[Inks]

 

 
Ditto, It's the first one that came to my mind as well. However, I'd say the IE8 is more midbass oriented than subbass, whereas the FX700 has a good bit more sub-bass, no?

FX700's bass is midbass oriented like the IE8, FX500s will be the subbass alternative. It's just that the FX700 midbass isn't as pronounced as the IE8 so you get a better sense of the subbass. 
 
 

 

[i2ehan]

Hmm, I haven't heard the FX500's, and while it may very well be more sub-bass oriented, the FX700 certainly doesn't fall short in that regard, at least not to my ears. Albeit, they share little resemblance in sound, correct?

 

[Inks]

FX700s are bottomless, so it's not lacking anything deep down. It's more pronounced in the midbass though so more attention is drawn there. 
 
FX500s are pretty close to the 700s, but not close like the EX600 to EX1000 in sound signature (but closer in performance imo). FX500s are the 700s with more subbass than midbass, thinner lower midrange, more upper mid energy and very similar treble performance and presentation.

 

[ljokerl]

 
Quote:

I know you only compare what you've heard, but if you received the UE Capitol, the JH16, the Westone ES5, or various other flagship customs, don't you think they'd be in the Nr#1 spot of your IEM reviewing now?

Assuming they were better than the 1964-T and I'd never heard the Miracle, I don't see why that wouldn't be the case.
 
 


Quote:

P.S. Dr. Fang says the RE272 rival $1000 customs in the mids and highs.

That statement is so vague that it's nearly useless and may well be true as a result. I'm quite sure that as with universals, there are marked differences in both sound signature and sound quality between customs (even at the same price point). Without a specific model in mind and specific aspects of the sound to consider, such a statement is impossible to refute. Are we talking mid/treble balance? Detail? Clarity? Resolution? Tone and timbre? Other factors? There may be customs out there that the RE272 can rival in one or more ways. Mine needs burn-in before I can say for sure how it comparesd to the Miracle but so far it's only really keeping up in clarity.
 


Quote:

Do you think that the treble could sound a bit "metallic" due to the metal housing?

 

Metallic is just a term - it hasn't necessarily got to do with housing material. It describes a certain type of midrange/treble unevenness and the resulting tone/timbre issues. Sometimes these issues can be caused by resonance in the housing but that's not always true. Something can sound metallic in a plastic housing (see: Pioneer MJ71, Senn HD25, etc) and there are certainly plenty of examples of metal-shelled gear that sounds smooth and has good tone & timbre (see Monster Pro line). Plastic housings can echo too, by the way.

 

[Inks]

Correct, plastic housings are the ones that echo more and cause poor resonants. I wouldn't attribute a metallic sound to a metal housing, it's a very flawed way to look at it. If there's a bad peak in the high regions it's usually because of poor tuning leading to resonants. Besides, the diaphragm's material is most important. 

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

[...] There may be customs out there that the RE272 can rival in one or more ways. Mine needs burn-in before I can say for sure how it comparesd to the Miracle but so far it's only really keeping up in clarity.
 

 
Cool, as clarity is one of my favorite aspects of sound replication I think I'm going to love the RE272.
 
p.s. please don't tell me you're in the "they need 800 hours burn-in" camp. =p
 

 

[Niyologist]

Thanks everyone!

 

[Shufny]

Quote:

p.s. please don't tell me you're in the "they need 800 hours burn-in" camp. =p
 

I'm fairly sure he is in the "if I don't burn them in for x hours before review, I'm gonna get crucified" camp.

 

[a_recording]

Quote:

I'm fairly sure he is in the "if I don't burn them in for x hours before review, I'm gonna get crucified" camp.

I always find it worrying when IEM manufacturers themselves recommend huge amounts of burn in time. Considering they actually have the measuring tools to test this, why do we never see any graphs or any data supporting the idea that things like transient response, frequency response, etc improve with time? I sometimes think I hear small differences in sound over time, but I know enough about the human brain to have serious doubts about the whole thing...

 

[tuahogary]

Quote:

P.S. Dr. Fang says the RE272 rival $1000 customs in the mids and highs.

