[KinGensai]

I thought the bass on the Canpur would be more visceral than the GM with those bone-conduction drivers, but the bass turned out to be more tamed than I expected, and definitely nowhere near Maestro levels of bass. The sub bass doesn't rumble much, and the mid-bass isn't as dynamic as I wanted it to be. There could be a number of factors to why my experience was so, hopefully you'll have a better experience with the Canpur than me in the future.

That might change with EQ, I have to wonder how the 622B manages a low shelf pumping it up to party time. BAs can handle some ridiculous amounts of EQing.

Neither the BC or BA drivers in the Canpur move anywhere near the amount of air that the single dynamic driver in MSE or GM can. As good as some of the best BA bass can be, it'll never have the physical, visceral drive of good dynamic driver bass, and in my opinion, great bass must have that physical element to it. Simple physics I'm afraid.

I agree with BAs only, but I thought BC might be able to level the playing field. Problem with BC is it needing to have solid contact with bone/cartilage, so customs are probably mandatory.

 

[Petalpusher06]

I thought the bass on the Canpur would be more visceral than the GM with those bone-conduction drivers, but the bass turned out to be more tamed than I expected, and definitely nowhere near Maestro levels of bass. The sub bass doesn't rumble much, and the mid-bass isn't as dynamic as I wanted it to be. There could be a number of factors to why my experience was so, hopefully you'll have a better experience with the Canpur than me in the future.

When you say "mid bass isn't as dynamic", you mean not as fast, defined? I ve read some found the Canpur to be insanely fast, but where exactly. It's the 60-90hz im curious, if it can get as tight and impactful as the MSE, really where most of the deeper kicks meat happen and where it makes or breaks the bass region for me, same in speakers. Subsub bass i don't expect it to be able to do the same thing even if there is some magic with the BC somehow and the shell itself in the deep.

 

[KinGensai]

When you say "mid bass isn't as dynamic", you mean not as fast, defined? I ve read some found the Canpur to be insanely fast, but where exactly. It's the 60-90hz im curious, if it can get as tight and impactful as the MSE, really where most of the deeper kicks meat happen and where it makes or breaks the bass region for me, same in speakers. Subsub bass i don't expect it to be able to do the same thing even if there is some magic with the BC somehow and the shell itself in the deep.

He'll have to define that term, but I'm guessing he means there's a lack of SPL accompanying the mid bass. It's a typical problem with BA & EST hybrids, the diaphragms are just not large enough.

From what I understand, BAs sound "insanely fast" to people who aren't acclimated to them, especially in the bass where DDs tend to struggle with technical performance the most. BAs have an impulse response of 800μs on average while the fastest DDs I know of (10mm Tesla drivers) are a bit over 2ms and usually longer than that. This is nominal at 1kHz, performance drops at bass due to the additional diaphragm excursion (in some cases almost 5x as long due to resonances in the housing). It looks insignificant on paper, but in effect the speed differential and lower THD when controlling for odd order harmonics via a narrow band crossover setup makes for a far cleaner playback of the audio signal using BAs vs a DD. This is all at the cost of air movement because this increased precision is mostly attributable to less mass in the BA diaphragms in question.

 

[Petalpusher06]

He'll have to define that term, but I'm guessing he means there's a lack of SPL accompanying the mid bass. It's a typical problem with BA & EST hybrids, the diaphragms are just not large enough.

From what I understand, BAs sound "insanely fast" to people who aren't acclimated to them, especially in the bass where DDs tend to struggle with technical performance the most. BAs have an impulse response of 800μs on average while the fastest DDs I know of (10mm Tesla drivers) are a bit over 2ms and usually longer than that. This is nominal at 1kHz, performance drops at bass due to the additional diaphragm excursion (in some cases almost 5x as long due to resonances in the housing). It looks insignificant on paper, but in effect the speed differential and lower THD when controlling for odd order harmonics via a narrow band crossover setup makes for a far cleaner playback of the audio signal using BAs vs a DD. This is all at the cost of air movement because this increased precision is mostly attributable to less mass in the BA diaphragms in question.

