Head-Direct RE-262: Impressions, Comparisons and Discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RE-262 vs DBA-02​

Introduction

OK! I am up all night as I could not get sleep. What better way to spend than writing another comparison :ohyeah:

The comparison is certainly like comparing an apple to orange (why is it always an orange, why not some other fruit?). One is an analytical IEM and the other is a musical IEM.

Setup:

Clip+ #1 (Vol: 0 dB) -> iBasso T3 (No Gain, Vol: 5) -> RE-262

Clip+ #2 (Vol: -20 dB) -> DBA-02

Build Quality

DBA-02 has a white and black twisted cable. It has a Blue and White plastic shell with a small strain relief. In comparison, RE-262 has a longer and better strain relief at the housing. To compensate, DBA-02 has a longer Y-Split with strain reliefs before and after the Y. DBA-02 has a cord cinch which is more useful than the tighter, refusing to move chin slider of the Hifiman. While it's still as plasticky as the SM3 housing, I feel a tad better handling the DBA as I am more used to it by now. I also like the angled nozzle as such IEMs usually give me better insertion, fit and seal.

Sound Quality

DBA-02 have what I'll call "Made for me" sound. So, what started out as a small 'getting warmed up' session for this comparison has elongated into a 4 hr listening session with DBA-02 punctuated by the comparisons you are about to read.

The Bass of DBA-02 is quicker, tighter and has more impact than RE-262. RE-262 has better texture and presents bass in a much softer way. DBA-02 is slightly more extended than 262.

The Mids of DBA-02 are in fine balance with the bass and the treble. They have a slight tinge of warmness. They are very sharp and lean sounding compared to the softer, smoother, lusher RE-262. If the recording had sibilance, DBA-02 will not make any attempt to hide it. Like any good analytical IEM, DBA-02 will bring out tiniest of details to the front. For a BA, it has good timbre too!

The treble of DBA-02 is lean, fast, detailed and aggressive. I'm yet to hear an IEM which is this lean and mean. Do I even need to compare?

Coming to the sound stage, do I need to tell you that RE-262 beats DBA-02 in all dimensions and has out of the ear imaging? With imaging, DBA-02 is good, but certainly not great. But for that, DBA-02 compensates with it's speed. In general, analytical IEMs tend to be dry and thin, whereas I'd call DBA-02 as fast, lean and engaging.

Conclusion

In this uneven comparison of an analytic IEM and a musical one, it's tough to pronounce a simple statement like A is better than B. I personally would prefer DBA-02 ahead of RE-262 by quite a margin, because as an overall package DBA-02 to me sounds very relaxing. For somebody else, it could be the RE-262.

For now, it's time to get at least a couple of hours sleep :no:
 
The Bass of DBA-02 is more full bodied than RE-262. It has more texture, body and impact. It also extends well. It does not rattle the head with sub-bass, but it is relatively present
Click to expand...

interesting statement, never heard ths b4
 
With each passing comparison, I'm starting to tilt towards RE262 more and more. But just one thing I'd like them to have - extending bass which goes very low. I've begun to feel that the sound signature of TF10 isn't up to my tastes. As someone had written earlier, the instruments always seem one step ahead from the vocals. I dont find their bass to be extending either. Maybe I need to change my source first :P

Eagerly waiting for other comparisons, good work sire!
 
mukulymn said:
interesting statement, never heard ths b4
Click to expand...
That may be because my early morning tiredness. I ran both of them through T3 to check on the bass part so that they are on equal footing. I am sure about the extension and impact part. DBA-02 extends a tad bit more than 262 for sure, even though it's a bit rolled off. But it is damn quicker than RE-262 and hence I need to re-check on the texture and full bodied part alone tonight. I usually run a second time to ensure before hitting the submit button, but I was bored, tired and was writing as I was listening. Read through - No changes required elsewhere though! Sorry for my little over-enthusiasm last night!

@Mephistopheles

TF10 is indeed extended. Shouldn't be hard to hear the extension of Fuze. Don't think it's the source.
 
Awesome comparisons dude. :D

For once someone else has come out and called the bass of the TF10 muddy (at times)

I am surprised by your statement that the DBA bass is more than the RE262 coz I quite in comparisons between the DBA-02 and the CK-10, ljokerl said the CK-10 as better bass and many people sold off their CK10s by calling them bass light.

