[Twitley]

I can only say you are right Nic!!
By the way the musician was John van der Veer, a great dutch composer and guitar player. Look at: http://www.northseaguitars.com/about.html

Great news guys,

Hifi Solutions is official Empire Ears retailer since we received them today
Made some teasing pictures for our facebook site.... @Jack Vang thanks man!!

I will share a few photo's in this thread, happy to have these great in-ears finally in stock.

The Empire Ears have arrived in Amsterdam...

What a Beauty..


Perfect fit..


Great on the move!!


All together now...

We have the following in ears :
EMPIRE EP SERIES: EVR, ESR, PHANTOM
EMPIRE X SERIES: BRAVADO, VANTAGE, NEMESIS, LEGEND-X

Luck and good listening

 

[proedros]

Hifi Solutions is official Empire Ears retailer since we received them today


The Empire Ears have arrived in Amsterdam...

We have the following in ears :
EMPIRE EP SERIES: EVR, ESR, PHANTOM
EMPIRE X SERIES: BRAVADO, VANTAGE, NEMESIS, LEGEND-X

amsterdam just got a lot more interesting

coffeeshops + empire ears iems + @flinkenick + maybe @Kerouac and @Wyville dropping by

enticing , to say the least.

 

[ctsooner22]

Well I tried passing on this timbre discussion, but I guess I just couldn't resist

The reason why there is a such a different opinion between whether a 'neutral', as in lack of warmth, or a warmer tone is more accurate when it comes to timbre, lies in what is perceived as more realistic. Adding warmth to a signature results in a smearing of transients. When a note starts to sound veiled, there is a loss of sense of purity which is associated with coloration. Especially when it comes to string instruments, increasing the note articulation (lower treble around 5-7 KHz), the attack of a note, improves the sense of how 'pure' it is perceived. Further adding a sense of clarity to that note by boosting upper treble (around 12 KHz) increases the sense of how clear it shines through. So, there are two ways to improve this sense of purity of a note, which automatically gives it a feeling of realism or trueness; making its attack harder or its tone brighter. In that regard warmth does the opposite, which is decreasing that sense of purity. Brighter iems (Galaxy, RE800, Dream etc.) therefore always tend to sound good for string instruments.

Even so, when you hear a real life string instrument, there is no sense of brightness. It is a lightly warm, 'natural' sound; even an instrument like a violin or a piano, which tends to sound better in iems when it is reproduced brighter. But by definition, an actual instrument of course also sounds very pure, since it is right there in front of you. The practical problem for any audio system is that these two are very hard to combine. I've had a similar discussion with Rick once when a musician came over and played a $20K acoustic guitar for us. Even when we are listening to one of his $50K 2 channel systems, the ones that can most accurately convey that sense of realism, all the micro-dynamics of a chord being struck, still fail to reproduce the tonal beauty of the actual guitar. Or perhaps, especially the ones that are geared towards that sense of realism. In the end there is always just an innate conflict between purity, and the warmth required for an accurate timbre, when it comes to realistic reproduction of audio.

However, I would argue that when it comes to the construct of timbre, not realism, a slightly warm tone is required to sound accurate. There is no reason why a signature that lacks warmth should be any kind of objective standard; the only benchmark is comparing to real life instruments. So one might make a case that a warmer signature sounds less true, but that should be seen in the context of realism, not tonal accuracy. Fact of the matter is, iems as the 5-Way, Phantom, and Layla will sound 'dull' for many people, which is fine of course. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and more importantly preference. But that doesn't mean they don't sound natural. In fact, sometimes us people that prefer warmer signatures are also aware that it sounds dull, and wouldn't mind some more sparkle or clarity. We simply endure this dullness because we would rather have a more natural sound, even if it is less exciting.

amsterdam just got a lot more interesting

coffeeshops + empire ears iems + @flinkenick + maybe @Kerouac and @Wyville dropping by

enticing , to say the least.

Don't leave. me out. I'm all in!!! LMAO... I wish...

