[awayeah]

HERE is a paper that pretty well describes the properties of both.
HERE is a clip that you can hear samples of each.

This is something completely different - this paper describes sound recording and applying eq and/or using DSP.
We're talking about headphones. For me there's nothing in that paper that corresponds directly to wet/dry sound in headphones.
Actually, I think, in describing headphones, those terms are almost contrary to what this paper says. Wet sound is closer to live, raw sound, while dry is missing substance, but neither sound artificial (though of course headphones can sound artificial, no matter whether they sound dry or wet).

This is all of course, just a subjective interpretation of headphones sound characteristics and of sound glossary used here and in other places.

 

[HiFlight]

This is something completely different - this paper describes sound recording and applying eq and/or using DSP.
We're talking about headphones. For me there's nothing in that paper that corresponds directly to wet/dry sound in headphones.
Actually, I think, in describing headphones, those terms are almost contrary to what this paper says. Wet sound is closer to live, raw sound, while dry is missing substance, but neither sound artificial (though of course headphones can sound artificial, no matter whether they sound dry or wet).

This is all of course, just a subjective interpretation of headphones sound characteristics and of sound glossary used here and in other places.

I don't think they are completely different. While one refers to recording techniques, the resultant sound is that which is used to describe audio properties of other sources as well as headphones. Thick/Thin, Wet/Dry, Warm/Cool, take your pick. They are, however, all subjective terms to describe the characteristics of sound.

 

[McCol]

I look at it in a slightly different way.
I think of my headphones/earphones in terms of whether I think they produce a warm musical sound or a more analytical signature. I like both and wouldn’t necessarily say I prefer one over the other and sometimes I find an earphone that almost gives me both.
Examples of this being my Etymotic er4xr - a lovely detailed no frills added to the sound analytical sounding earphone. The opposite is my Flare Gold, still detailed but with a warmer more welcoming signature that is easy on the ear. Love them both.
My AKG N5005 almost strike a balance between the two, detailed mids and high with a little warmness to the bass from the dynamic driver, however it isn’t as warm as some hybrids or dedicated dynamic drivers that I’ve heard.

 

[Arysyn]

HERE is a paper that pretty well describes the properties of both.
HERE is a clip that you can hear samples of each.

Thank you for those informative links, HiFlight. Although I'm still interested in any differences between raw vs dry, I see that their are some correlations between the two. It appears there are a few other posts in this thread I have yet to read, as I'm responding to you directly from this past page, so perhaps there have been posts on this issue since. I'll edit this post if there is.

Alright, now that I have the page updated showing the followup posts, I can see what has been written since my previous post about this. I'm generally not fond of the Xenforo software and how it updates pages showing new posts, etc.

I'm getting the notion that this is a matter of choice in how people perceive sounds, though I believe it ought to be more of a solid "dry means this, raw means that" way, though no offense towards those with their own opinion. However, its challenging trying to understand a term if it means different things to different people, hence why I'd prefer a more exacting definition from the community, rather than trying to go about my own opinion of the subject.

For the sake of understanding my thoughts on this outside of necessary facts, to me wet means "full-sounding, rich, emotional". Many of you may have noticed my using terms like "Emotionalism" and "Dynamism" too. For me, Wet can mean either of those, but seperate from each other individually, meaning "Wet and Emotional" or "Wet and Dynamic".

I differ between those two based on bass impact. If the sound is "Full" or as I term "Wet" as being "Full", it could sound rich with bass or "Dynamic, full of Dynamism", or "Emotional" which unlike the powerful sound as part of my perspective regarding rich and dynamic sounding music, "Emotional" to me is still "Full"-sounding, but not as dynamic or bassy, but rather as a more detailed fullness.

The term "Emotional" to me is like a full, rich-sounding midrange, but without bass bleed. The term "Dynamism" being more powerful and also a "Thick" sound many here refer to as being "Warm". Whereas "Emotional" to me doesn't necessarily have to be warm, but at least "Thick" or "Rich" enough not to sound artificial. Its my opinion that a thinner-sounding tone sounds artificial to me, yet also more "dry" or "raw", lacking emotion or feeling to the music.

Again though, that doesn't mean I automatically associate "Emotional" to being the opposite of "Cool" either, being "Warm" as warmth to me means that dynamic, bass-full/ bass-rich tonality. Its more in-between, where it has fullness, yet isn't bassy and still is detailed. It could be said that what I'm referring to is like a treble bleed into the mids, the complete opposite of bass bleed. This would keep the mids from sounding bassy, yet while also not sounding too thin either, all while still maintaining detail.

