Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions

Dec 28, 2021 at 10:13 PM Post #1,861 of 3,716
Precog is just too good at reviewing IEMs, exposing many overpriced flagships. This is the kind of reviewer the community needs and not people who shill stuff.

Can't wait for Crinacle to publicly announce one day that Meze blacklisted him after he pretty much bashed every single Meze product.
 
Dec 29, 2021 at 11:07 PM Post #1,862 of 3,716
Would be nice to think we've got past having to be favorable in reviews so you get access to future devices but clearly not.....
Unbelievable… this is what uninformed audiophiles have to contend with.
Precog is just too good at reviewing IEMs, exposing many overpriced flagships. This is the kind of reviewer the community needs and not people who shill stuff.

Can't wait for Crinacle to publicly announce one day that Meze blacklisted him after he pretty much bashed every single Meze product.

This happened a year ago, so it's fine. My reaction at the time was more like "Oh what? Wow, people are actually reading my reviews!" than anything. Just makes it difficult to get ears on some of the harder-to-find stuff in NA.
 
Dec 31, 2021 at 11:56 PM Post #1,863 of 3,716

Sennheiser HD6XX: The Critical Take​

Obligatory “it's not an IEM review”, but I’ve received a number of requests asking for more headphone reviews. This is the latest installment to my series of critical headphone takes, this time taking a look at a more entry-level audiophile headphone.

IMG_1826.JPG


The Sennheiser HD6XX was the first headphone that I purchased two years ago, and incidentally, the last one to date. I bought it because I was a newbie, it was r/headphone’s golden child, and I wanted to buy the “correct” headphone. We’ve all been there, right? Unfortunately…I wasn’t a fan. They effectively sat for months at a time in a desk drawer, occasionally being popped out to try on new sources, then promptly being shoved right back in. I can already feel those pitchforks coming out, so I need to disclaim that the reviewer in me completely understands why the HD6XX is the default headphone recommendation for $200. My aim is simply to offer an alternative, more critical perspective as to why I’ve never jived with this legendary headphone.

Bass. I’ve often stated that “the HD6XX has no bass” and - jokes aside - I do believe there is an element of truth to that. While taken as a whole the HD6XX’s bass shelf is what would be considered nearly flat to most listeners, there is a noticeable roll-off once one goes under the ~50Hz frequencies. The HD6XX’s bass neither rumbles nor does it punch then; it’s in that neutral spot with which it’s simply dead boring. It’s fair to note that this is simply a limitation of most open-back headphones; however, the HD6XX’s bass fares no better in the intangible department. Bass texturing is barely passable. Furthermore, there is little sense of “bounciness” - indicative of a transducer scaling gradations in volume, akin to what one hears on a biodynamic headphone like the PhilPhone - to the HD6XX’s bass. In general, I get the impression that one would require a severe aversion to bass in order to deem the HD6XX satisfactory in this department.

Yet, it’s exceedingly rare to find a midrange done justice when it comes to headphones, and the HD6XX’s midrange is exactly that to my ears. I’d go out on a limb and suggest that it’s even better than HiFiMAN’s standard midrange tuning, one of the few headphone midranges that I consider palatable. The HiFiMAN midrange can sound slightly forward and lacking a sense of richness at times due to a subtle recession at around 1-2kHz. By contrast, the HD6XX’s midrange generally hits more neutral-relaxed with the pattern of decay equally close to spot-on, perhaps just a tad too elongated. If you’re going to buy an HD6XX for one reason…in my humble opinion, it should be for this. Of course, it’s still not a perfect midrange. While sibilance is never an issue thanks to a gentle slope off of 3kHz, indeed, I feel that the HD6XX is almost too recessed in the 4-6kHz regions. Instruments like electric guitars and soprano vocalists are lacking that last leg of bite in conjunction with the HD6XX’s limited resolution; mind you, this comes from someone who prefers a more relaxed upper-midrange.

The general recession leading into the lower-treble also partially begets the infamous Sennheiser “veil”. Percussive hits and finger snaps come across lacking an initial sense of crack and generally sound quite dull. This lack of zest mostly applies to the mid-treble too. But your mileage will vary regarding the upper-treble of the HD6XX, as it is dependent upon the wear of the headphone’s pads. Older, more worn pads will mitigate extension and lend to a smoother top-end. This is what I hear with my unit, as treble takes a nosedive after around 13-14kHz. In any case, the HD6XX’s treble can be summarized as “inoffensive” if only by virtue of it having very little to begin with.

