I'm pretty keen on getting a pair of M7s after demoing them a couple of days ago. I generally prefer a warmer sound with Hip-Hop and R&B being my main genres of choice with some Jazz and Rock sprinkled in. Would any of you happen to have compared these to the Oriolus Reborn/Oriolus Mk2 or Noble Savant? I think I can safely cross out the Andromeda and the M9 if after a warmer sound.
Currently in China so I can get the M7s for around $578 but I'm willing to consider other options up to the Oriolus price range. Thoughts?
I don't know where all these Andromeda comparisons are coming from with the M9... besides being priced similarly, and, uh, I don't know- both fitting into cases designed for IEMs, they have very little in common.
Wildly dissimilar sound signatures.
The Andromeda is very, very detail-oriented... in my opinion, at the expense of listenability. They have zero sub-bass (literally none), soft-hitting mid-bass, and very recessed lower mids. The upper mids are pushed way forward, to the point of abrasive shoutiness, and I guess the saving grace for these in-ears would be the highs, which are crystalline, yet sweet, and never get too bright. I certainly understand why there is a contingent of audiophiles who worship them; when I listened to the Andromeda, my first thought was "this is a modern old-fashioned IEM... one for the old guard"... It's tuned like an audiophile IEM of years past, all highs and detail and no bass, albeit while benefitting from all the industry has learned about reproducing world-class highs with balanced armatures in the last several decades. Personally, I can't stand the Andromeda. But hey, we all have different ears and all that.
The M9, by comparison, is a much better balanced IEM- at least in my opinion. I hesitate to use the term "flat", because there still lingers an old-school idea of a flat sound signature as having no sub-bass and soft-hitting mid-bass. In fact, I'm unsure if that audiophile idea of flat has ever meshed with a sound engineer's idea of flat. When music or film is mixed, studios absolutely use (and have always used) monitors capable of deep, powerful bass. After all, one can't mix a sub-bass tone for a movie scene or a hard-hitting mid-bass thump for a pop track if their monitor is incapable of rendering it. What makes those monitors flat is the fact that no one spectrum of the sound signature is forward or recessed. They are all represented equally. With that in mind, let's say the M9 skews "professional sound engineer flat", not "audiophile flat". It's certainly not a completely flat IEM, as it does have a slightly elevated mid-bass. This if forgivable, because the largest issue that can arise from this is a muddying of the mids, and the M9 does not exhibit this- rather the separation and cohesion in the mids is excellent. Overall, the M9 does indeed skew on the warmer side of things... one, because most monitors that exhibit the full range of sound do, and two, because of that slightly elevated mid-bass. The mid-bass and lower-mids body are really what create warmth, after all... The ability of a monitor to also reproduce detailed, crystalline highs does not negate warmth.
Bottom line, if you're looking for warm, I agree that you're on the right track throwing out the Andromeda. But I'd reconsider the M9. All that makes the M7 warm is present in the M9... Literally. Same four base drivers. The difference is that the M9 also feaures a fifth driver, a magnesium diaphragm super tweeter, making it capable of reproducing more detailed, more extended highs. Which again, will not detract from the warmth of the body.
That all said, if highs aren't that important to you, or indeed, if you prefer a more rolled-off treble (as many people do), the M7 might serve you very well... and for around half the price (assuming a street price of $1000 USD for the M9).