In his comparison with the Shozy Form 1.4, Jürgen gave details of the specs etc. of this one, so this will not be the usual full Audioreviews exposition (Jürgen’s full review of the Shozy Form 1.4 is here). Because I haven’t heard the Shozy Form 1.4, this mini-review will focus on the sonic aspects of the Shozy Form 1.1 in isolation. One non-sonic factor to note is that the price has come down a little since the original review – they’re now $US 68 rather than $US 75.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

In my ears with the largest provided black silicone tips (a good fit for me although I usually take medium), the bass is overly emphasized and intrudes on the lower mids. Attacks in this area are not fast (which could be ok for you if you like bass that’s more ‘rounded’) and reverb detail is not preserved on decays. The muddy, boomy texture in the bass is not helped by the mids having a very smooth presentation, with subdued dynamics. The plus side of this is that they’re relaxing, but even for me (usually a liker of smooth mids) this is ‘too much of a good thing’.

Upper mids are not prominent, which will find favour with some (the tuning is not ‘Harman’ or ‘Etymotic’), but this is a handicap with these ‘phones because of their unrevealing lower mids: the entire midrange comes across as suppressed. There’s a bump up into the lower treble, but this is a bit scratchy, with hashy cymbals and sibilance. The masked (lower) and relaxed/suppressed (mid to upper) midrange character make imaging & staging imprecise, but on the plus side make for undemanding, non-fatiguing listening during long sessions.

Comparing with a similarly upper-mid-relaxed earphone, the UE900 (ok, maybe inappropriate because the UE900 is a 4BA and was rather more expensive – but it has a similar downward-sloping tonality), the lower mids on the UE are not overpowered by the upper bass and are much better resolved, cleaning up imaging and staging. Treble is similar in quantity but cleaner, not so sibilant or scratchy. Male vocals have much more nuance and female vocals more clarity.

Measurement Mysteries

Crinacle’s measurements of the two Forms show similar bass responses, and he reported hearing them as similar. Jürgen however heard the Shozy Form 1.4 as more bassy than the Shozy Form 1.1, but his measurements showed the opposite. I suspect this is because he used the KZ Starline tips to measure both, but the ‘large’ stock black silicone (not foam, as his review says) for listening. The large black tips are actually pretty small – on the small end of medium for me, and Jürgen usually fits a larger tip. Listening with these tips, I suspect the larger bodies of the 1.4s provided a component of seal in Jürgen’s ears to reinforce the bass he heard. 

My measurements with both stock tips and Starlines are similar to Jürgen’s (same coupler, so with the same tips no surprise). The ‘hiccup’ at about 100 Hz with the stock tips is because the tips are a fairly loose fit in the coupler tube and so wobble at the resonant frequency of the earpiece/tip mass, ‘soaking up’ some of the sonic energy (Tyll Hertsens of the late lamented InnerFidelity referred to the same effect with headphones as ‘pad bounce’).  The difference between the two tip types around 12 kHz probably just reflects different interaction with the resonant frequency of the coupler. I didn’t detect an obvious difference in this area, but I admit this is at the upper limit of my old ears.

The low-relief impedance profile shows the Shozy Form 1.1 are not responsive to/dependent on amplifier output impedance. However, the relaxed character of these earphones would probably be best complemented (or compensated for) by being driven with something dynamic and fast.

All of this illustrates that different tips (and earphone bodies) will fit different ears and sometimes different measurement couplers in different ways. The bass could be controlled with tip rolling but with the shallow fit of these things meaning some degree of seal is also provided by the earpiece bodies, so getting just the right degree of leakage might be tricky and will be very individual depending on ear size & shape. It is therefore difficult to make specific tip recommendations. 

Modding?

