[snapandslide]

Another Odin lover here (Frigg wannabe??)!! Not just the layering and depth, but also the size is amazing. The lifted bass is great for most pop/rock/etc. music for my tastes. (Funny, I used to think I was a bass-head until I joined this thread.) The Odin is close to end-game for me.

The bass and forward upper mid doesn't fit for jazz or classical for me. Now if @Jack Vang were to do the same thing to the Odin that was done to the Zeus XR, add a 2nd x-over for a neutral tuning with a switch, that could easily be the end-game for moi.

I find the forward upper mids give a bit of extra bite with strings and piano. As @HiFiHawaii808 says, it’s more of a ‘lighter’ presentation.

For anything meatier I am fortunate to have Traillii and Z1R is no slouch either!

 

[CL14715]

I think it’s a little odd that as soon as someone has a dislike of certain aspects of a new IEM everything starts crashing down (or so it would seem today)… I for one am quite sensitive to upper mid forwardness (but not as much as 6-8k peaks) but I’m still super excited to get my hands on the EVO despite everything today. Sure, I might not love them but I’m by no means put off because it didn’t meet someone else’s preferences.

I’m going to be listening to a lot of metal music with EVO and I’m looking for a more lively presentation then I’m used to with my other IEMs that are too withdrawn in the upper mids. I’m also quite aware that some metal tracks will probably sound like garbage on them due to production issues (they might not but then I’ll be pleasantly surprised!)… I’ll be happy to report my findings too once I finally get mine (no idea when that will actually be though!)

I’ve said this before but, if they keep the general FR of the Bravado mk2 whilst bumping clarity and improving on all other aspects of their sound, I can see myself loving the EVO.

As a metal head who daily uses his custom Bravado MKII, I would be HIGHLY surprised based on what you just described if you didn't like them. Really interested what you think when you're able to report back.

 

[GiullianSN]

One thing I've never managed to reconcile is the correlation between resolution and harshness. There's a case to be made that an IEM's technical ability can reveal a track's shortcomings. I've heard errors in fading (or pop-ins) and automation on some tracks (of mine and others) that were revealed to me by more detailed IEMs. As I mentioned on my ODIN review, that IEM's spatial capabilities will cause compressed tracks to sound small and mushed-in, and allow dynamic ones to feel vast and open. When it comes to harshness, though, I've never come across on IEM that's made a track sound sharp or fatiguing, simply because of how resolving it is. It always has to do with treble (or higher-higher-midrange) tuning; a tonal matter, rather than a technical one.

A more revealing IEM will, in my experience, always make a poorer track sound underwhelming - 'kinda like, "Oh, is that all there is to it?" - rather than discover some new, repulsive facet of it that'll make you shiver and wince. When I listen to a track whose flaw is that it's been significantly compressed, I shouldn't hear compression, but then harshness also, right?

I must stress that none of this is directed at the EVO. Again, I haven't heard it. I'm just trying to question the concept in general, which I've been hearing for years now with no strong justifications for it. The only reason I can think of for its existence in the first place goes back to the reference = bright propaganda I discussed on another thread some time ago. There was an idea back then that resolution and reference were closely linked to brightness, because pushing the treble was the main route brands were taking to achieve detail. So, when people found that their resolving, reference headphones were causing tracks to sound too bright or harsh, they'd blame it on the tracks, thus the birth of harshness = "distortion" or "flaw" in the track.

In reality, though, I don't believe there is such a thing, unless it's egregious and can be heard on any IEM or headphone, of course. To me, tracks are just like headphones and IEMs themselves. They come in all shapes and sizes, and they each have their own colourations. No engineer will mix and master the same, just like no IEM maker will tune the same. Inevitably, there will be times when the colour of the in-ear and the colour of the track just doesn't mesh well, and the fault is on neither party. Sometimes, things simply don't mix. That's life. So, rather than go through the rigour of finding which of the two is to blame, I reckon it's best to just find the one that works for you and move on.

Well said, mate.

