Your post makes a number of strong points that resonate(d) with me. I am also an 'older' music/audio person who comes to this arena from the world of 2-channel speaker audio (or what we used to just call 'audio'!) While I seldom listen to classical music, I love acoustic jazz along with other more 'electric' styles of music. I tend to use acooustic music as the main measuring stick (laser measuring app for the younger members reading this lol) for determining accuracy of reproduction, and voicing, quality etc.... But of course, that's not the whole story for sound quality. There is an indefinable human element to all of this, and it is so far, unmeasurable by any machine, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. It also doesn;t mean that if your favorite gear makes singers sound like they've just gulped a huge lung full of helium before singing, that there's anything wrong with that - like what you like. Just don;t make claims about its accuracy...... I also do not mean that the best gear is the stuff that makes most of your recordings sound like crap either.... But it does seem pretty obvious that most folks here, myself included, prioritize vertain recordings based on what gear they'll be played on. (Again, nothing wrong with that-- i use bowls for soup, not saucers).
I also agree that feeling like you are in the middle of the ensemble is a bit unsettling at times, and is almost never what is sought from a speaker-based system. Lots of image and soundstage info has to do with room acoustics and reverberant sound. There's an old audiophile joke about a random meeting of Paul Klipsch and Amar Bose at an airport. Klipsch sees Dr. BNose at a bit of a distance, and cups his hands to his mouth and shouts "Is that you Dr. Bose"? to which Dr Bose turns hiis back to Klipsch, and says "Yes it is, is that you Paul?"
Ha ha…. I love that joke.. that reminds me that my Dad bought the Bose 901 Mk1 in the early 70’s and comment how amazing they were that no matter where in the room you were the sound was the same. He even had them hanging from the ceiling.. I hadn’t thought of that until your joke…
Your point about accuracy is thought provoking. Is a “ruthless” iem that presents the terribly recorded track as terrible sounding “better” for it? I guess this goes back to the music vs gear approach. Ultimately it’s what one “enjoys” that determines this.
Ha ha…. I love that joke.. that reminds me that my Dad bought the Bose 901 Mk1 in the early 70’s and comment how amazing they were that no matter where in the room you were the sound was the same. He even had them hanging from the ceiling.. I hadn’t thought of that until your joke…
Your point about accuracy is thought provoking. Is a “ruthless” iem that presents the terribly recorded track as terrible sounding “better” for it? I guess this goes back to the music vs gear approach. Ultimately it’s what one “enjoys” that determines this.
I am somewhat agnostic about ruthless being better or worse. N.B. these are general comments, not directed at anyone specific....
What I am concerned about is when people confuse statements like:
I prefer XXX, or I like/dislike XXX, with:
XXX is good/bad/better/worse....
Preferences are one thing, quality may be something totally differernt. Shared interests and shared preferences are what drive this community, and we are all better for it.
That forward, immersive experience seemed a bit “wrong” to me but when I got over that, I really learned to enjoy it. It occurred to me that for many younger people who grew up in the smartphone age with iems and computer audio, that presentation is probably “normal”.
So.. in that respect, I find that the Isabellae is closer to that camp thought still possessing good imaging and soundstage. The Elysium is still somewhat intimate but has better imaging, a more 3d presentation and I think because of the ESTs, a great sense of room acoustics which enhances the imaging and almost “visual” perception of the soundstage.
In this light, I would like to share some rambling of mine.
I currently am enjoying TSMR Land, a tribrid with 1 DD, 3 BA, 2 EST. I have got the Dunu Zen for review. This is my second encounter with single DD after Fiio FD5. I do have UM 3DT, but it is multi DD so not really considering that. Anyway, surprisingly, even though Zen is 100 USD costlier than Land, I found out that from pure musicality, engagement, and technical factor, Land surpasses Zen effortlessly. 3-dimensional immersive holographic presentation, imaging, airiness, note definition and dimensionality, separation - Land exhibits all of them in a far more superior way than Zen.