Its also my opinion from experience listening both to dynamic driver and balanced armature iems, that balanced armature drivers really struggle with giving music a non-artificial, full-sounding tonality. Meanwhile, dynamic driver iems struggle with giving music a very vividly detailed tonality. Few iems seem to get this right, with the FlaresGold being the best at that I've ever heard.

While I'm not an audio engineer by any means, my experience viewing and comparing hundreds of frequency response measurement graphs, along with contrasting them to what I hear, has led me to believing the best way at achieving my sound signature preference, is to have a neutral bass, or to reduce the subbass ascending upwards a 5hz climb towards neutral through the mid bass, eventually leading to neutrality beginning at the upper bass region, remaining neutral throughout the upper bass, then ascending upwards through the low mids at a 5hz climb towards a flat point beginning at the start of the middle mids, remaining flat until the beginning of the lower treble.

I have a graph that was made for me based on my specifications, but I need to get it updated to reflect some changes I've made to the treble since it was created. I'll post the new graph sometime soon after its completed. Since I don't have a graph of the FlaresGold FR measurements, I'm going to use this one from the IMR iem instead, which I absolutely love its treble tuning from sight of the graph. I'm not interested in buying the iem, but if anyone here who has it would be willing to loan it to me for a few weeks, I'll gladly pay for the shipping. I'm really interested in its treble tuning...

 

[jeffri]

Just retrieved my Pros. A couple of thoughts:

- The silicon tips is almost unusable for me, getting a proper seal is totally a challenge. Both M and L size create a sort of vacuum effect to my ear, and when that happens, the sound is tinny. The S size can somewhat work, but still leave some gap and can be unbalanced until I got it right. Not sure if it's the seal, but sound with silicon have this unpleasant ssss or zzzz that I absolutely can't live with.

- Audiophile Earfoams works better, and now I think it is the intended sound. It was a short foam, so M works better for me (but I ordered extra S tips as that is what I'm used to in other foam tips). Still, the S can work for me, so I'm good. Also man, they are delicate... XD

- Universal Earfoams works great too. This one feels durable, the sound changed a bit, a little more boomy but in general, seems useful in everyday use...

- But then, there is another foam tips in a separate plastic bag outside the box. The shape resembles Audiophile one, but it's tougher and possibly more durable. What is these? I can't find it on their site. This ended up to be my favorite foam.

- The bass and mids of this is lovely. While treble can be a bit rough at times, but the foam tips helped smoothen this bit. I can enjoy this sound...

- The cable... why MMCX on the splitter? I never thought it will bother me, but it does. The Y-split is kinda cumbersome. If balance is the only reason, then 2.5mm will be much better. I have this Japanese IEM called Ar:tio which does exactly that, 2.5mm short and then 3.5mm extended cable, perfect for using with AK XB10 balanced port.

- While on the subject of cable, some found it rubbery, but I quite like it. Not much tangle, quite thin and light.

- Bluetooth module works fine, except I get stuttering from my Onkyo CMX1, although no problem with Note8. Could be my CMX1, but no idea how to fix it. :/

- And on the subject of the Bluetooth module, can we disable that LED flashing every 5 seconds or so? It's very annoying and as the cable is short, I can only clip it to my shirt and it's always visible. I was on theatre today and the flash keep bothering me I had to remove it and tug it inside my pocket. Sigh...

Some annoyance, but overall the sounds seems to worth it at this price. It's very light too and well built. I'll listen more and will do more tip-rolling with tons of other tips that I had.

 

[jeffri]

Lately, I have been trying to find the best Bluetooth amp on the market and with the addition of Flares Pro and Bluewave GET, I think it's about time to go a 5-way comparison with my previous collection: Astell & Kern XB10, CEntrace BlueDAC and Audio Technica AT-PHA50BT. While I tried to share just short impression of each, this can get long, so be prepared if you decided to read it. I hope you find it interesting.

Spoiler: Flares Pro vs Bluetooth amps on the market

For this comparison, I'll be using Flares Pro to all other amps since the Flares Wireless that included with the Pro only works with itself as it is using unconventional outputs (two mmcx connector for balanced out). The setup will be from the Onkyo Granbeat CMX1, connected using either aptX or aptX HD codec (whichever higher is available) to the amp, and from the amp straight to the Flares Pro using the single-ended 3.5mm headphone jack. Exception will be the Flares Wireless itself that connect directly with mmcx and even if the amp have 2.5mm balanced jack, it will be ignored as I don't have the cable (XB10 and BlueDAC).