 

[Mehran]

One thing I've never managed to reconcile is the correlation between resolution and harshness. There's a case to be made that an IEM's technical ability can reveal a track's shortcomings. I've heard errors in fading (or pop-ins) and automation on some tracks (of mine and others) that were revealed to me by more detailed IEMs. As I mentioned on my ODIN review, that IEM's spatial capabilities will cause compressed tracks to sound small and mushed-in, and allow dynamic ones to feel vast and open. When it comes to harshness, though, I've never come across on IEM that's made a track sound sharp or fatiguing, simply because of how resolving it is. It always has to do with treble (or higher-higher-midrange) tuning; a tonal matter, rather than a technical one.

A more revealing IEM will, in my experience, always make a poorer track sound underwhelming - 'kinda like, "Oh, is that all there is to it?" - rather than discover some new, repulsive facet of it that'll make you shiver and wince. When I listen to a track whose flaw is that it's been significantly compressed, I shouldn't hear compression, but then harshness also, right?

I must stress that none of this is directed at the EVO. Again, I haven't heard it. I'm just trying to question the concept in general, which I've been hearing for years now with no strong justifications for it. The only reason I can think of for its existence in the first place goes back to the reference = bright propaganda I discussed on another thread some time ago. There was an idea back then that resolution and reference were closely linked to brightness, because pushing the treble was the main route brands were taking to achieve detail. So, when people found that their resolving, reference headphones were causing tracks to sound too bright or harsh, they'd blame it on the tracks, thus the birth of harshness = "distortion" or "flaw" in the track.

In reality, though, I don't believe there is such a thing, unless it's egregious and can be heard on any IEM or headphone, of course. To me, tracks are just like headphones and IEMs themselves. They come in all shapes and sizes, and they each have their own colourations. No engineer will mix and master the same, just like no IEM maker will tune the same. Inevitably, there will be times when the colour of the in-ear and the colour of the track just doesn't mesh well, and the fault is on neither party. Sometimes, things simply don't mix. That's life. So, rather than go through the rigour of finding which of the two is to blame, I reckon it's best to just find the one that works for you and move on.

I totally agree. No IEM is for everyone, and if I spend a few thousand dollars on an IEM I don't want to tip toe around the volume knob just to make a song tolerable or skip a lot songs in my playlists.

 

[Deezel177]

I totally agree. No IEM is for everyone, and if I spend a few thousand dollars on an IEM I don't want to tip toe around the volume knob just to make a song tolerable or skip a lot songs in my playlists.

Yeah, I do the same for my reviews as well. Before I consider anything a "flaw" on an IEM, I'll always try to view it in different contexts. Does it work for certain genres or mixes? Does it work at certain listening volumes? Is it only situational? Etc. When I find myself asking too many of those questions or trying too hard to justify it, then that's when I go into stronger critique. It's definitely something I've only realised and learned to do with time and experience.

 

[aaf evo]

Sometimes, things simply don't mix. That's life. So, rather than go through the rigour of finding which of the two is to blame, I reckon it's best to just find the one that works for you and move on.

See, this is where its a lose-lose situation for myself.

Last year when I heard the Odin, I knew within 10 minutes the tuning was not for me. No sort of burn in, tips, sources, or cables was going to fix what was outside of my preferences. It was very easy to just ”move on” really quickly. Also, another user tried Odin with a different cable because they didn’t have a 2.5mm DAP and their impressions got wrote off really fast because it wasn’t the “stock” configuration like EE had intended it to be used with.

With the Evo, overall I am satisfied with the tuning. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, none of my IEMs are. With the Elysian X I hear it to have a digital/light/airy timbre coupled with a lighter mid bass thump and slightly thin lower mid range. With the A12t I think sometimes the upper mid range and lower treble overall is too “boring” to bring that excitement into music. With the Evo, I’d say for me it’s mainly the treble tuning which to me kinda takes a back seat, but that is fine.

