[Deezel177]

 

So ok, between the zues universal and Arthur universal, the Arthur is in a league of its own. The arthur is so much better that its not even funny, that I could ever think a TOTL iem could sound so bad. It leaves no stones unturned in the song, and pulls out all the details that the song has to offer. Focus in the notes are spot on and the lower mid-bass has almost no bleed. The ZuesR, tends to sound a little hazy in the lower mids-bnass regions, which the Arthus does not have at all. Treble wise, the Arthur also is a little more peaky, which gives it that sparkly which the ZuesR does not have. Soundstage is once again worlds apart; the Arthus extends further and deeper behind you, an area that the ZuesR struggles with.

However, that changes when i swapped over to a custom version. I had the fortune to be able to borrow two custom units of the ZuesR and Arthur each to A/B them on the spot. In its custom form, I found myself more impressed with the holographic staging of the Zues which the Arthur lacked. In return, the Arthur was much more resolving while being more engaging and energetic (forward mids, clear and focused mid-lower mids). The Zues to Arthur, felt like a toss up between staging or technicality. In short, which both units carried across all the characteristics its universal form, the improvement in the ZuesR was so much more pronounced than the Arthur that it actually was able to outdo the Arthur in certain aspect. Still, the Arthur does carry across its extreme note reproduction to its custom form, so that too also means that each and every part of the song (as well as mistakes in its mastering) are revealed in its full glory. Personally, I dig that, knowing that my gear isnt missing anything, so its its good too. 

That said, both custom units were made for different people. But my ear shape sort of allows me to force-fit almost every custom that I've come across (my second bend, doesnt 'bend'; its a straight line to my eardrum), so rest assured that my impressions were based on a close to perfect seal. But still, because the ear molds are fundamentally different, I am sure that my impression is NOT the best that it could be, in which I would have both units custom made to my ear for comparison. 

I believe that mention should also be given to the packaged cable which, unfortunately, failed to impress. It made the Arthur sound bloated in the mids-lower mids and lose its selling point; its absolute focus in its note reproduction. Yes, some would argue that that would give the Arthur that 'oomph', but that, to me, isnt the main purpose of the Arthur, Its like throwing on an off-road tyre onto a Pinerello road bike and riding it because the bike feels more comfortable that way. To me, ideally the Arthur would come as a standalone product. If you need that 'oomph' in an IEM which the cable gives, I suggest looking for something else that caters to the mainstream taste. 

In a nut shell; if you do buy the zues, don't bother with the universals; its a ghost of what the custom can really sound like. If you do choose to buy the Arthur, you can consider the universal, but at that price point I still think it a waste of a good IEM to not draw out its full potential. 

 
Wow thanks! Great descriptions and incredibly promising impressions. As someone who honestly finds the Zeus-R (on the universal demo at least) too thick, dark, and, for lack of a better term, kinda boring, the Arthur sounds like its more engaging, resolving, and transparent cousin, which is way more towards my preferences. @Kozato will MS get the Arthur demos anytime soon? I'd love to give them a try. Again, thanks for the comparison, happy listening!

 

[Sound Eq]

 

So ok, between the zues universal and Arthur universal, the Arthur is in a league of its own. The arthur is so much better that its not even funny, that I could ever think a TOTL iem could sound so bad. It leaves no stones unturned in the song, and pulls out all the details that the song has to offer. Focus in the notes are spot on and the lower mid-bass has almost no bleed. The ZuesR, tends to sound a little hazy in the lower mids-bnass regions, which the Arthus does not have at all. Treble wise, the Arthur also is a little more peaky, which gives it that sparkly which the ZuesR does not have. Soundstage is once again worlds apart; the Arthus extends further and deeper behind you, an area that the ZuesR struggles with.

However, that changes when i swapped over to a custom version. I had the fortune to be able to borrow two custom units of the ZuesR and Arthur each to A/B them on the spot. In its custom form, I found myself more impressed with the holographic staging of the Zues which the Arthur lacked. In return, the Arthur was much more resolving while being more engaging and energetic (forward mids, clear and focused mid-lower mids). The Zues to Arthur, felt like a toss up between staging or technicality. In short, which both units carried across all the characteristics its universal form, the improvement in the ZuesR was so much more pronounced than the Arthur that it actually was able to outdo the Arthur in certain aspect. Still, the Arthur does carry across its extreme note reproduction to its custom form, so that too also means that each and every part of the song (as well as mistakes in its mastering) are revealed in its full glory. Personally, I dig that, knowing that my gear isnt missing anything, so its its good too. 

