[miceblue]

Quote:

I've noticed a lot of people calling the c5 bright. Personally, I have to stress that it isn't bright. It's very flat. There are many factors that affect how it sounds with different earphones, such as impedance. What is most likely the case is that the last amp someone had was a different impedance causing attenuation. Now they're hear their earphones as they should sound. With a <2 ohm output it's very accurate to an earphone's intended sound based on impedance.

Just saying, take everyone's opinions, but realize the sound they hear is a result of many factors and not really indicative that the amp itself is bright or bassy or otherwise. The c5 has a very very flat response.

If the O2 is considered neutral, as it is my reference amp of choice, then yes I find the C5 to sound be a bit brighter than neutral. That's been the case regardless of the headphones/earphones I've tried.
Of course the C5 measured to have a flat frequency response curve, most amps do nowadays, but factors other than the frequency response are responsible for an amp's sound.

 

[ostewart]

I'll also confirm that the C5 is a tad brighter than the O2. The O2's treble seems a bit more tame.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

I'll also confirm that the C5 is a tad brighter than the O2. The O2's treble seems a bit more tame.

 
Are you hearing "crispness", where the O2 is a bit more "full" between instruments or with each note?  The ipod touch 5th gen is practically a ruler flat line measured.  My C5 sounds identical in frequency response, but it is "clearer", "crisper", more airy and distinct, etc.  Just curious.  You may have meant this, but I think the word "brighter" implies boosted treble, which I don't believe the C5 has.  But I think there can in fact be a few different types of "brightness" or the impression of brightness from other factors...  

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Quote:

I'll also confirm that the C5 is a tad brighter than the O2. The O2's treble seems a bit more tame.

 
Are you hearing "crispness", where the O2 is a bit more "full" between instruments or with each note?  The ipod touch 5th gen is practically a ruler flat line measured.  My C5 sounds identical in frequency response, but it is "clearer", "crisper", more airy and distinct, etc.  Just curious.  You may have meant this, but I think the word "brighter" implies boosted treble, which I don't believe the C5 has.  But I think there can in fact be a few different types of "brightness" or the impression of brightness from other factors...  

From Stereophile's audio glossary, and using this instrument frequency chart:
Quote:

bright, brilliant The most often misused terms in audio, these describe the degree to which reproduced sound has a hard, crisp edge to it. Brightness relates to the energy content in the 4kHz-8kHz band. It is not related to output in the extreme-high-frequency range. All live sound has brightness; it is a problem only when it is excessive.

Upper violin notes, female vocals, snare drum hits, and some cymbal crashes tend to have a harder "bite" compared to the O2. The O2 with the same songs, same headphones/earphones sounds more relaxing and less grating.
 
If this does not describe "bright", then what does?
 
I'm not saying the C5 sounds bad, but I'm just re-iterating my comparisons to the O2.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

From Stereophile's audio glossary, and using this instrument frequency chart:
Upper violin notes, female vocals, snare drum hits, and some cymbal crashes tend to have a harder "bite" compared to the O2. The O2 with the same songs, same headphones/earphones sounds more relaxing and less grating.
 
If this does not describe "bright", then what does?
 
I'm not saying the C5 sounds bad, but I'm just re-iterating my comparisons to the O2.

 
No that's exactly what bright should be.  Not treble, but brightness.  Unfortunately, most people think of brightness simply as more treble.  I just wanted to stress that the c5 frequency response is flat in the treble.  It is a somewhat bright amp though, but in a good way in my opinion.  It makes a set like the er4s and pfe112 sound dynamic and clear.

 

[Mooses9]

i feel what people might be hearing is the slight bump in the mids, bringing them slightly forward. that mixed with clearer sparkly highs, along with a more overall crisp sound. this all taken into consideration is probably this ''bright'' sound.

 

[jseaber]

Quote:

Got my C5 a week ago. I feel that C5 is bright. May be a little bit too bright for my taste but when I pair it with my other m2m in stead of ALO SXC, it make the sound a lot warmer and that's a good thing to me. Here is my set up.
 
 

 
Nice setup!

 

[ostewart]

Miceblue summed it up perfectly, it sounds more crisp in the highs whereas the O2 is more relaxed and tame. I wouldn't call it a bright amp, it just has crisper treble than the O2.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

i feel what people might be hearing is the slight bump in the mids, bringing them slightly forward. that mixed with clearer sparkly highs, along with a more overall crisp sound. this all taken into consideration is probably this ''bright'' sound.

 
Again, I don't think there is any bump in the mids from a frequency standpoint.  Unless you meant something else.  Perhaps your last setup lacked a tad of mids?
 
 
Quote:

Miceblue summed it up perfectly, it sounds more crisp in the highs whereas the O2 is more relaxed and tame. I wouldn't call it a bright amp, it just has crisper treble than the O2.

