Introducing CL2 Planar (Impressions Thread)
post-14754599
Post #2,131 of 3,114

Duncan

Headphoneus Supremus
Moderator
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
13,179
Reaction score
1,373
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Posts
13,179
Likes
1,373
I can tell you right now my guy, the zx300 aint worth your time with those other daps on the way. My V40 is miles better than the zx300. Im getting the R6 Pro tomorrow so i will be A/B those 2
Quantify “miles better” for me please...
 
     Share This Post       
post-14754636
Post #2,133 of 3,114

Kitechaser

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Los Angeles
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Location
Los Angeles
Posts
1,811
Likes
1,139
ZX300 is a hell of a dap, definitely a few steps above than the V40, I have listened to that phone, and it is....a phone.
R6 Pro should be an improvement over the ZX300 (soundstage at least), WM1A?? Don't know honestly.
I personally think the WM1A is right there with daps in the 2-3000 dollar range.
But we all have our preferences.
Sony Daps don't have all the streaming and extra power, but what they do have is true to life sound, unmatched tonality, incredible form, and battery life.
Really looking forward to hearing how the R6 Pro pairs with the CL2.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14754641
Post #2,134 of 3,114

toranku

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
816
Reaction score
1,800
Location
sg
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Location
sg
Posts
816
Likes
1,800
Fine to have preferences and opinions but not fine when you project it onto others. Different DAPs have their own DSPs (and circuitry) which makes them sound different. Just because a DAP is more linear with more treble extension doesn't make it better than another DAP that focuses on warmth + lesser treble extension.

All about synergy as well.
 
post-14755043
Post #2,135 of 3,114

ANOpax

New Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
32
Reaction score
27
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Posts
32
Likes
27
Hello all,

I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.
61305DBD-E0C6-4250-A3F2-1FC89EDE9C32.png


When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14755062
Post #2,136 of 3,114

cj3209

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
690
Location
SoCal
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
SoCal
Posts
1,707
Likes
690
Hello all,

I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.

When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...
That was a good read on a rainy Socal morning-appreciate it.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Kitechaser
post-14755082
Post #2,137 of 3,114

azel831

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
110
Reaction score
21
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Posts
110
Likes
21
Quantify “miles better” for me please...
Sure. Going back and forth between the two, V40 drives any headphone i plug in better, even with the zx300 on high gain. Tested with Xba n3bp(only one balanced), Ksc75, Mx365, Kanas pro. The instrument detail and separation is easily detectable between the two. Head room also improves, the zx300 is too warm for my liking. It reminds me of the Plenue D too much. I seriously recommend anyone to go to your local mobile dealer that carries the V40 and judge if you have the Zx300, I sold mine after that. Here comes R6 pro
 
     Share This Post       
post-14755122
Post #2,139 of 3,114

Tragic

Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
82
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Posts
84
Likes
82
I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.

When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...[/QUOTE]
Hello all,

I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.

When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...

I wish I could shake your hand and buy you a drink or 3. That was perfect. I appreciate that you don’t think they need to be burned in for a month with an aftermarket cable and a 2k DAP also. Please do a proper review!
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Kitechaser
post-14755126
Post #2,140 of 3,114

Kitechaser

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
1,139
Location
Los Angeles
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Location
Los Angeles
Posts
1,811
Likes
1,139
Hello all,

I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.

When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...
That theoretically flat curve is exactly what I am hearing. Flat. Thank you for posting that, very informative.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-14755152
Post #2,141 of 3,114

Duncan

Headphoneus Supremus
Moderator
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
13,179
Reaction score
1,373
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Posts
13,179
Likes
1,373
I’ve taken delivery of my CL2 and am loving them despite only having about 25hrs on them. I’ve heard enough to draw some conclusions and also come up with a hypothesis on why they are such a marmite IEM.

First, some background on my biases and prejudices. I apologise if some of this sounds like a rant and if it is ill informed, please go easy on me and correct me gently!

My main area of listening experience is with what most would consider to be a serious full size rig (Wadia CDP/DAC, Modwright Valve preamp, EAR 509 valve mono blocks feeding Quad ESL989 electrostatic speakers). I prize a liquid and organic sound with a natural timbre. I have played in orchestras and attended enough live concerts to know what a real instrument or performance sounds like.

My headphone experience includes 2 years with hifi man RE01 followed by the last 4 years with Earsonics SM64. I’m not a gear-head so I don’t chop and change equipment lightly.

I’ve had to look into a replacement for my SM64s as I was getting an intermittent problem on one channel. I have auditioned the Earsonics ES3 and InEar SD2 and SD5 as potential replacements.

