to slightly more relaxed treble tuning. Even still, it's relying on upper midrange and prominent lower treble, rather than a sharp upper treble region. Woodwind, piano and guitar is so airy in the presentation, it's almost magical. Organs and such come across as clear and natural. Natural would be the operative word, in general for this presentation. Digital recordings sound more organic than they have any right to. Older rock, like Led Zeppelin sounds fuller and rounder in every senses. Newer, poorly recorded stuff like Arcade Fire sounds more vibrant than I recall it ever sounding. The overall blend of fidelity is resounding.
Migrange/Soundstage: Whereas the midrange clearly take precedence in the original Blur, The Blur 64 SPC leans more towards neutral. Vocals are still front and center but the depth of field is slightly altered. Spacially, the presentation is more of a square than the circle of the original Blur. Panning properties are absolutely outstanding. On "On The Run" by Pink Floyd, there's some sensational panning sound effects that are engulfing me with the Blur 64 SPC. It's almost scrary. To that end, imaging is top notch. Maybe the best I've ever heard. This is God's work.
I don't believe in a whole lot, when it comes to obsessive compulsive audiophile voodoo. Don't get me started on beyond audible transparency files (DSD) for example. Nor do I want to debate the merits of a DAC. I believe in sourcing properly, amping properly and great earphones. With that in mind, I can't help but feel like the Blur 64 is presenting me with how music should sound. And that's that. Happy Listening!
Review: Blur 64 SPC
People may be want to know the difference between a Top of The Line earbud and a more budget oriented offering. Let's be clear; music is a very intimate experience - far be it for me to tell you what you should prefer, in terms of musical presentation. To my ears, the difference between more expensive earbuds and cheaper is commonly found in spacial representation and fine tuning. With both Blur earbuds, the sense of depth and space is on another level. A level that is not usually achieved in the sub $100 where the push is on tweaking upper treble and eeking as much as possible out of bass extension, likely at the expense of overall fidelity. To be sure, that's not hi-fi. That said, it's okay too. It takes a special type of crazy (see: obsessive compulsive disorder) to be constantly chasing a new sound. Remember, perfection is the enemy of good enough.
The thing about warm earphones is that - if the tuning is not handled with care - it belies the clarity of your listening experience. Sometimes this creates a pleasant experience, however, it's not always an experience that's transferable to all genres of music. So you could say that a warm earphone does not have the same dexterity as a slightly brighter, analytical counterpart. Some older recordings can get a bit muddied by the warmth. Moreover, they aren't as agile in their source pairing, in that a warm source and a warm earphone can lead to the same overall muddy presentation. With that in mind, and already being a proud owner of the original Blur, I'm aware of the magic that can happen when you've achieved ultimate musical clarity. One ever-so-sleight caveat to that statement - the original Blur takes a non-aggressive counter stance on bass. While bass sits in the cut nicely, it's by no means the star of the show. Welcome to audiophile consumer counter culture, where boomy bass is somewhat frowned upon. I'm fine either way to be frank, being a fan of varying genres of music from hip-hop to classical, I have space for varying types of tuning. But, at the time, this did require a slight mental adjustment upon my first few auditions with the Blur. My previous experience with a TOTL earphone was the VE Zen 2 3.5mm balanced, and the presentation of the Blur was quite different. In a nutshell the Blur pulled a pile of details, sounded much airier and spacious, however the Zen sounded bigger, and more akin to an over-ear experience.
With this in mind, when Wong Kuan Wae started posting in Earbuds Anonymous, about a the Blur 64 having more bass (ie different tuning), I was intrigued. To be sure, I didn't necessarily NEED more bass, personally (I wasn't asking for it) but, wierdly, my wallet was ready (not really) and my mind was set (really). A master in full tinkering mode should not be discounted or ignored. Support and spread the word, I say. The Blur 64 SPC is the best earphone I've ever heard, for my preferences. It's not really close, in fact. It's EXACTLY what I was hoping it would be - a slightly warmer experience whilst retaining almost all the clarity of the original Blur. And make no mistake, here we have bass. Let's break it down.