Power memes, source memes, and scalability memes aside, technical performance on the HD6XX is generally middling to my ears. It’s fine for $200. But there’s a noticeable gap between the HD6XX and $500 forerunners such as the HiFiMAN Sundara. This is most apparent, first, when it comes to resolution. The mostly non-existent treble of the HD6XX neuters perceived detail up-top, and there’s a rather noticeable blunting to transients in the bass and midrange.

This blunting seemingly neuters the HD6XX’s perception of micro-dynamic contrast. Individual instrument lines generally sound smeared and, as I alluded to earlier, slightly too elongated to the way they taper off. For macro-dynamic contrast, too, the HD6XX noticeably lacks a sense of punch and incisiveness when a track explodes in volume. Some might argue that this is attributable to the lack of sub-bass and lower-treble; however, I’d counter that this is beside the point. Perceptively it is not there, and the HD6XX sounds about as flat and flabby in terms of dynamics as it does frequency response. I have never found my head bobbing to music (fine, outside of maybe the first few times I listened to it), nor do I ever find myself messing with the volume knob.

If I had a dime for every comment I’ve read from bright-eyed Redditors raving about how instruments sound oh-so-precise and distinct on their HD6XX, I’d be a rich man. And coming from IEMs, I must admit that the HD6XX sounded rather “open” to me on first listen too! Unfortunately, further listening experience evidenced that its imaging chops are within the realm of mediocre. You hear the term “three blob imaging” thrown around quite often with IEMs (rightfully so), and the HD6XX is basically the epitome of it in the headphone world. Instruments panned to the corners of center stage come across closer to 0 and 180 degrees, mushing into instruments that should be in the side channels. And do we even need to talk about center imaging? Center stage comes somewhere from the back of my head, distinct from the sides. I find my eyes crossed inwards trying to pinpoint vocalists in center stage. It follows, of course, that the HD6XX is fairly closed-in for staging, especially for an open-back headphone.

So who is the HD6XX for? Clearly, if you’re after bass, treble, or imaging chops, you should be prepared to look elsewhere. But while I wouldn’t be caught dead listening to it for pure enjoyment - for me at least - it’s still the benchmark for which anything in its price range is automatically held to. For other listeners, I wouldn’t bat an eye at it being even more than that. Especially for listeners indexing for an inoffensive listening experience and midrange tonality, the HD6XX presents an ideal first choice of headphone.
 
Jan 2, 2022 at 6:42 AM Post #1,864 of 3,716

PhilPhone​

20210913-2L1A0097-Edit-1.jpg


Photo credit: Den-Fi

It's not an IEM, but out of the numerous headphones that I got to hear this year, this is the only one that really stood out to me. The PhilPhone is a modded headphone that meshes an Audio Technica housing with a Foster bio-dynamic driver. It follows that the PhilPhone's bass response is nothing short of breathtaking. It delivers slam, dynamics, and reverb for days. Perhaps even more impressive is just how much EQ you can slap on the bass without it distorting. Outside of this, the tonality of the PhilPhone is solid but not mind-blowing. The biggest issue would probably be a few peaks in the upper-treble which lend to a brighter treble response. Regardless, I can say that this is the only headphone that I have interest in owning at this point in time. The PhilPhone also has solid detail and imaging, certainly nothing that would leave me wanting for its price point.
Long shot, but do you know how this headphone would compare with the Clear/Elex in terms of sound?
 
Jan 2, 2022 at 6:39 PM Post #1,865 of 3,716
Long shot, but do you know how this headphone would compare with the Clear/Elex in terms of sound?

I haven't directly A/B-d them and I heard them with a large gap of time in-between, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt haha.
  • The Clear has more linear bass with a slight droop in the sub-bass like most open-backs. On the other hand, the PhilPhone has a slight sub-bass emphasis. Generally, the PhilPhone's bass sounds more organic and thump-y.
  • Both have some midrange oddities. The Clear sounds sort of boxy and sibilant; the Elex actually has better midrange tonality. The PhilPhone is generally more recessed until the upper-midrange, but not sibilant.
  • Both have a slightly metallic tinge to the treble, emphasis on the Clear. The Clear has a strong upper-treble peak at 11kHz, whereas I believe the PhilPhone has a series of upper-treble peaks that aren't as high in amplitude individually, so the metallic quality isn't as obvious. I believe the PhilPhone has more air.
  • Neither has great staging, but the PhilPhone sounds more open.
  • I think the Clear has better detail retrieval, particularly for micro-detail and a sense of texture. I think sheer dynamic contrast also goes to the Clear, although the PhilPhone feels like it has more "punch" behind swings and sound very impactful.
 
