Yamaha EPH-100: Impression and Comparisons

Status
Not open for further replies.
esanthosh

esanthosh

Herald
Preface

It's been a long time since I wrote anything resembling a review, because I find it a tedious and boring process. But this is a little bit exciting. Yamaha EPH-100 happens to be IEM #74 for me. Quite possibly my #75 may not be as exciting, because EPH-100 truly a Jack of all trades.

Apart from buying numerous IEMs, there are only two ways to listen to many others without spending cash out of your pocket - review samples and loaners. I have developed a slight aversion to review samples. It was not really due to 'manufacturer defect', but the way the process works. I really do not like to be scheduled by others, but that's precisely what happens with review samples. Most manufacturers would want to strike the iron while it's hot and you, whether you like it or not, are committed to doing something within a time frame. Loaners (usually) come with less strings attached and usually from people who know and understand you. So, my 74 IEM ratio in terms of Bought: Loaners: Samples works out the same way - 52 : 17 : 5.

Until abhi_jollyguy offered his Yamaha EPH-100, I only knew it by it's reputation - yet another head-fi FOTM. Interestingly, Joker did his review recently and it scored 8.9. So I thought that may be like MonoPrice 8320, it was not all hype and smoke screen. It is when abhi_jollyguy started asking me questions that I was forced to search the enormous EPH-100 thread. The problem with reading other's impressions, unless you have the off switch to forget it, is that they do influence you. Either your impressions start aligning with them or you force yourself to search for evidence against them. I am going to try and stay clear off that beaten track as far as possible.

I thought the only sane way to answer all his doubts would be to repeat something I did with mukulymn's RE-262 last year - only shaking off all the mvw2 influence which I was under at that time and doing something more my style these days - write a long, long review so that everybody falls asleep in the middle of it. Of course, if you are a brave soul who made it through this wall of text and what's to follow, pat yourself on the back and wish yourself luck, may be pray! You're gonna need it!

Buying EPH-100:

Yamaha EPH-100 is the current flagship IEM of the company. It can be bought from AudioAffair, UK for 73.74 GBP (~ Rs. 6600-6700 via Paypal) with normal trackable Royal Airmail or ~110 GBP (close to 10K) with FedEx shipping. At that price range, it competes against the likes of JVC FXT90, Sony EX-600.

External Factors

Build Quality: I like the housing design. It is well constructed of aluminum, thinner in diameter with a straight barrel form factor. Cable does not beg for attention. Strain reliefs look good. Left and Right markings in the housing - ah! someone at least 'gets' the whole point of it and not hide it somewhere else.

Accessories: Good pack of accessories with five sizes of bi-flanges, which look slightly different from the regular bi-flanges as they are more straight than conical. I think that is why I get a far better seal than with most bi-flanges. It also includes a 6.3mm adapater, extension cable and a case. The soft carry case reminds me a little of the Etymotic zipper case (but no brand name in this case), but is larger with good storage space for the tips.

Microphonics: Mild and bearable when worn down. Disappears when over the ear. I always prefer over the ear style wearing.

Isolation: Very good. I would say that this is among the better isolating ones I've heard of late.

Comfort: Comfortable for long hours.

Specifications:

Driver Type: Dynamic, Closed
Driver Unit: 6 mm (1/4”)
Impedance: 16 ohms
Sound Pressure Level: 104 dB ±3 dB
Frequency Response: 20 Hz – 20 kHz
Weight (with Cable): 13.5 g (0.46 oz)
Cable Length: 1.2 m (47-1/4”)
Connectors: 3.5 mm (1/8”) L-type mini stereo, 6.3 mm (1/4”) stereo

Sound

First Impressions:

Took too much time to unpack :P

I have Rockboxed Clip+ on shuffle for the whole media library at -33dB. I used the UE compatible single flange for a while before settling on the now dry stock bi-flanges. My first impression was that EPH-100 was nothing special. But then, I found no glaring faults either. Bass - check, Mids - check, Treble - Check, Sound stage - Check, Imaging - Check. So, how the hell does it sound, you ask? Very good.

At first, with the 'UE' tips, I thought 'heh! looks like we got ourselves a musical GR07. Does nothing much wrong, but not overly impressive'. With the stock bi-flanges, it sounds impressive.

The bass has good extension, impact, texture and quantity. To my ears, the quantity sounds just about right - it is north of anything bass light, but not as much as to get the tag "bass heavy", leave alone "bass head" IEM. The mid-bass has the mild upper hand while the sub-bass has enough grunt when needed. The texture is good, but does not feel filled in to the point where I'd call them 'fuller sounding' like the DDMs of the world. the decay is a tad on the slower side. When needed, the bass steps in with the punch, but not going to the extent of being omnipresent and annoying on every track. It is clear, but does not portray all the minor details.

The mid range is neither forward nor recessed - somewhat centered with a slight presence of warmth. In the same manner, it is neither thick nor thin. It manages to avoid irritating peaks, stays clear of sibilance and has a smooth, somewhat fluid character to it.

