I always heard the Blessing 2 had such good technicalities. I bet the Timeless is the next level to this.
2 Likes
Noob comment: I wonder if the poor imaging is due to internal reflections inside the shell. Could the Timeless benefit from tubingā¦if even possible with that driver?
Itās strange isnāt it? Audeze Euclid is lauded for its technicalities and it has an 18mm driver.
Not sure why the Timeless has bad imaging. Iām probably getting mine tomorrow, canāt wait to try them out.
This statement is interesting to me in a couple of ways. Yes, why is timeless bad at this. But also, I had the euclid, and if it is on the better end of the scale on imaging, it definitely is not a priority for me in an iem.
My IEM experience is limited. My imaging experience comes from over ears. Not sure how good imaging gets on IEMs but I have some idea on over ears (and in some cases I didnāt like it or care for it there either).
Anyone have euclid in their imaging rankings? How does it do?
3 Likes
I am planning on a/b with the b2 dusk soon. Just still thrown off by the comparison with the Zen.
1 Like
@Plex_Flex Ok, I just did a quick comparison of one song, short skirt long jacket from cake. It was chosen at random by virtue of the fact that it was already playing. I am probably not going to go nuts comparing the two, but I will happily listen to specific songs and answer specific questions.
Let me just preface, the b2 dusk saved me from leaving the headphone hobby. So, I have a lot of appreciation and nostalgia for this particular headphone. On with it!
The things that stand out immediately: 1) More Visceral Bass on Dusk 2) More detail/resolution/articulation on Timeless 3) Timeless is more coherent. 4) Dusk is tonally more friendly
Digging in.
-
Even on this simple rock song, you can feel the DD drivers presence. It just gives that slight oomph. You donāt really feel the timeless, but itās articulation and sonic clarity in the bass is quite a bit above the dusk. So, priorities here is sonic bliss vs a bit of visceral engagement.
-
Detail/Articulation/Resolution. Itās not close. In fact, both the Zen and Timeless are better enough that I started hearing grain and subtle imperfections on the dusk. Enough that I thought my unit might have a problem. But I never did anything since I never even noticed until I got the Zen. Itās good enough that once you hear it, it may be hard to go back unless you love the dusk strengths.
-
Coherency. This appears to be a high priority on my list. The way bass is presented, note weight, articulation, clarity, detail on the dusk varies from the same things on the mids or treble. I can only assume this is a result of being hybrid. Neither the Timeless or the Zen exhibit this. Itās not like it is horrible, itās not. I didnāt know until I got the Zen. But, that variety in note presentation (and different flaws in each range) is apparent. IT doesnāt bother me per se, but I prefer the options that donāt have it. This is one thing that always gives me pause about high end hybrid/tribrids. Will they still have it?
-
Tonality. The dusk, to me, wipes the floor with the other two. There is no over extended anything. No bright shouty screechy anything anywhere. Both the others get quite intense and need some brain adaptation. Putting on the dusk was like a breath of fresh air. No assault on my ears. Very very good. And definitely a reason to prefer this set.
Bonus: Zen. Timeless is more resolving and articulate than the Zen. Where the Zen wins is it is more visceral (but, not necessarily more engaging, which is odd for me to say. I really like the Timeless). The zen is also less assaulting than the Timeless in shouty brightness (or I have had eight months to adjust to it. Take your pick).
Note on imaging: I have not found the IEMs I have heard to vary much in this respect. The dusk seemed a bit better than timeless and the Zen a bit better than dusk. But I would not have imaging even be in consideration between these 3 iems. None of them make me think āoh, that imaging makes things betterā. I donāt know if thatās because I just have crappy imaging IEMs or I just donāt appreciate what they can do. I would include the audeze euclid in this, but I donāt have it for direct comparison.
For the first time in months, I want to listen to something other than my hp-2. And that, in itself, is impressive.
Feel free to ask me questions!
