Much like its predecessor, the $160 KBEAR Believe (as well as the cheaper KBEAR Diamond and KBEAR KB04), the mid-focused, $170 KBEAR Aurora scores high on the technicalities—low end is well-sculpted and meaty, coherence between  frequencies is seamless and layering and imaging are impressive, even if the soundstage is fairly narrow.

However like its brethren the KBEAR Aurora’s tonality is just a little bit off—for lack of a better description, everything sounds “recorded” and slightly unnatural. Acoustic guitars, in particular, lack shimmer and crispness and sound more like electric, while drums show something of a cardboard box effect and miss some snap, depth and resonance.

High end is smooth and tasteful but, as others have opined, rolls off too early and misses some of the high-level microdetail you’d expect at this price point. By no means a bad IEM—these would have considerable appeal to fans of vocal-oriented material or to the treble averse—but I prefer KBEAR’s cheaper offerings.

KBEAR Aurora Specifications

• Driver configuration: 10mm Nano Titanium Plated Diaphragm
• Frequency response: 20 Hz – 20kHz
• Impedance: 18 Ω
• Sensitivity: 105 dB/mW
• Cable: 2 Pin (0.78mm), OFC Silver plated cable
• Tested at $169 USD

Disclaimer

Borrowed from Durwood. These were sent to him gratis via Keephifi.

Get the KBEAR Aurora from Keephifi.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post KBEAR Aurora Review (3) – More Comments From The Peanut Gallery appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Instead of first impressions, we offer completely flavour-neutral optical treatments before following up with our exhaustive reviews of the products’ performances.

Current Photography

1. BQEYZ Autumn vs. BEQYZ Summer (Jürgen Kraus)
2. Hidizs MM2 (Jürgen Kraus)
3. IKKO OH2 vs. IKKO OH1S (Jürgen Kraus)

Vintage Photography (prior to March 2022)

1. AME Custom Argent Hybrid Electrostatic (Jürgen Kraus)
2. Anew X-One (Jürgen Kraus)
3. Blon BL-05 Beta (Jürgen Kraus)
4. Blon BL-05 Beta (Jürgen Kraus)
5. Blon BL-05 MKI & MKII (Jürgen Kraus)
6. BQEYZ Spring 1 (Jürgen Kraus)
7. BQEYZ Spring 2 (Durwood)
8. CCA CA16 (Durwood)
9. Drop + JVC HA-FXD1 (Jürgen Kraus)
10. Fidue A65/A66 (Jürgen Kraus)
11. FiiO FD1 (Jürgen Kraus)
12. FiiO FHs1 (Jürgen Kraus)
13. Hill Audio Altair • RA (Jürgen Kraus)
14. iBasso IT01 V2 (Jürgen Kraus)
15. Hilidac Atom Pro (Jürgen Kraus)
16. Ikko OH1 (Jürgen Kraus)
17. KBEAR Believe (Jürgen Kraus)
18. KBEAR Diamond (Jürgen Kraus)
19. KBEAR hi7 (Jürgen Kraus)
20. KBEAR KB04 (Jürgen Kraus)
21. KBEAR Lark (Jürgen Kraus)
22. Kinboofi MK4 (Jürgen Kraus)
23. KZ ASX (Jürgen Kraus)
24. KZ ZSN Pro (Slater)
25. Moondrop Crescent (Jürgen Kraus)
26. Moondrop Illumination (Jürgen Kraus)
27. Moondrop Kanas Pro Edition (Jürgen Kraus)
28. Moondrop SSP (Jürgen Kraus)
29. Moondrop SSR (Jürgen Kraus)
30. Moondrop Starfield (Jürgen Kraus)
31. NiceHCK Blocc 5N Litz UPOCC OCC Copper Earphone Cable
32. NiceHCK Litz 4N Pure Silver Earphone Cable (Jürgen Kraus)
33. NiceHCK NX7 (Jürgen Kraus)
34. NiceHCK NX7 Pro (Jürgen Kraus)
35. Queen of Audio Pink Lady (Jürgen Kraus)
36. Revonext QT5 (Slater)
37. SeeAudio Yume (Jürgen Kraus)
38. Senfer DT6 (Slater)
39. Sennheiser IE 300
40. Sennheiser IE 500 PRO
41. Shozy Form 1.1 and Shozy Form 1.4
42. Shozy Form 1.4 (Jürgen Kraus)
43. Shozy Rouge (Jürgen Kraus)
44. Simgot EM2 (Jürgen Kraus)
45. Simgot EN700 Pro (Slater)
46. Smabat ST-10 (Jürgen Kraus)
47. Tin Hifi T2 Plus (Jürgen Kraus)
48. Tin-Hifi T4 (Jürgen Kraus)
49. TRN-STM (Jürgen Kraus)
50. TRN V90 (Jürgen Kraus
51. TRN-VX (Jürgen Kraus)
52. Whizzer Kylin HE01 (Jürgen Kraus)

The post Photography appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Once I “got” its purpose though I found it so usefeul, and so effective, that it became a fundamental part of my audio toolbox. Indeed I even own 2 units! In Europe they can be bought for € 59,00.

While the technical reasons behind IEMatch utility are quite tricky for a neophite, this article will try to share my experience in simple and practical terms. I will add references to some more technical material for those who feel keen (and prepared) to acquiring more in-depth information.

At-a-glance Card

Some common issues

Audible noise floor

Every audio amplifier produces some “noise”. The reasons for this are multiple but in maximum simplicity such noise mainly comes from the amp’s power circuits, and of course the higher the power the higher the noise to be tamed by the designers.

Low noise on high power amps is mainly obtained by adopting very sophisticated power circuits – which have the bad habit of being expensive and physically big. Which is why the cheaper & physically smaller an amplifier is, the more prone it fatally is to have an audible “Noise Floor”, and the more so if we long for a small and powerful amp.

The noise floor is like a sort of feeble “unwanted music” generated by the AMP itself. Not very sensible headphones will “not hear that”, that’s because the noise signal is feeble enough to not being able to move their drivers and produce sound. Sensible headphones / earphones, instead, will catch that and produce a sort of “background hiss”.

Such noise is indeed annoying but quite modest, and stays fundamentally unchanged when we raise the amp’s volume control. Unless the amp is really awfully engineered, it will in facts not amplify its base noise but only the signal received on its input. Which means that beyond a certain volume knob position our amp will make real music “loud enough” to overcome the Noise Floor level. However, the Noise Floor will stay as a background dirt polluting all notes, and will re-emerge on silent passages of course.

Excessive volume sensitivity

Suppose you own a very powerful Headphone amp, designed to muscularly feed your little-sensitive, power-hungry planar cans. Now suppose you plug your low impedance, supersensitive IEMs (a pair of CA Andromeda, for example?) onto that same amp. You’ll be forced to keep the volume knob very low, as already at 10, maybe 15% of its excursion your IEMs will start yelling unbearably loud.

And worse than that, you’ll notice that moving the volume knob by just a tiny angle makes Sound Pressure Level change quite substantially on your ears. The volume control gets “too sensitive”, in a sense.

This is of course bad for two reasons. One: you seriously risk to damage your hearing at anytime by inadvertedly turning the knob. Two: you can’t finetune SPL, as no matter how delicate you are on turning the knob, SPL varies by “too big steps” up or down.

Digital volume control quality

The overwhelming majority of the portable DAC/AMP systems out there have either no volume control, or a digital volume control. This is due to cost and size compression priorities of course.

As naming suggests, a “digital volume” control actionates upon the digital stream, i.e. on the 0’s and 1’s while and before they get into the DAC, while an “analog volume” control actionates upon the analog stream, i.e. on the result of the DAC’s job, just before it is sent to the headphones (or the speakers).

Opposite of the most common semanthics, from the sound quality standpoint “digital” volume control is in this case a “less quality” choice. You can find many online resources explaining why, at various technical depth levels. One good compromise between technicality and vulgarity is this article by iFi Audio if you wish.

Very synthetically said: the Dynamic Range is the range going from the feeblest audible note to the loudest audible note in a signal (a note). The wider the Dynamic Range, the more articulated, detailed and smoother the music is. Actionating upon a digital volume control means to move the loudest audible edge of the signal up or down. At 100% digital volume the edge is the highest allowed, so we’ll have the widest possible Dynamic Range. As we reduce the digital volume position, we lower the upper limit, consequently making the Dynamic Range smaller (“compressed”).

For completeness: an analog volume control operates on the DAC’s output, changing the signal overall amplitude, not its contents. Assuming the DAC operated at 100% digital volume, it will have carried its job out on the full available Dynamic Range, and the subsequent analog volume control is bound to operate on an “unhampered quality” analog wave. Perfect, or not? Sadly the world is not perfect, nor analog volume controls are: as any circuitry, they add noise! High quality (highly clean) analog volume controls require physically big and economically expensive components. This is why most mobile budget sources need to bend their necks on the digital volume quality compromise.

The (low) impedance riddle

I know by experience that this is a difficult topic for the non-technical amateur to grasp. There is of course a lot of ready-made resources online which you can tap to get various levels of technical information. I find this video by Hans Beekhuyzen quite nice for example.

Again, I’ll try to explain in even more vulgar terms here.

One of the electrical specifications attached to our headphones / IEMs is called “impedance”, and is measured in Ohms. 150 / 300 / 600 Ohms are “high” impedance values, typically found on overear headphones. 30 / 50 Ohm are medium impedance values, also typically found on overear headphones, often when equipped with so-called “planar” drivers. 20 / 16 / 12 / 8 are low or very low impedance values, typically found on IEM drivers.

Amplifiers (and DAC-AMPs too of course) also have an impedance feature, called “output impedance” in that case. For the sake of its output’s high quality, the lower the amp’s output impedance the better. 1 / 2 / 8 Ohm are to be considered relatively high values. 0,5 / 0,2 / 0,1 Ohm are decent values. Higher end systems carry values like 0,0[…]01 Ohm, to give you an idea.

As you may guess, designing distortion-free low output impedance amps is not a joke, it requires competence, additional physical circuitry, and more money. Which is why the mobile+lowcost devices market is flooded with non-superlow output impedance devices, and/or with devices speccing into low nominal output impedance values but delivering a sound quality which I wouldn’t write home about, and/or with devices accompanied by let’s say… not very accurate spec sheet figures.

Ok but why is this a riddle?

It is because – I won’t explain here technically why – there needs to be a certain minimum proportion between the amp’s output impedance and the headphone / IEM / speaker (called “loads”) own impedance.

By the way, when the proportion is mantioned the other way then how I just did ( load impedance divided by amp output impedance) then it goes by the name of “Damping Factor”. Just a name convention, the concept is always the same.

Some – probably the most competent and experienced – argue that the situation is not really black/white, the ideal minimum Damping Factor does not always need to be 8 according to them. They offer a range of potentially good values between 2.5 and 10, to be verified basically on a pair by pair basis.

Specific numbers apart, what’s important for us now is that when (let’s say) “a certain” minimum ratio is not respected, there will be some distortion in the frequency response of the headphones / IEMs. Typically, in the bass region (but not only).

So for example a 16ohm IEM connected to a 1ohm DAP is good (DF =16). A 12ohm IEM connected to the same DAP should be good too.

