The problem is people are combining imaging and soundstage. It has no depth to soundstage, but across the space in front of you, it has excellent imaging. There is no blobbing or other effect I can detect. Instruments are placed within that wide but shallow stage.
So saying it doesnāt have imaging isnāt correct from my point of view. It simply canāt move those images forward or backward much if at all. To me it has a 2 dimensional soundstage with fairly good imaging across it.
This isnāt a problem for me. Itās wonderfully coherent. Like sitting in the first row for a live orchestra.
Yes some favourable reviews. Mine are now waiting to be delivered at local courier so itāll be Monday/Tuesday for me.
I love how close the FR is to the SE846, just with a whole lot more extension, and with Planar speed, Iām really excited about these. Soundstage depth is the only thing that may concern me but I can only try with my own ears.
I canāt really speak to end game. But this is the most enjoyably tuned planar I have heard. Flaws and all. Thatās against over ears and euclid. The fact that it is so inexpensive is just unbelievable.
It has just enough fun and engagement while still retaining planar properties. I wish an over ear planar did this.
On the down side, I am having some mmcx issues. I havenāt determined if its the IEM or the cable.
I get it. I understand why you like it and is had just a little more depth I probably give it a run. Letās say it hit poor sounds raging and since I can not hear it without buying it I probably never will hear it. You never know I might like it. There are some tracks having little depth and I do listen to those. I was a prime potential buyer.I have had many planar speakers. I only own one set of headphones and those are Sundaras. Enjoy them !
I have had had the Timeless for about two weeks and have been getting used to their sound.
Today I decided to compare them to the only other I have (SA6) using two albums (Wish You Were Here and Dark Side of the Moon), I found that the Timeless was narrow, but the detail was very good in comparison. I do like what the Timeless give, but I do mis the separation that I get from the SA6. Saying that, I am aware that they are different technologies and they bring different qualities to the enjoyment of listening to music.
I thought I would compare this also to the only Planar headphone I own (Ananda (2020 Revision)). This just showed me what the Timeless brought to the party, but also showed their shortcomings.
I am pleased that I have these and do not regret getting them.
I think the poor imaging is due to the following reasons in tandem:
Large diaphragm
The large diaphragm is in very close proximity to the eardrum. (And squeezed through smaller nozzle)
Diaphragm moves uniformly as it is a Planar.
This creates a very large, very up close view of large images, so large the contours of each image are lost and the imaging that you can detect becomes the immediate texture in the center of the image.
Each note is like a very high resolution picture that youāve zoomed in on and canāt see the corners of.
It is 2D for sure.
On the topic of dimensional sound reproduction, what are the most 3D sounding IEMs?
Iāve heard Mest OG & MK2, EJ07 and Tea are extraordinary in their respective price bracket.
BGVP also has them, with another halving of the price, about $2.5 per pair. Even model numbers are pretty similar to Acoustune ones. Though havent tried them also.
The Timeless has better tonality, timbre and more energy efficient, but technicalities are better on the P1. The Timeless is the one I would recommend over the P1 (due to how poorly tuned the P1 is) BUT, if you can use PEQ, the P1 is the better iem (except the timbre which is still slightly better on the Timeless). (The PEQ preset for the P1 is in my database.)