HBB mentionned the Canpur "activates" that slam only in the 50-100hz region. I can believe that this where a good setup of BAs could have the advantage to give that more tactile sensation if accoustically done right and you somehow relieve it to do the low rumbling. If i was making an IEM, i would then still stick a huge DD only for below 50hz on top of all that so it only takes care of the very low sub waves. The biggest driver would only cover the last 30hz down low and let the BA's take care of the kicks and attacks. Sounds unreasonable but at this point, the cost of the drivers are nothing in the price anyway. Maybe some sets i haven't tested already do that.
I suspect the FF generally go more in that direction but likely not to that extreme, than making the DD covers a lot.

 

[KinGensai]

Well, that wouldn't solve the problem of DDs exhibiting exponentially elevated THD as it approaches the infrasonic frequencies. It's not as much of a problem practically because DDs have a harmonic profile biased toward even order harmonics, so it's a relatively pleasant full-bodied sound people are used to and come to expect. While BAs have overall lower THD at the same amplitude, that harmonic profile is much less pleasant due to being biased toward odd order harmonics, causing a metallic timbre. This is why you can get away with a single or isobaric DD config covering all the bass while a BA array dividing up the bass is necessary to make up for that shortcoming.

I'm more interested in companies replacing DDs with Planars for their superior technicalities combined with their capacity to displace air. If engineered well, it combines the best of both worlds, and I bet some are already working on something like this.

 

[Silantr0]

When you say "mid bass isn't as dynamic", you mean not as fast, defined? I ve read some found the Canpur to be insanely fast, but where exactly. It's the 60-90hz im curious, if it can get as tight and impactful as the MSE, really where most of the deeper kicks meat happen and where it makes or breaks the bass region for me, same in speakers. Subsub bass i don't expect it to be able to do the same thing even if there is some magic with the BC somehow and the shell itself in the deep.

It's quite fast, but I don't really hear much meat when it comes to kick drums and such.

 

[AboveNBeyond]

BCD's in Canpur are for mids only. You can google datasheet of their bcd driver frequency response and read Elise audio's store description for CP622b.

 

[TibiR]

BCD's in Canpur are for mids only. You can google datasheet of their bcd driver frequency response and read Elise audio's store description for CP622b.

Isn't it the same for the MEST series and Kinera Loki?

 

[AboveNBeyond]

Isn't it the same for the MEST series and Kinera Loki?

Same for MEST but Loki is using subbass BCD

 

[YungOmbat]

 

[w3eonline]

Perhaps someone want to depart with MSE can pm?? And Whats the best to pair and power MSE for mobile ??

 

[Petalpusher06]

My comparison with the RN6 for anyone interested


RN6 (red filter)
Thicker in the mid/low mid
Closer sounding overall, hence vocals more forward, instruments only slightly, in general
Feels a tad more congestionned, less airy on busy passages (less drivers could show here)
Can hit very hard too, tight attacks, good sub extensions (but sometimes on the verge of boomy)
Little depth but good soundstage, wide and not agressive (like some UM are borderline with that)
Slightly shouty on some tracks, otherwise great tonality
A bit more dynamic contrasts, can be enjoyable but makes it a more intense listening experience

Maestro (without any EQ)
Feels a bit more distant
Low mids just right, not thin or too thick, in comparison
Better vocals, more texture/micro details, yet smoother
Bass attack, slightly better, tigher but with even more sub than the RN6, not boomy but it's a lot imo
Some slight harshness on high frequency percusions (very track dependant and tips)
A bit narrower soundstage but sounds bigger, and i would say it could be more precise in that narrower space



I would have hard time picking a winner if it had to be only one at this point. With my little EQ plateau for the sub on the Maestro, i would give it the nod as it's the closest to my ideal presentation but it's entirely a preference more than fundamentaly better technicalities. Those are slight differences, they are a bit better at different things and as i previously mentionned surprisingly similar in the end. Maestro might be a more relaxed experience outside bass, everything is less forward, except the bass region.
I think equal amount of people would find more musical either one or the other. My personal bias is still the Maestro, it's how i would have tracks mixed and sound like, makes me dance in my head all the time... 2 fantastic sets regardless, can't go wrong with those and i still have to explore further the filters on the RN6 (they are so scaringly small to swap!). Although i forgot the RN6 is almost double the price than a MSE!