 
Exactly.  Crisper.  Like rice crispies.

 

[chengsta]

crisper, brighter (than e11 anyway, could be due to slightly higher impedance).  But don't forget the bass boost function, described in 1 word:  GLORIOUS!
 

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Quote:

i feel what people might be hearing is the slight bump in the mids, bringing them slightly forward. that mixed with clearer sparkly highs, along with a more overall crisp sound. this all taken into consideration is probably this ''bright'' sound.

 
Again, I don't think there is any bump in the mids from a frequency standpoint.  Unless you meant something else.  Perhaps your last setup lacked a tad of mids?
 

What amp are you using for a reference, if I may ask? Slight forwardness of the midrange is evident when compared to the O2.

 

[ostewart]

I also think the treble being crisper could be from the more intimate presentation, as the O2 has a larger soundstage.

 

[luisdent]

Quote:

What amp are you using for a reference, if I may ask? Slight forwardness of the midrange is evident when compared to the O2.

 
I have all sorts of amps and gear.  From a hifi infinity speaker system with a denon avr998 to my alesis studio monitor speakers on my duet to other gear as well.  But I'm simply talking about frequency response.  I don't need a reference amp for that.  If you look at the graph here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/images/ipod-touch-4g/measurements/FR-CD1-5-dB.gif  You can see that the 4th (which is pretty much identical to the 5th) is almost perfectly flat with absolutely no mid range drop or boost.  Flat.  It sounds flat too with flat earphones such as the pfe112.  You can hear the pfe112's slight 10khz hump (very slight), but that just shows the accuracy of the ipod even more.  With that said...
 
The C5 using the line out sounds "identical" frequency response wise to the ipod touch.  That means the c5 should measure perfectly flat.  That is simple logic.  However, as I was saying before, there are definitely things that attribute to the "forward" sound you might be hearing.  First and most likely is a change in equipment.  Differences are going to be heard in "reference" to your last equipment, because that is what you're familiar with.  Then you have separation, which isn't accounted for in a frequency graph.  You have the brightness we discussed due to the clarity and spaciousness.  You could translate that to the midrange forwardness as well by saying the space between notes is fuller making it sound more thick and thus forward in the midrange?  Just a thought.  You have dynamics which affect the overall smoothness or crispness, where the smoother dynamics could sound like more midrange in general.  But my point was that the mid range isn't boosted in "frequency".
 
I believe you that it might be different than the o2 in it's sound though.  And my guess is that difference in the fullness, but I'd have to hear the o2.  However, based on a flat measurement of frequencies I don't think people can describe the C5 as anything but flat.  I bet if John showed us a graph it would be extremely flat from top to bottom...

 

[lausar]

Quote:

Here is my impression so far.
 

Thanks.

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Quote:

What amp are you using for a reference, if I may ask? Slight forwardness of the midrange is evident when compared to the O2.

 
I have all sorts of amps and gear.  From a hifi infinity speaker system with a denon avr998 to my alesis studio monitor speakers on my duet to other gear as well.  But I'm simply talking about frequency response.  I don't need a reference amp for that.  If you look at the graph here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/images/ipod-touch-4g/measurements/FR-CD1-5-dB.gif  You can see that the 4th (which is pretty much identical to the 5th) is almost perfectly flat with absolutely no mid range drop or boost.  Flat.  It sounds flat too with flat earphones such as the pfe112.  You can hear the pfe112's slight 10khz hump (very slight), but that just shows the accuracy of the ipod even more.  With that said...
 
The C5 using the line out sounds "identical" frequency response wise to the ipod touch.  That means the c5 should measure perfectly flat.  That is simple logic.  However, as I was saying before, there are definitely things that attribute to the "forward" sound you might be hearing.  First and most likely is a change in equipment.  Differences are going to be heard in "reference" to your last equipment, because that is what you're familiar with.  Then you have separation, which isn't accounted for in a frequency graph.  You have the brightness we discussed due to the clarity and spaciousness.  You could translate that to the midrange forwardness as well by saying the space between notes is fuller making it sound more thick and thus forward in the midrange?  Just a thought.  You have dynamics which affect the overall smoothness or crispness, where the smoother dynamics could sound like more midrange in general.  But my point was that the mid range isn't boosted in "frequency".
 
I believe you that it might be different than the o2 in it's sound though.  And my guess is that difference in the fullness, but I'd have to hear the o2.  However, based on a flat measurement of frequencies I don't think people can describe the C5 as anything but flat.  I bet if John showed us a graph it would be extremely flat from top to bottom...

Yes but a measured flat frequency response does not equate to what you hear. The FiiO E11, and most likely the E12 successor, measures perfectly flat too from Innerfidelity's amp measurements, as do pretty much every solid-state amplifier nowadays, yet they sound warm and the treble is laid-back relative to the O2; the house FiiO sound signature.