[MrLocoLuciano]

Maybe it could be a revised edition that you have listened to but there is no announcement of a revised edition. I know quite a handful of people who have tried them and found them bad. On this thread alone, we have @Deezel177, @davidmolliere & me. Don't wanna debate over this already so let's move on but based off my audition, I will not recommend it.

in fact you are the only one saying it's big shi*... the two person you quoted did not say exactly that.
And at the Paris meeting with a lot of audiophile veteran, they did have their little success...
On my side I can only say to people do listen to them if you can they disserve it.

 

[audio123]

in fact you are the only one saying it's big shi*... the two person you quoted did not say exactly that.
And at the Paris meeting with a lot of audiophile veteran, they did have their little success...
On my side I can only say to people do listen to them if you can they disserve it.

The phrases "not coming away particularly impressed..." & "left me unmoved as well..." imply that it is average and average is not a word to be associated with a flagship IEM. In addition, little success means not many people embrace it. Of course, you can tell people to listen to them if they have the opportunity and given how you feel the IEMs "deserve" it. At the start, I simply voiced my opinion on this particular IEM to let @mvvRAZ know my thoughts that I do not like it without referencing to your post in any way possible & you started to question @Deezel177 & I on when did we try them & picking on @davidmolliere that he has written some positive impressions about it and that you could not find the post anymore. This will be my last post to you as I do not wish to derail the thread anymore.

 

[mvvRAZ]

The phrases "not coming away particularly impressed..." & "left me unmoved as well..." imply that it is average and average is not a word to be associated with a flagship IEM. In addition, little success means not many people embrace it. Of course, you can tell people to listen to them if they have the opportunity and given how you feel the IEMs "deserve" it. At the start, I simply voiced my opinion on this particular IEM to let @mvvRAZ know my thoughts that I do not like it without referencing to your post in any way possible & you started to question @Deezel177 & I on when did we try them & picking on @davidmolliere that he has written some positive impressions about it and that you could not find the post anymore. This will be my last post to you as I do not wish to derail the thread anymore.

Hmm in all honesty I appreciate it when people are vocal about their opinion of an IEM

There shouldn’t be an issue in saying an IEM is crap if you think it’s crap haha

I for one, hate the Meze Penta and the Noble M3s

 

[audio123]

Hmm in all honesty I appreciate it when people are vocal about their opinion of an IEM

There shouldn’t be an issue in saying an IEM is crap if you think it’s crap haha

I for one, hate the Meze Penta and the Noble M3s

Definitely agreed. Considering the fact that we both have the Fusion & Savant II, I can easily tell you that IEM is nowhere near the common IEMs we own.

 

[MrLocoLuciano]

Definitely agreed. Considering the fact that we both have the Fusion & Savant II, I can easily tell you that IEM is nowhere near the common IEMs we own.

Sure it's better than Fusion
Enjoy your truth bro
Edit : just had confirmation from Ambient Acoustics that it was retuned since last year...

 

[Wyville]

Hmm in all honesty I appreciate it when people are vocal about their opinion of an IEM

There shouldn’t be an issue in saying an IEM is crap if you think it’s crap haha

I for one, hate the Meze Penta and the Noble M3s

I think the issue is a lot more nuanced. If a writer (reviewer or otherwise) aims to inform others, then they should be descriptive when sharing their impressions and do their homework. Let the reader make up their own opinion by sharing information gained through critical listening. And "critical" is not synonymous with "criticism". Simply stating an IEM is crap because the person doesn't like them after a brief demo (and we all know a lot of impression floating around these days are based on brief demos) is not just uninformative, it can genuinely misinform others. It is incredibly frustrating to see people sharing opinions as if they are facts, especially when that opinion might do a 180 within a matter of months.

If someone wants to inform others, then they should do it properly and put in the work. Look at the start of this thread and what Nic did. It's a ranking with scores and such, but it is a world apart from other rankings floating around. Nic did a huge amount of preparation, he built up a reference framework, explained his own criteria, his scoring and everything in nauseating detail, and, most importantly, he stuck to the 17 IEMs he set out to compare. So his ranking is based on direct comparisons, countless of hours of listening and constantly falling back on the criteria that were determined beforehand. This is precise and extremely informative, but it is also an astonishing amount of work... and that is just 17 IEMs. Quality over quantity, and I wish there would be more of it in this hobby instead of people constantly firing off impulse-driven impressions that I am sure make for an entertaining read, but it is just not informative.

 

[davidmolliere]

Let's chill a bit there

There is a clear distinction between rating the technical aspects of an IEM individually, and some aspects are technically good and the whole picture of the tuning intent and how it was executed. This means you can rate some aspects of an IEM as outstanding or excellent but doesn't speak to the coherence of the tuning or its engaging nature. Ratings are convenient as a comparison matrix but I have a lot of comments on each of the fields of my table that nuance the qualitative rating I have set up. Sharing them without synthesizing makes no sense as it's bound to the wrong interpretation.

