[drftr]

The 1020 may work, I also have a 1040.. I think that can fit in a backpack without issue.

1015 would be big enough for just the DAP. 1040 may work for both the DAP and a coiled up IEM with the cable, but I'm not sure whether it would leave space for some kind of soft separator. I do actually prefer 1 case over 2. Drawing board exercise tomorrow!

drftr

 

[drftr]

Reminds me of that old Lexus tagline... "The Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection"

"The enemy of good is perfect"

drftr

 

[gLer]

Reminds me of that old Lexus tagline... "The Relentless Pursuit Of Perfection"

My point being, many people seek perfection without understanding how to find it (or more to the point, that it doesn't exist). Oftentimes when a track is poorly recorded, or mastered, or lossy, no level of gear is going to improve it. If anything, high-end stuff will probably make it sound worse.

 

[wazzupi]

Viking is like my dream to have one. Ragnar SQ with the look and quality to match it SQ. Look so beautiful.

Just received the Brise Yatono 8w last night omg the spaciousness the blackground the resolution !!! imaging/layering is at another level it's just so smooth precise and clean but still musical. I listen to mostly rock/prog stuff.

 

[Deezel177]

My point being, many people seek perfection without understanding how to find it (or more to the point, that it doesn't exist). Oftentimes when a track is poorly recorded, or mastered, or lossy, no level of gear is going to improve it. If anything, high-end stuff will probably make it sound worse.

I remember when I was reviewing the EE ODIN, I'd just played a Snarky Puppy track that sounded awesome and open, and it filled the IEM's stage top-to-bottom, left-to-right. Then, I switched over to Michael Bublé's Haven't Met You Yet, and I couldn't help but laugh as the ODIN spat out the track in the form of a shrill, tightly-compressed ball, smack-dab in the middle of the soundscape. It was downright hilarious.

It's also interesting to note that the rest of that Bublé album was actually well-mastered. Dynamically, it sounded open, and it had a gorgeously-rich tone. It was just that one track, which, if you remember, came out first as a single and was semi-designed to go viral on the pop radio stations. That alone should tell you how diverse mastering can be, even on the same album, and how quickly art is sacrificed at the prospect of profit.

 

[gLer]

I remember when I was reviewing the EE ODIN, I'd just played a Snarky Puppy track that sounded awesome and open, and it filled the IEM's stage top-to-bottom, left-to-right. Then, I switched over to Michael Bublé's Haven't Met You Yet, and I couldn't help but laugh as the ODIN spat out the track in the form of a shrill, tightly-compressed ball, smack-dab in the middle of the soundscape. It was downright hilarious.

It's also interesting to note that the rest of that Bublé album was actually well-mastered. Dynamically, it sounded open, and it had a gorgeously-rich tone. It was just that one track, which, if you remember, came out first as a single and was semi-designed to go viral on the pop radio stations. That alone should tell you how diverse mastering can be, even on the same album, and how quickly art is sacrificed at the prospect of profit.

I've always been curious as to why someone would buy a super high-end, transparent, state-of-the-art IEM (or DAP) and then use it to play highly compressed, poorly mastered or lossy music. Surely that last 5-10% performance gained by going high-end is simply thrown away before it even gets to the transducer? Then there are some genres purposefully recorded to sound like poop, like certain genres of metal (not commenting on the genre, just the intentional 'artistic' delivery), which then results in endless debates as to which IEM is best suited for said playback.

It reminds me of a conversation I read between a luxury car dealer and a buyer, where the buyer walks up to one of the supercars on the showroom floor and asks "is this a smooth ride", to which the dealer replies "depends where you drive it".

 

[drftr]

I've always been curious as to why someone would buy a super high-end, transparent, state-of-the-art IEM (or DAP) and then use it to play highly compressed, poorly mastered or lossy music. Surely that last 5-10% performance gained by going high-end is simply thrown away before it even gets to the transducer? Then there are some genres purposefully recorded to sound like poop, like certain genres of metal (not commenting on the genre, just the intentional 'artistic' delivery), which then results in endless debates as to which IEM is best suited for said playback.

It reminds me of a conversation I read between a luxury car dealer and a buyer, where the buyer walks up to one of the supercars on the showroom floor and asks "is this a smooth ride", to which the dealer replies "depends where you drive it".

Not sure if your point is valid, for me. Within my preferences my goal is to get as close to the recording as possible. If that sounds great then I want to get as close as possible. If it sounds like sh!t then I want to get as close as possible to that too. You don't always get to pick a different mastering for an album so what you buy is as good as it gets. Better try to make the most out of it.

drftr

 

[gLer]

Not sure if your point is valid, for me. Within my preferences my goal is to get as close to the recording as possible. If that sounds great then I want to get as close as possible. If it sounds like sh!t then I want to get as close as possible to that too. You don't always get to pick a different mastering for an album so what you buy is as good as it gets. Better try to make the most out of it.

drftr

I'm not sure that makes sense, or that I totally understand what you're trying to say (my bad, not yours!), but if the idea is that you look for the best possible way to hear your music library in its best possible version, then I think we're on the same page. "Get as close to the recording as possible" sounds suspiciously like "as the artist intended". Do you actively seek out the best possible version of whatever recording you're listening to, for instance?