Are you serious? I hated the RE272 and so did my audiophile friends - although they were the full size can types, not us IEM-ers.
 

 

[kiteki]

hate is a strong word.
 
just kidding

, why did you hate them? I'd like to know, it just makes it all the more exciting to receive an IEM/HP that receives love / hate reactions, not that I can think of many... EX700 comes to mind...
 
but you are saying you hated them and so did all your friends, and bennyboy says it was like being on an island with fountains of whiskey and naked lucsious girls! Kinda makes me wonder how they sound

 

[Heret1c]

Quote:

FX700
 
Also, RE272's have plastic housing I believe...
 

Yeah, thats what I thought too...or was it the 262 I was thinking about.....?

 


Quote:

 
FX700's bass is midbass oriented like the IE8, FX500s will be the subbass alternative. It's just that the FX700 midbass isn't as pronounced as the IE8 so you get a better sense of the subbass. 
 
 

 
Interesting. Sub-bass isn't a bad thing to have, just not by itself. Say, can someone tell me, between the FX500 and FX700, which would be sounds better with hard and/or progressive rock / metal? Also, is the EX1000 good for those genres? I know its not ideally suited to those genres but does it fare much worse than the FXs or just a little bit?
 

 
Quote:

That statement is so vague that it's nearly useless and may well be true as a result. I'm quite sure that as with universals, there are marked differences in both sound signature and sound quality between customs (even at the same price point). Without a specific model in mind and specific aspects of the sound to consider, such a statement is impossible to refute. Are we talking mid/treble balance? Detail? Clarity? Resolution? Tone and timbre? Other factors? There may be customs out there that the RE272 can rival in one or more ways. Mine needs burn-in before I can say for sure how it comparesd to the Miracle but so far it's only really keeping up in clarity.
 

 
Yup, that really is vague. Where would you even begin to support or refute it? Not that it can't be true but it needs to be a little more specific. Generalizations like that are annoying, IMO.
 
 

 

[Inks]

Thats true @recording. Burn-in is mostly mental, when tests have actually been done, it's shown that changes are very minuscule. Our auditory memories are poor and our mind can be tricky at perceiving sound. Manufacturers recommend long sessions because they want you to adapt to the sound.

Both re262 and 272 have plastic housings.

 

[Poetik]

Quote:

As always, I can only relate my own experience - the disclaimer is right there in the first post. One ~$900 custom is not enough data points to make a generalization and I honestly don't see why the ES3X would sound significantly better than the UM3X in the first place - as TF10 owners are finding out, sticking the internals of a well-tuned universal (which the UM3X certainly is) into a custom shell probably is fairly limiting on the performance increase you can get, unless Westone seriously handicapped the UM3X. I also don't see how the driver argument is relevant - I've said countless times that more drivers does not equate to better sound in and of itself, and we see plenty of examples of that in the universal realm. It's what's done with those drivers that matters. What I do know is that Miracle makes the EX1000 - and any other universal I've heard so far - sound underwhelming - and that's not  a statement I make lightly considering how much I like the EX1000.

Either way, unless you can point me to someone who has heard the UM Miracle and EX1000 and preferred the latter, I really don't see how other users preferring other customs to various universals is relevant. Even then I trust my own ears above anyone else's at this point, which is one of the reasons I do not read reviews or participate in discussion/appreciation threads. This would be especially true of someone whose views continually diverge from my own, as mine apparently do from yours. 

You tell him man!! I completely agree with this. 

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

Burn-in is mostly mental, when tests have actually been done, it's shown that changes are very minuscule. Our auditory memories are poor and our mind can be tricky at perceiving sound. Manufacturers recommend long sessions because they want you to adapt to the sound.
 

Right! That's where my cynicism comes from too, and that's why I couldn't let it rest when Pianist suggested the RE0 requires burn-in for over a month continuously until it sounds like it should.
 
It's like saying a blu-ray player will get better picture quality after 300~1000 hours of constant burn-in, what kind of videophile would even do that?
 
As for our auditory memory, I know it's probably a long a deep subject but most people can recognize a song just by hearing a tenth of a second from a song, randomly!