Damm so many conflicting reviews out there ! :P
 
^ On bass, I'll re-check tonight. I am thinking that I might have made an error of judgment there. It was 3AM, tired and I might have checked both DBA-02 and RE-262 at the same volume using Clip+ -> iBasso T3. Since DBA-02 is more efficient, that volume level might be 'too loud' for it and about right for RE-262. Usually, I am careful about matching loudness of IEMs during comparisons. I must have been a tad careless early morning after hours of remaining awake. If that impression is wrong, will fix it. So, wait for a few more hours before I confirm or re-write it :ashamed:

CK10 has better bass extension, but not impact. With DBA-02, the impact is much better, IIRC.

Edit: Fixed Bass impressions. Now, need a bump to add FX700 comparison :D
 
^ Thanks for the bump :)

RE-262 vs JVC HA-FX700​

The Test Setup

Clip+ #1 (Vol: -27 to -24) -> FX-700 (Stock Foam / Single Flanges)
Clip+ #2 (Vol: 0) -> iBasso T3 (No gain, Vol: 5)

Build Quality

Visually, I could not find much difference in the thickness of cable either before or after the Y-Split. However, FX700's cable feels more sturdier when handling. But, FX700's is really short, creating small hazards during usage now and then. It has a plastic Y-Split which is beefier and a useful chin slider. The stem of the FX-700 housing are much longer, but slightly thinner than that of RE-262. They are connected via small metal portion which then goes into the wooden housing. It goes without saying that for my eyes, woodies look much more gorgeous than the plastic housing of the 262.

Sound Quality

First, let me digress a bit. All the while, I was using FX700 with the stock foam tips (including my initial impressions). Today, while I was 'warming up' for the session with FX700, it sounded odd. My ear was bit at numerous frequency ranges. First, I tried to EQ as much as I can, all the while thinking this is not how I remember them. I lowered volume levels and found a point where it began to sound how I remember them. But still, those 'bites' continued. Thinking that I may not be getting an optimal fit, I tried the stock silicon tip and ....:O Oh! my GODZILLA! :O... and... Hello bass! So, this is what people are talking about :ohyeah:. My first reaction as any normal human being would do was to EQ it down (by 12dB) in RB-ed Clip+. But the peaks came back, so the rest of the comparison was with the stock silicon single flange tips, un-amped, un-EQed, except where mentioned.

With the foam tips, FX-700's bass is a sea of calmness - well textured, a bit more quantity than RE-262, well extended, but with a much longer decay. With the silicon tips, all I can say is "If this is not bass-head bass, then what is?". The quantity is huge; the extension which is barely felt with the foams comes alive to rumble and rattle the head. It however does not feel muddy. At times, the longer decay affects the bass guitar lines. The bass has good punch and impact. RE-262's bass feels small and anemic in comparison, though it redeems itself where FX700's longer decay and huge quantity are a deterrent.

Somehow through this bass, Mids of FX700 come through nicely, though it remains very slightly recessed. One of the saving grace of FX700's signature is the sweet timbre it has for many instruments and vocals. The mids are very warm with FX700, making the slightly warm RE-262 sound very neutral in comparison. I have Xears TD100-I, which take a similar approach of huge bass and warm mids, but they suffer a bit in the clarity department. But, FX700, despite the warmth and being behind that army tank bass, does not seem to suffer in that department.

When listening to "Coil" with FX700, the focal point of the presentation are the instruments with the vocals supporting them. With RE-262, it's always the vocals that take the center stage. FX700 has a similar 'soft sibilance' as in the vocal sibilance from recording results in a smooth 'ssss', which would not be very noticeable as most times, the vocals are a step behind the instruments. When compared to the vocals on RE-262, FX700 feels a bit more authoritative in delivery.

The treble of FX700 has good amount of sparkle, slightly thicker and very well detailed.

In terms of Sound stage, FX700's stage with foam tips is as wide and tall as RE-262. RE-262's stage is slightly more deeper though. With the silicon tips, I can't see past the big bass to do measurements :P.

Imaging wise, FX700 with foam tips made me feel that the stage is a bit wider than RE-262 as the sounds are well spread out and airy. As I mentioned before, FX700 feels more like an open headphone.