The SPC cable is beautiful and soft and supple with zero microphonics. Does it make a difference to the sound signature? Ask 6 people and they'd probably be split down that middle on that, so let's not. I will say that I've done A/B comparisons between the VE Monk Plus and it's premium Monk Plus SPC variation, and I would bet that I can tell a difference in a blind test. That aside, the Blur 64 retains its signature copper coil splitter, which acts as both an aesthetic signature and a useful weight which is perfectly balanced so as to keep the MX500 shell in your ears while not being heavy enough to be unpleasant over long listening sessions. I believe Wong's wife is responsible for the beautiful handmade leather pouch and we have a variety of foams included, of typical thickness. I'd recommend experimenting with VE thin foams and donuts. For the Blur 64 SPC, I think I've finally settled on single donuts for my preferences.
Bass: The bass is represented with an extremely fast resolving push. There's not a lot of decay, however, the impact is quite profound. It doesn't push into the midrange whatsoever, but the upper treble is rolled slightly (not in a bad way), so the impact from bass could be considered more prominent due to overall tonality. In a subjective way, the midrange and and wonderful treble tuning are still a dominent force in overall presentation, but the impact of the bass is more noticeable than the Blur Ver. 1. The texture of the low end is of a very high quality and responds well to EQ, furthermore.
Treble: The treble is represented perfectly. Whereas the original Blur could be considered as leaning on bright, the presentation here is more musical so to speak and this is likely due to slightly more relaxed treble tuning. Even still, it's relying on upper midrange and prominent lower treble, rather than a sharp upper treble region. Woodwind, piano and guitar is so airy in the presentation, it's almost magical. Organs and such come across as clear and natural. Natural would be the operative word, in general for this presentation. Digital recordings sound more organic than they have any right to. Older rock, like Led Zeppelin sounds fuller and rounder in every senses. Newer, poorly recorded stuff like Arcade Fire sounds more vibrant than I recall it ever sounding. The overall blend of fidelity is resounding.
Migrange/Soundstage: Whereas the midrange clearly take precedence in the original Blur, The Blur 64 SPC leans more towards neutral. Vocals are still front and center but the depth of field is slightly altered. Spacially, the presentation is more of a square than the circle of the original Blur. Panning properties are absolutely outstanding. On "On The Run" by Pink Floyd, there's some sensational panning sound effects that are engulfing me with the Blur 64 SPC. It's almost scrary. To that end, imaging is top notch. Maybe the best I've ever heard. This is God's work.
I don't believe in a whole lot, when it comes to obsessive compulsive audiophile voodoo. Don't get me started on beyond audible transparency files (DSD) for example. Nor do I want to debate the merits of a DAC. I believe in sourcing properly, amping properly and great earphones. With that in mind, I can't help but feel like the Blur 64 is presenting me with how music should sound. And that's that. Happy Listening!
RyanM
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Posts
- 87
- Likes
- 112
Blur 魔女 Impressions:
Upon hearing the Blur for the first time, I wasn't sure what to make of them. To be honest it required a significant amount of brain burn-in for me. The first music I played - some new Arcade Fire tracks - put an immediate smile on my face, however, when I started playing songs I was much more familier with I became more and more perplexed. They sounded so...different. Not different bad, just different.
Cymbals and guitar riffs appear to be coming at me with a newfound vigor, and if you are used to hearing things tuned as a "Monk Killer" (hint: you are) or a bass monster, then these will take some getting used to. They are detail and clarity monsters, so essentially the polar opposite. Bass is present tight and definitely in the mix, but it's not taking center stage in any sense. To say that I've never heard anything like it would be an understatement. They've challenged me to take everything I know about the familiarities of melodies and music - songs I love and have listened to for decades - and rethink them. The presentation is neutral with an absolutely sublime midrange. Listen to the new remastering of "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club" and prepare for sound effects that you had no idea were in the songs you've listened to forever. Clarity that will knock you out. It's absolutely magic.
Staging is wild. On "Lovely Rita" by The Beatles, you can literally picture Paul at the front of the stage, you can clearly make out the pianos depth coming from what appears to be behind your head and to the right. During the remastering process for the record it seems like Giles Martin took the right (or left channel) and folded it upon itself, so you can clearly make out two Johns singing harmonies, and two shakers on either side as with Georges guitar. Needless to say, it sounds brilliant.
