Jürgen has already written a thorough review of the NiceHCK Bro, which you find HERE.

By Loomis T. Johnson

Senfer UEs/NiceHCK Bro—very refined quintessential ChiFi knockoff gets surprisingly close to the exponentially more expensive mainstream IEMs they imitate. Nicely built, easy to drive and ergonomic, with good isolation; I prefer their sleek fit and stock cable to that on the (real) UE900s. Like the UE900s, the UEs is balanced, with more prominent mids than the usual V-shaped fare. Some subbass is palpable, if not especially punchy or deep (these are not optimal for EDM or metal); midbass lacks some body but is well-controlled and sculpted. Mids, as stated, are forward and clean, while treble is sparkly, slightly bright and reasonably detailed (prone to very slight sibilance or splashiness at the extremes); note texture is comparatively lean overall. Soundstage has good width and height; imaging is particularly good; the position of each performer is very accurate and unlike many of these DIY hybrids, driver coherence is seamless. Compared to the UE900s, the UEs has a more adrenalized quality and is brighter and less resolving, particularly at the high-end, though the difference is not nearly as large as the price would suggest. Scary good value.

By Jürgen Kraus

After a couple of years with 3 to 6 BA driver-earphones, I have come back to treasure single DDs because of their natural timbre. These Senfers also have a very natural timbre but, to my surprise, feature 1 DD + 1 BA. When I put these into my ears after a long time, they first sounded somewhat flat and analog. But once my ears got used to their timbre, these simpletons just killed it. Have yet to find any in my large iem selection that reproduce voices and instruments as naturally as this earphone (or the NiceHCK Bro). A cello really sounded like a cello and the Queen of the Night out of Mozart’s Zauberflöte was standing right in my room – scary. Sure, the multi-drivers are technically more competent, e.g. they resolve better, but they cannot reproduce these instruments as authentically as this cheapo. Strangely enough, that enormous bass as shown in the frequency response does not appear huge at all to my ears, because it is focused and controlled, and extends like this into the sub-bass.

Compared to the newer $20 Knowledge Zenith models, the Senfer/Bro does not have these fatiguing 2-4 kHz peaks. Vocals sound therefore less accentuated and thinner but also less intrusive and more natural — the much more detailed and refined sounding ZSN becomes quickly fatiguing to me.

Loomis – with a grain of salt – tends to compare these to the $399 4 BA UE900s [errr…compare the names] in terms of detail resolution — whereas the UE900s wins on the bass focus. I want to add that the Senfer UEs has a much more natural timbre.

Paradoxically, the Senfer UEs/NiceHCK Bro come in a shape that appears to have become one of the standards in the ever expanding $100 to $200 Chifi category. The fact that this model has found mainly friends in poor, cheap, old, and grumpy people shows how hype does not affect…poor, cheap, old, and grumpy people.

To me, the Senfer UEs/NiceHCK have stood the test of time and will always remain a favourite.

Keep on listening!

EPILOGUE

Recommending these little Senfer rascals to a fellow Head-Fier got me banned from some functionality there forever (I was reported to admins by some creep of known identity). I purchased these about two years ago for $17 — but saw them lately for around $13 (in the NiceHCK Bro version).

Head-Fi continue to claim that Senfer is associated with Wooeasy/Yinyoo/Easy Earphones without presenting evidence — and they lash out against people mentioning Senfer. Wooeasy/Yinyoo/Easy Earphones are banned from Head-Fi for allegedly having rigged product reviews. Fact is that Senfer is Senfer is Senfer, an entirely independent company and unrelated to the aforementioned. Head-Fi have the house right, but they don’t have the right to manufacture and spread falsehoods, which constitutes libel. I appeal to Head-Fi’s basic decency and fairness to test their claims. As to rigging reviews: there are no sharp boundaries between real, sugarcoating, and fake. Some Head-Fi-tolerated “reviewers” are suspiciously closely associated with certain companies (some of which sponsor Head-Fi) while never or hardly ever finding any flaws on those companies’ products…in contrast to some independent external (only) reviewers. 

The post Senfer UEs / NiceHCK Bro 2-in-1 Review – A Classic Revisited appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Pros — Exceptional sound quality: cohesion, balance, and timbre; high-quality build; smooth, robust, full sound; great isolation and fit; outstanding value.

Cons — Grainy upper treble; flimsy pouch.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sennheiser IE 40 PRO is a warm and cohesive sounding single dynamic driver (DD) monitor earphone that excels by its natural tonal quality. The image is built on a solid but never overpowering low end.

INTRODUCTION

My first headphone was a Sennheiser: I picked up the HD414 with its bright yellow pads from a flea market in Germany in the late 1970s — and listened to the Clash and Graham Parker & the Rumour, of course on vinyl. Heavenly! And since then, I have acquired another 7 pairs of Sennheiser headphones and as many earbuds and earphones.

Sennheiser is a company based in lower Saxony, Germany, that rose from the ashes of WWII. Founded in 1945 by Prof. Fritz Sennheiser out of Hanover University, they have been innovative mainly in headphone and microphone technology since.  The very competent Tyll Hertsens of innerfidelity.com once ranked Sennheiser as the world’s best headphone maker (“despite the odd screwup”). 

Sennheiser certainly did well with their headphones; for example, the HD600 has been a perennial favourite since 1998. With the appearance of smartphones, Sennheiser introduced the CX300 earphones as an alternative to the buds that came with the phones. I saw their follow-up, the CX300B MKII, ranked somewhere as one of the 10 best headphone/earphone buys below $500 back in 2013. These CX300s had great speech intelligibility but an overly muddy bass. The next generation of Sennheiser budget earphones included the very popular and praised Momentum in-ear, which disappointed me somewhat by its rather recessed midrange. In recent years, Sennheiser had been a bit complacent for my taste, missing the rapid developments in the in-ear sector. For example, they have never produced a balanced armature (BA) driver (earphone). Sennheiser claim that a single wideband transducer produces a more natural sound than an array of BAs that introduce a crossover effect…and they may actually be right.

And while holding on to the single dynamic driver designed in-house, the Sennheiser IE 40 PRO is the lowest priced one out of a series of three: the IE 400 PRO and IE 500 PRO [review] are due to release in May 2019. These are true monitors aiming to musicians but they work equally well for recreational listening.

SPECIFICATIONS (from the Sennheiser website)

IN THE BOX…

..are the earpieces, a cable with proprietary connectors similar to MMCX that actually work (patent pending); 3 sets of quality rubber earth and 1 pair of foams, a cleaning tool (!) and a pouch that is too small for my liking.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

The earpieces of my black review unit are made of softish plastic, similar to the material used in Sennheiser headphones. It feels smooth and so does the cable that has just the right tension not to be springy. The ear mold (“memory wire”) around the ears is thick and soft and sturdy. The cable is detachable (bonus) but the connectors are proprietary (patent pending) — and as opposed to MMCX connectors they are reliable. The eartips are made of the usual thick high-grade rubbers offered in Sennheiser iems. Overall, all plastics and rubbers use are of good quality and I trust the Sennheiser engineers that the materials have the usual longevity. These monitors offer a truly functional design.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The earpieces are small and rather shallow so that they fit perfectly into my ears without sticking out. The fit is terrific and the thick ear mold is not intrusive while holding the shell firmly in place. The cable has zero microphonics. Isolation is outstanding: if you don’t need these for your band, they will also work well on the city bus or a plane.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

I did my listening with the iPhone SE and used the largest included rubber tips. At 20 ohm, the IE 40 PRO are very easy to drive.

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

The big picture: The IE 40 PRO are warm and mildly bassy earphones characterized by their great tonal quality (timbre) and homogeneity. Gone are the dreaded Sennheiser veil and the associated darkness. The overall sound is extremely pleasant without any significant aberations.

The details: What stands out is the strongly reduced bass compared to previous Sennheiser budget models such as the Momentum in-ear, CX 5.00, and CX 300B Mk II. The IE 40 PRO’s low end has its biggest slam rather deep down between 40 and 100 Hz, and the frequency response remains almost linear and a bit forward inclined between 100 Hz through the complete midrange into the lower treble, where it starts dipping at 6 kHz but and it reaches its biggest peaks between 12 and 15 kHz. 

The slightly elevated sub-bass and bass form the solid foundation of the tonal image (“Klangbild”). This healthy but never thick low-end adds the volume that makes the IE 40 PRO sound like a headphone. The bass is medium-fast decaying which contributes to the natural timbre and it adds warmth to the image. It stays focused at this level into the sub-bass. The upper bass enhances and colours the lower midrange (male vocals) but at the expense of some clarity and transparency. For the listener, the bass appears to creep up subtly without the classic mid-bass hump. Very pleasant to my ears.

The midrange is not recessed. Both male and female voices sound full and natural. The upper midrange is actually below neutral at the expense of brightness and energy in guitars and female voices. Speech intelligibility is outstanding.

The lower treble is well-dosed and yet well extended without any peaks that could introduce sibilance, harshness, or hardness. The sound is smooth right into the upper treble that compensate for the flat upper midrange and lower treble by introducing some but not too much sparkle and air. The 12-15 kHz area is rather emphasized compared to other single DDs (including the ones mentioned below), which brings cymbals forward — they can sound a bit grainy in some cases. Several others reported this “upper” sibilance” that affects notes high above the voices. But because the treble did not pierce and the bass does not thump, I could turn the volume up on the IE 40 PRO without regret.

