[i2ehan]

Subscribed. It's ironic I discovered this thread whilst listening to my newly arrived e-Q5's; though I suppose it's fate, as I really do believe the e-Q5 has a fighting chance against many top tiers. I'd have to agree with what our friends goodvibes and mvw2 said; they practically nailed it IMO. Tips can and will make a difference. I'm using the Sony hybrids with the foam underneath of the silicone (dubbed the Sony 'isolation' tips, which come included with the Sony EX series), and to these ears, bass light the e-Q5's are NOT. With regards to the highs, make no mistake about it, sibilance and listening fatigue are COMPLETELY nonexistent. To me, the e-Q5's are exceptionally well balanced. The mids however may be ever so slightly north of neutral, but given the overall presentation, no one area of the spectrum predominates or intrudes the other. If it's a reference monitor signature you're after, there are clearly better options (ER4P/S, RE252, W4 and GR07 to varying degrees, etc.). What I love most about the e-Q5's is that they're exceptionally transparent, and all the while just as musical. As it stands, they are my most ideal in-ears, from their form factor, down to their SQ (cable and micro phonics aside). Needless to say, they're most certainly not the most technically proficient in-ears I've owned, but they ARE certainly the most enjoyable, as far as my preference goes.

There is one thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around however. Austin, you mentioned the following my friend:

"When compare to the W4 and the ESM3, the e-Q5 just can’t compete, as those higher end IEM’s have better extension, are a bit brighter, and have much better micro detail retrieval."

W4 and SM3 brighter than the e-Q5? Huh? Am I reading that right? If so, that couldn't be farther from the truth IMO. If that was meant to say the e-Q5 sounds bright, when compared to the W4's nearly dead neutral signature, and the SM3's dark or overly warm signature, that much I can understand. The day the SM3 sounds bright...

Anyways, as mentioned, I've found my most ideal, preferred signature, and the e-Q5 is it. There are certainly a few others that come very very close, which I've already mentioned elsewhere (|joker|'s thread). For anyone curious, I purchased both the e-Q5 and e-Q7 around the time, but the e-Q7 has yet to arrive. I wasn't sure whether or not the e-Q5 would appeal to me at first, and because I tend to favor a slightly mid centric sound (more often than not), though not an exaggerated one at that (you know who you are), I figured I'd be sure to like one or the other. As fond as I am of the e-Q5, I'm all the more eager to hear the e-Q7. I'll post back my initial impressions once they're in my hands, hopefully within the next few days. Until then, I'm glad to see the e-Q5 getting rediscovered, in a sense. I had eyed it from the very beginning, as I entered the land of no return (Head-Fi), but as is always the case, I waited to acquire the Ortofons until I came across a reasonable offer. Rest assure, as fate would have it, I acquired them both at a very reasonable price.

 

[goodvibes]

Good call i2ehan. The hybrids make the highs work. I didn't get on too well with the wider mouth tips. Top was just a bit too prominent and splashy. I also think they don't have the last layer of micro detail if your source can show it. All that said, I don't know what I'd buy in their stead at $200. They're just very fun, tangible and musical.

I'll be curious to your take on the 7 which I haven't heard. I can assure you the GR10 is different from the 5. PM if you'd like my take as I don't want to stir that pot again.

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

Subscribed. It's ironic I discovered this thread whilst listening to my newly arrived e-Q5's; though I suppose it's fate, as I really do believe the e-Q5 has a fighting chance against many top tiers. I'd have to agree with what our friends goodvibes and mvw2 said; they practically nailed it IMO. Tips can and will make a difference. I'm using the Sony hybrids with the foam underneath of the silicone (dubbed the Sony 'isolation' tips, which come included with the Sony EX series), and to these ears, bass light the e-Q5's are NOT. With regards to the highs, make no mistake about it, sibilance and listening fatigue are COMPLETELY nonexistent. To me, the e-Q5's are exceptionally well balanced. The mids however may be ever so slightly north of neutral, but given the overall presentation, no one area of the spectrum predominates or intrudes the other. If it's a reference monitor signature you're after, there are clearly better options (ER4P/S, RE252, W4 and GR07 to varying degrees, etc.). What I love most about the e-Q5's is that they're exceptionally transparent, and all the while just as musical. As it stands, they are my most ideal in-ears, from their form factor, down to their SQ (cable and micro phonics aside). Needless to say, they're most certainly not the most technically proficient in-ears I've owned, but they ARE certainly the most enjoyable, as far as my preference goes.

There is one thing I can't seem to wrap my mind around however. Austin, you mentioned the following my friend:

"When compare to the W4 and the ESM3, the e-Q5 just can’t compete, as those higher end IEM’s have better extension, are a bit brighter, and have much better micro detail retrieval."