Where it excels it surpasses the competition and stands far ahead. Classical music, vocal oriented songs would be ideal, however, it's also playing well with jazz and rock to my ears. It's excellent with all strings, percussion and woodwinds. Treble is very well tuned with no sign of sibilence with anything I threw at it. Vocals are perfect and completely addictive. As with all earbuds, experiment with foams/donuts to fine tune the sound for your preferences. I prefer the thick foams as they give a slight boost in midbass whilst rolling the treble a tad.
The Blur comes in 3 flavors at different price points. I won't get into all that except to say that I have the least expensive option. Let's just say that it's priced like a TOTL earbud.
These buds definitely have my seal of approval, however, fair warning - they absolutely require amping as they are 300ohms, but they also appear to be less sensitive than the Zen 2.0 for example. I also noticed that, to my ears, they sound better from a solid state amp than a tube amp. This could be due to their immense detail retrieval ability - tube amps tend to have a loud noise floor.
If you are interested in getting a Blur bud, contact Mr. Wong Kuan Wae, I know that he will be happy to answer any additional questions.
Upon hearing the Blur for the first time, I wasn't sure what to make of them. To be honest it required a significant amount of brain burn-in for me. The first music I played - some new Arcade Fire tracks - put an immediate smile on my face, however, when I started playing songs I was much more familier with I became more and more perplexed. They sounded so...different. Not different bad, just different.
Cymbals and guitar riffs appear to be coming at me with a newfound vigor, and if you are used to hearing things tuned as a "Monk Killer" (hint: you are) or a bass monster, then these will take some getting used to. They are detail and clarity monsters, so essentially the polar opposite. Bass is present tight and definitely in the mix, but it's not taking center stage in any sense. To say that I've never heard anything like it would be an understatement. They've challenged me to take everything I know about the familiarities of melodies and music - songs I love and have listened to for decades - and rethink them. The presentation is neutral with an absolutely sublime midrange. Listen to the new remastering of "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club" and prepare for sound effects that you had no idea were in the songs you've listened to forever. Clarity that will knock you out. It's absolutely magic.
Staging is wild. On "Lovely Rita" by The Beatles, you can literally picture Paul at the front of the stage, you can clearly make out the pianos depth coming from what appears to be behind your head and to the right. During the remastering process for the record it seems like Giles Martin took the right (or left channel) and folded it upon itself, so you can clearly make out two Johns singing harmonies, and two shakers on either side as with Georges guitar. Needless to say, it sounds brilliant.
Where it excels it surpasses the competition and stands far ahead. Classical music, vocal oriented songs would be ideal, however, it's also playing well with jazz and rock to my ears. It's excellent with all strings, percussion and woodwinds. Treble is very well tuned with no sign of sibilence with anything I threw at it. Vocals are perfect and completely addictive. As with all earbuds, experiment with foams/donuts to fine tune the sound for your preferences. I prefer the thick foams as they give a slight boost in midbass whilst rolling the treble a tad.
The Blur comes in 3 flavors at different price points. I won't get into all that except to say that I have the least expensive option. Let's just say that it's priced like a TOTL earbud.
These buds definitely have my seal of approval, however, fair warning - they absolutely require amping as they are 300ohms, but they also appear to be less sensitive than the Zen 2.0 for example. I also noticed that, to my ears, they sound better from a solid state amp than a tube amp. This could be due to their immense detail retrieval ability - tube amps tend to have a loud noise floor.
If you are interested in getting a Blur bud, contact Mr. Wong Kuan Wae, I know that he will be happy to answer any additional questions.
RyanM
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Posts
- 87
- Likes
- 112
Review: Jim Nicehck DIY Graphene Earbud
With all the recent positive chatter about the NICEHCK Graphene Driver Earbud, I just couldn't help myself and contacted Jim at NiceHCK to send one to me. I'm really happy that I made this decision. This Earbud sits just below the top tier of my collection, right out of the gate. I'm sure my earphone collection is at well over 30 now, so eventually I'll have to have an honest intervention with myself about what I'm actually trying to do, other than delay retirement. That aside, here's my take on the DIY Graphene MX760 (*note: name varies from seller-to-seller).
