Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions
- Thread starter Precogvision
- Start date
1TrickPony
Headphoneus Supremus
The ones on the picture; they aren't necessarily run of the mill - belonging to my Cayin YB04 ("balanced" tips). Heard them for about ~45mins at a local meet.
Definitely will give the a8000 another spin to see how much I can test its limits.
qdc VX review will be published tomorrow. Then CA Ara and EE Hero should arrive on Tuesday with the 64 Audio Tia Trio soon after. Unfortunately, the Odin got delayed. You can check the first post too, I update it with stuff I have on-deck!
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,273
- Likes
- 855
Try to get your hands on QDC Gemini and 8sl too. There are people who prefer them over VX such as tork. I prefer 8sl the most among the 3, for being the least fatiguing and has warmth to make vocals sound rich, yet still remaining very resolving. QDC 8sh seems to be a strong contender too.
Is that the only difference vs the VX? I use bass and treble switch. I can see where Pre is saying vocals are flush with everything else.
Wrapped up my summer finals, so I finally have some free time on my hands. I figured I should get this all down for posterity.
Preface: Terminology and Preferences
One of the most interesting (and vexing) things about this hobby to me is not necessarily its inherently subjective nature, but rather how it extends to audio terminology and the subsequent lack of structure. Nearly everyone has their own way of articulating what they hear, and most do so by making use of jargon. Jargon, mind you, that frequently has overlap with but also differs - sometimes significantly - from others' interpretations. Heck, you could be arguing with someone about what you guys hear versus each other, when in fact you both hear something very similar!
This presents a larger problem in itself; however, it’s not exactly a fixable one given, again, the subjective nature of this hobby. And of course, there are times when what you hear differs so significantly from someone else’s impressions that you simply have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion. But frankly, it’s disconcerting when you don’t have context for the words others are using. So in this post, my aim is to better explain what I’m hearing, how I define what I hear, and what I attribute it to. As usual, I need to disclaim that for all intents and purposes, these are just my opinions. You're totally welcome to agree or disagree with them as you see fit!
My Preferences
I mostly prioritized more balanced, resolving sound signatures. However, I’ve also found that these types of signatures generally don’t give me the “musicality” that I’m looking for, and in cases such as these, I tend to shift closer towards an L-shaped sound signature. I do like my bass, after all, and I'm not much of a treble-head. More decay in the bass is almost always a plus for me. I like my vocals to be on the slightly thicker side of things, and for them to be imaged further back on the soundstage - yeah, I'll talk about that below. I also enjoy a moderate amount of coloration, warmth to my IEMs.
I mainly rotate through about five genres of music including 1) Weeby K-Pop/J-Pop, 2) Pop, 3) Country music (yeah, bet you didn't see that one coming), 4) EDM, and 5) Instrumentals and music scores.
Terminology
Six months ago, I couldn’t have articulated what I was hearing with IEMs to save my life; after all, I was still a newcomer to the hobby. And hey, I still am. I think it’s important to recognize personal limitations, so neither will I be going crazy in-depth with these explanations, nor do I pretend to understand all the science behind what I hear. In general, I understand technical ability - what I'll be covering here - to be everything that is beyond the scope of what is reflected on a frequency response graph.
Bass texture: This is indicative of a sort of micro-splicing, fettering primarily in the sustain and decay of the bass. To me, it’s part of what gives a good DD bass response that raw, natural quality. And like so, I find it to be one of the key distinctions between a DD and a BA driver; BAs often decay too quickly to produce it and have a “smoothed” quality to their bass. However, this isn’t a rule of thumb; there are certainly exceptions. The CA Solaris 2020 is a good example of a DD with very little texture; conversely, the 64 Audio U12t is an all-BA IEM that has a decent amount of texture. While it’s not the end-all, be-all for what defines a good bass response in my eyes, it is a large component of it that often goes hand-in-hand with transient density.
