catscratch

Bah. I'm not in a position right now to buy a BHSE without serious regrets (i.e. dipping into credit cards), but someday, sometime, I'll definitely own one. I'm giving myself about a year, maybe two at most. That, and an EMM labs source... Yup, I'm in deep. Very, very deep.

Ugh, OK. I'm not going to enjoy this. But, in the last two days or so, my opinion of the W3 has gone downhill in a big way. This headphone messes up the mids. That's unforgivable for me, especially in a headphone that has a dedicated midrange driver. The UM2 has better mids than this, and it managed it with two drivers! The mids are recessed (I think GPH was right all along on this one and I was too lenient), there isn't enough clarity, and the tone is wrong. Also, while on the Kenwood the treble is in control, on the iAudio 7 the treble is spiky and sibilant, with a whistly quality. Really really not cool, considering that the vast majority of mp3 players out there are voiced like the IA7 and not like the Kenwood, which has a very atypical sound for an mp3 player, and is warm, forward in the midrange, with delicate highs and a linear bass. Most mp3 players boost midbass and lower treble - well guess what, the W3 boosts upper bass and lower treble, and together it's not a good combination. You get a very U-shaped EQ with mids that are basically AWOL and sound like they're coming out of a speaker with a blanket draped over it. Also, the sound is way too laid-back, and isn't engaging in the same way that both the UM2 and ES2 can be. Good points - well HeadphoneAddict mentioned something about Blutarsky preferring the bass on the W3 over the ES2. Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the bass on the W3 is pretty damn good. Punchier and more full-bodied than the E500 and definitely more controlled than the UM2. The soundstage is pretty well done for an IEM, and while there isn't the same sense of imaging sharpness that you get with the ER-4S or ES2, it's still quite good. Everything else though... isn't. These will be for sale soon. Maybe a week or so. In the meanwhile, there will be a negative review on HF, which I won't enjoy writing at all. Maybe I had my sights set too high, and was hoping that it would be a good headphone, but as it stands, it's just another IEM. Not bad compared to consumer crap, but still very far from the truth. I think on the whole I like the UM2 more because it doesn't mess up the mids. I won't even bring the ES2 into this, since the ES2 just plain sounds like a good high-end headphone. The biggest difference is in the mids, which are crystal clear on the ES2 (well, comparatively speaking) and are tonally natural, and everywhere else there are also subtle, but noticeable improvements which all add up into a very big difference in the overall listening experience. The bass is more linear, the treble is more refined, there is more detail, and everything is much more forward and engaging. At first listen after swapping you think "hey... the mids are back" but soon you're pulled into the music in a way that only good headphones can manage, while the W3's faults repel you from getting lost in the music - just like every other universal-fit IEM does. We'll see how my opinion develops throughout the week.

A poorly driven HD650. A well-driven one doesn't sound like that. Still, the W3 doesn't sound lifeless or dull or excessively slow, or anything else that's usually associated with poorly-driven HD650s.

Right now I hear three things going on with vocals: 1) not enough treble extension which kills detail and texture 2) very rounded off leading/trailing edges which makes detail/texture less audible, and 3) too much emphasis on lower mids and upper bass, which makes the tone too warm. Net effect: vocals are too warm, too chesty or too husky, and also pretty veiled - fuzzy, with not enough texture. There is a definite subconscious urge to boost the mids to bring more detail out, though if there was more clarity I probably wouldn't feel that the mids are recessed. Still, compared to what goes on in other canalphones, this isn't bad. There is one big positive effect from all this: mp3 compression artifacts are a lot less audible! These are very forgiving headphones. There is this whole creamy, euphonic deal going on, sort of like an underdriven HD650 but a lot more open.

