It’s interesting if you approach BAs with a smidge of expected bias. Meaning when do you take it upon yourself to be such inclined?
The fact that I primarily listen to BA IEMs. But I do wonder what all DD will do? The IER-Z1R is 2DD and 1BA. Still I don’t approach it, looking for trouble? I say all this as I use the qdc Anole V3 every day at the gym. Not inside the gym but while waiting outside, and today of all days it seemed metallic? Wild? Obviously that trait is far from being a reality in the Dmagic I would guess?
Also I’m listening to 20 BAs at the very moment but hear no metallic tone? I mean maybe it’s there, but I’m not focused on it. This seems to be the redeeming factor in the Dmagic?
I do have preconceived biases when it comes to ba or dd iems. They don’t always hold true, but generally I do find this approach somewhat reliable. BAs usually sound faster to me with greater upper frequency extension and better micro dynamics, and for music that works best with these qualities, I thoroughly enjoy my ba collection. I bought the Dmagic because of its unique driver design (every iem purchase I make is based on whether I feel there will be enough of a difference so there is little sonic redundancy in my collection).
One consistent quality of my dd collection is I perceive a more organic nature in reproduction. What do I mean by this? When I listen to the Dmagic, as an example, the music has a living, breathing quality that can be enrapturing. The bass frequencies have greater texture, better scale, less one-note sounding. In my mind, the bass frequencies are the foundation of music reproduction, so if this area of the spectrum is not reproduced right, it throws off the entire spectrum.
Just one man’s thought on the complex process of listening to an iem and using descriptive language to describe what I’m hearing. I do believe the vocabulary we audiophiles use can sometimes be misleading since we all have different sensitivities and often different understandings as to what all these descriptive terms really mean. I’m still relatively new to high end iems, so I’m learning as I gain more experience.
I do have preconceived biases when it comes to ba or dd iems. They don’t always hold true, but generally I do find this approach somewhat reliable. BAs usually sound faster to me with greater upper frequency extension and better micro dynamics, and for music that works best with these qualities, I thoroughly enjoy my ba collection. I bought the Dmagic because of its unique driver design (every iem purchase I make is based on whether I feel there will be enough of a difference so there is little sonic redundancy in my collection).
One consistent quality of my dd collection is I perceive a more organic nature in reproduction. What do I mean by this? When I listen to the Dmagic, as an example, the music has a living, breathing quality that can be enrapturing. The bass frequencies have greater texture, better scale, less one-note sounding. In my mind, the bass frequencies are the foundation of music reproduction, so if this area of the spectrum is not reproduced right, it throws off the entire spectrum.
Just one man’s thought on the complex process of listening to an iem and using descriptive language to describe what I’m hearing. I do believe the vocabulary we audiophiles use can sometimes be misleading since we all have different sensitivities and often different understandings as to what all these descriptive terms really mean. I’m still relatively new to high end iems, so I’m learning as I gain more experience.
I also like BA a lot. Especially in the low range .... then I heard Tansio Mirai Land and his DD. I found it very beautiful. Deep bass even if not very controlled as for example (tansio mirai Spark). But then in the Land I found a very full-bodied, harmonic mid and mid-high range with no harshness. Very nice. Is the QDC going in this direction? Because I'm tempted by a low DD. What can you tell me?
I also like BA a lot. Especially in the low range .... then I heard Tansio Mirai Land and his DD. I found it very beautiful. Deep bass even if not very controlled as for example (tansio mirai Spark). But then in the Land I found a very full-bodied, harmonic mid and mid-high range with no harshness. Very nice. Is the QDC going in this direction? Because I'm tempted by a low DD. What can you tell me?
I thought about it .... but then I decided to try to find an iem with a much more qualitative and perfectible DD than the already excellent LAND.
The problem is to find a much more powerful and controlled DD than the Land and around a Tansio Mirai tuning.
I also like BA a lot. Especially in the low range .... then I heard Tansio Mirai Land and his DD. I found it very beautiful. Deep bass even if not very controlled as for example (tansio mirai Spark). But then in the Land I found a very full-bodied, harmonic mid and mid-high range with no harshness. Very nice. Is the QDC going in this direction? Because I'm tempted by a low DD. What can you tell me?
I have not heard the Land, but yes, your description of it mirrors the Dmagic. No harshness at all to my ears. I was listening last night and the bass on the Dmagic has improved further with now about 150 hours or so on it. Big sounding bass now with tight articulation. I’m completely happy with this purchase!
I have not heard the Land, but yes, your description of it mirrors the Dmagic. No harshness at all to my ears. I was listening last night and the bass on the Dmagic has improved further with now about 150 hours or so on it. Big sounding bass now with tight articulation. I’m completely happy with this purchase!
I don't know how long it still has to play over 150 hours .... and maybe it still has to go. I have read that the DMagic sound stays a bit closed and is not very open or three dimensional, but a bit intimate. Do you also find that this is the case?
I don't know how long it still has to play over 150 hours .... and maybe it still has to go. I have read that the DMagic sound stays a bit closed and is not very open or three dimensional, but a bit intimate. Do you also find that this is the case?
yes, I would mostly agree with that. The width is actually very good, out to the ears, but the depth in front is shallow and the height is average. This is not the iem to get if technicalities are important, rather, it’s the tone that makes the Dmagic a special listen, in my view.
yes, I would mostly agree with that. The width is actually very good, out to the ears, but the depth in front is shallow and the height is average. This is not the iem to get if technicalities are important, rather, it’s the tone that makes the Dmagic a special listen, in my view.
could you try to explain better what you mean when you say "This is not the iem to get if technicalities are important, rather, it's the tone that makes the Dmagic a special listen, in my view" .....
Thanks
yes, I would mostly agree with that. The width is actually very good, out to the ears, but the depth in front is shallow and the height is average. This is not the iem to get if technicalities are important, rather, it’s the tone that makes the Dmagic a special listen, in my view.
could you try to explain better what you mean when you say "This is not the iem to get if technicalities are important, rather, it's the tone that makes the Dmagic a special listen, in my view" .....
Thanks
ok, I probably should have written staging instead of technicalities—my bad—since this is one aspect of the Dmagic which is merely average. It’s really the tone of the Dmagic that enthralls me, and makes me want to listen for longer periods of time.
That is a very unusual request and got me laughing a bit, no offense intended. I’m only interested in more expensive iems unless like the JVC I own it for sentimental value.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
