[cn11]

Quote:

Originally Posted by epithetless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well put, cn11 (the entire post, but I especially like the "cauterized all the fun out" ). I don't find the Turbines particularly laid-back myself (in comparison to, say, the IE8s, which I would describe that way), but it's all a matter of relativity, I guess. I wonder if what most people characterize as "aggressive" or not laid-back is what I tend to find harsh, in which case my threshold for in-ear excitement may just be lower than the norm.

I'd agree with you in that assessment of amount of laid-back. The IE8's are uber laid-back (the best I've heard in that regard), while the Turbines are pretty laid-back, and the Atrios are not so much so. Then you have the Denon C551 & C700 which I used to think were pretty laid-back, but in comparison to the Turbines seem more harsh now.

 

[Dobber65]

To Ed, I understand your concerns if a high-end universal IEM can be bested by something half to one-third the price. I was skeptical when I received my review pair (coming from most of the past-generation Shures, and my current favorite BA IEM TFP). The Turbines really changed my mind in what a dynamic driver can provide. Maybe the ultimate difference besides range is that the dynamic driver can provide a more phase-coherent soundwave compared to multi-driver BA IEMs. Whatever it was, the Turbines have become my favorite IEM right now. I still swap among the Turbines, TFP, SE530, and even my Etys. They are all good, just a different sound presentation. I am impressed that the Turbines can compete in this company.

cn11, glad to hear you are enjoying these also. Personal preference in fit and sound seem to be the driver for what IEM to use. These still sound incredible and capture timbre very very well (if you like acoustic music, these are what I recommend). And as others have said, they reproduce the "fun" in music without sacrificing anything (at least to me). Very Grado-like in that regard, but possibly even a better sound than most Grados.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif oarnura, from your description of a dark and slow iem, it seems to me that the turbines are simply dark and laid back in other words warm. The same is said about the hd650's and they aren't bad in fact may regard them to be at the top. The turbines are laid back and I like that, its a nice change from the etys that I listen to.

I always thought laid back meant that the sound was not forward in the soundstage.

Stereophile: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary
laid-back Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange. See "Row-M sound." Compare "forward.""


fast Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it. (A "fast woofer" would seem to be an oxymoron, but this usage refers to a woofer tuning that does not boom, make the music sound "slow," obscure musical phrasing, or lead to "one-note bass.") Similar to "taut," but referring to the entire audio-frequency range instead of just the bass.

fat The sonic effect of a moderate exaggeration of the mid- and upper-bass ranges. Excessively "warm."


The Turbine sounds a little fat too me. It is better now that it has burnt in but still a little fat sounding.

Quote:

And if a characteristic, like slow decay actually sounds good for other types of music, then its part of the signature of the iem not really a problem with it. I think that the decay for the etys are too fast and I have difficulty enjoying vocals like norah jones or diana krall with them, but they sound great with the turbines (which sound close to the se530s).

I don't think there is anything as too fast a decay. The sound should end when the signal is gone.

A great test for this is the Bass Resonance Test (track 43) of the Best of Chesky Jazz and More Audiophile test CD. I just got the test disc last week.

I just tested the Phonak, Shure SCL4 and Turbines with this today from my iPhone 3G with Apple Lossless rip.

The Phonak does really well in this test. The bass string pluck is clear and the body is defined and not boomy. The SCL4 does well too but the bass is better on the phonak. The string pluck requires a fairly fast system to reproduce. Chesky claims this is a very tough test for a system. The Phonak each string pluck is crystal clear. With the SCL4 the string pluck is clear but the bass isn't as well resolved as on the Phonak.

The Turbine doesn't do so well. The string pluck is unclear and the bass note after the pluck is missing definition and is overpowering the strings that follow the initial pluck so it has a lot of bass but the details are smeared. It is hard to tell strings are being plucked to create the bass note that you hear.

The Bassist is 3 feet from the microphone and 20 feet from any wall of the studio. So there should be no resonance induced by the walls. But on the turbines the bass note seems to resonate as if the walls are coming into play.

I compared the 3 IEMs to my home stereo which has been room equalized and has a very good musical sub. The Phonak, SCL4 and my Stereo sound pretty close to each other. The Phonak being the closest to the Stereo. The Turbine smears the details because the note doesn't decay fast enough.

I am not sure if that is the best that can be expected of a Dynamic driver. Headphone Addict has a similar complaint about the IE8.

To my ears that's the consensus. However, some might consider the Phonak bass light, depending on their frame of reference. They might consider the Turbine to have done better just because it has more bass and the detail of the strings doesn't matter to them.

