- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
finally? was there ever a question? at all?
The Monster.... Turbine... thinggy
- Thread starter pdupiano
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Posts
- 5,451
- Likes
- 3,137
Hey, I'll be caving the other way, for the Turbines (and the Phonaks too). We'll be mirroring each other. Heh.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
are you saying ill get the phonaks eventually? fish foo. (i want them)
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Posts
- 5,451
- Likes
- 3,137
Quote:
Say it with me... "My name is _______ , and I have an IEM problem."
| Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif are you saying ill get the phonaks eventually? fish foo. (i want them) |
Say it with me... "My name is _______ , and I have an IEM problem."
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
i absolutely will not! haha. (i do though)
azncookiecutter
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Posts
- 2,920
- Likes
- 13
Nice review, shigzeo. Guess it's time for me to post my final impressions too. Probably won't be as long-winded as shigzeo's review, but I'll try.
I'm basing these opinions on what equipment I'm using, which is an iPod Touch, unamped, with no EQ applied. For Monster, the music I'm using to test these are mainly rock, with some hip-hop, rap, and jazz thrown in.
Soundwise, for their price, they'll appeal to bass lovers, for sure. The midbass hump is pretty significant, and if Monster's goal was to make them feel like subwoofers, then they've achieved their job. There is definitely a emphasis on bass on the Turbine. After burn-in, the mids and highs don't seem out of place or overpowered, which is a good thing, especially compared to pre-burn in. Mids sound great, nothing much to complain there for me. Highs, however, sound a bit weird for me. Hard to explain it, but perhaps it may be a bit tizzy or harsh? Not sure how to describe it. However, they're tolerable, so maybe it's going to be a personal thing to others.
The speed, or attack, of the Turbines are shading towards the slow side, but not to the point of molasses slow. They're definitely not Grado-quick. They're also very detailed. Many little nuances can be heard with these buds. The soundstage is as wide as any IEM I've heard. Can't recall the exact soundstage of the triple.fis when I owned them, but I believe they're in the neighbourhood. The sound is definitely not enclosed just in your head, which is good.
Asthetically, the Turbine look amazing. The buds itself have weight in them, and feels like class all over. The little detailing marks on the buds (resembling turbines, duh) are top notch, and give the buds a distinctive look. The cable is a huge issue though, as shizgeo stated in his review. The plug itself is a straight plug, which wouldn't be so bad if there was more strain relief on it. It's hard and inflexible, which would lead concerns about the reliability headphone jack and/or the plug itself. Time will tell on this one, as I have had no problems so far. In addition, the cable itself is very microphonic, at least compared to my UM2. The Westone cables are probably the best cables for all universal IEMs, and I think many would agree with me on this one. It's lightweight, tough, and non-microphonic in most cases. Comparing the cables from the Turbine to the UM2, the Turbines are completely outclassed. One thing that Monster can improve on perhaps in the next generation of the Turbines.
The isolation that the Turbines provide are adequate, but are nothing special. I'm using the small tips provided by Monster. The large triflanges were too uncomfortable, and the small ones did not provide a seal whatsover, so I'm basing this opinion on the small regular tips. Comparing to a pure IEM (UM2, E4, SE530), the isolation is less, maybe on a factor of 20%? It's fine for on-the-go use, but for me, compared to my UM2, I have to turn up the volume a notch higher. Another good item to include in the box would be foam tips, as that would probably provide a better seal for many people.
On the issue of comfort, they're fine for me. Ears would get irritated wearing them for 2+ hours, but that happens with any IEM for me, so comparatively to every IEM I've tried, they're good. Especially compared to the triple.fis, they fit in my ears much better, as the triple.fis were much too large to fit comfortably.
The box it came in is also classy. It looks great, feels tough, and opening it provides a very classy feeling to it. No qualms about it, probably one of the best box-opening experiences for IEMs.
Overall, for the price they're commanding, they're a good buy. Especially if you're looking for bass-oriented in-ears, then the Turbines are worth a look at. There are a few things that Monster can improve for these in-ears, but nothing are showstopping. To Monster, kudos, you made a great first try to the IEM market.
I'm basing these opinions on what equipment I'm using, which is an iPod Touch, unamped, with no EQ applied. For Monster, the music I'm using to test these are mainly rock, with some hip-hop, rap, and jazz thrown in.