 

[drftr]

I'm not sure that makes sense, or that I totally understand what you're trying to say (my bad, not yours!), but if the idea is that you look for the best possible way to hear your music library in its best possible version, then I think we're on the same page. "Get as close to the recording as possible" sounds suspiciously like "as the artist intended". Do you actively seek out the best possible version of whatever recording you're listening to, for instance?

There is no way I can get closer to the recording than the one that is offered to me no matter whether it was someone's intention or not. If a recording is terribly bright then I don't want to buy an IEM with attenuated treble to make up for it while masking certain qualities at the same time. I accept that only few recordings sound great. A big chunk of time I'm listening to pre 50s classical mono recordings in bad quality because that's simply the best possible available for that performance. But there's no way I'd pick a "bad IEM" because the source doesn't sound good anyway. Instead I try to make the most out of it.

drftr

 

[warrenpchi]

You're up @Skyediver!

 

[kadinh]

You can do better than the LCD-XC - just saying.

ive read a lot of good things about them. I had the LCD-X before and really liked them, but wanted to experience more headphones, so I sold them. Plus, I'm looking to fund the headphones with the money I get from selling the IEMs.

Z1R more intimate?

To me, they dont sound as wide and tall as the Indigo does

Looks

Interesting. I think you hit on why the Indigos never quite worked for me - the lack of coherence in the FR. That and a midrange timbre that sounded a bit off to me. I did like the bass and most of the treble. But then the ZR1s excel in both those departments... that's why they remain and the Indigos are gone...

I can agree, the indigo does sound a bit incoherent at times; I feel that the male vocals are better on the Indigo as well

You should give the Focal Stellia a good college try..

TBH, I’m looking for planar headphones, plus to fund the new headphones with the $ I get from selling the Z1R. the Stellia's would be 2x the price from what I could get for the Sonys.

I'd recommend the XTC-C from JM Audio personally for less than 1/3rd the price new.

interesting, they look very nice, I have not heard of them before.

I think z1r is a keeper and won’t describe it as intimate.

btw, check out the ZMF VC or AC if are looking for closed headphone or the Caldera planar

I would LOVE to get the ZMF VC, but I have never hear them before; actually I have never heard any ZMF cans before. I was leaning toward planar drivers with the Audeze, plus I have heard a lot of good things about them. I think I liked my LCD-X more than the HD800s and Arya in an overall sense.

 

[gLer]

There is no way I can get closer to the recording than the one that is offered to me no matter whether it was someone's intention or not. If a recording is terribly bright then I don't want to buy an IEM with attenuated treble to make up for it while masking certain qualities at the same time. I accept that only few recordings sound great. A big chunk of time I'm listening to pre 50s classical mono recordings in bad quality because that's simply the best possible available for that performance. But there's no way I'd pick a "bad IEM" because the source doesn't sound good anyway. Instead I try to make the most out of it.

drftr

Totally get it. You buy the IEM that sounds best to you with your library. I think the original point I made, following on from the whole discussion on mastering, is that often something sounds crap because it's recorded or mastered that way, not because the IEM or source is bad. And sometimes, a very good IEM has the opposite effect in that it makes a poor recording sound even worse (because of how resolving or transparent it is, so you get to hear all the imperfections in great detail). And hey, if that sort of thing rocks your world, rock on!

 

[wazzupi]

You're up @Skyediver!

I feel like @Skyediver @HiFiHawaii808 are staring into my soul. Hehe

 

[Tex Irie]

My point being, many people seek perfection without understanding how to find it (or more to the point, that it doesn't exist). Oftentimes when a track is poorly recorded, or mastered, or lossy, no level of gear is going to improve it. If anything, high-end stuff will probably make it sound worse.

Very true.. I try not to get too technical with my music/gear discussions. Work gives me more than enough of that. At the end of the day if it sounds great to me regardless of my mood.. Then I'm all smiles. Sometimes perfection strips the enjoyment out of everything it touches.

 

[Tex Irie]

ive read a lot of good things about them. I had the LCD-X before and really liked them, but wanted to experience more headphones, so I sold them. Plus, I'm looking to fund the headphones with the money I get from selling the IEMs.


To me, they dont sound as wide and tall as the Indigo does


I can agree, the indigo does sound a bit incoherent at times; I feel that the male vocals are better on the Indigo as well


TBH, I’m looking for planar headphones, plus to fund the new headphones with the $ I get from selling the Z1R. the Stellia's would be 2x the price from what I could get for the Sonys.


interesting, they look very nice, I have not heard of them before.


I would LOVE to get the ZMF VC, but I have never hear them before; actually I have never heard any ZMF cans before. I was leaning toward planar drivers with the Audeze, plus I have heard a lot of good things about them. I think I liked my LCD-X more than the HD800s and Arya in an overall sense.

What that Z1R do?