MAD16 and MAD24 sure score very high technically in some areas (luckily, given their prices!) but failed to engage me into the music and to me that's more important than anything else. If you factor in the prices, then it becomes even more of an issue for me. Ergonomically it's also an issue between the very big shells and the bore size that not many tips can fit except by stretching them like crazy (like people did at the meet, which I think is not good as the tip opening is smaller than the bore).

From Ambient, I much prefered LAM7 in fact (especially at their initial selling price). A lot of manufacturers have stepped back on the driver count wars and it might also be because it's so hard to be consistent at complex crossovers with high driver counts...The current trend is more around hybridation of drivers, new tech and new acoustic sophistication or several of the above.

Your mileage may vary of course.

To get back on topic of sharing good stuff, the south korean Âme is an interesting brand and here is my Radioso review



Argent and Gravitas will follow soon...

 

[MrLocoLuciano]

I think the issue is a lot more nuanced. If a writer (reviewer or otherwise) aims to inform others, then they should be descriptive when sharing their impressions and do their homework. Let the reader make up their own opinion by sharing information gained through critical listening. And "critical" is not synonymous with "criticism". Simply stating an IEM is crap because the person doesn't like them after a brief demo (and we all know a lot of impression floating around these days are based on brief demos) is not just uninformative, it can genuinely misinform others. It is incredibly frustrating to see people sharing opinions as if they are facts, especially when that opinion might do a 180 within a matter of months.

If someone wants to inform others, then they should do it properly and put in the work. Look at the start of this thread and what Nic did. It's a ranking with scores and such, but it is a world apart from other rankings floating around. Nic did a huge amount of preparation, he built up a reference framework, explained his own criteria, his scoring and everything in nauseating detail, and, most importantly, he stuck to the 17 IEMs he set out to compare. So his ranking is based on direct comparisons, countless of hours of listening and constantly falling back on the criteria that were determined beforehand. This is precise and extremely informative, but it is also an astonishing amount of work... and that is just 17 IEMs. Quality over quantity, and I wish there would be more of it in this hobby instead of people constantly firing off impulse-driven impressions that I am sure make for an entertaining read, but it is just not informative.

Completely agree with that. You just can't say it's rubbish, I think it and others I know too...

Let's chill a bit there

There is a clear distinction between rating the technical aspects of an IEM individually, and some aspects are technically good and the whole picture of the tuning intent and how it was executed. This means you can rate some aspects of an IEM as outstanding or excellent but doesn't speak to the coherence of the tuning or its engaging nature. Ratings are convenient as a comparison matrix but I have a lot of comments on each of the fields of my table that nuance the qualitative rating I have set up. Sharing them without synthesizing makes no sense as it's bound to the wrong interpretation.

MAD16 and MAD24 sure score very high technically in some areas (luckily, given their prices!) but failed to engage me into the music and to me that's more important than anything else. If you factor in the prices, then it becomes even more of an issue for me. Ergonomically it's also an issue between the very big shells and the bore size that not many tips can fit except by stretching them like crazy (like people did at the meet, which I think is not good as the tip opening is smaller than the bore).

From Ambient, I much prefered LAM7 in fact (especially at their initial selling price). A lot of manufacturers have stepped back on the driver count wars and it might also be because it's so hard to be consistent at complex crossovers with high driver counts...The current trend is more around hybridation of drivers, new tech and new acoustic sophistication or several of the above.

Thanks for your return David, it allows to clearly understand what you didn't like about MAD16 and 24.
Wish you could be as picky as that with thoose demo units you review

 

[davidmolliere]

Thanks for your return David, it allows to clearly understand what you didn't like about MAD16 and 24. Wish you could be as picky as that with thoose demo units you review

Here it comes again... please don't start here this isn't TellementNomade...
What are you implying exactly? That I am indeed picky and only review gear I do appreciate? True of gear I purchased, also true of gear I review. Also true of many reviewers in fact.

If you want to call people shill then do it upfront don't imply things. Smart people will know better anyway

You might not get this, but reviewing takes quite a bit of work (when done right)...thus it doesn't make sense to review gear you don't rate high, they simply go back then.

 

[mvvRAZ]

I think the issue is a lot more nuanced. If a writer (reviewer or otherwise) aims to inform others, then they should be descriptive when sharing their impressions and do their homework. Let the reader make up their own opinion by sharing information gained through critical listening. And "critical" is not synonymous with "criticism". Simply stating an IEM is crap because the person doesn't like them after a brief demo (and we all know a lot of impression floating around these days are based on brief demos) is not just uninformative, it can genuinely misinform others. It is incredibly frustrating to see people sharing opinions as if they are facts, especially when that opinion might do a 180 within a matter of months.

