[Lunatique]

Does anyone have a saved screenshot of the previously available Triple.fi 10 Pro frequency response graph from HeadRoom? Since they're not available at HeadRoom anymore, I'm thinking maybe someone here still has a screenshot of it?

I'm trying to choose between the Triple.fi 10 Pro and the SE530, and I'd like to compare the FR graph of both.

 

[intoflatlines]

TF10 is on there. And SE530. I searched Google Images for "triplefi 10 graph" and eventually came up with that from another hi-fi type forum.

 

[loopsider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoflatlines /img/forum/go_quote.gif TF10 is on there.

Wow, its exactly what I heard with the TF10. Lots of high bass but not as much bass slam on the lower end.

 

[intoflatlines]

Yeah from the graph it pretty much confirms what people say about the SE530 and TF10. TF10 has a midbass hump, slightly recessed mids, and good amount of treble, while SE530 has good bass extension, good mids, and recessed treble.

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoflatlines /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah from the graph it pretty much confirms what people say about the SE530 and TF10. TF10 has a midbass hump, slightly recessed mids, and good amount of treble, while SE530 has good bass extension, decent mids, and recessed treble.

SE530 has great mids.

 

[intoflatlines]

I'll meet you halfway and say "good" mids.

 

[Lunatique]

Thanks so much for the graph! Now I can finally decide on which one to trade my W3 for. It's a tough choice since both are quite good. It seems the SE530 is closer to my HD650 and M50 than the TF10, so maybe the SE530 is a better choice for me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoflatlines /img/forum/go_quote.gif TF10 is on there.

Do you mean it's on HeadRoom's Build A Graph selections? I don't see it anywhere there. Or do you mean it's on google images only?

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoflatlines /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll meet you halfway and say "good" mids.

Fair enough.

Yeah, some people may not like SE530 mids all that much because they may seem too warm, too colored, too artificial. Some people also claim that the mids on SE530 are not very coherent. In my opinion all of these problems are the result of poor fit or problems with source or recording. When the fit is right and recording is good, SE530 has great mids IMO - they are not too warm and not too analytical, not too forward, nor too laid back, but just about in the sweet spot to my ears. I find them very natural sounding, coherent and very liquid. Unfortunately I myself was unable to get a good fit with SE530 most of the time and so I know what you mean. I found SE530 to be incredibly sensitive to how you place them in your ear and which tips you use. The sound on them can easily go from amazing to complete garbage if the fit is off by just a tiny little bit.

 

[intoflatlines]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatique /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks so much for the graph! Now I can finally decide on which one to trade my W3 for. It's a tough choice since both are quite good. It seems the SE530 is closer to my HD650 and M50 than the TF10, so maybe the SE530 is a better choice for me? Do you mean it's on HeadRoom's Build A Graph selections? I don't see it anywhere there. Or do you mean it's on google images only?

No problem. If you want to stick with the sound signature of your HD650 (darker sounding) then the SE530 would probably be better. If you're looking for a change of pace then the TF10 would serve you well. I never heard the M50 so I can't comment there.

It's not on the build a graph section, I meant that the TF10 was on the graph that I linked to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianist /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough. Yeah, some people may not like SE530 mids all that much because they may seem too warm, too colored, too artificial. Some people also claim that the mids on SE530 are not very coherent. In my opinion all of these problems are the result of poor fit or problems with source or recording. When the fit is right and recording is good, SE530 has great mids IMO - they are not too warm and not too analytical, not too forward, nor too laid back, but just about in the sweet spot to my ears. I find them very natural sounding, coherent and very liquid. Unfortunately I myself was unable to get a good fit with SE530 most of the time and so I know what you mean. I found SE530 to be incredibly sensitive to how you place them in your ear and which tips you use. The sound on them can easily go from amazing to complete garbage if the fit is off by just a tiny little bit.

Well said.

