[xer0x]

@Anaxilus
 
yup, they do hit hard, but they don't reproduce the low bass rumble in the background of some tracks as well as the e-q5. Different strokes, I guess... think I'll give the DBA-02 another long listen in the store. Might yet get both.
 
How similar / different are the e-q5 (or e-q7) and CK90 Pro, if anyone's heard both? No chance of testing the latter where I am. I'm currently using the CK70 Pro which I assume should sound similar to its dual-driver counterpart but you never know.

 

[meurglys0]

Quote:

How many of you EQ-5 owners compared the EQ-5 to the TF-10s?
I'm enjoying my EQ-5 right now but I'm trying to find a certain IEM that lets me enjoy electronic,rap and pop music a bit more. I'm certainly keeping my EQ-5s but how do they compare to the TF-10? Are the TF10s what I'm looking for or are there alternatives? I like how the EQ-5 sounds but there's something missing everytime I listen to the said genres.

Hey, that could be good news for me, for an IEM that doesn't get along well with those genres might be just for me! 

 

 

[ericp10]

I have never heard the e-Q5, but of course there is no secret about how much I enjoyed the e-Q7.
 
With that said, I've spent weeks with the DBA-02, and I really don't get what the love affair is with that IEM? It seems like almost everyone who has heard it loved it except me. I thought it had great highs, and that was about it. I felt it was missing a lot of information in the mids and bass. Apparently, those few weeks weren't long enough for me to hear the magic in them.

 

[rawrster]

Quote:

I have never heard the e-Q5, but of course there is no secret about how much I enjoyed the e-Q7.
 
With that said, I've spent weeks with the DBA-02, and I really don't get what the love affair is with that IEM? It seems like almost everyone who has heard it loved it except me. I thought it had great highs, and that was about it. I felt it was missing a lot of information in the mids and bass. Apparently, those few weeks weren't long enough for me to hear the magic in them.

Who knows..I though I gave you enough time to be able to accurately judge them good or bad and in this case bad. However that's not unusual. There are plenty of people here who don't understand why some earphones are as good as others say they are such as the TF10, SE530, etc. We all hear differently and in this case I hear the DBA-02 much differently than you however the e-Q7 was another story as that may be the most enjoyable earphone I've owned.
 
@xer0x: I once did a multi review with the CK90Pro and e-Q7 at the same time as well as some other earphones. The link should be in my signature and profile if you want to check it out.

 

[proedros]

Benny thought the same btw...
 
Quote:

I have never heard the e-Q5, but of course there is no secret about how much I enjoyed the e-Q7.
 
With that said, I've spent weeks with the DBA-02, and I really don't get what the love affair is with that IEM? It seems like almost everyone who has heard it loved it except me. I thought it had great highs, and that was about it. I felt it was missing a lot of information in the mids and bass. Apparently, those few weeks weren't long enough for me to hear the magic in them.

 

[james444]

Quote:

Quote:

I think I understand; the highlighted part is close to James444's definition of transparency. He would define transparency approximately like this: "forgetting about the IEM as if the music is brought to you without the mediation of the IEMs." I understand this, so I think I have a good grasp of what you praised about the RE262. Though e-Q5s are also supposed to be very transparent IEMs, aren't they?
 

e-Q5 is indeed a very transparent IEM, but I just find RE262 to be a level of its own. I think this to be a fairly subjective opinion on how each of us interprets how music should sound like.

 
I haven't heard the RE262, but I thought the RE252 were already pretty transparent when I auditioned them. The RE262 are said to be an improvement, so I can relate to ClieOS' impressions. Yet it's important to note that in my book fit plays an important role as well. You'll never be able to forget about IEMs being there in your ear if you have less than perfect fit or even experience discomfort. That's what spoilt it for me with the RE252 and I'm not sure whether the RE262 would fit me better. On the other hand I reckon from ClieOS' earlier comments that he may have minor fit issues with the e-Q5. Bottom line, both are presumably among the most transparent IEMs available today, but small differences in fit and/or (like ClieOS said) our personal conceptions of how music oughta sound like may tip the scale towards one or the other.
 
Quote:

How many of you EQ-5 owners compared the EQ-5 to the TF-10s?
I'm enjoying my EQ-5 right now but I'm trying to find a certain IEM that lets me enjoy electronic,rap and pop music a bit more. I'm certainly keeping my EQ-5s but how do they compare to the TF-10? Are the TF10s what I'm looking for or are there alternatives? I like how the EQ-5 sounds but there's something missing everytime I listen to the said genres.

 
Depends on what exactly you're missing about the e-Q5's bass. There are harder hitting phones based on both BA and DD technology. Multi driver BAs like the TF10 will give you more impact, but if you're out for serious low bass rumble and more tactile feedback (feeling the air pressure against your ear drums like with a subwoofer) I'd go for DD based IEMs like the Hippo VBs, Atrios, DDMs or FX700.

 

[ValSic]

Quote:

Quote:

I think I understand; the highlighted part is close to James444's definition of transparency. He would define transparency approximately like this: "forgetting about the IEM as if the music is brought to you without the mediation of the IEMs." I understand this, so I think I have a good grasp of what you praised about the RE262. Though e-Q5s are also supposed to be very transparent IEMs, aren't they?
 

e-Q5 is indeed a very transparent IEM, but I just find RE262 to be a level of its own. I think this to be a fairly subjective opinion on how each of us interprets how music should sound like.
 