The treble continues along the path set by bass and mids by staying smooth and easy on the ears. It is neither too rolled off to annoy me nor does it worry the treble-phobic with an aggressive presentation. In contrast to the mids, the treble is slightly thinner sounding.

The sound stage has good width and decent depth. So far, with most music, I found it to have good separation, imaging and layering.

It feels like someone carefully drew a Lakshman Rekha for every aspect of it's sound on both sides ('lacking' vs 'too much') like a railway track to run on. But the most important derivative of this tuning is that it sounds very smooth and engaging. It is not an IEM you would want for hearing the most intricate of details or get an adrenaline rush from the music, because I don't feel it's snappy or energetic. It feels more like an IEM you would want to use for hours of listening because of it's smooth and laid-back nature. Isolation and comfort also come in handy enabling you to do just that. Most IEMs usually fall short in one aspect or another, but EPH-100 ticks all the right boxes for it's intended signature. It doesn't do anything incredibly special, but it is far from annoying me in any of the aspects.

Comparisons : See Post #3

Measurements by Rin : http://rinchoi.blogspot.in/2012/07/yamaha-eph-100.html

Conclusion:

To describe EPH-100, I will have to go back to what I mentioned in the beginning of this review. EPH-100 is truly a jack of all trades. Most IEMs usually miss out on one factor or another. But, EPH-100 combines comfort, isolation, good build quality and leaves nothing much to be desired in the signature. The good thing about their sound is that it stays clear of glaring faults and minor irritants that are usually a 'turn off' for listeners. On the other hand, it does not prove itself to be 'special'. I do not regard it to be on par with the IEMs I hold dear (EX-1000 and the like), but I do consider it to be a very safe recommendation for most upgrading from under Rs. 5000 price range.
 
EPH-100 Comparisons

My usual method of comparison was two fold. To listen to both IEMs without trying to evaluate for a session. Another aspect is to start with frequency tone files, frequency sweeps and run a few test tracks testing for specifics. I would do quick A:B between the IEMs to see relative presentation in this case. I sometimes quit listening to IEMs for days together to purge my biases and start the comparison again. While I acknowledge that that method produces relatively better comparisons, I am sick and tired of running 'test tracks' over and over and ... you get the point?

Instead, I ran random tracks, tracks that Clip+ played when I set Shuffle & Repeat across all tracks. If the track is familiar, I look for specifics I know. If not, I just listened either attentively or in the background. Instead of bits of a track, I decided to listen to full tracks, but repeat as often necessary. I could go A:B:A or A:A:B:A or just A:B if it suffices. No set method, no pressure, also not accurately predictable results. For instance, I could do sessions where no tracks with female vocals come up or genres like Jazz or EDM comes up. But there was always an Opeth or PT or Tool involved.

Secondly, once we start liking an IEM, we place undue emphasis on it's strengths while getting used to it's weaknesses. While comparisons are meant to be 'objective', we hardly are. I am just a normal person who is not beyond the influence of this bias.

Section I: vs Top-Tiers

JVC HA-FX700

FX700 differs in a lot of ways from EPH-100. In terms of externals, FX700 is made of gorgeous looking wood. It costs much more, but short changes you in terms of isolation as well as the cable length (though you can use the supplied extension cable) compared to EPH-100. I can actually live with FX700's isolation as it isolates better than something like a BDD (which of course is as bad as an ear bud).

In terms of broad signature, EPH-100 is balanced with a slight emphasis on the mid range. FX700 is V-shaped.

FX700 loves low volume. If one went just by the impedance and sensitivity figures, both FX700 and EPH-100 are at an equal 16 ohm, 104dB. But if you listen to both at equal volume, you would be completely missing the uniqueness of FX700 as it would sound more 'flat' and 'closed in'. So, I kept the volume for EPH-100 at -33 and FX700 at -38. The random track playing in Clip+ was Opeth's "Closure" from "Damnation". When doing short A:B, I found that FX700 sounded a bit 'congested' when compared to EPH-100. But, on the other hand, the longer I listened, the more I liked FX700. I thought may be I should do the comparison another way. I ran the whole track on FX700 thrice, listened to how it presented music, what aspects it highlighted, came back to EPH-100. I then repeated the same procedure with EPH-100 as well.

The difference in their characters was obvious this time. FX700 excelled in peeling out more layers of information from the track, extracting a few subtle nuances that I did not notice with EPH-100. It was far better in presenting spatial cues including height and distance. It also had a blacker background and everything was so well defined. Above all, it sounded more transparent with good timbre and managed to draw me into music. It had an aura, a grandeur with the sound which EPH-100 cannot match. But then why did I feel it was 'congested'? My theory is that it's a combination of two factors. FX700 had more details and better transparency and more importantly not so polite about showing it off. Suddenly there was more happening and I needed a bit more time to adjust. The second was that EPH-100's presentation is at a slight distance, where you could perceive the placement in width better. FX700 presented the same with better front-to-back placement. Now instead of guitars at either end and vocals in the center, I had them a bit more diagonally across. FX700 was also more revealing of the difference between lower and higher dynamic range sections in the track, whereas EPH-100 due to it's smoother nature was more subdued and did not 'bite' when the track became busier.