Transient density has overlap with note weight, but is more of an intangible trait. As the name would imply, this reflects the extent to which transient are packed together. It is what largely gives bass character to my ears, and results in the “richness” to some IEM’s bass responses like the 64 Audio tia Trio, and “hardness” to some IEMs like the Sony IER-Z1R (more closely in the midrange).
BA timbre and timbral coloration: Ah man, timbre. There's different types of timbre that can generally be attributed to the pattern of decay. However, I tend to just group everything under a catch-all: Timbral coloration. The way I understand timbral coloration might also differ from canon. I like to simply visualize everything I’m hearing as being in a photo. Anything that obscures what I’m seeing, or rather, hearing, is what I define as “coloration”. But there’s good and bad coloration. Warm coloration can be a good thing and akin to throwing say, a lens filter, over the photo. It keeps things musical and from getting too clinical. IEMs that I think do this well include the 64 Audio Nio, Sony IER-M9, and Moondrop KXXS. Of course, you can also have excessive amounts of warmth, and in the context of my photo example, this would be like slapping on filter after filter. With IEMs, this can come at the expense of technicalities; the CA Solaris 2020 and Jomo Audio Trinity Brass exemplify this. On the other hand, the Vision Ears VE8 is a very warm IEM that circumvents this trait, but comes with the plain bad type of coloration: BA timbre.
I’m not going to debate whether BA timbre is a result of the frequency response or the driver type itself; what matters most to me is that it’s most definitely present. So what is it exactly? This is a type of “plastickiness” that presents itself with a lack of density to notes. Oftentimes, this is noticeable to my ears in bass responses. When you hear a drum kick or a drop smack down, you expect to hear some semblance of weight behind it. But BAs have a tendency to neuter this density as well as the decay function. I think a lot of people notice it in the treble too; this is important because treble extends a lot to the overall character of an IEM, ie. bright, warm, dark. And it doesn’t help that BAs tend to roll-off in the treble. Sometimes, this dives straight into smothered, BA “artifact” territory - the Thieaudio Legacy 3 and Empire Ears Wraith are good examples of this. Other types of coloration can include "metallic" and "plucked" qualities to the timbre. The Dunu Luna is characterized by the former, the Audeze LCD-i4 by the later.
Coherency vs. Cohesiveness: I’ve used these interchangeably in the past, and I think it’s about time I set concrete definitions as I’ve mixed them up myself. Within the context of IEMs, coherency (as I understand it) is largely a reference to a listener being able to discern between separate drivers and their respective frequencies being tokened. The best example of this is when you have a dynamic driver contrasted to a BA. Dynamic drivers tend to have a slower transient attack, and a BA driver vice versa, leading to time-domain issues where one skews quicker. In practice, if the DD's tokening the bass and the BA the midrange, I generally hear this as the midrange sounding more resolving than the bass. Some might also hear a clash of note "textures" which would mostly be attributable to the drivers decaying at different speeds. So, the quicker decay of a BA (often producing what's dubbed as grain or BA timbre) relative to the more natural, slow decay of a DD. Another good instance are the Sonion electret drivers. Generally, they have something of "wispiness" to the way they articulate notes (probably not helped by the fact that most are not implemented correctly). Most all hybrids suffer from coherency issues to some degree.
Conversely, cohesiveness is more of a catch-all term that represents how everything syncs together in practice. AKA, while I don’t quite know how to explain it exactly, dang, I really like something about this IEM - or vice versa.
Imaging: There's a lot to talk about here; I see this thrown around hand-in-hand with soundstage often. As I understand it, though, imaging is how an IEM’s two channels create a three-dimensional sense of space, shaping the “room” or stage around you. Thus, soundstage is actually a derivative of imaging. IEMs that are able to shape said room with solidity are what I qualify as being “holographic”; the Campfire IEMs and the Sony IER-M9 are good examples. As for how this phenomenon occurs, I’d mostly attribute it to copious amounts of “air” surrounding instruments; this has strong overlap with pseudo treble air. Personally, I also extend imaging to a couple of other points:
1) Positional cues. This represents the clarity - not to be confused with resolution - with which one is able to discern where specific instruments are coming from locationally on the stage. Most top-tier IEMs have very good positional cues even if I would not consider them to have holographic imaging or the following point, projection.