16 Likes
Itās oddā¦ imaging can get wayyy better on IEMs than headphones since they can image closer to your head where as headphones have this feeling like anything near your head is coming fromā¦ like a blobish area (either left blob or right blob or even center blob). Where as you donāt have that blob effect with IEMs and can pinpoint exactly whether itās digging inside your head or slightly left or slightly more left. If you have headphones and IEMs to compare, try this song. Especially around 1:18 in when tunes shift around quickly itās hard to image them on headphones where as itās very clear on IEMs capable enough:
3 Likes
Good analysis. Iām listening to this track (cake - short skirt long jacket) right now with my KZ AST (PEQ applied). BA bass is def enough for me. Yep. Iām after more resolution and a good balanced tuning with the ability to handle EQ. Planars should do well with EQ so I bet the timeless is gonna fit my needs.
1 Like
Yes, I find it hard to make out a sounds position on headphones. Even on K702.
Yeah, itās interesting because headphones certainly have the benefit of far distance imaging due to greater soundstage but hereās the thing: as humans we actually arenāt very good at interpreting things far away as opposed to close-up. So, for instance, we canāt really tell if something is stationary and making a sound from 10 meters or 15 meters away where as if something is within 1 meter of our ears weāre very good at pinpointing it. So, in that case, headphones with wide soundstage are a neat parlor trick but the real immersion is IEMs with their superior near-head imaging, IMO.
2 Likes
I will watch the video as soon as I get to my office on at least one headphone and two iems.
I understand the audiology concepts of what you just said, but my own experience completely flys in the face of it.
I also seem to be the only person on the planet that doesnāt like the arya because of its imaging and soundstage. (Also, other reasons, but that is a big one)
I just might be weird. 
3 Likes
From my experience, imaging on headphones has been far better than with IEMs. It becomes very obvious when playing FPS games like COD:MW 2019 which has incredible sound development and positional location is extremely well done.
With headphones, especially my TYGR300R, I know exactly where those foot steps are coming from both in distance and direction. The only IEM Iāve been able to get somewhat close to this is the Mangird Teaās, but all other IEMs Iāve tested have not done well with this.
For music as well, the Sundaraās imaging is far better than even the Teaās which are one of the best ābudgetā sets for imaging. Using my test tracks from Tool it becomes instantly obvious.
Then, comparing any IEM Iāve ever tried to the Hifiman HE6SE V2, itās not even close. The imaging on the HE6SE V2 is incredible. I ended up returning them due to discomfort (I would get a major hot spot on the top of my head after 20 min or so), but the sound and imaging was incredible on them.
I personally disagree that IEMās image better than over ears and would argue the opposite, comparable price brackets of over-ears do imaging better than IEMās. Thereās some notable exceptions, like the Sennheiser HD6X0 series which are known for poor imaging.
7 Likes
I agree with this. Headphones (specifically open-backs) are superior to iems when it comes to the size of the soundstage and the accuracy of the imaging. (detail on the other hand, is better on iems for me, especially sub 300 usd)
8 Likes
Yes indeed, I just keep my k702 around for soundstage.
So, I am comparing hp-2, zen and timeless using the suggested youtube video. There is no question that the timeless is flatter than the others. However, there is also no question that the hp-2 has stuff coming at you from āall around youā in ways that the other two donāt.
Creepy whispers aside, I do think that the sheer size of the soundstage on the hp-2 is a big part of it. The zen has a small, comfortable soundstage to me. Intimate but not claustrophobic. The timeless is just different. Havenāt figured out how to describe it properly yet.
Would love to hear an IEM that does imaging better than these two do. (Will try the dusk later)
Hi @Resolution , i have compared some gears that i have, between 2 iems: SA6 (BAs) vs Flare Pro 2HD (1DD). Now i can understand what slam is. Though Flares are not the fastest DD, i just felt the slam. I am once again so comfortable with my library. But im still curious about Timeless, because i have no planar 
Can you compare SA6 and Timeless? Look like Timeless is bit shoutier SA6?
When I say this, keep in mind that I have extremely sensitive hearing in 1-2k and fantastic up to 3k (very obvious in my audiologist report). So, energy over the typical harman curve there is very intense for me.
Basically, wait for some more assessments to make any decision.
Hi @Dynamic I just scroll up and read you comment, said it is āscreechyā. I am sorry but I dont understand what it means exactly 
i am Asian so i am not good at english. I translated it and it appeared to be āloud, long not, unpleasant to hearā. So, it is worse than shouty?
If you want help with that, I can. 
3 Likes
I can help you with that, based on your nickname in here I can safely say I know which country you live in