Or is it? Well… not always. (Told you it’s a riddle…)

Why? Because supplying enough current to low impedance IEMs is not a joke for mobile and/or cheap-design amplifiers – again, I won’t articulate on “why” here.

So, even when the Damping Factor is arithmetically OK, your amp may have a serious hard time “feeding” a very low impedance IEM, especially if that also carries a very low sensitivity. The very same amp would have a much less hard time getting a vivid amount of current flowing if – on equal low sensitivity – that IEM had a higher impedance. This is amongst the reasons why – in addition to output impedance – some AMP / DAC-AMP spec sheets also report a “minimum recommended / supported load impedance”.

Summarising: 1) make sure headphones / earphones have an average impedance “a few times higher” than that of the amp / dac-amp you want to connect them too; 2) make sure your IEM don’t undercut on your source’s minimum supported / recommended load impedance.

IEMatch description

IEMatch is a device aesthetically similar to one of those plug format adapters – those short cables used for example to connect a 2.5mm plugged earphone onto an amp’s 4.4mm output port. The difference is that there is some extra circuitry inside the housings.

Operatively, you plug its male connector onto the Amp, and you plug your headphones / IEMs onto the female connector.

Different versions of IEMatch are available to accomodate for 3.5 / 2.5 / 4.4mm plugs, but they also have some electrical differences. Let’s talk about those later not to lose focus on the main concepts, give me some rope here.

When it is plugged in by its male connector, IEMatch always presents the Amp with the same “load impedance” – being 16 Ohm – regardless of the actual impedance of the headphones / earphones plugged onto its female connector.

At the opposite end, IEMatch always presents the Headphones / Earphones connected onto its female connector with just two possible Output Impedance values – being either 1 or 2.5 Ohm, user-selectable by flipping the switch on the female connector barrel – regardless of the actual Output Impedance of the amp the opposite, male connector is plugged onto.

Thirdly, IEMatch also acts as an attenuator. In practice it acts as the opposite of an amplifier: it introduces a “negative gain”, it reduces (instead of enhancing) the strength of the analog signal passing through it. The attenuation is applied in the value of either 12 or 24dB, user-selectable by flipping the switch on the female connector barrel, the same used to select IEMatch’s Output Impedance.

As I mentioned above, iFi markets 3 different IEMatch versions, carrying some differences in these values but I’ll report and recap them all later on. For now let’s focus on the most common product version called IEMatch+.

The available choices on IEMatch+ are: 2.5 ohm output impedance and -12 dB attenuation (“High” setting), or 1 ohm output impedance and -24 dB attenuation (“Ultra” setting).

How it solves our problems

As it should be clear by the description here above, by plugging an IEMatch in between our AMP and our ‘Phones we get 3 fundamental “things”, at the same time:

1. “Fake” our AMP into believing our IEM has a 16 ohm impedance, whatever its real impedance is (even much lower!)
2. “Fake” our IEM into believing our AMP has either 2.5 or 1 ohm output impedance, whatever the real value at the AMP connector be
3. Again, “fake” our AMP into believeing our IEM is much less sensible then it actually is – so much so that on even power level output by the amp the resulting Sound Pressure Level onto our ears will be 12 or evel 24dB less loud

Clear until now? Good. Now let’s see how this contributes to solve or at least reduce our issues mentioned in the first section.

Noise floor cancelling

Recall: low impedance, high sensitivity IEMs are prone to make high power amp’s Noise Floor audible in form of a continued background hiss. This is because, for how feeble the noise signal is, it’s enough to move our supersensible IEM’s transducers.

Plug IEMatch in the middle. Its attenuation features practically mean that our IEMs will present a much lower sensitivity to the AMP than their real one. The feeble Noise Floor signal will basically be unable to “overcome” the extra “resistance” offered by IEMatch (even its lower -12dB setting is more than enough), and the hiss will not be audible anymore.

Smoother volume control

Recall: plugging low impedance, high sensitivity IEMs onto high powered AMPs designed to adequately cope with higher impedance and/or lower sensitivity cans results in being stuck at the lowest end of the amp’s volume excursion, and in excessive sensitivity vs volume control variations.

Plug IEMatch in the middle. Same as above, IEMatch will “present” a higher sensitivity to the amp. Unlike when the IEM is directly plugged onto the amp, now we will need to turn the amp’s volume knob quite a sweeter bit up in order to obtain “loud” sound off our IEMs. Even more importantly, now a tiny variation in the amp’s volume knob position will not result in a “big” SPL change, but we’ll have a much “smoother”, more normal control SPL control.

Reduced digital volume quality loss

Recall: digital volume controls – extremely common on mobile DAC-AMP / DAPs – can pass the original digital file full resolution along to the DAC only when set at 100% volume position. When operated at intermediate positions, as it happens during normal auditioning, they apriori cram the available Dynamic Range. Such depletion is the stronger the lower the volume is set at (i.e. the higher the pre-attenuation is applied to the digital data).

Put IEMatch in the middle. Again same as above, IEMatch will “drain” quite a lot of the power coming from the amp before it reaches our IEMs. Which means that to get the same Sound Pressure Level out (i.e. the same musical loudness into our ears) we will need to “turn the volume more up”, and being this a digital volume, the higher the volume position, the smaller quality loss we will have.

In other words: if you apply attenuation to the signal after the DAC job is done, you can afford not to apply the same attenuation to the digital signal before sending it to the DAC, thus better preserving the final result quality.

Clear till now? Good. Then let’s consider a couple of caveats.

Please note: 3dB attenuation corresponds to hearing music 50% less loud. So 12dB attenuation is a lot, and 24db is a huge lot!

So, first: there may be cases where your source has to work at 50% volume position or less when your IEM / HP is directly connected to it, but it will reveal to be not powerful enough to compensate even for IEMatch’s lower -12dB attenuation setting when we plug that in, and even pushing your source at 100% volume, you won’t have a satisfactory loudness coming out of your drivers. In such case well… too bad: IEMatch can’t help you.

Furthermore: suppose your source is not much overpowered vs your IEM / HPs, and IEMatch’s -12 dB attenuation setting makes it bring the volume control near its ideal, fullscale position, while still getting loud music and vivid dynamics out of the drivers. But… the -12dB attenuation requires the “High” setting which comes with a 2.5 ohm output impedance presented to your IEM / HPs. Should that be too high, for example because you are using a very low impedance IEM, then you might be forced to use IEMatch’s -24dB attenuation setting (“Ultra”), featuring a much lower 1 ohm output impedance. If, of course… your source doesn’t run out of juice now, like for the previous caveat case!

Impedance adaptation

Recall: you should always make sure your HP / IEM’s impedance is at least a few times (many say 8 times) bigger than your source’s output impedance – otherwise you will hear some unwanted tonal changes in the ouput. Furthermore, even when the “8X rule” is met, your HP / IEM’s impedance should not be lower than the lowest recommended impedance mentioned on the amp’s literature.

This means for example that you won’t likely get good sonic results by pairing a 12 ohm IEM with an amp offering 2 ohm output impedance. Nor by pairing the same 12 ohm IEM with an amplifier offering 0.5 ohm output impedance, but recommending loads above 16 ohm anyway.

Put IEMatch in the middle.

Firstly: the AMP from its own standpoint will “sense” 16 ohm on its output connector, and will effectively behave accordingly, even if our IEM is 12 ohm (or less). This will make the amp “work within the manufacturer’s recommended range”, which is of course a first fundamental good thing.

Secondly: whatever the actual AMP’s output impedance is, the IEM from its own standpoint will exclusively sense IEMatch’s output impedance, which is as low as 1 ohm – so perfectly viable in terms of damping factor even the IEM carries 8 ohm or less of internal impedance.

The same power-related caveat mentioned about the previous point applies of course: especially if we need to pair IEMs with 16 or less ohm impedance, we’ll need to operate IEMatch on its Ultra position, which “costs” -24dB attenuation. Our amp gotta be really powerful to be able to counter that.

IEMatch models

IEMatch is currently offered in 3 different variations.

(*) S-balanced is the name iFi assigned to a special wiring scheme which is at the same time full compliant with a single-ended connection, and with a balanced ended connection. Considering there are very few if any balanced architecture devices around equipped with 3.5mm TRRS ports, this feature in practice means that IEMatch+ can be paired with any regular Single Ended 3.5mm phone port, and that it will pass-through iFi’s S-Balanced connectivity when paired to most of iFi’s mobile AMP / DAC-AMPs.

While the difference between IEMatch+ and IEMatch 2.5 is only about Single Ended / Balanced cabling support, it’s worth noting that IEMatch 4.4 is not a mere pentaconn-plug variation of the 2.5 model, but it comes with different electrical data.

IEMatch 4.4 is intended to be used it with high(er) powered balanced-ended AMPs. The much higher (up to 50 ohm vs 16 ohm) impedance it presents to the source will force the AMP to work at a higher “volume” level, thus at a higher voltage, and ultimately at a higher power.

On the flip side IEMatch 4.4 offers a minimum output impedance of 3.6 ohm (significantly higher then its siblings’ 1 ohm)

Questions and curiosities

Won’t a much cheaper impedance adapter be enough?

Simply put: no.

An “impedance adapter” is a simple resistor, which is plugged in series between two devices – typically a dac and an amp, or a preamp and an amp.

The most evident difference between a mere “impedance adapter” and an IEMatch is that the IA will present the same impedance on both its ends.

Some may be tempted to use impedance adapters (e.g.) when plugging a low impedance IEM onto a certain phone, or budget dongle, to “trick” the source into sensing a higher impedance load (IEM) connected, and “switch to high impedance mode” delivering more output power.
Or, to “cancel” the hiss on low impedance IEMs.
Or, to help an amp better cope with the power requirements of lower-than-minimum-supported-impedance IEMs (read above).

From the amp’s (i.e. the phone / dongle) standpoint that’ll be ok: using (say) a 32ohm IA the phone will sense a 32ohm load and will behave accordingly. E.g. it will switch to high(er) output voltage swing. So far so good.

From the IEM’s standpoint though, that’s far from OK – the IEM will now sense the IA’s value (in our example: 32ohm) as the source’s “output impedance” – which is a very high value.

In more technical words, the IA will screw the pair’s damping factor (read above), and this will be very hearable in terms of frequency response, the earphone presentation will be skewed.

If you want, the adjective “adapter” applied to a common “impedance adapter” turns out to be quite deceiving in the above scenarios

Won’t IEMatch actually make my damping factor worse?

If your amp has an output impedance below 1 ohm, then a IEMatch with its 1ohm (or more) impedance will surely reduce the damping factor. But on IEMatch typical applicative scenarios this very rarely if ever will be a problem – most times it will be an improvement.

First and foremost: while you need a certain “minimum” Damping Factor to avoid FR skewing, it is conversely NOT true that the higher the damping factor the better (I omit the explanation here).

Secondly let’s consider a classic example: a Campfire Andromeda (12 ohm impedance) connected to a sub-1ohm output impedance source. DF is above 12, good. Too bad the Andros are also extremely sensitive and pick up hissing from that amp.