What about the traditional A:B comparison?

Bass of FX700 has more quantity with a great punch. While comparing with other tracks, I did not feel the punch as much until an Eminem track made me slightly dizzy. FX700 can indeed satisfy the 'bass head' when it needs to. The mid-bass bump in FX700 would be obvious within a minute of A:B, it is no slouch in extracting sub-bass information either. Coming to mid range - usually, one associates 'recessed mids', 'V shaped signature' with something scooped out in the mids. But FX700 hardly misses a beat with details or clarity in that region. Despite that, vocals cannot be mentioned as a strength of FX700. EPH-100 is more forgiving of the two and would be smoother across more genres. On the flip side, it would not do a chameleon act like FX700 and be gritty or soft as the need arises. With treble, I quite enjoyed FX700's presentation. EPH-100 simply did not do cymbals/Hi-hats as well as I'd have liked. The sound stage of EPH-100 may have a little more width, but it simply does not convey depth information or distance as well as FX700. FX700, as mentioned, has better transparency, details and clarity compared to EPH-100. Both have good separation and imaging, but FX700 scores a little bit more by utilizing the head space better (center, front, left, right, back, a bit of height as well).

Sony MDR-EX1000

The volume difference between EPH-100 and EX-1000, depending on the recording was within a couple of points. EX-1000 feels like something special in the hands (not the cable though), EPH is a minimalist in comparison. Once worn, EX-1000 looks like an alien 'golden ear' transplant than a regular IEM. I wish it isolated as good as EPH-100, but it unfortunately doesn't.

I think FX700 is the only IEM apart from SM3 that is somewhat unyielding and 'shocking' as far as comparisons go. Both of them have things that I like, but mess with my head a bit when A:B-ing. Comparing EX-1000 to EPH-100 is more a normal walk in the park. Dropping my habit of sticking to select 'test tracks' has made the act of comparison from a 'job' to something I do not mind doing once in a while. In a random shuffle, I come across variety of genres and even tracks that I don't listen regularly.

Today, I cannot say I was bored at any point. I liked each of them for their abilities. The mid-bass of EX-1000 has a little more quantity than EPH-100, though it's a very slight difference. But, the difference is in the way they present the bass. EX-1000 is more quicker both in attack and decay, punchy and also does sub-bass better. It's not a difficult transition at all. But adjusting to the treble of EX-1000, which is a little more flashy can be slightly difficult when coming from EPH-100. On recordings which had 'moar treble' already, switching to EX-1000 was a little unsettling at first. Once I got used to both signatures (by the 2nd or the 3rd track), this was no longer a big issue. The mid range of EX-1000 is leaner, clearer, effortless, faster, detailed, has better timbre and in general, brilliant across genres. EPH-100 on the other hand is engaging due to it's texture, smoothness and lack of peakiness.

Though EPH-100 is no slouch in clarity, EX-1000 is clear like the sunny day making EPH a somewhat like a foggy early morning. The sound stage and presentation aspects are much different. EX feels more like a wide screen or a wide stage in a concert hall in (especially in case of Symphonies). EPH is more traditional with a center, left and right. At times, I missed that on-center feel with EX-1000.

Overall, I'd say that EPH is surprisingly competent, but what eludes it is the elegance EX-1000 has. In an overall sense, what I love about EX-1000 is it's cleanliness - an effortless, open, dynamic sound that eases you into any type of music. EX-1000 is not 'perfect' and I agree it may not be for everyone. But personally, I would say that while EPH-100 can be 'fun', EX-1000 is like opening up the last curtain between me and music - an open window, a point where I stop listening to the IEM and start listening to the music.


Section 2: vs Similar Price range

JVC HA-FXT90

With the FXT90, tips and fit have a great impact on sound. I tried the bi-flanges, stock large size single flanges before settling on the Monster foam tip. Except for the bi-flanges, other tips do have driver flex - some times in both ears. Monsters are the only ones that sounded about right to my ears. The mid range was a little more forward, vocals sounded full bodied, bass is about right. It brings out more sub-bass than other tips. Best of all, I had trouble adjusting to the treble with bi-flanges. Though it had sparkle (which I do prefer), it was forward and had a slight bump somewhere which made it a tad edgier. The larger single flange tips (my usual size is medium) had a slightly wider, airier sound stage (relatively speaking), but had the worst driver flex. With the Monster tips, it was replaced by a detailed, but not as sparkling treble.

I thought this was going to be an easy comparison. First off, I am not a huge fan of FXT90. I appreciate it, but I don't like it - somewhat like GR07 and e-Q5. Though many well known and respected reviewers have said FXT90 is 85 percent of FX700, every time I went for it, it felt like somebody was holding back it's sound, a bit constrained. FX700 was open, transparent, airy and yes! more pronounced at both ends and recessed in the mids. Despite that V-shape, FX700 is something special and the FXT90 isn't. I still prefer FXT90 over many IEMs, but I am not a fan. So, what difficulty would Yahama have in beating FXT90?

