toughnut
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Posts
- 1,876
- Likes
- 328
Currently CK100 burned in 30+ hours, should be enough since i hear no noticeable changes after 24 hours. For CK100 closeup photos, will post it sometimes next week as i dont have my camera with me.
All running ampless, straight out from S639F with mostly 320VBR files. Genres covered are Jpop, Jrock, Cpop, CRnB, CRock, RnB, pop, rock, metal, classical, rap, hiphop, OST, techno, breakbeat, electronic and trance. I will compare CK100 to TF10P (used for 3 months, medium UE single flange) and IE8 (450+hours burned in, used for 1+ months, medium UE-type single flange) based on my memory. Listened to CK100 for 16+ hours so far and still listening while typing this. CK100 on stock medium tip. All doesnt hiss on S639F.
Most obvious different is the sound signature. IE8 more warm and sound closed if compared to CK100 which kinda neutral across all freq and more transparent. CK100 also requires lower listening volume, partially helped with superb isolation. CK100 is more transparent and flat if compare to TF10P. Midbass on TF10P really obvious if compared these two IEMs.
In term of extension of both end, CK100 similar to TF10P. IE8 not slouch either. IE8 very obvious capable of extending very low. IE8 excel with deep bass, quantity and quality wise. Airiness for the three are similar. IE8 done well with conveying instruments timbre and reverb, CK100 not far behind as it's almost comparable. TF10P performed the worst in this aspect as timbre sound unnatural, biased towards high freq instruments and no reverb as far as i recalled.
CK100 better with separation, layering and revealing the details. Paired with accurate but smaller soundstage, it's very good with positioning. U can basically pinpoint every single sound if u analytical enough. Soundstage covers depth, width and height in spherical shape. In comparison, soundstage of IE8 expanded wider to left and right but lack depth at front/back. IE8 soundstage also lack sense of height. TF10P soundstage similar to IE8 but less wide by an inch or two, quite close. TF10P better with revealing details than IE8 though. Instrument separation and layering of CK100 more accurate than TF10P. IE8 in comparison sound like a flat 2D painting compared to CK100 and TF10P. All three handles busy passages with ease but BA have advantages of better clarity and definition when stressed.
IE8 high blended nicely into music, sometimes sound recessed. It extend quite high, no sign of rolloff to my ears. But it's hard to pick out the high frequency instruments. CK100 high really similar to TF10P but maybe lack a bit of TF10P sparkle at top end. IE8 hardly sparkle though. Detail wise, CK100 and TF10P quite similar, better than IE8 on this spectrum. CK100 and TF10P treble feel almost no limit, extend as far as music pushing it. IE8 treble occasionally sound strained. But these three IEM never sound fatiguing after long listening period.
CK100 mid the best so far, compared to all my past IEMs. IE8 come close but occasionally it sound harsh/piercing on female voice. CK100 sound more forward than IE8 mid but not as forward as UM2. CK100 mid sound a bit thick, probably coloured if compared with other IEM. Clearer due to better transparency. IE8 mid sound smooth and natural but lack clarity if compared to CK100 due to warmness. TF10P mid occasionally sound blurry and recessed if the mid hitting the wrong frequency band. Puzzling but that's what i notice. When sound at its best, it's good. Detailed but not as transparent as CK100. TF10P sound more lively and fun too. No sibilance with all three IEM, although IE8 sounded nearly on borderline sometimes.
The low end belong to IE8. No contest imo. But the drawback is that the low end prowess affected IE8 warmness and thus overall sound. CK100 and TF10P lack quantity and air movement but make up with better details and accuracy. In term off speed, IE8 comparable to CK100 and triple.fi. CK100 bass quantity is lower to TF10P but adequate. TF10P sound thumpy if compared to CK100, if u get what i meant. TF10P sound the tightest, while IE8 comparable to CK100. All three doesnt sound boomy at all if compared to UM2 (UM2 on Comply tips).
In term of build quality, CK100 definitely better. IE8 and TF10P come close. IE8 look tougher compared to TF10P though. CK100 consists of two pieces, titanium shell and plastic halves. TF10P consists of three plastic pieces, not including detachable cables. IE8 also consists of three plastic pieces, not including detachable cables. IE8 right angled jack with Kevlar cable my favourite among the three. TF10P straight jack cable is of average quality. CK100 use low profile right angled jack and consists of two rubbery cable strands similar to those on headphone. Hopefully CK100 cable can last long as it look the most susceptible to crackling (althought none of my IEMs cable crack before... touchwood)
Microphonic almost none since i wear them over the ears. CK100 doesnt have any removable cable, a drawback but gain in term of smaller overall size.