Although, it is common knowledge that multi-BA iems have greater command in separation, imaging, and sometimes note definition, over single DD iem. Why then was I so surprised that Land outclasses Zen in those aspects by a considerable margin? Because, while I was comparing UM 3DT and Fiio FD5 with Audiosense T800 (8 BA), I detected the same difference, just by not this great a margin. 3DT and FD5 both have very good imaging and stage even compared to T800, which had slightly better imaging, note dimensionality, and spearation. However, in case of Zen, the midrange was so very forward that most of the music seems very near to me - may be this is what intimate presentation is. Separation is good, width of stage is good, notes are distinctly produced; however, the instruments seem to lack the transition from front of the stage to the back of the stage. This is where the engagement factor, the immersive coefficient falters. I never ever felt this way with 3DT, which has of course much less details and much less dimensional notes. But the sound did not seem so in my face as Zen. Also, I somehow felt that the midrange sounds a little bit dry. It has definitely more warmth than Land midrange, but somehow it felt slightly dry, while Land midrange was more contrasting.
Although, I have to admit, that Zen has a more wide soudstage, and the overall presentation is quite open. The midrange is not held back by anything - it is set free. Mids have a very commanding presence in fact, compared to Land. Nothing feels claustrohpobic, but yeah, highs do feel slightly restrained due to uper treble roll off. And I also loved the very well tuned, controlled but weighty bass of Zen.
Don't know, may be I had too much expectation, may be Land is simply much superiorly tuned, may be Zen has a different tuning that is not up my alley. Whatever it is, I have become much more wary of higher end single DD iems now. I honestly expected Zen to go toe to toe with Land in terms of stage, imaging, presentation. But I have to say. I am a bit disappointed there. It may be because of my preference also, may be I prefer U shapped or V shaped sound more than a mid-forward type presentation. But anyway, this has made me concerned that how the $500+ single DD iems perform while compared with muti-river counterparts. Is the Isabellae also similar to Zen in this regard? Or is it more of an evolution of 3DT? Can anyone give some insight?
I am somewhat agnostic about ruthless being better or worse. N.B. these are general comments, not directed at anyone specific....
What I am concerned about is when people confuse statements like:
I prefer XXX, or I like/dislike XXX, with:
XXX is good/bad/better/worse....
Preferences are one thing, quality may be something totally differernt. Shared interests and shared preferences are what drive this community, and we are all better for it.
Yeah, this is a difficult distinction because “better” is kind of tied to preferences, no? The one case I can think of where they aren’t for me is with the U12t. I’ve owned it twice and though I don’t really “like” it in terms of engagement, I know that it is “better” than most things in its price bracket.
I have no interest in really even listening to it again but I could easily recommend it if one were to want a very clean technical iem and wants a superlative example of “gear”. For “music”, not so much.. head and heart…. Ticks all those 2 channel bias boxes but I also get a bit bored. 100% preferences on that last bit…. But for someone with similar tastes it falls back into “better/worse”..
In this light, I would like to share some rambling of mine.
I currently am enjoying TSMR Land, a tribrid with 1 DD, 3 BA, 2 EST. I have got the Dunu Zen for review. This is my second encounter with single DD after Fiio FD5. I do have UM 3DT, but it is multi DD so not really considering that. Anyway, surprisingly, even though Zen is 100 USD costlier than Land, I found out that from pure musicality, engagement, and technical factor, Land surpasses Zen effortlessly. 3-dimensional immersive holographic presentation, imaging, airiness, note definition and dimensionality, separation - Land exhibits all of them in a far more superior way than Zen.
Although, it is common knowledge that multi-BA iems have greater command in separation, imaging, and sometimes note definition, over single DD iem. Why then was I so surprised that Land outclasses Zen in those aspects by a considerable margin? Because, while I was comparing UM 3DT and Fiio FD5 with Audiosense T800 (8 BA), I detected the same difference, just by not this great a margin. 3DT and FD5 both have very good imaging and stage even compared to T800, which had slightly better imaging, note dimensionality, and spearation. However, in case of Zen, the midrange was so very forward that most of the music seems very near to me - may be this is what intimate presentation is. Separation is good, width of stage is good, notes are distinctly produced; however, the instruments seem to lack the transition from front of the stage to the back of the stage. This is where the engagement factor, the immersive coefficient falters. I never ever felt this way with 3DT, which has of course much less details and much less dimensional notes. But the sound did not seem so in my face as Zen. Also, I somehow felt that the midrange sounds a little bit dry. It has definitely more warmth than Land midrange, but somehow it felt slightly dry, while Land midrange was more contrasting.
Although, I have to admit, that Zen has a more wide soudstage, and the overall presentation is quite open. The midrange is not held back by anything - it is set free. Mids have a very commanding presence in fact, compared to Land. Nothing feels claustrohpobic, but yeah, highs do feel slightly restrained due to uper treble roll off. And I also loved the very well tuned, controlled but weighty bass of Zen.
Don't know, may be I had too much expectation, may be Land is simply much superiorly tuned, may be Zen has a different tuning that is not up my alley. Whatever it is, I have become much more wary of higher end single DD iems now. I honestly expected Zen to go toe to toe with Land in terms of stage, imaging, presentation. But I have to say. I am a bit disappointed there. It may be because of my preference also, may be I prefer U shapped or V shaped sound more than a mid-forward type presentation. But anyway, this has made me concerned that how the $500+ single DD iems perform while compared with muti-river counterparts. Is the Isabellae also similar to Zen in this regard? Or is it more of an evolution of 3DT? Can anyone give some insight?
The Land is something I’ve been interested in but haven’t heard it.
I have heard the Zen and at first I quite enjoyed it., for about 10mins but then I felt I had to turn the volume down, progressively. Better/worse? I do find the Isabellae much more balanced but this will coincide with a tuning preference. I also found the 3dt a bit “hot” in the upper mids. I don’t find that with the Isabellae but I am selling my Isabellae because I don’t find it has the note weight I like for my baroque music. Violins are a bit more “string” than “wood” but that could easily be my hearing. But in terms of what you are asking (I think), the Isabellae is way more balanced without any holes in the sound nor any real emphases that I can hear, unlike the Zen which has a definite upper midrange boost.
Your post makes a number of strong points that resonate(d) with me. I am also an 'older' music/audio person who comes to this arena from the world of 2-channel speaker audio (or what we used to just call 'audio'!) While I seldom listen to classical music, I love acoustic jazz along with other more 'electric' styles of music. I tend to use acooustic music as the main measuring stick (laser measuring app for the younger members reading this lol) for determining accuracy of reproduction, and voicing, quality etc.... But of course, that's not the whole story for sound quality. There is an indefinable human element to all of this, and it is so far, unmeasurable by any machine, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. It also doesn;t mean that if your favorite gear makes singers sound like they've just gulped a huge lung full of helium before singing, that there's anything wrong with that - like what you like. Just don;t make claims about its accuracy...... I also do not mean that the best gear is the stuff that makes most of your recordings sound like crap either.... But it does seem pretty obvious that most folks here, myself included, prioritize vertain recordings based on what gear they'll be played on. (Again, nothing wrong with that-- i use bowls for soup, not saucers).
Great post-- it gives lots of insight as to where you're coming from.
Accuracy is an interesting term. I often see things advertised as "as the artist intended"...but who really knows what that is. I often use food analogies with audio as I feel there is lots of overlap. One could give you a plate of raw carrot sticks and argue that's the best way to eat them "as nature intended". The truth is most of us enjoy them more when they're cooked (colored) with some delicious recipe. The same goes for audio. I get that many love the "raw uncolored" presentation a la an IEM like the ER4...but it comes off as soul-less and sterile to me. I've yet to really enjoy an IEM whose sound wasn't colored in some way-- and I think most discussion of "preferences" is really a discussion of the different sorts of coloration people enjoy.
I always go out of my way to point out that everything I share by way of impressions etc. is just a refection of my personal preferences. I think all reviews should be skewed this way and it bothers me when people say they're just giving subjective impressions but write with a tone and with language that imply they take their pronouncements as gospel.