The Shozy Form 1.1 have only a single vent in each shell – at the rear, behind the drivers. Restricting airflow through a rear vent will typically reduce the mid-bass, opposite to the effect of restricting a front vent (which also tends to work more on the lower bass/sub-bass). To try to ameliorate the (for me) overdone bass, I covered the rear ports with 3M Micropore medical tape. While this did improve the tonal balance (my measurements suggest about 6 dB bass reduction; see graph below) and its bleed into the lower mids, it did no favours for the already not-great technicalities: transients remained sluggish and dynamics seemed to be suppressed even further. This indicates that the (overly, to me) slow and relaxed low end I heard without tape isn’t just a result of the Shozy Form 1.1’s downward-sloping tonal balance.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In summary, this could be a polarizing earphone. I suspect much of the differently perceived bass and its effects up into the midrange between myself and Jürgen is down to how the tips and bodies fit our different ears. While this could be managed to some degree with tips, it’d be tricky as getting the midrange right would require just the right amount of bass leakage – and therefore wouldn’t suit bassheads and would compromise isolation. Even if the bottom-heavy tonality were cured, the technicalities, particularly in the lower half of the frequency spectrum, remain sub-par and the treble is a bit scratchy too. 

On the plus side though, these Shozy Form 1.1 are a non-fatiguing listen – so if you like a smooth signature, are driving them with something dynamic, and are willing to experiment with tips (depending on your ears), these might be ok for you. Personally for the money I’d find something else. For a smooth listen with better tonal balance, the Moondrop Starfield is currently around $30 more; and for a more technicality-driven presentation and a slightly more prominent upper midrange, the Blon BL-05s is around $30 less. I’ve heard neither myself, but both have been favourably reviewed here (Starfield,BL-05s 1, 2, 3).

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Shozy Form 1.1 were initially sent to Jürgen Kraus by the Shozy Team out of Hon Kong, who passed them on to Biodegraded for his sonic impressions.

Get the Shozy Form 1.1 from HifiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

RELATED…

The post Shozy Form 1.1 Review – Brief Sonic Impressions appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Overall tonality of the Heart-Mirror is neutral-cool… Nothing offensive or harsh on the top-end. If you enjoy a clean and clear presentation, you are in for a treat.

Soundstage is average. Just slightly narrower than BLON BL-03. Imaging and instrument separation are distinct with good amounts of space around and in-between. Vocal is upfront but “not in-your-face”.

Bass is not the fastest I have heard in a dynamic earphone but it isn’t the slowest either (KBEAR Diamond is faster). I did notice bass tightens and speeds up a bit when amp’ed. However, amping doesn’t help with the sub-bass, and I feel it is lacking some low-end rumble.

A LOT OF FOLKS want to know if they really need an amp with Heart-Mirror… My answer is “YES!”… If you want the best sound from this earphone. Is it hard to drive? No! It sounds pretty decent with Apple dongle BUT the overall sound is even leaner than playing with an amp. ONE THING FOR SURE… You HAVE TO match it with a warm source (a tube amp or tube buffer for example) to sound really soothing to the ears. If not, certain tracks with saxophone or trumpet can sound quite uncomfortable.

After spending close to 10 hours with the HZSound Heart-Mirror, I could, more or less, nail down its sound characteristics. If you already own the BLON BL-05s, Heart-Mirror isn’t an upgrade (but an upgrade in fit and accessories). It is definitely an upgrade in tonality and technicality over the BLON BL-03. HOWEVER, you lose the musicality, listenability and fun-factor that the BL-03 is known for. To me, HZSound Heart-Mirror lacks richness, note weight and dynamics. These are the elements that I consider essential for an enjoyable listening.

If you already own the HZSound Heart-Mirror and would like to add some mass to its bulimic sound, here are some “weight gaining” diet you could try:

– Replace stock silver-plated cable to OFC pure copper
– Replace stock eartips to Acoustune AET08 or Final Audio Type E (black)
– Use a tube amp or add a tube buffer
– Use a warm sound source

I find myself enjoying HZSound Heart-Mirror when matched with iFi Audio Hip-Dac (XBass enabled).

Fellow Singaporean, colleague and co-blogger, Baskingshark wrote a very thorough review on the HZSound Heart-Mirror. He compared it against the Moondrop SSR, Tin Hifi T2 Plus, BLON BL-05 and BL-05s. Those who are interested in the Heart-Mirror may want to checkout his full evaluation:

Equipment used:

• Topping E30 + L30 stack
• Redmi Note 9 Pro + Apple USB Type-C dongle
• Redmi Note 9 Pro + iFi Audio iDSD Nano BL / iFi Audio Hip-DAC
• Stock cable + Stock “Sony lookalike” siliconeeartips Kios

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme explained

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get the HZSound Heart-Mirror at $49 USD at KeepHifi

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post HZSound Heart-Mirror Review (2) – Reflection Of My Heartfelt Truth appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Pros

Light and comfortable. Good build.
Above average technical performance for the price.
Above average isolation.
Easily drivable.
2 pin connector – better lifespan than MMCX in general.

