Just had a meal with some friends tonight, and here are the main guests of the gathering (sorry for the crappy photo):
Note: Please stop reading any further if you are 1/ EarSonics fan or 2/ S-EM6 lover. All the impressions written below are my personal opinions (coupled with some friends’ opinion at the meet). I don’t want to turn this thread into another war like what I*** did with the SM64 thread but it’s worth voicing my thoughts I suppose.
So, how do they sound? Before coming to the meet I kinda had some vague predictions about their sound, judging from the trend drawn by the SM3, SM64, EM6 (demo), yet they were all wrong, so wrong that 10’ in and I couldn’t believe if I was hearing things right.
Having heard the SM64 and EM6 before, I’d thought that the S-EM6 would be somewhat similar, especially after seeing the 2 TWFK’s inside. Yet it turned out to be entirely different, very soft and polite treble, or if I were to be harsh with words, ‘muffled’ and ‘muddy’ would describe these IEMs’ high frequencies the best. It sounded as if the sound had to go through a huge low pass filter before hitting my eardrums. Cymbals sounded like they were being hit from somewhere far, far away. There was neither sparkle nor extension at all. Also forget about soundstaging and such, talking about qualities is out of the question with this kind of treble. And I have to mention they were being plugged into the Touch 4, which is considered to be a bright DAP.
Things got a bit better with the midrange, though I still found serious problems here as well. The lower mids was quite full-bodied, with enough warmth to it, very intimate sounding I would say. Contrary to what I heard on the EM6, the universal version isn’t recessed in the lower mid range any more. However, thanks to the polite treble the upper midrange was nowhere to be heard. Sounds like another SM64? No way, mids on the SM64 is still a league above. Despite having such a huge suckout that prevents it from rendering the upper midrange, the SM64’s mids still retains enough clarity and charm that I can understand why some people like it. The S-EM6’s on the other hand was just as muddy as its treble, maybe a bit less, but it affected the positioning of the vocal so much I couldn’t believe I was listening to a 1k$ pair of IEM.
Bass might be the only thing that the S-EM6 did ok (just barely ok, nothing more nothing less). Focusing mostly on the mid bass, together with enough upper bass as back up, S-EM6’s lows felt just right without becoming too much or too little on whatever genres I threw in. The sub bass didn’t get heavily boosted but it was very ample when being called for, something I don’t get to hear very often on other phones. Another good quality about the lows can be mentioned is how it kept everything in check, despite having quite a large amount of sub bass when needed it didn’t seem to bleed much into the midrange. At first I thought the upper bass bled quite a bit into the lower mids but upon further inspection it was actually due to the lower mids being quite upfront (didn’t come close to being forward though) and muddy at the same time. Sure there was some bleeding happening but it was just at the level of the SM3.
One funny thing, while the mids wasn’t very recessed at all, bass came about as if there was a subwoofer firing from behind. I reckon there was something wrong with the woofer network that reversed the phase response of low frequencies on the one earpiece.
Comparison with the 1+2:
The 1+2 won in any aspect I could think of, period. Yes, they were a bit overly bright when plugged into the Touch 4 but that can be alleviated with tip rolling and changing insertion depth (which seemed impossible since the shell design is just terrible). Treble on the 1+2 was much much much better, there’s clarity, detail retrieval, soundstaging, layering and a lot more to talk about. The midrange was of course a lot clearer, in fact it was crystal clear compared to the S-EM6. You could feel the sense of space, the ‘air’ that wraps around the vocalist, the distance between each instrument. Positioning was also very good with the 1+2’s imaging, it wasn’t as intimate as the S-EM6 though. S-EM6’s bass might have gained the upper hand against 1+2’s bass had it not been for the weird phase response, must be interesting to see the superimposed impulse response of the 2 ear.
The S-EM6 should receive some credit for its ergonomic shell design, which beat the 1+2 at its own game. All the people I talked to at the meet complained about how hard it was to have a good seal with the 1+2, and one person experienced discomfort and pain due to the bump on the shell pushing against his cavum. That aside, I cannot think of any aspect the S-EM6 can rival the 1+2.
All in all, think twice before pulling the trigger on the S-EM6. I really hope I was being biased while auditioning them, and it was my own taste that didn’t fit the eccentric sound signature of these hi-end IEMs, but sadly all the people there also shared the same thought, the S-EM6 failed even when being compared to their brothers. These IEMs might be for you if high frequencies and clarity are the last things to concern when it comes to sound reproduction, or you just don’t know where to blow 1k$.
Perhaps the unit I got hold of was faulty in the first place?
I have the S-EM6 in ear right now.
Just a 901 and a Tera...I am just a poor little audiophile. But they sound good out of my computer too...not perfect but quite balanced.