But, it was not that easy. Despite my preconceived notions, I went back and forth between two IEMs. But, after spending better part of two evenings, I am at the same position - I cannot decide in favor of one IEM or another, which seems to be such an easy task with majority of head-fiers. Rather than hurting my ears by doing more A:B, I thought I'd just say what I think of them and leave it to your imagination on what you think is 'better'. Most of the comparison was done with Monster foam tip on the FXT90.

FXT90 isolates less than EPH-100 irrespective of tips and works with a volume couple of notches below EPH-100 based on the track.

The major difference is in the approach and presentation. The Yamaha is laid-back, slightly distant, cleaner sounding and has a wider sound stage and sounds a bit more spacious. FXT90 has a much more intimate presentation with an energetic, sometimes bordering on aggressive presentation. The sound stage width is not much, but depth perception is better than on Yamahas. It is also more dynamic, relatively more transparent and has better coloration.

Bass of the FXT90 is thick, relatively quicker and has a good punch. It has a good extension, producing sub-bass information that EPH-100 does not convey as much. With Monster tips, the relative presence and weight of sub-bass is improved a lot compared to other tips. EPH-100 on the other hand has more mid-bass which is better textured than the FXT. On bass heavy tracks, the forward bass of FXT has a tendency to steal attention more than the EPH.

The mid range of FXT is thick, warm, relatively forward, dynamic, has better timbre and reveals better details. The vocals are a touch more forward and fuller sounding and hence I prefer them on some of the tracks. EPH's mids are slightly distant, smoother. They are easy to like, much better for background listening whereas JVC would force me to pay attention. In terms of coloration, moving from EPH to FXT can somewhat be approximated to walking from a still falling evening street into a warm, orange light glowing club. But still, there's an inexplicable minutiae off about the FXT's mids that bugs me from time to time.

In the treble department, FXT has better details and presentation, while the Yamahas sound thinner and more relaxed. At times, EPH's approach is better (with aggressive, treble heavy recordings) as it tends to take the edge off the treble. But in other tracks, FXTs take the cake. It must be mentioned that FXTs do not sound edgy. They have good clarity, resolution and energy, but it feels like somebody took a little bite of their 'bite', letting them remain easy on the ears despite the apparent energy.

There are times when I preferred the cleaner, smoother sounding EPH-100 over FXT90, only to switch back and enjoy the intimate FXTs. With different tips, Yamaha could easily take a lead over FXT90, but with Monster foams, I can say that they are on par. Sounds like a cop-out? Hardly so. I've spent many hours comparing both (more than I do usually) and couldn't clearly prefer one over the other (sometimes - this, sometimes - that, sometimes - neither). May be depending on my mood, I'd choose one over the other easily. But, I saw no point stretching myself since this is neither a do-or-die battle nor is the choice mutually exclusive (also, I have no favorite horse in the race ;)). Sometimes, Sound sleep >> Sound!

Atrio M5 (MG7)

MG7 is another of those IEMs which I appreciate, but don't like.

Atrio MG7 cuts a sorry figure next to EPH-100 in terms of looks and build quality. It is not attractive, has a thin cable and is made of plastic. You do not even begin to appreciate the design and the lighter weight until you wear it. With the stock bi-flanges, it isolates almost as good as EPH-100. It is also as comfortable as EPH-100, but after some prolonged listening, Atrio's bi-flange tips did not feel as comfortable as the Yamaha's. It requires a few notches more in volume compared to EPH-100.

The designation of a 'bass head' IEM usually means plenty of mid-bass, but Atrio strays away from that. The bass quantity is surprisingly polite on some tracks, while showing it's full power on other tracks. There is no mid-bass bump to speak of and lot of sub-bass. There is no flab, no excess, just... bass and it's details. I generally tend to like a tilt towards sub-bass and it suits me just fine. It's slightly thick though. EPH-100 has the more traditional approach when it comes to bass - lots of mid-bass, enough sub-bass, a warm presentation, slower decay - making it's mid bass the first thing you notice.

If there is a deal breaker with MG7, it has to be the mid range. There is nothing much wrong with it on a technical basis. It is recessed, leaner, does not lack details and even likable on a stand-alone basis. But, the character is a little dry, there is no fleshed out sound, no emotional appeal and hence it is never as much enjoyable. It always gives me the feeling of watching a desirable object with a thick glass in between. But, that's probably what they call a "monitor" tuning. EPH-100 on the other hand is very enjoyable - enough said!

On the treble front, both do not have enough for me. MG7's treble is a little more forward, has a little more energy and body. Among the two, I do prefer EPH-100.

When it comes to sound stage, spaciousness and presentation, EPH-100 takes it all. MG7 has a decently sized sound stage and the imaging is not bad at all. But everytime, going from MG7 to EPH-100 makes me feel like coming out to the open space from a claustrophobic place due to the mid range and the sound stage.

On a side note, if you read this and wondered why I am still keeping MG7, the answer is simple. MG7 does better with UHA-6S. Even with Clip+, it does a little better with higher volumes, but UHA-6S makes it sound even better.