Let's start from the Flares Pro and we'll be going on to the other amp as we go on. The advantage of supplying their own wireless module is that they can directly tune the DSP to compensate with Flares Pro frequency response and it certainly seems to be the case. Listening to Flares Pro with the wireless module is a pleasing experience, the sound signature is just spot on, maybe just slightly elevated on the lower end, which I enjoy.

The bass position is just right at where I wanted it to be, slightly more than neutral but never become bloated or bleed into the mid. However it wasn't very tight or fast, and the definition is just average. The mid however, is lovely. Warm, smooth and sweet are the words that I would like to use to describe it. It is just right, with enough body that doesn't make it sounds too thick nor thin. This transition into the high nicely too, which is also spot on. Never became sibilance and it has enough sparkle that it never sounded dull.

I have a lot of praise to their tuning, but then there is limitation to the technology. The Flares Wireless only support aptX codec, there is no higher resolution codec like aptX HD and LDAC on board. This certainly apparent, as while the resolution is pretty good, it's not great. A complex passage will sounds a bit compressed, making it hard to discern what's going on.

Next, let's compare it to AT-PHA50BT, this Bluetooth amp is only sold in Japanese market I think. This is the older model that was released back in 2014, while they have released a newer version called AT-PHA55BT last year (stay tuned for that, I guess ). Same as the Flares Wireless, this also only support aptX codec so I don't expect any improvement, and right I am.

What the PHA50BT output is actually not far off from Flares Wireless, they sounds very similar indeed. The differences is that the low is not as elevated anymore, instead the elevation shifted into the high region. This make the PHA50BT the brighter sounding of the two, but only slightly. I wouldn't consider the PHA50BT sibilant, actually far from it. Basically, less bass, less smooth and a bit more sparkle, that's it.

Other than that, the resolution is also similar, if not slightly behind. Whatever the Flares Wireless struggle to resolve, this is also happen to be the same case here. While PHA50BT came up slightly worse, this also cost the less of the bunch here, around $75 and it came with some features that none the other amps had, like the small display on front and 5 different sound profiles to choose from.

Next, let's try the aptX HD on AK XB10. This is possibly the more popular Bluetooth amp on the market and I think it just got a price drop recently. This is actually the first Bluetooth amp I bought, which sounds so good that it convinced me that Bluetooth audio can rival the wired solution.

The aptX HD codec advantage is clear from the get go, the resolution is so much better. It's like it opened the curtain and all the details just scream out layer by layer. It's very close to the wired sounds, which is a quite amazing feat. The bass is tight, punchy and well defined. However, gone were the warmth and sweetness from the Flares Wireless. The XB10 sounds a bit cold, the body is a bit thin but it is capable to render every details very well.

The high is also a bit elevated here, making it the brightest sounding of the bunch. That said, I found it to be just on the borderline before it got sibilant, it's in border and it is still acceptable to me. I might get fatigue on a long listening session, but it also have the shortest battery life here, clocking just at 3 hours, so I might never reach this fatigue (to be fair, I would pair XB10 with U12 than with Flares Pro). What XB10 really excel here is listening to orchestra, as it capables to clearly layer each instrument, never feel being compressed.

Next is the newest addition to my collection, the Bluewave GET. This retails at $129, but you can get it on Massdrop at just $99 whenever it drops from time to time. This has the most recent specification out of the bunch, namely Bluetooth 5.0 and also, of course, the aptX HD codec. Again, I expect a lot from the GET and boy, I wasn't disappointed.

The aptX HD codec, again, show it superiority here. The resolution is great, it is slightly behind XB10 but got very close and it's far better than both the Flares Wireless and PHA50BT. While the XB10 can sounds cold, the GET has a hint of warmth instead. It is still not as warm nor sweet as Flares Wireless, but with much better details, it came off very pleasing. However, something feels lacking and I'm not really sure what it is until I switch back and forth against XB10. It's the bass. The bass is tight and punchy, it's well defined... but it doesn't render the sub as good as XB10, it seems to drop off a bit sooner, losing some details I would hear on XB10.

