toughnut
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Posts
- 1,876
- Likes
- 328
I got my Quattro (QT) on Thursday noon and burning it in since then. So far have around 50hours on them. I will compare them to its great grand daddy, Mylar X3 (X3) cuz i only tested the original MylarOne, X3 and Quattro so far. I really familiar with X3 sound since it's among my fav IEM, burned in >1000hours.
Brief history of CrossRoads Mylar bloodline: MylarOne -> Mylar X3 -> Mylar X3i -> Mylar Bijou -> Mylar Quattro ( doesnt includes other varients like XB, XBi, SV, etc)
Test condition: Medium single flange on both MylarX3 and Quattro (port 3). Sony S639F with VBR192-320 LAME encoded files. Multi genres tested.
SQ:
Out of the box, QT reminds me of UM2. Warm, lack of treble and enormous bass but without the clarity of UM2. It sounded quite veiled too. Separation and clarity were disappointing. After burned in 24 hours, the bass become more controlled and reduced in quantity. Separation and clarity also improved but still trailing behind X3. Maybe more burn in required? After 50 hours, no major different noticed.
For bass, QT has more bass and midbass compared to X3. A lot more impact and air. But extra bass also make the other spectrums compromised. Sub bass is more pronounced and detailed on X3 due to lack of bass and midbass. QT bass speed also slower compared to X3 but able to convey timbre of instruments and reverbs a lot better. Quality wise, +1 to X3 but quantity wise, +1 to QT.
Midrange section, QT more warm and laidback. Also sound blunt and wet to my ears. X3 sounded more airy and transparent. Instrument separation also better on X3 but both suffer when stressed. Detail wise, both are quite similar but harder to pick up on QT. For vocal, QT sounded recessed if compared to X3. QT also sounds fuller due to warmness but slow. X3 sound similar to less refined triple.fi, more speed but sound raw and dry.
For treble, X3 and QT sound similar but X3 have upper hand due to less overall warm sound. High sound quite laidback on both, doesn’t sound fatiguing or harsh. Details wise, ok but not good compared to other IEM i used. Although both extend higher than UM2, clarity and detail on this spectrum still lose to UM2. I also noticed some vibration/crackling sound when hitting high notes, similar to X3.
Soundstage for QT depends on port used. Port 1 which the most open provides the widest soundstage but very inaccurate imo. Not only everything sound smeared, the bass is enormous and fatiguing. Similar to IE8 with nearly max bass knob but without the clarity and details retention of IE8. It boosts the bass and midbass spectrum. I honestly dont like this port at all. Port 2 has good soundstage but bass still a bit too much. Port 3 make the QT less airier with narrower soundstage but more controlled and with better defined bass. In term of imaging, QT quite good but sense of distance is lacking.
In term of overall SQ package, QT more suited towards warm and fun sound while X3 more towards analytical side. QT also has upper hand due to ability to port changing and thus different degree of warmness.
Build quality:
QT trumps X3. No contest. Although X3 received a lot of complaints regarding the poor quality (i heard it's the poorest among all IEM), my unit still working admirably until now. CrossRoads managed to bring Mylar to another level with QT. The aluminum barrel feels really good. Tiny size, lightweight and disappear in ears. It's the most discrete IEM i ever had, even more than CK100 or UM2. The wire relief done a good job to for better grips when insertion and removal from ears. My main concern with X3 still coming back to haunt me. The cable is similar to X3 albeit thinner, which is DAMN microphonic and kink easily. Luckily QT able to be wore over the ears and comes with a clip. The jack is a cross between straight and angled jack, probably to enable usage on iphone.
Packaging and accessories:
Packaging looks a bit dull due to lack of gloss/color and plain white lettering. Maybe I’m just being picky LOL. Accessories don’t disappoint. 4 pairs of single flanges, 1 pair of biflanges, airplane adapter, clip and a small zipper pouch which i really like. No cleaning tool included as no point to include it. There's no metal mesh to protect the driver but when i see inside the bore, it look like some sort of LED.... weird...
Finale:
So does it worth USD88 asking price? Yes, the build quality enough to justify it. In term of sound, i still prefer the sound of X3 as my preference is more toward balanced sound. For those who like warm IEM, have a go at QT.
UPDATE (70+ Hours)
I reverted back to Port 2 since Port 3 bass sound too tame, just layer of warm sound. Changing to Port 2, the bass actually more punchy than before, not just boomy sound during 50 hours mark. There's actually definition to the bass. Current sound remind me of IE8 during early stage of burn in but lacking the speed.
The mid also a bit more forward (although still laidback) and vocal clarity increased. Details presentation remains similar. High also remain similar, quite laidback and lack sparkle.
Soundstage extended wide, also contributed due to Port 2 usage. Clarity and transparency at this stage also improved for good but not yet reaching X3 level yet. I also noticed that layering and instrument separation improved a lot.
I actually enjoyed listening to Quattro on electronic, trance or any bass heavy musics O_O
UPDATE (110 Hours)
I guess this is how Quattro supposed to sound. Everything in place. The bass, the mid, the high, soundstage, clarity and transparency. Yes, it wont beat BA IEM or other top IEM dynamic like IE8 BUT it very good. The air between vocal and instruments are incredible. The soundstage also very wide and felt not restrained as previously sounded.
Another finding is vocal. Most of the tracks vocal sound really great; clear and quite forward BUT on certain tracks it sound very recessed and muffled. Quite similar to my TF10P experienced but much more worst when it happen on Quattro. Vocal seem drowned and mixed with background.
