Once the demo is out in the store I am hoping to A/B them better because to be quite frank the show floor was noisy and not-ideal for picking out the technicalities of the sound.
Toranku's Thoughts and Reviews (and target EQ filters!)
- Thread starter toranku
- Start date
Once the demo is out in the store I am hoping to A/B them better because to be quite frank the show floor was noisy and not-ideal for picking out the technicalities of the sound.
mxroadie
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Posts
- 121
- Likes
- 78
Certainly cut from the same cloth. I think with the Waltz, Viento and NT6, Hidition has very firmly convinced the market of their technical prowess. With the Violet, they could afford a slightly less intense presentation. Don't get me wrong, the Hidition technical prowess is all there, just showcased more maturally with a more natural tonality. You could probably sit back with a beer after a long day with the Violet.
Ricky64
100+ Head-Fier
Have to say I'm intrigued by the Violet. At the same time, I question, what is the final frontier for balanced armature iem's?
I come from a high end home audio background, and somehow prefer the few DD's I've heard over the few BA's I've heard.
In my PP8, there is something not quite natural in the presentation. I mean this in the sense of Timbre.
Can something like the Violet scratch that itch? I keep thinking I need to go to hybrids. Can a BA provide the right decay for bass, timbre of midrange, and transparency of treble? Logic would dictate that I just wait to the CanJam RMAF 2019, but I fear I am not logical here....
I come from a high end home audio background, and somehow prefer the few DD's I've heard over the few BA's I've heard.
In my PP8, there is something not quite natural in the presentation. I mean this in the sense of Timbre.
Can something like the Violet scratch that itch? I keep thinking I need to go to hybrids. Can a BA provide the right decay for bass, timbre of midrange, and transparency of treble? Logic would dictate that I just wait to the CanJam RMAF 2019, but I fear I am not logical here....
Last edited:
Mimouille
Headphoneus Supremus
Having the Spiral Ear SE6 and Vision Ears VE8, usually other BAs don't bring anything significant, so I look mostly only at DD or hybrids but haven't found anything of note yet, except the JVC FD01 which needs a mod, and the FAudio Prototype Y. I think the Solaris is good too, but so large. I was just intrigued with Hidition as the NT6 is one of my all time favorites, but the tonality is a bit too bright.
Hi toranku, I believe these are not Moondrop models but are under SoftEars. It seems like Moondrop, SoftEars and Lyre Acoustics are all under Gotham Pro Audio. I couldn't find more information about them.
Anyways I also agree that the first thing I noticed with the Reference 10 was the overpowering midbass. Also the Cerberus was very clear with powerful female vocals but I agree it can be thin sounding at times.
Attachments
Last edited:
Violet is quite colored. Doubt it will scratch your itch with orchestrals and classical. It doesn't sound quite natural. I enjoy it for how colored it is since it was a new way to hear the same old songs in a different perspective. The Violet is also fast and doesnt quite have the full bodied timbre DD tends to have. Worked well for genres like rock.
Edited the post. These companies can get confusing...
Nabillion_786
500+ Head-Fier
Hi, at upto 300 USD what would be your recommendation for an iem that has good, full bodied, clear and non recessed male vocals? Would love to hear your response as I can't afford pricier iems.
Warm iems have the tendency to sound slightly muddy. It really depends on the tonal balance to achieve a clearer sound. But if you want something both full bodied and clear, I think EX800ST still remains as a solid pick for me. Vocals on both genders are bodied with slight warmth. Early treble spike can be tamed if you can insert deep. Problem is always the lack of isolation with it.
Nabillion_786
500+ Head-Fier
Thanks very much your reply was much appreciated. Lastly would you say the vocals and soundstage of these are definitely better then the tanchjim oxygen? because there have been some really great reviews on them especially praise regarding its airy, detailed, spacious soundstage and bass.
Last edited:
The EX800ST sounds really open because well...it is kinda open. Isolation is very minimal due to the vent. I find Oxygen's vocals to be too lean reaching the upper midrange. EX800ST is definitely thicker and more bodied.
TooPoorForHiFi
Previously known as MidNighTempest
Was Fearless Audio at CamJam?
Curious about the
Curious about the
- Fearless Audio ACME 8BA IEM
- Fearless Audio S10 Genie 10BA
- Fearless Audio S8 Freedom
Ramblings: Output Impedance ft. Hidition Violet
Such a pain to deal with in today's multi BA world. Output imbalance of a source can change bass response (can be captured by FR), tilting the tonal balance around. Different IEMs react vastly differently with OI. For example the Campfire Andromeda gets a bass boost the lower the OI is. The 334 on the other hand, gets bassier as the OI increases.