That said, both custom units were made for different people. But my ear shape sort of allows me to force-fit almost every custom that I've come across (my second bend, doesnt 'bend'; its a straight line to my eardrum), so rest assured that my impressions were based on a close to perfect seal. But still, because the ear molds are fundamentally different, I am sure that my impression is NOT the best that it could be, in which I would have both units custom made to my ear for comparison. 

I believe that mention should also be given to the packaged cable which, unfortunately, failed to impress. It made the Arthur sound bloated in the mids-lower mids and lose its selling point; its absolute focus in its note reproduction. Yes, some would argue that that would give the Arthur that 'oomph', but that, to me, isnt the main purpose of the Arthur, Its like throwing on an off-road tyre onto a Pinerello road bike and riding it because the bike feels more comfortable that way. To me, ideally the Arthur would come as a standalone product. If you need that 'oomph' in an IEM which the cable gives, I suggest looking for something else that caters to the mainstream taste. 

In a nut shell; if you do buy the zues, don't bother with the universals; its a ghost of what the custom can really sound like. If you do choose to buy the Arthur, you can consider the universal, but at that price point I still think it a waste of a good IEM to not draw out its full potential. 

to be honest from reading that description i am glad i bought the zues r universal, as to me i do not find the zeus r lacking in any department, which makes me question your source and what tips you used. Also having more treble than what is already found in zeus r is not something I would desire for at least to me. And to describe the zeus r universal as a bad totl iem compared to arthur is bit too much. I know I did not listen to the arthur, but from your description of the arthur I am certain I will not like it as that is not the signature I would like to have. I am sure the arthur might be to the liking for many others though

 

[boomtube]

 

So ok, between the zues universal and Arthur universal, the Arthur is in a league of its own. The arthur is so much better that its not even funny, that I could ever think a TOTL iem could sound so bad. It leaves no stones unturned in the song, and pulls out all the details that the song has to offer. Focus in the notes are spot on and the lower mid-bass has almost no bleed. The ZuesR, tends to sound a little hazy in the lower mids-bnass regions, which the Arthus does not have at all. Treble wise, the Arthur also is a little more peaky, which gives it that sparkly which the ZuesR does not have. Soundstage is once again worlds apart; the Arthus extends further and deeper behind you, an area that the ZuesR struggles with.

However, that changes when i swapped over to a custom version. I had the fortune to be able to borrow two custom units of the ZuesR and Arthur each to A/B them on the spot. In its custom form, I found myself more impressed with the holographic staging of the Zues which the Arthur lacked. In return, the Arthur was much more resolving while being more engaging and energetic (forward mids, clear and focused mid-lower mids). The Zues to Arthur, felt like a toss up between staging or technicality. In short, which both units carried across all the characteristics its universal form, the improvement in the ZuesR was so much more pronounced than the Arthur that it actually was able to outdo the Arthur in certain aspect. Still, the Arthur does carry across its extreme note reproduction to its custom form, so that too also means that each and every part of the song (as well as mistakes in its mastering) are revealed in its full glory. Personally, I dig that, knowing that my gear isnt missing anything, so its its good too. 

That said, both custom units were made for different people. But my ear shape sort of allows me to force-fit almost every custom that I've come across (my second bend, doesnt 'bend'; its a straight line to my eardrum), so rest assured that my impressions were based on a close to perfect seal. But still, because the ear molds are fundamentally different, I am sure that my impression is NOT the best that it could be, in which I would have both units custom made to my ear for comparison. 

I believe that mention should also be given to the packaged cable which, unfortunately, failed to impress. It made the Arthur sound bloated in the mids-lower mids and lose its selling point; its absolute focus in its note reproduction. Yes, some would argue that that would give the Arthur that 'oomph', but that, to me, isnt the main purpose of the Arthur, Its like throwing on an off-road tyre onto a Pinerello road bike and riding it because the bike feels more comfortable that way. To me, ideally the Arthur would come as a standalone product. If you need that 'oomph' in an IEM which the cable gives, I suggest looking for something else that caters to the mainstream taste. 

In a nut shell; if you do buy the zues, don't bother with the universals; its a ghost of what the custom can really sound like. If you do choose to buy the Arthur, you can consider the universal, but at that price point I still think it a waste of a good IEM to not draw out its full potential. 

It's amazing to me how many times I read a subjective opinion about sound quality,...as tho it's an established fact. Music is listened to, sought out and purchased according to personal taste.
 
To say one IEM is superior or inferior to another, is like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Daft Punk.
 
I'm tired of reading one limited perspective and having it presented like it's the law.

