[shigzeo]

It depends on your preferences. The bass isn't bottom heavy. In fact, low end rolls off slightly whereas the CK10 was more linear. Both are ER4-ish in presentation, but much smoother and fuller (if fuller can be applied without meaning bigger).

I enjoy hip hop and rap with the CK100 mainly for the excellent imaging and vocals. Bass, as noted in the review, is a little light.

 

[iponderous]

These are very expensive universal canalphones where I live, selling for around $680. I'm not attempting to be controversial, but there is a specialist headphone store in my country that also sells online. What's notable about this retailer is that it provides succinct and candid descriptions of the products that it sells. This retailer is generally supportive of the Audio Technica products that it carries. However, there is a scathing description of the CK100's sound quality at its website, where it advises against purchasing it and adds that there are $200 canalphones that sound better.

Normally I would be dismissive of such strident assessments, however, I have had dealings with this store and have found its staff product knowledge to be excellent and the advice offered to be practical and helpful. Now I know that when shigzeo reviews a phone, build quality is no less important to him than sound quality. I doubt that this is factored into the description of the CK100 to which, I am referring.

I have the utmost respect for shigzeo's thoughtful and thorough reviews, however, I'm genuinely struck by the polarity between these two assessments of this high-end canalphone's sound signature, and I'm wondering if there is any middle ground? Has anyone else had the opportunity to listen to the CK100 and compared its sound signature to other triple driver phones such as the UM3X, W3 and the TF10? I note that shigzeo compares it favourably to the SE530.

 

[shigzeo]

Well, 'sound quality' is of course subjective, but if that store dislikes the CK100, that doesn't mean anything definitive. Neither does my assessment. I come at SQ like this: this is how it sounds and this is where its application may be best put. No headphone or earphone does everything well. That said, some are more traditionally pleasing than others.

The CK100 is by no means 'normal' in musical presentation, but it is very good. It has had a steady 4,62/5 in Japan for over a year and Japanese headphone fans tend to be more objective than western readers/reviewers.

That said, by no means do I expect everyone to like the CK100. It is the best combination of build quality (which WILL outlast any other earphone on the market by years) and sound (which while not typically bottom-weighted, is a great sound signature.

 

[iponderous]

Hi shigzeo, I'm aware of your reluctance to use the term "sound quality". I usually refrain from doing so myself but I used it in the context of the short review to which, I was referring.

Yes, of course assessments of how earphones sound are entirely subjective. That's the problem we encounter when we have to rely on the impressions of others, in order to assist us in making an informed opinion about a phone that we may be interested in purchasing, but cannot audition beforehand.

I would expect a universal canalphone costing that much to be an exceptional performer shigzeo. Have you listened to any acoustic jazz with the CK100?

 

[javajive]

Great review as always, shigzeo. I`ve been a-b`ing the ck10 and ck100 side by side quite a bit and had decided that ck10 was better for me due to the mid-high signature of the ck100 you describe.

however, after reading your review, I will hold off from ordering the ck10 which l was actually gonna do tonight and give the ck100 more time to hopefully grow into. i guess the staff at Bic Camera haven`t seen the end of me yet!

 

[mark2410]

a rather nice review there, i really must have a listen to them some day

 

[james444]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif These are very expensive universal canalphones where I live, selling for around $680. I'm not attempting to be controversial, but there is a specialist headphone store in my country that also sells online. What's notable about this retailer is that it provides succinct and candid descriptions of the products that it sells. This retailer is generally supportive of the Audio Technica products that it carries. However, there is a scathing description of the CK100's sound quality at its website, where it advises against purchasing it and adds that there are $200 canalphones that sound better. Normally I would be dismissive of such strident assessments, however, I have had dealings with this store and have found its staff product knowledge to be excellent and the advice offered to be practical and helpful. Now I know that when shigzeo reviews a phone, build quality is no less important to him than sound quality. I doubt that this is factored into the description of the CK100 to which, I am referring. I have the utmost respect for shigzeo's thoughtful and thorough reviews, however, I'm genuinely struck by the polarity between these two assessments of this high-end canalphone's sound signature, and I'm wondering if there is any middle ground? Has anyone else had the opportunity to listen to the CK100 and compared its sound signature to other triple driver phones such as the UM3X, W3 and the TF10? I note that shigzeo compares it favourably to the SE530.