Whoa, that was fast. I thought the W3 would ship this friday according to the Earphone Solutions site, but I have it here right now. Not bad. Currently am listening with the Kenwood HD20GA9 player, which is pretty good on its own but isn't a good match for these earphones I think. It's way too warm. The Cowon players I have charging up are going to be a better match since they're colder. Eartips are the clear plastic ones in medium size. They always worked best fit-wise on every Westone and Shure headphone I've used. First impressions: close, but no cigar. I was hoping that this would be the first really high-end universal-fit canalphone, but while it's the best one I've heard thus far, it still has serious issues. Not going to go into detail just now, but with the Kenwood the sound is basically that of a much better E500. Tone is better - less plasticky and artificial, bass control is a bit better, the treble is less peaky, but there also seems to be a bit less detail. Things are very warm and fuzzy, with leading and trailing edges rounded off. I guess they tried to make the sound more refined, but this is fake refinement, not real refinement. Detail seems to be pretty good, not at the level of an ES2 or ER-4 but much better than the UM2. Treble extension sucks though, royally. I was expecting much better with a dedicated tweeter. I have a feeling that this is exactly what's masking a lot of the detail, and what's making things feel more rounded-off. Overtones/harmonics are being lost. But, that's about it until I've had more time to listen. Oh yeah, the bass is a bit overblown. Not much, but it's there. Westone made a lot of noise about this fitting in with the Westone house sound, but I don't hear it. It's much closer to the Shure sound than anything else. Westones always had a forward sound with neutral mids, but this is warm and laid-back. Nothing like the ES2 at all, and I've heard some people make parallels. The ES2 sounds more neutral, way more forward, and definitely more detailed. The W3 does have a much bigger soundstage though, but the ES2 is pretty lacking in that regard. I do like the W3 thus far though. There's no feeling of "ugh" or immediate urge to rip earphones out of ears. Though there's no feeling of "wow" either.

ER-4P/S always had stupidly overblown highs to my ears and very short transients. A very metallic tone, too. The rest was actually quite good, and the bass was all there and was very crisp and textured. I wouldn't expect the W3 to have a similar sound signature, and frankly I wouldn't want it to. My set should be here on Monday, and I'll report with initial impressions. As long as it's similar to a UM2 but has more controlled bass, more extended highs, and significantly more detail, I'll be set. I don't need it to be an O2 killer in terms of SQ, it just has to not make me want to wince every time I listen... as the UM2 does (and the ER-4P, the E500, and just about any canalphone short of the ES2).

Dew Eet!!! Seriously, I'd love to hear your impressions of these phones, though I'm guessing Icelandic customs aren't quite as forgiving when it comes to shipping stuff back and forth on 30-day return policies? I'd do it myself but I'm way too broke right now to chase a new $1500 headphone. It will have to wait a few months at least. In any case, I'm going to wait until the FOTM blows over and some real critical reports come in. Yah, I've gotten to like the little 717 (well not so little actually) quite a bit too. I never thought that I'd like a solid-state amp this much, but the 717 has none of the characteristics that I usually hate about solid-state amps. It's slightly warm, pretty fluid, very detailed, very clear, has a nicely saturated tone color, and has a massive wide-open soundstage. It's very subtly colored in a tubish way but is still a very transparent and detailed piece of kit. Now if it only had more balls, I'd be all set, but unfortunately, no cigar. It's powerful enough to wake the 007 up but not powerful enough to give the bass some real cajones.

Some pretty good drifting there, and DAMN, but does that boxer engine sound awesome. Like a Spitfire with a hangover and pissed off as all hell.

I always wondered what the Founding Fathers would think of the Drug War, and many other current policies besides. Seriously, if you want to power all of DC, all you need to do is attach a turbine to their graves.

