Sound:
The review and the comparisons are determined with the standard resistance value (33 OHM) of the monitor.
Low Frequency:
CW doesn’t have a dominant bass presentation. Still, it provides enough and balanced body in order to create a weighty sound style. Sub-bass notes are not completely uncolored, but the hitting power is quite satisfying. CW maintains a good depth and texture as well as an excellent speed in the sub-bass presentation.
The mid-bass notes are not laid-back, but at the same time the mid-bass presentation doesn’t tighten the overall note releasing. Pursuant to its tone, the mid-bass creates a slightly warm atmosphere around instruments.
Mid Frequency:
CW releases slightly thick and dynamic notes, and also recreates a relatively big picture. Instruments are not located too forward in the stage, but CW seems to provide an intimate mid frequency in accordance with the big picture and weighty notes. The monitor sounds natural pursuant to the slightly warm atmosphere and the general note structure, but the transparency level is not the highest one.
Although the resolution and lower harmonics levels are relatively high, the tonality is not exactly true. On the other hand, CW provides a nice dynamism and a realistic note releasing aggressiveness.
The upper-midrange is smooth and well controlled; the monitor doesn’t tend to sibilance much. Due to the tonality balance and the quantity focus in the upper-midrange area, CW releases non-stressed notes. Vocals have a weighty structure as well as a non-disturbing position in the stage. In addition, the clear space around vocals is remarkable.
High Frequency:
CW offers a balanced and ideal treble quantity. It is neither recessed/laid back nor hot/too forward. The treble presentation is weighty and non-piercing; the slightly open toned high frequency brings a nice aliveness to the overall spectrum. The naturalness and resolution levels are remarkably high and the monitor releases fast treble notes; as a sum, it performs very well in metal tracks.
Soundstage and Separation:
CW has a slightly spacious, deep and wide stage; at the same time, it provides an excellent coherence. It also creates enough distances between instruments and the background is quite clean, black, and very stable. As a consequence, CW offers an impressive separation and the presentation is relatively easy to follow.
Personal Sound Tuning System:
To change and tune the sound, we can utilize 11 resistors that have different values from zero OHM to 56 OHM.
In general, if the ohm value gets greater, the tonality becomes slightly open and the overall weight of instruments is reduced by a small margin. Especially, low frequency and lower-midrange looses body as much the resistance value becomes greater. On the other hand, the sub-bass presentation relatively keeps the dynamism. If the source used with CW has a powerful and weighty low frequency presentation, the body problem wouldn’t occur much.
Pursuant to the reduced body of the mid-bass presentation, the transparency level becomes higher and the monitor seems to be more resolving due to the less warm air in notes. The resistors don’t change the treble quantity unnecessarily, but its tonality becomes slightly aggressive.
As much the resistance value gets smaller, lows and lower midrange notes becomes significantly and sometimes unnecessarily weightier. Also, the treble presentation gets laid-back. If the source used with CW has a dominant low frequency, the overall presentation becomes veiled, less separated and resolved.
Next Page: Comparisons
One Response
CWL-71 rank high in my top ten iems list, but it’s obvious to me that the Witch Girl 12 drivers sound better than CWL-71. (I said sound better, because I found they have similar sound signature, when I auditioned them side by side weeks ago) BTW the witch girl 12 cost a lot more, it depends really on the budget, both iems sound excellent to my ear,