First of all, thanks shigzeo for your eloquent review, excellent as always! Having spent more than half a year with the CK100 now, I can relate to both, your glowing praise and iponderous' retailer's despise. IME these IEMs are one touchy piece of equipment! Find the right tips, fit and source and they can trounce every other universals I know. Get it wrong and they can sound thin, sucked out and liveless. Just a warning to prospective buyers, you might be lucky and fall in love right from the start, but it might just as well take considerable time and effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif It has had a steady 4,62/5 in Japan for over a year and Japanese headphone fans tend to be more objective than western readers/reviewers.

Really? I just thought they appreciate good highs more than their western counterparts.

 

[G3n0c|d3]

great review there!

these phones always seems to amaze me especially when listening to Destruction - Killers, always make my head banging for more. I listen mostly rock and heavy metal and in some weird way, it feels right to my ears....

 

[shigzeo]

I had a great response to everyone, but my internet konked out. In any case, iPonderous, you are right - sound is subjective, but I think the 'live' sound of the CK100 is very nice for jazz and vocal - in fact, it is addictive. Some may have differing opinions however.

James, fit has been an issue for me with so many earphones. I tend to use the same old hybrid foams or regular foams on each of my earphones - they just feel and work better that way.

My choice in headphones is the DT880, so you can get a picture of my preferences. But when it comes to earphones, I actually prefer thicker, bassy phones. My favourites: SM2, Atrio, CK10, FitEars 333, FX500.

But, for an investment of around 400$ (if you get at Seyo), I would not buy another brand than AT and the CK100 is as a package, a much better buy than the Westone, UE, Senn, and even the EarSonics. The problem is that each of those could easily be crushed, twisted off and each have had their fair share of cable problems, no matter how good Westone's cable is.

The above post is a great poignant reminder that everyone has their preferences. Someone already mentioned that the CK100 and rock are not a good combo, but the above poster loves the two.

Opinions on fit and combination aside, I am totally sold on the quality both in sound and build of this earphone. Of course, my ears are 'off' and really prefer customs, but the CK100 is the closest thing I have encountered to a real 'investment' in universals. Not only will it weather the storm, but it houses a mature sound, which takes time to get used to, but is simply fab.

 

[charlie0904]

nice review indeed.

I actually find CK100 quite similar to ety but highs are smoother, totally non-fatiguing. vocal presentation is excellent as far as Japan's audio goes. bass is somewhat the only disappointing part for me which make me choose UM3X over them although they have different sound signature. UM3X is much dry, CK100 is kinda wet.

 

[shigzeo]

The CK100 is indeed 'wetter' than the ER4, but has similar bass response, though that too, is smoother. The smooth, yet detailed image of the CK10 is retained, but the CK100 is 'hotter'.

time for sleepy pie.

 

[DigDub]

I had auditioned the ck100, didn't find it engaging enough. I pretty much prefer the ortofon e-q7 over the ck100.

 

[shigzeo]

The e-q7 is a thick-sounding earphone for sure which I think is much more fun out of the box.

 

[HONEYBOY]

Shigzeo, you do some excellent reviews but my experience with the CK100 is very different to yours. I also think they have some of the best quality treble around and I could honestly live with their bass but their mids are some of the most colored I've heard in an IEM. I was very shocked considering their price. I don't think these are good for vocals or instruments because I found their tone color to be unrealistic. They also have excellent clarity but their inaccuracy in timber hindered them from being the most transparent universal. In a nutshell I saw a phone with great potential but with short comings that were too blatant to be neglected. For folks making an investment in this IEM. I'd say proceed with caution. It might just be what you're looking for for but.......

 

[DigDub]

The e-q7 doesn't come across as thick to me. It sounds like um3x, but with a more open top end. It sounds more analytical than fun, not exactly ety analytical, as the bass on the e-q7 makes the sound more engaging and organic than the typical cold analytical ety sound.