Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fc-Construct OP t1_j259ire wrote

The 7Hz Timeless AE is the follow-up to the original 7Hz Timeless released a year ago that swept the IEM world by planar storm. Like its predecessor, the Timeless AE also sports a 14.2 mm planar driver but comes with an increased price tag of $260 (compared to the original’s $220).

You can read my full review here if you want to see some frequency response graphs but basically, the Timeless AE is a bass boosted version of the original Timeless. It's very very similar, with like maybe 2 - 3 dB extra bass. While it doesn’t cross into the bloated territory, the Timeless AE is distinctly a bass-first IEM and even the smallest hints of low end energy in a note is emphasized. However, as it is a Timeless, you can expect to have a well-tuned midrange and treble.

Personally, I would get the original Timeless. Not to get too cynical but the Timeless AE feels like an all-too-familiar cash grab to tempt people who already own and enjoy the Timeless to spend another $200+ for an “improved” version. You’re not really missing out on anything.

28

blorg t1_j27pric wrote

Most measurements I have seen, including yours, the upper mids look a lot smoother in the AE.

https://timmyv.squig.link/?share=7Hz_Timeless_AE,7Hz_Timeless
https://hbb.squig.link/?share=7Hz_Timeless_AE,7Hz_Planar
https://ianfann.squig.link/?share=7HZ_TIMELESS_AE,7HZ_TIMELESS_OG

Is that difference audible at all? You can see in all these measurements the OG has a very sharp dip at 3-3.5kHz, I have it and mine has that as well. I can't say I really hear it in music, but it seems gone in the AE, smoothed over. Both that dip, and its absence in the AE, seem consistent over multiple people's measurements.

2

Fc-Construct OP t1_j27rg72 wrote

Yea it's interesting, I noted that as well in my measurements. The upper mids on the AE don't have as much of a jagginess to it while the original does.

In the original Timeless, I would never have been able to tell you that it graphs jaggy like that. With the AE, I don't think it's really all that audible but I'll admit that my focus is often drawn to the bass rather than the mids with the AE. IMO, the upper mids is more than fine on both so I don't stress the measured differences.

6

No_Analysis6187 t1_j2793pb wrote

Thanks for the review. Say if someone is looking for a fun and beater iem to take outside for commuting, would you recommend these or the OG one?

1

coffeebeanie24 t1_j27eoua wrote

I’d like to chime in as I purchased both for comparison recently, I ultimately preferred the AE. I posted my own mini review as well if you’re interested, but the AE to my ears sounds fuller without compromising the treble that made the original great. I personally hear more of a difference than just a bass boost

5

Fc-Construct OP t1_j27qx1w wrote

I think if you're mainly using it for commuting, the AE might be better because the bass boost helps with the outside environment which tends to be abundant in low frequencies.

Personally though, if you want a fun beater the CCA CRA or CRA+ is the way to go for <$50. $200+ is a little beyond the beater range for me :)

2