Technically, RE-262 is the balanced IEM here. Though it is tuned towards the midrange, it's frequency balance is achieved without too many audible biting bumps/peaks. On the other hand, FX700 achieves an artificial balance with emphasis at both extremes and bumps along the lower and upper mids to make it sound balanced.

Second is the approach of the IEMs towards producing sound. RE-262 takes a softer approach, whereas FX700 is slightly aggressive and hard hitting at presenting details. Both have their own set of fans.

Conclusion:

As a person who can accept any kind of weird signature, I am fine with FX700, even without EQ. But, for those who value vocals AND cannot stand bumped up bass and treble, I'd still ask them to stick to RE-262 despite the superior timbre and very catchy FX700 sound. Also, those who don't mind EQ-ing will derive somewhat more out of FX700. While the bass 'issue' can be taken care of by using foam tips or using a loose seal, you'd still need to EQ many bands across the spectrum to take the 'bite' off.

Personally, I find FX700 to be lot of fun despite it's flaws. Monster Miles Davis seems very similar to FX700, but takes the smoother way out in terms of sound (minus imaging and timbre of FX700). Like DBA-02, my personal preference sides with FX700. YMMV :)

PS: DBA-02, while analytical is devoid of such issues and is very relaxing, which is what makes it #2 ahead of FX700.
 
seems like fx700 wont suit me @ all

i cant take such an aggressive sound sig.

on the other hand dba02 seems much better

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

and now we await sm3 vs 262..........yeeeppppie
 
^ Actually, I think e-Q5 will suit you more. DBA-02 does not have these bumps, but is very aggressive with treble. But, if you are listening more to quieter music which is not filled with lot of cymbal crashes, DBA-02 would not sound as aggressive, but it won't be as fleshed out as RE-262 to make it enjoyable for you. FX700 too works nicely for vocals due to it's timbre, but in this case, it should be devoid of heavy bass lines (or) you should EQ the bass down a bit.

With each passing IEM, e-Q5, which I really hated at first seems like a nicer IEM in comparison. It still does not do anything special, but does less wrong, I guess.

Yep! SM3 is the only one left out. On paper, they are similar like to RE-262 like e-Q5 was. But, I think that SM3 and 262 will be more different than 262 and e-Q5 were. This time tomorrow night (barring unforeseen circumstances), you'll know for sure :)
 
Isnt there any IEM/headphone which has everything RE262 has, but with better bass and treble?

I don't mind laid back treble too, but the bass should be good.
 
^ Difficult to find, I guess. Not many IEMs have the combination that 262 has. You can find IEMs with improvements in certain areas, but they may fall short in some other area.

Headphones - I am not sure. I don't have much knowledge in that area.
 
Mephistopheles said:
Isnt there any IEM/headphone which has everything RE262 has, but with better bass and treble?

I don't mind laid back treble too, but the bass should be good.
Click to expand...
you are underestimating the bass of RE262 too much. yeah its sub bass is very weak, but still its fast and has pretty good quantity for most of the genres.
 
strategy said:
you are underestimating the bass of RE262 too much. yeah its sub bass is very weak, but still its fast and has pretty good quantity for most of the genres.
Click to expand...
Yup I have to agree with you there. I find the bass on the RE262 almost perfect for me. The RE1s hit as low with similar impact but it sounds almost muddy compared to the textured RE262 bass.

@Esantosh - I am eagaerly awaiting your SM3 and RE262 comparison as they have a somewhat similar signature compared to the DBA, TF10 and JVC.
 
RE-262 vs SM3​



Side Note

Had a hectic day and thought of postponing this comparison, but I knew that people are waiting for this (At least 3-4 :P), so decided to get it out anyways.

Setup

Clip+ #1 (Vol: -25, No EQ) -> SM3

Clip+ #2 (Vol: 0, No EQ) -> iBasso T3 (No gain, Vol: 4-5) -> RE-262

Build Quality, Fit etc.,

SM3's braided cable is likable a bit more than the plain looking RE-262 cable. There's more strain relief at the plug with SM3. But the L-plug is still misbehaving for me with the Clip+. At 2-3 instances, I lost one channel when my hand touched it accidentally. May be mine is a bit faulty as I had not seen this reported anywhere.