Quote:

I dunno I think most people readily admit certain *Flaws and imperfections as characteristics to "good" <preconceived good headphones like the W3 (remember all those folks saying the sibilance was good and part of the sound sig) versus calling them flaws immediately as in the case of the Turbines. But I think your right that the turbines sound differently and that's the problem, you can't really judge what is good on bad if theyre just different. I gotta try me some phonaks

The Turbines are more consumer focused where effort is made to sound polite and "fun". Which usually means recessed mids, mid-bass emphasis (overall more bass emphasis) and very polite highs. Monster doesn't even publish tech specs for the Turbine.

Phonak, Shure and PMC(my speaker manufacturer) are all professional gear oriented where frequency response and accuracy is more important.

For a consumer oriented phone even though it is not very detailed the Turbine is good or pretty good for a dynamic phone. IMO though the Phonak is a superior product.

 

[tstarn06]

X2 on the Phonak/Turbine comparison, and I already went on record as saying I like the Turbines, but mainly as on the go fun phones. The word "cauterize" came up describing the Phonaks, primarily in a negative context (they take out the fun of listening). Sure, they are accurate, but hardly on the same analytical, harsh level as, say, the Etys. The Phonaks can be warm (I prefer the warmer black filters), and with a little help, say the T4 amp, they really outperform the Turbines on a few levels (clarity, bass accuracy are two). Are they different phones? Sure. But the Phonaks really can deliver their amazing detail in a warm, ear-pleasing way - not as some laser-like, sibilant pair of IEMs.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif X2 on the Phonak/Turbine comparison, and I already went on record as saying I like the Turbines, but mainly as on the go fun phones. The word "cauterize" came up describing the Phonaks, primarily in a negative context (they take out the fun of listening). Sure, they are accurate, but hardly on the same analytical, harsh level as, say, the Etys. The Phonaks can be warm (I prefer the warmer black filters), and with a little help, say the T4 amp, they really outperform the Turbines on a few levels (clarity, bass accuracy are two). Are they different phones? Sure. But the Phonaks really can deliver their amazing detail in a warm, ear-pleasing way - not as some laser-like, sibilant pair of IEMs.

I need to mention I did the test with the Grey filters. Sometimes it takes a well mastered test CD to really understand an IEM. The Chesky disc and the test I did a few minutes ago were an eye opener.

That is a great test disc.

 

[thedips]

very interstng and complete reviews. Now to get a pair myself I wish I could still sign ip to review pesonally

 

[pdupiano]

I'll try to grab a copy of the cd and try it out comparing the Etys and the turbines, from what I've read the phonaks are comprable to the etys so I can use the etys as the baseline for comparing the Turbines. But I definitely agree that the Turbines aren't as detailed, check my previous posts where the Turbines do this:

^__^_^ instead of
^^^^^

And when I mean fast decay (as you point out its impossible to be fast) I think what I'm trying to say is that the sound becomes sterile. I still hold today that the Etys are very sterile and that's why I've long preferred the shures and others over them when I'm not doing critical listening. The catch is I've seen these artists perform live and I've never heard their music so sharp live its very warm and laid back especially during acoustic performances where its like a small bar and you have at most 30 people there. So when I go back home and hear them using the etys its such a surreal and unreal experience. But when I listen to them on the shures and even the Turbines, it brings back bits of the concert and they seem more realistic.

I wouldn't doubt that the Turbines are more consumer oriented, but if you make this distinction between professional gear and consumer gear I have to ask, is professional gear unnatural sounding? I've been having a long discussion with a friend of mine for a long time now and I've had to result into pulling out fletcher munson charts to show him that the human ear should not perceive the high end at equal volumes as the rest of the spectrum and for the longest time I've been in the position that the etys and UE tft pro aren't realistic and natural because of the bright and (what seems to me) an exaggerated high end. Now The Shures are a profesional product and in fact prior to getting my se530's I only knew of shure as a mic company that I used a lot so its definitely professional audio. But their SE530's have a RADICALLY different Frequency response to any other IEM currently out there in the market. While others have extended their high end I feel that Shure has developed one of the most realistic iems that react closest to the way our ears would react to different frequencies. Its warm with a nice forward presentation of the mids, well controlled bass and a high end that sounds the most natural. And Headfiers consistently attack this high end. I guess the real point that I'm trying to make is making the distinction between pro/consumer audio is a bit odd since headfiers will tend to lean on either way. But perhaps your correct in stating that professional audio tries much more at improving detail over other characteristics which is evident by the shures/etys and sennheiser and akg products I've tried in the past.