Cons:

Not for treble sensitive folks, can be fatiguing and harsh in the treble.
Sibilance fest.
Average soundstage.
Very forgettable in the pantheon of KZ/CCA sidegrades/beta releases.
Poor instrumental timbre.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KZ (and by extension sister company, CCA) are back to their circa 2018 – early 2019 habits of churning out almost weekly sidegrades/marginal upgrades. The CCA C10 Pro is one of these said sidegrades, and in the big scheme of things, the CCA C10 Pro is pretty forgettable in the pantheon of pokemon KZ/CCAs.

The CCA C10 Pro features a V shaped sound signature, with an overly boosted upper mids/treble. It has above average technicalities, but this is offset by a harsh and fatiguing treble, sibilance and an artificial timbre. I find it doesn’t give much value add compared to some existing KZ/CCA iterations (eg the KZ ZS10 Pro), so this is one pokemon that you should think twice about catching.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Driver type: 4 BA + 1DD (10 mm)
• Impedance: 24Ω
• Earphone sensitivity: 109dB/mW
• Frequency range: 20 – 40000Hz
• Cable type: 2 pin 0.75 mm
• Tested at $40 USD

ACCESSORIES

In addition to the IEM, the package comes with:

1) Silicone tips (S/M/L).

2) Stock cable – silver plated. It is servicable, for cable skeptics, please go on to the next section! For cable believers, I feel a pure copper one would have synergized better with the CCA C10 Pro as it is already bright and harsh in the treble, and would have benefitted from a copper cable to tame the highs and give a bit of warmth.

BUILD/COMFORT

The CCA C10 Pro has a beautiful metal faceplate, with a unique design emblazzoning it. Kinda like some illuminati code LOL. The CCA C10 Pro is very comfortable and light and I had no issues with using it for longer sessions in terms of fit (sound wise however, I couldn’t use it too long due to the harsh treble, but that will be discussed below).

I did not detect any driver flex.

I liked that the CCA C10 Pro came in a 2 pin connector, that has generally better lifespan than MMCX connectors in my experience.

ISOLATION

The CCA C10 Pro’s isolation is just above average, but won’t beat some unvented multi BA types in this area.

DRIVABILITY

The CCA C10 Pro is pretty drivable from lower powered sources, with not much scaling in sound noted when amped. It does hiss with PCs and phones but this can be mitigated by using a DAC/AMP, inline volume controller or impedance mismatch device.

As the CCA C10 Pro is on the brighter and leaner side tuning wise, I preferred pairing it with warmer sources to offset the treble/upper mids glare.

SOUND & TECHNICALITIES

The CCA C10 Pro sports a bright V shaped tuning, with boosted upper mids and treble. This is a treblehead set, no doubt about it, with above average technicalities at this price point.

Timbre is unfortunately, artificial for acoustic instruments, much like some circa 2018 KZ fare. The CCA C10 Pro is definitely not one for folks that listen to genres that comprise primarily acoustic instruments. I think the CCA C10 Pro will do pretty well with genres that have more synthetic instrumentation eg electronic. Note weight is leaner and tonality is overall on the colder side.

Soundstage on the CCA C10 Pro is pretty average in all 3 dimensions, it is slightly wider than deep, nothing to write home about. Imaging, instrument separation and details are above average but not class leading for a multi BA/hybrid budget set.

Bass:

Bass on the CCA C10 Pro is midbass focused over subbass, and the subbass extension is not the deepest. Generally the subbass manages to hit notes when called for and is not anemic. The bass quantity is north of neutral but not as basshead levels. Bass speed is on the faster side for a DD with above average texturing.

Mids:

Upper mids are boosted on the CCA C10 Pro compared to the lower mids, and the upper mids can on occasions be shouty, especially at higher volumes (Fletcher Munson Curve). Female vocals are hence more forward than male vocals.