But the high is pretty much spot on. It seems to be slightly brighter than Flares Wireless, but just slightly, it never came into XB10 territory. What I like about the GET is the analog volume control, allowing me to fine tune the volume with a greater amount of precision. Just be careful not to slip and blast high volume into the ear, it can get pretty loud. However, the GET also appear to have more hiss than all the others. Flares Pro is not that sensitive to hiss and I still can hear it slightly, which isn't the case with the other amps I'm comparing here.

Finally, let's go against the behemoth here, the CEntrace BlueDAC. As you can see, the size is much bigger and it is strictly for listening to music only, you can't retrieve call as it is the only one without microphone. It is also the most expensive, retailed at $399, there is a lot of expectation here. Disappointingly, it only support aptX, no higher resolution codec available. But can the better amp circuit compensate the lack of high resolution codec? Almost.

It is clearly able to resolve better than the other two aptX amp here, but still came off behind both XB10 and GET. The bass is tight, punchy with great extension. The mid is pretty smooth and warm, but here it can get somewhat uneven. The mid-low area seems to be a bit thin, causing the mid-high to be unnecessarily harsh sometime. This is quite weird, and not something apparent in all the music I tested. It doesn't bother me when I paired it with U12 and Aeon Flow Closed, but it does here with Flares Pro.

The high is also quite good, still more elevated than the Flares Wireless but not much. It doesn't come off as bright to me and it is very smooth. Again, it is capable to resolve and layer details better than the other aptX amp. Other than the weirdness in the mid, I found BlueDAC to sounds very good indeed, but still it can't outclass the superiority of higher resolution codec. However, while BlueDAC can be used in wireless, I think it is much better suited to be used wired. There's a couple reason for that, first being that the size is too clunky to take around as Bluetooth amp, and second, it is also prone to interference from mobile radio (forget about putting it into the same pocket as your smartphone).

In summary, I think the Bluewave GET ended to be the superior one out of this comparison. But the hiss might make it not suitable to use with sensitive IEM, especially those with BA driver. In that case, the XB10 is preferable, but you had to live with the 3 hours battery life (the other amps here have 6+ hours battery). For Flares Pro user, the GET is a good purchase to upgrade the Bluetooth experience, but other than that, you will be served better with the included Wireless module.

Here is how I'll score this based on sound quality:

Bluewave GET: 9/10
AK XB10: 8.5/10
CEntrace BlueDAC: 8/10
Flares Pro Wireless DAC: 7.5/10
AT-PHA50BT: 7/10

Thanks for reading. Hope it helps.

 

[Arysyn]

The silicon tips is almost unusable for me, getting a proper seal is totally a challenge. Both M and L size create a sort of vacuum effect to my ear, and when that happens, the sound is tinny. The S size can somewhat work, but still leave some gap and can be unbalanced until I got it right. Not sure if it's the seal, but sound with silicon have this unpleasant ssss or zzzz that I absolutely can't live with

I don't remember what the sound was like on the FlaresPro with foam eartips, but knowing how to my ears they muddy the bass tonality, I'd just rather not use foam eartips. Anyways, if you go back some pages you'll notice there have been several people reporting on the fizzyness, tizz, zzzsss sound. Its likely a side effect from Flare tuning the upper treble to have a significant extended treble bump. Here is the frequency response measurements of the FlaresPro showing this tuning error :

 

[SciOC]

Has anyone driven these with the hiby r6? The price right now is super tempting, especially given the delays on the ibasso it04, but I want to make sure the high output impedance of the r6 won't be an issue.


If it changes the sound profile, the r6 might not have enough power to drive them to my liking I use ifi iematch... $266 is mighty tempting though.

 

[McCol]

Has anyone driven these with the hiby r6? The price right now is super tempting, especially given the delays on the ibasso it04, but I want to make sure the high output impedance of the r6 won't be an issue.


If it changes the sound profile, the r6 might not have enough power to drive them to my liking I use ifi iematch... $266 is mighty tempting though.

They are a steal at that price, grab them!

 

[rickhawk22]

Here is my 2 cents on the whole tizz tizz that these IEM's supposedly have an issue with. I have the FlarePro's now, and have listened to the Enigma song that many have referred to here. In regular mode on my PONO player, there may have been times with certain songs where portions of the treble were more pronounced, but I did not hear the tizz tizz that others have experienced. There is a particular odd percussion sound after the 7:35 mark in that song, that sounds a lot like strings of a guitar when you move your finger to change a note on the arm, though its not that, just sounds like it, in every other refrain of the percussion its different than the synth cymbals that are constant and its only in that area of the song. When going balanced out of the PONO, the IEMs are a whole other level of experience, and are smoother in the upper treble. You can easily figure out that odd sound after that mark, and its not a tizz tizz sound at all, and its not bothersome by any means, even before going balanced.