 

[Rei87]

  to be honest from reading that description i am glad i bought the zues r universal, as to me i do not find the zeus r lacking in any department, which makes me question your source and what tips you used. Also having more treble than what is already found in zeus r is not something I would desire for at least to me. And to describe the zeus r universal as a bad totl iem compared to arthur is bit too much. I know I did not listen to the arthur, but from your description of the arthur I am certain I will not like it as that is not the signature I would like to have. I am sure the arthur might be to the liking for many others though

Haha I too, didnt find the Zues universal lacking in any areas till I heard the custom Zues, and the universal Arthur..Or rather, one can't know if what one is missing out of if you didnt know another standard existed  

As for source, its an AK380CU, into a KojoBrass amp (or my slightly more technical HP02) using an interconnect that focuses on resolution over musicality. Same goes for the cable used in the comparison. Tips were standard tips, to maintain equivalence between comparison. No point doing a comparison if you're going to use an iphone running off tidal or youtube. The point is to throw as much details as possible at the iem and see where it fails to keep up, unlike most people who seek to 'just enjoy the iem'. I dont use my gear to listen to music; I use music to listen to the gear  

But heys; I can only make and critique impressions based from what I hear from the IEM itself than from a message board. From what I heard, I wouldnt drop a cent on the universal given the night and day difference from its custom variant. I will stand by my position that, based on what I heard, the Zues R universal is a joke beside the Arthur universal. However, the custom Zues R, is a strong contender to the custom Arthur, and even besting it in some aspects, if one is looking for his next TOTL CUSTOM iem.  

 

  It's amazing to me how many times I read a subjective opinion about sound quality,...as tho it's an established fact. Music is listened to, sought out and purchased according to personal taste.
 
To say one IEM is superior or inferior to another, is like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Daft Punk.
 
I'm tired of reading one limited perspective and having it presented like it's the law.
 
 

Ah, but you see, the lovely thing in my comparison is that, not once did I compare sonic signature tuning as being 'better or worse'. What I did tho, was simply test for how well the IEM could resolve details, i.e. was there any bleed of notes or interference between the drivers that led to a lack of clarity (veil) over the details. Sonic signature preference is subjective; that I agree. Resolution and focus in the notes; no. It either resolves the details, or it does not. 

So to use your example; what I have done, would be to say that, example, Led Zeppelin is the better artiste because they invest in music that has better mastering because I hear less artifacts and a clearer definition in their music than Daft Punk. That, is not subjective, as no one can contest the presence of details, or a lack of. 

Cheers

 

[Deezel177]

  It's amazing to me how many times I read a subjective opinion about sound quality,...as tho it's an established fact. Music is listened to, sought out and purchased according to personal taste.
 
To say one IEM is superior or inferior to another, is like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Daft Punk.
 
I'm tired of reading one limited perspective and having it presented like it's the law.

 
I honestly think everything he said was warranted and was of his own opinion. No where in his impressions did he ever state that all other opinions regarding either IEM is invalid; this is a public forum after all. If he equates transparency, engagement, etc. to "better" and you happen to have a different opinion, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, impressions of any audio device are simply a guide as to what to expect, not a set-in-stone law as to whether you have to love or hate said device.

 

[Rei87]

  It's amazing to me how many times I read a subjective opinion about sound quality,...as tho it's an established fact. Music is listened to, sought out and purchased according to personal taste.
 
To say one IEM is superior or inferior to another, is like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Daft Punk.
 
I'm tired of reading one limited perspective and having it presented like it's the law.

 

   
I honestly think everything he said was warranted and was of his own opinion. No where in his impressions did he ever state that all other opinions regarding either IEM is invalid; this is a public forum after all. If he equates transparency, engagement, etc. to "better" and you happen to have a different opinion, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, impressions of any audio device are simply a guide as to what to expect, not a set-in-stone law as to whether you have to love or hate said device.

I dont remember mentioning how engaging an IEM as a factor in IEM superiority tho lol.....in fact, i always avoid ranking IEMs on how engaging it is because that is a very subjective criteria. 

To be frank tho, I still cannot decide on the Arthur or Zues; both embodies characteristics that cannot be found in the other. I do know that there are some who are already completely sold on the Arthur as the world's most perfect IEM, but frankly I have my reservations. All iems are a give and take; nothing is exempt from the rule. The thing is to know what you give (and take) in return for your selection, and I hope that my short comparison has managed to shed some light on that. 

 

[Deezel177]

   


I dont remember mentioning how engaging an IEM as a factor in IEM superiority tho lol.....in fact, i always avoid ranking IEMs on how engaging it is because that is a very subjective criteria. 