My main gripe with the Evo has never really been about tuning, it’s been about that “grain/harshness” I am hearing. I spent $3100 on this, I think I owe it to myself to at least eliminate all possible variables to see if it can be remedied? I don’t think it would be fair at all to just say “okay this is harsh, lets put it back in the box and move on.” As soon as I said I was hearing harshness, I was told I needed 100 hours of burn in. I have tried different tips which I managed to bring down the upper mid range a bit, but I still hear the grain and the treble gets more quiet as a result which isn’t ideal for me. I have tried different cables, nothing different there. I have also tried other sources without much luck.

If I don’t burn these in and then just let them go, I don’t think that is very fair and I know for a fact I will get people telling me “you didn’t burn them in” , so I’d like to avoid that and then move on with them after I’ve eliminated the last variable. If after burn in I still hear some stuff I am not okay with, then they can go and I would know for a fact they are simply just not for me, and that is fine.

 

[Deezel177]

See, this is where its a lose-lose situation for myself.

Last year when I heard the Odin, I knew within 10 minutes the tuning was not for me. No sort of burn in, tips, sources, or cables was going to fix what was outside of my preferences. It was very easy to just ”move on” really quickly. Also, another user tried Odin with a different cable because they didn’t have a 2.5mm DAP and their impressions got wrote off really fast because it wasn’t the “stock” configuration like EE had intended it to be used with.

With the Evo, overall I am satisfied with the tuning. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, none of my IEMs are. With the Elysian X I hear it to have a digital/light/airy timbre coupled with a lighter mid bass thump and slightly thin lower mid range. With the A12t I think sometimes the upper mid range and lower treble overall is too “boring” to bring that excitement into music. With the Evo, I’d say for me it’s mainly the treble tuning which to me kinda takes a back seat, but that is fine.

My main gripe with the Evo has never really been about tuning, it’s been about that “grain/harshness” I am hearing. I spent $3100 on this, I think I owe it to myself to at least eliminate all possible variables to see if it can be remedied? I don’t think it would be fair at all to just say “okay this is harsh, lets put it back in the box and move on.” As soon as I said I was hearing harshness, I was told I needed 100 hours of burn in. I have tried different tips which I managed to bring down the upper mid range a bit, but I still hear the grain and the treble gets more quiet as a result which isn’t ideal for me. I have tried different cables, nothing different there. I have also tried other sources without much luck.

If I don’t burn these in and then just let them go, I don’t think that is very fair and I know for a fact I will get people telling me “you didn’t burn them in” , so I’d like to avoid that and then move on with them after I’ve eliminated the last variable. If after burn in I still hear some stuff I am not okay with, then they can go and I would know for a fact they are simply just not for me, and that is fine.

For sure, man. Most - I'd like to think, all - couples don't separate unless they've tried their hardest to pull through, right? What I said was more of a dramaticisation. Like I mentioned on my most recent post, it's a good idea to go through every possible context. So, when you do move on, you can do it confidently. Obviously, the lengths at which you do so is for you to decide. What anyone else says, including me, is nothing more than a second opinion.

 

[aaf evo]

For sure, man. Most - I'd like to think, all - couples don't separate unless they've tried their hardest to pull through, right? What I said was more of a dramaticisation. Like I mentioned on my most recent post, it's a good idea to go through every possible context. So, when you do move on, you can do it confidently. Obviously, the lengths at which you do so is for you to decide. What anyone else says, including me, is nothing more than a second opinion.

I can’t talk about this anymore for now. It’s been exhausting me I’ll be back if I have anything else to say as far as changes go. Looking forward to others receiving theirs!

 

[Frankie D]

Crinacle published measurements of EVO. Here is a graph of Traillii, LX, EVO and Odin. The FR curves start to deviate for Odin around 1khz and EVO at 1.5khz relative to Traillii and LX. If tuning for Traillii is perfect for you, then it may explain why EVO and Odin are too hot for you in the upper mids. For me, I prefer the Odin and EVO upper mids presence and find Traillii to be somewhat veiled in comparison.

