Maybe Andromeda 2020 is a solid option for all rounder?
Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions
- Thread starter Precogvision
- Start date
My 64 Audio Fourte surpasses the HD800 in almost every aspect when it comes to classical music quality, but that's not a very affordable option (and costs more than twice the price of a new HD800S). I've heard good things about Dunu Luna for classical and jazz.
I had heard final audio a8000 was great for classical music but i´m not sure how the peaks affect other music or even classical.
Some seem to love it, others seem to hate it. I haven´t heard it yet myself!
Also curious though as I'm also a classical / orchestral fan
Final A8000 has the best transients and technicalities I've heard in a single DD set, even better than the DUNU LUNA i daresay. The A8000 can easily hang with multi BA/hybrids in technicalities such as clarity, instrument separation, imaging, details and soundstage.
Timbre is good too, but is a bit on the thinner and more analytical side. I think it can do a very good job for classical, but there's a 5 - 6 kHz area peak that for me is quite fatiguing. I'm treble sensitive, so YMMV. I much prefer the DUNU LUNA in view of this offending peak for me.
The A8000 is also a pain to drive, so do take that into consideration if you are not having an appropriate amp for it.
The other big elephant in the room is its cost. I think the A8000 is about $2000 USD, and while it has the best technicalities of a single DD set as I've said, the diminishing returns are very huge, coming from the midfi segment. It's kind of like a 30 - 40% improvement from midfi single DD types for 10 times the cost. Though some would be okay to chase the last 30% no matter the price, so once more, YMMV.
Glad I could help! It looks like you've done some research, but for anyone else who's reading my impressions, something that I might not always stress - that I'd hope is more tacit - is to not let me solely dictate your opinion of an IEM. Especially with these uber-negative ones. Ultimately, caveat emptor, there is no substitute for actually going out and hearing an IEM for yourself to make a purchase decision. Recognizing that this is not always possible, you should then extrapolate from multiple reviews, and ideally, find reviewers whose tastes line up with your own.
Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to take the Fourte shilling outside of my thread - because at this rate, I'll have to get off my butt and actually find one of these to demo, jeez!
What! You mean you haven't heard Fourte? Drop everything and get one now!
Don't think you're credible anymore with that kind of profile picture
FDX1 gets recommended for classical music.
Just curious which output you use for DX160? 3.5 or 4.4?
Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro Impressions
Thanks to my boss, Taron, for the hook-up; I think we're dipping our toes into more mainstream stuff, and what better way to kick it off with the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro? Speaking of which, I've never formally reviewed or talked about the original Galaxy Buds. The Galaxy Buds are ubiquitous - at least within many audiophile circles - for their stellar price-to-performance. Heck, they're well-rounded enough to contend with the best wired stuff in their price bracket. But I wasn't ever the biggest fan of them, much less their follow-up, the Buds+.
Well, color me surprised to hear the Buds Pro. The Buds Pro deviates a good deal from its predecessors by raising the bass shelf and leveling it off closer to 600hZ. Bass is decent enough for a daily driver, although I do wish it could have been tuned just a tad more incisive. The ear compensation and upper-midrange sound pretty similar (perhaps less aggressive relative to the Buds+ from memory), but the treble is where we see the biggest difference. I couldn't listen to either the original Buds or Buds+ for prolonged periods; the former had something of a mid-treble peak, and the latter was overly bright in general. The Buds Pro nails it here, sloping through the impact and crash regions almost perfectly linearly. Extension-wise, I don't think it's much better - and certainly nothing groundbreaking - but decent treble, man, that's impressive alone at this price point. I can also make an exception for the bass, as it warms up the overall sound a good deal and helps balance the omnipresent upper-mids.
Make no mistake: This is an IEM that is being carried a good deal by its terrific tonal balance. Technical ability is, of course, more middling and I don’t think it’s really an improvement over the OG Buds or Buds+ in this regard. In fact, I suspect some might find the OG Buds and Buds+ slightly more resolving because they’re brighter, leaner in the notes with the Buds+ in particular having a much more incisive bass shelf. I'd also be remiss if I did not point out a notable lack of center image incisiveness; even for a TWS, the Buds Pro are pushing it on this front. Nonetheless, the Buds Pro have an extremely pleasing tonal balance, and are definitely a pair of IEMs to give a listen if you have the chance.
Buds Pro: 5/10
OG Buds: 4/10
Thanks to my boss, Taron, for the hook-up; I think we're dipping our toes into more mainstream stuff, and what better way to kick it off with the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro? Speaking of which, I've never formally reviewed or talked about the original Galaxy Buds. The Galaxy Buds are ubiquitous - at least within many audiophile circles - for their stellar price-to-performance. Heck, they're well-rounded enough to contend with the best wired stuff in their price bracket. But I wasn't ever the biggest fan of them, much less their follow-up, the Buds+.
Well, color me surprised to hear the Buds Pro. The Buds Pro deviates a good deal from its predecessors by raising the bass shelf and leveling it off closer to 600hZ. Bass is decent enough for a daily driver, although I do wish it could have been tuned just a tad more incisive. The ear compensation and upper-midrange sound pretty similar (perhaps less aggressive relative to the Buds+ from memory), but the treble is where we see the biggest difference. I couldn't listen to either the original Buds or Buds+ for prolonged periods; the former had something of a mid-treble peak, and the latter was overly bright in general. The Buds Pro nails it here, sloping through the impact and crash regions almost perfectly linearly. Extension-wise, I don't think it's much better - and certainly nothing groundbreaking - but decent treble, man, that's impressive alone at this price point. I can also make an exception for the bass, as it warms up the overall sound a good deal and helps balance the omnipresent upper-mids.
Make no mistake: This is an IEM that is being carried a good deal by its terrific tonal balance. Technical ability is, of course, more middling and I don’t think it’s really an improvement over the OG Buds or Buds+ in this regard. In fact, I suspect some might find the OG Buds and Buds+ slightly more resolving because they’re brighter, leaner in the notes with the Buds+ in particular having a much more incisive bass shelf. I'd also be remiss if I did not point out a notable lack of center image incisiveness; even for a TWS, the Buds Pro are pushing it on this front. Nonetheless, the Buds Pro have an extremely pleasing tonal balance, and are definitely a pair of IEMs to give a listen if you have the chance.
Buds Pro: 5/10
OG Buds: 4/10
Last edited:
I mainly end up using whichever is more convenient (mostly depends on the cable termination). I do try and use the 4.4mm when possible, though. I think it might sound a tad better - I haven't A/B-ed or anything - although that might just be because it's providing more juice.
You just don’t understand THE WEEB
Banbeucmas
100+ Head-Fier
Time to yeet Toranku out of this world
IEMusic
Headphoneus Supremus
Just curious if you’ve heard the AKG N400 to compare with the Buds Pro?
When you thought the weeb talk wouldn't translate to head-fi..oh wait!
I just listened to Toranku's tier ranking list of IEM brands. Man, that was a long, tedious overview with mostly useless opinion because it only ranked brands instead of specific products, attempted to adjust for price, and it was based on his opinion and not objective measurements. When you see that ranking list, it gives you zero actionable information. I appreciate ranking lists as they tend to provide some useful comparison points. This did none of that. Sorry Toranku.
Users who are viewing this thread