 

[ccschua]

Does the bass in legend x sound is overwhelming? I use se846 for bass and the bass is amazing, is there anyone compare the shure Se846 vs Legend x?

just no comparisons.

 

[Wyville]

amsterdam just got a lot more interesting

coffeeshops + empire ears iems + @flinkenick + maybe @Kerouac and @Wyville dropping by

enticing , to say the least.

I'm working on it! Soon we shall leave the sweltering heat of London (we packed for an "English Summer" and got flipping Ibiza! so glad my wife did not accept the position in Brisbane ) and I should be able to shop at Hifi Solutions for Xmas!

 

[crinacle]

Well I tried passing on this timbre discussion, but I guess I just couldn't resist

The reason why there is a such a different opinion between whether a 'neutral', as in lack of warmth, or a warmer tone is more accurate when it comes to timbre, lies in what is perceived as more realistic. Adding warmth to a signature results in a smearing of transients. When a note starts to sound veiled, there is a loss of sense of purity which is associated with coloration. Especially when it comes to string instruments, increasing the note articulation (lower treble around 5-7 KHz), the attack of a note, improves the sense of how 'pure' it is perceived. Further adding a sense of clarity to that note by boosting upper treble (around 12 KHz) increases the sense of how clear it shines through. So, there are two ways to improve this sense of purity of a note, which automatically gives it a feeling of realism or trueness; making its attack harder or its tone brighter. In that regard warmth does the opposite, which is decreasing that sense of purity. Brighter iems (Galaxy, RE800, Dream etc.) therefore always tend to sound good for string instruments.

Even so, when you hear a real life string instrument, there is no sense of brightness. It is a lightly warm, 'natural' sound; even an instrument like a violin or a piano, which tends to sound better in iems when it is reproduced brighter. But by definition, an actual instrument of course also sounds very pure, since it is right there in front of you. The practical problem for any audio system is that these two are very hard to combine. I've had a similar discussion with Rick once when a musician came over and played a $20K acoustic guitar for us. Even when we are listening to one of his $50K 2 channel systems, the ones that can most accurately convey that sense of realism, all the micro-dynamics of a chord being struck, still fail to reproduce the tonal beauty of the actual guitar. Or perhaps, especially the ones that are geared towards that sense of realism. In the end there is always just an innate conflict between purity, and the warmth required for an accurate timbre, when it comes to realistic reproduction of audio.

However, I would argue that when it comes to the construct of timbre, not realism, a slightly warm tone is required to sound accurate. There is no reason why a signature that lacks warmth should be any kind of objective standard; the only benchmark is comparing to real life instruments. So one might make a case that a warmer signature sounds less true, but that should be seen in the context of realism, not tonal accuracy. Fact of the matter is, iems as the 5-Way, Phantom, and Layla will sound 'dull' for many people, which is fine of course. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and more importantly preference. But that doesn't mean they don't sound natural. In fact, sometimes us people that prefer warmer signatures are also aware that it sounds dull, and wouldn't mind some more sparkle or clarity. We simply endure this dullness because we would rather have a more natural sound, even if it is less exciting.

Hope we can have a little discussion on this since we're on opposing viewpoints on this.

I'm no multi-instrumentalist so I can't speak for all instruments under the sun, but I do have long term experience on the piano so that's usually my "reference" in terms of timbre and how realistic/natural a transducer (of any type) would sound like. I have a certain reference track that has uses an old-timey upright which is more plinky and "honky-tonk" than the standard full-sized grand (most apparent in the lower keys). Most of my reference gear replicate this quality to a reasonable degree and I have my own cheap-ish upright as a reference.

The Phantom seems to soften the edge of the notes of the upright, and coupled with the lower midrange emphasis makes this particular upright sound more like a grand than an actual upright. In enjoyment this is much appreciated, the notes sound more rich, more weighty and has a nice smooth, flowy quality to it. Looking at it objectively though, I know how this piano sounds; I know it's supposed to be some slight ringing and with less defined lower keys but the Phantom provides a different presentation. A colouration, if you will. This is just a simple example on my end; there are many factors in why I'd consider the Phantom to not be truly "real" or "natural" at least to my own ears, but this was my main identifying factor.

