There is 2-4 khz peak that I suggest removing. I found it consistently abrasive with female vocals and cymbal crashes. Probably I would need some more experimentation with EQ to find the best way to tame the trebles. Planars usually have awkward tonality. This is closer to neutrality than weāve seen with other planar iems, and somewhat forces us to play around with EQ to find balance. Youāre right in that there two ways to do this. Either boost the bass (Iād suggest 60-150hz), or reduce the trebles (2-4khz or 6-8khz, wherever you may find sibilant).
As for the question whether Timeless has an unemotional presentation of the music. Iād blame timbre. Planars are fast on the attack and decay. Such that the bass is deep digging, but the decay is gone faster than weād expect (even faster than some unvented BAs). Iāve used Timeless either for vocal-centric music or video game OSTs, both of which are studio recorded and therefore doesnāt have such a high bar for soundstage or natural timbre.
In the perfect world, I hope to get a stiff but not too stiff dynamic driver for bass, planars for mids, BA for high-mid/low-trebles and ESTs for the 10-20khz stuff. This prototype will probably be a kilobuck IEMā¦ if someone manages to do it, make it somewhat driveable, and fit all thoes things inside a shell. Then that will be true benchmark of portable hifi.
I explicitly left out a conclusion because I couldnāt figure out how to do one that wasnāt biased heavily by my own preferences. I am a timeless fanboy. Itās not close. While listening to either of the other two, I always wanted to reach for the timeless. That doesnāt mean the timeless is better.
@pwjazz made some excellent points above about how the timeless can lack that emotional engagement. I agree with them. What he describes is spot on. However, itās other technical aspects do override those things for me. At least when compared to the tea and the dusk. (And maybe even the zen, but I donāt have it back yet)
I could do an āif your priority is balanced tonality: dusk. If your priority is soundstage: tea. If your priority is resolution/clarity: Timeless.ā But I felt that was obvious from the rest of the comparison.
Every segment of this video had a specific point. I couldnāt figure out what the point of a conclusion was that could be done objectively and add value.
I am trying to figure it out for the next video. Maybe what I said above is it. Or maybe disclosing that the timeless is my favorite provides some value?
That said, I am likely to buy one or two more from drop as backup. At this price and sound quality, given the cost of my other headphones, it seems criminal not to have a backup. Or two. Or three.
I do need to see this one survive some daily use without failing first.
I think it is largely compression/ dynamic range. This is what I think the reason the drop ether cx didnāt quite get there for me.
Whatever it is, planars I have heard seem to have at least some of this issue, while most DD does not. Timbre and dynamic range seem to be the likely suspects.
It depends. I used to own an LCD2C which on the right music was extremely engaging (like the Bach Motets I mentioned), but the tuning was so funky that on other stuff it just sounded wrong.
Iāve had some Hifiman headphones which sounded pretty great on orchestral stuff, but kind of boring with other things. And Iāve got a DCA Aeon Closed that does sort of remind me of the Timeless, though the highs arenāt just pronounced but also sound kind of wrong.
So, Iām not sure if itās the driver type or just the tuning, but I suspect itās the latter. I think the combination of elevated highs with extended highs doesnāt quite work for me. The LCD2C had the unique quality of having dark but well extended highs, itās just too bad the upper mids were so goofy.
I actually like that you didnāt pick a favorite, because the value of reviews isnāt in telling me what I should buy the reviewer for their next birthday, itās in helping me figure out what I might like for myself .
If you had concluded with recommending the Timeless it would have muddied the waters, because from your description i might have concluded something different alltogether.
Yup, I saw that in the measurements and played with it in EQ. It helps with the vocal aggressiveness, but that peak helps balance out the rest of the treble and without it, the treble sounds not only bright but timbrally wrong, so is have to EQ that too.
Thatās honestly part of why I donāt want to mess with the Timeless. I actually love EQ, but once Iām into EQing multiple regions like that, Iām basically retuning the earphones, at which point Iām wondering why I spent $200 on having someone else mistune in the first place
Gonna go ahead and disagree with this. My birthday is in january.
Exactly. I can see someone highly preferring any of these three or all of them. And if you canāt tell which of these are your priority from this comparison, what value did it have?
And lets keep in mind that there may still be people that think differently. Example: maybe someone thinks vocals are better on the timeless than tea. Itās not universal. And I am trying to stay as universal as I can to give the largest value.
Currently using iFi Zendac v2 with my 7Hz (4.4 balanced cable). Iāve listened to it for about 5-6 hours output via the balanced channel. For someone coming from Sundaras, the Sundaras are indeed more neutral as some of the folks have described earlier. But itās more of apples to oranges comparison.
Coming from open-back HP - IEMs sound much more intimate, and considering these are also planar magnetic, there are some qualities like speed and the bass and mids traits that appear similar to my Sundaras. I think they are also warm sounding (Iāve always preferred slightly warm tone if I can do A-B comparisons). I think they sound slightly warmer than the Sundaras, but where the 7Hz really shines is in the resolution, detail, separation, clarity and I am perhaps a mini bass head but holy crap the bass on the 7Hz really blew me away. Itās so enjoyable. Thereās zero need to enable TrueBass on the zendac because there is just plenty available already.
I think I will agree that in terms of imaging, itās not a king but I do not find any problems personally with it. It is very enjoyable. I think the 7Hz is very capable because for some of my tracks - e.g. Ling tosite sigure - Enigmatic feeling (Jrock) ; the music tends to expose a lot of flaws in IEMs as it is a rather complex track. Perhaps a bit sharp for some listeners at high volume because there are some peaky highs in the track but I thought it still handled it impressively in separation and details. Interestingly, 7Hz is not so sharp for Jpop female vocals (e.g. Mayān) so if you like Jpop female vocals these wonāt make your ears bleed. If you like electronic music, I think you can buy āblindā. I get excited when I use this for my electronic tracks.
My first good IEM experience was the Westone 4 (I have the 4R but it was just bad - nothing like the 4) - the 7Hz is better than the Westone 4 in almost every way.
thanks for the welcome. Yes, I get goosebumps using the 7Hz - they are amazing for the price.
I bought them because crinacle said āWTFā and was speechless after his first impression. Also, quite a few smaller audiophile channels praised the 7Hz.
.
Running them off of a hybrid tube and theyāre a super nice $200 listen for sure no doubt hereā¦be like 