This makes reviewing and agreeing on tonal balance a little difficult if users don't state their source during auditioning. Thankfully tools such as IEMatch are fantastic for testing purposes. A flick can turn the source from 1ohms to 2.5ohms and vice versa.
With the Violet, I tested it again it on balanced DPX1. Strange. Sounded a little different from what I heard during CanJam. Plugged it into SE and I went "aha!" The bass response increased to a very noticeable degree from 0.5 ohms to 1 ohm. Took an IEMatch and ran it on 2.5ohms. Man did it sound like total ass. Lower mids turned recessed and nasal but the lower treble peakiness was eliminated. Midrange response was vastly different from 1ohm to 2.5ohms. On higher ohm, bass bled into lower mids and the entirety of the midrange sounded vastly different.
Thinking about this, it sure allows for BA configurations to have changes in sound with different sources. But it soon turns annoying when testing between sources. The FIBAE technology was created to combat such an issue with BAs and DDs tend to have flat impedance curves as well.
Onto cables, they have different impedances as well. I tested out my friend's ZMF cable reterminated into a 2 pin connection for IEMs. MG5HX instantly turned warm. Highs lost definition. Perhaps it's also the small differences in impedances that the driver(s) react to, similarly like in sources. Every thing in the chain makes a difference.
Such a pain to deal with in today's multi BA world. Output imbalance of a source can change bass response (can be captured by FR), tilting the tonal balance around. Different IEMs react vastly differently with OI. For example the Campfire Andromeda gets a bass boost the lower the OI is. The 334 on the other hand, gets bassier as the OI increases.
This makes reviewing and agreeing on tonal balance a little difficult if users don't state their source during auditioning. Thankfully tools such as IEMatch are fantastic for testing purposes. A flick can turn the source from 1ohms to 2.5ohms and vice versa.
With the Violet, I tested it again it on balanced DPX1. Strange. Sounded a little different from what I heard during CanJam. Plugged it into SE and I went "aha!" The bass response increased to a very noticeable degree from 0.5 ohms to 1 ohm. Took an IEMatch and ran it on 2.5ohms. Man did it sound like total ass. Lower mids turned recessed and nasal but the lower treble peakiness was eliminated. Midrange response was vastly different from 1ohm to 2.5ohms. On higher ohm, bass bled into lower mids and the entirety of the midrange sounded vastly different.
Thinking about this, it sure allows for BA configurations to have changes in sound with different sources. But it soon turns annoying when testing between sources. The FIBAE technology was created to combat such an issue with BAs and DDs tend to have flat impedance curves as well.
Onto cables, they have different impedances as well. I tested out my friend's ZMF cable reterminated into a 2 pin connection for IEMs. MG5HX instantly turned warm. Highs lost definition. Perhaps it's also the small differences in impedances that the driver(s) react to, similarly like in sources. Every thing in the chain makes a difference.
First Impressions: Acoustune 1690TI & 1650WH
1690TI
The 1690TI is the final product in the 4th gen DD series. After the 16xx, comes the 2xxx.
Intensely V-shaped with more treble than it has bass. Surprisingly fast for a DD - decay is quick and transients are sharp. The only thing holding this back its the tuning - there's just too much lower treble for me. Vocals have this odd boost yet are recessed/sucked out at the same time, resulting in a slightly nasal sound. Lower mids are noticeably recessed and nasal. Extension at the very top end can still be improved.
Overall, quite standard Acoustune sound following a typical v-shaped profile lacking of upper end extension. I find problem with Acoustune's midrange as a whole. Can sound shrill and nasal. Funnily enough the odd one out with this issue is the 1503.
1650WH
More balanced sounding than the 1690 since it has less treble. However the problem with the midrange is exacerbated to a higher extent. Same problem with the standard 1650 and 1670 really. The midrange turns shrill and lean. Due to the less treble, the 1650 is also considerably smoother than the 1690. Resolve capability is around the same. Decently controlled basslines that have that thick impact.
1551
The 1551 is used as a comparison to the 1690 and 1650. Right off the bat, 1551 is smoother in texture overall. Bass lines can lack that definition. However, it still has recessed mids with quite a nasal lowermidrange similar to the 1650. The uppermids do not seem to be that nasal though, due to the amount of warmth thrown into the mix. It's one of the better balanced acoustunes out there since the 1551 has a little thickness to balance that typical v-shaped acoustune house sound. Still strikes me as my favourite acoustune even when it is not as resolving as the 16xx series.