Of course, I know this is a debate that'll have no instant winners since the whole topic of fidelity and naturalness has been raging on ever since the invention of vinyl. I think it's good to discuss the concept of realism, fidelity, what constitutes as "natural" or neutral/flat since the IEM industry has been the least developed in the science of this all. So many competing theories but we're not even close to a consensus in any regard.

 

[flinkenick]

Hope we can have a little discussion on this since we're on opposing viewpoints on this.

I'm no multi-instrumentalist so I can't speak for all instruments under the sun, but I do have long term experience on the piano so that's usually my "reference" in terms of timbre and how realistic/natural a transducer (of any type) would sound like. I have a certain reference track that has uses an old-timey upright which is more plinky and "honky-tonk" than the standard full-sized grand (most apparent in the lower keys). Most of my reference gear replicate this quality to a reasonable degree and I have my own cheap-ish upright as a reference.

The Phantom seems to soften the edge of the notes of the upright, and coupled with the lower midrange emphasis makes this particular upright sound more like a grand than an actual upright. In enjoyment this is much appreciated, the notes sound more rich, more weighty and has a nice smooth, flowy quality to it. Looking at it objectively though, I know how this piano sounds; I know it's supposed to be some slight ringing and with less defined lower keys but the Phantom provides a different presentation. A colouration, if you will. This is just a simple example on my end; there are many factors in why I'd consider the Phantom to not be truly "real" or "natural" at least to my own ears, but this was my main identifying factor.

Of course, I know this is a debate that'll have no instant winners since the whole topic of fidelity and naturalness has been raging on ever since the invention of vinyl. I think it's good to discuss the concept of realism, fidelity, what constitutes as "natural" or neutral/flat since the IEM industry has been the least developed in the science of this all. So many competing theories but we're not even close to a consensus in any regard.

Yes the main purpose of my post was not to say you are wrong; rather, to argue that there are different aspects that contribute to what sounds real, that tend to conflict. I discussed tonality, alongside the raw presentation of a note, its articulation and clarity. In your example, you refer to another aspect, which is the construction of a (midrange) note itself. I understand what you mean, since it is a similar case with the Dita Fidelity/Fealty. Both of them are examples of a dead neutral signature (at least, the Head-Fi definition). The Fealty has more body in its midrange, which gives it more vocal prowess. While this makes the Fidelity a bit leaner, it gives it an advantage for piano, as it more representative in the look and feel of its notes so to speak. In this case, the Fealty adds on a bit more weight than it should. Still, not even close to as much as the Phantom does. Even so, their clear sound does not tonally match with what I associate with a piano. If you listen to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata for example, it is a deeply moving, emotional piece, resulting from a warmer tone of the piano's midrange notes. Even though the Fidelity gives a fairly accurate display of how the notes should feel (more accurate than the Phantom), they do not convey the right tonal color, and hence the emotion. This is what is often seen with neutral, technical, 'reference' systems, they can accurately reproduce everything about how a note should look and feel (another important aspect is resolution), but miss out on the actual tone of it.

This inner conflict of competing aspects in audio is also true within the construct of timbre. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to create a signature that will sound true for all instruments - every instrument has its own timbre, which varies among others, in aspects like warmth. My personal sense of what is truly real and natural is also less warm than the Phantom; it is more of a neutral/natural. A truly accurate signature would therefore have less thickness and warmth than the Phantom. It would sound remarkably clear, yet still lightly warm in tone. But as soon as you try to mix in that warmth, you blend in these unwanted factors. The Phantom has a warmer-than-neutral signature that is an approximate fit of naturalness; not a perfect one. It's a solution that works in some cases, and tends to fit better than other solutions that are a different approximation. So the question is not necessarily is the Phantom always accurate; I'd be skeptical if anyone can make such a claim of an product (at least I've never encountered one). It is whether 1) when you look at how it performs over all instruments does it generally sound accurate, and 2) is it an above-average fit than other solutions. I would personally say yes. In the end it doesn't really matter whether or not it is objectively accurate, as there are enough cases to make on where it would perform less, such as what you mention. The only thing that matters is whether you like it or not.