2) Projection or diffusal capability. This one is a little trickier, and represents the amount of distance a transducer is able to perceptually create between the stage and oneself. To an extent, this goes hand-in-hand with soundstage size. But for me, this often ties itself with vocal placement. IEMs that image the vocals further back are able to create a greater sense of depth; the 64 Audio U12t and Etymotic ER2XR are prime examples of this. I would not, however, go so far as to say either has particularly holographic imaging or even great imaging at that, particular the ER2XR. The ER2XR is very narrow in its staging and the U12t lacks soundstage height to my ears. Conversely, IEMs I would consider to project vocals poorly include the Sony IER-M9, qdc Anole VX, and Etymotic ER3XR. All of which have that "in-your-head" effect - for vocals specifically - to my ears, despite having decent stage size in the VX's case. You’ll also note that I do consider the IER-M9 to have holographic imaging; these are, again, somewhat distinct components of imaging to me.
Macro-dynamics: These are the minute decibel shifts in a recording and how an IEM scales them. Think of riding a roller-coaster for example. You want to move quickly, but you also want to hit all those build-ups, peaks, and free-falls, or the fun is lost. IEMs that do this well include the DUNU Luna, 64 Audio U12t, and Moondrop Blessing 2. Most BA IEMs are indeed quite fast, but I find they fail to scale these shifts, resulting in something that I call “compression”. Examples of IEMs that I would consider to be compressed to varying extents include the CA Andromeda 2020, qdc Anole VX, and Apple Airpods Pro (to make a point that this isn’t limited to just BA IEMs). Micro-dynamics are fluctuations on a more intimate scale; for example, vocal inflections.
Resolving capability: For me this is a joint term that takes into account pure resolution, layering capability, and detail retrieval.
1) Pure resolution is the nature of how crisp a note is, how cleanly it is articulated. This (and resolving capability as a whole) generally goes hand-in-hand with transient speed; that is to say, an IEM’s attack function. In general, BAs tend to be quicker than their DD counterparts; IEMs with a quicker attack are thus able to better flesh out notes. This is not at all a concrete rule or necessarily a good thing, however. Being too fast can result in an unpleasant grittiness to notes - the Fearless Audio S8P’s midrange for example - or being straight up fatiguing like the qdc Anole VX’s transients (to my ears) despite having high levels of resolution. Then you have IEMs like the Sony IER-Z1R and M9 which seem to be slower yet have surprisingly good resolution.
2) Layering capability is essentially the equivalent of separation, and it has some overlap with positional cues. Basically, do instruments ever jumble or smear? IEMs with more open soundstages and "air" between notes generally do this better for obvious reasons. The CA Andromeda 2020, Audeze LCD-i4, and qdc Anole VX all excel at this. However, some IEMs with smaller stages like the 64 Audio U12t and Dunu Luna are also quite good at this.
3) Detail retrieval is a bit different from these other two terms, and simply reflects an IEM’s capacity to, well, force hammer out smaller details in a track and pull them to the forefront of the sound. Sometimes this is referred to as “true” or “internal” detail, and it is distinct from the perception of detail that comes from high resolution or hyper-boosted treble. While this might seem self-explanatory, admittedly, this is not something that I can force-test, and often times I act on a gut instinct for this metric.
Transient smoothing: This is something that I've noticed on the 64 Audio IEMs. It presents itself with a more "rounded" attack; some of that crisp, leading edge is lost. However, if you think of transients within the context of lines, they're all still flowing parallel to one another in this instance, unlike less resolving IEMs where the transients are plain smearing against one another. Not strictly a good or bad thing, and it'll depend on one's preference, but I do like this quality to a certain extent as it lends itself to a more laidback (but still fairly resolving) sound.