MEElectronics A161P

MEE A161P is sold for $100. But since it's a premium product in their line-up, the shipping options available range from $31 (FedEx Economy) to $43 (USPS Express) which would make A161P costlier than EPH-100 by at least Rs. 1000, if not more. Like with EPH-100, I was a bit skeptical of A161P as well before hearing them myself.

In general, neither Yamaha nor MEElectronics is the first company that comes to mind when we think of makers of great SQ IEMs. Yamaha is a much bigger company with years of experience in audio including their famous Orthodynamic headphones, but have not captured the attention of head-fi until recently with their IEMs. MEElectronics is a smaller company that is known for re-branding OEMs. They differented themselves by providing a decent build quality and a good set of accessories across price ranges with good support to back it up. They were mostly a budget IEM brand and had not ventured beyond the $100 mark until A161P. This is in someways, a flagship vs flagship comparison, both of which are still within the affordable price range unlike a Westone, Shure or Sennheiser. It cannot be more different since we are pitting a 6mm dynamic micro-driver against a single Balanced armature IEM.

It's always mildly more interesting when you get to compare IEMs that are different in nature. More than anything, it is likely to bring out your personal preferences in favor of one type of presentation or the other. In this comparison, A161P is oriented more towards those who are after a detailed, fast armature sound. EPH-100 caters to a different audience - ones who want a smooth listening experience for hours together irrespective of the genre. The one common thing between them is that they both sacrifice a bit of sparkle up the top to reduce the fatigue for listeners.

When it comes to build quality, A161P is very decent, while EPH-100 is better on account of the better cable and the metal housing.

When it comes to the bass region, it's hard to choose between the two. EPH has better sub-bass presence, but on the other hand is slower. A161P has decent extension (more like Brainwavz M3 from memory), but the the mid bass quantity and texture leaves little to be desired. I find myself leaning towards A161P here, which is strange considering it's an armature. Mid range of A161P is intimate, crisper and makes it easy to ascertain details. EPH was more smoother across genres. A161P has a warmer coloration to the mid range than EPH, which makes it a bit more engaging for me. While EPH does not do anything wrong here, A161P is better suited for my tastes. With the treble, EPH-100 has better extension, but it also feels a bit elevated in quantity compared to A161P. One area where EPH beats A161P is the sound stage and presentation. The sound stage of EPH has better width and it sounds more open and spacious. But, A161P does not lag behind much when it comes to imaging within it's sound stage. To me, rather than the sheer size of the stage, it's the imaging which matters more.

There's nothing much to separate the two to my ears. While most would favor EPH as their fatigue free IEM, personally I lean towards A161P. Firstly, it was hard for me to pick out any great weakness in A161P vs the EPH-100. Secondly, it does not lack bass or disturbing peaks or elevated highs to fatigue me. So, while it may appear as a strange personal choice - A161P is fatigue free for me enough to pick it over EPH-100.

Section 3: vs Others

Fischer Tandem (Fatigue Free signature)

Fischer Tandem cost me within striking distance of the current EPH-100 price. It sells for $129 and would cost more now due to (further) INR depreciation. The cloth covered cable and plastic housing with the big blue and red rims are not exactly going to make them talk of the town, but they do have decent build quality. I am a sucker for ear phones that allow me to tell Left and Right apart in the dark and Tandem is, without a doubt, one of the easiest to pick out. They are a little big, so tend to stay outside the ear. I generally have a problem with such IEMs due to my ear canal shape. I have settled on the Klipsch "compatible" tips from LostEarBuds, which gives me good seal. Their isolation is somewhat decent, but not at the level of Yamaha. It requires a little more volume (3-4) compared to EPH-100.

Though both can be called 'fatigue free' due to lack of irritable peaks, their manner of presentation differs. The bass of Tandem carries good punch, a bit quicker and slightly more resolving than the EPH, but lose out in quantity and a bit of extension to the EPH. Tandem is more mid-centric than EPH-100, so with bass heavy tracks, EPH tends to allow both bass and mids to shine, whereas with Tandem, bass plays a second fiddle to the mids.

There are some similarities - both have a 'neither-forward-nor-recessed' smooth mid range, they are both slightly warm. The mid range of Tandem is a tad softer, a touch more polite, a little less warm compared to EPH-100. But, what makes the most difference is that EPH-100 feels a bit more liquid and better textured (especially vocals) and a tad more dynamic. Combined with the wider sound stage, EPH sounds more open compared to Tandem.

The treble of Tandem, like it's bass is a little polite, but even more laid-back. It yields to the Yamaha in quantity and extension.

The sound stage of Tandem has decent width and depth. The presentation is not bad at all, but Yamahas which have more width, better separation, layering and hence sound the more open of the two.

Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi 10 (Old vs New)

This is, much like the comparison against A161P, about two different IEMs. EPH-100 is new, a micro-dynamic and still fresh from it's 15 minutes of fame on head-fi. TF10 is an old flagship, a triple BA, an IEM which was once sold for $400. These days, it's best remembered as "That IEM which sells under $100 on Black Friday". Instead of releasing a successor to TF10 in the universals, Logitech has turned attention towards customs, leaving TF10 to be the top of their universal line-up. When it comes to fields where technology advances fast, there is always a tendency to go for the new and shun the old. There's no denying that TF10 is easy to bash. It's old, has a V-shaped sound; does not fit many ears and even when it ultimately fits, it sticks out many inches out of the ear. But, does a 'modern' small 6mm driver easily beat the "old" 3-BA sound? That question popped in my head and prompted this comparison.

