As someone who's spent hours upon hours listening to studio speakers in a well-treated environment, I can indeed confirm that they image better than in-ears can. Mixing and editing always feels superior to me in those environments, with one of the advantages being the ease with which a palpable literal stage is produced all around you. The only advantage an in-ear has is superior intimacy (which is only an advantage if it's what you're specifically looking for) and more sensitive left-right balance. I use IEMs to make sure my left and right channels are perfectly balanced, because left-right separation is slightly more apparent on them, but speakers always have the upper hand in immersion, layering, finer-detailing, effortlessness, etc. Due to the radiating nature of speakers, sound waves can mingle and surround you, but not in a way that degrades precision. In fact, it replicates the sounds you'd hear in venues and live studios, to produce a more life-like spatial representation of the track. I love IEMs with all my heart and I spend infinitely more time with them than I do with speakers, but I gotta give this one to the good 'ol two-channel speaker.
Like w900?I wasn't thinking about quality though.. Just like to have the frequency range as a reference for comparison even though its not 100% accurate most of the time.
Well, it's not really a matter of the frequency range's accuracy. Whether or not the numbers are sound, they ultimately tell you nothing about the IEM's signature or quality. Companies like Empire Ears probably produce IEMs that can easily go from around 20-40Hz low to 17-20kHz high. What's more important is the linearity of that extension and how it affects the IEM's stage, resolution, physicality, etc. In my experience, EE's latest line-ups all carry pretty great bass extension, but treble extension is understandably better on the higher-end models. They're all still beautifully clear, but staging and imaging isn't as pin-point precise because of this.
. It's all good.
