[OlyPanda]

For under $200 how does the Im02 compare to the eymotic hf5?

Leaps and bounds ahead. A little bit more detail retrieval, much better imaging and instrument separation, greater spacial positioning. 
I don't have the HF05 on hand any more, but that's what it felt like to me. On the IM02 everything sounds less rough or harsh. Although, if I remember correctly, I recall the HF05 being the more "neutral" IEM.

But honestly, there is no comparison between the two, IMO the IM02 sounds much more engaging and three dimensional to me. The HF05 lacked any hint of soundstage and sounded too flat and boring for my taste.

 

[thatonenoob]

For under $200 how does the Im02 compare to the eymotic hf5?

I did write a more complete review of the IM02 here. Very strong detail retrieval (though not painful to listen too), and maintains enough musicality to suit discerning listeners who want a sound that won't hurt their ears after several hours of listening.

 

[playingwithfire]

Looks like I have to take back some of what I said in the first impression. Maybe another point for the treble. After 20 hrs what I realize is that this thing is very picky about source music. I've heard both pretty good bass and treble out of this, but in different records. It seems like this is just revealing. Which I'm not particularly used to after a couple years of using just the HD 600 and the XBA 3, neither of which are particularly picky about sources (actually what I like about the HD 600). IM02 is very much garbage in garbage out and is overall very good. With the slightly conservative mid and limited soundstage as the only sonic downside I'd say. Now given the choice of this and the DBA-002 (my ideal IEM signature), I'm not sure what I'd pick. But this signature is certainly going to cater to more people than the DBA-002/Ety sound.
 
Thanks to all that wrote reviews ect... I'm surprised this headphone hasn't exploded here like the CK10 did a few years ago. This IEM is even widely available in NA in comparison to the CK10, which were impossible to find.
 
Cheers

 

[volly]

Whoops, wrong thread!

 

[FiJAAS]

I've noticed with great mastered cd's my im50 sounds the best. Not well mastered cd's leave me longing for more. I've also noticed that with the volume turned noticbley loud, I get a better stage and detail. With the volume reasonably low, the vocals and instruments gets drowned by bass.

 

[Inks]

Golden Ears has measured IM01/02/03/04
 
Going by those results it seems, IM02>IM01>IM03=IM04
 
IM01 has the same basic signature than the 03/04 but with better bass and treble extension and less peakier. IM02 is better than the 01 because it's treble is smoother and more extended, though it's lacking some bass in comparison. But the IM01 may have potential to be the best with some customization, like adding 15ohm impedance and using long tips to even out it's treble 
 
So basically, there seems no point to look past the 02 in this lineup, save your money guys!

 

[wmedrz]

Hey Inks, 
 
What do you think of the measurements for IM03 and IM02? Particularly, how does IM03 stack up against other IEM's in its price range? I listened to them and found the treble a bit sibilant but that was with a low impedance player. 
 
BTW I don't know how to read graphs so your input is appreciated. 

 

[wateryakcat]

Where do You see 01 and 03 data?
And measurements arent everything. Multiple users have said that 03 is best and 01 worst.
I have ck100pro and they are superb sounding.

 

[Inks]

Im03 is the most sibilant of them all and actually most users prefer the im02 of the them all from what I've heard. I will say bias can be an issue with the im01.

 

[ThickT]

I had a feeling the im01 might be special. I've been asking about it for a while now. There is hardly any reviews or discussion here or elsewhere. Ever since I saw the new line up, the im01 appealed to me. I've been wanting to get it for a long time, and I ended up getting the es-700 witch was a disappointment.

So yeah, I am excited to hear that perhaps my strange draw to the 01 may in fact have some truth to it! I am totally getting one.

 

[wateryakcat]

Im03 is the most sibilant of them all and actually most users prefer the im02 of the them all from what I've heard. I will say bias can be an issue with the im01.

Out of curiosity probably will buy all of them next year one after one.
it is reported that im03 use ck100pro drivers, but those graphs are totally different.

 

[Carlsan]

  Golden Ears has measured IM01/02/03/04
 
Going by those results it seems, IM02>IM01>IM03=IM04
 
IM01 has the same basic signature than the 03/04 but with better bass and treble extension and less peakier. IM02 is better than the 01 because it's treble is smoother and more extended, though it's lacking some bass in comparison. But the IM01 may have potential to be the best with some customization, like adding 15ohm impedance and using long tips to even out it's treble 
 
So basically, there seems no point to look past the 02 in this lineup, save your money guys!

 
Funny, I prefer the IM03>im02
 
Maybe I should just buy the stuff that Golden Ears doesn't like 

 

 

[Inks]

Im02 is the most different, IM01 has the similar signature to the 3 and 4 but with more extension on both ends and a bit less peak, so that may be preferred

 

[Inks]

Out of curiosity probably will buy all of them next year one after one.
it is reported that im03 use ck100pro drivers, but those graphs are totally different.

Same drivers doesn't mean equal sound and it's just a rumor unless you have the model for both drivers

 

[wateryakcat]

Just ordered IM02. Will compare it to CK100Pro and CKR9.