This is my first earbud with this type of shell and I'm liking the results. To that end, it may be improperly labelled MX760 by certain sellers because the original Sennheiser MX760 is a slightly different shape. Interestingly, it has more leeway with fit - for my ears anyways - but alas, YMMV. I can fit the shell in my ear on an angle which may be a great option for people that struggle with fit of standard bud shells. Speaking of which, manufacturers seem to be moving away from the classic MX500 shell to some degree, and this is probably a good thing. The 20Ohm resistence and 108DB sensitivity means that the driver is easy to, er, drive - on paper. This is true in practice as well. There shouldn't be any issues scaling down to a phone or older DAP or up to more powerful amp, which is always great. The cable is twisted, but not braided and seems strong while not retaining memory. Shells and cable are both very light. I sense that there could be some slight microphonics if there was enough rubbing from a shirt collar (for example) closer the shell. Barring that possibility there shouldn't be any issues with regards to this.
The DIY Graphene, leans towards warm, while being bright (depending on the recordings) with a slight v-shape. There's some sharpness in the upper treble, yet there's no sibilence to be found on any genres I throw at it, but I would say that I would go to it for classic rock and jazz than, say, vocal oriented music or newer recordings. The sound is extremely musical and engaging, yet clear while being a tad peaky in the treble region only sometimes. This earbud excels with older recordings that don't have any over-emphasis on treble. Newer recordings that sound too processed can come across as too sharp, in some cases. A/B-ing between the Monk+ SPC Edition and DIY Graphene left the Monk sounding slightly veiled from my iPhone SE. However, directly from my tube amp, the Monk battled back, potentially needing the extra oomph, being a 64ohm driver. That said and considered, there's only a slight boost in performance from the power output of the tube amp in regards to the Graphene bud. It plays really well directly from a phone, and with my portable amps to be sure. At first blush, the sound of this earbud had me thinking of the Venture Electronics Zen 2 and this was because of the musicality and slight recession in the midrange. In direct comparison, the Zen sounds slightly more resolving and is and a bit warmer, while being more circular and larger in its staging. The Zen cost me about 7x the price and I can't leave that tidbit out.
I would consider staging would be slightly above baseline for the DIY Graphene, however, the midbass response is excellent and vocals sound warm and thick, but not overly so. The attack is fast, and the decay is medium for an earbud. It doesn't have the boomy subbass that's found in the Vido or Yincrow X6, but I doubt it will be missed, because it's emphasis is improvements in quality, speed and general musicality, with regards to a direct comparison. The soundstage is ovular, but not overly large. Things can be heard in my peripheral, however, only slightly out of head and not incredibly deep. In that regard, I would say it's above average. Imaging is quite good - on John Coltranes "Love Supreme PT. 1: Acknowledgement", the piano plays behind my head as I would expect and the spacing and soundscape is wonderful and ever-so-slightly narrower than the same with the VE Zen 2.
Playing more jazz, I did become concerned with the sharpness of the drivers attack. As a point of reference (*an unfair point of reference) I pulled the Blur from my arsenal to do some A/B-ing. I was correct in my concern, as Coltranes saxaphone sounded more natural and rounded from the Blur - it's presentation is more organic. The same can be said for all instruments but is not as noticeable with vocals to my ears. Playing Kate Bush recordings from the early 80's was enthralling and sounded perfect. As I've mentioned, this driver plays well with older recordings. To be fair though - the driver has not been burned in (about 10 hrs so far), and this will probably improve with 20-50 hours on it. I'm not too worried. Adding a donut over the foam, really cleaned this up for me as a workaround for now.
Overall, it's another excellent value proposition for anyone looking for a new earbud. This earbud will suit people looking for a consumer friendly and extremely fun sound signature while on a limited(ish) budget. Or people looking for a moderate improvement in sound in stepping up a price tier. I'll be looking forward to the subtle sound changes as the driver properly burns-in. Happy listening!
