[arijitroy2]

I didn't care for Jolene very much but love EXT. There are some similarities in the sense they are both very good with guitars but the mids and higher frequencies are worlds apart. Not that you need another IEM to add to your list, but I think you would enjoy EXT. Worth a demo if you can.

Can you give me a bit more impressions between the two, be it from memory?

 

[armstrj2]

Can you give me a bit more impressions between the two, be it from memory?

I wouldn't really consider Jolene bass light, there was plenty of bass when needed but I think a lot of people felt it could be pushed much more considering the drivers inside.

For me, I found the mids very recessed with Jolene. It felt like you were halfway back in the concert hall listening to vocals sometimes and they got a little lost in the mix. While not the same level as Phonix, EXT shares a lot of the same DNA in the mids and I find it just as enjoyable. When I listened to metal/ rock with Jolene I found the 8k spike quite noticeable too. The mids just didn't click with me on Jolene at the time but I also had IEMs in my collection then that were the polar opposite in tuning so that probably had a large part to do with how I was hearing it.

To my ears, EXT has the good parts of Jolene plus VE tuned mids which you liked with Phonix so it seems like it would be worth checking out for you.

 

[arijitroy2]

I wouldn't really consider Jolene bass light, there was plenty of bass when needed but I think a lot of people felt it could be pushed much more considering the drivers inside.

For me, I found the mids very recessed with Jolene. It felt like you were halfway back in the concert hall listening to vocals sometimes and they got a little lost in the mix. While not the same level as Phonix, EXT shares a lot of the same DNA in the mids and I find it just as enjoyable. When I listened to metal/ rock with Jolene I found the 8k spike quite noticeable too. The mids just didn't click with me on Jolene at the time but I also had IEMs in my collection then that were the polar opposite in tuning so that probably had a large part to do with how I was hearing it.

To my ears, EXT has the good parts of Jolene plus VE tuned mids which you liked with Phonix so it seems like it would be worth checking out for you.

Seems like a good proposition! It's a bit tough to get that for demo actually! But its interesting you found Jolene's mids recessed, for me it's positioned just right.

It does seem EXT might overlap with 2 iems that I already have, but if I could demo it somehow that'll be great!

 

[armstrj2]

Seems like a good proposition! It's a bit tough to get that for demo actually! But its interesting you found Jolene's mids recessed, for me it's positioned just right.

It does seem EXT might overlap with 2 iems that I already have, but if I could demo it somehow that'll be great!

Yep. Clearly for me, I found Phonix and EXT to overlap so you need to keep that in mind when you take Jolene into account too but if you can demo I would.

I see very different opinions of the mids of Jolene on here. Possibly down to different hearing but it always seems strange to me that there can be such differences sometimes.

 

[arijitroy2]

Yep. Clearly for me, I found Phonix and EXT to overlap so you need to keep that in mind when you take Jolene into account too but if you can demo I would.

I see very different opinions of the mids of Jolene on here. Possibly down to different hearing but it always seems strange to me that there can be such differences sometimes.

Yeah I know, also I do use an aftermarket cable now but still it won't make a drastic change. Funny enough I actually fell in love with the mids of the Jolene more until I heard the Phonix that is!!

Let's what the Fir stuff brings in the table, maybe I can make a better educated decision then!

 

[Rockwell75]

While not the same level as Phonix

Preferences around timbre aside, what do you mean? VE's tuning pedigree aside I found EXT & Phonix to be quite different and hard to compare apples-apples...but I do think that in the context of the overall gestalt of the signature the mids in both are at par.

I see very different opinions of the mids of Jolene on here.

Yeah same it's one of the hardest IEMs to get a handle on based on people's impressions.

 

[armstrj2]

Preferences around timbre aside, what do you mean?

Just in terms of clarity of the mids which he pointed out a few posts back.

 

[gLer]

holographic, if not as vast in its staging. I think what DD timbre and sound does for me on the whole is make the sound more immersive. With the FIR IEMs-- or any IEMs with BA mids really— you feel more like an observer of a vast sonic landscape. For me DD timbre, with its richer and more natural sound, allows for a more immersive experience— I feel less like an observer and more like I’m one with what I’m listening to.

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

What came out of our chat is that I seem to generally prefer the way Z1R presents the music to me, allowing me to take in the whole, whereas with EXT I'm immersing myself in different parts of the music and not always taking in the whole performance.

An analogy I used is 3D vs 2D films. As impressive and 'immersive' as some 3D films can be, they demand the viewer gets involved with the visuals, walk around the scene and its elements. In contrast, a 2D film is presented to you with a certain structure, a vision from the director and cinematographer as it were. With a 3D film I often get taken in by certain elements and forget to take in the 'whole', whereas with 2D films it's more about the story and how all the elements work together.

To sum up, I personally prefer sitting back and having the music presented to me, interpreting the story of the music in my mind's eye. I also enjoy the experience of immersing myself in the various soundscapes and elements, but less so than the former.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

 

[RTodd]

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

What came out of our chat is that I seem to generally prefer the way Z1R presents the music to me, allowing me to take in the whole, whereas with EXT I'm immersing myself in different parts of the music and not always taking in the whole performance.

An analogy I used is 3D vs 2D films. As impressive and 'immersive' as some 3D films can be, they demand the viewer gets involved with the visuals, walk around the scene and its elements. In contrast, a 2D film is presented to you with a certain structure, a vision from the director and cinematographer as it were. With a 3D film I often get taken in by certain elements and forget to take in the 'whole', whereas with 2D films it's more about the story and how all the elements work together.