A few days ago, a sleeping TF10 was pulled off it's case and inserted into my ears. Coming off good dynamics such as EX-1000 and FX700, I was about to cry for a while due to how violins sounded off. Clip+'s random shuffle can sometimes be cruel. As if one was not enough, it played two Jascha Heiftez tracks back to back. Like a good boy, it quietly went back to playing random tracks. Then, I remembered why I sold a technically superior, coherent (and also sibilant) GR07 and kept this low life of an IEM. While TF10 is bettered in each and every department by many others, especially in the $100-200 price range, it still has a signature that is 'fun'. While many a trained ears have picked up incoherency in TF10, I choose to conveniently oversee it and look at the big picture - the vast, open, deep sound stage, the BA speed, clarity, separation, details, a non-analytical V-shaped signature. These still form a little 'it' factor for me. I don't use it regularly. I even decided to sell it 4-5 times in the past, but back it went into the case every time.

Let's start with why EPH-100 is considered "better". In a single word - Life. Mid range is the essence of music and EPH-100 gives it far more realism and connection when compared to TF10. The bass of TF10 is thicker and many a time, a bit short on details. While the mid-bass quantity is higher than EPH, I still came to prefer the slightly slower, but better textured EPH. The sub-bass details are produced better with EPH. When we move to the mid range, TF10 has a recessed mid range, which is slightly thick and cold like ice. It has all the details coupled with the BA speed, but it lacks dynamics and hence, emotion. Though it is not annoying, TF10 shows off vocal sibilance when present in the track. EPH-100 masks even that little second of frustration and wins the battle of the mids. Even with treble, I cannot say that TF10 takes the ball and runs with it. While treble of TF10 may have a slight edge, I don't think EPH-100 falls too far behind even with it's lack of sparkle. And then we come to the sound stage and presentation aspect. EPH-100 is no slouch here, displaying spaciousness and a decently wide sound stage. I would say that TF10 sounds more like a surround sound system than a 2 channel speaker. But the airiness and spaciousness gives it a solid edge over EPH when it comes to presentation.

EPH-100 does trounce TF10 in many ways, yet old habits and preferences die hard. Personally, I'd say despite it's huge, unmistakable flaws, TF10 still sounds nice enough for me to keep it in the collection. If I were to do casual / background listening, I would easily prefer TF10 over EPH for it's speed and spaciousness. But, if I was intent on listening to music and connecting with it (when choice is restricted to these two), I might pick EPH-100.

JVC HA-FXD80 (FOTM vs FOTM)

It is not unusual for some new IEMs to become FOTM at head-fi. It often begins with one positive review from someone (mostly one with a fan following already). Validation of that view comes from a few others. Soon, the thread gets filled with tense, nail biting people waiting for the arrival of their own eargasm, generally going hand in hand with the cursing of postal and custom delays (and crying about wallet). Then comes a phase where hype feeds on hype until it blows into a giant ball of hyperbole (beats IEMs 2X-4X it's price, beats everything famous). At this stage, the IEM becomes something else - something that can't be faulted with, something that cannot be spoken against. Any (lone) voice of dissent is always struck down with counter arguments about fit, tip, source, preference, hearing impairment and personal attacks. Usually after 50 pages, some complaints raise their ugly head and the path to normalcy ensues with that FOTM slowly getting forgotten and (usually) replaced by another. Not all of the supposedly "FOTM" IEMs turn out to be bad, but a few are found to be over-hyped. Let's see how the emerging FOTM, FXD80 fares against the established FOTM, EPH-100.

I did not want to bash FXD80 straight away. I burned it in for that mythical 100 hours mostly using higher volumes than I can listen to. In addition, I got the Auvio tips (which are said to be better than stock tips) recently. I also gave them a few hours of stand-alone listening to let the signature sink in. Since they do seem to get better with an amplifier, I repeated my A:B with QA350->UHA-6S as well.

FXD80 is built very well. It's housing is solid and easily rivals EPH-100's. If not for the mild driver flex and the odd 'extension' through which the cable enters, I'd say FXD80 is better. The cable feels better, though I do not know if it makes any difference. FXD80 requires little more volume than most across players (-27 vs -33 on Clip+, 9+ on UHA-6S vs ~ 9'o clock). The loudness increase is not as linear with increase in volume either. Since two more head-fiers confirmed the same issue, mine is not an isolated case. But, it makes me think that high volume listeners and those who use amps are likely to have a different perception of FXD80 than those who do not do either.

With the Auvio tips, the balance of FXD80 moved towards mid centric. Both the bass and treble were de-emphasized. I also find that with deep insertion, the sound feels a bit muffled. With different tips and insertion, it may be a slightly different story, but then my intention is not to do every possible permutation and combination for this comparison.

With Clip+, the comparison was easy - FXD80s were not sounding anywhere close to EPH-100. Besides sounding mid-centric, the bass had no feel whatsoever with the 80s. With the mid range, it was lean, distant, very much lacking in texture and at times a bit muffled with the recessed vocals. In terms of mid range coloration, FXD80 is a step closer to neutral than the slightly warmer Yahamas. Even treble was a bit muted. EPH-100 was smoother, textured (relatively speaking) and was not far behind in sound stage or imaging.

But, with UHA-6S and the higher power it provided, things were a little different. Actually, the bass comparison is not that different from Clip+. FXD80 has a quicker, tight bass with somewhat decent impact, but not much quantity or texture which makes it feel lacking next to the Yamaha. EPH-100 has good impact, slightly higher mid bass quantity, texture and better sub-bass presentation. Looking closely at the mid range, FXD's issues remain the same. Even though FXD's vocals do not seem as recessed with UHA-6S, there is something missing - a hole, if I can call it. It feels like there is a connecting (filler) note is missing making the lower mid range feel a bit thin, cold and at times slightly lagging in definition. With the Yamahas, the sound attains better texture, authority and slight sense of richness. With the treble however, the roles reverse. If you are one of those who get offended by a 8-10Khz spike, beware that your experience may not be the same. But personally, I am used to that spike with CK10. The treble of EPH-100 is thin, a little bumped to give it a bit more presence and quantity. But it never attains the forwardness, texture or the edge FXD80 provides for the cymbals. With the imaging and presentation, FXD80 is ahead due to the airiness and distinct positioning compared to EPH-100. FXD80 feels better suited for energetic music than the smoother EPH-100 and most times, it feels clearer due to the 9Khz spike.

Overall, I can say that EPH-100 had slightly more positives and not as many negatives as FXD80.
 
ok so at low volume FX700 do not show it's potential or can I say that FX700 is equal to EPH-100 at low volume level as you described more flat and closed in sound? Lets say EPH-100 and FX700 both at -33dB so? You like the FX700 more as it is obvious because of the price difference.
 
A few quick things for those thinking of ordering the EPH-100 from Audio affair. The RoyalMail is traceable, although the tracking itself is below par and takes forever to update. Secondly and more importantly the 80GBP price you see in the link includes VAT which you don't pay for shipments outside the UK, had mentioned this to Abhi I think (hope I did!), so its 13GBP less straightaway.

Like Santosh mentioned the markings for left and right are nice and clear, they haven't faded in the few months that I've had them, unlike some of my other iems. There's also a small bump on the left strain relief, I like the little touch as I do a lot of listening in the dark and prefer this over the red and blue markings seen on a lot of iems.

For me they're good all-rounders great for everyday use. Excellent seal with the stock buds, light and yet well built. They're more "fun" sounding than anything I've had.........good bass that extends a bit into your mid-range giving it some extra life, personally like the mids the best, guitars sound nice while the highs tend to wander away just a bit but nowhere close to something like the RE-1.

Also, you might find using your other tips with the EPH-100 a bit hard due to the large nozzle, the drivers are placed right in the front making the end quite a bit larger than most IEMs. I've tried taking a picture to back up what I just said. Don't know if you can make out how much larger the supplied tips are. That's the UE TF10 and the Sennheiser IE8 pictured alongside the EPH-100. The IE8 with comply tips and the TF10 with oem tips, both of which will not get on my Yamahas!



 
Ritvik,

Thanks for mentioning that it's trackable. Have updated the first post. The price I mentioned (inclusive of shipping) comes to ~74 GBP, which is less than the listed price.

PS: The forum seems to have a problem with symbols, even % and & at times.

abhi_jollyguy said:
ok so at low volume FX700 do not show it's potential or can I say that FX700 is equal to EPH-100 at low volume level as you described more flat and closed in sound? Lets say EPH-100 and FX700 both at -33dB so? You like the FX700 more as it is obvious because of the price difference.
Click to expand...

FX700 is not perfect, but it has an "it" factor that only a handful like EX-1000 share. Lower volume levels are preferable (can go down further depending on the recording) to counter the huge bass quantity (or a loose fit). If you can take in that much quantity, then nothing prevents you from cranking up the volume ;)

What I had in mind was an effect of Equal loudness contour. I never volume match IEMs, rather approximately loudness match them and that is exactly what happened here. That said, I did listen to both using UHA-6S at the same volume level for a while. Even at a louder level, you only take away the perceived balance a little, but not the "soul" of an IEM. FX700 suddenly can't start sounding like a RE-0. Can it? The way FX700 does a few things would still appeal to me. A guitar solo for instance - would be smooth and nice on the EPH-100, but to me, the emotion is conveyed better and my connection to music is made better with FX700. The difference between loving an IEM and merely appreciating or liking it exists in those little things it gives you.

