[PixelSquish]

Has anyone had both of these IEM and have a direct comparison? I'm just curious. I have the IE600 and putting another IEM on the down the road upgrade potential list. Love the LCD-X (with a bit of EQ)

 

[Thomastb]

Bump, would love to hear some comparison between Euclid and Ie600 too, great thanks

 

[Quirkz]

Me too. Have Euclid, curious about the 600

 

[baskingshark]

Has anyone had both of these IEM and have a direct comparison? I'm just curious. I have the IE600 and putting another IEM on the down the road upgrade potential list. Love the LCD-X (with a bit of EQ)

It is a bit of an apples to orange comparison as the 2 IEMs are using different driver types, so the different transducers have their pros and cons.

But FWIW, Euclid is harder to drive. The Euclid is much more bass lite, but brighter, with treble peaks. Technicalities and resolution are better on the Euclid, though it has a more artificial timbre.

I think these 2 are complementary rather than competing, they bring different benefits to the table.

 

[PixelSquish]

It is a bit of an apples to orange comparison as the 2 IEMs are using different driver types, so the different transducers have their pros and cons.

But FWIW, Euclid is harder to drive. The Euclid is much more bass lite, but brighter, with treble peaks. Technicalities and resolution are better on the Euclid, though it has a more artificial timbre.

I think these 2 are complementary rather than competing, they bring different benefits to the table.

Thanks.

Yes I have both planar magnetic and dynamic driver headphones but still sound to me is sound.

The fact you say the IE 600 are clearly heftier in the bass category, I already know I don't want to try the Euclid. I'm not interested in less bass than the ie600. That's what I needed to know, so thanks

 

[Quirkz]

It is a bit of an apples to orange comparison as the 2 IEMs are using different driver types, so the different transducers have their pros and cons.

But FWIW, Euclid is harder to drive. The Euclid is much more bass lite, but brighter, with treble peaks. Technicalities and resolution are better on the Euclid, though it has a more artificial timbre.

I think these 2 are complementary rather than competing, they bring different benefits to the table.

Wonderful summary, thank you. I love the Euclid, but am getting tempted to try the 600.

 

[Thomastb]

Can anyone describe the sound (timbre in particular) when comparing planar and DD?
I tried timeless before and I got a sound signature of blowing through a french horn kind of sound. Is Euclid the same?

 

[PixelSquish]

Can anyone describe the sound (timbre in particular) when comparing planar and DD?
I tried timeless before and I got a sound signature of blowing through a french horn kind of sound. Is Euclid the same?

Have never heard a planar IEM, which is part of the reason I made this post. Just have two Audeze planar cans - the LCD-X and LCD-2CB

The X does need some EQ but once you dial it in, it is just a fantastic sound.

 

[Quirkz]

So, I picked up an ie600, and my impression is a bit different from baskingshark .
First of all, I'm no audiophile review expert, so take this with a grain of salt, and this represents my preferences only, along with my middle aged ears which definitely impact what I perceive. (let no one tell you differently!)

I found the ie600 to be excellent, but not quite as good as the euclid. The euclid has more clarity, detail, AND, to my ears, slightly better bass. Both slightly more volume and better controlled. Now don't get me wrong, the ie600 bass is not poor by any measure. I just find the Euclid a bit better.
It's noticeable, but not a world shattering difference. Given that baskingshark claims better audio on the ie600, it makes me wonder if one of us has a ear fitting/seal problem with one of the headsets. (more likely me.)

The ie600 wins hugely on comfort though - I can wear them for much longer durations. I have to take out the Euclid after an hour or so.
If I only had to pick one, it would be the Euclid. I'm going to keep the ie600 though due to the comfort advantage for longer listening sessions.

I'm using an m2 macbook pro for these comparisons, so no fancy AMP here, only the (apparently good) built in amp.

 

[baskingshark]

So, I picked up an ie600, and my impression is a bit different from baskingshark .
First of all, I'm no audiophile review expert, so take this with a grain of salt, and this represents my preferences only, along with my middle aged ears which definitely impact what I perceive. (let no one tell you differently!)

I found the ie600 to be excellent, but not quite as good as the euclid. The euclid has more clarity, detail, AND, to my ears, slightly better bass. Both slightly more volume and better controlled. Now don't get me wrong, the ie600 bass is not poor by any measure. I just find the Euclid a bit better.
It's noticeable, but not a world shattering difference. Given that baskingshark claims better audio on the ie600, it makes me wonder if one of us has a ear fitting/seal problem with one of the headsets. (more likely me.)

The ie600 wins hugely on comfort though - I can wear them for much longer durations. I have to take out the Euclid after an hour or so.
If I only had to pick one, it would be the Euclid. I'm going to keep the ie600 though due to the comfort advantage for longer listening sessions.

I'm using an m2 macbook pro for these comparisons, so no fancy AMP here, only the (apparently good) built in amp.

Hi @Quirkz, if you see my above post where I wrote:

The Euclid is much more bass lite, but brighter, with treble peaks. Technicalities and resolution are better on the Euclid, though it has a more artificial timbre.