And by $1899, I mean of course $1799. Stupid edit timer. And confusing between the two players in a post that's already confusing just goes to show how tired I am... Some several, if history serves right. To quote Quest for Glory 4: "I don't want to say 'I told you so,' but I did..." Anyway, I'm glad you've seen the light. Now go out and preach the word, and also try to hear the O2 on a Blue Hawaii. Or better yet, don't say anything at all, because the more we yell about it Over There, the more second-hand O2 Mk1 prices will jump up. There is a cruel and devious part of me that rejoices at every negative review of the O2 that I see. That just leaves more for the rest of us

I'm not jumping on the Jade bandwagon until I have a chance to hear a pair for myself. $1899 is a lot. Now, from what I know Mr. He is going to be making about 10 of these a month or so, and I seriously doubt he's bothered that at that price he won't get that many orders. I think He'll (har har) have his hands full even as it is, and the pricing is appropriate from a business standpoint. If he could match Stax's production numbers, then it would be too much. In any case, the market is not exactly busting balls out there with the O2 Mk1 gone, HE60 and SR-Omega a part of distant history, and ESP950 cripped by that horrible stock box. In other news, I've had the Opus 21 in my rig for a few days now. From what I read online, I expected basically an 840c without the problems and a fuller midrange. That is not what I got. Though the player is fuller souding, and it definitely doesn't have the problems of the 840c. For starters, this player is much darker than the 840c. Darker to the point that my copper DiMarzio XLR cables became completely unusable with it. I never really understood the "dark" comments about the O2, but now I definitely do. With the copper cables, it was dark, congested, and pretty much all treble sparkle was gone. It was in serious need of a copperotomy. Fortunately, I had some silver ICs lying around - Headphile BlackSilver, which are pretty bright but still very fluid - and with them in the signal path, things improved massively. If I could summarize this player in one word, it would be: forward. The presentation is rather different from the laid-back, ultra-airy, somewhat dry and metallic 840c. Whereas the 840c never bothers to flex its muscle and show off dynamic range, the Opus 21 is dynamic as all hell. Albums that sounded analytical and somewhat distant on the Opus 21 are now the sonic equivalent of being in the ring with Mike Tyson, at least as far as electrostatics go. The presentation is much more focused, the foreground is much more forward, the background is nicely separated and all of the layered soundstage is there, but there's also none of the sense of enormous - and artificial - air that you get with the 840c. The digital glare is (mostly) gone as well. There is a smoothness and liquid quality to the sound, but it's not the same glossed-over upsampling sheen that the 840c puts over everything. This is just fluid sound. Things sound metallic when they have to, velvety and soft when they should, and natural and organic when the recording calls for it. Tone is pretty much spot on if by "spot on" you mean "dead neutral." If you're looking for a honey-sweet warm golden tone, this not the source for you - unless of course your headphones/amp do that automatically. Tone is pretty realistic here - maybe a little bit stark, but not cold or nasal. There's no euphony or sweetness here at all. The problem is, I really do dig syrupy-sweet midrange tones. That's why I liked the K340 and that's why I like the HE90. This rig doesn't do that. So, maybe I need to audition some Esoterics, or something else that sounds sweet and lush. But, that's not a priority by any means. Bass is fuller and deeper than the 840c. It's not overblown, and certainly not emphasized. This is not a basshead source. But, whereas the 840c was definitely bass-light at times, the Opus 21 is just right with most albums. I'd prefer more bass for psytrance, but then it would get out of hand with other genres. Highs are excellent, but as I've said before, you need to bring them out for this rig. If you have a brighter headphone you have nothing to worry about, but you'll need silver with the O2, that's for damn sure. Detail is higher than the 840c but also slightly less apparent. The 840c's artificial sense of air really makes the sound very transparent, which in turn makes detail easy to spot. The highs are also foward on it, which brings inner detail out. The Opus 21 is very different, fuller, more forward, more punchy, and with more emphasis on the overall presentation. But, it's also noticeably more detailed when you listen closely. Though I can't by any means say that the 840c was lacking detail in the first place. The 840c is a detailed machine. The Opus 21 is a really detailed machine, but it doesn't make a fuss of its detail. On the whole, this sounds like a competent high-end machine. It's forward, fluid, really dymamic, slightly dark, has a full and tonally realistic midrange, and lots and lots of detail. I'm not sure what the weaknesses are, since they're not obvious, and I need more listening time. I'm sure there are some gremlins here and there but on the whole the player sounds really well-rounded. And dynamic as all hell. Did I mention that? I think the last purchase I need for this rig are some silver XLR ICs. Right now I'm using RCA and there definitely is a slight decrease in detail and instrument separation, even compared to the copper ICs which really didn't synergize well.