W4 and SM3 brighter than the e-Q5? Huh? Am I reading that right? If so, that couldn't be farther from the truth IMO. If that was meant to say the e-Q5 sounds bright, when compared to the W4's nearly dead neutral signature, and the SM3's dark or overly warm signature, that much I can understand. The day the SM3 sounds bright...

Anyways, as mentioned, I've found my most ideal, preferred signature, and the e-Q5 is it. There are certainly a few others that come very very close, which I've already mentioned elsewhere (|joker|'s thread). For anyone curious, I purchased both the e-Q5 and e-Q7 around the time, but the e-Q7 has yet to arrive. I wasn't sure whether or not the e-Q5 would appeal to me at first, and because I tend to favor a slightly mid centric sound (more often than not), though not an exaggerated one at that (you know who you are), I figured I'd be sure to like one or the other. As fond as I am of the e-Q5, I'm all the more eager to hear the e-Q7. I'll post back my initial impressions once they're in my hands, hopefully within the next few days. Until then, I'm glad to see the e-Q5 getting rediscovered, in a sense. I had eyed it from the very beginning, as I entered the land of no return (Head-Fi), but as is always the case, I waited to acquire the Ortofons until I came across a reasonable offer. Rest assure, as fate would have it, I acquired them both at a very reasonable price.

 
Ah, I almost knew someone would mention that. Here's the thing, it depends on what you are listening out of. Now, let's say you listen to the e-Q5 out of an iPhone or any of the iDevices, the highs are a lot warmer than when amped, which extends the detail response a little bit. Yes, both the Westone 4 and the Earsonics SM3, at least to my ears, can sound more extended in certain circumstances when properly amped with a good portable amplifier that has a bright sound signature. Give me a few minutes and I'll change the article to reflect those changes, haha, I probably confused people.
 
THen again, I heard both the SM3 and the Westone 4 along time ago out of a bunch of different amps, so my memory may be a little off, so please forgive me for that. 

 
 

 

[Austin Morrow]

I wonder if it would be nice to add a video request? Hmm, maybe later today I'll post one up.

 

[i2ehan]

Quote:

THen again, I heard both the SM3 and the Westone 4 along time ago out of a bunch of different amps, so my memory may be a little off, so please forgive me for that. 

I haven't much experience with high end sources my friend, so I'm quite honestly much too naive in that regard. 

 If there really is a source that can brighten the SM3, per se, I'm all ears. 

 

[i2ehan]

Just A/B'ed the Q5's and my newly arrived (albeit purchased second hand) Q7's, and I must admit, as has been said, it'd have been very difficult to say which one I'd prefer without both in hand. Nevertheless, having heard the Q5 first, I came to appreciate the rather subtle, but noticeable differences. The Q7's highs, for one, take a backseat, while the mids are just a tad more forward than the Q5's, but nothing along the lines of SM3, SE535, or CK100 forward. It's really the highs where the two differ most IMO. Nevertheless, the the Q5's are so well balanced, even after the Q7, I can quite honestly say I even prefer the Q5's mids. Coming back to the treble, the extension is noticeably better on the Q5's, than on the Q7's, without any harshness/sibilance with either. This, to me personally, reproduces any track I heard with a more lively and energetic feel.
 
I'd have to say I also prefer the design of the Q5, which is easier to slip in and out of the ear. The Q7's cloth cable, on the other hand, is of course an added plus, and I would've liked to see the same for the Q5. As it stands, the Q5 retains my preference, and owing to its much more overall balanced signature, plus the added treble extension are both enough reasons for me to make my decision firm. 

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

Just A/B'ed the Q5's and my newly arrived (albeit purchased second hand) Q7's, and I must admit, as has been said, it'd have been very difficult to say which one I'd prefer without both in hand. Nevertheless, having heard the Q5 first, I came to appreciate the rather subtle, but noticeable differences. The Q7's highs, for one, take a backseat, while the mids are just a tad more forward than the Q5's, but nothing along the lines of SM3, SE535, or CK100 forward. It's really the highs where the two differ most IMO. Nevertheless, the the Q5's are so well balanced, even after the Q7, I can quite honestly say I even prefer the Q5's mids. Coming back to the treble, the extension is noticeably better on the Q5's, than on the Q7's, without any harshness/sibilance with either. This, to me personally, reproduces any track I heard with a more lively and energetic feel.
 
I'd have to say I also prefer the design of the Q5, which is easier to slip in and out of the ear. The Q7's cloth cable, on the other hand, is of course an added plus, and I would've liked to see the same for the Q5. As it stands, the Q5 retains my preference, and owing to its much more overall balanced signature, plus the added treble extension are both enough reasons for me to make my decision firm. 

Agree 100%. I wish the cable on the e-Q5 was reinforced with sheath or or kevlar as it seems very fragile as of the moment.