Separate names with a comma.
Oh snap I didn't realize there was more than one type of MMCX connection.
Threse aren't MMCX connectors on the picture.
No but the page gives you an option of selecting 2 pin/MMCX as well as 2.5/3.5/4.5 jacks.
I see. So probably just an inflexible picture.
I was told originally that there was no need with a single BA, but I just got a replacement set and there's a noticeable difference. I'm at about 60 hours in and I swear there's a difference. They sound a bit fuller and more open The most important part is ear tip selection. The included marshmallows work best for me
I listened to my Comets Thursday when they arrived, MEH!! not that decent nor dynamic. I listened to them 2 hours ago and they were great. Don't tell me there ain't no break in!! Going to cook them an extra day to be sure.
I never noticed anything in my Comets (~30 hours) but my experience with the Atlas has made me a believer in burn in. Sitting at around 100 hours and both ends of the spectrum are a little less intense and above all more disciplined and controlled than they were in the beginning.
How do the Atlas and Solaris sound similar in "huge sonic image" yet the Solaris is much more immersive? Is the Solaris soft?
The Atlas is an aggressive, "in your face" sort of voicing, where everything is emphasised. The Solaris are more laid back in terms of energy, and have a deeper and more precise imaging (the often-used term "holographic" is genuinely appropriate here). Best way I can describe what I'm hearing is that the Atlas constantly demands your attention, whereas the Solaris surround you with sound and let you pick your way through it. In terms of actual size of stage and the imaginary size of the instruments in your head, both are similar.
Does that help?
EDIT: forgot to say, the Solaris is by no means soft - it has a decent edge to notes, just not quite as exuberant as the Atlas.
The Atlas is big in the sense that it hits you with this wall of sound that has robust, dynamic bass and overall has a thicker, warmer, more liquid sound. The soundstage is a little more intimate, giving the feeling akin to being in a smaller rock club with huge PA system. The Solaris is more immersive in the sense that there is more separation and air between instruments, with better layering and a more expansive soundstage, which all works together to give a more immersive, 3-dimensional sound.
I don't understand how deeper imaging reconciles with same soundstage in terms of size. You're also saying that while the soundstage is the same size the sounds are better positioned with the Solaris? That I can understand. If the soundstage is the same you should feel surrounded by both, except the Atlas gives off stronger sound let's say.
I'm getting pretty worried now because I know how euphemisms get thrown around here. I don't know if you've heard the Focal Clear and Hifiman Edition X v2 full-size headphones but the former is the "in your face" aggressive sounding one whereas the latter is the "relaxing" one. To my ears the former was destructively hard whereas the latter was pathetically soft. I really don't understand how these people can't create one pair of balanced headphones. It's like there's a technical mutual exclusivity that we can't see and no one is telling us about, or God forbid they just want to sell and continue selling a bunch of flawed and overpriced products.
This I understand better. Moves even closer to the Clear HEXv2 comparison. How soft is the Solaris? Will I enjoy edm, dance, etc. on it? Can I get into it and party with it? Is the Atlas excessive or the Solaris soporific? Just heard Currawong claim that the Solaris is for live recordings basically, which makes me want to split my head open on my desk. A $1500 live recording iem marketed toward regular folks... rich. How much does the Atlas lack in imaging, soundstage, and separation in comparison to the Solaris? Is detail retrieval (resolution?) similar or does the Solaris win there too? The Atlas doesn't have liquid sound like Audeze headphones, right? There's a disturbing thought.
So I’m not exactly sure what you mean by soft, but if you are talking about definition, clarity, and transient impact of notes, the Solaris has more clarity and definition than the atlas. Bass is less prominent and tighter on the Solaris than on the atlas, though Solaris still has very good subbass impact. I wouldn’t describe either iem as relaxed, although neither one is particularly aggressive in the sense of sounding harsh. Atlas is more big and bold in the sense that notes are, fuller, but, as I said, Solaris has more expansive soundstage with more layered 3D imaging. The atlas is more forgiving of poorly mastered/recorded music. Atlas has very high resolution and details; however, perceptually, the details are less emphasized than on the Solaris because of its engaging “wall of sound” presentation, which lends itself less to highlighting the details than the more layered, airy, and defined sound of the Solaris. In other words, while the Solaris does, I think, have a bit of an edge in terms of absolute resolution (they are close though), this is further emphasized by the Solaris’ presentation, which lends itself to picking out all the different parts in the music because of the exceptional layering and the increased separation and airier sound.
So in terms of engagement you'd say that the difference between the Atlas and Solaris is only in the bigger bass of the Atlas, not in the Solaris generally being laid-back, relaxed, or soft? Is the Solaris deficient in bass? Is it "dynamic", whatever that term really means? Is it an engaging iem for genres like edm, dance, etc? Maybe someone here has heard the Focal full-size headphones and the Hifiman Edition Xv2 I'm referring to to understand what I mean. Focal has a strong, sort of piercing sound that I find unacceptable while the HEXv2 is too soft, turning up the volume doesn't do the trick of making it hit across the frequency.
I'll go for the Solaris if it's balanced yet energetic, but I have heard some conflicting statements. I've also heard that the bass of the Atlas may be overdone, or at least is very prominent, "bass-heady", which I'm not sure is necessary. Just how prominent is it?
By the way, in terms of sound quality, how would you say these expensive iems compare to the full-size $350 Sennheiser HD650?
So...here's the thing about 'detail retrieval' with the Atlas. it's really simple. there's a lot of hi fi level mids detail. enough to justify the price tag, and while I've not heard Solaris i'll bet it's damned close. but it's partially obscured by a prominent upper bass. if you look at the frequency response graph for Atlas, you'll see that there's the same boost at 125 hz as lower down the bass spectrum. I see this as the only tuning flaw to an otherwise incredibly tuned and amazing sounding iem. if you want to verify my observations, just take a high quality eq cut of about 2 db at 125 hz, and you will hear all the mids detail retrieval in it's glory.
Isn't leaking and obscuring disturbing unless you're a true bass-head and you just want to unhinge bobbing your head?