If someone wants to inform others, then they should do it properly and put in the work. Look at the start of this thread and what Nic did. It's a ranking with scores and such, but it is a world apart from other rankings floating around. Nic did a huge amount of preparation, he built up a reference framework, explained his own criteria, his scoring and everything in nauseating detail, and, most importantly, he stuck to the 17 IEMs he set out to compare. So his ranking is based on direct comparisons, countless of hours of listening and constantly falling back on the criteria that were determined beforehand. This is precise and extremely informative, but it is also an astonishing amount of work... and that is just 17 IEMs. Quality over quantity, and I wish there would be more of it in this hobby instead of people constantly firing off impulse-driven impressions that I am sure make for an entertaining read, but it is just not informative.

Well that's the thing, none of what anyone says here is a straight up fact. For the most part, it is impressions that people collect while listening to different products

I personally prefer reviews that are almost entirely based on emotion instead of an objective evaluation of a product - for example I love aminus (or animus I'm not sure) and how dead honest he is about hating just about everything that's put out. Maybe he exaggerates here and there, maybe he doesn't - either way, he's conveying his emotion and emotion alone, and if my preferences were aligned with his, I'd say what he writes would be significantly more useful than a lot of other stuff

It's more the responsibility of the reader (IMHO) to filter through the reviews and find out what he is interested in. Just now, for the sake of the experiment I scrolled through 6 Penta reviews, and not one mentioned just how thin the midrange is. On head-fi things were a bit more straightforward, and people actually pointed out what the midrange is like. Oddly though, they gave it high ratings but then went on to describe how it has mediocre soundstage width and depth, no treble extension and a generally thin and characterless midrange. The only review that I felt was able to accurately convey just what the Penta is like, is that of aminus.

I've based some purchases off popular review sites, and compared my impressions with that of the reviewers, but what I was hearing was COMPLETELY different from what they were describing

I do understand the point that it only really makes sense to review stuff you enjoy, and I do the same - I feel it's often the case that it's not really worth the investment to describe how much you dislike something, but there's also a lot of fluff pieces out there - again, IMHO

 

[davidmolliere]

@mvvRAZ For the record in the cons for the Penta I wrote "Mids are on the thinner side of the scale"

 

[mvvRAZ]

@mvvRAZ For the record in the cons for the Penta I wrote "Mids are on the thinner side of the scale"

You did, and I wasn't talking about you when I mentioned the fluff pieces. I've actually found your reviews to be very "personally" useful, and after listening to quite a few of the things you have reviewed, I can say that to a large extent my impressions are in line with yours - as such, when I'm interested in a product, your writings are one of my go-to's for preliminary impressions.

Ultimately I feel like the only viable way to navigate audio reviews is to find a few people that you feel are representative of your own experience with products, and stick to reading their reviews

And to add to my last post, I don't think that reviewers (including ones that receive free samples), are fundamentally flawed. There's just quite a few websites that give reviewing as a whole a bad name

 

[mahesh]

My two cents :
For me audio reviews which i often watch or read is just to give me an idea about a product. And reviewers priseful opinions should be taken as a grain of salt,
I must agree that reviewer may have put lots of effort and energy to review a product.
However i do also agree that reviewers should more accentuate the flaws of a product if there is.

 

[ncristia]

Well that's the thing, none of what anyone says here is a straight up fact. For the most part, it is impressions that people collect while listening to different products

I personally prefer reviews that are almost entirely based on emotion instead of an objective evaluation of a product - for example I love aminus (or animus I'm not sure) and how dead honest he is about hating just about everything that's put out. Maybe he exaggerates here and there, maybe he doesn't - either way, he's conveying his emotion and emotion alone, and if my preferences were aligned with his, I'd say what he writes would be significantly more useful than a lot of other stuff

It's more the responsibility of the reader (IMHO) to filter through the reviews and find out what he is interested in. Just now, for the sake of the experiment I scrolled through 6 Penta reviews, and not one mentioned just how thin the midrange is. On head-fi things were a bit more straightforward, and people actually pointed out what the midrange is like. Oddly though, they gave it high ratings but then went on to describe how it has mediocre soundstage width and depth, no treble extension and a generally thin and characterless midrange. The only review that I felt was able to accurately convey just what the Penta is like, is that of aminus.

I've based some purchases off popular review sites, and compared my impressions with that of the reviewers, but what I was hearing was COMPLETELY different from what they were describing

I do understand the point that it only really makes sense to review stuff you enjoy, and I do the same - I feel it's often the case that it's not really worth the investment to describe how much you dislike something, but there's also a lot of fluff pieces out there - again, IMHO

I thought aminus, toranku and crinicle were the same guy.

 

[mvvRAZ]

I thought aminus, toranku and crinicle were the same guy.

I don’t think they are haha

Crinacle is pretty universally respected though - aminus gets a lot of hate