Treble:

This is a bright set with the dreaded S word: sibilance. The CCA C10 Pro has detail and clarity to suit trebleheads, but may be fatiguing for longer sessions at the lower treble region, especially with female vocals/horns/trumpets. Cymbals and high hats occasionally sound splashy. I would grade the treble of the CCA C10 Pro as the weakest part of the frequency spectrum.

COMPARISONS

I had a bigger collection of KZ pokemons in the past, but have sold all my KZs away except the KZ ZS10 Pro, so apologies if I can’t do A/B comparisons with the other KZs.

KZ ZS10 Pro (4BA + 1DD)

The KZ ZS10 Pro is also V shaped in tuning, but the KZ ZS10 Pro has less treble than the CCA C10 Pro. CCA C10 Pro is hence brighter, and due to the ears taking the entire frequency spectrum as a whole, it also feels as though the CCA C10 Pro is lighter in bass quantity. The CCA C10 Pro has more sibilance, and is much more fatiguing for longer sessions than the KZ ZS10 Pro.

In terms of timbre, I thought the KZ ZS10 Pro wasn’t the best, but the CCA C10 Pro is even worse in timbre. KZ ZS10 has better soundstage and imaging. CCA C10 Pro has a tighter bass with less midbass bleed. KZ ZS10 Pro is more “fun” sounding and more versatile in terms of tuning, with the CCA C10 Pro sounding more cold in tonality.

Even though the KZ ZS10 Pro came out more than a year ago, I think there is no value add for the CCA C10 Pro for existing owners of the KZ ZS10 Pro.

TRN V90S (5BA + 1DD)

The TRN V90S is also another V shaped set, but it has less boosted upper mids/lower treble than the CCA C10 Pro, with the latter being more fatiguing and harsh and sibilant. The TRN V90S has better soundstage and imaging/instrument separation/details than the CCA C10 Pro, though the CCA C10 Pro has better clarity due to the boosted higher frequencies. TRN V90S has a more textured bass too, though it has a bit more recessed mids than the CCA C10 Pro.

Both sets have poor instrumental timbre, and ain’t the best option for music genres that incorporate a lot of acoustic instruments.

Overall, both are going at about $50 USD, and I think TRN V90S is the better set in terms of tonality and technicalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCA C10 Pro features a V shaped sound signature, with an overly boosted upper mids/treble. It has above average technicalities, but this is offset by a harsh and fatiguing treble, sibilance and an artificial timbre. I find it doesn’t give much value add compared to some existing KZ/CCA iterations (eg the KZ ZS10 Pro), so this is one KZ/CCA pokemon that you should think twice about catching.

In all likelihood, a pro version of this CCA C10 Pro will probably be coming our way in a few weeks’ time, since it appears KZ (and by extension sister company CCA) are back to their circa 2018 – early 2019 habits of churning out almost weekly sidegrades/marginal upgrades. Perhaps trebleheads will like this set, but even so, it doesn’t have the best technicalities also, and there’s better options to be gotten out there at the same price range.

The CCA C10 Pro is really pretty forgettable in the $50ish USD cut throat CHIFI market, and unfortunately being average in that price segment is not good enough nowadays. Perhaps two to three years back, when CHIFI were still relatively uncommon in the wild, the CCA C10 Pro would have been lapped up, but this does not apply for the past year and a half or so, when CHIFI sound quality has really scaled up tremendously.

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

I would like to thank the Wooeasy Earphones Store for providing this review unit.

It can be gotten here: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001302167271.html at $40 USD.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post CCA C10 Pro Review (2) – KZ/CCA Pokemon, Better Not Catch Them All! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

CCA has decided to follow others in releasing a “pro” model of one previous IEM, the well received C10 model. The $35 CCA C10 Pro is a familiar recipe, a safe and popular tuning packed into the same shell as their C12. Characterized as a mild v rough Harman outline, the CCA C10 Pro adds some additional sparkle up top and leaner bass then it’s kissing cousin KZ ZS10 pro. If this is interesting or if the color scheme of your favorite sports team is black and gold, keep on reading.

GOOD TRAITS

Familiar design and tuning that made the KZ ZS10 Pro and CCA C10 popular.

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Bass articulation; Smooth out the peaks and sibilance.