 

[klyzon]

On a less technical but extremely sad note, think it’s safe to say that I won’t get my phantoms and lx this weekend

 

[deafdoorknob]

Yes the main purpose of my post was not to say you are wrong; rather, to argue that there are different aspects that contribute to what sounds real, that tend to conflict. I discussed tonality, alongside the raw presentation of a note, its articulation and clarity. In your example, you refer to another aspect, which is the construction of a (midrange) note itself. I understand what you mean, since it is a similar case with the Dita Fidelity/Fealty. Both of them are examples of a dead neutral signature (at least, the Head-Fi definition). The Fealty has more body in its midrange, which gives it more vocal prowess. While this makes the Fidelity a bit leaner, it gives it an advantage for piano, as it more representative in the look and feel of its notes so to speak. In this case, the Fealty adds on a bit more weight than it should. Still, not even close to as much as the Phantom does. Even so, their clear sound does not tonally match with what I associate with a piano. If you listen to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata for example, it is a deeply moving, emotional piece, resulting from a warmer tone of the piano's midrange notes. Even though the Fidelity gives a fairly accurate display of how the notes should feel (more accurate than the Phantom), they do not convey the right tonal color, and hence the emotion. This is what is often seen with neutral, technical, 'reference' systems, they can accurately reproduce everything about how a note should look and feel (another important aspect is resolution), but miss out on the actual tone of it.

This inner conflict of competing aspects in audio is also true within the construct of timbre. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to create a signature that will sound true for all instruments - every instrument has its own timbre, which varies among others, in aspects like warmth. My personal sense of what is truly real and natural is also less warm than the Phantom; it is more of a neutral/natural. A truly accurate signature would therefore have less thickness and warmth than the Phantom. It would sound remarkably clear, yet still lightly warm in tone. But as soon as you try to mix in that warmth, you blend in these unwanted factors. The Phantom has a warmer-than-neutral signature that is an approximate fit of naturalness; not a perfect one. It's a solution that works in some cases, and tends to fit better than other solutions that are a different approximation. So the question is not necessarily is the Phantom always accurate; I'd be skeptical if anyone can make such a claim of an product (at least I've never encountered one). It is whether 1) when you look at how it performs over all instruments does it generally sound accurate, and 2) is it an above-average fit than other solutions. I would personally say yes. In the end it doesn't really matter whether or not it is objectively accurate, as there are enough cases to make on where it would perform less, such as what you mention. The only thing that matters is whether you like it or not.

beyond the limitations of the playback chain, there is the recording chain and artistic or technical deviations from what is natural or accurate.

And how about when being accurate to the recording contravenes being accurate to the instruments? a system that makes a say, rudy van gelder piano recordings sound realistic would most likely make all other piano recordings sound shouty, or would subbass matter to whose sole diet consists of trebly power pop (hence why many japanese music fanatics have different systems for different eras/genres) i have a feeling that the more varied one's listening taste is the less likely one is preoccupied on the noble search for an "objective" truth.

 

[KuroKitsu]

Wondering if anyone knows what the output impedance on the Spartan IV is, I've seen 20 Ohms (Here on Head-fi) and 26 Ohms (Empire Ears leagcy page).

 

[ctsooner22]

Yes the main purpose of my post was not to say you are wrong; rather, to argue that there are different aspects that contribute to what sounds real, that tend to conflict. I discussed tonality, alongside the raw presentation of a note, its articulation and clarity. In your example, you refer to another aspect, which is the construction of a (midrange) note itself. I understand what you mean, since it is a similar case with the Dita Fidelity/Fealty. Both of them are examples of a dead neutral signature (at least, the Head-Fi definition). The Fealty has more body in its midrange, which gives it more vocal prowess. While this makes the Fidelity a bit leaner, it gives it an advantage for piano, as it more representative in the look and feel of its notes so to speak. In this case, the Fealty adds on a bit more weight than it should. Still, not even close to as much as the Phantom does. Even so, their clear sound does not tonally match with what I associate with a piano. If you listen to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata for example, it is a deeply moving, emotional piece, resulting from a warmer tone of the piano's midrange notes. Even though the Fidelity gives a fairly accurate display of how the notes should feel (more accurate than the Phantom), they do not convey the right tonal color, and hence the emotion. This is what is often seen with neutral, technical, 'reference' systems, they can accurately reproduce everything about how a note should look and feel (another important aspect is resolution), but miss out on the actual tone of it.