Wrap-Up
Ok, that's all for now, as I wrote way more than I expected to! These are working definitions, and I'll likely adjust them in the future as my understanding develops or more nuances pop-up. Hopefully you guys find this helpful, as I know I've thrown around some of these terms before without much context. Heck, I don't even know if I fully understood the context myself at times, and I had to do some thinking on how I wanted to explain some of this stuff. Let me know if ya got any questions too.
Preface: Terminology and Preferences
One of the most interesting (and vexing) things about this hobby to me is not necessarily its inherently subjective nature, but rather how it extends to audio terminology and the subsequent lack of structure. Nearly everyone has their own way of articulating what they hear, and most do so by making use of jargon. Jargon, mind you, that frequently has overlap with but also differs - sometimes significantly - from others' interpretations. Heck, you could be arguing with someone about what you guys hear versus each other, when in fact you both hear something very similar!
This presents a larger problem in itself; however, it’s not exactly a fixable one given, again, the subjective nature of this hobby. And of course, there are times when what you hear differs so significantly from someone else’s impressions that you simply have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion. But frankly, it’s disconcerting when you don’t have context for the words others are using. So in this post, my aim is to better explain what I’m hearing, how I define what I hear, and what I attribute it to. As usual, I need to disclaim that for all intents and purposes, these are just my opinions. You're totally welcome to agree or disagree with them as you see fit!
My Preferences
I mostly prioritized more balanced, resolving sound signatures. However, I’ve also found that these types of signatures generally don’t give me the “musicality” that I’m looking for, and in cases such as these, I tend to shift closer towards an L-shaped sound signature. I do like my bass, after all, and I'm not much of a treble-head. More decay in the bass is almost always a plus for me. I like my vocals to be on the slightly thicker side of things, and for them to be imaged further back on the soundstage - yeah, I'll talk about that below. I also enjoy a moderate amount of coloration, warmth to my IEMs.
I mainly rotate through about five genres of music including 1) Weeby K-Pop/J-Pop, 2) Pop, 3) Country music (yeah, bet you didn't see that one coming), 4) EDM, and 5) Instrumentals and music scores.
Terminology
Six months ago, I couldn’t have articulated what I was hearing with IEMs to save my life; after all, I was still a newcomer to the hobby. And hey, I still am. I think it’s important to recognize personal limitations, so neither will I be going crazy in-depth with these explanations, nor do I pretend to understand all the science behind what I hear. In general, I understand technical ability - what I'll be covering here - to be everything that is beyond the scope of what is reflected on a frequency response graph.
Bass texture: This is indicative of a sort of micro-splicing, fettering primarily in the sustain and decay of the bass. To me, it’s part of what gives a good DD bass response that raw, natural quality. And like so, I find it to be one of the key distinctions between a DD and a BA driver; BAs often decay too quickly to produce it and have a “smoothed” quality to their bass. However, this isn’t a rule of thumb; there are certainly exceptions. The CA Solaris 2020 is a good example of a DD with very little texture; conversely, the 64 Audio U12t is an all-BA IEM that has a decent amount of texture. While it’s not the end-all, be-all for what defines a good bass response in my eyes, it is a large component of it that often goes hand-in-hand with transient density.
Transient density has overlap with note weight, but is more of an intangible trait. As the name would imply, this reflects the extent to which transient are packed together. It is what largely gives bass character to my ears, and results in the “richness” to some IEM’s bass responses like the 64 Audio tia Trio, and “hardness” to some IEMs like the Sony IER-Z1R (more closely in the midrange).