Looking at your graphs and based on the below chart, the Traillii has the better mid presence while the EVO has the stronger treble ( it takes off at 1.5khz). Don’t Forget middle c is only around 261hz. The treble fundamentals begin much earlier than are typically quoted in head-fi.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

I think it’s a little odd that as soon as someone has a dislike of certain aspects of a new IEM everything starts crashing down (or so it would seem today)… I for one am quite sensitive to upper mid forwardness (but not as much as 6-8k peaks) but I’m still super excited to get my hands on the EVO despite everything today. Sure, I might not love them but I’m by no means put off because it didn’t meet someone else’s preferences.

I’m going to be listening to a lot of metal music with EVO and I’m looking for a more lively presentation then I’m used to with my other IEMs that are too withdrawn in the upper mids. I’m also quite aware that some metal tracks will probably sound like garbage on them due to production issues (they might not but then I’ll be pleasantly surprised!)… I’ll be happy to report my findings too once I finally get mine (no idea when that will actually be though!)

I’ve said this before but, if they keep the general FR of the Bravado mk2 whilst bumping clarity and improving on all other aspects of their sound, I can see myself loving the EVO.

I think you’ll love the EVO with metal! I finally found a cable that is the equal of the Genisis, the Penon Totem does everything the 1960s does but is superior in a couple of ways. First, with the upper mids/lower treble becoming more organic, while not blunting the dynamics (as does the 1960), and equalling the Genisis in the bass, the mids enhancement creating a solid w profile. I'll try it with other palladium, gold, and silver alloys I can dig up.

 

[riverground]

And just for reference, here’s the LX, LXSE, And EVO graph comparison.

Default normalization at 60dB equal loudness

Normalized at 1kHz

 

[Skullar]

Looking at your graphs and based on the below chart, the Traillii has the better mid presence while the EVO has the stronger treble ( it takes off at 1.5khz). Don’t Forget middle c is only around 261hz. The treble fundamentals begin much earlier than are typically quoted in head-fi.

This FR tab seems quite a bit off. You can kill me but i have never seen 700hz being called upper mids lol.

 

[FlowLikeWater]

And just for reference, here’s the LX, LXSE, And EVO graph comparison.


Default normalization at 60dB equal loudness


Normalized at 1kHz

Lol, I thought Crinacle of all people would have the foresight to realize that his GRAS measurement rig is not the right tool to measure a BCD IEM, unless EE says otherwise. Maybe he'll mention this in his review though, looking forward to that.

It would be very cool to see an Empire Ears in-house FR graph of the EVO using proper measuring equipment to accurately capture the BCD effects. Specifically, how this compares to the air conduction graphs.

The graphs are probably not that big of a deal at the end of the day, but for the few people over-obsessed with accuracy and precision it is an interesting experiment,

Also appreciating the varied reception to the EVO, it helps paint a more honest picture of the EVO experience

 

[subguy812]

I think it’s a little odd that as soon as someone has a dislike of certain aspects of a new IEM everything starts crashing down (or so it would seem today)… I for one am quite sensitive to upper mid forwardness (but not as much as 6-8k peaks) but I’m still super excited to get my hands on the EVO despite everything today. Sure, I might not love them but I’m by no means put off because it didn’t meet someone else’s preferences.

I’m going to be listening to a lot of metal music with EVO and I’m looking for a more lively presentation then I’m used to with my other IEMs that are too withdrawn in the upper mids. I’m also quite aware that some metal tracks will probably sound like garbage on them due to production issues (they might not but then I’ll be pleasantly surprised!)… I’ll be happy to report my findings too once I finally get mine (no idea when that will actually be though!)

I’ve said this before but, if they keep the general FR of the Bravado mk2 whilst bumping clarity and improving on all other aspects of their sound, I can see myself loving the EVO.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. EVO is an enjoyable listen.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

And just for reference, here’s the LX, LXSE, And EVO graph comparison.


Default normalization at 60dB equal loudness


Normalized at 1kHz

So that 4-5khz bump is what some folks are bothered by, I'm assuming Crin’s was straight out of the box, and as noted above there's no measuring bone conduction (that I'm aware of). @gLer I wasn't able to listen to those tracks (I will later tonight), was it simply overload distortion?