The Phantom is technically as strong (if not stronger) than the Vantage, but it's timbre-first tuning definitely makes that less apparent at first listen. The Vantage has a sparklier upper-treble, and its emphasised low-end provides the illusion of better extension. Truthfully, both IEMs extend just as well, and the Phantom can retrieve as much detail as the Vantage can; the way the Phantom was tuned simply makes that less obvious. If the Phantom had terrible low-end extension, you wouldn't be able to get both a mid-bass-focused tone
and a palpable, visceral and well-resolved sub-bass. And, the Phantom's treble extension is crucial in making sure its stage remains stable and un-congested despite the accentuated mid-bass and the forwardly-placed midrange. But, if by
better details, you mean more apparent clarity, than yes - you would be correct.
In case anyone's curious, I'd like to explain my stance on the Phantom's definition of
transparent or
reference. And, I must emphasise that this was written from the perspective of
producing music; not listening to it. Typically, IEMs with neutral signatures - characterised by a linear and sufficient bass response, a leaner midrange and an upper-treble-emphasised top-end - garner these adjectives by their respective proficiencies in clarity, detail retrieval and imaging precision. I concur that these IEMs are fantastic for
editing music (i.e. making cuts, adjusting fades, panning, etc.), but a large majority of music professionals simply refuse to mix and master on them. This is why tons of pros have a
tonally correct or
natural set of speakers and a pair of Yamaha NS-10s just beside. NS-10s are notorious for their ruthlessness when it comes to production quality. As the saying goes, "If it sounds good on the NS-10s, it
can sound good anywhere." Now, the emphasis on
can is to highlight uncertainty. This is because if you've done something wrong, the only thing the NS-10s tell you is, "The recording's harsh," and not much else. Similar to brighter IEMs tuned for
neutrality, the only characteristic it can define within a poor recording is sibilance. But, once you look at the bigger picture, there's a massive problem within that sentiment. Common sibilance is typically located around two key ares: the upper-midrange (around 6-8kHz) and the lower-treble (around 9-11kHz). Now, that's 6 out of the theoretical 20 (most commonly 18) kHz audible to the human ear. What happens if the problem lies within the other two-thirds?
Enter: The Phantom. The Phantom maintains a balance that - to my ears - imposes no signature towards the track. Rather, much of its tonal balance relies on the music you pump through it. The Phantom obviously does have audible traits - otherwise a review would be virtually impossible - but the balance it maintains throughout its frequency response makes it significantly easier to tell how much of the sound you're hearing is from the IEM, and how much of it comes from the recording. An example would be Tom Misch's recently-released album:
Geography. I've been constantly listening to it for the past two days because its funky and jazzy vibe, paired with beautiful production quality. Yet, there's a difference within the second and third track in his vocals that was instantly noticeable at first listen. The second track has an emphasis at around 2-3kHz that does not exist on the third track. There's an extra chestiness to his voice that instantly differentiates the two tracks when heard through the Phantom. This is not to discredit the IEM at all - as it was never marketed as a reference monitor in the first place - but if I had first listened to the same two tracks through the Lime Ears Model X for example (an IEM with beautiful clarity and excellent detail retrieval), it wouldn't have caught my attention at all.
So, really, this is why the Phantom is
excellent as a reference piece. While the common argument I've encountered is, "It's not clean/clear enough to be a transparent tool," the Phantom's approach towards transparency is not one where all the engineer can say is, "Oh, this track's harsh and this one isn't." It's capable of telling me, "This track has a 2-3kHz bump, while the following track does not, and this album was mastered with a peak at around 12kHz, which is why the snare sounds so hollow, etc." Although this may sound like a
glowing endorsement, the flip-side is that every aberration within your music (from the lowest bass note, all the way to the highest treble shriek) becomes distractingly apparent. In truth, the Phantom
is the red pill. Take it, and the illusion of
"All of my non-harsh music sounds great!" falls apart within an instant, or you can take the blue pill and enjoy
everything without a worry in sight. As an engineer, I've been destined to prioritise the former. But, unlike in
The Matrix, I always have the choice of buying the latter too.