Soundwise, for their price, they'll appeal to bass lovers, for sure. The midbass hump is pretty significant, and if Monster's goal was to make them feel like subwoofers, then they've achieved their job. There is definitely a emphasis on bass on the Turbine. After burn-in, the mids and highs don't seem out of place or overpowered, which is a good thing, especially compared to pre-burn in. Mids sound great, nothing much to complain there for me. Highs, however, sound a bit weird for me. Hard to explain it, but perhaps it may be a bit tizzy or harsh? Not sure how to describe it. However, they're tolerable, so maybe it's going to be a personal thing to others.
The speed, or attack, of the Turbines are shading towards the slow side, but not to the point of molasses slow. They're definitely not Grado-quick. They're also very detailed. Many little nuances can be heard with these buds. The soundstage is as wide as any IEM I've heard. Can't recall the exact soundstage of the triple.fis when I owned them, but I believe they're in the neighbourhood. The sound is definitely not enclosed just in your head, which is good.
Asthetically, the Turbine look amazing. The buds itself have weight in them, and feels like class all over. The little detailing marks on the buds (resembling turbines, duh) are top notch, and give the buds a distinctive look. The cable is a huge issue though, as shizgeo stated in his review. The plug itself is a straight plug, which wouldn't be so bad if there was more strain relief on it. It's hard and inflexible, which would lead concerns about the reliability headphone jack and/or the plug itself. Time will tell on this one, as I have had no problems so far. In addition, the cable itself is very microphonic, at least compared to my UM2. The Westone cables are probably the best cables for all universal IEMs, and I think many would agree with me on this one. It's lightweight, tough, and non-microphonic in most cases. Comparing the cables from the Turbine to the UM2, the Turbines are completely outclassed. One thing that Monster can improve on perhaps in the next generation of the Turbines.
The isolation that the Turbines provide are adequate, but are nothing special. I'm using the small tips provided by Monster. The large triflanges were too uncomfortable, and the small ones did not provide a seal whatsover, so I'm basing this opinion on the small regular tips. Comparing to a pure IEM (UM2, E4, SE530), the isolation is less, maybe on a factor of 20%? It's fine for on-the-go use, but for me, compared to my UM2, I have to turn up the volume a notch higher. Another good item to include in the box would be foam tips, as that would probably provide a better seal for many people.
On the issue of comfort, they're fine for me. Ears would get irritated wearing them for 2+ hours, but that happens with any IEM for me, so comparatively to every IEM I've tried, they're good. Especially compared to the triple.fis, they fit in my ears much better, as the triple.fis were much too large to fit comfortably.
The box it came in is also classy. It looks great, feels tough, and opening it provides a very classy feeling to it. No qualms about it, probably one of the best box-opening experiences for IEMs.
Overall, for the price they're commanding, they're a good buy. Especially if you're looking for bass-oriented in-ears, then the Turbines are worth a look at. There are a few things that Monster can improve for these in-ears, but nothing are showstopping. To Monster, kudos, you made a great first try to the IEM market.
soozieq
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Posts
- 3,210
- Likes
- 20
Quote:
No question of 'if'... just 'when'
| Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif finally? was there ever a question? at all? |
No question of 'if'... just 'when'
tstarn06
Banned
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Posts
- 7,929
- Likes
- 10
You beat me to the review I would have written, so no reason to duplicate. But I would like to second your view of the highs on the Turbines. Bass has tamed after burn-in (50 hours) and mids are very strong, sound very good. But there has been something all along that has sort of bugged me about the highs, and I couldn't put my finger on it. I started to wonder if it was the bitrate on some of my collection tracks, but when I listened to them on the Phonaks, no treble problems/distortion.
It is very subtle, hard to describe. Just something niggling about the highs sounding watery or something along those lines. And you are right, not enough to be a deal-breaking harshness or distortion issue, but something, um, synthetic about it. And it's not on every track for me, eithter. On balance I can deal with it fine (I also use the smaller silicones, which are a good fit, but I also have used T400s with the Turbines as well). Just nice to hear someone else hear the same things when it comes from the Turbine treble. Not sure if more burn-in/use will cause it to dissipate, but doubtful.
FYI, just from something I have read, the slick design of the driver housing is taken from Monster's Turbine plugs on their AV cables, so they just "transplanted" the turbine design to these canal phones.
I guess I am piggybacking on your review to do mine. I also agree with the balance of your review, but I just seem to have good luck on the mircrophonics angle, as I use the Turbines to walk and when clipped to my jacket with a shirt clip (which I do for every phone I own that is not an over the ear design). Never anything too bad noise-wise. But I guess, as Shigzeo noted, it's probably because of the shirt clip. I recommend that Monster include one or two with the Turbines. As for strain relief, Monster could do better on future releases, put a little more heft into making the more durable. Though I haven't had any issues yet (but I treat most of my IEMs very well)
I am also using a Touch unamped (I didn't get any sense of improvement when I did hook the Turbines up to an amp) with a variety of music, so our experience is the same there too.
On all the other fronts ... speed, comfort, detail, soundstage, isloation, etc., I am in total agreement with your analysis. On balance, a very good dynamic canal phone, much better to my ears than dynamic phones like the Denon 700/751, the Atrio M5 (I have owned both), but to me, still not as ear-pleasing as the Phonaks, which are single armature phones in the same general price range. Worth $150? I believe so, if you are into dynamic phones and want a solid all-around performer with few flaws and some very strong benefits.
Well, that's my review, with many thanks to azcookiecutter for writing most of it. Why reinvent the wheel?
Quote:
It is very subtle, hard to describe. Just something niggling about the highs sounding watery or something along those lines. And you are right, not enough to be a deal-breaking harshness or distortion issue, but something, um, synthetic about it. And it's not on every track for me, eithter. On balance I can deal with it fine (I also use the smaller silicones, which are a good fit, but I also have used T400s with the Turbines as well). Just nice to hear someone else hear the same things when it comes from the Turbine treble. Not sure if more burn-in/use will cause it to dissipate, but doubtful.
FYI, just from something I have read, the slick design of the driver housing is taken from Monster's Turbine plugs on their AV cables, so they just "transplanted" the turbine design to these canal phones.
I guess I am piggybacking on your review to do mine. I also agree with the balance of your review, but I just seem to have good luck on the mircrophonics angle, as I use the Turbines to walk and when clipped to my jacket with a shirt clip (which I do for every phone I own that is not an over the ear design). Never anything too bad noise-wise. But I guess, as Shigzeo noted, it's probably because of the shirt clip. I recommend that Monster include one or two with the Turbines. As for strain relief, Monster could do better on future releases, put a little more heft into making the more durable. Though I haven't had any issues yet (but I treat most of my IEMs very well)
I am also using a Touch unamped (I didn't get any sense of improvement when I did hook the Turbines up to an amp) with a variety of music, so our experience is the same there too.
On all the other fronts ... speed, comfort, detail, soundstage, isloation, etc., I am in total agreement with your analysis. On balance, a very good dynamic canal phone, much better to my ears than dynamic phones like the Denon 700/751, the Atrio M5 (I have owned both), but to me, still not as ear-pleasing as the Phonaks, which are single armature phones in the same general price range. Worth $150? I believe so, if you are into dynamic phones and want a solid all-around performer with few flaws and some very strong benefits.
Well, that's my review, with many thanks to azcookiecutter for writing most of it. Why reinvent the wheel?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by azncookiecutter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice review, shigzeo. Guess it's time for me to post my final impressions too. Probably won't be as long-winded as shigzeo's review, but I'll try. I'm basing these opinions on what equipment I'm using, which is an iPod Touch, unamped, with no EQ applied. For Monster, the music I'm using to test these are mainly rock, with some hip-hop, rap, and jazz thrown in. Soundwise, for their price, they'll appeal to bass lovers, for sure. The midbass hump is pretty significant, and if Monster's goal was to make them feel like subwoofers, then they've achieved their job. There is definitely a emphasis on bass on the Turbine. After burn-in, the mids and highs don't seem out of place or overpowered, which is a good thing, especially compared to pre-burn in. Mids sound great, nothing much to complain there for me. Highs, however, sound a bit weird for me. Hard to explain it, but perhaps it may be a bit tizzy or harsh? Not sure how to describe it. However, they're tolerable, so maybe it's going to be a personal thing to others. The speed, or attack, of the Turbines are shading towards the slow side, but not to the point of molasses slow. They're definitely not Grado-quick. They're also very detailed. Many little nuances can be heard with these buds. The soundstage is as wide as any IEM I've heard. Can't recall the exact soundstage of the triple.fis when I owned them, but I believe they're in the neighbourhood. The sound is definitely not enclosed just in your head, which is good. Asthetically, the Turbine look amazing. The buds itself have weight in them, and feels like class all over. The little detailing marks on the buds (resembling turbines, duh) are top notch, and give the buds a distinctive look. The cable is a huge issue though, as shizgeo stated in his review. The plug itself is a straight plug, which wouldn't be so bad if there was more strain relief on it. It's hard and inflexible, which would lead concerns about the reliability headphone jack and/or the plug itself. Time will tell on this one, as I have had no problems so far. In addition, the cable itself is very microphonic, at least compared to my UM2. The Westone cables are probably the best cables for all universal IEMs, and I think many would agree with me on this one. It's lightweight, tough, and non-microphonic in most cases. Comparing the cables from the Turbine to the UM2, the Turbines are completely outclassed. One thing that Monster can improve on perhaps in the next generation of the Turbines. The isolation that the Turbines provide are adequate, but are nothing special. I'm using the small tips provided by Monster. The large triflanges were too uncomfortable, and the small ones did not provide a seal whatsover, so I'm basing this opinion on the small regular tips. Comparing to a pure IEM (UM2, E4, SE530), the isolation is less, maybe on a factor of 20%? It's fine for on-the-go use, but for me, compared to my UM2, I have to turn up the volume a notch higher. Another good item to include in the box would be foam tips, as that would probably provide a better seal for many people. On the issue of comfort, they're fine for me. Ears would get irritated wearing them for 2+ hours, but that happens with any IEM for me, so comparatively to every IEM I've tried, they're good. Especially compared to the triple.fis, they fit in my ears much better, as the triple.fis were much too large to fit comfortably. The box it came in is also classy. It looks great, feels tough, and opening it provides a very classy feeling to it. No qualms about it, probably one of the best box-opening experiences for IEMs. Overall, for the price they're commanding, they're a good buy. Especially if you're looking for bass-oriented in-ears, then the Turbines are worth a look at. There are a few things that Monster can improve for these in-ears, but nothing are showstopping. To Monster, kudos, you made a great first try to the IEM market. |
soozieq
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Posts
- 3,210
- Likes
- 20
Just in case any new members are reading this, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), that when tstarn06 said the Turbines were better to his ears than the Atrio M5 and C700, he was referring to the Atrio v1 (not v2), and a pair of C700 which hadn't been burned in. No doubt, from what I've read here, the Turbines really do improve on the other 2 phones, but for the sake of clarity, it's worth pointing out which version of earphone is being referred to in the comparison, and whether the phones have been burned in or not, especially when the C700/C751 burn-in time is quite well documented in various threads.
I have phones in my profile that I sent back before full burn-in (Sony EX700 for example), and I never compare them with anything else, because my views wouldn't be based on the 'final' sound, which is apparently very different to how they sound in the first few hours. I just think it's helpful for people to say whether their views on phones are based on pre burn-in time, or not. As for the Turbines, I'm getting quite curious myself, since I love the idea of a nice pair of back up phones. Both my C700 and C551 went to good homes recently, so I'm on the lookout again
I have phones in my profile that I sent back before full burn-in (Sony EX700 for example), and I never compare them with anything else, because my views wouldn't be based on the 'final' sound, which is apparently very different to how they sound in the first few hours. I just think it's helpful for people to say whether their views on phones are based on pre burn-in time, or not. As for the Turbines, I'm getting quite curious myself, since I love the idea of a nice pair of back up phones. Both my C700 and C551 went to good homes recently, so I'm on the lookout again
communic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Posts
- 255
- Likes
- 14
Quote:
Was interested in maybe importing the turbines until I read this single comment! I have a very good idea of what it sounds like, not sibilance, moreso a slight sizzle that makes some highs sound rustic.
Nice review though, pretty much covers all bases.
| Originally Posted by azncookiecutter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Highs, however, sound a bit weird for me. Hard to explain it, but perhaps it may be a bit tizzy or harsh? Not sure how to describe it. However, they're tolerable, so maybe it's going to be a personal thing to others. |
Was interested in maybe importing the turbines until I read this single comment! I have a very good idea of what it sounds like, not sibilance, moreso a slight sizzle that makes some highs sound rustic.
Nice review though, pretty much covers all bases.
tstarn06
Banned
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Posts
- 7,929
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
True about the Denons not being burned in (they were much too harsh and I didn't want to wait to return them. At the time, the burn-in issue was relatively new, as I recall), but even with that, and based on some other comments about the Denons vs. the Turbines I think I saw posted, I doubt even the burned in Denons would outperform the Turbines on balance.
As for the Atrios, I recently saw conflicting views of the v1 and v2. One poster said the v1 had more detail and better mids/highs than v2, while the other poster says completely the opposite. Just ran into it the other days on a Turbine v. Atrio thread, I believe. So yes, I had v1, but again, my view is that even with v2, the Turbines are probably a notch better, based on those conflicted reports.
But that's just my opinion, as are most reviews/observations on Head-Fi.
| Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just in case any new members are reading this, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), that when tstarn06 said the Turbines were better to his ears than the Atrio M5 and C700, he was referring to the Atrio v1 (not v2), and a pair of C700 which hadn't been burned in. No doubt, from what I've read here, the Turbines really do improve on the other 2 phones, but for the sake of clarity, it's worth pointing out which version of earphone is being referred to in the comparison, and whether the phones have been burned in or not, especially when the C700/C751 burn-in time is quite well documented in various threads. I have phones in my profile that I sent back before full burn-in (Sony EX700 for example), and I never compare them with anything else, because my views wouldn't be based on the 'final' sound, which is apparently very different to how they sound in the first few hours. I just think it's helpful for people to say whether their views on phones are based on pre burn-in time, or not. As for the Turbines, I'm getting quite curious myself, since I love the idea of a nice pair of back up phones. Both my C700 and C551 went to good homes recently, so I'm on the lookout again
|
True about the Denons not being burned in (they were much too harsh and I didn't want to wait to return them. At the time, the burn-in issue was relatively new, as I recall), but even with that, and based on some other comments about the Denons vs. the Turbines I think I saw posted, I doubt even the burned in Denons would outperform the Turbines on balance.
As for the Atrios, I recently saw conflicting views of the v1 and v2. One poster said the v1 had more detail and better mids/highs than v2, while the other poster says completely the opposite. Just ran into it the other days on a Turbine v. Atrio thread, I believe. So yes, I had v1, but again, my view is that even with v2, the Turbines are probably a notch better, based on those conflicted reports.
But that's just my opinion, as are most reviews/observations on Head-Fi.
soozieq
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Posts
- 3,210
- Likes
- 20
Quote:
Yes, it was. But I meant that the burn-in issue was well documented at the time you compared them with the Turbines, that's all. For me (I don't know about anyone else), but I find it useful to know if impressions/comparisons are based on pre, or post burn-in times, and also how long the owner has used them for. It just gives a bigger picture.
| Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif True about the Denons not being burned in (they were much too harsh and I didn't want to wait to return them. At the time, the burn-in issue was relatively new, as I recall) |
Yes, it was. But I meant that the burn-in issue was well documented at the time you compared them with the Turbines, that's all. For me (I don't know about anyone else), but I find it useful to know if impressions/comparisons are based on pre, or post burn-in times, and also how long the owner has used them for. It just gives a bigger picture.
tstarn06
Banned
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Posts
- 7,929
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
My bad. I agree. And my Turbines are pretty well burned in, but not at 100+ hour levels or anything. My Atrio comparison was based on my admittedly faded memory of the Atrios, v1, which were burned in. In fact, I really liked the M5s, but desired more sparkle and they just didn't have it even with burn-in. The Turbines do, with that treble caveat that both azcookiecutter and I noted (though other reviewers/posters, Dobber65, Shigzeo and Epithetless) didn't mention.
Here's the link to the post where two Head-Fi'ers had opposite views of the Atrio v1 vs. v2.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5452286-post57.html
| Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, it was. But I meant that the burn-in issue was well documented at the time you compared them with the Turbines, that's all. For me (I don't know about anyone else), but I find it useful to know if impressions/comparisons are based on pre, or post burn-in times, and also how long the owner has used them for. It just gives a bigger picture. |
My bad. I agree. And my Turbines are pretty well burned in, but not at 100+ hour levels or anything. My Atrio comparison was based on my admittedly faded memory of the Atrios, v1, which were burned in. In fact, I really liked the M5s, but desired more sparkle and they just didn't have it even with burn-in. The Turbines do, with that treble caveat that both azcookiecutter and I noted (though other reviewers/posters, Dobber65, Shigzeo and Epithetless) didn't mention.
Here's the link to the post where two Head-Fi'ers had opposite views of the Atrio v1 vs. v2.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5452286-post57.html
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
here it is! the prestige!
tstarn06
Banned
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Posts
- 7,929
- Likes
- 10
huh?
Users who are viewing this thread