Oh and thank you for the info on the audiophile test cd, I placed an order for the best of chesky jazz. Are there any other tracks that you can recommend to test iems for their bass/mid and high responses? Anything at all that allows you to really separate each iem from one another. Thanks again for your feedback

 

[oarnura]

I started watching this and think this should be interesting to some on this forum.
Philoctetes - Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oarnura /img/forum/go_quote.gif A great test for this is the Bass Resonance Test (track 43) of the Best of Chesky Jazz and More Audiophile test CD. I just got the test disc last week. I just tested the Phonak, Shure SCL4 and Turbines with this today from my iPhone 3G with Apple Lossless rip. The Phonak does really well in this test. The bass string pluck is clear and the body is defined and not boomy. The SCL4 does well too but the bass is better on the phonak. The string pluck requires a fairly fast system to reproduce. Chesky claims this is a very tough test for a system. The Phonak each string pluck is crystal clear. With the SCL4 the string pluck is clear but the bass isn't as well resolved as on the Phonak. The Turbine doesn't do so well. The string pluck is unclear and the bass note after the pluck is missing definition and is overpowering the strings that follow the initial pluck so it has a lot of bass but the details are smeared. It is hard to tell strings are being plucked to create the bass note that you hear. The Bassist is 3 feet from the microphone and 20 feet from any wall of the studio. So there should be no resonance induced by the walls. But on the turbines the bass note seems to resonate as if the walls are coming into play. I compared the 3 IEMs to my home stereo which has been room equalized and has a very good musical sub. The Phonak, SCL4 and my Stereo sound pretty close to each other. The Phonak being the closest to the Stereo. The Turbine smears the details because the note doesn't decay fast enough. I am not sure if that is the best that can be expected of a Dynamic driver. Headphone Addict has a similar complaint about the IE8.

Yes, that is very similar to what I recently posted about the Phonak (and W3) reproducing some string bass recordings better than IE8.

 

[cn11]

Well I think the Phonaks displayed 'premature decay' with my Sony.

I'm sure I wasn't hearing them at their ideal since I don't have a Touch with true LOD, or the amp that does the best job with them, but all of my other earphones display perfectly fine decay and speed to my ears with it. I'm not changing my whole setup just to try to get the Phonaks more speedy.

 

[oarnura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif The catch is I've seen these artists perform live and I've never heard their music so sharp live its very warm and laid back especially during acoustic performances where its like a small bar and you have at most 30 people there. So when I go back home and hear them using the etys its such a surreal and unreal experience. But when I listen to them on the shures and even the Turbines, it brings back bits of the concert and they seem more realistic.

45 minutes into the video I posted is an excellent discussion that talks about this.

The bottom line is every venue is different. A small bar has different acoustics than a different small bar.

For example, I went to a concert in 2002 at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. I heard the same Artist perform in 2007 at the Oracle Arena in Oakland. The difference was night and day. The Cow Palace show was incredible it sounded so good I thought they weren't really playing live they were just playing a CD. The Artist even did a totally unplugged version of songs to prove that they were playing live. At the Oracle Arena the concert just sounded horrible. It could have been the different seats, Sound Systems, acoustics of the venue.

Live isn't always the best performance. There are too many factors that affect the sound. Some that the artist has no control over.

Quote:

Now The Shures are a profesional product and in fact prior to getting my se530's I only knew of shure as a mic company that I used a lot so its definitely professional audio. But their SE530's have a RADICALLY different Frequency response to any other IEM currently out there in the market. While others have extended their high end I feel that Shure has developed one of the most realistic iems that react closest to the way our ears would react to different frequencies. Its warm with a nice forward presentation of the mids, well controlled bass and a high end that sounds the most natural. And Headfiers consistently attack this high end. I guess the real point that I'm trying to make is making the distinction between pro/consumer audio is a bit odd since headfiers will tend to lean on either way.

Shure has a SCL line that they have in their pro section. The SE line is meant to be for personal audio use.


Quote:

Oh and thank you for the info on the audiophile test cd, I placed an order for the best of chesky jazz. Are there any other tracks that you can recommend to test iems for their bass/mid and high responses? Anything at all that allows you to really separate each iem from one another. Thanks again for your feedback

I used to use my music and decided to get a dedicated CD for testing to my new Sub to my stereo.

Amazon.com: Ultimate Demonstration Disc: Chesky Records' Guide to Critical Listening: Various Artists: Music

That is supposed to be a good one too. I haven't used it yet.