But experiencing the Pro's in balance with lots of power available to them, has to be experienced! Just brings goosebumps! Thanks to HiFlight for selling me the balanced cables, they were a game changer!

 

[HiFlight]

Here is my 2 cents on the whole tizz tizz that these IEM's supposedly have an issue with. I have the FlarePro's now, and have listened to the Enigma song that many have referred to here. In regular mode on my PONO player, there may have been times with certain songs where portions of the treble were more pronounced, but I did not hear the tizz tizz that others have experienced. There is a particular odd percussion sound after the 7:35 mark in that song, that sounds a lot like strings of a guitar when you move your finger to change a note on the arm, though its not that, just sounds like it, in every other refrain of the percussion its different than the synth cymbals that are constant and its only in that area of the song. When going balanced out of the PONO, the IEMs are a whole other level of experience, and are smoother in the upper treble. You can easily figure out that odd sound after that mark, and its not a tizz tizz sound at all, and its not bothersome by any means, even before going balanced.

But experiencing the Pro's in balance with lots of power available to them, has to be experienced! Just brings goosebumps! Thanks to HiFlight for selling me the balanced cables, they were a game changer!

I always thought the Pono sounded much better from the balanced output!

 

[jeffri]

I don't remember what the sound was like on the FlaresPro with foam eartips, but knowing how to my ears they muddy the bass tonality, I'd just rather not use foam eartips. Anyways, if you go back some pages you'll notice there have been several people reporting on the fizzyness, tizz, zzzsss sound. Its likely a side effect from Flare tuning the upper treble to have a significant extended treble bump. Here is the frequency response measurements of the FlaresPro showing this tuning error :

I read about that, but if this tizz sound I heard is the same, then it's non-existent with foam tips. For me, the weird sound is more related to how the seal caused such a vacuum effect that possibly affect the diaphragm in some way that it couldn't vibrate properly. I just can't get a proper seal with silicon, even using other tips like Final and Ortofon.

Personally, I don't find the bass muddy at all, their audiophile foam tips works great. The everyday foam might be a little.

 

[drm870]

Could anybody who's happened to have heard both these and the Massdrop Plus IEMs compare the two?

 

[Arysyn]

For those interested in having a dynamic driver iem that isn't V-Shape, non-recessed mids/vocals, neutral bass, etc., there is a new iem that is very compelling as another option to the FlaresGold, but much less expensive. Although I can't say for certain to the quality yet, as I haven't purchased it, but am considering based on Nathan's Picture Sunday pre-review over on Headfonia. Here it is : https://www.headfonia.com/picture-sunday-jvc-ha-fd-01/

I've asked him a few questions about it, so I'm going to wait for more information on it. Also, I decided against getting the IMR Acoustics iem because of all the tuning changes based on the filters, figuring it was too complicated to be a true addition with the Flares for this particular sound signature the Flares are so good at. I'm hoping this will add to the mix with the FlaresGold in providing that rare non-bassy, forward mids/vocals signature using dynamic drivers.

 

[McCol]

For those interested in having a dynamic driver iem that isn't V-Shape, non-recessed mids/vocals, neutral bass, etc., there is a new iem that is very compelling as another option to the FlaresGold, but much less expensive. Although I can't say for certain to the quality yet, as I haven't purchased it, but am considering based on Nathan's Picture Sunday pre-review over on Headfonia. Here it is : https://www.headfonia.com/picture-sunday-jvc-ha-fd-01/

I've asked him a few questions about it, so I'm going to wait for more information on it. Also, I decided against getting the IMR Acoustics iem because of all the tuning changes based on the filters, figuring it was too complicated to be a true addition with the Flares for this particular sound signature the Flares are so good at. I'm hoping this will add to the mix with the FlaresGold in providing that rare non-bassy, forward mids/vocals signature using dynamic drivers.

I wouldn’t worry about the IMR R1 being complicated. There are only 5 filters and I spent a little time with them all before plumping for the pink, that might change but probably not. I’m the same with AKG N5005, been sticking to the one filter. What it does is give you options should you fancy a change.

The R1 are an excellent earphone that for the money are outstanding. Lovely clean detailed sound with the pink filters.