To sum up, I personally prefer sitting back and having the music presented to me, interpreting the story of the music in my mind's eye. I also enjoy the experience of immersing myself in the various soundscapes and elements, but less so than the former.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

For female singer/piano players I want to be on the bench with them. For everything else I would like to be center stage in the sweet spot.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

What came out of our chat is that I seem to generally prefer the way Z1R presents the music to me, allowing me to take in the whole, whereas with EXT I'm immersing myself in different parts of the music and not always taking in the whole performance.

An analogy I used is 3D vs 2D films. As impressive and 'immersive' as some 3D films can be, they demand the viewer gets involved with the visuals, walk around the scene and its elements. In contrast, a 2D film is presented to you with a certain structure, a vision from the director and cinematographer as it were. With a 3D film I often get taken in by certain elements and forget to take in the 'whole', whereas with 2D films it's more about the story and how all the elements work together.

To sum up, I personally prefer sitting back and having the music presented to me, interpreting the story of the music in my mind's eye. I also enjoy the experience of immersing myself in the various soundscapes and elements, but less so than the former.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

Interesting. I would have described the EVO in the same way. You are on the stage with the musicians.

I am not sure if I perceive the EXT in the same way. I need to wait until I get it again and listen for it. Not sure about the Z1R either now that I am thinking about it. I'll need to listen to see what I hear.

 

[gLer]

Interesting. I would have described the EVO in the same way. You are on the stage with the musicians.

Quite right, that's how I describe it too. And why I ended up preferring Z1R to EVO.

 

[MatW]

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

What came out of our chat is that I seem to generally prefer the way Z1R presents the music to me, allowing me to take in the whole, whereas with EXT I'm immersing myself in different parts of the music and not always taking in the whole performance.

An analogy I used is 3D vs 2D films. As impressive and 'immersive' as some 3D films can be, they demand the viewer gets involved with the visuals, walk around the scene and its elements. In contrast, a 2D film is presented to you with a certain structure, a vision from the director and cinematographer as it were. With a 3D film I often get taken in by certain elements and forget to take in the 'whole', whereas with 2D films it's more about the story and how all the elements work together.

To sum up, I personally prefer sitting back and having the music presented to me, interpreting the story of the music in my mind's eye. I also enjoy the experience of immersing myself in the various soundscapes and elements, but less so than the former.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

Part of the music, that's how I have always described the Bird. I like both perspectives, but this one is addicting. And with the right amplification, the bass is to die for..

 

[gLer]

Part of the music, that's how I have always described the Bird. I like both perspectives, but this one is addicting. And with the right amplification, the bass is to die for..

Yep, @xenithon and his Bird will agree with you. If only EXT was as comfortable to use as the Bird...

 

[Scubadevils]

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

What came out of our chat is that I seem to generally prefer the way Z1R presents the music to me, allowing me to take in the whole, whereas with EXT I'm immersing myself in different parts of the music and not always taking in the whole performance.

An analogy I used is 3D vs 2D films. As impressive and 'immersive' as some 3D films can be, they demand the viewer gets involved with the visuals, walk around the scene and its elements. In contrast, a 2D film is presented to you with a certain structure, a vision from the director and cinematographer as it were. With a 3D film I often get taken in by certain elements and forget to take in the 'whole', whereas with 2D films it's more about the story and how all the elements work together.

To sum up, I personally prefer sitting back and having the music presented to me, interpreting the story of the music in my mind's eye. I also enjoy the experience of immersing myself in the various soundscapes and elements, but less so than the former.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

I've highlighted a line in your comment which is exactly how I felt about MEST MKII versus MEXT - with the former, I was often intrigued by various components, my mind focusing but never actually immersing myself in the full picture, and ultimately not fully connecting to the music - MEXT is absolutely the opposite, and a very different experience.

 

[Rockwell75]

It's interesting, I was discussing this exact thing in relation to Z1R and EXT with @xenithon. To paraphrase, xen used the same word to describe the EXT as you do: immersive. In his opinion (and feel free to chime in here @xenithon), Z1R presents the music to you, whereas with EXT you're part of the music. With Z1R you're at the concert watching it with the crowd, with EXT you're on the stage.

Thank-you for sharing . I think it comes down to a couple things. The first time this was really put into perspective for me, and I've quoted this here a few times, is that interview with Caleb from CFA where he said that BAs are better at describing sound and DDs are better at making you feel it. This along with the fact that the mid-range is the emotional centre of music means that this effect is more pronounced (for me anyway) when you have a DD driving the midrange. This, at the end of the day, is what really hit me like lightning when I first heard the Elysium after two years of IEMs (Solaris, VX, IER Z1R) that did not have a full DD driven midrange.

None of this is to say one is better than the other. It really depends on how you prefer to experience your music. You might enjoy both experiences equally, and if so, own one or more IEMs to give you varying levels of each.

+1 and for some people BA's can be just as immersive as DDs...big YMMV there.

Survey question: Are you searching for "one IEM to rule them all" or do you imagine you'll always have a collection for different use cases. Personally I don't think the former is possible as narrowing everything down to one will always involve sacrifices of one sort or another.

Questions back at y'all: which do you prefer? Is it more 'real' to you to be in the audience or be on stage? Do you prefer immersion, or to sit a few rows back and take in the performance as a whole? And which IEMs give you one or the other in different ways?

Immersion all the way for me.

Since everyone's sharing their puppers I met a friend's bloodhound pup the other day. His name is Luke.