Bass still lacking speed but then that's not fair since i'm comparing it to speedy IE8 as reference.
Brief history of CrossRoads Mylar bloodline: MylarOne -> Mylar X3 -> Mylar X3i -> Mylar Bijou -> Mylar Quattro ( doesnt includes other varients like XB, XBi, SV, etc)
Test condition: Medium single flange on both MylarX3 and Quattro (port 3). Sony S639F with VBR192-320 LAME encoded files. Multi genres tested.
SQ:
Out of the box, QT reminds me of UM2. Warm, lack of treble and enormous bass but without the clarity of UM2. It sounded quite veiled too. Separation and clarity were disappointing. After burned in 24 hours, the bass become more controlled and reduced in quantity. Separation and clarity also improved but still trailing behind X3. Maybe more burn in required? After 50 hours, no major different noticed.
For bass, QT has more bass and midbass compared to X3. A lot more impact and air. But extra bass also make the other spectrums compromised. Sub bass is more pronounced and detailed on X3 due to lack of bass and midbass. QT bass speed also slower compared to X3 but able to convey timbre of instruments and reverbs a lot better. Quality wise, +1 to X3 but quantity wise, +1 to QT.
Midrange section, QT more warm and laidback. Also sound blunt and wet to my ears. X3 sounded more airy and transparent. Instrument separation also better on X3 but both suffer when stressed. Detail wise, both are quite similar but harder to pick up on QT. For vocal, QT sounded recessed if compared to X3. QT also sounds fuller due to warmness but slow. X3 sound similar to less refined triple.fi, more speed but sound raw and dry.
For treble, X3 and QT sound similar but X3 have upper hand due to less overall warm sound. High sound quite laidback on both, doesn’t sound fatiguing or harsh. Details wise, ok but not good compared to other IEM i used. Although both extend higher than UM2, clarity and detail on this spectrum still lose to UM2. I also noticed some vibration/crackling sound when hitting high notes, similar to X3.
Soundstage for QT depends on port used. Port 1 which the most open provides the widest soundstage but very inaccurate imo. Not only everything sound smeared, the bass is enormous and fatiguing. Similar to IE8 with nearly max bass knob but without the clarity and details retention of IE8. It boosts the bass and midbass spectrum. I honestly dont like this port at all. Port 2 has good soundstage but bass still a bit too much. Port 3 make the QT less airier with narrower soundstage but more controlled and with better defined bass. In term of imaging, QT quite good but sense of distance is lacking.
In term of overall SQ package, QT more suited towards warm and fun sound while X3 more towards analytical side. QT also has upper hand due to ability to port changing and thus different degree of warmness.
Build quality:
QT trumps X3. No contest. Although X3 received a lot of complaints regarding the poor quality (i heard it's the poorest among all IEM), my unit still working admirably until now. CrossRoads managed to bring Mylar to another level with QT. The aluminum barrel feels really good. Tiny size, lightweight and disappear in ears. It's the most discrete IEM i ever had, even more than CK100 or UM2. The wire relief done a good job to for better grips when insertion and removal from ears. My main concern with X3 still coming back to haunt me. The cable is similar to X3 albeit thinner, which is DAMN microphonic and kink easily. Luckily QT able to be wore over the ears and comes with a clip. The jack is a cross between straight and angled jack, probably to enable usage on iphone.
Packaging and accessories:
Packaging looks a bit dull due to lack of gloss/color and plain white lettering. Maybe I’m just being picky LOL. Accessories don’t disappoint. 4 pairs of single flanges, 1 pair of biflanges, airplane adapter, clip and a small zipper pouch which i really like. No cleaning tool included as no point to include it. There's no metal mesh to protect the driver but when i see inside the bore, it look like some sort of LED.... weird...
Finale:
So does it worth USD88 asking price? Yes, the build quality enough to justify it. In term of sound, i still prefer the sound of X3 as my preference is more toward balanced sound. For those who like warm IEM, have a go at QT.
UPDATE (70+ Hours)
I reverted back to Port 2 since Port 3 bass sound too tame, just layer of warm sound. Changing to Port 2, the bass actually more punchy than before, not just boomy sound during 50 hours mark. There's actually definition to the bass. Current sound remind me of IE8 during early stage of burn in but lacking the speed.
The mid also a bit more forward (although still laidback) and vocal clarity increased. Details presentation remains similar. High also remain similar, quite laidback and lack sparkle.
Soundstage extended wide, also contributed due to Port 2 usage. Clarity and transparency at this stage also improved for good but not yet reaching X3 level yet. I also noticed that layering and instrument separation improved a lot.
I actually enjoyed listening to Quattro on electronic, trance or any bass heavy musics O_O
UPDATE (110 Hours)
I guess this is how Quattro supposed to sound. Everything in place. The bass, the mid, the high, soundstage, clarity and transparency. Yes, it wont beat BA IEM or other top IEM dynamic like IE8 BUT it very good. The air between vocal and instruments are incredible. The soundstage also very wide and felt not restrained as previously sounded.
Another finding is vocal. Most of the tracks vocal sound really great; clear and quite forward BUT on certain tracks it sound very recessed and muffled. Quite similar to my TF10P experienced but much more worst when it happen on Quattro. Vocal seem drowned and mixed with background.
Bass still lacking speed but then that's not fair since i'm comparing it to speedy IE8 as reference.
