I agree. I also think the high-priced Chi-Fi brands are pricing for a very niche market (HK) where high price means high status. Plus noone really pays MSRP for these things. I don't consider these high price variations anything other than peculiarities, whereas the likes of Phönix and XE6 are packed with new tech and/or premium build materials (though I consider Phönix overpriced relative to EXT).
Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions
- Thread starter Precogvision
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Posts
- 805
- Likes
- 3,404
Still is, just that people are now used to it as a bargain from the premium brands. The market is not that different for customers in general.
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
Well, if you ask me, it`s like a doctor curing the pain of a broken leg by hitting it even harder with a hammer.
6500 is SO way over the top for an earphone that people - sadly - already start to forget how 3000 was already way over the top.
That is how the industry works recently and in my humble opinion customers really need to wake up - luckily more and more people and reviewers raise their voices against those developments in our hobby. So I 100% agree with Precogvision!
True, the 3000 Dollar offerings are packed with new tech - but hey, what technical product doesn`t develop?
True, smartphone flagships, for example, also have become more expensive over the years, but if we compare their development price ratio with the ones of audiophile earphones then we should have ten thousand dollar smartphones being released every few months by the big companies - shouldn`t we?
All of this even gets even more evident with the cable industry: Come on, P.W. audio flagships cost 5000 Dollars now! 5000 Dollars for a c-a-b-l-e! People`s hair would stand on end if they knew the material costs of those so called flagship cables!
Just my 5 cents....
6500 is SO way over the top for an earphone that people - sadly - already start to forget how 3000 was already way over the top.
That is how the industry works recently and in my humble opinion customers really need to wake up - luckily more and more people and reviewers raise their voices against those developments in our hobby. So I 100% agree with Precogvision!
True, the 3000 Dollar offerings are packed with new tech - but hey, what technical product doesn`t develop?
True, smartphone flagships, for example, also have become more expensive over the years, but if we compare their development price ratio with the ones of audiophile earphones then we should have ten thousand dollar smartphones being released every few months by the big companies - shouldn`t we?
All of this even gets even more evident with the cable industry: Come on, P.W. audio flagships cost 5000 Dollars now! 5000 Dollars for a c-a-b-l-e! People`s hair would stand on end if they knew the material costs of those so called flagship cables!
Just my 5 cents....
Last edited:
Elite_Force
100+ Head-Fier
Speaking of Indigo – from first glance, another 1k price bump for another iteration of Mest is confusing.
On the other hand, there are +2EST drivers, improved shell, improved cable on the hardware side. That already deservers some price bump. The noticeably retuned sound is a subjective matter but can be decisive for someone.
The driver combination is pulled up and now comparable to EE EVO and Odin, Anole V14 etc. The question is, if Indigo can be considered as standalone solution, competitive to EVO and Odin, or its “Mest DNA” prevail and it is another Mest but nothing more.
Also, some mid-tier chifi companies offer the products for 1.5k MSRP with absolutely unlistenable highs and mediocre cable (referring to your review of TSMR Spark) and from this angle 2.7k MSRP from strong player doesn’t seem too much anymore.
As to iems for 6,5k – as well noticed, these products (except Traillii maybe) are targeted mostly for Chinese market, where the logic “the pricier the better” prevails.
Sad, but true.
Last edited:
efftee
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Posts
- 1,382
- Likes
- 2,999
You’d be quite surprised. From what I hear, don’t expect too much discount, if any, from Aroma; they have gone on the record repeatedly about their pretty strict policy on discounting to protect buyers' investment.
Actually it's 7400 dollars now: https://shop.musicteck.com/collecti...orpheus-with-shielding?variant=39425732018238
The price rise came this last weekend.
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
Ouch. There is not much more to say. I love how they even don`t have a proper description of what makes this cable (allegedly) so special. Even in comparison to P.W. Audio`s own other offerings - the description of Orpheus and First timeS is exactly the same, regardless the ridiculous price difference. It couldn`t be clearer what all of this is about - no, it`s not R&D and material costs!
By the way, the button "responsible care for the society" on the P.W. Audio website is kind of sweet.
https://www.pwaudio.com.hk/repsonsiblecare-society
I can`t help interpreting that Peter Wong now sees himself as a kind of modern Robin Hood - literally taking from the rich and giving to the poor? LOL
Yes, I know, all of this turns more into a basics discussion about capitalism. But I feel capitalism hasn`t shown its teeth as much in our hobby as in the past few years....reason enough to at least get some different opinions about this development in our community....don`t you think?
And if those prices are only for the Chinese market anyway - well, then it`s about time that Chinese audiophiles, too, think about if such developments are a good thing.
Last edited:
The problem with UM for me personally is how fast the "new flagship" gets released. It hasn't even been a year since the original Mason FS, and there's already a new flagship.
Are they developing the technology this quickly? Or is the technology already almost there, but they gimped the drivers. And slowly unlock the potential of the BCD driver with each flagship release and with a very significant price bump. I am expecting a green version of Mason to come out this Christmas and have a price tag of $10k. Or even some unicorn version next year with even crazier price tag.