The soundstage is average in width but has a good depth and height. Instrument separation and layering are great – but, quite frankly, I don’t really care that much as the timbre is the delightful part: a saxophone sounds like a saxophone, a cello like a cello, and an acoustic guitar sounds like a…you got it.

In summary, the sound is like “aus einem Guss” (extremely homogenous), never fatiguing, and in the end addictive for me.

SELECT COMPARISONS

Sennheiser Momentum In-Ear ($99): This highly praised and by no-means bad single DD model has an overcooked, thicker bass that pushes its quality vocals into the back and produces a somewhat veiled and muffled sound. A simple mod [instructions] brings the midrange forward, recovers some transparency, and reveals its true quality, but still does not produce the depth of the IE 40 PRO. Midrange and treble are similar between the two models with the upper treble being more forward on the IE 40 PRO. Fit of the IE 40 PRO is also better. Overall, the IE 40 PRO are a good step up from the Momentum in-ear. 

Brainwavz B200 v1 ($120; discontinued): The original black B200 with their 2 BAs are an underappreciated jewel and one of my all-time favourites. Although both are tuned very similarly up to 3 kHz the B200’s midrange and treble (and therefore the overall sound) is much leaner than that of the IE 40 PRO and their low end is more focused on the mid bass. Where they differ substantially is from the upper midrange up, where the B200 starts dropping off at 3 kHz. Cymbals are less forward and voices are less full, more fragile, less three-dimensional and less natural in the B200 v1. The IE 40 PRO sounds fuller at higher volumes, where the B200 v1 get tinny. It lacks the full sound that makes the IE 40 PRO sound like a headphone. The Senns also handle dense instrumentations better. Nevertheless is the lean sound of the B200 v1. appealing. If asked which of the two I’d surrender, I’d say: none. Both are excellent and it is needless to rank them against each other (considering that one is off the market)! 

Focal Sphear ($129): This single DD has a similarly great natural sound, a thicker, less extended and less focused bass bleeding into the slightly recessed and thinner mids, and also more modest treble. The somewhat V-shaped Sphear is less dynamic and darker. Nevertheless are the differences not gigantic and the Sphear’s timbre makes it a great earphone.

iBasso IT01 ($100): The single DD IT01 has a more extended bass, which is nicely textured, but also a tad too strong for my liking. It smears into the lower midrange at the expense of clarity – which bugs me every time I use them (as they are very competent earphones in most other aspects). The vocals department of the Senns is cleaner, richer, and more homogenous wheras the iBasso’s may have more depth but it is also more recessed. In terms of natural sound, there is not much between them. The iBasso’s shells are much bigger and its fancy braided however heavy cable may be more appealing to some. Again, the Senns are more streamlined and pragmatic in this respect: everything works well together.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I have rarely had a product come through my hands that was so well thought out and balanced as the Sennheiser IE 40 PRO, from the haptic, isolation, comfort, and fit to the sound. The IE 40 PRO’s strength is that it is just really good in most respects — and it hits a sweet spot, price wise. This is the rare case where I consider going out and buy myself a pair for the commute.

Es lebe das dynamische Treibersystem | Long live the dynamic driver!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

The review unit was a loaner sent upon my request with Sennheiser Electronic GmbH & Co KG in Wedemark, Germany, through Sennheiser USA. Dankesehr and thank you everybody involved! The sole purpose of this review was our independent evaluation of the IE 40 PRO’s technical and sonic qualities. Biodegraded used the same unit for his second opinion.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

SECOND OPINION BY BIODEGRADED

Pros — Fit, comfort, isolation, cable (strong, flexible, quiet); bass (over-emphasized, but done well).

Cons — A bit recessed in the upper mids, treble spike (highs are grainy/scratchy); connectors are proprietary.

In the marketing material for these, Sennheiser pushes the ‘stage monitor’ focus, and stresses their ‘expanded sound spectrum’ vs alternatives with ‘multi-way drivers’ (presumably meaning the multi-balanced-armature units more typically targeted at performers). These two aspects are evident in the IE 40 PROs’ tonality: a downward-sloping frequency profile reminiscent of other ‘pro’ IEMs like Westones, but with the addition of a spike in the treble to complement the elevated bass (see JK’s measurements above).

People used to a stage-monitor style presentation might initially be impressed: coming from a dynamic driver, the elevated bass has good punch and timbre and goes deep, and the treble spike might initially give the impression of resolution. However…

Ok, the bass IS good. For me, it’s the highlight of these. It’s boosted a few dB, but it also extends deep, doesn’t seem to overwhelm the lower mids too much, and has dynamics and transients that sound natural. This, together with the isolation (good, but being rear-vented not quite as good as non-vented BA competitors) would be good in the noisy environments of a stage or a plane. The treble, though, is a let-down. The narrow peak (around 12 kHz in JK’s measurements) is too high and its timbre is unrealistic, rendering a grainy or scratchy texture to cymbals and high violin notes. For me, this is a deal-breaker.

The upper mids are also a bit low. People sensitive to emphasis in the 3-5k area (JK’s ‘ChiFi chainsaw’) might not mind this, but I found the suppression in this region coupled with the treble exaggeration to negatively affect my perception of instrument separation and imaging – for me, another minus.

If you can get over the treble, construction, fit, and as noted above, isolation, are very good. The cable is a particular highlight: strong, flexible, and almost completely non-microphonic. The connectors, while easy to plug in and out, also seem strong and flexible (they’re recessed into the bodies of the earphones for extra protection). Unfortunately the connectors are proprietary. I don’t know if after-market versions are available, but replacements direct from Sennheiser are $CAD 39.95; not too bad.

In conclusion, if you like (or thanks to background noise, need) a bit of bass boost and don’t mind or can’t hear the spiked and scratchy treble, these could be worth considering – and to repeat, the bass is good. Serious musicians who are considering replacements for or alternatives to multi-balanced-armature monitors in the few-hundred-dollar range, or studio buffs looking for a more neutral sound signature, however, should look elsewhere – perhaps at Sennheiser’s upcoming IE 400 & IE 500 models. These are also of single-dynamic construction, and at ~3.5x & ~5.5x the price they’ll hopefully address the IE 40 PROs’ shortcomings (audition before buying, of course!).

The post Sennheiser IE 40 PRO Review – Instant Classic appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Soundwise, these Hisenior B5+ are balanced and slightly brighter than neutral, with some treble emphasis; stage is wide though not as holographic/enveloping as pricier sets; however stereo separation and instrument placement are estimable—you can hear the exact position of each performer.

Extremely tip-sensitive—foams deaden the presentation while wide silicons provide the best combination of bass, seal and detail. Note texture is of average thickness and tonality very slightly sharp, albeit free of shrillness or sibilance; driver coherence is flawless. Low end is fast and well-sculpted, but without much subbass depth or physical impact; I find myself craving more oomph, particularly in the midbass region.  Mids are quite forward and clear while high end is lively and very detailed without sounding overanalytic, with a nice bit of sparkle. Drums, cymbals and voices are very well-presented

Compared to my previous $100 benchmark, the Ibasso IT01, the Hisenior B5 is slightly less expansive-sounding, less bassy and physical, but much more transparent, with a higher level of resolution esp. at the treble spectrum; the IT01 sounds rather blunt in contrast.

Compared to the UE900s ($399; tho often available for $179), the B5 is more energetic, has less lowend presence, and more treble emphasis and detail; the UE900s is warmer and more audiophile-accurate in the sense of being a more precise reproduction of the source. The UE900s also has a higher, more holographic soundstage.

The Shure SE535 likewise has a bigger stage and richer mids, but is otherwise inferior to the Hisenior B5, with comparatively monotonic bass and much less treble detail. Impressive overall, if not bassy enough to be endgame; I’d be very interested to see how these fare in a blind comparo with much pricier, similarly-tuned CIEMs.

DISCLAIMER

I bought this one.

The post Hisenior B5+ Review – Accurate appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Soundwise, these Audbos (Tenzh) most closely resemble the UE900S, with a warmish, smooth tonality and somewhat rich note texture; however these lack the overall refinement and coherence of the pricier UE900S, which present a moreP open, natural sound. Subbass is present and very fast, though not throbbing or deep; midbass is a bit undercooked and could use some body. (The P4 Pro model reputedly has less bass and more treble emphasis). Mids are the clear strength here—forward and clear—while smooth treble seems a bit rolled off and (compared to competitors like the Bosshifi B5+ or NiceHCK HK6) somewhat lacking in sparkle and detail, although the overall presentation is pleasant and non-fatiguing. Soundstage seems about average though not enveloping, with good stereo and instrument separation, although their warm tonality can make them sound a little congested on some passages.

These will have considerable appeal to fans of a warmer, less treble centric sound, although I can’t say they hit above their weight—to some extent they highlight the sonic difference between a good $100 iem and a good $200 iem.

SPECIFICATIONS

Speaker drive mode：4 Balanced armature(1*L+1*M+2*H)
Impedance: 32 Ω ±10%
Frequency Response：10Hz—40KHz
Sensitivity: 110±1db

DISCLAIMER

I bought this one.

The post Audbos Tenhz P4 Review – Quad Pro Quo appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Big and heavy earpieces; timbre not for everybody; requires tip rolling…but hey, this earphone costs $20!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Senfer DT6 is a technically competent 3-driver earphone with a dynamic driver (DD) for the low end, a balanced armature (BA) driver for the midrange, and a piezoelectric tweeter for the highs. It offers a refined, close-to-neutral sound with emphasis on a quality midrange at a ridiculously low price.