SOUND

While I never purchased the CCA C10, I do own the cousin model the KZ ZS10 Pro which was well done for this price segment way back in 2019. The CCA C10 Pro seems to be either a C12 minus one driver or a C10 in the C12 shell with design changes. This is all conjecture at this point since I own neither the C12 or the O.G. C10, I can only rely on past discussions on how similar they were.

Tuning is unoffensive and while peaky in some areas, it is a cross between a typical shouty Chi-fi tuning and a Harman curve. The upper midrange is knocked down a few decibels from the ZS10 Pro and the bass is not as thumping. The bass instead is sort of a lazy affair, present in the room but not screaming look at me spectacular. You might bring it home to mom and dad, but you are not going to brag to your friends about it. The KZ ZS10 Pro measures roughly the same quantity, but I feel the quality is better on the KZ. I find the bass sometimes gets drowned out on the CCA C10 Pro, I wish it had better articulation. Occasionally there is some growl coming from the lower registers which helps to fill out the bottom required for some genres. It’s good to have a little oh yeah down there.

Midrange does not sound too forward since CCA decided to keep the peak halfway between 2kHz (Chi-fi standard) and 3kHz (Harman Standard). Vocals sometimes come off a little raspy, not real breathy and there is some sibilance that peeks through (pun intended). On the lower end they sound full and thick with a some bass warming it up. Treble is exciting and not dull, CCA C10 Pro adds some extra sparkle at the tippy top and this probably where they feel the CCA C10 Pro has now earned the “pro” achievement for the additional crispness. Guitars and brass really come alive with this style of treble tuning, and cymbals are very present. We are not talking Nicehck NX7 or KZ ZS6 levels of tearing your face off, just additional sparkle and sizzle.

Soundstaging is wider than deep, timbre is a little sterile and metallic sounding but cohesion is good and the multiple driver configuration allows it to be fairly resolving.

COMFORT / ISOLATION / DESIGN

Fitment is comfortable and stays in place, a pretty standard universal shell making the isolation a tick above average. I do like the color scheme, but this is merely a personal preference. The familiar KZ ZSN , ZS10 pro faceplate has been sharpened with accents. Cable is silver and surprised they didn’t opt for a copper or gold colored cable to match. Don’t take fashion tips from me though, wires are on their way out.

FINAL WORDS

For $35 or so, it’s a good pick but if you already own the ZS10 Pro or the CCA C10 and are completely happy with them, you could skip this refresh. On the other hand if you wanted to add a different color scheme to your collection I say go for it. It’s definitely a crowd pleasing medium V with warm vocals and crispy bacon-like treble. However a word of advice to the manufacturer, if you are going to put “Pro” in the name some of the basics need to be right- looking at you sibilance. Nothing ground breaking but a solid offering.

PACKAGE CONTENTS

Earphones; silver 0.75mm 2 Pin cable; S/M/L eartips

SPECIFICATIONS

Drive unit: 1 Dual magnetic dynamic bass + 4BA (50060 mid, custom mid-high, 30095 tweeter)
Impedance: 24Ω
Sensitivity: 109dB/mW
Frequency range: 20-40000Hz
Cable Length: 1.2m±3cm
Cable conductor: 1.25 4N oxygen free copper plating silver Mic/no Mic options
Earphone interface: CPIN 0.75MM interface

GRAPHS

Left vs Right
CCA C10 Pro vs KZ ZS10 Pro
Impedance Plot

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Volunteered to review this set to see what was new. Get the CCA C10 Pro from Wooeasy over at Aliexpress.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post CCA C10 Pro Review (1) – Not for Noobs? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Pros

Light and comfortable.
Good build.
Excellent details, clarity, imaging, instrument separation.
Above average soundstage.
Above average timbre for BA timbre.
Fast and accurate bass for a DD bass.
Good subbass and treble extension at both ends.
Easily drivable.

Cons:

Upper mids/lower treble harshness – can be tamed (see below).
Mild sibilance.
Average isolation.
Thin note weight, thin lower mids.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The TRN VX is a technically proficient set, with great build and fit and good extension at both ends. Bass is speedy for a DD bass, though it has some harsh upper mids/lower treble. If one can tame the upper mids region with some mods or are willing to EQ, it is a good set.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Driver Type: 1 DD (10 mm) + 6 BA
• Frequency Response: 7 Hz – 40000 Hz
• Impedance: 22 ohms
• Sensitivity: 107 dB/mW
• Cable type: Detachable 2 pin
• Tested at $71.60 USD
• Purchase Link: TRN Official Store

ACCESSORIES

In addition to the IEM, it comes with:

1) Silicone tips (S/M/L).

2) Stock cable and free TRN T4 copper cable provided by the store.

BUILD/COMFORT

The TRN VX is of very good build and is much lighter and smaller than what it looks like in pictures. Quite amazing they can squeeze so many drivers inside with such a small profile.

I’ve generally disliked MMCX connectors in IEMs due to their shorter lifespan so it is good to see the TRN VX uses 2 pin connectors.

There’s no driver flex, and it is very comfortable and well fitting.

ISOLATION:

I brought the TRN VX for a spin on the subway and bus and isolation is about average.

DRIVABILITY:

The TRN VX is pretty drivable from lower powered sources like smartphones, and amping isn’t truly mandatory, though there is a slight scaling of dynamics, soundstage and details with good amping. 

SOUNDSTAGE:

The TRN VX’s soundstage is above average in width and depth. Height is about average.

SOUND & TECHNICALITIES

The TRN VX sports a bright V shaped tuning, with the upper mids/lower treble being rather harsh with default stock cables/tips. So this is a treblehead’s dream, but treble sensitive folks or those that have fatigue with boosted upper mids may not appreciate it for longer listening sessions. It seems the VX tuning is catered mostly to their local Asian market, where they prefer boosted upper mids to complement their music, which features a lot of female vocals. They even have a term for it: musical poison 毒音, so the VX really lives up to its namesake of being a poison nerve agent! The upper mids/treble frequencies thankfully can be tamed with EQ, warm sources, foam tips/narrow bore tips, or certain tape mods, +/- copper cables (see below).

Technicalities like details, clarity, imaging and instrument placement are very good at the sub $100 range. The TRN VX borders on the analytical side, and is a good budget set for critical listening.

Timbre is good and accurate for BA timbre, but not as realistic as some dedicated DD sets (eg BLON BL-03, KBEAR Diamond) in the timbre for acoustic instruments, though it trumps these DD sets in the technicalities department. Note weight is on the thinner side, especially for the lower mids.

Bass:

Bass quantity on the TRN VX is north of neutral, but not at basshead levels. It more or less is a linear bass from the midbass to the subbass. The bass on the VX is one of the speedier DD type bass, yet having a decay and subbass extension typical of DD.

Mids:

Lower mids on the TRN VX are recessed, with a boosted upper mids that may be fatiguing for longer listening sessions. Note weight is on the leaner side.

Treble:

This is a bright and airy set with slight sibilance. It has plenty of detail and clarity to suit trebleheads, but may be fatiguing for longer sessions at the lower treble region, especially with female vocals/horns/trumpets. Cymbals and high hats occasionally sound splashy.

I’m treble and upper mids sensitive, so I think others who aren’t may like the default tuning just fine. Thankfully, I found a few ways to tame the upper mids/lower treble, and the TRN VX sounds very good with these methods:

1) Foam tips/narrow bore tips -> different folks have different ear anatomies and the TRN VX is tip sensitive, so u gotta try it to see what works for you. 

2) Warm source with the VX helps

3) EQ – specifically to lower the 2, 4 and 8 kHz areas by around 3 dB helps.

4) Micropore mod -> stick a 2.5 mm x 2.5 mm 3M brand Micropore over the centre of the nozzle mesh. Lowers the upper mids. Don’t cover entire mesh if not it will sound muffled! (PROTIP from KopiOKaya the master!)

5) Perhaps if u believe in copper cables taming treble (and ain’t a cable skeptic), u can try that too, as the stock cable of the VX isn’t the best. But I would think that cable changes to sound signature would be very subtle compared to the above methods. YMMV. 

My personal favourites to tame the upper mids is via EQ or micropore mod.

CONCLUSIONS:

The TRN VX is a technically proficient set, with great build and fit and above average soundstage. It has speedy bass for a DD bass, and has great extension at both ends of the FR.

The Achilles heel of this Poison Ivy is the upper mids makes it harsh for typical Westernized tuning OOTB, though I would think their own domestic Chinese market that likes boosted upper mids/treble and trebleheads will dig this. But it is actually a good set if u can put in a bit of work to lower the upper mids region, much like the infamous BLON BL-03 needed a bit of work OOTB for the fit. I would have rated it much higher if not for the upper mids region, but thankfully, this area can be tamed with the above mods.

I would be happy if TRN could release a “pro” version with some tamed upper mids, perhaps with a detachable nozzle or tuning filters.

MY VERDICT

Our rating scheme

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

The TRN VX is a review sample provided by the TRN Official Store on Aliexpress. My views are my own. 

It can be gotten at $71.60 from https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001045196019.html

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post TRN-VX Review (2) – Poison Ivy appeared first on Audio Reviews.

NiceHCK M6—archetypal multi-driver has many virtues, but is ultimately betrayed by its syrupy lowend. Build and aesthetics are unremarkable for the price point and isolation so-so, but comfort is very good. Gently U-shaped, with a neutral-to-warm, very natural-sounding tonality and a spacious, enveloping stage; imaging is very impressive and instrument placement accurate. 

Bass is very prominent but, as Jurgen observes, lacks deep impact and definition and has a slow, leaden quality which bleeds into the lower mids. (Note that switching to the gold “bass” filters does tighten the low-end, but dulls the higher frequencies, while the green reference filters seem to maintain the best balance of oomph and detail). Midrange is slightly pushed back but is full-bodied and very clear, while treble is reasonably extended and detailed yet silky, without shrillness; attack transients are resolved very quickly. Driver integration is pretty good although, again, the wooly bass mars the overall presentation

Overall, the M6 (which is alleged to a clone of the BGVP DMG) sounds like a beta model, with subsequent iterations like the DM6 presumably correcting the bass tuning. As is, the M6 is about 80% of a very good IEM, but there are many others in the $100 range that’ll get you closer to your sonic nirvana.

Disclaimer: borrowed from Durwood, who claims that he paid for them with his own, presumably hard-earned cash.

Note by the editor: the NiceHCK does not sound good without the $6 3rd-party filters. You have to click on that second review depicted above to learn more about it.

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

The post NiceHCK M6 Review (2) – For Those Who Like Fat Bottoms appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Soundwise, the Audio Pinnacle P2 is warmish and generally balanced. Low end, as noted, lacks slam but is well-sculpted and bloat free, while mids sound clear and forward. Treble is smooth but rolled off and lacking in detail and sparkle; drums sound somewhat blanketed. Coherence between frequencies is quite good and these avoid stridency, although they have an overall laid-back tonality and lack drive and engagement on uptempo material. Soundstage seems above average in width, though limited in height and width; instruments are well-separated but timbre is somewhat imprecise and complex orchestral fare lacks realism.

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

While competent and generally inoffensive, the Audio Pinnacle P2 are overpriced at their $99 SRP. At the $25 Massdrop blowout price, they might appeal to fans of this smooth/balanced approach, although the similar-looking $25 Advanced Sound S200 presents more high end information, while the $25-ish Tennmak and BQEYZ models offer better isolation and much more extension at both ends. 

Disclaimer: Bought it myself.

The post Mee Audio Pinnacle P2 Review – Like The High School Classmate You Don’t Remember appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Soundwise, v-shaped and “consumer tuned,” with alot of extension at both ends and notably more treble detail and emphasis than the zs3. Source sensitive; these can sound somewhat veiled and hollow but opened up considerably through my lg v30, with mids moving forward and drums sounding more realistic. This is a bright phone and with most silicon tips treble can get very splashy at the extremes; foams will tame the treble but slightly deaden the rest of the spectrum. i hear the stage as fairly low and narrow, altho (like almost all KZs) imaging is vg. note texture isn’t quite as rich as the zsr/zs5 though bass is better controlled than either–upright bass in particular is well-reproduced. these lack the refinement of the trn v80 and the physicality of the multidriver KZ hybrids, but driver coherence may be better on the zs4 (probably because it’s design is less ambitious).

Overall, I’d rate them a notch below the more expensive ZSR, ED16 and ZS5 on the KZ pantheon, although they certainly have their virtues and may improve with further tip rolling.

MEASUREMENTS

The post KZ ZS4 Review – A Lot of IEM For A Few Shekels appeared first on Audio Reviews.