Plug IEMatch in between. Output impedance will now be 1 ohm, so the DF will be “just” 12, which is nevertheless absolutely OK. And, we won’t have hissing (as explained above)

Considerations and conclusions

If we consider the situations where IEMatch makes itself useful we notice they all have to do with pairing low impedance and/or high sensitivity drivers (typically: IEMs – hence, evidently, the product’s name) with sources optimised for high(er) impedance and especially (much) low(er) sensitivity.

Looking at the consumer / pro-sumer audiophile market higher quality, higher powered amplifiers are typically optimised for pairing with high impedance dynamic drivers, or low impedance planar drivers – and plugging most of IEMs on them reveal a number of shortcomings, such as the ones we talked about today.

If we want to be true to ourselves, we should serenely acknowledge that each should be given its own: big cans require a certain “type” of source, IEMs work best on a different type.

So do we have to duplicate our stacks ? Maximalistically speaking: yes. And honestly speaking, I did – with great results !

For the less purist, IEMatch helps close the gap. And, it still proves useful in a number of situations to “double stackers” like myself.

A very final note: I recently came accross iFi’s Micro iDSD Signature, a really remarkable mobile DAC-AMP which I truly appreciated as I tried to outline on my piece about it.

I reckon that today’s article about IEMatch may make it even clearer why – amongst the multiple benefits offered by Micro iDSD Signature – the one that totally stunned me is its provision for an easily user-selectable “ECO” (read: reduced power) amplification mode. Micro iDSD Signature is the sole one device I encountered to date which offers uncompromised optimal amping for both cans and IEMs in the same product.

iFi offers such feature both on Micro iDSD Signature and Diablo. That’s such a logical and winning choice for mid/high end mobile devices like those ! Wish more quality manufacturers get involved on this soon…

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post iFi IEMatch Review – Must Have appeared first on Audio Reviews.

With this spirit I’m assessing a pair of Smabat Proto 1.0 modular IEMs which I got from the manufacturer for this purpose. Their street price is currently $79,00 – so not one of those excessively cheap chifi thingies – and you can find them on their website, besides multiple distributors on AE as always.

At-a-glance Card

Modularity for everyone

Extensive modularity on a finished product like IEMs is commercially a very interesting idea, clinging to all those who feel enticed by DYI but (right or wrong) look at themselves as impaired or more simply too lazy to take that route. With them in mind, Smabat Proto 1.0 is the closest thing to a Lego project box.

With Proto 1.0 you can:

Swap the main dynamic driver transducer.

You can take the transducer coming with the main package, and replace with a different version, sold separately, supposed to deliver a different sound presentation.

The housings can easily be opened and closed by bare hands, revealing that the driver’s cabling features a small plug/unplug fixing.

Sadly I only got the basic package, in particular I got none of the alternative drivers to check.

Add a filter onto the main sound output nozzle, to tune trebles behaviour.

The default being “no filter”, inside the box a blue little item is available which is supposed to be optionally plugged onto the nozzle to smash highmids and treble frequencies flat down by a whopping -7dB (!!). Not a small nudge at all, rather a dramatic intervention on the entire upper part of the presentation.

Roll another filter, installed directly on the housing, to tune bass behaviour.

By default a gold-colored little cap is installed, which is part of the house-tuning so to say.

Inside the box 2 alternative cap pairs are provided, carriying different mesh filters, and distinct by their colours: silver ones are supposed to smash mid and low frequencies (from 1KHz down) down by -6dB, while red ones are supposed to kick them way up by the same, opposite sign amount: +6dB. Again: a major intervention, not at all a fine tuning thingie.

Comments

Before getting to the sound analysis, I feel a few comments are in order here about Proto 1.0’s modular design.

Housing dampeners are very difficult to take out, the more so with the bundled tweezers, which I suspect are more aimed at facilitating plugging/unpligging the main driver’s connector. My wife’s “professional” eyebrow tweezers helped better with those colored dampeners. I suggested Smabat to finetune their design.

Proto 1.0 come equipped with a 10mm Titanium Diaphragm, 16 ohm impedance driver. According to Smabat, such driver is supposed to offer a warm, mid-centric presentation, good but not overly powerful bass, and rich and clear high frequencies. As you will read further down, this is not entirely true – but that’s not the point here.

As previously mentioned, both treble (nozzle) and bass (housing) dampening filters apply a nothing short of brutal variation to the “default” tuning. It’s quite evident that a lower-impact version of such filters would be very interesting to test. Questioned about this, the manufacturer commented “Regarding the silver damper, we will add some bass in subsequent adjustments”.

When I got this sample unit a few weeks ago on their Ali Express shop Smabat advertised 3 alternative drivers:  a Beryllium Plated Diaphragm (32 ohm) supposed to offer a “levelled presentation accross the entire frequency spectrum”, a Fiber Membrane (16 ohm) driver supposed to offer a more V shaped alternative, and a Dome LCP (22 ohm) supposed to offer a bright-enhanced alternative.

I obviously asked for those to be sent to me for a direct comparison, particularly the Beryllium Plated one (why that? simply because the default Titanium one is too warm, missing sub-bass and dominated by awfully bloating midbass – so I’d like to check how one which tuning is defined “levelled” in Smabat’s language would sound).

Sadly, the manufacturer’s answer was: “Other drives will be delayed, we are still testing to confirm. You can publish your assessment first.”

It’s worth noting that after a couple of weeks I checked again on Smabat website and there was no mention for a Beryllium Plated Diaphragm spare driver anymore, whilst a Titanium Plated Diaphragm (20 ohm) spawned in its place. Who knows if at least the range is to be considered final now, and when will those, or at least a few of them, be actually ready for shipping ?

Lastly, in addition to the two “user side” main vent openings (the main nozzle, and the other hole near the nozzle supposed to be equipped with bass-tuning dampeners), there is a third small vent opening on the housings’ back plates. Being a backside vent that is of course impacting on bass behaviour. Looking on the inside part of the removable backplate I can see a small white filter is installed. Oddly enough, Smabat does not offer spare / alternative filters to be rolled on that position. Why ?

All’n’all, everything seems to suggest that “Proto 1.0” is a quite meant naming for this product: it’s a prototype, and the first version thereof too!

Enough intro, let’s listen.

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove / Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Questyle QP1R / Cowon Plenue 2 – final E clear tips – Stock cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Considerations and conclusions

Smabat Proto 1.0 is first of all a nice idea. Not a totally new one for Smabat, which indeed applied the same concept to their M-series earbuds before (a full review of Smabat M2s Pro will drop ReallySoonNow(tm)…), but at least to my knowledge this is the first time I see this applied to IEMs.

As I very quickly mentioned at the top, Smabat 1.0 is the closest thing to a Lego-project-box applied to IEMs. Let me add: it is so both in the pros and the cons. As for the pros, those are totally obvious: you really can “build your own IEM”, and you can even separately order “alternative” pieces to develop variations of your project to experiment with.

There are cons too, though. First of all, such alternative items are still somewhat work in progress at Smabat. I’m a positive thinker, and I want to believe this is just a temporary situation. What’s more serious, instead, is that the output sound quality – at least that coming out of the stock elements I got with the package – is not competitive with the best (non-modular) alternatives on the same price range. Without getting too far, a pair of final E3000 cost sensibly less, and run circles around Proto 1.0’s stock titanium drivers, for how hard you may try and combine filters on that.

Proto. Like “Prototype”, I guess. And even the first version of it (1.0). A first attempt. Good, as an appetizer. Now let’s wait for the main course.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Smabat Proto 1.0 – Work In Progress? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Boomy, texture-less bass
– Lack of sub-bass rumble at the extreme end
– Scooped lower-mids, male vocals sound muffled
– Treble sounds harsh when listening to higher volumes
– Imaging/staging/resolution are average at best
– Compressed dynamics

INTRODUCTION

KZ is perhaps the most popular chi-fi manufacturer and in terms of sheer number of models available I think they got everyone beat. I did not keep up with their hectic release schedule for the better part of the year, but the KZ ZEX did catch my attention. Why, you ask? The EST (Electrostatic) buzzword, of course.

Most IEMs in the budget range go for a single-dynamic or a balanced-armature hybrid setup, so the ZEX is a refreshing change of pace. Let’s see if the sound quality is as good as it’s supposed to be.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. KZ sent me the ZEX for evaluation.

Sources used: Hidizs AP80 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $25. Can be bought from KZ’s Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The packaging is no-frills but has all the necessities. You get 3 pairs of Starline tips (white) and a 2-core SPC wire. The cable itself is rather nice, especially given the price and how some manufacturers cut corners here. I wish there was a carrying case, but I am nitpicking here.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

The KZ ZEX have plastic shells (including the nozzles) with a metal backplate. The finish is good with no visible seam between the plastic shell and the metal backplate. At the bottom of each earpiece you’ll find the 2-pin port (protruted ones, sadly). There are no vents which is surprising given the existence of a dynamic driver inside. A pretty generic build overall but it’s well-executed.
4/5.

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Due to their lightweight nature and lack of vents, the KZ ZEX are very comfortable to wear and they isolate well. There is some pressure build-up but it only occurs occasionally. Not bad for a vent-less shell design.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

The ZEX is very easy to drive and shouldn’t need any special source to sound its best. For the review I primarily used the Hidizs AP80 Pro. As for tips, I used the stock tips and they worked well.

DRIVER SETUP

KZ ZEX is a dual-driver hybrid, with a 10mm dynamic driver in charge of the lows and mids, and a 6.8mm “electrostatic” driver in charge of the highs. In reality, the electrostatic driver is a magnetostatic one and operates similarly to the principle of electret mics (just reverse-engineered). Despite the misleading marketing, the driver combination is quite rare in the budget realm and warrants a closer look.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The KZ ZEX has a V-shaped signature with the mid-bass bloom dominating the sound signature.

I usually start my sound section with the bass and then I go upward, but this time I’ll change things around a bit. The treble will be the highlight here for me because the KZ ZEX has a quite interesting treble response. In moderate listening volumes (around 70dB or so) the treble has a nice attack and sounds crisp without being overbearing or fatiguing. However, as you push the volume up, the treble becomes even more peaky ~5KHz and loses its composure.

I believe that this particular electret/magnetostatic driver is not suited for high SPL listening. So perhaps this is something to take note of when auditioning the ZEX. As for the midrange – it is not well-tuned. I am not a fan of the scooped out male vocals. Moreover, the upper-mids sound suppressed in high-pitched vocals, resulting in a boxy vocal reproduction.

The bass response, meanwhile, is mostly mid-bass focused and sub-bass rumble is not prominent. Bass lacks texture and has slow decay so bass notes can smear into each other. The emphasis on the upper-bass is a bit too much (rising from 700Hz almost) and this masks lower-level detail.

Speaking of detail, the ZEX isn’t particularly resolving even for the price. Dynamics sound compressed due to aforementioned upper-bass boost. Soundstage is below-average whereas imaging is basically left and right. Not much to write home about here.

Bass: 3/5
Midrange: 2/5
Treble: 3.5/5
Staging: 2.5/5
Imaging and Separation: 2.5/5
Dynamics and Speed: 2/5

KZ ZEX FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs BLON BL-03

The BLON BL-03 have been one of the few hype-trains that did not get derailed. It’s been a couple of years now that the BL-03 has remained the de-facto budget IEM recommendation.