To be frank tho, I still cannot decide on the Arthur or Zues; both embodies characteristics that cannot be found in the other. I do know that there are some who are already completely sold on the Arthur as the world's most perfect IEM, but frankly I have my reservations. All iems are a give and take; nothing is exempt from the rule. The thing is to know what you give (and take) in return for your selection, and I hope that my short comparison has managed to shed some light on that. 

 
Apologies, that was an assumption on my part.

 

[amature101]

i read that EE might have adel module. Is this true?

 

[Rin1990]

  i read that EE might have adel module. Is this true?

Wait, it's gonna have the same thing that the 64 Ears CIEMs have in future? Where did you hear this?

 

[Rei87]

Dude no worries. But I agree that most people tend to rate engagement as a criteria, which probably led to this assumption. Few people, if any, actually do a review or impression based on measures or reference points that aren't subjective. 

 

[Rin1990]

  Dude no worries. But I agree that most people tend to rate engagement as a criteria, which probably led to this assumption. Few people, if any, actually do a review or impression based on measures or reference points that aren't subjective. 

That was a great write up though. It seems like Arthur is more up to my preference since I am all about musicality and fun sound signature.
 
My write up on the Empire demos in page 162 were all subjective either so I don't expect people to listen to me 100% as my ears are never going to be the same as those around here and people have different taste when it comes to IEMs or any audio equipment. 
 
In the end, I am just trying my best to give an impression of what the universal demos let me listen and I am doing by best to give my impression in the most sincere way possible.
 
I mean I am one of those who find the A12 to be a bit dull for a flagship 12-BA driver CIEM, because the sound isn't as fun as I expect it to be despite being very revealing and detailed. Surely there'll be people that think otherwise.

 

[Sound Eq]

  Dude no worries. But I agree that most people tend to rate engagement as a criteria, which probably led to this assumption. Few people, if any, actually do a review or impression based on measures or reference points that aren't subjective. 

i respect your review and thanks for it as it shed a light on other things like how the customs zeus r differs from the universal zeus r
 
on a separate note can you tell me how the kojo pairs with the zeus r
 
i am in search for an amp that has great bass, and wide sound stage
 
is there any hiss with the kojo and zeus r
 
and does the kojo compare to other totl amps if you can give examples

 

[boomtube]

 

Haha I too, didnt find the Zues universal lacking in any areas till I heard the custom Zues, and the universal Arthur..Or rather, one can't know if what one is missing out of if you didnt know another standard existed  

As for source, its an AK380CU, into a KojoBrass amp (or my slightly more technical HP02) using an interconnect that focuses on resolution over musicality. Same goes for the cable used in the comparison. Tips were standard tips, to maintain equivalence between comparison. No point doing a comparison if you're going to use an iphone running off tidal or youtube. The point is to throw as much details as possible at the iem and see where it fails to keep up, unlike most people who seek to 'just enjoy the iem'. I dont use my gear to listen to music; I use music to listen to the gear  

But heys; I can only make and critique impressions based from what I hear from the IEM itself than from a message board. From what I heard, I wouldnt drop a cent on the universal given the night and day difference from its custom variant. I will stand by my position that, based on what I heard, the Zues R universal is a joke beside the Arthur universal. However, the custom Zues R, is a strong contender to the custom Arthur, and even besting it in some aspects, if one is looking for his next TOTL CUSTOM iem.  

 

Ah, but you see, the lovely thing in my comparison is that, not once did I compare sonic signature tuning as being 'better or worse'. What I did tho, was simply test for how well the IEM could resolve details, i.e. was there any bleed of notes or interference between the drivers that led to a lack of clarity (veil) over the details. Sonic signature preference is subjective; that I agree. Resolution and focus in the notes; no. It either resolves the details, or it does not. 

So to use your example; what I have done, would be to say that, example, Led Zeppelin is the better artiste because they invest in music that has better mastering because I hear less artifacts and a clearer definition in their music than Daft Punk. That, is not subjective, as no one can contest the presence of details, or a lack of. 

Cheers

I didn't mean to jump on this that hard...when I read the Zeus R universal was a joke next to the other, I developed tunnel vision on your write-up. PEACE!

 

[Sound Eq]

  I didn't mean to jump on this that hard...when I read the Zeus R universal was a joke next to the other, I developed tunnel vision on your write-up. PEACE!

me too

 

[moedawg140]

My current favorite DAC/amps and/or amps that perform well in most all facets, plus excel in the bass department are the bass boost featured iFi Audio micro iCAN SE and the CEntrance DACportable, which also features treble boost. :normal_smile :