Price difference has absolutely nothing to do with what you like nor is it indicative of better SQ. I prefer a lower priced DBA-02 over a higher priced e-Q5 and DDM2. It's all about sound - what I expect from it, what it gives. Otherwise, a $7 Monoprice 8320 would not be so far up my list :P
 
Ummm... a tough choice. Brandenburg concerto on EX-1000 or more jargon talk? Bach wins that one easily :ohyeah:

From what I remember, I'd say separation on EPH-100 was better, a slight edge to EX-1000 on layering.
 
OK! Comparisons done.

abhi_jollyguy,

Hope I have covered all the IEMs you wanted me to compare them to and a couple more. If there's anything else you or anybody else want me to compare to, let me know. But, I fully intend to keep tomorrow as an "IEM free ear day". So, all requests shall be followed up from Monday :)
 
esanthosh

First of all Let me say thanks to you. Thank You :) as you have done quite a tough job which you are doing from the past few years and I will be happy to see the same from you in near future or may be forever :)

Commendable comparisons, Cleared up my many confusions, again thanks a lot.

PS: I have not heard EPH-100 as much as you heard them :p
 
wow great comparisons, I am quite shocked with the TF10 comparo :D

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

@esanthosh

Are there 2 variants of TF10? as you have written old vs new?

In IEM ranking thread you have put TF10 on 8th position and EPG-100 on 13th position but it seems to me that you like EPH-100 more in the comparison?
 
I was merely saying TF10 is "old" as it has existed for so long.

The ranking thing is a little complex. But, personally, I'd still take TF10 over EPH-100 despite the flaws. That aside.....

I liked TF10 a little better than GR07 when I had both because of the same 'fun factor' (refer my GR07 review). If I were to purely go by technical ability, GR07 should be at #8 or #9 and TF10 far down below. I thought despite signature differences, GR07, DDM2, e-Q5 are somewhat similar overall. From my, DDM2 impressions

DDM2 feels more like e-Q5 and GR07 - excellent IEMs, but not quite at the level of FX700 or SM3 or CK10. But, for my tastes, I enjoyed GR07 and e-Q5 a little less than what I do with DDM2. I am going to provisionally place DDM2 at 7 out of 55. I would think GR07 is technically the most proficient of the three, e-Q5 is sort of the middle man and DDM2 is firmly on the musical side of things. They are all on equal footing and personal preferences would decide which is subjectively better.
Click to expand...

...so that made them 9,10,11. I like FI-BA-SB at least better than EPH-100, but I was doubtful whether I'd rank it above e-Q5, so that has to come at 12. If I buy / is loaned any of the three (e-Q5, GR07, DDM2) and I dislike TF10 compared to them, it will slide in rankings. If I now place TF10 at #14, then it invalidates my actual comparison side by side with GR07. On the other hand, if I move up EPH-100, it would mean that I like it more than SB, e-Q5, which is not the case. That is how TF10 is still #8 and EPH-100 is #13.
 
Added comparison to FXD80 in Post #3.

And @abhi_jollyguy, to answer your question - EPH-100 does not need an amp and it does not 'improve' with an amp. So, rest easy. I'll try to send them back asap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@esanthosh

I am posting my impressions on both Yamaha EPH-100 and Fischer Audio FA-003.

If you think that this is not a relative thread to post in my impressions so you can tell me clearly, I will start a new thread :)


I know that many of you thinking that comparison of an IEM with a Full-sized Closed Back Can :O but you guys can think whatever you can No one can stop me posting this comparison :lol:

Firstly some pictures :head2:

Yamaha EPH-100:

7493217796_793edc0b67_c.jpg





Fischer Audio FA-003:



Fischer Audio FA-003: Bass on FA-003 is tight, punchy, it goes deep but not as much as on the Yamaha EPH-100 to keep it's neutral signature alive all the time I guess. Mids on FA-003 is slightly more focussed than on the EPH-100. Mids on FA-003 has a sense of neutrality in it. It has more open sound than on the EPH-100 whereas EPH-100 is mellow sounding(mellow doesn't mean here as dull or reduced high frequencies at all. It produce all the details and everything but softly as compared to the FA-003). Treble is well detailed in the FA-003, it has good shimmers, good details, extended treble up to being neutral but in comparison, treble on EPH-100 is smoother yet more extended. One place where EPH-100 completely owned FA-003 is INSTRUMENT SEPARATION. I feel that soundstage is excellent on FA-003.

Yamaha EPH-100: Bass on EPH-100 is tight, punchy but it goes deeper than the FA-003 but at the same time remains controlled too all the time, It's mids are well balanced with the lows which is neither recessed nor the center image of the whole sound. Mids on EPH-100 is smooth which flows well with the music all the time. I would say "liquid" sounding mids. Treble on EPH-100 is thin, smooth and more extended than the FA-003 and the plus point is - It produce treble which is detailed and with an amazing instrument separation. I have not heard such instrument separation till now in any IEM or Headphone. Yamaha EPH-100 articulates well. Soundstage is above average on EPH-100. I feel that depth is better on EPH-100

EPH-100 can be considered "Musical" whereas FA-003 can be considered as "Neutral" Champ.

In the end:

1. I love Fischer Audio FA-003 because of it's neutral sound signature.
2. I love Yamaha EPH-100 because of it's Musical presentation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom