[proedros]

  I just order Ortofon e-Q5, i have one question, how high they can go, i mean can you hear 16 000 hz for example?

 
they go high , i don't know what frequency is this but they go high - they are very competent iems you will probably enjoy them

i also have re-272 which is considered the king of highs but i don't see major differences

eq5 is a very enjoyable iem although i think the mids are a tad more forward than they should

 

[FastAndClean]

I enjoy them now, amazing iem

 

[proedros]

i now think i like my EQ-5 more than my RE-262(which cost a 100$ less) and almost the same as the (same price) RE-272 , even though these 2 iems have different sound signatures

for someone wanting to stay below the 250$ threshold , i think this is a very good choice



 

 

[zachgraz]

If you like the E-Q5 and RE272 you will love the E-Q8. It has a bit of both worlds but I am not sure if it can beat the RE272 in terms of overall sound quality.
 
Just for reference, quite a while ago I had both the the E-Q5 and RE262 myself and I had the RE272 for an extended listening session too.

 

[proedros]

  If you like the E-Q5 and RE272 you will love the E-Q8. It has a bit of both worlds but I am not sure if it can beat the RE272 in terms of overall sound quality.
 
Just for reference, quite a while ago I had both the the E-Q5 and RE262 myself and I had the RE272 for an extended listening session too.

 
how much 'better' do you find EQ8 to be compared to EQ-5/RE-272 ?

 

[zachgraz]

   
how much 'better' do you find EQ8 to be compared to EQ-5/RE-272 ?

Hard to say because a year has passed since I last had/heard the E-Q5/RE272. The E-Q8 has higher resolution compared to E-Q5. It has less bass but has a similar or even more pronounced 2 khz bump.
From my memory I would say Re272 vs E-Q8 are quite similar in overall SQ but I really can't say now which is "better".

 

[youngsm10]

I've just posted a small review of the EQ8 and some comparisons with the. EQ 7 and EQ5. You can find he review on the EQ8 impressions tread.

 

[FastAndClean]

 

[proedros]

double flanges ? how do these affect the sound ?

 

[FastAndClean]

Well, i got better seal, that means better bass response, and with deep insertion mids are more forward.

 

[FastAndClean]

With this double flanges the sound is still bright because the hole in the middle is big like the stock tips, if you want to come down upper mids you can try sony hibrids with smaller hole in the middle, that will come down upper mids.

 

[proedros]

i still think the medium/large ortofon tips give the better sound overall

the double flanges seem to congest everything a bit

i now find eq5 to be on par , quality-wise, with my re-272

 

[FastAndClean]

Ortofon e-Q5 + AudioQuest Dragonfly v1.2 = Magic

 

[0l3g]

  Ortofon e-Q5 + AudioQuest Dragonfly v1.2 = Magic

Yep , same story here. 

Have someone tried JVC EP-FX9 spiral dot tips with Ortofon e-q5 ? 

 

[Illbetheone]

I’ve been listening to the e-Q5 for about five days now and am confident that I can give a thorough review without cutting corners. I previously had the JVC FXT-90 for 2 years, along with briefly auditioning the Westone 3 and Earsonics SM3 v2 for about 1 month each. I ended up selling them both and ultimately returned to the FXT-90. This review is going to serve as a comparison between the e-Q5 and FXT-90, with the iPhone 5 as a source.

 

Right off the bat there is a stark difference between these two IEMs. The FXT-90 is a more natural sounding earphone that relied on the difference of materials to separate the highs and lows. Whereas the e-Q5 sounds more technological and you can certainly tell the difference via its moving armature driver. The forgiving yet punchy nature of the FXT complimented my music well, the majority of which is low quality EDM rips. It is a tad transparent and the highs showed a touch of sibilance on some tracks. The e-Q5 is also forgiving in the same regard with the same tracks, and in my opinion makes them sound even better than the FXT. The music is fuller, richer, and presents more of a backbone. It is not as transparent and I do not detect any sibilance whatsoever with the e-Q5; it’s a lot more fun to listen to than the FXT.  Both soundstages are wonderful with a deep three dimensional quality about them, the e-Q5 has a touch more vertical soundstage. The bass is the same between the two – fast and punchy – but not for bass heads.  Mids on both are lush, dreamy, and a tad forward on my vocal EDM tracks. Again, the only difference between the two here is that the former has a natural sound whereas the e-Q5 sounds more technological. I would not call either of these analytical at all.

 

Honestly, I was expecting more coming from a $120 to $200 IEM. The lack of a cable cinch and minor microphonics is unaccapetable at this price. Even so, the e-Q5 sounds just like the FXT-90, albeit a fuller, thicker and richer version of it. I hate to say it, but I am a tad disappointed with it. It had not one quality about it which made me say “Wow,” unlike the Westone 3 and Earsonics SM3 v2. If given the chance, I don’t think I would buy it again, mostly because I don’t think it is worth the $200 – it’s worth $150, tops. I will keep it though, at least until the cable goes or I lose them – whichever comes first.