The Euclid has better technicalities and resolution on my A/B comparisons, which seems to be similar to your findings, so it seems we are in agreement!

Where the Euclid is weaker than the IE600, is in timbral accuracy (planar timbre) and perhaps treble peaks (tonality). Euclid is also quite hard to drive and benefits from amplification too.

 

[Quirkz]

Hi @Quirkz, if you see my above post where I wrote:


The Euclid has better technicalities and resolution on my A/B comparisons, which seems to be similar to your findings, so it seems we are in agreement!

Where the Euclid is weaker than the IE600, is in timbral accuracy (planar timbre) and perhaps treble peaks (tonality). Euclid is also quite hard to drive and benefits from amplification too.

The very friendly disagreement is with the bass - I didn't think the bass was light compared to the ie600 - I found it had more impact.

But from what I've read, the ie600 is very sensitive to getting the seal right - So I might not be getting the full benefit.

 

[Click]

It is a bit of an apples to orange comparison as the 2 IEMs are using different driver types, so the different transducers have their pros and cons.

But FWIW, Euclid is harder to drive. The Euclid is much more bass lite, but brighter, with treble peaks. Technicalities and resolution are better on the Euclid, though it has a more artificial timbre.

I think these 2 are complementary rather than competing, they bring different benefits to the table.

Timbre is amazing with the Euclid. Extremely natural and "correct-sounding."

 

[Click]

So, I picked up an ie600, and my impression is a bit different from baskingshark .
First of all, I'm no audiophile review expert, so take this with a grain of salt, and this represents my preferences only, along with my middle aged ears which definitely impact what I perceive. (let no one tell you differently!)

I found the ie600 to be excellent, but not quite as good as the euclid. The euclid has more clarity, detail, AND, to my ears, slightly better bass. Both slightly more volume and better controlled. Now don't get me wrong, the ie600 bass is not poor by any measure. I just find the Euclid a bit better.
It's noticeable, but not a world shattering difference. Given that baskingshark claims better audio on the ie600, it makes me wonder if one of us has a ear fitting/seal problem with one of the headsets. (more likely me.)

The ie600 wins hugely on comfort though - I can wear them for much longer durations. I have to take out the Euclid after an hour or so.
If I only had to pick one, it would be the Euclid. I'm going to keep the ie600 though due to the comfort advantage for longer listening sessions.

I'm using an m2 macbook pro for these comparisons, so no fancy AMP here, only the (apparently good) built in amp.

Euclid's bass is high quality but low quantity, although it still rumbles when tracks demand it. It just won't shake your head off or wow you like an IEM with bass boost will. Slam is good but not great. I like the Euclid's bass a lot but for some tracks, I do wish there was more bass, which is why I purchased other IEMs that fill my desire for more bass.

Like you, I also find Euclid's only problem to be fit and comfort, which is very important for most people. I have no comfort issues for the first 2-3 hours of wearing the Euclid, but it does hurt my ears after that. 2-3 hours is more than enough time listening to music and having IEMs in your ears. Everything else, the Euclids are top tier in my personal opinion.

 

[baskingshark]

Timbre is amazing with the Euclid. Extremely natural and "correct-sounding."

K, we can agree to disagree on this point.

I define timbre AKA timbral accuracy as "what lets us tell apart a musical instrument or voice, even when they are hitting the same note at the same fundamental pitch and loudness". I've been playing in a band for the last 20 years and think the Senn IE600's DD sounds more natural in timbral accuracy when it comes to acoustic instruments like strings, woodwinds and brasses. The Euclid, like most planars, have very fast transients and rapid decay, so the note weight and timbre of instruments sound a bit off to me (but they have superb technical chops cause of the planar physics!). Euclid trumps most other similarly priced competitors in technicalities and that's something I appreciate.

YMMV though, no right or wrong, we all hear differently and this hobby is subjective, so glad that you like the timbre of the Euclid!

The very friendly disagreement is with the bass - I didn't think the bass was light compared to the ie600 - I found it had more impact.

But from what I've read, the ie600 is very sensitive to getting the seal right - So I might not be getting the full benefit.

Graphs don't tell the full story, but they are quite meaningful when it comes to the FR/tonality.

The Euclid has quite a neutral bass (with treble spikes), which makes it sound on the brighter side of the equation, whereas the IE600 is quite boosted in the sub-bass (with a tamer treble/upper mids), almost a 12 -13 dB difference in bass amount as per the graph above. Eartip seal is very important for sub-bass frequencies, and as you noted, bad fit/seal will cause the bass to be lost.

Perhaps you can try with various other tips (silicone or foam), or even tips of various sizes, to see if you can get a better seal?

 

[Quirkz]

Perhaps you can try with various other tips (silicone or foam), or even tips of various sizes, to see if you can get a better seal?

Great graphs, thanks for this. I didn't realise you could compare different headphones on crinicle like that.

I can see what you're describing - The ie600 should definitely sound differently from what I'm hearing. I've tried foam vs silicone, but not the different sizes. I'll try larger/smaller sizes and see if I can improve it. (Though I quite like the bass on the Euclid - I don't like overemphasised bass in general.)