1690TI
The 1690TI is the final product in the 4th gen DD series. After the 16xx, comes the 2xxx.
Intensely V-shaped with more treble than it has bass. Surprisingly fast for a DD - decay is quick and transients are sharp. The only thing holding this back its the tuning - there's just too much lower treble for me. Vocals have this odd boost yet are recessed/sucked out at the same time, resulting in a slightly nasal sound. Lower mids are noticeably recessed and nasal. Extension at the very top end can still be improved.
Overall, quite standard Acoustune sound following a typical v-shaped profile lacking of upper end extension. I find problem with Acoustune's midrange as a whole. Can sound shrill and nasal. Funnily enough the odd one out with this issue is the 1503.
1650WH
More balanced sounding than the 1690 since it has less treble. However the problem with the midrange is exacerbated to a higher extent. Same problem with the standard 1650 and 1670 really. The midrange turns shrill and lean. Due to the less treble, the 1650 is also considerably smoother than the 1690. Resolve capability is around the same. Decently controlled basslines that have that thick impact.
1551
The 1551 is used as a comparison to the 1690 and 1650. Right off the bat, 1551 is smoother in texture overall. Bass lines can lack that definition. However, it still has recessed mids with quite a nasal lowermidrange similar to the 1650. The uppermids do not seem to be that nasal though, due to the amount of warmth thrown into the mix. It's one of the better balanced acoustunes out there since the 1551 has a little thickness to balance that typical v-shaped acoustune house sound. Still strikes me as my favourite acoustune even when it is not as resolving as the 16xx series.
My thoughts on: qdc 8SS
8SS/8CS is qdc's idea of a flat/reference in ear. qdc has been very consistent since the 8 driver series. I do enjoy the the tuning of the 8SL and Gemini but the 8SS is tuned differently than the other 8 drivers or VX. 8SS follows its own curve while the others are closely related to each other.
That said, the 8SS is has a moderately warm, yet clean tone. Subbass is nicely extended to not sound overbearing for a reference monitor. Midrange is actually rather thick due to the slight upper mid suppression. It is clear that lower mids are more dominant compared to the upper mids. The upper mids as a result, can sound blunted and thick. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are butchy like the Phantom/Titan 6. Just seems like an interesting take on coloration. The midrange as a whole is actually rather forward compared to the bass and treble. In some ways it does remind me of my 334, but striking more extension on both ends and being better balanced generally (334 has a big midbass).
The treble of 8SS is present. I do think it still lacks that very last bit of extension needed to be a proper reference monitor, but all things considered, the extension on the treble is already much better than most IEMs out there. The biggest "weakness" of the 8SS would be the imaging/attack. It's slightly blurry/hazy, akin to the EX800ST. Perhaps due to the thick tonality of the IEM, I don't know. PP8 also had this problem to an extent. The 8SS is by no means bright or too offensive, like the PP8.
Overall, I prefer this to the PP8 since it has more warmth. PP8 does have a tighter bass but it lacks that extension needed in cymbals. Technicalities considered I prefer PP8 since it layers things better. Perhaps what the 334SR should have been.
8SS/8CS is qdc's idea of a flat/reference in ear. qdc has been very consistent since the 8 driver series. I do enjoy the the tuning of the 8SL and Gemini but the 8SS is tuned differently than the other 8 drivers or VX. 8SS follows its own curve while the others are closely related to each other.
That said, the 8SS is has a moderately warm, yet clean tone. Subbass is nicely extended to not sound overbearing for a reference monitor. Midrange is actually rather thick due to the slight upper mid suppression. It is clear that lower mids are more dominant compared to the upper mids. The upper mids as a result, can sound blunted and thick. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are butchy like the Phantom/Titan 6. Just seems like an interesting take on coloration. The midrange as a whole is actually rather forward compared to the bass and treble. In some ways it does remind me of my 334, but striking more extension on both ends and being better balanced generally (334 has a big midbass).
The treble of 8SS is present. I do think it still lacks that very last bit of extension needed to be a proper reference monitor, but all things considered, the extension on the treble is already much better than most IEMs out there. The biggest "weakness" of the 8SS would be the imaging/attack. It's slightly blurry/hazy, akin to the EX800ST. Perhaps due to the thick tonality of the IEM, I don't know. PP8 also had this problem to an extent. The 8SS is by no means bright or too offensive, like the PP8.
Overall, I prefer this to the PP8 since it has more warmth. PP8 does have a tighter bass but it lacks that extension needed in cymbals. Technicalities considered I prefer PP8 since it layers things better. Perhaps what the 334SR should have been.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