This inner conflict of competing aspects in audio is also true within the construct of timbre. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to create a signature that will sound true for all instruments - every instrument has its own timbre, which varies among others, in aspects like warmth. My personal sense of what is truly real and natural is also less warm than the Phantom; it is more of a neutral/natural. A truly accurate signature would therefore have less thickness and warmth than the Phantom. It would sound remarkably clear, yet still lightly warm in tone. But as soon as you try to mix in that warmth, you blend in these unwanted factors. The Phantom has a warmer-than-neutral signature that is an approximate fit of naturalness; not a perfect one. It's a solution that works in some cases, and tends to fit better than other solutions that are a different approximation. So the question is not necessarily is the Phantom always accurate; I'd be skeptical if anyone can make such a claim of an product (at least I've never encountered one). It is whether 1) when you look at how it performs over all instruments does it generally sound accurate, and 2) is it an above-average fit than other solutions. I would personally say yes. In the end it doesn't really matter whether or not it is objectively accurate, as there are enough cases to make on where it would perform less, such as what you mention. The only thing that matters is whether you like it or not.

what a great topic. Thanks for everyone sharing their thoughts. I'm strongly in Nic's corner. I think it's a reason that so many audiophiles argue for their gear. I notice that most focus on ONE part of the spectrum or one instrument etc... The main objective of a designer is to make as few compromises so that they can appeal to a wide segment of the audience in order to be successful. They also want to be as 'true' to the music as they can be. We all have to figure out what WE like. All too often we are 'told' what to like and we then act like lemmings. I know for years I did the same thing in the 2 channel world. It's too easy to get caught up in things and when you know many designers, you want to like their creations, but in fact, you cna't like all of them. They will be in totally different camps.

Nic's last few posts on this have been eye opening. He's articulated well, what I've always thought and couldn't put into words. I'm going to steal his posts and share with some of my audio friends in the industry. (I'll give you your due buddy), lol. I'm just blown away by your articulation as well as your discussing articulation and timbre. One of my friends has as store that is named simply Timbre (Houston, TX).

It's just a great discussion. I feel strongly that as materials get better and better, we will see more overlap between the two camps Nic. I have already started to see/hear it in 2 channel audio. Carbon Fiber has made a tremendous impact. I have heard some speakers merged the gap so that you feel you are in the room and still able to tap your toes (if you can still (my MS won't really let me do that anymore, lmao)). I think that great designers like Dean and others will soon get to this point and once they do, then it's only their interpretation of 'what is correct'.

 

[tim0chan]

Wondering if anyone knows what the output impedance on the Spartan IV is, I've seen 20 Ohms (Here on Head-fi) and 26 Ohms (Empire Ears leagcy page).

20

 

[Incarnation]

Received my LX! Been looking for a personal endgame hybrid for awhile now, eliminating w900, rhapsodio zombie and tia fourte and settling on LX hard choice as phantom nearly had me

Now the next step...any friends here have a dap to recommend me? Kinda looking at dx150, dx200, zx300, hiby r6 and wm1a at the moment haha. Preference would be sound q and smooth interface. I don't really care for spotify, tidal, internal storage size and dual sd cards

Thanks a bunch!

 

[davidcotton]

Not sure about Hiby R6 and Empire due to the R6 high output impedence (does affect my cerberus sadly).

 

[EagleWings]

Leg X works fine with the R6. But Phantom doesn't. R6 also falls on the warm side, so may not be the ideal DAP for Leg X, (although for my personal preferences, I actually liked the combo)..