Quote:

How many of you EQ-5 owners compared the EQ-5 to the TF-10s?

I think TF10 should be contrast enough for you to enjoy, if that is what you are looking for. The big difference is of course TF10 is more a V shaped sounding IEM, which is close to the opposite of what e-Q5 sounds like.
 

Glad to hear. I had a hunch that someone was gonna say that but I wasn't really sure. BTW does the Turbine Coppers also have the "opposite" sound of the EQ-5? (and have the same sound sig as the TF10's?)


Quote:

Quote:

How many of you EQ-5 owners compared the EQ-5 to the TF-10s?
I'm enjoying my EQ-5 right now but I'm trying to find a certain IEM that lets me enjoy electronic,rap and pop music a bit more. I'm certainly keeping my EQ-5s but how do they compare to the TF-10? Are the TF10s what I'm looking for or are there alternatives? I like how the EQ-5 sounds but there's something missing everytime I listen to the said genres.

 
Depends on what exactly you're missing about the e-Q5's bass. There are harder hitting phones based on both BA and DD technology. Multi driver BAs like the TF10 will give you more impact, but if you're out for serious low bass rumble and more tactile feedback (feeling the air pressure against your ear drums like with a subwoofer) I'd go for DD based IEMs like the Hippo VBs, Atrios, DDMs or FX700.

Hmmmm... To be honest I don't know how to describe what I'm "missing" but all I can say is that they're not that "enjoyable" compared to when I'm listening to Acoustic,Instrumentals,Classical,etc.

 

[Inks]

Coppers are indeed V shaped, but to a lesser extent compared to the TF10s It's more bass centric and the mids aren't as recessed. 

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Glad to hear. I had a hunch that someone was gonna say that but I wasn't really sure. BTW does the Turbine Coppers also have the "opposite" sound of the EQ-5? (and have the same sound sig as the TF10's?)

I have never tried a pair of Monster before, so can't really tell you how they compared.

 

[Anaxilus]

Copper mids > TF10 mids by a good deal IMO.  I prefer the mids on the HJE900 to the TF10 anyday.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Copper mids > TF10 mids by a good deal IMO.  I prefer the mids on the HJE900 to the TF10 anyday.

Given it is going to complement e-Q5, perhaps a good mid is not what is best.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Quote:

Copper mids > TF10 mids by a good deal IMO.  I prefer the mids on the HJE900 to the TF10 anyday.

Given it is going to complement e-Q5, perhaps a good mid is not what is best.

It's a 'better' mid.  It's certainly not mid forward.  Just right where it should be to my ears.  I would say in comparison the Coppers treble and bass sound forward whereas the TF10 mids sound pushed back if that makes sense.  Regardless of being complimentary I never see a reason to have excessively recessed mids.  Just me.  Though the Copper sounds somewhat dry and analytical, especially in the mids, so not sure how that compares to the Eq5. 

 

[james444]

Quote:

Hmmmm... To be honest I don't know how to describe what I'm "missing" but all I can say is that they're not that "enjoyable" compared to when I'm listening to Acoustic,Instrumentals,Classical,etc.

Alternative suggestion, you might want to try some Sony Hybrid tips with your e-Q5 before going for a second earphone, that's what I'm using with mine right now. The Hybrids have a much narrower tube than the stock tips, so right out of the box they'll boost bass but also sound a bit congested. Now if you cut about half length of their stem their opening will partly stretch over the wider nozzle and you'll still have more bass but no loss in clarity. I've just listened to Dessa's "A Badly Broken Code" during my morning commute (brilliant Hip-hop album btw) and was pleasantly surprised by the e-Q7's bass impact. Yesterday I used the GR10 and they felt pretty bass light in comparison - though that was with standard silicons, I still have to try Hybrids on them.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

It's a 'better' mid.  It's certainly not mid forward.  Just right where it should be to my ears.  I would say in comparison the Coppers treble and bass sound forward whereas the TF10 mids sound pushed back if that makes sense.  Regardless of being complimentary I never see a reason to have excessively recessed mids.  Just me.  Though the Copper sounds somewhat dry and analytical, especially in the mids, so not sure how that compares to the Eq5. 

Alright. Given I have never listened to Monster before, I am not really quite sure how they do, though personally I don't find TF10 mid to be recessed enough to bother me a bit.

 

[ValSic]

Quote:

Quote:

Hmmmm... To be honest I don't know how to describe what I'm "missing" but all I can say is that they're not that "enjoyable" compared to when I'm listening to Acoustic,Instrumentals,Classical,etc.

Alternative suggestion, you might want to try some Sony Hybrid tips with your e-Q5 before going for a second earphone, that's what I'm using with mine right now. The Hybrids have a much narrower tube than the stock tips, so right out of the box they'll boost bass but also sound a bit congested. Now if you cut about half length of their stem their opening will partly stretch over the wider nozzle and you'll still have more bass but no loss in clarity. I've just listened to Dessa's "A Badly Broken Code" during my morning commute (brilliant Hip-hop album btw) and was pleasantly surprised by the e-Q7's bass impact. Yesterday I used the GR10 and they felt pretty bass light in comparison - though that was with standard silicons, I still have to try Hybrids on them.

Already tried them since last week still didn't work. I actually used both the large and medium ones for a large amount of time (3 days each) and still had the same thought.