I should get the Canpur end of next week to compare. Final death match incoming.

Might go custom after that. I should also mention the RN6 is a smaller shell but i find it less comfortable of all the sets i have strangely, it's a hard shell and a bit more rough than typical resine shell, also more angular. I wonder even if it's the shell notch for the filter that is scratching my ear in some ways, i get soared after a while with them for some reasons. Also not a fan of the cable, it's a bit stiff and not super comfy near the ear hook area. Good side is there is less pressure building than the Maestro, due to the big vent. RN6 is super easy to drive, again in comparison to the MSE. Got caught a few times swapping them on the headamp with too much level for the Maestro...(about double)


ps: wrote way more than planned

 

[Petalpusher06]

Adding the MKIII for this next round

It's no slouch compared to the other two, closer than i thought before comparing them A,B,C all together. It's definetly on the thinner side in the low mid, which reinforces me into thinking the MSE strikes the perfect balance in this area (RN6 is thicker). The soundstage on the MEST is obviously bigger, a good step wider than the RN6, which is only a bit larger than the MSE. Instruments sound great on the MEST, vocals are fine but not to the level of RN6, or MSE which are often to die for. The bass of the MEST is on the slower side, and the sub bass can get a little boomy too but there is less of it than both MSE and RN6. It's still a very enjoyable bass, more shy on chill genres, that can also hit hard on more electro or pop tracks. Only when compared to the other 2 monsters, it shows a little weakness there.
I should have added previously as well that RN6 highs are absolutely beautifully done, they are smooth, never tingling, you really have to push unreasonable levels for them to begin to get offensive even on tracks that are know for it, it's probably the best highs of the 3 ultimately. If you are into trebles, you ll love this set i think. It's so good that i forgot about them (which is the best sign). They actually remind me of the focal's beryllium highs and that's a big compliment in my book. All that with one EST, some accoustic voodoo going on there in the RN6.

I had to check a couple of times to make sure but yes the RN6 is even easier to drive than the MEST, it's not 2times less power you need (on a db dial) compared to the MSE but more like x2.5 or even 3x! Insane how efficient those are in relation to the big sound they produce (and how hungry the MSE is).

 

[w3eonline]

Adding the MKIII for this next round

It's no slouch compared to the other two, closer than i thought before comparing them A,B,C all together. It's definetly on the thinner side in the low mid, which reinforces

Thank you so much for your whole detailed comparison between these iems. Very insightfully writings.

 

[TibiR]

Adding the MKIII for this next round

It's no slouch compared to the other two, closer than i thought before comparing them A,B,C all together. It's definetly on the thinner side in the low mid, which reinforces me into thinking the MSE strikes the perfect balance in this area (RN6 is thicker). The soundstage on the MEST is obviously bigger, a good step wider than the RN6, which is only a bit larger than the MSE. Instruments sound great on the MEST, vocals are fine but not to the level of RN6, or MSE which are often to die for. The bass of the MEST is on the slower side, and the sub bass can get a little boomy too but there is less of it than both MSE and RN6. It's still a very enjoyable bass, more shy on chill genres, that can also hit hard on more electro or pop tracks. Only when compared to the other 2 monsters, it shows a little weakness there.
I should have added previously as well that RN6 highs are absolutely beautifully done, they are smooth, never tingling, you really have to push unreasonable levels for them to begin to get offensive even on tracks that are know for it, it's probably the best highs of the 3 ultimately. If you are into trebles, you ll love this set i think. It's so good that i forgot about them (which is the best sign). They actually remind me of the focal's beryllium highs and that's a big compliment in my book. All that with one EST, some accoustic voodoo going on there in the RN6.

I had to check a couple of times to make sure but yes the RN6 is even easier to drive than the MEST, it's not 2times less power you need (on a db dial) compared to the MSE but more like x2.5 or even 3x! Insane how efficient those are in relation to the big sound they produce (and how hungry the MSE is).

Thanks form me as well !
Any chance you can add Monarch MK3 to this comparison?
TIA