IEM Score List 2023 - What's Your Favorite IEM?
Jul 30, 2016 at 6:03 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 379

Virtu Fortuna

Reviewer: Headfonia
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Posts
909
Likes
1,121
2023 Version Online!

CLICK HERE

Feel free to share your favourite IEMs and why!



1646746353518.png
 
Last edited:
Sep 1, 2016 at 4:18 AM Post #9 of 379
KSE1500 has a very different type of presentation than regular multi BA's that comes with certain pros and cons, you can recognize that typical electrostat sound like the Stax have. It is highly accurate, with great resolution and especially transparency. But the midrange lacks warmth and feels dry compared to BA's, partially since the mid-bass is somewhat attenuated and impact is mostly sub-bass. The treble has that ethereal feel, a little bit thin but very quick. The soundstage is wide, but feels especially so since it is not very tall. So more of a flat/wide. However, these were just brief impressions at Canjam :wink:
 
Sep 1, 2016 at 4:51 AM Post #10 of 379
Thanks for your impressions mate. I'm sure they have a distinctive sound based on the technology. 
 
Soundstage is not a surprise then, given that it lacks mid-bass. That usually gives a more open and roomy sound. 
 
It would be very very fortunate if I ever get a chance to experience them. I can only hope so :)
 
Sep 1, 2016 at 10:34 AM Post #11 of 379
So, here is a question for you folks. I am mean no offense by this, but really am interested in seeing how people respond to this...Given a choice between (yes, you have to pick only one of them-no cheating!):
 
1. A recording of, e.g., five sax players each of which is very precisely positioned in space in all three dimensions, but where they sound more like kazoos, and you can;t really tell them apart sonically
 
 
and
 
 
2. The same recording where you can clearly hear that it is 2 altos, 2 tenors, and a baritone sax, and you can clearly hear the different tone of the specific insturments being played, and the technique of the musicians
 
 
which would you prefer?
 
This all in reference to the 1500 vs. other iems.  
 
Sep 1, 2016 at 12:46 PM Post #14 of 379
  I'm missing what part the reference is to the 1500 vs other iems?

 
I guess I did not make it even remotely clear-my bad!
 
Most recordings are multi-mono, and any 'soundstage' is really just the result of using pan-pots or the digital equvalent.  Most recordings are not true stereo, and do not really have a soundstage or imaging.  Live concerts don't either, imho.  What concerts and good multi-mono records can have, is natural, authentic timbre, and proper phase coherence-that is, all of the fundamentals and harmonics are lined up properly in time.  (saxes, rather than kazoos).  I think the 1500s do this very well, (So do other single-driver iems like the original Kaede and the Dita, just to name 2.) Lots of multi-B.A. iems sound nice, or pretty, or exciting, but they are more like fun-house mirrors than an open window.  That's OK, and people should seek their bliss, and I am not suggesting otherwise.  For me, my evaluation style is to kind of observe myself observing the sound, and see how I am reacting.  "Gee, this sounds good" is nice, but something like "wow, Clapton almost always plays a Les Paul, wonder why he chose a Gibson SG for this track" is much better.  the gear got out of the way and left me more in touch with the music.  
 
Proably just made it even less clear, but irrespectiveof the connection to the 1500s or anything else, how would you answer my 1 vs. 2 question from my earlier post?
 
Sep 2, 2016 at 6:50 AM Post #15 of 379
   
I guess I did not make it even remotely clear-my bad!
 
Most recordings are multi-mono, and any 'soundstage' is really just the result of using pan-pots or the digital equvalent.  Most recordings are not true stereo, and do not really have a soundstage or imaging.  Live concerts don't either, imho.  What concerts and good multi-mono records can have, is natural, authentic timbre, and proper phase coherence-that is, all of the fundamentals and harmonics are lined up properly in time.  (saxes, rather than kazoos).  I think the 1500s do this very well, (So do other single-driver iems like the original Kaede and the Dita, just to name 2.) Lots of multi-B.A. iems sound nice, or pretty, or exciting, but they are more like fun-house mirrors than an open window.  That's OK, and people should seek their bliss, and I am not suggesting otherwise.  For me, my evaluation style is to kind of observe myself observing the sound, and see how I am reacting.  "Gee, this sounds good" is nice, but something like "wow, Clapton almost always plays a Les Paul, wonder why he chose a Gibson SG for this track" is much better.  the gear got out of the way and left me more in touch with the music.  
 
Proably just made it even less clear, but irrespectiveof the connection to the 1500s or anything else, how would you answer my 1 vs. 2 question from my earlier post?

Think this refers to tonal accuracy and transparency? From my brief experience with electrostats I did get the feeling that they are way more transparent than multi BA's, although BA's felt slightly more natural sounding to me (rather than accurate) due to the midrange warmth. But this is also something I think you need to get used to, the difference in sound. Electrostats just sound so different than what I'm used to, that I'd need some time getting accustomed to it. But after that, it's very well possible I would say that sound is more natural, since it is tonally more accurate. I can't judge on that based on my very limited experience with them.
 
As for your question, it's really hard man :wink: I think presentation and tonality both contribute so much to the experience that it's hard to disentangle. I guess tonality would be more important, even if everything was lumped together so to speak.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top