In terms of overall build, comfort, accessories – the KZ ZEX are superior to the BL-03. The BLONs require a cable and tip change as the stock ones are horrible. When it comes to sound though, these IEMs go for different direction.

BLONs go for a slightly V-shaped tuning with warm mids and slightly rolled-off treble. The KZ ZEX on the other hand goes for a more pronounced treble response. In terms of midrange tuning and timbre, the BL-03 trounce the ZEX. I do think the ZEX has more sparkle in their treble. BL-03 bass is also more textured and doesn’t sound as smeared as ZEX.

Staging is middling on both whereas imaging is better on the BL-03. BL-03 also sounds more dynamic and less compressed than the ZEX. So apart from the treble, the ZEX is not really an upgrade over the BLON in most factors. Rather the opposite is often true.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The most interesting part about the KZ ZEX are their driver configuration and their treble response (in moderate listening levels).

Sadly, the midrange tuning isn’t up to the mark with overly recessed male vocals, and the bass is just slow and texture-less. The treble itself can get grainy once the volume is pushed up, so the ZEX have caveats all around.

The KZ ZEX falls victim to poor tuning decisions in the bass and mids despite having a fairly novel driver configuration. I hope KZ goes back to the drawing board and fixes the tuning issues in the upcoming model. For now, I cannot recommend the KZ ZEX.

MY VERDICT

2.5/5

Interesting driver configuration let down by questionable tuning decisions.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from KZ Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post KZ ZEX Review (1) – Patchwork appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Intro

The Questyle CMA Twelve (how dare anyone substitute a 12) DAC and Headphone amp combo is a solid hunk of amp with a very premium feel and a 2019 premium-ish price tag at $1499. All sorts of options up and down the scale. In my house the closest competitor is a whooping $200 stack of compact DAC and no frills headphone amp Liquid Spark + JDS Labs Atom.

Questyle has a wonderful track record for art and design however there is some not so happy thoughts on their customer service follow-through. The Questyle CMA Twelve DAC and Amp combo naming celebrates a whooping 12 year history in the headphone world. It’s a wonderful piece of machinery with a few minor near misses.

They claim a patented Current Mode Amplification technology sit inside cuddled up to Class A amplification. Sonically it does everything a premium product should do, powerful amplification, transparent noise-floor, butter smooth presentation with exceptional precision, I think I am in love.

Disclaimer

Let me first thank Audio46 for the opportunity to test this out in my home sanctuary. This is outside of the realm of equipment I usually consider so not a whole lot of equivalent equipment to compare it to. This audition audio tour sponsored on Head-fi set me back $20 in shipping, a small 1 week rental fee, how lovely.

Good Traits

• Solid Construction
• Excellent midnight black noise floor
• Resolution and clarity
• Input voltage for the masses, selectable 110/220V

Opinionated Commentary

There are only minor imperfections on the Questyle CMA Twelve

Low volume channel imbalance. It goes away after a few clicks up from 0 and is present on my normal setup as well. It should not a be a deal breaker, unless it exhibits this at listening level someone would actually use. There is also some electromagnetic feedback static induced into the circuit because it is motorized. Just more analog character charm.

The other strange thing I do not understand is if their claim to fame is the current mode amplifier running in their controlled/auto Class A bias mode, why is it not an option to toggle to headphone amp only mode with input from another DAC on the Questyle CMA Twelve?

A proprietary wireless receiver input that is not standard bluetooth. This is Apple thinking that the consumer will buy into a Questyle Ecosystem.

The last oddity is placement of the gain switches, there are 4 since they are independent for each channel (balanced). They are underneath. I understand from a circuit design perspective they wanted to keep it clean, but from a user experience it’s a tad annoying. If you never plan on using this with highly sensitive IEM’s no worries to be had.

Cosmetic Package

The design of the Questyle CMA Twelve has a geek side something that satisfies the more mature crowd without overly bright flashy displays, but instead goes for an engineer’s idea of a piece of lab testing equipment.

The indicator lights are not overbearing and very sharp looking. The toggle switches feel dainty, but my experience with these in my day job will no doubt prove to last a long time.

Power Consumption Tests

Seems silly to care but climate change anyone? No really my curiosity wanted to know how much extra power is used when switching into high bias setting on the Questyle CMA Twelve.

0.14/0.17A Standard vs High Bias
0.16/0.19A after warmed up
12W/15W Volume/load has no measurable bearing on this as expected for a Class A amp.
14W/16W after warm

Sound

The Bias switch does make a difference, I am glad they allow you to switch it on/off just to see the effect-show and tell. Bass has a little more haptic while the treble portrays everything more dimensionally.

Similar to going from a more dead room to a lively room, extremely subtle but still noticeable. The question is does this add coloring or remove coloring? I cannot answer but I would love to believe it makes it more expansive without coloring.

Testing the DAC output to my JDS Labs Atom, there was also a slight improvement in the separation of instruments, but as expected it is the total combination of the DAC and amplifier that are musical and organic.

The Questyle CMA Twelve treble comes off smoother and yet still more detailed. I found myself missing that extra little seismic information that it extracts when I went back to my Atom. Going from memory, I prefer the Questyle CMA also over the SMSL SH-9 due to the sterile cleanliness and the more analog volume control.

Power output should be plenty to drive almost anything, I don’t have anything besides the Sennheiser HD6XX that really needs the super power, but the Oppo PM-3 and JVC HA-FDX1 also benefited from the extra headroom. I pretty much used it in standard gain mode with everything since it was annoying to flip it over to make changes.

Other Fun Features

I am not really equipped to test these functions out but they are part of the Questyle CMA Twelve package for those interested.

• 4.4mm Pentacom or 4Pin XLR balanced output. I don’t have any cables to utilize.​
• Balanced output into an amplifier as a standalone DAC. I have no 2 channel system that would do it justice.​
• Proprietary 5Ghz wireless receiver input.​
• DSD playback, not my thing​
• Studio output, not a music producer/mastering engineer so no gear.​
• The Remote, probably more useful in DAC only mode. Buttons appear to be fuzz magnets.​
• Optical Digital Input
• SPDIF IN/OUT Composite
• AES/EBU input

Final Remarks

The Questyle CMA Twelve is a wonderfully sounding DAC amp combo that extracts the microdetails, plenty of connection options minus the ability to use it as a headphone amp only being the only drawback. If I had the desire to purchase gear over $300-400, this would be on my short list.

Since this product was released in ?2019 it doesn’t utilize the newest DAC chips or boast over the top SINAD numbers, yet it still sounds more musical and more transparent than my limited sampling. A caveat-I don’t want to pile on, but there have been some past complaints about support, and as you go up in price tiers the support is something you hope to never have to use.

Perhaps they will be more responsive if there is an issue, but this is something to consider with any brand in such a niche market. With that out of the way, overall excellent sounding DAC/Amp combo.

Specifications

DAC+Headphone Amplifier Section

Outputs:
4.4 mm balanced headphone jack
4PIN balanced headphone jack
6.35mm headphone jack

Max Output Power(Po):
247mW @ 300Ω; 900mW @ 32Ω(6.35mm headphone jack)
825mW @ 300Ω; 2W @ 32Ω (balanced headphone jack)

THD + N:
0.00070% @Po=100mW, 300Ω
0.00167% @ Po=50mW, 32Ω

Frequency Response:
DC-20kHz(+0, -0.4dB)@0dBFS, 24Bit, 192kHz
DC-80kHz(+0, -3dB)@0dBFS, 24Bit, 192kHz

SNR: 112dB, non-weighting

DAC+Pre-Amp Output Section

USB Type B Input:
Support 44.1kHz-384kHz/16Bit-32Bit PCM and DSD Native DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, as well as DSD64, DSD128, DSD256 of DoP format
(Note: support Win XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Win10 and Mac OS)

Digital Input & Output:
SPDIF input and output, Optical input, AES/EBU input
Support 44.1kHz-192kHz/16Bit-24Bit PCM

Pre-Amp & DAC Section:
Balanced XLR x1 pair, unbalanced RCA x1 pair
STANDARD 14dBu: XLR: 5.084V RCA: 2.549V
STUDIO 20dBu: XLR: 8.887V RCA: 4.475V
THD+N@STUDIO 20dBu: XLR: minimum at 0.00085% RCA: minimum at 0.00115%
SNR: XLR:>112dB RCA:> 109dB (non-weighting)
(Note: FIX/ADJ: Fixed Output Mode or Adjustable Output Mode of the pre-amp.)

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Since Audio46 loaned this out, you can check out the QUESTYLE CMA TWELVE at their storefront. No affiliate links, no kickbacks.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post Questyle CMA Twelve – Blissfully Biased appeared first on Audio Reviews.

• Small and light, good build.
• 3 modes for more versatility – music, gaming and movie modes.
• Innovative detachable magnetic cable system.
• Plug and playable, compatible with desktops/laptops, apple and android phones (there is an option to get Lightning versus USB C connectors).
• Very low output impedance, suitable for low impedance IEMs. No hiss.
• Neutralish, with a slight bass boost to add some fun.
• Volume controller.

Cons

• Gets slightly warm.
• Volume may jump when switching between modes – best to mute device/lower volume first.

Executive Summary

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a swiss army knife of the budget dongle DAC/AMP arena. It has a music, gaming and movie mode, making it quite versatile. It also has volume controls and boasts a very innovative magnetic cable system. There is good power on tap, yet this set can still drive low impedance type IEMs because of its low output impedance.

Specifications

• DAC uses ESS’s high-performance ESS9298 chip
• PCM supports up to 16Bit/384kHz
• DSD supports up to DoP128
• Adopts ikko’s custom anti-interference magnet thread connection method
• SNR: 118dB@32Ω (A-weight)
• Frequency response range: 20Hz-40kHz (-0.5dB)
• Output impedance: <0.8Ω
• Adaptation impedance: adaptive 16ohm – 600ohm
• Output level: 2V @ 32Ω (125mW @ 32Ω)
• Distortion: < 0.001%
• Decoding ability: Simulation (multiple sound optimizations)
• Size: 58x22x11mm
• Output: 3.5 mm
• Tested at $59 USD

Accessories

• 1x Ikko ITM01 Dongle
• 1x USB A cable
• 1x Type C or lightning cable (you can choose either option at order).

The USB A cable is very long, so no worries of a too short cable limiting your usage. In fact I found it too long and dangly, and had to tie up the cable when using it with my laptop. This cable is cloth braided and there is an included faux leather strap to tie the USB A cable.

A second cable is included, this is either a Lightning or USB Type C connector, depending on which one you choose at ordering. Well that depends if you are of the Apple or Android persuasion, but this cable is very much shorter.

These 2 included cables feature a very nifty and innovative magnetic connector to attach the cable to the DAC/AMP device. The magnetic end of the cable locks on easily and can be used in either direction; this may lessen wear and tear for frequent cable changing.

Contrary to the impressions that a magnetic connector can cause an easy dislodgement of the cable from the DAC/AMP, it is actually not easy to remove this magnetic clamp once the cable is inside, and I had no issues with dislodging the cable on the go.