BA timbre and timbral coloration: Ah man, timbre. There's different types of timbre that can generally be attributed to the pattern of decay. However, I tend to just group everything under a catch-all: Timbral coloration. The way I understand timbral coloration might also differ from canon. I like to simply visualize everything I’m hearing as being in a photo. Anything that obscures what I’m seeing, or rather, hearing, is what I define as “coloration”. But there’s good and bad coloration. Warm coloration can be a good thing and akin to throwing say, a lens filter, over the photo. It keeps things musical and from getting too clinical. IEMs that I think do this well include the 64 Audio Nio, Sony IER-M9, and Moondrop KXXS. Of course, you can also have excessive amounts of warmth, and in the context of my photo example, this would be like slapping on filter after filter. With IEMs, this can come at the expense of technicalities; the CA Solaris 2020 and Jomo Audio Trinity Brass exemplify this. On the other hand, the Vision Ears VE8 is a very warm IEM that circumvents this trait, but comes with the plain bad type of coloration: BA timbre.
I’m not going to debate whether BA timbre is a result of the frequency response or the driver type itself; what matters most to me is that it’s most definitely present. So what is it exactly? This is a type of “plastickiness” that presents itself with a lack of density to notes. Oftentimes, this is noticeable to my ears in bass responses. When you hear a drum kick or a drop smack down, you expect to hear some semblance of weight behind it. But BAs have a tendency to neuter this density as well as the decay function. I think a lot of people notice it in the treble too; this is important because treble extends a lot to the overall character of an IEM, ie. bright, warm, dark. And it doesn’t help that BAs tend to roll-off in the treble. Sometimes, this dives straight into smothered, BA “artifact” territory - the Thieaudio Legacy 3 and Empire Ears Wraith are good examples of this. Other types of coloration can include "metallic" and "plucked" qualities to the timbre. The Dunu Luna is characterized by the former, the Audeze LCD-i4 by the later.
Coherency vs. Cohesiveness: I’ve used these interchangeably in the past, and I think it’s about time I set concrete definitions as I’ve mixed them up myself. Within the context of IEMs, coherency (as I understand it) is largely a reference to a listener being able to discern between separate drivers and their respective frequencies being tokened. The best example of this is when you have a dynamic driver contrasted to a BA. Dynamic drivers tend to have a slower transient attack, and a BA driver vice versa, leading to time-domain issues where one skews quicker. In practice, if the DD's tokening the bass and the BA the midrange, I generally hear this as the midrange sounding more resolving than the bass. Some might also hear a clash of note "textures" which would mostly be attributable to the drivers decaying at different speeds. So, the quicker decay of a BA (often producing what's dubbed as grain or BA timbre) relative to the more natural, slow decay of a DD. Another good instance are the Sonion electret drivers. Generally, they have something of "wispiness" to the way they articulate notes (probably not helped by the fact that most are not implemented correctly). Most all hybrids suffer from coherency issues to some degree.
Conversely, cohesiveness is more of a catch-all term that represents how everything syncs together in practice. AKA, while I don’t quite know how to explain it exactly, dang, I really like something about this IEM - or vice versa.
Imaging: There's a lot to talk about here; I see this thrown around hand-in-hand with soundstage often. As I understand it, though, imaging is how an IEM’s two channels create a three-dimensional sense of space, shaping the “room” or stage around you. Thus, soundstage is actually a derivative of imaging. IEMs that are able to shape said room with solidity are what I qualify as being “holographic”; the Campfire IEMs and the Sony IER-M9 are good examples. As for how this phenomenon occurs, I’d mostly attribute it to copious amounts of “air” surrounding instruments; this has strong overlap with pseudo treble air. Personally, I also extend imaging to a couple of other points:
1) Positional cues. This represents the clarity - not to be confused with resolution - with which one is able to discern where specific instruments are coming from locationally on the stage. Most top-tier IEMs have very good positional cues even if I would not consider them to have holographic imaging or the following point, projection.
2) Projection or diffusal capability. This one is a little trickier, and represents the amount of distance a transducer is able to perceptually create between the stage and oneself. To an extent, this goes hand-in-hand with soundstage size. But for me, this often ties itself with vocal placement. IEMs that image the vocals further back are able to create a greater sense of depth; the 64 Audio U12t and Etymotic ER2XR are prime examples of this. I would not, however, go so far as to say either has particularly holographic imaging or even great imaging at that, particular the ER2XR. The ER2XR is very narrow in its staging and the U12t lacks soundstage height to my ears. Conversely, IEMs I would consider to project vocals poorly include the Sony IER-M9, qdc Anole VX, and Etymotic ER3XR. All of which have that "in-your-head" effect - for vocals specifically - to my ears, despite having decent stage size in the VX's case. You’ll also note that I do consider the IER-M9 to have holographic imaging; these are, again, somewhat distinct components of imaging to me.