Size wise, CK100 < IE8 < TF10P
Fit wise, CK100 > TF10P > IE8
Comfort wise, CK100 > IE8 > TF10P
TF10P use dual bore design, with one filter inside each bore. IE8 use metal mesh to protect the driver. CK100 bore almost similar size to IE8 and TF10P but using filter system similar to ER4P/S. Tips are interchangeable between these three but CK100 bore a bit smaller. For easier comparison, TF10P and IE8 need Comply T500 but CK100 on Comply T400.
In term of accessories, IE8 comes with everything including kitchen sink. 10 pairs of tips, shirt clip, ear hook guides, metal case, silica pack, cleaner and all packed into a nice display case. The packaging alone deserves USD100 pricetag. Overdone but i love it. TF10P comes with 5 pairs of tips, airplane adapter, extension cable, cleaner and a metal shell. CK100 the worst in term of accessories, with only 4 pairs of tips, leather pouch and cleaning cloth. Leather pouch look classy and functional though. In term of packaging, IE8 > CK100 > TF10P. IE8 warranty is 2 years while TF10P and CK100 is 1 year. TF10P previously has 2 years warranty before Logitech takeover.
Total price i paid for TF10P was USD374~, IE8 USD310~, CK100 USD400~. TF10P bought locally, IE8 from minidisc.au and CK100 from Japan.
Which one i prefer? I actually like how TF10P sound after testing IE8. CK100 come closest to TF10P sound and actually excel it in most area imo. Between CK100 and IE8, i can only wish i had both. IE8 more towards low end prowess while CK100 on mid and high. Not saying IE8 performs poorly on mid and high or CK100 bad on bass. No IEM i tested so far close to perfection. Imo, it's genre dependent. For all rounder, CK100 is better as most genres sound good on it. I just cant stand the warmness of IE8 for some music like metal and classical. CK100 also isolate and fit better on my ears.
To sum up each IEM with one album that show its best,
IE8 = Infected Mushroom "Vicious Delicious"
TF10P = Linkin Park "Road To Revolution"
CK100 = Beyonce "I Am... Sasha Fierce"
CK100 will stay for now
YMMV. Cheers
All running ampless, straight out from S639F with mostly 320VBR files. Genres covered are Jpop, Jrock, Cpop, CRnB, CRock, RnB, pop, rock, metal, classical, rap, hiphop, OST, techno, breakbeat, electronic and trance. I will compare CK100 to TF10P (used for 3 months, medium UE single flange) and IE8 (450+hours burned in, used for 1+ months, medium UE-type single flange) based on my memory. Listened to CK100 for 16+ hours so far and still listening while typing this. CK100 on stock medium tip. All doesnt hiss on S639F.
Most obvious different is the sound signature. IE8 more warm and sound closed if compared to CK100 which kinda neutral across all freq and more transparent. CK100 also requires lower listening volume, partially helped with superb isolation. CK100 is more transparent and flat if compare to TF10P. Midbass on TF10P really obvious if compared these two IEMs.
In term of extension of both end, CK100 similar to TF10P. IE8 not slouch either. IE8 very obvious capable of extending very low. IE8 excel with deep bass, quantity and quality wise. Airiness for the three are similar. IE8 done well with conveying instruments timbre and reverb, CK100 not far behind as it's almost comparable. TF10P performed the worst in this aspect as timbre sound unnatural, biased towards high freq instruments and no reverb as far as i recalled.
CK100 better with separation, layering and revealing the details. Paired with accurate but smaller soundstage, it's very good with positioning. U can basically pinpoint every single sound if u analytical enough. Soundstage covers depth, width and height in spherical shape. In comparison, soundstage of IE8 expanded wider to left and right but lack depth at front/back. IE8 soundstage also lack sense of height. TF10P soundstage similar to IE8 but less wide by an inch or two, quite close. TF10P better with revealing details than IE8 though. Instrument separation and layering of CK100 more accurate than TF10P. IE8 in comparison sound like a flat 2D painting compared to CK100 and TF10P. All three handles busy passages with ease but BA have advantages of better clarity and definition when stressed.
IE8 high blended nicely into music, sometimes sound recessed. It extend quite high, no sign of rolloff to my ears. But it's hard to pick out the high frequency instruments. CK100 high really similar to TF10P but maybe lack a bit of TF10P sparkle at top end. IE8 hardly sparkle though. Detail wise, CK100 and TF10P quite similar, better than IE8 on this spectrum. CK100 and TF10P treble feel almost no limit, extend as far as music pushing it. IE8 treble occasionally sound strained. But these three IEM never sound fatiguing after long listening period.
CK100 mid the best so far, compared to all my past IEMs. IE8 come close but occasionally it sound harsh/piercing on female voice. CK100 sound more forward than IE8 mid but not as forward as UM2. CK100 mid sound a bit thick, probably coloured if compared with other IEM. Clearer due to better transparency. IE8 mid sound smooth and natural but lack clarity if compared to CK100 due to warmness. TF10P mid occasionally sound blurry and recessed if the mid hitting the wrong frequency band. Puzzling but that's what i notice. When sound at its best, it's good. Detailed but not as transparent as CK100. TF10P sound more lively and fun too. No sibilance with all three IEM, although IE8 sounded nearly on borderline sometimes.
The low end belong to IE8. No contest imo. But the drawback is that the low end prowess affected IE8 warmness and thus overall sound. CK100 and TF10P lack quantity and air movement but make up with better details and accuracy. In term off speed, IE8 comparable to CK100 and triple.fi. CK100 bass quantity is lower to TF10P but adequate. TF10P sound thumpy if compared to CK100, if u get what i meant. TF10P sound the tightest, while IE8 comparable to CK100. All three doesnt sound boomy at all if compared to UM2 (UM2 on Comply tips).
In term of build quality, CK100 definitely better. IE8 and TF10P come close. IE8 look tougher compared to TF10P though. CK100 consists of two pieces, titanium shell and plastic halves. TF10P consists of three plastic pieces, not including detachable cables. IE8 also consists of three plastic pieces, not including detachable cables. IE8 right angled jack with Kevlar cable my favourite among the three. TF10P straight jack cable is of average quality. CK100 use low profile right angled jack and consists of two rubbery cable strands similar to those on headphone. Hopefully CK100 cable can last long as it look the most susceptible to crackling (althought none of my IEMs cable crack before... touchwood)
Microphonic almost none since i wear them over the ears. CK100 doesnt have any removable cable, a drawback but gain in term of smaller overall size.
Size wise, CK100 < IE8 < TF10P
Fit wise, CK100 > TF10P > IE8
Comfort wise, CK100 > IE8 > TF10P
TF10P use dual bore design, with one filter inside each bore. IE8 use metal mesh to protect the driver. CK100 bore almost similar size to IE8 and TF10P but using filter system similar to ER4P/S. Tips are interchangeable between these three but CK100 bore a bit smaller. For easier comparison, TF10P and IE8 need Comply T500 but CK100 on Comply T400.
In term of accessories, IE8 comes with everything including kitchen sink. 10 pairs of tips, shirt clip, ear hook guides, metal case, silica pack, cleaner and all packed into a nice display case. The packaging alone deserves USD100 pricetag. Overdone but i love it. TF10P comes with 5 pairs of tips, airplane adapter, extension cable, cleaner and a metal shell. CK100 the worst in term of accessories, with only 4 pairs of tips, leather pouch and cleaning cloth. Leather pouch look classy and functional though. In term of packaging, IE8 > CK100 > TF10P. IE8 warranty is 2 years while TF10P and CK100 is 1 year. TF10P previously has 2 years warranty before Logitech takeover.
Total price i paid for TF10P was USD374~, IE8 USD310~, CK100 USD400~. TF10P bought locally, IE8 from minidisc.au and CK100 from Japan.
Which one i prefer? I actually like how TF10P sound after testing IE8. CK100 come closest to TF10P sound and actually excel it in most area imo. Between CK100 and IE8, i can only wish i had both. IE8 more towards low end prowess while CK100 on mid and high. Not saying IE8 performs poorly on mid and high or CK100 bad on bass. No IEM i tested so far close to perfection. Imo, it's genre dependent. For all rounder, CK100 is better as most genres sound good on it. I just cant stand the warmness of IE8 for some music like metal and classical. CK100 also isolate and fit better on my ears.
To sum up each IEM with one album that show its best,
IE8 = Infected Mushroom "Vicious Delicious"
TF10P = Linkin Park "Road To Revolution"
CK100 = Beyonce "I Am... Sasha Fierce"
CK100 will stay for now
YMMV. Cheers