It is from a purely technical standpoint...but that's it imho. There are plenty of IEMs out there at even half it's price that imho outperform it when it comes to musicality and engagement. I will admit the u12t is a "great" IEM within certain parameters. You yourself said it best when you described it more as a tool for converting music into sounds than a means of musical enjoyment. But when it comes to what I go for in the listening experience it falls quite short...though I recognize that this isn't what it was designed for and so it shouldn't really be taken as a fault. I'm speaking more to people who rec the u12t as some sort of end-all be-all IEM that sits at the summit of all IEMs out there right now...when imho it's really got a much more limited application than that. YMMV Etc.
The Land is something I’ve been interested in but haven’t heard it.
I have heard the Zen and at first I quite enjoyed it., for about 10mins but then I felt I had to turn the volume down, progressively. Better/worse? I do find the Isabellae much more balanced but this will coincide with a tuning preference. I also found the 3dt a bit “hot” in the upper mids. I don’t find that with the Isabellae but I am selling my Isabellae because I don’t find it has the note weight I like for my baroque music. Violins are a bit more “string” than “wood” but that could easily be my hearing. But in terms of what you are asking (I think), the Isabellae is way more balanced without any holes in the sound nor any real emphases that I can hear, unlike the Zen which has a definite upper midrange boost.
Shamelessly stealing @Montyburns' image from the Satsuma & Honeydew thread. Partly because Dorado is one of my all time fave IEMs and I have the Honeydew on its way but also because I think this is really cool and the first time I've seen someone try and describe soundstage graphically like this. Very cool!
That’s why “better” is in quotes. It’s in reference to “accuracy” and even then it’s a grey area. Does emotional content count for “accuracy”?
It’s like playing a Bach fugue with no dynamics, robotically but with perfect time and no wrong notes.. it’s “accurate” with the tone of the piano being real and all but is it “music”?
In some definitions yes..
Same piece played through a crappy single speaker am radio.. you get the “music” but miss out on the subtleties of the musician’s technical proficiency in voicing and key weight.. ?
If I know the piece, I can kind of fill in the “music” in the first example or appreciate that it was on a Bosendorfer rather than a Steinway piano, and in the second I can revel in the style even if I can’t hear all of the subtlety.
Glenn Gould is by far my favourite Bach interpreter as he threads that distinction of accuracy and art perfectly. Angela Hewitt is more to the “accuracy” side for me.. Anyone to the “flair” side gets turned off as my Puritan sensibilities go into fits of offence at artifice over art.. ha
Just to further the analogy a bit, a crappy player can play with feeling and be more enjoyable than the “wooden” automaton but in the end they both kind of suck..
Finding the iem that balances both is what I’m looking for rather than one from each camp.. We all look for something different from music..
Yeah, this is a difficult distinction because “better” is kind of tied to preferences, no? The one case I can think of where they aren’t for me is with the U12t. I’ve owned it twice and though I don’t really “like” it in terms of engagement, I know that it is “better” than most things in its price bracket.
I have no interest in really even listening to it again but I could easily recommend it if one were to want a very clean technical iem and wants a superlative example of “gear”. For “music”, not so much.. head and heart…. Ticks all those 2 channel bias boxes but I also get a bit bored. 100% preferences on that last bit…. But for someone with similar tastes it falls back into “better/worse”..
That's the question - is 'better' just a matter of preference, or are their more prefernce-neutral criteria? That is, is it completely relative, or are there any more objective standards - apart from whether someone likes it more or less than someone or something else.
Asking, not sure the answer, but am curious what others will say.
MusicTeck must be pretty busy. I have a shipping label created for Isa, but no email communicating anything. My order is marked fulfilled though, so not complaining if it magically shows up next week sometime. The wait has seemed extremely long for this little amber gem. I blame @Rockwell75 exclusively for this.
MusicTeck must be pretty busy. I have a shipping label created for Isa, but no email communicating anything. My order is marked fulfilled though, so not complaining if it magically shows up next week sometime. The wait has seemed extremely long for this little amber gem. I blame @Rockwell75 exclusively for this.
No Email or ship notification yet, If I was Andrew, I would ship to non Americans first. They are the furtherest away. I get whatever he ships me in two days.
No Email or ship notification yet, If I was Andrew, I would ship to non Americans first. They are the furtherest away. I get whatever he ships me in two days.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