Are they developing the technology this quickly? Or is the technology already almost there, but they gimped the drivers. And slowly unlock the potential of the BCD driver with each flagship release and with a very significant price bump. I am expecting a green version of Mason to come out this Christmas and have a price tag of $10k. Or even some unicorn version next year with even crazier price tag.
Let me add this eco package to reduce plastic waste
source: https://www.invisible-company.com/blogs/news/pwaudio
Well the First Times allegedly took 9 months to develop and test, so there must be at least some degree of R&D cost. Whether that justifies the price is another question.
I used to like PW's bare bones approach to packaging but lately they have decided that unboxing should be an "experience". With the FT you get a big blue case that is basically useless once you have taken the cable out. There's also a very heavy metal container the purpose of which is unclear (you could use it as an ashtray I guess). Not a very environment friendly solution.
mvvRAZ
Headphoneus Supremus
The volumes in the industry are so low I don't think environmentally friendly is even in the discussion
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
Fair enough. But I am honestly asking myself more and more what those claims (also by other companies) even mean? From what I know, 9 months is not so much in product design, from scratch to prototype. It could take longer to develop a toilet seat - and this isn`t even meant as an ironic statement.
How do you develop a cable?
Well, you mainly research about, buy and test different materials, right? But aren`t nearly all industries doing that somehow? Aren`t there MUCH, MUCH more complex products than a cable (or earphone), even by small companies, that need much, much more r&d and cost waaaay less than what we are sometimes talking about in this forum? Of course I know there are many factors that are responsible for product prices, but once more I can`t help myself to think any other than prices for our little audiophile goodies are really getting out of control (or should I say "relation"?) recently....simply because people are buying it anyway......but that is just my opinion.
Interesting! Because indeed that seems to be a contradiction to their enviroment friendly approach?
Last edited:
SeeAudio x Crinacle Yume Midnight Impressions
Configuration: 1DD/2BA
Price: $200 USD
Right, the Crinacle collaboration IEMs are here, so we might as well start with the one I'm most interested in: the SeeAudio Yume Midnight. Its frequency response has been sitting on the IEF graph tool for the last couple months with me basically salivating to get my ears on it. Let's start the gushing.
...well, at least that's what I'd like to say. But I don't know if I'm sold on the Midnight. For starters, the bass on the Midnight doesn't appeal to me very much. It has a substantial sub-bass shelf (~12db over 1kHz!) on paper, yet practice - what I hear - disagrees. Be it a product of the curvature of the bass shelf or the dynamic driver being employed, I would not classify the Midnight as a particularly bassy IEM. Akin to the KZ CRN, bass is really just...there, lending a "foundation" (in nice reviewer lingo) more than anything to the rest of the sound. In any case, you can tell the driver hasn't changed from the OG Yume because the Midnight seems to slam no harder - which is to say it doesn't really slam at all. Now, my OG Yume is at home, so I couldn't A/B for these impressions, but I'll have it by the time the full review rolls around.
Thankfully, I really like the IEF target's midrange, so it should come as no surprise that I look favorably upon the Midnight's midrange tuning. It's a hair warmer than the OG Yume from memory, but that's not a bad thing. The pinna compensation and upper-midrange are just about perfect too. Where I'll draw the line with my praise, however, is timbre. The BA driver that SeeAudio is using for the midrange is a Knowles. While I'd need to do an A/B comparison, it almost reminds me of the Etymotic ER4XR: the Midnight's midrange is sort of plasticky and smothered over in trailing decay, and not in a pleasant way like Sonion's BAs at that.
Treble on the Midnight struck me as odd on first listen, and it required some closer listening to understand why. When percussive hits connect, the initial sense of crack that should be there sounds undefined, almost missing. This phenomenon is not unlike my 64A A4S which has a 3-4dB recession at around 5-6kHz. This results in a similar sort of airy, feathery response on the Midnight where it sounds like high-frequency stuff flits in and out. As a matter of distinction between the IEMs (aside from the Midnight having noticeably more mid-treble), however, it feels like there is an artificial strain to the Midnight's treble transients that falls somewhere between brittle in timbre and flat for micro-contrast. Of course, I wouldn't consider this a big deal in the grand scheme of things given that the Midnight has really impressive treble extension for $200.
Okay - technicalities - the part everyone's itching to know about. Why? Because the OG Yume had a serious lack of note definition and basically sounded like a $50 IEM in terms of technicalities despite its class-leading tonality. By comparison, I can confirm Midnight's note attack is noticeably less blunted on first listen; however, it's still not quite pulling weight in terms of other intangible metrics either. As I alluded to above, transients on the Midnight come across fairly compressed, thus neutering perceived detail retrieval. Large gradations in volume, too, sound sputtered and don't really scale all that nicely. I won't talk about imaging other than to comment that the Midnight's staging is probably a tad larger than the OG Yume's. All told, I think you'd be looking at "B-/B" level technicalities if the OG Yume was a "C+". The Midnight's a decent technical performer but not necessarily impressive for $200, especially relative to technical frontrunners like the 7Hz Timeless or the Shuoer S12.