Yeah, when I heard the R10 it was not in an optimal rig. I really would like to hear it someday in the right setup, since even there it had potential. At the current prices though I doubt I'll ever have one any time soon.

Geez, 6k. I have no doubt that someone will buy them though. And the next pair is going to be more than 6k. I'll take my $1400 O2 Mk1, thanks. Even if the R10 was $1400 I'll still take the O2. But YMMV They do look to be in great shape. Hope the inside is as good as the outside.

Still using mine and it works well And by "works well" I mean the left driver is rattling. Which isn't uncommon in the supposedly "built like a tank" DT770. Maybe if by "built like a tank" they mean a third-world T55...

Ugh, I hate the 404. But, I never heard it in my current system. I actually did like it off the McAlister amp, when it worked. It was a lot like a Grado with soundstage. But that was pretty much the exception. I do need to hear it again on an SRD-7 Pro off a punchy speaker amp, since that could probably get it singing. A used 717 is a terrific bargain. I can't believe how much amp you get for $800-900. It may be a SS amp but it has a warm(ish) tonality and a fluid sound. Very open, very airy, not too bassy but still very good. Haven't heard the 727 though.

Yarr I'll keep you posted to be sure.

Nice, seems like the ES7 design ethic in a full-size package. I wonder what kind of sound AT is going for, sounding closer to a W5000 or L3000. Not that I need a high-end closed dynamic headphone, but more high end AT = good.

Happy birthday! Will raise a for you this weekend.

Holy crap those mods are expensive! They better do the deal, because the competition in the used market at that pricepoint is fierce!

That's very similar to how I feel about the 840c - very good and a great bargain, but 2 distinct flaws: abundant digital glare which messes up instrument tone, and insufficient weight/fullness in the mids and on down. It's a very capable source, detailed, airy, and spatious, but a little too thin, a bit harsh, and with some metallic/digital quality to the sound. Can't think of anything better for $1k but still has some room to go before it gets to the high end.

Well, the point of Worms was more the humor. There were some good arcade skills involved too, rope-jumping for instance and it was a lot of fun. I remember Cybersled. I used to play that a ton when there were still arcade machines in functional condition... about 10 years ago, maybe more. I really loved that game. This does look really addictive.

Seems like a very solid unit, congrats. I'd like to ask for some short impressions against the 840c once you get it. I'm still in the source-swapping stage for my rig, and if the Opus 21 doesn't work out, it would be nice to know the alternatives.

Sweet! Thanks for putting me on the list, and thanks for doing this! It's unbelievably generous. Also, these cans could very well be very important in the high-end market if they really are good, and it will be very helpful to the community to have a solid base of impressions right at release time.

I would love to go on the 1.2B loaner list, if possible. System will be Opus 21 --> SRM-717 or SRD-7 Pro/Dared VP-20, and comparisons against O2 Mk1 will be made. Let me know.

FFS, head-fi is this way --> www.head-fi.org It's hard to recommend stuff under $100, most of it sucks. I like the SR-60, but that's not closed. I have to agree, if you want sturdy, 7506 is the way to go. A500 is also not bad. I don't know about ultra sturdy, I'm guessing those swivel joints could crack and the headband attachment could be more secure. I gave a pair to a friend who's probably the sloppiest person with electronics I've ever met, and his pair survived for about 3 years, until he - briefly - roomed with one crazy son of a bitch that tore the cable apart for reasons we'll never know. So, I'd say it's pretty sturdy. The sound is not bad for $100, and the only downside is the size. This headphone is seriously huge (but very light).