1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)

First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Next
 
Last
  1. kjk1281
    Thanks for the update(s)!

    I'm not surprised that the CK6 didn't impress since they're a rather old product. The phones were released in Japan in late 2006 and were discontinued in that country sometime in 2008. One Japanese reviewer stated that he felt the CK6s were worth about $30 but not the $45 or so he paid for them. Its spiritual successors are the CKS line, at least in the sense that they're among the bassier AT canalphones.

    As for the J-Jays: Well, at least now I know that Jays products are available from Amazon. Hooray! [​IMG]
     
  2. ljokerl Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mvw2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Yep. It's got thick notes. It's actually pretty nice with deep strings where you get nice, heavy reverberation and presence, but that thickness of note comes at a price, a loss of fine detail. It's noticeable when being able to directly compare to other options like the CK10. It's less noticeable when you don't. Personal preference will play a role in how you like such aspects.

    I think the biggest benefit of the Custom 3 is the sound stage. The sense of size and space is great, and it has good linearity to it. It does sound stage better then a heck of a lot of other earphones.




    They are pretty relaxing to listen to. I guess I've been spoiled in the past few days by the Audio-Technica IEMs. I'll have to equalize myself with some budget sets and then come back to the C3.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kjk1281 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Thanks for the update(s)!

    I'm not surprised that the CK6 didn't impress since they're a rather old product. The phones were released in Japan in late 2006 and were discontinued in that country sometime in 2008. One Japanese reviewer stated that he felt the CK6s were worth about $30 but not the $45 or so he paid for them. Its spiritual successors are the CKS line, at least in the sense that they're among the bassier AT canalphones.

    As for the J-Jays: Well, at least now I know that Jays products are available from Amazon. Hooray! [​IMG]




    Well, to be honest I paid about $15 for the CK6 and I still feel like I got ripped off. Even the CX300 is a better-sounding set. Worst thing is that the US MSRP is listed at $99.99.

    As for the Jays, the one thing they do better than any other brand is packaging. If I had to give an earphone as a gift, the J-Jays would be near the top of the list. High hopes for my incoming Q-Jays!
     
  3. Pianist
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ljokerl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    They are pretty relaxing to listen to. I guess I've been spoiled in the past few days by the Audio-Technica IEMs. I'll have to equalize myself with some budget sets and then come back to the C3.



    Well, to be honest I paid about $15 for the CK6 and I still feel like I got ripped off. Even the CX300 is a better-sounding set. Worst thing is that the US MSRP is listed at $99.99.

    As for the Jays, the one thing they do better than any other brand is packaging. If I had to give an earphone as a gift, the J-Jays would be near the top of the list. High hopes for my incoming Q-Jays!




    They are one of my favourite IEMs. Very precise and musical sounding. You should like them, but give them at least 20 hours of burn in to relax the treble a little. It's quite hot out of the box. After burn in, they are only slightly sibilant sometimes, but nothing major. I would rate them around RE0 level out of a good source like AMP3. Each has their strengths and weaknesses but unamped q-jays sound much more lively and controlled in the bass.

    Anyway, I am awaiting your impressions. It will be interesting to hear to what you think of them. [​IMG]
     
  4. rawrster
    Q-Jays [​IMG] I remember looking at these sometime around when they came out. They definitely seemed like good iem's but their price turned me off. Now I own one that is much more expensive :p I look forward to that review but I guess it won't be for a while since it looks like you got lots of reviews ahead of you.
     
  5. grokit
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ljokerl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    As for the Jays, the one thing they do better than any other brand is packaging.



    You obviously didn't have the "unboxing" experience with the e-Q7's you reviewed, lol [​IMG]
     
  6. rawrster
    he pretty much did :p it came with the box and everything [​IMG] the black box the e-Q7 it comes with is impressive. the stuff that the e-Q7 comes with however is not too impressive.

    however the jays do pack in a lot of stuff in their iem's. all they need to do now is release xjays and have it relatively low price.
     
  7. ljokerl Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grokit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    You obviously didn't have the "unboxing" experience with the e-Q7's you reviewed, lol [​IMG]



    Au contraire, I did. But there's a fine line between style and excess, and for me the Ortofons cross it.

    The Jays packaging is the epitome of swedish design principles - incredibly simple and straightforward and yet so complete (unlike the ortofons). For example the replacement filters are attached right to the instruction manual where the procedure of replacing them is described. Pretty cool. And the number of accessories per unit volume is just off the charts. It's really how Ikea would've packaged a set of earphones, and more.
     
  8. grokit
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ljokerl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Au contraire, I did. But there's a fine line between style and excess, and for me the Ortofons cross it.

    The Jays packaging is the epitome of swedish design principles - incredibly simple and straightforward and yet so complete (unlike the ortofons).




    But you were speaking of packaging in the original quote and not accessories, yes?

    For me there is no contest on the packaging; one is a very good job of retail plastic and the other elevates above that entirely, into the realm of a fine watch.
     
  9. Inks
    Would be cool if you get to review old heavyweights like the shure s530 or UE Triple fi 10.
     
  10. ljokerl Contributor
    Added Sennheiser CX300 and CX250. CX300s should make a good baseline for those familiar with them while the CX250s are quite good in their own right.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inks /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Would be cool if you get to review old heavyweights like the shure s530 or UE Triple fi 10.



    I have the TF10 but they've been reviewed to death so I wasn't planning on adding them, at least not until I'm done with all of the interesting stuff. I will eventually [​IMG].
     
  11. rawrster
    looks like the cx250 is better than the cx300. kinda strange how the model numbers dont look that way :p

    oh you got a bold tag messed up in the cx250 section in the value area i think.
     
  12. iPoodz
    Hey |joker|!

    I have nothing valuable to add (except, to tell you that your writeups are excellent, as usual), but I was curious about your ADDIEMs.

    I was lurking, and clicked your profile, and did a double take (or three). Did you re-cable out of necessity, or in the hopes of getting a better sound?
     
  13. kjk1281
    Ah, the update I've been waiting for! [​IMG]

    Actually, I really enjoyed your assessment of the CX300. Even though I'm not too crazy about them myself, I've always felt that most reviews of that particular canalphone have always gravitated toward two extremes: either "This is worst I've ever heard" or "OMG awesome!" It seems that yours and ClieOS' reviews are the only two on the Internet that are objective.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rawrster /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    looks like the cx250 is better than the cx300. kinda strange how the model numbers dont look that way :p



    Sennheiser should of called it the CX320 or something similar (since CX350's already taken). Once I achieved the right fit, I was quite pleased at how much better the CX250 sounded when compared to the CX300, at least to my ears.

    To make the numbers even more confusing, there's another Sennheiser, the CX150, that sounds very similar to the CX250, and therefore also better than the CX300.
     
  14. rawrster
    well their model numbers dont make sense. its like they put numbers in a hat and drew from it to determine what it should be. I don't have too many iem's at that price range but I enjoyed the CX300..until I got something better (so more expensive)but they are one of my 3 or 4 iem's that I had that was in the 20 dollar or so range.
     
  15. mvw2
    Oh, the big 60. You're getting old. [​IMG]
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Next
 
Last

Share This Page