This cable is unfortunately proprietary. I do appreciate that this DAC/AMP dongle’s cable is detachable, as a non-detachable one may be a point of failure down the line. In this current year of 2021, it is really not excusable to have a non-detachable cable for these dongles (unless we are talking about an ultra-budget set), as a non-detachable cable is one awkward yank away from being a white elephant.

Build

The ITM01 is made of plastic, but is sturdy yet light. As mentioned above, the detachable cable definitely should prolong its lifespan.

Measuring in at 58 x 22 x 11 mm, this set can easily fit into a jeans pocket on the go.

This set has a 3.5 mm output (single ended) and has no balanced option.

Functionality

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a plug and play set, and is compatible with desktops/laptops, apple and android phones (depending on the cable type you order), without any need to install drivers.

Disclaimer: I am not an Apple fanboy and do not own any Apple products, so I opted for the USB C version and tested this set on Android phones and a Windows laptop. Please check with others who have bought the Lightning version if they have any issues with Apple products.

The volume buttons work as advertised on the IKKO Zerda ITM01, they can be pressed down with a satisfactory click. I appreciate that the volume steps in the ITM01 are quite fine, unlike the Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, which have huge volume levels in between each volume step.

Pressing the middle button once (short press) pauses or starts the music. This middle button also controls the mode if pressed for 3 seconds: music (yellow LED), movie (blue LED) and game mode (purple LED).

Technical Aspects

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 can support PCM up to 16Bit/384kHz and DSD up to DoP128.

I did not note any RF interference when putting the IKKO Zerda ITM01 through its paces. Neither did I hear any hiss nor clicking with changing tracks midway. There is a bit of a clicking noise however, when changing modes.

On the music mode (yellow LED), the IKKO Zerda ITM01 essentially is neutralish with a slight bass boost. This keeps it from sounding sterile and adds a little bit of fun to the equation. The background is pitch dark with highly sensitive IEMs.

In fact with the advertised <0.8Ω output impedance, this set is perfect for multi driver low impedance IEMs (rule of eights in audiophile teachings). I’ve tried some 9ish ohm low output impedance sets like the Audiosense T800 and TRI Starsea on this DAC/AMP without any issues.

With very high impedance earbuds and cans eg ~ 300 ohms, the IKKO Zerda ITM01 faired well and could drive such gear adequately. When paired with some power hungry IEMs, eg KBEAR BElieve/Final E3000 (low sensitivity) and TRI I3 (planar tribid), these all sounded good, with a lot more headroom to spare.

On the movie mode (blue LED), the soundstage was compressed a tinge, with a boost in the upper mids region, giving more clarity to voices. This gave a spherical blob of soundstage with the head as the reference point, and there was some loss in instrument separation.

I didn’t get a “surround sound” vibe with this mode though. The volume cap is also much higher here than on the music mode, and the volume levels may jump from the music mode when playing an equivalent track (so beware).

On the gaming mode (purple LED), the soundstage became unnaturally wide (it may not be suited for music listening as such), but this might aid in placement of gun shots and footsteps, especially for FPS players. Instrument separation does take a hit compared to the music mode.

Likewise, the volume cap here is also much more than on the music mode, and the volume can also jump suddenly compared to the music mode, while on the same test track.

Hence, when changing modes to the gaming/movie mode, as they have a different volume level/cap, my advise is to mute the volume of your device and put the source (eg phone/laptop) volume to zero, and slowly increase incrementally, in case of any sudden jumps in volume between the modes.

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 does get a bit warm with prolonged usage, but I’ve definitely had other dongle DAC/AMPs that go much hotter.

Comparisons

Compared to the Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, the ITM01 has about comparable sound quality, but the ITM01 is more fun sounding in view of a bass boost, compared to the rather neutral Sonata HD Pro; the Sonata HD Pro can sound a bit more boring as such.

The Sonata HD Pro also has weaker driving power, and can’t drive some more demanding gear, eg 300 ohm cans. Having said that, there are some mods (eg BHD firmware mod, or using a 3.5 mm to 3.5 mm adapter) to get the Sonata HD Pro to output more juice, but the volume steps on the Sonata HD Pro are also bigger, so fine tuning volume levels on the Sonata HD Pro isn’t as reliable.

Compared to the E1DA 9038D, the ITM01 has poorer soundstage and technicalities, but that is not surprising considering the E1DA 9038D is around double the price (the 9038D is not better by twice for sure).

Driving power on both sets are good for a single-ended dongle, but the E1DA 9038D drains more battery and gets noticeably warmer. The E1DA 9038D is also very neutral and may sound more boring and analytical than the ITM01.

Conclusions

The IKKO Zerda ITM01 is a swiss army knife of the budget dongle DAC/AMP arena. It has a music, gaming and movie mode, making it quite versatile. It also has volume controls and boasts a very innovative magnetic cable system. There is good power on tap, yet this set can still drive low impedance type IEMs because of its low output impedance.

This DAC/AMP dongle (on the music mode) features a neutral signature with some slight bass boost to add a bit of fun to the music. Soundwise, the ITM01 definitely holds its own at the budget segment, and at $59 USD, has really quite good price to performance ratio. Recommended!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

I would like to thank Rebecca from IKKO for providing this review unit. It can be purchased here: https://www.ikkoaudio.com/products/ikko-zerda-itm01-portable-audio-dac-detachable-magnetic-cable-adapter

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post IKKO Zerda ITM01 Review (1) – Swiss Army Knife appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Nice build and good comfort. Beautiful shells.
Organic timbre.
Pleasant tonality.
Big bass yet with good quality and speed.
2 pin connector, better lifespan than MMCX in general.
Adequate accessories at this price bracket.
Easy to drive.

Cons

Below average isolation.
Shells may be a fingerprint or scratch magnet.
Not the best microdetails.
Not the most extended treble.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The KBEAR Aurora is a lush harmanish single DD set. It features a beautiful shell, organic timbre and great tonality. This set generally scores good marks across most departments, only perhaps lacking in treble extension and microdetails.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Driver configuration: 10mm Nano Titanium Plated Diaphragm
• Frequency response: 20 Hz – 20kHz
• Impedance: 18 Ω
• Sensitivity: 105 dB/mW
• Cable: 2 Pin (0.78mm), OFC Silver plated cable
• Tested at $169 USD

ACCESSORIES

The Aurora comes in a nice packaging featuring an Aurora Borealis motif.

Included are:
1) SPC blue cable (ties in nicely with the Aurora snowfield motif) – The cable is well braided, no microphonics, very thicc and substantial. The blue colour may be a bit too showy for some though.
2) Silicone tips of various sizes. Do tip roll to see what suits you sonically and for fit/isolation.
3) Carry case – faux leather, similar to the case seen in other KBEAR products
4) Cleaning cloth
5) Cleaning brush

The accessories provided are par for the course for a $100 USD range set.

I liked that KBEAR is using a cable with a 2 pin connector, I had my fair share of mishaps with MMCX type connectors after switching cables once too often, they ended up like spinning windvanes.

For the purposes of this review, the stock tips and stock cables were used, so as not to change the sound signature with aftermarket gear.

BUILD/COMFORT

Build wise, the Aurora has a shiny mirror like finish, akin to the HZSound Heart Mirror or Moondrop KXXS. The Aurora is quite light and smooth, it is well built with no funny edges to poke the ear. Comfort is very good. But due to the mirror like finish, this set may be finger print or scratch magnet, so do be careful with em.

The shells are quite a looker, while using them on the subway for isolation tests, a few curious commuters kept looking at the Aurora earpieces.

I didn’t have driver flex on my set, but this is partially related to ear anatomy an types of tips used, so YMMV.

ISOLATION

Unfortunately, the Aurora’s isolation is below average. I lost quite a lot of the bass frequencies when using them on a subway (bass is generally the first frequency lost in a noisy place). This skewed the sound to be a bit shouty in the upper mids/treble. So personally, I think the Aurora’s ideal sound is to be gotten when using them at home or in a quiet area.

DRIVABILITY

I tested the KBEAR Aurora with a Khadas Tone Board -> Schiit Asgard 3 amp, Khadas Tone Board -> Topping L30 amp, Sony NW A-55 DAP (Walkman One Plus v2 Mr Walkman Mod), smartphone, Shanling Q1 DAP, Tempotec Sonata HD Pro, E1DA 9038D, and a Khadas Tone Board -> Fiio A3 Amp.

The Aurora are relatively easy to drive, but scale well when amped, in the areas of bass tightness, soundstage, dynamics etc. They are definitely easier to drive than their older sibling the KBEAR BElieve.

SOUND & TECHNICALITIES

The KBEAR Aurora is a harmanish warm set. The Aurora Borealis icy motif may give an impression that this is an ice cold set in terms of tuning, but far from it be. The Aurora is actually warm and lush and leans towards analoguish, rather than a sterile frosty wintery wonderland.

The bass of the KBEAR Aurora is midbass focused, it is north of neutral but not at true basshead levels. Subbass extends well, you will get your rumble for the subbass frequencies.

Despite the copious bass, the bass speed is quite agile, note weight is on the thicker side, yet with very minimal midbass bleed. Listening to some of the faster bass movements on songs such as Sting’s “Englishman In New York” (interlude portion), some slower DD drivers can make the bass notes sound like a nebulous haze, but the Aurora passes this test.

Bass is not as fast as BA bass though, but not many sets manage to get a good mix of bass quantity/note weight and bass quality (speed, without bleed). Timbre and texture in the bass is quite good, in keeping with its DD roots.

The KBEAR Aurora’s lower mids are slightly depressed (not overly so). There is a boost in the upper mids, but they have an upper mids that is a few dB lesser than a traditional harman IEM. So generally, they manage to thread a fine line of having a forward upper mids without going too much into shouty territory. Perhaps there is some upper mids glare if one uses them outdoors (poor isolation kills the bass and overly emphasizes the upper mids/treble), or on some poorly recorded tracks or at louder volumes (Fletcher Munson curve).

But by and large, this set doesn’t have the usual banshee upper mids seen in CHIFI tuning, the pinna gain here is around 10 – 11 db. Vocals are forward compared to instruments, and timbral accuracy for vocals is rather organic. I would describe the mids in the Aurora to be on the lusher and thicker side, but it may not have the best transparency or clarity. Think of an analoguish signature like the BLON BL-03 but with better technical performance.

The KBEAR Aurora has moderate treble extension, though it may not be as airy as some multi BA types. So sparkle is a bit tamed, cymbal and high hat hits are a bit muted with the tuning, but consequently, I don’t find the Aurora fatiguing. Some slight microdetails are lost as such. Sibilance is very mild.

In technicalities, the KBEAR Aurora have above average soundstage (in height, depth and width). Imaging and instrument separation are also above average at this price bracket (for a single DD set), though clarity and microdetails are not the best. Those multi driver/hybrid types at the $100ish bracket might be better at technicalities, but some of them have timbre or coherency issues. So different strokes for different folks, pick your poison.

Timbre on the KBEAR Aurora is very good. In fact, I’d say the Aurora have better timbral accuracy than the KBEAR BElieve and some other similarly priced single DD sets. Acoustic instruments like brass, woodwind and stringed instruments all sounded organic. Considering the KBEAR Aurora use a titanium driver, I was pleasantly surprised by the timbre (my past experiences with titanium drivers IEMs wasn’t the best when it came to timbre, eg DUNU DM480, Audiosense AQ7).