It's strange; generally, I find myself somewhat indifferent about the Midnight. The Midnight is a textbook example - for better or worse - of why I've become increasingly convinced that frequency response is not the final authority on what we hear. The Midnight sports beautiful extension on both ends of the spectrum and an ideal frequency response, yet it does not sound hi-fidelity to me. Of course, I'm a perpetual critic and my sentiments on the Midnight could also be attributed to the very high bar that the Moondrop B2 Dusk set for these collaborations. The Midnight is, at the very least, certainly competitive and offers a compelling package on paper for listeners indexing for balanced tuning and impressive treble extension.
Score: 5/10
All critical listening was done off of the iBasso DX300 and my iPhone 13 Mini.
Impressions on the FHE Eclipse tomorrow if I have time.
Configuration: 1DD/2BA
Price: $200 USD
Right, the Crinacle collaboration IEMs are here, so we might as well start with the one I'm most interested in: the SeeAudio Yume Midnight. Its frequency response has been sitting on the IEF graph tool for the last couple months with me basically salivating to get my ears on it. Let's start the gushing.
...well, at least that's what I'd like to say. But I don't know if I'm sold on the Midnight. For starters, the bass on the Midnight doesn't appeal to me very much. It has a substantial sub-bass shelf (~12db over 1kHz!) on paper, yet practice - what I hear - disagrees. Be it a product of the curvature of the bass shelf or the dynamic driver being employed, I would not classify the Midnight as a particularly bassy IEM. Akin to the KZ CRN, bass is really just...there, lending a "foundation" (in nice reviewer lingo) more than anything to the rest of the sound. In any case, you can tell the driver hasn't changed from the OG Yume because the Midnight seems to slam no harder - which is to say it doesn't really slam at all. Now, my OG Yume is at home, so I couldn't A/B for these impressions, but I'll have it by the time the full review rolls around.
Thankfully, I really like the IEF target's midrange, so it should come as no surprise that I look favorably upon the Midnight's midrange tuning. It's a hair warmer than the OG Yume from memory, but that's not a bad thing. The pinna compensation and upper-midrange are just about perfect too. Where I'll draw the line with my praise, however, is timbre. The BA driver that SeeAudio is using for the midrange is a Knowles. While I'd need to do an A/B comparison, it almost reminds me of the Etymotic ER4XR: the Midnight's midrange is sort of plasticky and smothered over in trailing decay, and not in a pleasant way like Sonion's BAs at that.
Treble on the Midnight struck me as odd on first listen, and it required some closer listening to understand why. When percussive hits connect, the initial sense of crack that should be there sounds undefined, almost missing. This phenomenon is not unlike my 64A A4S which has a 3-4dB recession at around 5-6kHz. This results in a similar sort of airy, feathery response on the Midnight where it sounds like high-frequency stuff flits in and out. As a matter of distinction between the IEMs (aside from the Midnight having noticeably more mid-treble), however, it feels like there is an artificial strain to the Midnight's treble transients that falls somewhere between brittle in timbre and flat for micro-contrast. Of course, I wouldn't consider this a big deal in the grand scheme of things given that the Midnight has really impressive treble extension for $200.
Okay - technicalities - the part everyone's itching to know about. Why? Because the OG Yume had a serious lack of note definition and basically sounded like a $50 IEM in terms of technicalities despite its class-leading tonality. By comparison, I can confirm Midnight's note attack is noticeably less blunted on first listen; however, it's still not quite pulling weight in terms of other intangible metrics either. As I alluded to above, transients on the Midnight come across fairly compressed, thus neutering perceived detail retrieval. Large gradations in volume, too, sound sputtered and don't really scale all that nicely. I won't talk about imaging other than to comment that the Midnight's staging is probably a tad larger than the OG Yume's. All told, I think you'd be looking at "B-/B" level technicalities if the OG Yume was a "C+". The Midnight's a decent technical performer but not necessarily impressive for $200, especially relative to technical frontrunners like the 7Hz Timeless or the Shuoer S12.
It's strange; generally, I find myself somewhat indifferent about the Midnight. The Midnight is a textbook example - for better or worse - of why I've become increasingly convinced that frequency response is not the final authority on what we hear. The Midnight sports beautiful extension on both ends of the spectrum and an ideal frequency response, yet it does not sound hi-fidelity to me. Of course, I'm a perpetual critic and my sentiments on the Midnight could also be attributed to the very high bar that the Moondrop B2 Dusk set for these collaborations. The Midnight is, at the very least, certainly competitive and offers a compelling package on paper for listeners indexing for balanced tuning and impressive treble extension.
Score: 5/10
All critical listening was done off of the iBasso DX300 and my iPhone 13 Mini.
Impressions on the FHE Eclipse tomorrow if I have time.
prawdziwysimone
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Posts
- 116
- Likes
- 120
Softears Volume please 
frix
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Posts
- 726
- Likes
- 522
+1 softears volume
Users who are viewing this thread