 

[aBc.CaN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cn11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I feel that my Turbines are fully burned in now, after not quite a week of use. They didn't seem to transform as much as the IE8's, or over such a long time period. From one basshead to another, I think you have the three top bass phones listed there. It's very hard to quantify the bass of each in comparison to the other. However, I tend to think that the IE8's have the best of the bunch. They have 90-95% of the ultimate extension of the Atrios, but with more tightness. They sort of 'whack' harder. The Atrio's bass is a little more wooly. The Turbines are very very close to the IE8 bass. In fact, they sound like the little brother to the IE8's in many ways. They just don't quite have the treble and soundstage refinement of the IE8's. But I think they're one heck of a value for their retail. The bass of the Turbines is sort of a combination of the IE8's and Atrios, meaning they have a little more wooliness than the IE8's, but are a bit tighter than the Atrios. Overall, the Atrios seem like the least refined earphone of the lot. Hope this helps. You really can't go wrong with any of the three if bass is your favorite part of the sound signature. It comes down to budget I suppose. Atrios can be had for about $130, the Turbines are about $149, and the IE8's range anywhere from $230-ish (depending if you can find that retailer with actual stock on hand) to full retail of $449.

I pretty much anticipated this outcome. Thank you so much for "penning" your thoughts. You have done it so well. I recently went to Jaben (headphone store in Singapore) and listened to the UE10, 530, UM2, TFP10, W3, Atrio, and Edition 9. And you know what? Liked my ex700 the best! lol... well I like the Edition 9 more, but the margin wasn't as big as I was expecting. I used someone's iPod, loseless music, with a popular amp, can't remember the name, might start with a "c". My second favourite IEM was the TFP10, such a crystal clear sound! I really can't wait to hear the IE8, I hope it kicks my ex700, for some reason I want to upgrade! I know I'm missing low bass on my ex700, but I think it does everything else so well. I think if I can get a DAP that I can EQ below 50Hhz I would probably be happy. How long will I have to wait for the Cowon D3!?!

Disclaimer - I have bad hearing and bad general concenus judgements, so of course I only speak for myself!

 

[cn11]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aBc.CaN /img/forum/go_quote.gif I pretty much anticipated this outcome. Thank you so much for "penning" your thoughts. You have done it so well. I recently went to Jaben (headphone store in Singapore) and listened to the UE10, 530, UM2, TFP10, W3, Atrio, and Edition 9. And you know what? Liked my ex700 the best! lol... well I like the Edition 9 more, but the margin wasn't as big as I was expecting. I used someone's iPod, loseless music, with a popular amp, can't remember the name, might start with a "c". My second favourite IEM was the TFP10, such a crystal clear sound! I really can't wait to hear the IE8, I hope it kicks my ex700, for some reason I want to upgrade! I know I'm missing low bass on my ex700, but I think it does everything else so well. I think if I can get a DAP that I can EQ below 50Hhz I would probably be happy. How long will I have to wait for the Cowon D3!?! Disclaimer - I have bad hearing and bad general concenus judgements, so of course I only speak for myself!

You're quite welcome, and thank you for the kind remarks. I too liked the TF10's very much, unfortunately they just managed to keep breaking seal no matter what tip I tried. If you feel the urge to try the IE8's I think you'll find them very enjoyable as well coming from the TF10's. Just be sure not to form any solid impressions of them early on since they do evolve over time, up to around the 150 hr. mark.

 

[jowens]

I ordered mine last Wednesday from Buy.com with the short lived $96 price.
Got them on Monday.

Based on the packaging, warranty card. etc.. they are legit.
Exactly as pictured in all of the ad copy, reviews here etc...

Sound is good so far, but am just starting to burn them in.

Bass as advertized, but a nice overall balance even out of the box.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dobber65 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To Ed, I understand your concerns if a high-end universal IEM can be bested by something half to one-third the price. I was skeptical when I received my review pair (coming from most of the past-generation Shures, and my current favorite BA IEM TFP). The Turbines really changed my mind in what a dynamic driver can provide. Maybe the ultimate difference besides range is that the dynamic driver can provide a more phase-coherent soundwave compared to multi-driver BA IEMs. Whatever it was, the Turbines have become my favorite IEM right now. I still swap among the Turbines, TFP, SE530, and even my Etys. They are all good, just a different sound presentation. I am impressed that the Turbines can compete in this company.

I'm not saying they are not going to be offering great bang for the buck ratio. But, I'll have to check them out later to decide for myself later, but my I'm guessing that most people are initially confusing quantity with quality.

-Ed