Jan 2, 2022 at 7:36 PM Post #1,866 of 3,716

Grell TWS1X Impressions

This unit was provided for assessment courtesy of Drop.

IMG_8416.jpg


If you're looking for the graphs, they've been uploaded to the graph tool.

First, some comments on the tangibles. I'm not too impressed with the usability of the TWS1X if I'm being 100% honest. I can't get it to update in the SoundID app, but the controls don't match what the online manual says. Ignoring that, the main problem is that there's little consistency between button presses. Sometimes I get Transparency and sometimes I get ANC with a single tap on the left bud, same story with a tap and hold. Sometimes it just doesn't respond altogether. The pause/play and forward/backwards motions usually work. It's more of a pet peeve, but for some reason the right bud sits in the left side of the case and vice versa, like the infamous AKG N400. The overall build quality, in my opinion, is reminiscent of something like the Moondrop Sparks TWS. This means a predominantly plastic build with noticeable lines and imperfections in the housing.

Sound-wise, the TWS1X sounds different on pretty much every setting (OFF, ANC, Transparency) I tried. I couldn't figure out the ANC NAR mode to be honest. The OFF setting sounds the best with a neutral w/ bass boost tonality. Pretty inoffensive overall, a solid tuning. ANC sounds fairly similar, but has a recession in the midrange that makes things sound off. The ANC doesn't really work, though, so I don't think I'd bother with this mode anyways. The Transparency setting easily sounds the worst - the midrange is basically completely sucked out. Combined with constant hissing on this mode, I'd probably just avoid Transparency altogether too. Worse, where the TWS1X really draws the short end of the stick is the technicalities. You can tell there's a lot of DSP going on because everything sounds fairly compressed. Same thing with timbre which has that dry thing I dislike. I'd say you're looking at C tier technicalities. Definitely a step behind the AirPods Pros and the Galaxy Bud stuff.

I'm not really sure what to make of these. Maybe some of the issues could be fixed via firmware updates, but right now, these seem more like a proof-of-concept than anything to me. Just my two cents.
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 2:11 AM Post #1,867 of 3,716
I haven't directly A/B-d them and I heard them with a large gap of time in-between, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt haha.
  • The Clear has more linear bass with a slight droop in the sub-bass like most open-backs. On the other hand, the PhilPhone has a slight sub-bass emphasis. Generally, the PhilPhone's bass sounds more organic and thump-y.
  • Both have some midrange oddities. The Clear sounds sort of boxy and sibilant; the Elex actually has better midrange tonality. The PhilPhone is generally more recessed until the upper-midrange, but not sibilant.
  • Both have a slightly metallic tinge to the treble, emphasis on the Clear. The Clear has a strong upper-treble peak at 11kHz, whereas I believe the PhilPhone has a series of upper-treble peaks that aren't as high in amplitude individually, so the metallic quality isn't as obvious. I believe the PhilPhone has more air.
  • Neither has great staging, but the PhilPhone sounds more open.
  • I think the Clear has better detail retrieval, particularly for micro-detail and a sense of texture. I think sheer dynamic contrast also goes to the Clear, although the PhilPhone feels like it has more "punch" behind swings and sound very impactful.
Thank you! For the PhilPhone, do you have a rough idea of a comparable headphone in terms of detail retrieval? Like is it close to a HD6XX, Sundara, HD660s, Elex, etc?
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 8:09 PM Post #1,869 of 3,716
Thank you! For the PhilPhone, do you have a rough idea of a comparable headphone in terms of detail retrieval? Like is it close to a HD6XX, Sundara, HD660s, Elex, etc?

It is definitely more resolving than the HD6XX/HD660S. I'd say it's maybe somewhere between the Sundara and the Elex.
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 8:15 PM Post #1,870 of 3,716
It is definitely more resolving than the HD6XX/HD660S. I'd say it's maybe somewhere between the Sundara and the Elex.
I saw your Monarch mkii video review today. I thought it was excellent because you did a compare and contrast and you told viewers who it would be good for any why it wasn't perfect for you, but could be for others who listen to other genre of music.
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 8:16 PM Post #1,871 of 3,716
I saw your Monarch mkii video review today. I thought it was excellent because you did a compare and contrast and you told viewers who it would be good for any why it wasn't perfect for you, but could be for others who listen to other genre of music.
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll have to check out the video also.
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 8:45 PM Post #1,872 of 3,716
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll have to check out the video also.
I hear it mostly the way @Precogvision does with the major difference our musical preferences.