COMPARISONS

I have compared the KBEAR Aurora with a few single DD at the upper budget-midfi segment. Hybrids and pure BA types were left out of the comparisons as they have different pros and cons among the different transducer types.

KBEAR BElieve ($159 USD)

Compared to the older KBEAR BElieve, the Aurora is much easier to drive, and it has more subbass extension than the BElieve. The BElieve has more upper mids and treble, and also has better technicalities and resolution. The Aurora has better bass speed, especially at the midbass, whereas the BElieve’s midbass could be quite nebulous, especially when underpowered.

Timbral accuracy is better on the KBEAR Aurora, and it isn’t as hot in the upper mids either.

The KBEAR Aurora and the BElieve are kind of sidegrades, each have their pros and cons as such.

The KBEAR BElieve is no longer in production, but word on the street is that the Vento Conductor T-500 Pro is very similar to the BElieve, or might be an OEM of sorts. So if you are still looking for the BElieve, perhaps consider getting the T-500 Pro.

Tanchjim Oxygen ($269 USD)

The Tanchjim Oxygen is one of the benchmark single DD sets in midfi CHIFIdom. The Oxygen has a more extended treble and air and it also has all round better timbre, better technicalities and a better bass quality (better timbre, texture and speed). The Oxygen has a slightly thinner note weight though, when compared to the more analoguish sounding Aurora.

Definitely the Oxygen is the superior set, but it is $100 USD more expensive.

TForce Yuan Li ($119 USD)

The TForce Yuan Li is a bit less V shaped than the Aurora. The Aurora has bigger bass quantities and more subbass extension. Timbre is better on the Aurora, with the Aurora also having a not so hot upper mids region. Technicalities are also better on the Aurora.

Both sets have a very nice shell and accessories, but if you can top up the $50 USD or so, the Aurora is a marginal upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

The KBEAR Aurora is a lush harmanish single DD set. It features a beautiful shell, organic timbre and great tonality. This set generally scores good marks across most departments, only perhaps lacking in treble extension and microdetails.

The “Aurora borealis” naming convention here is quite a good choice, as this set melds good looks and sound in a nice little package, like the northern lights.

Definitely the Aurora is a set that single DD lovers and timbre lovers should consider!

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

I would like to thank KBEAR for providing this review unit. It can be gotten at https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003109134536.html

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post KBEAR Aurora Review (1) – Aurora Borealis appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Smoothness and richness reduced in revised tuning; still lacks treble extension; still needs strong amplification.

Executive Summary

The TRI I3 Pro remains a unique sounding planar-magnetic earphone that now features more bass and upper midrange which results in improved transparency, clarity, liveliness, and dynamics, at the expense of richness and note weight.

Introduction

KBEAR released their original $169 TRI I3 in late 2019. It was the cheapest planar magnetic earphone on the market and received lots of attention. We analyzed it to death – here the takes by KopiOkaya, Baskingshark, and myself – and also addressed the pros and cons of planar-magnetic drivers.

The original was plagued by channel imbalance, lack of nozzle lips (any eartips were stuck in my ears after each use), the earpieces were “sumo sized” (Baskinghark), the cable did not harmonize sonically, and some say the tips didn’t either. All of these (except the eartips) have been addressed in the Pro model.

Regardless, the original’s sonic offerings were so appealing to the users that the model prevailed until recently – almost unheard of in this genre.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, 2 sets of eartips, cable, pleather pouch (known from Diamond and Believe models), cleaning cloth (!), cleaning brush, and paperwork.

The aluminium alloy earpieces, although shrunk by 26% compared to the original, are still not the smallest lightest but they are (still) very comfortable for me. Build and haptic are premium. The 5N OFC (oxygen-free copper) cable works sonically, has no microphonics, is pliable but a bit on the heavy side. Optically, it is nothing special. in terms of comfort, I had no problems listening through a double CD. Isolation remains average.

The grey stock eartips are fine for me, I cannot not find any better alternatives after some tip rolling. Amplification is required for the I3 Pro to shine, and the more the better. Regular dongles were ok, but the EarMen TR-amp worked best in releasing the sonic details.

Physical Differences between TRI I3 Pro and TRI I3

As you can see from the 2 photos, the shell size has been reduced in volume by 26% (the number is from the product page) without changing shape. You further recognize the nozzle lip added to the Pro.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air + EarMen TR-amp. Hidizs S9 Pro, Earstudio HUD100, AudioQuest Dragonfly Redw. JitterBug FMJ, AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, Astell & Kern PEE51; grey stock eartips. Worked best with the most powerful TR-amp.

KBEAR have addressed a few concerns about their original I3 but kept the principal sonic character. The changes are rather tonal nuances of the original packed into smaller shells.

The I3 Pro is still a warm (but to a lesser extent) iem with that special planar-magnetic timbre that is so different from the rest of the competition – a unique feature of this earphone.

As you can see from a graph comparison, the I3 Pro received boosts at the low end and in the upper midrange, which pronounces the original model’s U-shape. But instead of the vocals being pushed back, they are actually moved forward. This means that the upper midrange wins the balance game over the low end.

In the big picture, the TRI Pro has become brighter, faster (at least perceived so), more dynamic, but also a bit leaner however cleaner in the midrange.

Although the low end has been boosted (and the pinna gain is still at an acceptable 11 dB), it is somewhat compensated for by the elevate upper midrange so that the bass perception is only marginally stronger compared to the original. It is still a bit on the slow side as it is typical for planar-magnetic drivers. It ain’t fuzzy but could be tighter. Because of the changes in the mid frequencies, the bass appears faster than it probably is. Extension into sub-bass is average.

The lower midrange has moved forward and lost a bit of richness and weight. It is leaner, brighter, and more forward. This is probably the biggest sonic difference to the original. And I am not sure it is better for everybody, but it makes for more midrange clarity and dynamics. And it leaves the impression of more sparkle and bite but the Pro is also more prone to be fatiguing to some.

Treble has essentially remained the same. The rolloff is too early at the expense of sparkle and air. That’s probably the reason for raising the upper midrange. 

Soundstage has been deepened because of the increased U-shape which makes for improved spatial cues and transparency. The stage has become more three dimensional. Co-blogger Larry records a loss of width, he claims the more forward presentation (I add: increased depth) gives the impression of a narrower stage. One could say, the original I3’s stage is flatter and wider. I find the increased three-dimensionality an improvement, but such perception may vary individually.

The technicalities also remain mostly the same, that is average. Instrument separation, resolution are all good but not outstanding. Midrange clarity and air as well as dynamics have been improved.

Since the I3 Pro is so unique, it is pointless comparing it to other models in this price segment. Take it or leave it.

Concluding Remarks

The TRI I3 Pro is an upgrade over the 2019 original in many respects and a sidegrade in others. 

Upgraded were the size of shells and therefore comfort, added nozzle lips, included cleaning cloth…and the price, too :). Sound has become brighter, livelier, more transparent, and more dynamic, but the at the cost of richness and note weight, and it digs into that famous ChiFi peak, at least marginally.

Nevertheless, the TRI I3 Pro remains a completely different beast because of its unique sonic appeal, and therefore competitive, even at the upgraded price. Sadly, I observe such raises throughout the ChiFi community, lately.

When starting comparing original and Pro version, I first favoured the former. But with increasing A/B-ing, I find the Pro version better as livelier sounding. The IE3 Pro is still one of the lowest priced planar-magnetic iems on the market and should remain an audio enthusiasts’ favourite.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 304 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The TRI I3 Pro were provided from KBEAR for my review and I thank them for that.

Get the TRI I3 Pro from KBEAR Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post KBEAR TRI I3 Pro Review – Children Of The Evolution appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Overall generic U-shaped sound; poor cohesion between bass and midrange; thick, slow low end compromises the overall impression; lacks treble extension; adds nothing new, Beryllium just an advertisement gimmick?

Executive Summary

The NiceHCK Lofty earphone is as middle of the road U-shaped sounding as it gets, with a thick bass, lean, sharp midrange, and lack of lower treble. But it offers excellent haptic and build.

Introduction

Iems with Beryllium drivers have been a novelty for some time. Beryllium is a rather stiff material that should deliver a tighter, faster and cleaner bass response compared to conventional dynamic drivers. We expect a natural-sounding midrange, fuller with exceptional details and texture. With the rigidity and elasticity of beryllium, the treble can be extend even further without harshness or grain, resulting in a transparent, crisp sound that is comfortable for long listening sessions (KopiOkaya).

Beryllium drivers are expensive in production and very difficult to implement properly. The two earphones that work well with this driver type are the Dunu Luna ($1700) and the Final Audio A8000 ($2000), but this comes at a price. For example, one Dunu driver allegedly costs $150 in production. So, a Beryllium iem at $240 sounds like a great deal. But will it work as expected?

KBEAR went the Beryllium route with their hyped and now discontinued “Believe” model, which, priced at $159, appeared too good to be true – and it created a loss for the company. And while some really like(d) it, I found that it did not feature the traits you’d expect from a Beryllium diaphragm.

The bass was not tight but rather thick and boomy, and the midrange was overly lean. I speculate that diaphragm was so stiff and fast that filters had to dampen it to a level so that the Beryllium character got lost. I still have a prototype that is sounding speedier than light…very aggressive.

Now, NiceHCK are trying their luck. The company stands for excellent earphone cables at competitive prices, but they also dabble in earphones and earbuds. We have reviewed quite a few of their models, which are hit and miss sonically, while always built very well.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

The Lofty comes in a fancy blue leather container with 2 different sets of eartips (S/M/L), a high-quality 6N OCC cable, and the usual paperwork.

The “N” number in 6N refers to degree of copper purity. 6 refers to six nines as in 99.9999% pure copper (5N would mean 99.999% and so on).  OCC stands for “Ohno Continuous Casting”. It refers to a method of copper refining developed and patented by Professor Ohno of the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan.

The blue cable is textile coated, rather thick, and on the heavier side, reminiscent of a small rope. It has some microphonics.

The earpieces are of very high quality, too: CnC-machined airplane grade aluminium. They are a somewhat big and heavy, but they fit me well and are quite comfortable. No problems, though they could be smaller for a single DD iem. Isolation is soso, but this depends on the individual ear canals.

The tips are NiceHCK’s standard fare, there was no attempt made to harmonize tips and earpieces, which constitutes a lack of attention to detail imo. None of the stock tips worked for me sonically.

The Lofty’s low impedance and high sensitivity do not require a particularly powerful source. A phone works just fine.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air, iPhone SE (1st gen.); AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, Hidizs S9 Pro; Earstudio HUD 100, several eartips.

TL;DR: the NiceHCK is pretending to be special with its Beryllium driver but it shows a rather conventional U-shape. Its bass is slow and almost vulgar, which spoils the rest of it. You would expect a Beryllium driver to be fast.

I followed the instructions and broke the earphone in for >100 hours.

So, yes, the low end, that is always the first thing my ears record. I tried different tips: both kinds of stock tips, Azla SednaEarfit, SpinFit CP145, and generic short-stemmed wide-bores. They all contribute to slight sonic differences which remain nuances.

First, the low end does not dig deep enough, there is simply something missing, Second, the low end is not composed or focused, it is slow and therefore loose and rubbery sounding. It lacks tightness, layering, and speed and is just the opposite of what you expect from a stiff Beryllium diaphragm: thick! Nevertheless, it has a decent slam which keeps hammering fuzzy mediocrity against my eardrums.

The fact that NiceHCK supply their standard eartips does not speak for a well thought-out design. I have the best success with the SpinFit CP145 as they push the low-end slightly back…and therefore the low midrange forward….but they cannot fix the lack of speed.

You can twist and turn it as you want, that bass spoils the party (considering the price tag).

The midrange is heavily influenced by the low-end variations from the eartips. The stock tips partially congest but also rein-force the vocals and deepen the stage. The less low-end you admit by your tip selection, the more do the vocals move forward. Vocals are a bit sharp and could be fuller bodied, but you can’t get that rubbery, fuzzy character out of the vocals department, which lacks clarity.

Good that the bass balanced the upper midrange peaks, they do not introduce any fatigue to my ears but the occasional shoutiness. In summary, thick, fuzzy bass and lean, sharp midrange do not fit well together, cohesion is somewhat lacking.

And the treble?

Which treble? A sharp rolloff occurs at 5 kHz and the treble disappears into oblivion. Lower treble missing in action. Cymbals may be crisp, but the challenge is to hear them.

As to technicalities: stage is not very wide and can be deep depending on eartips used. Resolution, separation, and microdynamics are not worthy of a $240 unit, not by a long shot. Timbre is ok. The NiceHCK Lofty is just ordinary and devoid of finesse.

NiceHCK Lofty Compared

The Lofty, when run side-by-side with the $250 JVC HA-FDX1, experiences its limitations, in particular its lack of balance. The JVCs are much more homogenous sounding whereas the Lofty has a finetuning issue between its thick bass, its lean, sharp midrange, and its modest treble. Their vocals and bass simply don’t fit together. The JVCs are not congested, and offer a wider but less deep soundstage. The Lofty really brings out the JVC’s qualities.

The $60 VE BIE Pro sound flatter than the Lofty, they lack depth in comparison, also have bass problems (peak too low in FR creates a blunt kick), and are not as dynamic.

The $350 Sennheiser IE 400 PRO are the smoothest, warmest, and most inviting of the lot. And they are also much better balanced and cohesive sounding than the Lofty.

The discontinued KBEAR Believe was another ~$200 Beryllium-driver earphone, which failed my analysis based on its overly thick low end and dramatically lean midrange. I gave it away and therefore cannot compare it with the Lofty.

The $180 NF Audio NM2+ has a tighter bass than the Lofty, and also a brutally harsh 4-5 kHz peak that blows it out of any contention. Also note its much better treble extension.

Concluding Remarks

The Lofty is NiceHCK’s jump on the Beryllium bandwagon. However, its signature is a rather conventional U-shape and the sound lacks speed and fine tuning, and therefore finesse to the point that I have doubt the driver is really made of stiff Beryllium. A London record label once excelled with the slogan: “if it ain’t stiff, it ain’ worth a f…” ‘nough said.

The Lofty offers nothing new but rather takes us back 2-3 years. The broadly comparable $250 JVC HA-FDX1 is the far better option.

If the NiceHCK Lofty was an $80 iem, I would laud it for its good staging and immersive character. But considering its $240 price tag, the Lofty’s overall performance is rather unimpressive and just ordinary. But at least it it not fatiguing.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 280 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The NiceHCK Lofty was provided unsolicited from NiceHCK Audio Store for review and I thank them for that.

Get the Lofty from the NiceHCK Audio Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

Gallery

The post NiceHCK Lofty Beryllium IEM Review – If It Ain’t Stiff… appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Comfortable, light, good build.
Neutralish sound – doesn’t colour frequencies, and potrays the connected IEM as it is.
Excellent sound quality.
Good battery life.
Modular system to allow MMCX and 2 pin options for IEMs.
Strong and easy BT connectivity and range. No dropouts for BT.
Has a mic to take calls.
Volume controller.

Cons:

No LDAC or aptX LL/HD
No charging case.
Hisses with highly sensitive IEMs.
No water proofing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The NiceHCK HB2 is a bluetooth wireless adapter that has a modular MMCX/2 pin connector, this increases pairing options for detachable IEMs. It has great sound quality, good battery life and excellent connectivity.

SPECIFICATIONS

• Bluetooth version: Bluetooth 5.2 (Qualcomm QCC3040)
• Bluetooth coding: SBC, AAC, aptX
• Wireless range: 10 meters
• SNR: 59 dB
• Playtime: 13 hours
• Charging time: 1.5 hours
• Tested at $79 USD

ACCESSORIES

In addition to the BT adapter, it comes with:

1) Modular MMCX, 0.78mm 2 Pin and NX7 2 Pin types.

• This is the selling point of the NiceHCK HB2! It comes with a unique 3 types of detachable modules, where one can disconnect the module from the BT adapter, so one can use various IEM connector type housing with it – MMCX, 0.78mm 2 Pin and NX7 2 Pin types.
• The modular design is also good in that usually the connector area is the first point to fail after repeated wear and tear, so no biggie buying the detachable modules, rather than replacing the entire device.

2) USB-C charging cable

BUILD/COMFORT

The NiceHCK HB2 is very comfortable, light and ergonomic. I’ve even used it for 10 hour sessions and forgot it’s in use. The wire guides are flexible and they don’t impinge on the ears, even with a mask and spectacles on. The build quality is rather sturdy too.

The NiceHCK HB2 has no waterproofing mentioned in the specs unfortunately. But FWIW, I’ve used it in some slightly rainy conditions and even with gym and exercise for the past 3 weeks and there are no issues thus far, fingers crossed.

FUNCTION/CONNECTIVITY

Holding a long press on the back of the device turns it on. The left and right sides pair up automatically when turned on, and I had no issues with pairing it with multiple BT devices, all devices recognized the NiceHCK HB2 on the spot. Pressing the power button for 5 seconds conversely turns it off.

The buttons for the NiceHCK HB2 work as advertised:

Interestingly, only one side of the NiceHCK HB2 can be used independently without the need to turn on the other side. This can be an option for some who only want one side in the ear for calls, or say if the other side is being charged. One thing to nitpick is that the buttons are quite sensitive, and are located at the rear of the device, so they can be accidentally touched sometimes.

The NiceHCK HB2 has a mic and can take calls, with good sound quality for calls. I’ve tried it on a few online meetings with no complaints from the others in the conferences with regards to voice quality.

I also liked the volume controller on the NiceHCK HB2. In contrast, some BT adapters like the iBasso CF01 have no volume control on it, so if say one is far away from the BT device used to pair with it, one has to physically go over to the device to change the volume, unlike the NiceHCK HB2, which just requires a tap on the housing.

Connectivity is excellent on the NiceHCK HB2, I have not a single drop out whatsoever in the past 3 weeks that I’ve been using them. The BT range is about 10 meters or so, assuming no walls/obstructions are in the path.

The NiceHCK HB2 doesn’t come with a charging case unfortunately, but it takes around 1.5 hours to reach a full charge. Battery life is advertised at 13 hours, I think it is thereabouts ballpark from my testing, but as per most BT/wireless devices, that is expected to go down with repeated charging cycles, and it also depends on the volume one listens at and perhaps the file type (lossless versus lossy).

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

The NiceHCK HB2 uses the Qualcomm QCC3040 TWS chipset. It has BT 5.2 with support for aptX, SBC and AAC, but unfortunately doesn’t support LDAC or aptX LL/HD.

For the purposes of this review, I paired the NiceHCK HB2 with a range of 15 IEMs. From more power hungry sets like the TRI I3 (contains planars) and the KBEAR BElieve (low sensitivity beryllium driver), to some fussier low impedance/high sensitivity multi driver sets like the Audiosense T800 and TRI Starsea.

Pairings:

• Audiosense T800
• BLON BL-03
• BLON Cardinal
• iBasso CF01
• KBEAR BElieve
• Kinera BD005 Pro
• LZ A7
• Oriveti New Primacy
• Tanchjim Oxygen
• TFZ Tequila
• TRI I3
• TRI Starsea
• Westone 3 (MMCX modded)
• Westone W30
• Whizzer HE01

This device packs quite a lot of juice, and it could power the KBEAR BElieve and TRI I3 with headroom to spare. One thing I would have to nitpick, is that there is some hiss noted with high sensitivity type multi BA IEMs like those mentioned above.

One can mitigate the hiss to some extent by lowering the volume on the NiceHCK HB2, and just jacking up the volume from the BT device you are connected to. Generally the hiss also is not perceived when one is outdoors or when music starts playing anyway.

Dynamics are good on the NiceHCK HB2, there isn’t much loss of the subbass, which is a common occurance in TWS/BT sets. There is some loss of the higher treble, but when one uses BT and wireless stuff on the go and outside,

I think it is quite hard to really notice this. I really liked that the NiceHCK HB2 doesn’t colour the sound much, it just faithfully transmits the sound signature of the attached IEM. So far of the IEMs I’ve paired with it, they all sound the same in terms of general FR as the wired version of these IEMs, though of course wired gear in general tends to have better dynamics, microdetails and technical performance.

COMPARISONS

Even among wireless gear, I generally prefer BT adapters (like the TRN BT20S and TRN BT20), rather than TWS stuff, as I’d like to use my favourite detachable IEMs (with famililar sound signatures) on the go, and hence these BT adapters allow me to reuse the IEM. Plus I think that TWS buds are limited sooner or later by the BT tech or battery life (with repeat charges), so at least the IEM can be kept even if the TWS bud dies/gets outdated.

I’ve the TRN BT20 and TRN BT20S and the iBasso CF01 for these BT adapters. The NiceHCK HB2 sound better than these 3 in terms of sound quality/dynamics and also in terms of connectivity. The iBasso CF01 is more expensive, but comes with a charging case.

I’ve had a few drop outs with the iBasso CF01s and there is a shorter connection distance than the NiceHCK HB2. The iBasso CF01 also only features a MMCX non detachable connector, so that limits the IEM types that can be used with it. The iBasso CF01 has no volume controller as mentioned prior.

CONCLUSIONS

The NiceHCK HB2 is a bluetooth wireless adapter that has a modular MMCX/2 pin connector, this increases pairing options for detachable IEMs. It has great sound quality, good battery life and excellent connectivity.

If a charging case was added, this BT adapter would have been perfect, but as it is, I would recommend this set for those that want the convenience of a wireless connection on the go!

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our earphone reviews HERE.

DISCLAIMER

I bought the NiceHCK HB2 with a discount from the NiceHCK Aliexpress shop: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002848089532.html.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post NiceHCK HB2 Review – Nice, As Per Namesake! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Dirt attractors: need regular washing; can get out of shape and need to be re-shaped in hot water; not for short-nozzles iems; pricey.

Distinctive Features — Best fitting of all eartips I have used; enhances vocals in many earphones.

Executive Summary

The Azla Xelastec are completely unique short-stemmed wide-bore eartips in that they provide the perfect fit through their incredible grip AND move vocals forward in many earphones.