For more photos see Slater’s Audio Porn “Senfer DT6 on the Rocks”!

INTRODUCTION

Senfer is a Chinese brand known for earphones with a bright sound signature. I have owned their $20 UEs model for a couple of years, which is not bright, and it has a resolution that co-blogger Loomis Johnson and I compared to the $399 UE900s.

Piezoelectric drivers for the treble are the latest offerings in the budget segment. We reviewed one of them, the NiceHCK N3, which did not impress most reviewers and us either. I grudgingly was talked into reviewing these DT6 — and must admit that I never looked back.

SPECIFICATIONS

Product Name: SENFER DT6 in ear metal earphone
Brand: SENFER
Model: DT6
Earphone Type: In-ear
Impedance: 32 Ω
Earphone Sensitivity: 110 dB/mW
Frequency Range: 5-40000 Hz
Interface: 3.5mm Gilded
Plug Type: straight
Cable Length: 1.2 m ± 3 cm
Connector: MMCX Interface
Microphone/Remote: Yes
Driver unit: 1BA + 1DD + Ceramic Piezoelectric hybrid 3 driver unit
Price (list): $37.49 (at the time of the review)
Your Price: $19 [instructions]
Purchase Link: MissAudio Store

IN THE BOX…

You find the earpieces, cable with MMCX connectors, shirt clip, and 4 pairs of eartips. NOTE: the braided cable that came with my unit is fancier than the cable I have seen on earlier pictures. It is braided, contains a three-button remote, and has a straight TRRS plug.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

The earpieces are made of metal, they are big and heavy. The nozzles are relatively short and angled. Build is good but the shells look a bit rudimentary, reminiscent of very early Knowledge Zenith models. The braided cable is just fine.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The combination of these big and heavy metal shells and the angled nozzles required a bit of fiddling to get the right fit. I applied the technique suggested by Etymotic [video]: insert into ear canal and rotate by 90 degrees. Once they are in, they are comfortable, especially since the wire is worn down, but be aware that the shells stick quite a bit out of your ears. Isolation is soso, depending on your ear shape and the tips used, but it is in no case fantastic.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

I used the iPhone SE, which drove the DT6 with ease. The included tips were problematic as none of them was big enough to seals my ear canals. I settled with wide-bores that came with the NiceHCK M6 and the Yinyoo D2B4.

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

The big picture: the Senfer DT6 offers a refined, brightish, quasi-neutral sound with no offensive humps or peaks in bass or treble.

The details: There is an almost linear response from the very low-end into the midrange. The bass is well extended down to 20 kHz and peaks at the sub-bass/lower bass transition. There is a small peak in the midrange just before 2 kHz, a dip at around 3 kHz, and another moderate peak at 4 kHz. Treble starts dropping off early at 4 kHz (one would expect at 6 kHz for neutral) but it is well extended between 10 and 15 kHz. This results in a neutral to brightish sound signature without any offensive parts.

I read some accounts of an overwhelming, boomy bass, which I initially also experienced. This shows that the frequency response measured in a coupler can be different from the human ear’s perception. The solution of this paradox lies in the different ear shapes: depending to what extent the front bass vent is covered upon insertion, bass quantity may differ substantially [explanation].

If you push the earpieces deep down and close the b assholes, the low end is indeed boomy and darkens the overall image. Wiggling the earpieces brings the bass back to normal and the sound close to neutral.

The bass is not the speediest or tighest, has a decent slam from its very low end and stays reasonably contained into the sub-bass. That extension is ok and there is some rumble down there. Overall, the bass adds warmth, bleeds somewhat into the midrange, and is not the DT6’s strongest side…

…no the strength is the midrange which is not hanging back as it is so often the case in this class. It is neutral, a bit on the cool side, resolves well and it “makes” the overall perception of the earphone being good. The rather odd combination of peaks and troughs between 2 and 4 kHz results in a decent vocals rendering

Treble is well resolving and never strident, with no sibilance, harshness and hardness. Sparkle and air are added by the broad 10-15 kHz peak.

Where the Senfer DT6 may be polarizing is its timbre (“tone colour”): it is certainly not organic and violins, acoustic guitars, saxophones, and pianos may sound sterile and metallic to some. This does not matter for rhythm guitars, sequencers, or synthesizers as they don’t have a pre-defined timbre.

The soundstage is quite impressive for such a cheapo: comparing it to the more organic sounding Brainwavz Delta [review here], the stage is bigger and closer, with a good sense of space and an astounding height and depth. You are in the first row with the DT6 whereas you are more in the bleachers with the Deltas (but the Deltas have their merits, too, with their natural sound and good bass foundation adding to the isolation on the daily commute).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Senfer DT6 is a technically competent and mature sounding earphone independent of price. Even better that it costs only $20. Outstanding are its detailed quality midrange and its refined image without any major flaws. I could wear the DT6s for longer periods without any problems. The only concern could be the timbre that may not cater to purveyors of classical music and jazz. In summary, I’d say the DT is a real find out of the ordinary and at this price you can’t go wrong.

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

The review unit was offered to me by the exuberant people from the MissAudio Store. David Hahn from CHI-FIEAR had established the contact. I thank all of them. The review served the purpose of independently evaluating the technical and practical characteristics of the Senfer DT6 earphone.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

Here our other review of the Senfer DT6:

The post Senfer DT6 Review (1) – Epic Little Wonder appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Pros – Homogenous image; outstanding timbre; good build; generous accessories including a high-quality carrying case; good value.

Cons – Bass too punchy for some audiophiles; lower treble spike too much for sensitive ears.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Brainwavz Delta is a well-built, good sounding earphone that thrives on the harmony of its average properties and its outstanding timbre. And it constitutes very good value.

INTRODUCTION

The single dynamic driver (DD) is a dying breed in the new age of balanced-armature (BA) driver earphones. Once expensive, manufacturers now stuff new generations of cheaply produced BAs into large, flashy shells and compete on the number of drivers as their marketing gimmick and price reference. These large shells leave enough space for detachable cables which created an additional market for accessories and therefore even more revenue.

Many manufacturers discontinued their sidelined single DDs similar to record companies getting rid of vinyl in the late 1980s in favour of digital technology. What has not been considered by consumers and manufacturers alike is that single DDs have one huge advantage over the BAs: they sound more organic and natural.  As somebody once wrote: when comparing iems with images, BAs are like overpixelated photos and DDs look like analog prints.

The Brainwavz Deltas are dinosaurs on the market having survived since 2013, I could only think of some Sennheiser and Etymotic models having been offered for longer.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: Dynamic, 8 mm
Rated Impedance: 16Ω
Frequency Range: 20 Hz ~ 20 kHz
Sensitivity: 100 dB at 1 mW
Rated Input Power: 20 mW
Cable: 1.3 m Y-Cord, Copper
Plug: 3.5 mm, Gold plated

Price: $27.50 (list)…I saw them for $20 CAD

IN THE BOX… 

…are the earphones, three pairs of wide-bore silicone tips, one pair of Comply foam tips, cable tie, shirt clip, user guide, and the classic sturdy hard case (the same that comes with the Koel, B200, and B400). Very generous!

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

The earpieces are well-made of light metal, they feel and appear sturdy and look somewhat non-descript (don’t judge the book by its cover). The cable is reminiscent of thin speaker cable, it is robust and worked for me. And it is red, which sets the Deltas apart from their competition…looks distinct and good. Strains reliefs are fine, and the jack is the classic Brainwavz 45 degree angled designed found on the company’s other cables. The chin slider comes in very handy. In summary, everything is of good quality, nothing to complain about.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

As with most of barrel-shaped dynamic in-ears, the Deltas fit very well. Isolation is good, especially when combined with the deep-bass punch (see below). I barely heard street noise and recommend these for the daily commute.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

The largest included wide-bore eartips worked well for me, but I wished Brainwavz had included narrow bores, too (which tame down treble and move the treble peaks to slightly lower frequencies, as depicted HERE). The Deltas were easily driven by my iPhone SE.

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

The big picture: The Brainwavz Delta is a warm, smooth sounding earphone with a natural timbre and good resolution.

The details: The Brainwavz Delta has a linear frequency response that is forward inclined between 50 Hz and 1.5 kHz, that is the output decreases at an approximately uniform rate with increasing frequency. The bass is well-extended and only starts rolling off slightly at 50 Hz while not getting fuzzy downwards. Bass is not as fast as of a single BA, but is ok. The low end is punchy and the main impact comes from deep down at the transition to the sub-bass. The bass peak is broad and extends upwards into the mid-bass, which can become boomy at times. Yes the bass slam is still far enough away from the lower midrange not to smudge substantially into male vocals of the lower midrange, which maximizes clarity in this segment and minimizes the perception of the slight recession. There is no punch at 200 Hz (so typical for budget DDs) that excavates my eardrums…very pleasant.

The lower (250 to 500 Hz) and upper midrange (2 to 4 kHz, the most sensitive frequency range for the human ear) are slighty recessed and truly linear with no shouty peaks and no harshness or hardness (in contrast to many KZ earphones such as the ZSN or AS10). This is a real strength of the Deltas and the basis of their pleasant sound. The lower midrange is warm, darkish, natural, and smooth. In the upper midrange, high female vocals stay slightly behind and deserve a bit more sheen. 

The treble is well extended. A narrow peak at 6.5 kHz adds brightness to the image. I taped the nozzles off with micropore tape to remove this peak temporarily [instructions], and this not only darkened the image but also removed much of its life, as depicted HERE. This peak adds the icing to cymbals and high piano notes, but it also introduces the occasional borderline sibilance and may be too sharp for sensitive ears. The treble starts rolling off at 6.5 kHz, which means it is well extended, and a secondary peak at 14 kHz adds the perception of added resolution, clarity, sparkle and airiness.

Clarity and detail resolution are generally good and so are instrument separation and layering. The timbre is natural and beats many much higher priced hybrid iems (which resolve better and have a deeper and taller soundstage).

The soundstage is wider than deep and not very tall, typical for a budget single-DD earphone, which is just fine.

In summary, the Deltas’ sound is different from so many other single DDs in its class by having the bass attack deep and no annoying upper midrange peak (“not the classic V-shape”). The price to pay for the latter is an added lower treble peak that area (reportedly) strident to some ears. Overall, the Deltas sound enjoyable to me and I could not find any noteworthy weakness.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Brainwavz Delta is the classic, simple, rugged, well-built budget DD earphone that holds its marketplace whereas many of its competitors have been sacrificed for flashier BA or hybrid models. Kudos to Brainwavz for that — as the Deltas are well worth it. And while they don’t break any world record, they sound good, have not a single flaw, come with a great case, and are shipped fast. The Deltas are yet another example that a good sound does not have to be expensive. I enjoyed testing them.

MY VERDICT

DISCLAIMER

The Deltas were selected and provided by Brainwavz upon my request for reviewing an interesting single dynamic-driver earphone and I thank them for that. The fast communication with Brainwavz is once again appreciated. The sole purpose of this review was to independently test the Deltas’ technical and practical capabilities. 

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

The post Brainwavz Delta Review – Seriously Timeless! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons – Bass a bit soft, treble a bit hashy/hissy, mids seem distant, technicalities do not cut it.

SUMMARY

The Yinyoo D2B4 (updated version) is a slightly bass heavy but otherwise neutral hybrid over-the-ear IEM of excellent construction and good comfort that sells for $US186.25 (regular price). The nice tonality is somewhat let down by the timbre at both ends of the range, which for the price is disappointing.

UPDATE: The Yinyoo D2B4, out of the box, are flawed because the feature the “wrong” tuning filters and eartips. How turn these into good sounding earphones, read our UPDATED REVIEW.

SPECIFICATIONS (FROM DIFFERENT SHEETS)

• Product Name: Yinyoo D2B4 in-ear earphone
• Earphone Type: in-ear hybrid, 2 coaxial dynamic bass drivers (10 mm) & 4 balanced-armature mid & treble drivers
• Impedance: 19 Ω +/- 2% @ 1 kHz (but see below)
• Sensitivity: 102 dB/mW
• Frequency Range: 20-40 kHz (whatever that means)
• Distortion: 12% or <3% @ 1 kHz @ 1mW, take your pick (see below)
• Interface: 3.5mm TRS straight plug, gold plated
• Connector: MMCX
• Cable: 1.2 m ± 3 cm; silver-plated 4-core copper, no microphone
• Colours: black or blue
• Price: $93.13 — 186.25
• Purchase Link Aliexpress
• Purchase Link Amazon

As is usual with single-number specifications they’re mostly meaningless or just wrong. What exactly happens at 20 Hz and 40 kHz? And 12% distortion?? Where does that number come from? The ‘<3% …’ figure is more conventional but at 1mW this is a higher SPL level than you’d want to be listening at. Even on my noisy system at a more reasonable 85 dB, THD at 1 kHz is <1%. It’s unusual and welcome that the frequency of the impedance figure is quoted, but as with most BA or hybrid earphones it varies quite a bit across the range. Measuring shows it’s ~31 ohms through the bass, dropping through the midrange to around ~9 ohms in the treble (the NiceHCK M6 is similar). This >3x difference will interact with sources with higher output impedance to boost the bass and lower mids relative to the treble as shown on the graph below (the impedance vs frequency curve is in brown). For reference – the iPhone 6 headphone jack has 3.2 ohms output impedance, iPhone 5 is 4.5, Topping NX3S is around 5, and Macbook headphone jacks and some Topping desktop amplifiers are around 10.

IN THE BOX…

…are the two earpieces, cable, 3 pairs of each wide-vote and narrow-bore eartips (S, M. L), and a sturdy case. Note that the v2’s cable is different from that of the earlier version.

BUILD

These are very classy looking, smooth coated, machined aluminum ear-bowl shaped shells with two rear vents per side and MMCX connectors for the cables. Unlike the NiceHCK M6, the nozzles/filters (5 mm apertures) are not removable. The cable is a nicely flexible but rather thick affair that, with its braiding below the sturdy splitter block and large 3.5 mm plug, is on the whole rather bulky. The earpieces and cable together give an overall impression of quality and durability.

ERGONOMICS

These fit my ears well and are comfortable. The memory wire on the connector ends strikes a nice balance of being stiff enough to keep its shape yet flexible enough to be easily bent into a new one, and the rest of the cable is flexible, drapes well, and has low microphonics. I’d have no problem wearing these for long sessions.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

These were easy to drive from my phone, an old Samsung Galaxy S4 (1.2 ohm output impedance). Given that, I didn’t try another source.

The two sets of S, M & L tips included are quite different. The black ones (thin, soft, “custom medical-grade hypoallergenic silicone”) are about 1 mm shallower than the grey ones (thicker, less flexible) and have stems another 1 mm shorter, the combined effect being that the nozzles are almost up at the openings of the black tips but about 2mm back from the openings of the others. In addition, the apertures of the grey tips are narrower, around 3 mm. The medium black tips fitted me well, were comfortable, and gave me an insertion depth that isolated well. Quick measurements with the grey tips show these reinforce the treble, which is opposite to what I expected and not desirable, so I didn’t try them.

SOUND

The tonal balance of the Yinyoo D2B4 is pretty good (see below): bass is mildly boosted but not overdone, the 2-5k area is elevated about the right amount, and the drop through the treble starts at about the right place and is around the right depth (could maybe be a little lower around 10k). On our plastic-tube couplers and in my ears, this signature is fairly neutral (the bass could stand to be around 3-5 dB lower). This is good, because many hybrid/BA earphones don’t respond well to equalization.

Unfortunately, timbre and technicalities don’t come up to the same standard. The bass is somewhat loose and muddy; and while the treble doesn’t have the overly-fast decay of many BA implementations (the NiceHCK M6, a similarly-constructed earphone, is guilty of this), it’s hashy/hissy and there’s accentuated sibilance with problematic recordings. In addition, the mids seem somehow distant. The combination of all this doesn’t help imaging and soundstage, which are imprecise; dynamics, which are soft; and detail resolution, which is lacking. There’s also that classic hybrid sense of incoherence – the feeling you’re listening not to one earphone but to many different ones within the same enclosure. Given the even tonality, all this is disappointing.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

These have solid construction and a nice cable, good comfort and isolation, good looks and an even tonality. Given the downsides, though, even the ‘discount’ price is too steep. While I appreciate the construction and fit of the Yinyoo, sound quality considerations come first and make me ask myself if I’m alone in wondering how much demand there’ll be in the relatively expensive machined-aluminum, multi-driver space.

DISCLAIMER

The review unit was provided by Yinyoo upon their suggestion — we at Audio Reviews thank them for that. Note that this particular specimen incorporates the latest retuning as of 2019-03-20 including a new cable. The sole purpose of this review was to independently test the Yinyoo D2B4’s technical and practical capabilities. Following the review, Audio Reviews offered to return the unit to Wooeasy but they didn’t take it back.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

The post Yinyoo D2B4 v2 Review – You May Ask Yourself… appeared first on Audio Reviews.

The Pioneer CH3 is a slightly warm and a somewhat bright off neutral single DD micro-driver earphone that excels by its cohesive sound, superb resolution, and natural timbre.

INTRODUCTION

Earphones have certainly experienced quite a recent push accompanying a price decline  of balanced armature (BA) drivers. Not even 10 years ago, Sennheiser marketed their CX-300 model as an upgrade of the buds that came with your phone, and 5 years ago, their follow-up CX-300B MKII Precision was considered to be in the top 10 of earphones/headphones below $500. Both featured a single dynamic (DD) driver that reproduced voices quite well (“telephone calls”) but also generated an overly muddy bass.

More recently, people got excited over the advent of affordable multi-drivers from China, mainly because of value for money. But multi-drivers require big housings and are therefore problematic for some ears, and the interplay of the different drivers may not produce the desired cohesive, natural sound. Some companies shell out model after model in short succession attempting to get their budget multis up to snuff. On the other hand, major brandnames such as NAD, Pioneer, Focal, Bowers & Wilkins, and Sennheiser have held on exclusively to single DDs – and some boutique manufacturers also carry the odd single DD model. The brandnames did not implement practical gimmicks such as exchangeable cables and some of their pricing is rather high (i.e. Sennheiser ie800S).

One of these manufacturers, Pioneer, is a Japanese multinational corporation, founded in 1938, that today specializes in digital entertainment products. To me, Pioneer have made their good name through innovative and robust cassette decks and by the introduction of the “laser disc” (yes, I am that old). Many purists and long-time earphone wizards have also held on to single dynamic-driver (DD) earphones despite temptations, claiming that DDs re-produce sound more accurately and naturally, despite potential shortcomings in resolution detail. And they are most comfortable in the opinion of many.

The Pioneer CH3 is a low-budget “Hi-Res” labeled single DD micro-driver earphone that was brought to my attention by such an “old” earphone aficionado as being the budget discovery of early 2019. I will demonstrate in the following that good sound and high prices are not well correlated and that you can get perfect musical enjoyment for little money.

SPECIFICATIONS

IN THE BOX…

S/M/L silicon earphone tips, user manual, and warranty card.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

Housing and base are made of rigid aluminum in order to minimize vibration and therefore maximize clarity. The 5.5 mm micro driver is graphene coated. The cable comes with a remote with an ergonomically good as large button is sitting on the left. The strain reliefs look sturdy enough. Since the cable is not detachable, we don’t have to worry about “upgrades” and resulting impedance issues. The connector is angled at 90°. Quite frankly, the cable will not break any world record in terms of robustness and appearance but it works for those who don’t listen with their eyes.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, FIT, EARTIPS, SOURCE

A thin, piston-shaped microdriver has the advantage that essentially nothing but the rubber tip and cable touch the ear. It therefore cannot be beaten in terms of comfort by any other design. The included largest wide-bore tips were too thin walled  for me and I replaced them with similar looking however sturdier Tennmak Whirlwind tips. These go deep into my ears and seal very well.

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

I make it short, this single DD earphone is insanely good: slightly warm and a bit bright off neutral, superb clarity, a good depth and therefore 3D reproduction, a decent attack, an unobtrusive bass with a natural decay. Midrange shows a good presence and the treble is firm, shimmering and shiny. Sticklers may find the bass not extended enough. The overall sound is homogeneous and cohesive and the timbre couldn’t be more natural.

I have used the Pioneer CH3 mainly for listening to classical music, where it shines in instrument separation and layering – absolutely outstanding. Considering its coherence, I have yet to find a multi-driver Chifi earphone to beat it in both tonality and fit.

And that’s it.

SELECT COMPARISONS

All of the earphones below are single DDs and recommended by “experts”.

Hifi Walker A1 (modded) ($24-49): the A1 has a wider but not as deep a soundstage. It is brighter, less mid-centric, with more treble quantity. The Pioneer CH3 is warmer and more relaxed. Both are great.

Blitzwolf BW ES1 (modded) (~$13): this one has a faster and tighter bass and a more neutral tonality with a wider but shallower stage. It sounds more accurate and analytical but less organic than the Pioneer CH3 and approaches the Etymotic sound. But its 3 kHz peak can cause hardness fatigue after longer listening. Another superbly resolving budget earphone.

Sony MH1C ($23-80): a perennial favourite with audio enthusiasts and infamous for its awkward J-shaped ribbon-noodle cable, the MH1C features a more prominent low end and less clarity and sense of space (less treble?) than the CH3. A good candidate to be replaced by the more refined CH3.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Pioneer CH3 follows the footsteps of the (modded) HifiWalker A1 and Blitzwolf ES1 in that one can get excellent sound for little money. It shows that single DDs are far from dead and that recent progress is not limited to BAs. A good DD is still hard to beat when it comes to the accurate reproduction of (natural) sounds (e.g. strings, wind instruments) and COMFORT/FIT. Pioneer have gotten this one right and show that it does not take xx drivers stuffed into an more or less uncomfortable in-ear “condo building” to achieve great sound!

If you are a purist who doesn’t care about window dressing and marketing gimmicks such as “unboxing experience”, fancy cables, etc., and considering that you can fork out >40 times as much for a single DD (list price), then you will be more than happy with the superb and engaging sounding Pioneer CH3.

DISCLAIMER

I purchased this earphone for $22 CAD. The list price at the time of this review was $49.99 CAD and $29.99 USD.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

APPENDIX

The post Pioneer CH3 Review – Surprising! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

JK adds: The Tennmak Dulcimer is a single-dynamic driver earphone with a frequency range of 20-20000 Hz. I purchased mine for below $14.

The post Tennmak Dulcimer Review – Noteworthy! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Mildly U-shaped; tonality is a bit brighter than neutral, though more natural-sounding and less prone to sharpness; note texture is leaner than the ZS5/ZSR. Soundstage is of average width and depth, though uncongested; stereo imaging is very good. Bass quantity varies greatly with tip selection (the stock tips render them very bass-shy, while foams substantially increase depth and impact); when optimally shod the bass is slightly elevated, very well-controlled and mostly free from bleed. Mids are nicely forward, while treble is somewhat smooth and nicely detailed, although less transparent than the ED9; overall effect is very pleasant.

These lack the fist-pumping excitement of the ZSN and expansive stages of the pricier KZ hybrids like the ZS5 and ZSR and present less information but are more sonically accurate and less tiring for extended listening. Compared to the quite impressive new ZS7, the ED16 sound leaner and flatter, though they actually have a less synthetic timbre. 

An earlier review of the KZ ED16 by Jürgen Kraus is also on this site [Here].

The post KZ ED16 Review (2) – A Second Look appeared first on Audio Reviews.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Product Name: Original NICEHCK N3 In Ear
• EarphoneBrand: NICEHCKModel: N3Earphone
• Type: In-ear
• Impedance: 55 Ω
• Earphone Sensitivity: 100 dB/mW
• Frequency Range: 20-22000Hz
• Plug Type: 3.5mm L-shaped
• Cable Length: 1.2m±3cm
• Color: Gray  
• Earphone interface: MMCX connector
• Remote: No
• Driver Unit: 10mm Dual Carbon Nanotube Dynamic Driver + Piezoelectric Ceramics Driver Hybrid 3 Units (3 driver units each side)
• Price: $59
• Purchase link aliexpress: Here
• Your Price: $45 [Here]
• Purchase link amazon: Here

NiceHCK N3—among the morass of interesting new releases in the same ($60) bracket I chose these because the (unusual) listed 55ohm impedance would trigger the high impedance mode of my LG V30 (the touted “piezzoelectric ceramic driver” sounded like mere adspeak to me). Very nicely metal build; I love the compact sleek shape which provides for great fit and good isolation. OTOB, with stock silicon tips these sounded awful—veiled overall; almost bassless with sucked-out mids and over-enhanced bright treble.

Frustrated, I put them on the burner (Jim at HCK urges 100hrs. of burn-in) and switched to foams, and things started to normalize—the signature became sort of reverse-L shaped, with sculpted modestly deep (though not impactful) subbass and recessed thin midbass. Mids become prominent and rich-textured with good clarity while extremely bright, aggressive high end being the auditory focus.  Attack transients—drum heads and reeds—are very fast, and there’s a lot of microdetail and sparkle, but the treble has an unnatural sheen and these make horns and electric guitars sound blaring and strident at times. Soundstage seems fairly narrow and low, but has good depth (it sounds like you’re listening in a long hall), and instrument placement is accurate. Surfacially, these remind me of the Vivo XE800/Vsonic GR07, which also tune down midbass and emphasize a bright, highly detailed highend, but the Vivo is more coherent—you’re conscious of listening to component parts rather than an integrated whole with the N3.

In part my less-than-glowing impressions may be due to the fact that the NiceHCK N3’s signature is so antithetical to the typical V-shape (or even the more balanced approach of the Tin T2)—it’s a very unique tuning. However, these are just a bit off and haven’t grabbed me viscerally, although there’s enough buried potential to suggest that future iterations might produce a better outcome

JK’s SECOND OPINION

Note: this earphone has an impedance of 55 Ω and should be driven by a dedicated amplifier. I burnt it in for over 140 hours upon the recommendation of the seller.

INTRODUCTION

The NiceHCK N3 is a beautiful earphone with impeccable CNC-machined metal housings and a great cable, which has a round cross section (it is not braided). The box contains the bare minimum including four pairs of rubber tips. And, for the first time in my experience, I received a NiceHCK product does not come with a protective case.

The earpieces fit me comfortably well but I had sound problems (boomy bass) with the included rubber tips — the N3 worked well for me with the large Knowledge Zenith starling tips. I also tried foams but they sucked too much life out of the sound while also trimming the rough edges a bit.

I first used my iPhone SE and the audioquest dragonfly dac/amp attached to it, which produced sufficient power to drive the NiceHCK N3…but also a harsh, congested sound. I then switched to my MacBook Air with the Schiit Fulla dongle amp, which improved the imaging (which would have been the case with most other earphones, too, as the amp is a notch up compared to the dragonfly).

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

JK’s Test tracks

The tuning is a classic V-shape with a frequency response typical for budget earphones.

The bass is reasonably well extended but could be a bit more focused, faster, and layered — and therefore less boomy and dull, which would also improve clarity. Both male and female voices, although having a good depth, are thin, over-accentuated and therefore rather sharp and aggressive, and the degree of both increases into the upper midrange [2-4 kHz] where guitars can sound shrill and ear-piercing. Some female singers appear to croak rather than sing and even the audience’s applause can be very unpleasant for my ears. The midrange simply lacks volume and smoothness and the sound appears artificial and forced. Treble sensu stricto is actually ok as a drop above 4 kHz adds some relaxation. The 12-15 kHz peak attempts to add clarity and pretend resolution but all it does is contribute to throwing the overall image out of balance.

The soundstage is rather deep but also unusually narrow. The timbre is unnaturally metallic: a classical orchestra sounds electrically amplified. In the big picture, the sound is not balanced or cohesive and quickly fatiguing to my ears. The NiceHCK N3 masters most things with great difficulty. To be brutally honest, I would not spend any money on it.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The NiceHCK N3 surely is an interesting experiment with its piezoelectric drivers and its high 55 Ω impedance. It is also built very well and comes with a great cable. Unfortunately, this experiment needs being sent back to the drafting table to produce a more balanced, pleasant, and less fatiguing sound with a more natural timbre. I look forward to a retuned, improved version.

DISCLAIMER

Loomis purchased his review unit and Jürgen received his from NiceHCK Audiostore for a few pennies (and will give it to charity). The sole purpose of this double review was to independently test the N3’s technical and practical capabilities. 

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

The post NiceHCK N3 Review – Silicon Carne appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Pros — Great midrange and detail resolution; smooth sound.

Cons — Bass is light and ergonomics may not be for everyone; hard to drive; lacks dynamics.

INTRODUCTION

A bit over a year ago, I read an article on the latest balanced armature earphones from Brainwavz and ordered the now discontinued B100. It had been lauded by headflux.de for its tuning details: for its good cohesion, slight warmth, relaxed sound, and particularly for his lack of a grossly exaggerated bass (rather rare in this price segment at the time). Apart from that, it is small and comfortable. I ordered them and found all to be true. A few days ago, I used them on a Transatlantic flight for watching movies and listening to music, and I still like them a lot. 

I also purchased the now discontinued B200 v1. which is optically indistinguishable from the B100 but it sounds a bit rounder at the low end and has a better resolution. In fact, I find the B200 v1, so well tuned that I claim it is the almost perfect earphone for meminus the resolution of the >$1000 models. I also tested the slightly ”fatter” sounding B400, which is technically even better but has a different tuning: it is warmer through a prominent bass hump and may have a broader appeal.  All Brainwavz models belong to the best my collection can offer and I was therefore keen on trying out the Brainwavz Koel, which follows the B400 and revised B200 in that it features a 3-D printed shell. 

SPECIFICATIONS

Model: Brainwavz Koel

Driver: Single Balanced Armature

Rated Impedance: 30 Ω

Frequency Range: 16 Hz ~ 22 kHz

Sensitivity: 105 dB at 1 mW

Cable: Detachable

Cable Connector: MMCX

Plug: 3.5 mm, Gold plated

Warranty: 24 months

Price: $69.50

IN THE BOX…

The content is Brainwavz standard: earpieces, six pairs of silicone tips, one pair of Comply foam tips, standard cable, cable tie, shirt clip, and a sturdy hard case. Note: three pairs of tips (S,M,L) should have narrow bores and the other three wide bores according to the included manual; however all tips had the same narrow bores.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

Brainwavz claims that the shells are “state of the art liquid resin 3D printed”. Their general build is the same as the current B200 and B400 models. The translucent housings are optically reminiscent of cough lozenges and have received a mixed reception: some find them downmarket and others a novelty. To me they are barely adequate considering the competition’s fine CNC-machined housings. The detachable MMCX cable is also standard Brainwavz and of good, proven quality. I like the connector angled at 45°.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

I was initially struggling with the shallow insertion depth paired with the light bass (see tonality). I frequently thought I could achieve a better seal and therefore more bass (extension) by pushing the tips deeper into my ear canals…thereby only pushing the earpieces senselessly against my outer ear generating discomfort – but I had always reached a good seal before doing so. In the end I got used to the ergonomics, and comfort and isolation are actually quite good. Nevertheless do I question the size of the earpieces that only host a single balanced armature driver. I am not sure whether this is a requirement of the 3-D printer or a gimmick to make the Brainwavz Koel equally flashy as the numerous multi-driver competitors in its price class. The discontinued B100/150/200 v1. all had the same tiny and light shells which make them still favourites in my daily earphone choices.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

I used my iphone SE and the largest included eartips – which are identical to the ones included in all B-series models. The Brainwavz Koel needs some power – it is not the easiest earphone to drive.

TONALITY

JK’s tonal preference and testing practice

JK’s Test tracks

The big picture: The Brainwavz Koel is a slightly warm and smooth sounding earphone, characterized by a mature and refined midrange and an overly light bass and treble. It lacks major flaws such as unwanted peaks above the lower midrange but also dynamics. And it is hard to drive. The tuning is characterized by an inverted U-shape of the frequency response curve, which is unusual and therefore interesting in this price range. The Koel is tuned to sound more expensive than its class peers – and Brainwavz did a decent job with this. Its most outstanding characteristics is its excellent detail resolution. Midrange and resolution are a step up from the discontinued Brainwavz B100.

The nitty gritty: Yes, the midrange is the shining star of the Brainwavz Koel. Voices are clear and well defined, and they are reasonably intimate but never overwhelming. They are not the thickest but that is in most cases not needed in the context of bass and treble. The midrange is emphasized by a wide but shallow soundstage, the sonic equivalent of a wide-screen movie…the image is stretched in the horizontal with a linear frequency response across the upper bass and lower midrange. This midrange also provides for a very pleasant timbre and an enjoyable overall image. The little peak at 3 kHz, similar to the B200 v1., helps shape the vocals, which shows the good quality of the driver.

The bass is nicely controlled with a realistic decay, but way to subtle and light and not well enough extended for my taste. It starts rolling off at 200 Hz and more dramatically so at below 100 Hz. This removes both dynamics and depth from the soundstage for the benefit of the vocals, which somewhat make up for it. As a result, the low end lacks slam and punch and registers as “below neutral”.

The roll-off at the upper end starts already in the upper midrange at just above 3 kHz, and a mini-peak at 14 kHz adds sparkle and fake clarity and resolution. This early rolloff is similar to the praised B400. The Koel renders high piano notes reasonably well, although they could be a bit more forward. I also found some cymbals deserved a bit more volume and a slower decay. I take it the roll-offs at either end are the price to pay for “tickling” this terrific midrange out of a single BA driver. 

What I found outstanding was the Brainwavz Koel’s detail resolution, separation, and layering. Typically, budget single-driver earphones have problems with dense instrumentations such as a symphony orchestra, which can result in a congested midrange. Not so the Koel which mastered classical ensembles quite well.

I was working with two pairs of the Koel and each of them had a pronounced channel imbalance in that each right channel was lacking 3-5 dB compared to each left channel between 20 Hz and 3.5 kHz. I repeated the measurements multiple times and Biodegraded remeasured the first pair on his rig — and arrived at the same result. Considering our similar experience with three units of the B400 I wonder whether this is a systematic production issue. It is in no case acceptable and should be fixed instantly.

And whereas all of the above may be grey theory, the Koel performed well with most of my test songs. 

Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody live at Live Aid Wembley was rendered with a good sense of space; you feel you are there. This was hard to achieve with other budget earphones.

Impressive was the vocal separation between the King’s Singers and Albrecht Mayer’s oboe reproduction in Humperdinck’s “Abends wenn ich schlafen geh” (from the opera “Hänsel und Gretel”). Most of my earphones, independent of price, have problems with this, not so the Koel. 

Louis Spohr’s nonet in F, Op. 31, confirmed the great detail resolution, layering, and instrument separation as well as the timbre of natural instruments.

Toto’s “Africa” is a good test for a bloated bass, and “99” has a built-in filter for identifying a shouty upper midrange. The Koel mastered both very well. 

David Byrne’s hard to reproduce “everyday is a miracle (live)” was finally bringing the Koel to it limits: Byrne’s voice could have been somewhat denser and the chorus revealed a bottleneck (instrument crowding) in the upper midrange, which is handled smoother by more expensive models.

But any music that required some punch and energy from the low end such as by the Pixies or Metallica came across as much too polite for my taste. BTO’s “Four Wheel Drive”, a gritty piece of hard rock representing the famous “Winnipeg sound” with Garnet amps and Randy Bachman’s Gretsch guitar was being refined to créme mousse lacking any pizzaz.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Brainwavz Koel shines in some aspects but completely fails in others. It excels by its cohesive however little dynamic sound generated by its single balanced-armature driver. Nevertheless, its sound is not balanced in that particularly the low end suffers greatly from the lack of life. The Koel does a good job with classical or vocal music but may not reproduce rock music convincingly for many.

The Koel also fails to take ergonomic advantage by not featuring a substantially smaller shell than their driver-loaded competitors. With the Koel, you also get an earful, literally. I am missing the B100/150 design in this respect.

In summary, with the Koel, Brainwavz have refined and moved their budget BA segment into line with their higher-end models such as the B200 and B400. However this step forward was accompanied by at least one step back. The ergonomically better but technically less capable B100 may have had a less sophisticated midrange but it had the right dose of punch and depth above a robust low end — something that is crucial for everyday listening.

On the other hand, Brainwavz have done a clever job by offering an earphone that essentially has no competitor in its class as it sounds unique. It is a pretender in that it mimics more expensive earphones – and it does it well while not being a universal earphone for everyone.

SECOND OPINION BY BIODEGRADED

Pros — Resolving mids, isolation; comfort (but the fit is odd).

Cons — ~3dB channel imbalance (systematic?); rolled off in bass and treble; poor dynamics; harder to drive than the impedance and sensitivity specs would suggest; odd fit (in my ears at least); tips not as advertised.

The first noticeable thing about these is the mid-centric frequency response. Together with the detail/resolution of the midrange this is pleasant, but when listening to music with a lot of bass and treble content, what’s missing is obvious. And while the resolution is good, the dynamics are slow, again making music with punch sound limp. Vocal/acoustic dominated material comes across well, however. Along with the rolloff, the timbre at both ends of the range is also unsatisfying. Bass is soft, and what treble is there has overly-rapid decay (which I think some people refer to as ‘plasticky’ texture), both characteristics likely reflecting the handicap of using a single BA driver.

Also obvious, and distracting, is the channel imbalance. My measurements mirror JK’s, with the right side being down ~3 dB from the left all the way through the bass and mids. That he found the same on a second pair raises suspicions of a systematic manufacturing problem – possibly different internal volumes of the 3D-printed shells.

Upper mids and treble will be influenced by the output impedance of whatever is used to drive these. The specifications give the Koel’s impedance as 30 ohms My measurement puts this around 500 Hz, with a rapid climb to about 150 ohms at 2.5 kHz, then a sharp drop, then a steady climb through the treble to more than 300 ohms. Higher impedance sources (e.g., some iPhones at around 5 ohms) will noticeably boost the ~2 kHz area and the mid- to upper treble. On brief comparison I thought I heard a bit of difference using the ‘iEMatch’ output of the ifi Nano BL (>3 ohm) vs the ‘Direct’ output (<1 ohm), but owing to the difficulty of matching levels I couldn’t be certain.

In conclusion: if you want something for vocal/acoustic music you might like these; BUT I wouldn’t buy them myself until I was sure that Brainwavz have improved their manufacturing process to deal with the channel imbalance. This was also an issue with the B400, measurements of 3 different pairs showing different bass responses and different degrees of imbalance there. This possibly reflects inconsistencies in the 3D printing process leading to enclosures having different volumes. It would also be nice if the right sets of tips were included. In short, there are QC problems here. I’d recommend buying from Amazon or another retailer that offers a full cash refund rather than exchange so you can get your money back if you find a problem and decide you don’t want to try another pair.

DISCLAIMER

The two review units were provided by Brainwavz as part of their Koel marketing campaign. The fast communication with Brainwavz is appreciated. The sole purpose of this double review was to independently test the Koel’s technical and practical capabilities. Following this review, we returned the two units to Brainwavz for their own analysis on 2019-03-27.

Our generic standard disclaimer

About our measurements

The post Brainwavz Koel Review – Rip It Up appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Headshells themselves have a reassuring heft and appear to be well-built, with nice even seams and smooth metal casings, although the visible screws look a bit declassee. Tangly but serviceable memory cable appears identical to the ZSN’s; microphonics are present but mild. Fit and comfort are better than the oddly-shaped ZS5 or ZSR; isolation isn’t as good as the ZS4 or ZSN, but still surprisingly capable despite large top vents. Unlike the ZS5, which absolutely needed amping, the ZS7 is extremely efficient and are easily driven to “insanely loud” levels with just a mobile—these should be the Audiobudget guy’s wet dream. More lavishly packaged than previous models, though the slogan on the box, “Don’t forget. The original intension (sic) is use headphones to enjoy music” does not seem like a good expenditure of KZ’s PR budget.

Soundwise, these are slightly warm, energetic and very spacious-sounding, with a rich note texture. Signature is balanced, in the (technical) sense of not unduly emphasizing a particular frequency, though by no means audiophile flat—there’s a certain adrenalized quality throughout the spectrum, though less so than the hyperfrenzied ZSN. Low end has good extension, depth and impact and shows much better control and speed than the bloomy ZS5 or ZSR, which tended to bleed over into the higher frequencies—midbass in particular has less quantity and focus than the ZS6, resulting in a cleaner presentation. Midrange (especially lower mids) sounds full and forward; guitars and male vocals in particular have a lot of body, albeit with a “chesty,” heavy quality on some material. As noted, treble is noticeably less extended here and these have little of the sharpness and shrillness of the ZS5/ZS6, although the ZS7 rolls off sooner and presents less information (they’re also less exhausting); there’s some sparkle but drums and cymbals lack just a little snap and realism. Soundstage isn’t as wide as the ZS5 or ZSR but nonetheless uncongested, enveloping and 3D; the effect is closer to open-air headphones. As with most KZs, imaging and instrument placement are excellent for this price class. While not seamless, driver coherence is much better on these than the ZS5 or ZSR; bass in particular is better-integrated and there are fewer audible peaks and dips.

Where these trail the Andromedas and other pricy universals they’re aping is in the naturalness of the presentation and reproduction of low-level details like fingertips and reverberations–you remain conscious of hearing a reproduction of instruments rather than the actual instruments. Owing, I’d assume to the quality of the drivers used, the subtlest elements are somewhat repressed; compared to something the UE900s, these sound artificially juiced and slightly coarse. These differences may not be cost-effective if, like me, you typically listen to lossy files on less-than-optimal sources, and lots of times one prefers this less delicate presentation. In the same price range, the smaller-sounding Bosshifi B3 or BQEYZ BQ3 may sound more accurate, though the ZS7 is more fun and is a definite step-up from its predecessors. Recommended.

Disclaimer: Although I pay or trade for virtually all my IEMs, I received these unsolicited and free from Yinyoo Amazon. Photos by Slater.

The post KZ ZS7 Review – Onwards And Upwards appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — The strong bass is a matter of personal preference.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two-DD (dynamic driver) V2 is a well-built and well-balanced, and an overall solid performer that caters to listeners who prefer a warm, mature sound with a beefy low end.

INTRODUCTION

The Yinyoo V2, a single DD (10mm) with a unique dual diaphragm, suspiciously looks like the neutralish tuned and well-respected Tinaudio T2. It appears that Yinyoo try to offer a warmer alternative to listeners who found the T2 too neutral, analytical, and sterile sounding – and I will show in the following whether this works.

You will find the specifications on the company’s site (link below). The V2 comes with a detachable 2-pin cable and a selection of rubber tips, of which the largest worked well for me. I listened with my iPhone 5S and covered a whole cross section of music including naturally produced sounds by string and wind instruments.

The earpieces are made of metal (and are lighter than the T2’s…and comfortable) and the 4-core cable is of good quality. No concerns here. In terms of fit and seal: these can be worn with the cable down or above/around ear. Fit and isolation are fairly standard for such a cylindrical design.

TONALITY

In terms of sound, the V2 does offers a warm, balanced sound with a pronounced low end that is well extended into the sub-bass. The sub-bass is not overly focused and the bass sensu stricto has an intermediately fast decay. Factoring in its healthy punch, you get a satisfying listen (like a bouncing tennis ball). This low end also adds warmth to the overall image. As a consequence of the prominent bass, the lower midrange is somewhat recessed: vocals are a bit back but they have a good, warm timbre. The bass also bleeds a bit into the mids but that is expected. The upper midrange is elevated which adds definition. The treble extension is ok (but not the greatest around) and has enough sparkle. There is no sibilance and other unwanted harshness.

Soundstage is good class average, not too deep, and the prominent bass prevents it from being larger. Clarity, resolution, layering and instrument separation are all good but slightly diminished by the strong bass.

COMPARISON

The trick question is how the Yinyoo V2 holds up against its older stepbrother Tinaudio T2 (which is heavier and features the unreliable MMCX connectors…I am already on my second pair as mentioned above).

OK, the biggest difference is the more minimalistic and more focused “audiophile” bass in the T2 which many didn’t like. The T2 offers a more forward lower midrange with slightly softer and more organic voices. In comparison, voices in the V2 are sharper defined and a tinge brighter. And the treble in the T2 is more extended. In terms of soundstage, the T2 offers slightly more width and depth – and therefore a better sense of space – because of the lack of bass interference. However, all these differences (except in the low end) are only nuances that play essentially no role in everyday listening – and should neither be a dealmaker or deal breaker.

I used the V2 during my commute. What worked well was the bass counteracting the low-frequency street noise that is hard to filter out even with a good seal. That’s where bassy earphones shine.

Last but not least, I taped the T2’s front vents off and compared them to the V2. The frequency response remained the same above 400 Hz, however there was much energy to bass and sub-bass added.

Comparing the taped T2 with the regular V2 also yielded a surprise as their frequency responses below 1.3 kHz are virtually identical, but I find the taped T2’s bass boomier and also more and overly powerful.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In summary, the Yinyoo V2 is a great alternative to the established Tinaudio T2 for bass lovers. While there are differences in the midrange and treble between the models, these differences are small enough only to be relevant for analytical listening but not for everyday use.

But the V2 is also a safe alternative to the many multi-drivers in this price range that may suffer from unwanted treble peaks and artificial sound from their balanced armature drivers and half-baked crossovers.

You can purchase the Yinyoo V2 here:

Amazon.com

Aliexpress

DISCLAIMER

This particular review unit was sent to me by Yinyoo’s aliexpress store. They contacted me, and before I could find a home for the review, I had received it (Yinyoo are banned on Head-Fi for alleged review tinkering – or, so I speculate, for not buying a sponsorship). The V2 was passed on to a good cause following this review.

The regular price of this earphone is $49 , but you will get it for $39 through their aliexpress store. Klick here to learn how to do it.

About my measurements

Tonal preference and testing practice

Test tracks

The post Yinyoo V2 Review – The Younger Brother appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Isolation is good if not as exceptional as the ZS3/ZS4.

Very sensitive and loud; V-shaped with voluminous, impactful bass which can bleed over and thump a bit, tho in a pleasant way. Mids are thick textured and less forward, which makes vocals and keyboards sound farther back while treble is sparkly and clear, though not especially detailed—there’s nothing analytical about these.

Instruments are well separated and stage is wide but not noticeably high or deep; effect is like listening in a large, low-cielinged hall.  Like KZ’s other hybrids, these are not paragons of accuracy; high end can sound metallic or harsh on certain material.

I prefer the more neutral tuning of the ZSR, and the ZS5/ZS6 presents more information, especially at the high end, but the ZSN is livelier than either and  preferable for rock and jazz. Stepping up in price, the TRN V80 or BQEYZ BQ3 are more refined, with significantly better-tuned bass, but the ZSN is more coherent and less fatiguing  than the V80 and more user-friendly than the fiddly BQ3. Viscerally very pleasing overall and something of a benchmark at this price point.

MEASUREMENTS

The post KZ ZSN Review – Good Cheap Fun for Philistines 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.

Cons — Audiophile tuning (neutral; minimalistic, fast bass; resolution, clarity); mids and treble can be fatiguing at higher volumes; design lifted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The NiceHCK DT600 is a neutral sounding earphone with a dry and realistic low end and superb clarity, depth, and resolution appealing to “audiophiles” and purists. While it can be hard on my ears at higher volumes it is the technically best Chifi earphone (out of approximately 20) I have reviewed so far […which is not a big selection].

INTRODUCTION

When I was asked to review this earphone, I quite frankly had little interest, expecting a treble screamer overloaded with drivers, an ODM earphone looking for a proper tuning. According to others, the 3 BA DT300 was overly dark and the 5 BA DT500 had exaggerated treble.

To my surprise, the DT600 was a revelation showing the shortcomings of the NiceHCK P3 and M6 models I had recently reviewed. And the linear frequency response without any suspicious bass hump, upper midrange “mountain”, and unwanted treble spikes  let me rejoice: hurrah, finally a multi-driver Chifi earphone with an “expensive-brandname” tuning? Well…

IMPORTANT NOTE: This earphone is a great example why a points scheme is problematic. Depending on taste, purists may give it a much higher score than bassheads. I expect the DT600 to be extremely polarizing but hope my writeup will make it clear whether this tonality is for you.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Brand:  NiceHCK
• Model: DT600
• Drive Unit: 6 balanced armature (BA) drivers
• Type: In-ear
• Impedance: 26Ω
• Earphone Sensitivity: 110 dB/mW
• Frequency Range: 20-25000Hz
• Earphone Plug: 3.5 mm gilded
• Cable Length: 1.3 m
• Available Colors: Green, transparent
• Earphone Plug Type: 90°angled
• Remote: No
• Price: $149 (at the time of this review)
• Discounted Price for Blog Visitors: $99
• Purchase Link: At the bottom

IN THE BOX…

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

This earphone looks suspiciously like an upscale Shure model. The plastic Shells are a bit of an understatement but appear to be well assembled. The nozzle is uncommonly thin (similar to the Brainwavz B series), therefore be careful when planning on using third-party tips.

The cable is also a rare find in this price class: it is not the typical braided chain but a straight round one with MMCX connectors, a chin slider and a bit of silver bling bling. To me, it works just fine and looks better than the fixed cables of the Sennheisers, Focals etc. in this price class. The flexiblity is also ok.

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Since the DT600 is a Shure lookalike, it also fits like one: the shells, despite packed with 6 drivers each (two more than the equivalent Shure), are surprisingly small and fit my ears comfortably well.  Isolation is what you make out of it with the eartips used but is generally good. I am still struggling with bending the unusually stiff memory wire around my ears every time, but this is a minor issue.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

The DT600 comes with pretty looking green foams and narrow-bore rubber tips. The rubber tips come in weird sizes: the L is essentially slightly too big for my ear canals and the M is too small. I therefore used L-sized Brainwavz B400 tips, which are in between in size but of identical design (including a narrow bore) – but later changed to the largest included foam tips.

As a source, I used my new iphone SE (which sounds identical to my old iphone 5S). Adding the audioquest dragonfly black dac/amp improved the sound remarkably much in terms of detail and resolution compared to other earphones. With or without dac/amp the DT600 are easy to drive.

TONALITY

The sound of the DT600 can be characterized as neutral, lean, and extremely clear with a great depth.  It has the basic flavour of the likes of Etymotics and the Brainwavz B100, and not the meaty flavour of the iBasso IT01 or the NiceHCK M6/BVGP DMG. The frequency response curve is absolutely stellar: a linear bass, a small emphasis in the lower mids, and no unwanted treble peaks. One could possibly wonder about the early treble rolloff.

And yes, the low end is outright stunning for me: punchy, dry, fast in attack and decay, and not overpowering, just as it should be. The bass is well extended and remains well-controlled down there. Overall, the low end is minimalistic with only a bit of warmth and some may find it too weak and too nimble.

The midrange is NOT recessed but right into your face, pardon ears. It is lean, neutral, intimate. Female voices are nicely contoured and not enriched and coloured such as in the NiceHCKM6/BGVP DMG.

But despite the stellar looking curve without any nasty peaks, higher voices and rhythm guitars can be a bit sharp and fatiguing to my sensitive ears at higher volumes – I blame this on the quality of the drivers. Changing from the rubber tips to the foams smoothened the corners significantly (but not entirely) and also added some warmth to the low end. The upper midrange could sound crowded and bordering on hollow, that’s where the detail resolution lacked.

The treble is only reasonably well extended and sometimes marginally hard for my liking. There is some but not too much sparkle and shine at the upper end. A bit more icing would do the cake well.

There is no sibilance at all, as indicated by the smooth frequency graph.

Soundstage is wide enough (and less so with the foams) with an enormous depth; a good concerted effort of the six BA drivers. Clarity and resolution are unparalleled in comparison to the other Chifi iems I have reviewed.

But the clarity comes at a cost: I was struggling with the sharpness in the upper midrange at higher volumes that really can be fatiguing for sensitive ears after some time (I think my ears are likely more sensitive than yours). Classical instruments could sound unnaturally harsh and overpixelated. This sound signature may explain the relatively early treble dropoff – forced by the tuner in order to avoid getting your eardrums drilled.

SELECT COMPARISONS

NiceHCK M6 ($88 on sale): a totally different beast…even with the bass-reducing third-party DMG tuning filters, the M6 is comparatively mushy in both low end and lower midrange/vocals whereas the DT600 is crisp, punchy, and dynamic. The sonic difference is like day-and-night. Some may find the DT600 too snappy, others may find the more analog sounding M6/DMG too soppy. Can’t make it right for everybody.

iBasso IT01 (~$100): the single DD iBasso is also more overall beefier and more organic sounding with a Sennheiser-type low end that somewhat veils the midrange. Despite its lesser resolution compared to the analytical DT600, I do now appreciate the ibasso much more than before after reducing some of its bass with the reversible air-vent mod.

Brainwavz B400 ($199 list; $159 sale):  I can only speak from memory and measurements. The warmer B400 has a pronounced mid-bass hump which I found unrealistic sounding, and it also rolls off relatively early at the upper end so that some people decried the lack of detail in cymbals and high-piano notes. On the other hand, I found the B400 incredibly detailed and much smoother, creamier, and more balanced compared to the DT600, which is more direct and more extended into the sub-bass.

Brainwavz B200 v1 ($110; discontinued): harder to drive, smoother, more balanced but less resolving and with less depth; both with a lean sound. The DT600 has slightly better separation and detail but the B200 v1 offers more intimate voices. The B200 v1 is more cohesive and more pleasing but simpler, more 2-D with less detail and less treble extension. The DT600 a bit rougher around the edges with more accurate instrument imaging. The B200 v1 has more bass and a smoother presentation.

Ultimate Ears 900s ($399 list; $179 sale): today an underappreciated classic and hailed as a better resolving B400 [the older, pre-2014 UE900 version, to be accurate]. In terms of low end, it has more bass than the DT600 but less than the B400, at comparable qualities. This makes the UE900s a warmer, smoother, more cohesive, and more inviting iem than the DT600. Despite the dip in the lower midrange, I find the vocals in the UE900s richer, smoother, and more organic, which reflects the quality of its 4 Knowles BA drivers. The UE900s’s earpieces, although somewhat substandard in their build quality including its very basic cables, are so small and intelligently shaped that they even fit better than the DT600’s.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The DT600 is a mixed bag. Some of its aspects are almost perfect such as the frequency response and its low end. But you cannot expect perfection in a $140 (or $99) earphone that hosts 6 drivers – there must be room for improvement to justify all these higher priced iems. And the limitation in this case is the driver quality: while the tuning is exquisite, the sound can be a bit aggressive to my ears at higher volumes after extended use without any obvious peaks in the frequency response graph. Hardness is not an issue at low to moderate volumes where the clarity works superbly well. I would have preferred four higher-end drivers instead of these six while understanding that the number of drivers is a general marketing gimmick. Nevertheless, the DT600’s tonality is much superior over the $50-70 fare.

In a recent review, I had compared the NiceHCK M6/BVSP DMG with a large SUV on a soft suspension. In analogy, the DT600 is like a sporty BMW with a tight suspension: you feel every rock but you have a better handling  and lots of fun with it while hoping the road ahead does not get too bumpy.

You can buy the DT600 only here.

How to claim your discounted price on aliexpress: here.

DISCLAIMER

I was asked by Jim NiceHCK to review this earphone and purchased it for $1. He did not respond to my request of including a return envelope. This earphone went to a good cause following this review.

I broke the DT600 in for 50 hours. Just in case…

About my measurements

Tonal preference and testing practice

Test tracks

The post NiceHCK DT600 Review – Close To The Edge appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Lacks fine-tuning: bass and treble roll off too early, lack of sparkle, limited resolution and poor sense of space.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The NiceHCK P3 is a 2 BA/1 DD hybrid that produces a pleasant sound image but fails to impress in the details.

The post NiceHCK P3 Review – More Is Less appeared first on Audio Reviews.