 

[Pianist]

I think ATH-M50 actually sounds more like Triple.fi than SE530, but HD650 sounds more like SE530 than Triple.fi. Specifically, I find that on Triple.fi, the bass and treble stand out more compared to the mids and I found that M50 has roughly the same sound signature - strong bass and treble and somewhat laid back mids. SE530, on the other hand, has very strong mids and bass with a somewhat recessed treble which is very similar to HD650 presentation. Soundstage and imaging is also better on SE530 than on Triple.fi. SE530 has more depth and a more realistic placement of sounds in the headstage, whereas Triple.fi has a more upfront soundstage with less precise imaging. Again, I thus find the two IEMs somewhat similar to HD650 and M50 respectively.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianist /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think ATH-M50 actually sounds more like Triple.fi than SE530, but HD650 sounds more like SE530 than Triple.fi. Specifically, I find that on Triple.fi, the bass and treble stand out more compared to the mids and I found that M50 has roughly the same sound signature - strong bass and treble and somewhat laid back mids. SE530, on the other hand, has very strong mids and bass with a somewhat recessed treble which is very similar to HD650 presentation. Soundstage and imaging is also better on SE530 than on Triple.fi. SE530 has more depth and a more realistic placement of sounds in the headstage, whereas Triple.fi has a more upfront soundstage with less precise imaging. Again, I thus find the two IEMs somewhat similar to HD650 and M50 respectively.

Excellent comparison, and based on what you wrote, I know I can trust your opinion, as I agree with how you characterized the sound of HD650 and M50. The only thing I like more about the M50 than the HD650 is the punchier bass that has more of the solid impact of speaker monitors, which is missing from the HD650 (although HD650's is not bass shy at all--it's all there--just missing the visceral punch--that solid smack). If I could graft M50's bass onto HD650, I'd have found my perfect full-sized cans (anyone know of one like this?). I don't even want to think how slim my chances are of finding that kind of sound in an IEM, but for now, the SE530 will probably do.

 

[iponderous]

^ Just a word of warning here, I have both the SE530 and the TF10, and I disagree with Pianist's comparison of these IEMs with regard to soundstage and imaging. My point being, that due to the inherently subjective nature of our listening experiences, one should not place too much stock in someone else's opinion. Just because your impressions of the HD650 may align, that doesn't necessarily mean that your experience with IEMs will. The notion that you can liken the sound signatures of IEMs to full-sized headphones seems flawed to me as well.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iponderous /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Just a word of warning here, I have both the SE530 and the TF10, and I disagree with Pianist's comparison of these IEMs with regard to soundstage and imaging. My point being, that due to the inherently subjective nature of our listening experiences, one should not place too much stock in someone else's opinion. Just because your impressions of the HD650 may align, that doesn't necessarily mean that your experience with IEMs will. The notion that you can liken the sound signatures of IEMs to full-sized headphones seems flawed to me as well.

C'mon man, you can't post that and not gives us a peek into your personal take on their sound?

 

[iponderous]

Well I have commented on both of these IEMs elsewhere in these threads. I find the TF10 to be a more balanced sounding IEM than the mid-centric SE530, with superior instrument separation and a noticeably larger soundstage. Its highs extend further. Its mids aren't forward, which translates as recessed for some people. I think it presents bass more realistically than the SE530. The SE530's bass is tighter but it doesn't go as deep to my ears, and it has a tendency towards sounding monotonal. The TF10 also has more clarity and is more detailed to my ears. I also think that despite its livelier treble presentation, the TF10 is a darker sounding IEM overall compared to the SE530.

I agree with Pianist that the mids of the SE530 are liquid. However, they sound enhanced rather than natural to me. The treble roll-off makes acoustic instruments such as piano, guitar and drums sound subdued or veiled. Fine details such as the shimmer of a cymbal, or the ring of a note from a piano key can be muted due to the suppression of high frequencies.

I don't find it plausible that this can be entirely attributed to poor fit, sound sources or recordings as Pianist suggests. That's just making too many excuses for the SE530's sound signature in my opinion. It is what it is. Some people love it and others don't. What some people describe as an easy, fatigue free listen, others regard as too polite or even boring. I happen to enjoy it and it does provide unparalleled noise attenuation.

I simply prefer the sound of the TF10 (and the IE8 for that matter) over the SE530. However, it's well documented in these threads that the fit of the TF10 can be problematic for some people, particularly if they have small ears. Fortunately, I haven't experienced this problem.

So that's my opinion for what it's worth, but I'd take it with a grain of salt if I were you.

 

[Lunatique]

Thanks!

Yeah, it's complicated how we hear differently and have different ideals for what is "neutral/accurate." It seems when it comes to visual quality (for example, TV screens), people tend to agree a lot more.