Macro-dynamics: These are the minute decibel shifts in a recording and how an IEM scales them. Think of riding a roller-coaster for example. You want to move quickly, but you also want to hit all those build-ups, peaks, and free-falls, or the fun is lost. IEMs that do this well include the DUNU Luna, 64 Audio U12t, and Moondrop Blessing 2. Most BA IEMs are indeed quite fast, but I find they fail to scale these shifts, resulting in something that I call “compression”. Examples of IEMs that I would consider to be compressed to varying extents include the CA Andromeda 2020, qdc Anole VX, and Apple Airpods Pro (to make a point that this isn’t limited to just BA IEMs). Micro-dynamics are fluctuations on a more intimate scale; for example, vocal inflections.
Resolving capability: For me this is a joint term that takes into account pure resolution, layering capability, and detail retrieval.
1) Pure resolution is the nature of how crisp a note is, how cleanly it is articulated. This (and resolving capability as a whole) generally goes hand-in-hand with transient speed; that is to say, an IEM’s attack function. In general, BAs tend to be quicker than their DD counterparts; IEMs with a quicker attack are thus able to better flesh out notes. This is not at all a concrete rule or necessarily a good thing, however. Being too fast can result in an unpleasant grittiness to notes - the Fearless Audio S8P’s midrange for example - or being straight up fatiguing like the qdc Anole VX’s transients (to my ears) despite having high levels of resolution. Then you have IEMs like the Sony IER-Z1R and M9 which seem to be slower yet have surprisingly good resolution.
2) Layering capability is essentially the equivalent of separation, and it has some overlap with positional cues. Basically, do instruments ever jumble or smear? IEMs with more open soundstages and "air" between notes generally do this better for obvious reasons. The CA Andromeda 2020, Audeze LCD-i4, and qdc Anole VX all excel at this. However, some IEMs with smaller stages like the 64 Audio U12t and Dunu Luna are also quite good at this.
3) Detail retrieval is a bit different from these other two terms, and simply reflects an IEM’s capacity to, well, force hammer out smaller details in a track and pull them to the forefront of the sound. Sometimes this is referred to as “true” or “internal” detail, and it is distinct from the perception of detail that comes from high resolution or hyper-boosted treble. While this might seem self-explanatory, admittedly, this is not something that I can force-test, and often times I act on a gut instinct for this metric.
Transient smoothing: This is something that I've noticed on the 64 Audio IEMs. It presents itself with a more "rounded" attack; some of that crisp, leading edge is lost. However, if you think of transients within the context of lines, they're all still flowing parallel to one another in this instance, unlike less resolving IEMs where the transients are plain smearing against one another. Not strictly a good or bad thing, and it'll depend on one's preference, but I do like this quality to a certain extent as it lends itself to a more laidback (but still fairly resolving) sound.
Wrap-Up
Ok, that's all for now, as I wrote way more than I expected to! These are working definitions, and I'll likely adjust them in the future as my understanding develops or more nuances pop-up. Hopefully you guys find this helpful, as I know I've thrown around some of these terms before without much context. Heck, I don't even know if I fully understood the context myself at times, and I had to do some thinking on how I wanted to explain some of this stuff. Let me know if ya got any questions too.
Last edited:
qdc Anole VX review is published and can be viewed here.
Yes, I outline quite a few gripes about it, and the overall cadence of the review leans more critical. But I'll be the first to admit that most of my issues are more personal preference than anything. Points mostly taken off for tonality - particularly the treble - in this case.
Score: 8/10
Oh yeah, and some more brief listening impressions...