What has surprised me, coming back to the headphone forae, is how far away from the reproducing the intent of the recording a lot of the products have become. The ethos and approach is totally different to the full size side of things. For example, EQ is anathema to me. So is the idea of V or U shaped tuning. Outside the headphone world, it’s called ‘loudness’ and is performed by the press of a button on cheap Japanese boom boxes. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that a product can be good but only suitable for certain genres of music. If it can’t reproduce everything with aplomb then it can’t be good.

I also find the focus on soundstaging and separation to be an understandable but misleading preoccupation with headphones. It’s understandable because the presentation of headphones ‘inside your head’ makes it easier to analyse the soundstage. It’s misleading because nobody goes to a concert and picks out the instruments’ and vocalists’ positions - because you can’t; the room interaction gets in the way. What seems to have happened is that products now have an over emphasised bass, and major in detail and separation but in the process have lost the musical message by concentrating on the hifi. The fact that Chord is so well regarded makes me wince (and yes, I’ve heard the mojo).

The final thing I find utterly perplexing is the assumption that more BA drivers = better. In the full size speaker world, few drivers = better.

Which brings me to the CL2. One driver. That’s it. I recognised the sound signature instantly - just like that of my Quad ESLs. The music is presented as if cut from the same sonic cloth. There is no crossover to get in the way, no difference in timbre between drivers. No interference, no distortion. The bass is also much more natural and true to life.

Most consumers don’t know what real bass sounds like. They have been conditioned to box colourations and this is why ‘popular’ IEMs with ‘fun’ tuning have a boosted bass response. I will never buy another Earsonics product again if the ES3 is now representative of their ‘house’ sound. It’s a travesty.

And I think this is where people are hearing the CL2 as ‘peaky’. The ability of the driver to go very loud very cleanly is prompting people to listen at higher volumes than normal to get their expected bass punch. What that does is it makes the treble too loud to bear and is crossing a pain threshold.

From what I can tell from sonion’s application notes, the FR that RHA has endowed the CL2 delivers a notionally flat response in the ear. I am certainly not hearing the peakiness that some complain of.

What I am loving about the CL2 is that it captures the performance of the artist. Sure, the hifi attributes are there, but they also gel to immerse you in the performance as a whole and transport you into the emotion of the music. In contrast, the SD5 was supremely competent in extracting all the detail of the performance but it felt like the performers were not in the same band and remained separate. There was no musical ‘whole’.

The CL2 succeeds where multi BA IEMs fail due to the crossoverless top to bottom coherence that a single planar driver provides.

When people criticise the ‘unnatural’ timbre of the driver, I find it hard to understand where this is coming from. Instrumental timbre sounds perfect to me. I do understand the comments about ‘light bass’. Planar bass takes some getting used to but again, it’s acoustically correct.

With the ‘theoretically flat’ tuning of the driver, RHA have created a perfect monitor for listening to your music. Unlike many monitors, it is musically satisfying as well. Not everyone likes the perfection of a freshly churned vanilla ice cream made with best Madagascar vanilla pods. Some people like the addition of anchovies and I’m okay with that. They just won’t like the CL2...



I wish I could shake your hand and buy you a drink or 3. That was perfect. I appreciate that you don’t think they need to be burned in for a month with an aftermarket cable and a 2k DAP also. Please do a proper review!
Thanks for this, great post!

To draw focus to the final point, you're absolutely correct, you don't need a monstrously expensive DAP to get them to sound good, but you do need a good synergy to get the best out of the CL2, they are way less forgiving than let's say the AK T8ie mkii, which can be driven off of a cellphone or cheap DAP quite happily.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Kitechaser
post-14755311
Post #2,143 of 3,114

tolisgtr

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
143
Reaction score
87
Location
Greece
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Location
Greece
Posts
143
Likes
87
To me CL2 sounds exceptionally coherent as a whole.. It simply takes you there!
 
     Share This Post       
post-14755526
Post #2,144 of 3,114

Duncan

Headphoneus Supremus
Moderator
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
13,179
Reaction score
1,373
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Posts
13,179
Likes
1,373
To me CL2 sounds exceptionally coherent as a whole.. It simply takes you there!
Holy moly - listening at 100/120, high gain on the WM1A, to (Apple TV) movies is absolutely exceptional - I’ve said it before, but feel I can cement it a lot more now, that these IEMs can take the fight to the vast majority of full sized headphones.
 
     Share This Post       
post-14755634
Post #2,145 of 3,114

Steve160k

Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
64
Reaction score
74
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Posts
64
Likes
74
Well, I have had the CL2 for a couple of months now & to my ears & music preference, they are phenomenal. Especially on female vocals - awesome. Soundstage V-shaped, U-shaped or whatever way you want to describe it to me forget all that, they just sound so intimate, as if they are singing right in my ear. Transparent & very very musical, I don't look for anything else now.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top