Coming to the Y-Split, SM3 has the real Y-split in the shape of Y. But it's damn close to strangling me out, ok a bit lower. But the point is with all the other IEMs, I can see the Y-Split when wearing them. With SM3, I have to remove the IEMs just to see the damn Y-Split. Both of them have useless chin sliders. The one on 262 won't move and the one on SM3 simply can't because there's no way it can jump beyond the Y-Split. Though I've been using them for a while, I still can't stop thinking that I could break SM3's housing or the nozzle could break apart when I'm changing tips. The housing has strain reliefs on SM3 and a plastic stem on RE-262.

SM3 requires some placement and twisting to get fitted. It also takes some effort to run the cables over the ear with the uncomfortably placed Y-Split. RE-262 is as easy as cake in comparison. SM3's straight edges were an issue only one of the plenty of times I've used them so far. However, RE-262 is more comfortable in comparison. Neither can be too comfortable for longer sessions, though I've not tried them for my really long sessions like I had with DDM or DBA-02 when I first got them.

Sound Quality

SM3's sound has thickness and warmth permeating through out the spectrum.

The bass on SM3 has far better quantity and impact compared to the 262, while remaining similarly quick, tight and textured. I can hear some more extension on SM3 compared to the slightly rolled off RE-262. SM3 can be slightly rumbling. Both IEMs are on the softer side comparing to the hard hitting IEMs like FX700.

The mids are the meat of both IEMs. SM3 places the vocalist at the center of the front at all times that it makes 262 feel slightly recessed in comparison. The vocals are excellent with both IEMs. Instruments take a slight step back in both, even with songs like "Vicarious" where instruments can often drown out the vocals. Here, SM3's forwardness helps a bit more. SM3's eclectic mix of warmth, thickness and imaging (more on that later) often makes RE-262 sound a bit lean, anemic and even a slight bit grainy. Both SM3 and 262 are detailed, but neither is as micro-detailed. SM3's thicker notes make it even more difficult to notice details, which are somewhat easier to locate with 262.

With treble, both are laid-back and sound very similar to my ears if I ignore the thickness of SM3. They both can sparkle at times, but are generally very smooth and take a back seat to the forward mids. SM3's presentation makes it easier to spot and hear treble, whereas RE-262 does at times tend to make me search a bit for it.

The sound stage of SM3 is as wide as RE-262, but it is a touch shorter and not as deep either. Separation is excellent with SM3 and it's hard to get confused even in complex passages which tend to 'congest' other IEMs a bit. Much has been said about the 'artificial enveloping' of SM3, but I think that's what helps keep sounds from muddying up. Both RE-262 and SM3 are not airy.

There are no "bites" anywhere in SM3's sound. I can say it's too finely tuned. While I found e-Q5 a little annoying because it won't convey the energy, I don't complain about SM3 at all. Not only does it sound smooth, but it also does not lack much. I've tried many genres, even ones that I've not liked much with SM3. With RE-262, I can notice the lack of bass impact and the laid back treble at times.

Conclusion

I personally find SM3 to be more engaging than the RE-262 and may I say, the only IEM to truly beat RE-262 in it's own game. FX700, TF10 and DBA-02 were too different, which made entertaining comparisons, but simply are tuned for an entirely different audience. e-Q5 was somewhat different, but the closest one in sound that can appeal to the RE-262 target audience. SM3 is the only one which had very similar characteristics and hence made this a proper comparison.

RE-262 is head and shoulders over many IEMs with it's smooth presentation, but to my ears, SM3 downs it. With another person, 262 could be preferred due to leanness of note and clean sounding driver. RE-262 could also be preferred because it's lack of stress on bass and treble (not "lacking", but just the stress) makes it hard to take your ears off the midrange. SM3 wins for me because it doesn't de-stress any other frequency range, but still sounds smooth and better! But, it's presentation is as mentioned by me before and by many others as well, is a tad different. It doesn't require the effort of looking one eyed at 3D pictures or a herculean effort, just an open mind to let go a bit off what you're generally accustomed to. This is easier for me, as I don't like to have strict rules nor do I get accustomed to one particular signature for too long as my continuous acquisitions won't let me :ashamed:, but I can understand that it can be very difficult for some. If you can make those slight adjustments, can carefully handle them, not get choked out by the Y-Split, can properly twist and fit and most importantly have a fatter wallet, SM3 is for you. Otherwise at the going price of $150, RE-262 does make a strong case for itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom