That it has no imaging to speak of baffles me to no end.
Iād thereās one quality planar headphonesb typically are good at, itās separation. What can you tell us about separation on Timeless?
Iām seeing a lot of talk about the bass being good from one side, and it being too little from another side. Iām curious what the tuning is like. Trying to figure out what peopleās idea of too much bass is cause to me the starfields have a lot of bass but I see a lot of people calling it neutral. Then there are people saying the believe are well balance but too me theyāre wayyyy too U shaped. The only common opinion Iāve been able to agree with is the bass being too much/bloated on the isn h40, which would easily be my favorite iem if not for that. If this has a rounded tuning like the starfields I will definitely pick these up. Anyone here have a comparison to the starfields? Asking cause theyāre my favorite and most used iems.
Just saw you mention the starfields, how do they compare to the timeless? If you donāt mind me asking
Both separation and imaging are poor on Timeless.
1 Like
Just look at the graph. I think the TImeless FR is great for most genres. Itās definitely in the safe category for sure. Anyone saying the Timeless doesnāt have enough bass is borderline bass head territory. I personally feel Timeless has more than enough bass. It is not bass light and not bass heavy.
2 Likes
How would you describe it further more?
Everything comes from the same spot, you cannot distinguish each instrument???
Could give some reference song and how you perceived it?
The tuning looks a lot more similar than I thought it would be tbh. Now Iām tempted to by a pair. I wonder if anyone is selling a used pair yet :(. I guess Iāll hold out until I see one pop up on the used market.
I described the imaging and general soundstage earlierā¦
Imaging is when audio events take place clearly within the stereo spectrum. With Timeless, events are not clearly placed (they are more blob-like aka 600 series Sennheiser). Poor imaging. This is not a slam against it. It just is what it is.
1 Like
The big advantage the Timeless will have over the Starfield is in resolution. It will be a huge step up.
Yep, as you can see their frequency responses are not that different. Both will be generally pleasing to most listeners with most libraries. Harman tuned.
6 Likes
Ok I missed this comment. Thank you for your reply.
I was tempted by the timeless but you made me hesitate. I am trying to figure out if I am going to like it. At least, itās a relatively cheap set.
Most welcome.
I think the Timeless is a great set generally but it has weaknesses like most driver types do. If you value speed, clarity, detail, resolution, all with a pleasing tonal balance, the Timeless is a complete win.
But if youāre looking for an IEM that has a wide soundstage with pinpoint accurate imaging, or massive dynamic slam, there are other sets that I would suggest before the Timeless.
I pitted the Timeless vs my #1 tier 1 rec, the Mangird Tea this morning (you can read above). Generally I prefer the Mangird Tea to the Timeless, but the Timeless beat the Tea in many categories and the Timeless is considerably less expensive.
The Timeless is one hell of a great IEM especially if you value the things it does well. It does them extremely well. But so does the Mangird Tea. The Tea just so happens to do more things right for me. They are both different and will both be staying in my collection.
Make sense? I hoping/trying to clear up my thoughts the best I can.
8 Likes
Anyone tried the Timeless off of a hybrid tube amp yet? reckon that could work well 
Editedā¦sometimes synergy can help @Resolution your source is very clinical and may not suit a set that excels in detail, clarity and resolution but lacks warmth?
Thanks for getting back to me! Ah, thatās too bad. Iāve learned, especially with the UM 3DT, short nozzles donāt do well for my ears.
Sorry to hear that, unfortunately fit can render an amazing IEM unless for some people. Does not matter how it sounds if you canāt wear it. I donāt recommend the Etymotic ER2XR for just that reasonā¦ it is a hard fit for a lot of people. But it is an IEM I love.
1 Like
Absolutely. The best lesson you can learn from trying/owning multiple IEMs is what fits for you and what doesnāt. I remember initially thinking the B2 fit well for me just because I would only adjust it in my ear every 10 or so minutes. In hindsight, itās one of the worst fitting IEMs for me. 
1 Like
Iām confused. The Timeless has short nozzles but the UM 3DT does not have short nozzles.
Here, just lookā¦
I consider the part of the IEM body part of the nozzle length on the 3DT. The 3DT inserts quite far into the ear similar in style to the Mangird Tea. The Timeless is more like a Blon BL-03. Maybe weāre not getting our communication right?
1 Like
If you can afford that go for it.
But for imaging I would say go with the Oxygen they are not perfect tho, but for the price I would say great also they have wide soundstage.
Or the best thing you could do >>> wait for the Falcon Pro, then decide. IMHO
You can also find Rikudou_Gokuās review here
3 Likes
Hard to make out the black-on-black of the Timelessā nozzle in that picture. Perhaps instead of āshort nozzleā, I mean to say āshort insertion depthā.
1 Like
The enthusiasm for the product wanes as reality slowly sets in that it possibly might not be the best IEM to beat all IEMs.
Unfortunately, I have yet to hear the ultimate IEM that does everything better than everything that came before it, and Iāve heard and own a lot of IEMs! 
2 Likes
Perfect! The 3DT has a fairly long insertion depth and the Timeless has a very short insertion depth.
You have to measure from the body of the IEM to where the tip is applied to the nozzle. Not just the nozzle itself.