Campfire Audio Ara
The titanium shells are sweet; unfortunately, Ara's sonic qualities are more sour.
Empire Ear Hero
V-shaped tonality with some minor tonal quirks, but not nearly as aggressive as the Valkyrie's were.
Yes, I outline quite a few gripes about it, and the overall cadence of the review leans more critical. But I'll be the first to admit that most of my issues are more personal preference than anything. Points mostly taken off for tonality - particularly the treble - in this case.
Score: 8/10
Oh yeah, and some more brief listening impressions...
Campfire Audio Ara
The titanium shells are sweet; unfortunately, Ara's sonic qualities are more sour.
- Campfire's signature bass response. That is to say, textureless, anemic, and utterly one-note.
- As for the midrange, I don't know what's going on here haha. Compressed like the Andro 2020 (but almost downwards?!), and just a little all over the place.
- Nice treble - not setting off any alarm bells at least. Something I've noticed with the CA stuff in my very non-scientific, online frequency tests is that they actually extend over 20kHz, higher than any other IEMs I've heard.
Empire Ear Hero
V-shaped tonality with some minor tonal quirks, but not nearly as aggressive as the Valkyrie's were.
- Love how EE does their bass responses. Less quantity, less decay to this than the Valkyrie which was borderline out of control. Still not the cleanest attack either, but great dynamics and plenty of texture overall.
- Midrange is where some issues start cropping up. Female vocals fall back in the mix a bit too much for my tastes.
- A lot of stick impact to the treble - entering harshness at times - and it runs on the brighter side. I could definitely see this being fatiguing.
Ooh I got to hear the hero and its one really exciting sounding iem. Hits the spot for female vocals. Quite coloured sounding too. I think it's one of my favourite v shaped iems now.
linknet
100+ Head-Fier
Also got an Hero. Love the bass which is not bleeding to the mids. Just wish for a little more
Female vocals acoustic beautiful. Blues guitar crystal clear. As i'm listening 30 min. to 60 min. here and there the brightness is not too fatiguing for me. My big issue now is to deal with ear pressure. Had some days off and will see how it works...
Last edited:
I couldn't replicate the 8sl-like sound on any vx switch combination. 8sl is darker sounding and presents instruments on the stage differently from vx. I felt the soundstage is taller. I have a friend who agreed 8sl is different enough from vx that it is weird to put them on the same row as vx on crinacles ranking. Gemini is closer to vx but more aggressive, in your face sounding.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,273
- Likes
- 855
That is intriguing. I am enjoying the VX with bass and treble up and some slight eqs. I wouldnt mind more darkness without sacrificing the treble (if possible!). Very cool, though. Thanks for that.
KuroKitsu
Headphoneus Supremus
@Precogvision I'd really love to see what you'd think about the DMagic since you found the upper mids too much on the Hero. I didn't have my asian pop on my 1A when I went in to demo Hero, but since the DMagic has a bit more in that area, I figured I'd be fine with it on the Hero as well.
Empire Ears Hero
Review is up and can be read here.
What is the Hero? The Hero is, in a nutshell, pretty alright. It's an IEM which I think could've been so much more, but falls short because of egregious liberties taken with the tuning. Like so, I couldn't get past the initial brightness I noted in the lower to mid treble, and further listening brought up some issues with the midrange's tuning and intangibles. Because the Hero has decent dynamics and engagement factor, however, I‘m not going to totally lambast it. Points mainly docked for polarizing tonality and personal bias; technicalities are par for the price if not slightly below. The Hero has its niche, I’m simply not part of it.
Score: 5.5/10
I’ll listen to anything I can get my hands on, haha. I don’t mind the upper-midrange emphasis so much as I do the consonant harshness and quirks that come with it on the Hero.
Review is up and can be read here.