The bass is definitely better than OG even though it is not as elevated. It is more reference tuning than a subbass emphasis. I agree that the bass quality is not on par with Odin, EVO or IE900.

I had a coherency problem with OG. I do not have the same issue with mkii. In fact, for classical music, the coherence is fantastic. Probably about the best you can expect from a tribrid.

For classical music, the sound is extremely balanced. I didn't realize that it might be due to the superior mids of the mkii. But, as I am listening now, the mids are definitely more forward. But, the imaging is good to keep the instrument placement correct.

The timbre is only okay for me and probably the biggest disappointment. I much prefer Odin and Isabellae for instrumental timbre. They are much more natural sounding. If there is a mkiii with a better DD for bass and they improve the instrumental timbre, this could crack the top 5 for me.

I don't have the same issue with the treble as @Precogvision. It's probably because I am a lot older than him and my treble hearing is much more impaired anyway. The note weight is excellent and upper harmonics are sufficient for great listening of classical music.
 
Jan 3, 2022 at 8:48 PM Post #1,873 of 3,716
I hear it mostly the way @Precogvision does with the major difference our musical preferences.

The bass is definitely better than OG even though it is not as elevated. It is more reference tuning than a subbass emphasis. I agree that the bass quality is not on par with Odin, EVO or IE900.

I had a coherency problem with OG. I do not have the same issue with mkii. In fact, for classical music, the coherence is fantastic. Probably about the best you can expect from a tribrid.

For classical music, the sound is extremely balanced. I didn't realize that it might be due to the superior mids of the mkii. But, as I am listening now, the mids are definitely more forward. But, the imaging is good to keep the instrument placement correct.

The timbre is only okay for me and probably the biggest disappointment. I much prefer Odin and Isabellae for instrumental timbre. They are much more natural sounding. If there is a mkiii with a better DD for bass and they improve the instrumental timbre, this could crack the top 5 for me.

I don't have the same issue with the treble as @Precogvision. It's probably because I am a lot older than him and my treble hearing is much more impaired anyway. The note weight is excellent and upper harmonics are sufficient for great listening of classical music.
Thank you for those impressions. I appreciate it a lot :)
 
Jan 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM Post #1,874 of 3,716
I hear it mostly the way @Precogvision does with the major difference our musical preferences.

The bass is definitely better than OG even though it is not as elevated. It is more reference tuning than a subbass emphasis. I agree that the bass quality is not on par with Odin, EVO or IE900.

I had a coherency problem with OG. I do not have the same issue with mkii. In fact, for classical music, the coherence is fantastic. Probably about the best you can expect from a tribrid.

For classical music, the sound is extremely balanced. I didn't realize that it might be due to the superior mids of the mkii. But, as I am listening now, the mids are definitely more forward. But, the imaging is good to keep the instrument placement correct.

The timbre is only okay for me and probably the biggest disappointment. I much prefer Odin and Isabellae for instrumental timbre. They are much more natural sounding. If there is a mkiii with a better DD for bass and they improve the instrumental timbre, this could crack the top 5 for me.

I don't have the same issue with the treble as @Precogvision. It's probably because I am a lot older than him and my treble hearing is much more impaired anyway. The note weight is excellent and upper harmonics are sufficient for great listening of classical music.
The timbre description holds me back from the mkii. It needs to be excellent to go with its other properties IMO.
 
Jan 8, 2022 at 1:56 PM Post #1,875 of 3,716
The timbre description holds me back from the mkii. It needs to be excellent to go with its other properties IMO.
Odin is better Monarch mkii to my ear. I've been A/B testing them. Given what you own and your musical preferences, I would rather just keep Odin than add Monarch mkii. The Monarch mkii has great tuning, coherency, note weight. It lacks bass quality and timbral accuracy where Odin beats it. This is splitting hairs though. I prefer dynamic driver timbre for full sized headphones, but all of my favorite headphones are magnetic planar. Where they lack in timbral accuracy, they make up in other areas. I rank Monarch mkii a half step lower than Odin. Tuning of mkii is right on point though. But, the Odin's timbre and bass quality helps give me better emotional connection to it.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top