*Note: I did receive a discount from NICEHCK, however, discounts are commonly available from Ali Express sellers for Facebook Friends.
With all the recent positive chatter about the NICEHCK Graphene Driver Earbud, I just couldn't help myself and contacted Jim at NiceHCK to send one to me. I'm really happy that I made this decision. This Earbud sits just below the top tier of my collection, right out of the gate. I'm sure my earphone collection is at well over 30 now, so eventually I'll have to have an honest intervention with myself about what I'm actually trying to do, other than delay retirement. That aside, here's my take on the DIY Graphene MX760 (*note: name varies from seller-to-seller).
This is my first earbud with this type of shell and I'm liking the results. To that end, it may be improperly labelled MX760 by certain sellers because the original Sennheiser MX760 is a slightly different shape. Interestingly, it has more leeway with fit - for my ears anyways - but alas, YMMV. I can fit the shell in my ear on an angle which may be a great option for people that struggle with fit of standard bud shells. Speaking of which, manufacturers seem to be moving away from the classic MX500 shell to some degree, and this is probably a good thing. The 20Ohm resistence and 108DB sensitivity means that the driver is easy to, er, drive - on paper. This is true in practice as well. There shouldn't be any issues scaling down to a phone or older DAP or up to more powerful amp, which is always great. The cable is twisted, but not braided and seems strong while not retaining memory. Shells and cable are both very light. I sense that there could be some slight microphonics if there was enough rubbing from a shirt collar (for example) closer the shell. Barring that possibility there shouldn't be any issues with regards to this.
The DIY Graphene, leans towards warm, while being bright (depending on the recordings) with a slight v-shape. There's some sharpness in the upper treble, yet there's no sibilence to be found on any genres I throw at it, but I would say that I would go to it for classic rock and jazz than, say, vocal oriented music or newer recordings. The sound is extremely musical and engaging, yet clear while being a tad peaky in the treble region only sometimes. This earbud excels with older recordings that don't have any over-emphasis on treble. Newer recordings that sound too processed can come across as too sharp, in some cases. A/B-ing between the Monk+ SPC Edition and DIY Graphene left the Monk sounding slightly veiled from my iPhone SE. However, directly from my tube amp, the Monk battled back, potentially needing the extra oomph, being a 64ohm driver. That said and considered, there's only a slight boost in performance from the power output of the tube amp in regards to the Graphene bud. It plays really well directly from a phone, and with my portable amps to be sure. At first blush, the sound of this earbud had me thinking of the Venture Electronics Zen 2 and this was because of the musicality and slight recession in the midrange. In direct comparison, the Zen sounds slightly more resolving and is and a bit warmer, while being more circular and larger in its staging. The Zen cost me about 7x the price and I can't leave that tidbit out.
I would consider staging would be slightly above baseline for the DIY Graphene, however, the midbass response is excellent and vocals sound warm and thick, but not overly so. The attack is fast, and the decay is medium for an earbud. It doesn't have the boomy subbass that's found in the Vido or Yincrow X6, but I doubt it will be missed, because it's emphasis is improvements in quality, speed and general musicality, with regards to a direct comparison. The soundstage is ovular, but not overly large. Things can be heard in my peripheral, however, only slightly out of head and not incredibly deep. In that regard, I would say it's above average. Imaging is quite good - on John Coltranes "Love Supreme PT. 1: Acknowledgement", the piano plays behind my head as I would expect and the spacing and soundscape is wonderful and ever-so-slightly narrower than the same with the VE Zen 2.
Playing more jazz, I did become concerned with the sharpness of the drivers attack. As a point of reference (*an unfair point of reference) I pulled the Blur from my arsenal to do some A/B-ing. I was correct in my concern, as Coltranes saxaphone sounded more natural and rounded from the Blur - it's presentation is more organic. The same can be said for all instruments but is not as noticeable with vocals to my ears. Playing Kate Bush recordings from the early 80's was enthralling and sounded perfect. As I've mentioned, this driver plays well with older recordings. To be fair though - the driver has not been burned in (about 10 hrs so far), and this will probably improve with 20-50 hours on it. I'm not too worried. Adding a donut over the foam, really cleaned this up for me as a workaround for now.
Overall, it's another excellent value proposition for anyone looking for a new earbud. This earbud will suit people looking for a consumer friendly and extremely fun sound signature while on a limited(ish) budget. Or people looking for a moderate improvement in sound in stepping up a price tier. I'll be looking forward to the subtle sound changes as the driver properly burns-in. Happy listening!
*Note: I did receive a discount from NICEHCK, however, discounts are commonly available from Ali Express sellers for Facebook Friends.
chaiyuta
1000+ Head-Fier
Is there any person who can share (and never share before both here and the fb group) Diomines Lv.2 impression?
For fun I wanted to try my hand at making an earbud. I bought yuin pk shells, copper twisted cable in clear coating and drivers named "pk1 pro pink diaphragm 32 ohms".
Sum total for one earbud(s) is €14.29. If it sounds as good or better than the other diy earbuds like emx500 or graphene or diy pk2 i'll be happy. More for fun than expecting to be blown away by the sound
Last edited:
93EXCivic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Posts
- 395
- Likes
- 101
For fun I wanted to try my hand at making an earbud. I bought yuin pk shells, copper twisted cable in clear coating and drivers named "pk1 pro pink diaphragm 32 ohms".
Sum total for one earbud(s) is €14.29. If it sounds as good or better than the other diy earbuds like emx500 or graphene or diy pk2 i'll be happy. More for fun than expecting to be blown away by the sound
I am probably going to go crazy order every driver that fits the PK shells I can find, measure the drivers by themselves, pick a driver, put them in a shell and then tune by ear and by measurement. It is the engineer in me. I really don't want to keep buying earbuds hoping to find the perfect one so I am trying the Shozy BK and Yinman 600 and then if those aren't them time to try building. I just want one I love and I want to be done with it.
I did just realize that I need to try my Campfred2s with the thinner Monk foams to see if that helps the comfort.
I'm finding that with fine tuning earbuds slight EQing and trying every foam combination under the sun is kind of essential.
For instance with my masya I went from
-heigi full foam
-heigi donut foam
-monk thin + heigi donut
-monk thin + Monk donut (slightly thicker than heigi)
-monk thin + monk thin donut
-monk thin + monk thin donut +monk thin donut
So basically i've settled with using 3 monk thins per side, 2 cut as donut foams over one normal monk thin foam.
Now it fits/seals perfectly as the monk thins layered have much more room to expand and be compressed filling out your ear better without being too big.
The high's are less sibilant but still retains nice qualit, you don't lose as much clarity about the mid-high ranges, sounds more airy and has an equal or maybe even improved bass slam than the donuts because the seal is perfect.
This isn't a one for all solution for allmy buds, but it reaffirms that foam choice and fit/seal are vital to good sound. Bridging the gap between Earbud and IEM seal without losing the airy nature of earbuds.
Last edited:
Hello friends,
Would anyone be so kind as to make a small comparison between the MX760 Graphene, the Campfred2 and the Svara L of 32 Ohm?
Of the Campfred2 I have not managed to find any information, and on the Svara L is spoken very well but always of the old 115 Ohm, no one here as far as I know, has made no reference or comment on the new 32 Ohm. The NiceHCK Graphene I have them and I love them. My personal setup is with a full foam and a donut type.
Thank you very much.
Would anyone be so kind as to make a small comparison between the MX760 Graphene, the Campfred2 and the Svara L of 32 Ohm?
Of the Campfred2 I have not managed to find any information, and on the Svara L is spoken very well but always of the old 115 Ohm, no one here as far as I know, has made no reference or comment on the new 32 Ohm. The NiceHCK Graphene I have them and I love them. My personal setup is with a full foam and a donut type.
Thank you very much.
Fahim Foysal
100+ Head-Fier
Can someone please recommend a chifi earbud around 60 dollars. Mmcx is a must along with good build. I haven't used earbuds before but like u shaped signature with great bass thump and sub bass rumble THAT DOESNT DROWN THE MIDS and a little brightness with detail in the mids and highs. I dont like over emphasized vocals. I don't know much about earbuds as I always have been into in ears but is good sub bass possible in earbuds?
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