What is the Hero? The Hero is, in a nutshell, pretty alright. It's an IEM which I think could've been so much more, but falls short because of egregious liberties taken with the tuning. Like so, I couldn't get past the initial brightness I noted in the lower to mid treble, and further listening brought up some issues with the midrange's tuning and intangibles. Because the Hero has decent dynamics and engagement factor, however, I‘m not going to totally lambast it. Points mainly docked for polarizing tonality and personal bias; technicalities are par for the price if not slightly below. The Hero has its niche, I’m simply not part of it.
Score: 5.5/10
I’ll listen to anything I can get my hands on, haha. I don’t mind the upper-midrange emphasis so much as I do the consonant harshness and quirks that come with it on the Hero.
64 Audio tia Trio Impressions
This finally came in today...and it's gotta go out tomorrow lol. Anyways, another sample's on the way, but I figured it would be good to get down some thoughts for posterity. After all, unit variance does seem to be a thing with 64 Audio's stuff.
Let's see, tonality wise, this follows a V-shaped FR. The bass response is tastefully boosted with terrific dynamic slam. I hear a good deal more transient control than the Nio which I basically summed up as dirty. A type of dirty, mind you, that I rather liked but had to admit was lacking on some fronts. Conversely, I can confidently say the Trio's in my Top 3 bass responses. Same rounded attack going on in the midrange that all the 64 Audio IEMs seem to have; slight disconnect between the lower and upper mids, but it's hard to notice unless you're using specific tracks. Treble is probably the Trio's weak point, there's a bit of hollowness to treble impact and an upward skew. It's disconcerting, as it left my ear ringing at one point. Perhaps I'm just not used to it; I keep expecting to hear something that, well, isn't there.
Intangibly, the Trio plays ball too. Imaging is terrific, easily beating out the U12t here for "holographic" staging and stage size. You also get the same, more distant, midrange imaging I love so much on the U12t, plus slightly more perceived clarity interestingly enough. Overall resolving capability's probably another matter. Biggest critique right now would be slightly muted dynamics; it lacks engagement factor at times despite what the more aggressive tuning would have you believe. Probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's noticeable enough to bother me coming off the U12t.
To make some short impressions even shorter? The Trio's a damn good IEM. Looking forward to eventually getting down my full thoughts on this one.
Score: 7/10
This finally came in today...and it's gotta go out tomorrow lol. Anyways, another sample's on the way, but I figured it would be good to get down some thoughts for posterity. After all, unit variance does seem to be a thing with 64 Audio's stuff.
Let's see, tonality wise, this follows a V-shaped FR. The bass response is tastefully boosted with terrific dynamic slam. I hear a good deal more transient control than the Nio which I basically summed up as dirty. A type of dirty, mind you, that I rather liked but had to admit was lacking on some fronts. Conversely, I can confidently say the Trio's in my Top 3 bass responses. Same rounded attack going on in the midrange that all the 64 Audio IEMs seem to have; slight disconnect between the lower and upper mids, but it's hard to notice unless you're using specific tracks. Treble is probably the Trio's weak point, there's a bit of hollowness to treble impact and an upward skew. It's disconcerting, as it left my ear ringing at one point. Perhaps I'm just not used to it; I keep expecting to hear something that, well, isn't there.
Intangibly, the Trio plays ball too. Imaging is terrific, easily beating out the U12t here for "holographic" staging and stage size. You also get the same, more distant, midrange imaging I love so much on the U12t, plus slightly more perceived clarity interestingly enough. Overall resolving capability's probably another matter. Biggest critique right now would be slightly muted dynamics; it lacks engagement factor at times despite what the more aggressive tuning would have you believe. Probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's noticeable enough to bother me coming off the U12t.
To make some short impressions even shorter? The Trio's a damn good IEM. Looking forward to eventually getting down my full thoughts on this one.
Score: 7/10
Last edited:
I’m itching to try the Trio but after selling the Noir because of a poor seal/not ideal fit, I’m not too keen anymore. Maybe I’ll still get around to it to kill the curiosity.
I have the U12t arriving tomorrow. Looking forward to hearing that and comparing it to the A18s.
Nice impressions.
Users who are viewing this thread