Introduction

Azla is a company out of Korea that offers two earphones, an amplifier, and lots of different silicone eartips. Their most famous product has been the Azla SednaEarFit Original Series, consisting of four models, two of them long-stemmed, two of them short-stemmed, all of them wide-bores.

These are very popular with audio enthusiasts, typically hard to get outside of Asia, and mostly sold out. The designs are based on the analysis of almost 800 ear shapes. All Azla products are manufactured in the Republic of Korea.

Xelastec Design

Azla have recently added the Xelastec eartips to their portfolio, short-stemmed wide-bores made of German Kraiburg TPE different to any other earphone on the market.

TPE is short for Thermoplastic Elastomers, also known as thermoplastic rubbers, a class of copolymers or a physical mix of polymers (usually a plastic and a rubber) that consist of materials with both thermoplastic and elastomeric properties.

The benefit of using thermoplastic elastomers is the ability to stretch to moderate elongations and return to its near original shape creating a longer life and better physical range than other materials [see Wikipedia].

The material is extremely grippy and also extremely deformable. The umbrella moulds perfectly into the shape of one’s ear canal. Fit, hold, seal, and isolation of the Xelastec are therefore perfect.

And when the eartips retain their deformed shape, the original shape can be restored in a bath of warm to hot water (but not too hot; rinsed off with cold water). The TPE is unfortunately a dirt attractor, but can be washed easily with water.

In terms of earphone fit, the short stems require a certain nozzle length. The inner stem diameter of 3.6 mm is stretchable enough to fit standard 4.5 mm nozzles. All Azlas come in 6 different umbrella sizes (see size chart above) to fit any ear canal. Be aware that their sizes are unusual: Azla’s L corresponds to other company’s XL. Check your numbers before ordering.

Sound?

I typically do not give sonic descriptions of eartips, as different designs yield different results depending on earphone and individual ear canal. The Azla Xelastec are somewhat of an exception as they have a tendency to work well with more iems than other makes models in my experience.

I have not found many earphones the Xelastec did not make a difference to the better. Their risk of failure/dissatifaction is smaller, but you pay for it.

In my experience (almost 1 year of testing them), the Xelastec show the biggest improvements with V-shaped sound profiles. They move the vocals forward and therefore, passively, the bass backward, considering the human ear hears the whole frequency spectrum in context. Bass boom was decreased or disappeared altogether.

This worked well for me with the Meze RAI Solo, Shozy Form 1.4, Shozy Form 1.1, Shozy Rouge, and NiceHCK NX7 Mk3, in less so with the KBEAR Believe.

In comparison, the Azla SednaEarfit (Original Series) Light, shortstemmed, boost the bass and move the vocals back in many iems. The difference is substantial.

What KopiOkaya says

Co-blogger Larry Fulton alias KopiOkaya summarizes the main characteristics of the leading third-party eartips in his famous eartips guide, including the Azla Xelastec. His professional opinion is as follows:

Azla SednaEarFit XELASTEC
Bore size: regular
Stem length: regular
Feel: soft, grippy and sticky
Bass: 4.0
Midrange: 5.0
Treble: 3.75
Soundstage: 3.50
Vocal presence: 5.0

The most expensive eartip in my collection. Isolation is impeccable. If you love vocals, THIS IS IT! Vocal presence is extremely 3D. Best of all it doesn’t affect bass and treble. Projects soundstage a bit narrower than regular SednaEarFit.

Concluding Remarks

The Azla Xelastec are probably the best and most versatile eartips on the market – and unfortunately the most expensive. They work well with most earphones and have a higher rate of success “fixing” an iem’s sound than the competition I have tested, particularly when addressing the vocals department. Yes, they are pricey but they need to be in the “tips box” of every audio enthusiast.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Gallery

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The Azla Xelastec eartips were kindly provided by Azla in Gangnam almost a year ago. And I thank them for that.

Get more information from Azla’s Xelastec product page.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Azla SednaEarfit Xelastec Eartips Review – Vocals Enhancer appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Of course, there are other solutions, such as USB galvanic isolators (either electrical or optical) and analog devices such as ADUM-chip based isolators but we are not going there… we shall focus on both iSilencer+ and JitterBug FMJ in this discussion. 

DISCLAIMER: I bought both devices AT FULL RETAIL PRICE with my own money. Thus, my verdicts are not affected or influenced by their manufacturers in any way.

Many folks approach this type of accessory with utmost skepticism. There are a few technical forums that have tested these devices with precision audio analysers proving they do nothing, thus labeling them “snake oil”… We are not going to debate that either.

To me, without actual listening, measurements, diagrams, and graphs tell us nothing about sound. Superior technical performance does not equate to musicality.

Both devices do what they advertised… That is to clean up noise and improve sound.

We shall focus mainly on their SONIC PERFORMANCE. 

Equipment used:

• AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt
• AudioQuest DragonFly Red
• E1DA 9038S G3
• Asus Xonar Essence STU DAC
• Topping E30/L30 stack
• KBEAR BElieve
• Etymotic ER4SR
• TRN MT1 (modded)
• Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon + Foobar2000
• Self-assembled Intel i7/Asus-based desktop PC + Foobar2000
• Redmi Note 9 Pro + UAPP
• Raspberry Pi 4 Model B + Volumio

Both devices are connected at the host end. As Gordon Rankin, designer of JitterBug FMJ, puts it:

“I put the JitterBug at the host side because I want all that EMI/RFI and other BS that the computer is spitting out to stay there and not get to the endpoint.” 

iFi iSilencer+

When I bought the iSilencer+, it was US$10 cheaper than JitterBug FMJ but this has changed since July 2021. Both are priced at US$59.95 now.

iSilencer+ has a plastic housing with a layer of soft rubber-coating. During installation and removal, this housing slides back and forth, which some folks may find annoying.

Compared to JitterBug FMJ, iSilencer+:

• sounds crisp with upper-midrange glare
• more open and airy
• mid-forward but rest of the frequency spectrum are thrown backward
• less bass impact, drab dynamics
• soundstage is one-dimensional
• USB noise reduction not as thorough (just a bit)

AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ

FMJ is the latest JitterBug from AudioQuest. The original had the same circuitry but no shielded enclosure. JitterBug FMJ housing is made of aluminium, feels solid and sturdy. Nothing is loose or wobbly. Size-wise, JitterBug FMJ is thicker and a slightly longer than iSilencer+.

Compared to iSilencer, JitterBug FMJ:

• overall sounds fuller and more 3D
• better dynamics and bass punch
• better depth and instrument separation
• better sense of PRAT
• cleaner, darker background

Out of curiosity and fun, I piggybacked both devices to create the “ultimate USB decrapifier”…

Host > (iSilencer+ / JitterBug FMJ) > Endpoint

Guess what happened? It actually made the sound worse. Everything sounded constricted and bone dry. I also detected slightly lowered volume gain.

So which one do I choose? Well, it depends. Ultimately, it all boils down to synergy. If your equipment is bright and cool-neutral, I suggest you go for JitterBug FMJ. If you own iFi gears, iSilencer+ does improve clarity and make the “iFi sound” less warm (or wooly).

JitterBug FMJ sounds more 3D in comparison, thus instruments and vocals are more distinctive and bodied. iSliencer+ sounds flatter in comparison. Ironically, AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt matches the iSilencer+ better to me. Both devices filter USB VBUS/GND noise. JitterBug FMJ does it more thoroughly than iSilencer+.

Verdict

Since both devices are priced the same, it depends on availability. To many of us living in Southeast Asia, iFi products are more common and widely available. Those living in North America may find AudioQuest products easier to access.

If I have to rate both devices, I will give iFi iSilencer+ a 7 out of 10 and JitterBug FMJ an 8 out of 10. I prefer the synergy JitterBug FMJ gives to my audio gears.

USB filters are nothing new. Both iFi and AudioQuest have been making them for years. Some may find this kind of accessory unnecessary… To me, these are good to have… They DO affect sound and enhance music enjoyment to some extent. Whether or not you believe in their effects, I will leave it up to you to decide.

Contact us!

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

The post iSilencer+ And JitterBug FMJ Review/Comparison – Silence Of The Jitterbug appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Questyle QP1R / Apogee Groove – Final E Clear M-size tips – Linsoul LSC09 cable – Lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Opinions & considerations

Ikko OH10 gets the job done right as I like it. All my sound priorities for this application are indeed there, and very competently carried out:

• significant extention both on low and high end;
• elevated, very fast and strictly unbleeding yet bodied, textured and detailed bass;
• airy, sparkly, detailed but unoffensive trebles;
• high mids “as good as possible”, within all that precedes.

These are the ingredients to cool jazz and bebop for me, Ikko chose high quality ones, and hired a good chef to cook them into the OH10.

Compared to my other preferred driver for the same job – being Shouer Tape – a choice is quite arduous. At the end of the day I am lucky enough not to be forced into that, as I own both.

Shuoer Tape is sharply dryer, “nasty” in the positive sense of the word for once, and right due to that it can scant into getting fatiguing depending on tracks or authors. Ikko OH10 is a wide bit more “elegant”, less naughty definitely, chiseled actually.

Much like Shuoer Tape, Ikko OH10 is also cable-sensitive, especially once paired to some higher end, revealing source like QP1R. Its stock cable (silver plated oxygen free copper) while not horrible makes them sound too thin for my taste. Alternatives I tried based on single crystal copper or high purity copper do add a decisive little bit of fat around mids and highmids, much like adding milk to some teas.

Both OH10 and Tape feature a sensibly elevated bass line, with particular regards to sub-bass. Depending on the jazz performer or sub-genre I might actually prefer a leaner one – in which case I rather choose Tanchjim Oxygen or final A3000.

Ikko OH10 is also somewhat source sensitive: QP1R for one comes out very musical, almost analogue by itself; even more so does Sony NW-A55; Mojo on the opposite stays more on the dry side, which doesn’t “merry well” with Ikko OH10 for my tastes. With Apogee Groove we are in lucky territory as it can properly directly bias Ikko OH10 (Groove/multidrivers direct compatibility is by design not granted), and the pair is wonderful.

A special mention deserves Ikko OH10’s so uncommon weight. When I first took them in my hand I went “oh my… these will be unbearable”. But it ended up not to be so. Their shape helps incredibly well on that respect: their inverted-drop, almost triangular shape fits so well inside my concha that my outer ear sustains their weight in a totally surprising yet firmly comfortable way.

All well considered, a problem will stay on Ikko OH10 and that’s inertial mass: I would not recommend wearing them while running or working out. Luckily I’m a die-hard couch potato so I can totally disregard the issue.

Disclaimers

The Ikko OH10 unit I talked about is my own property, I did not receive them for free nor on loaner basis. You can find them here.

This article also appears on my personal audio blog, here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Ikko OH10 Review (1) – Masterfully Jazzy appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Not only in absolute terms – it is nothing short of an absolutely out-dash-standing device – but in relative ones too: it taught me personally so much for such a low price and effort that even when I outgrow it I will forever stay in debt of a smile and a hug.

And times for back-condescending reminiscence are not even on the horizon at the moment. For the simple reason that I reckon it will take quite some more time for me to have the budget – which I would assess in approximately 1K€ – to invest in a real stack upgrade, vs yet another step in the sidegrade carousel which is what Groove teleported me out of really.

A quick TOC before we start, for those who wouldn’t bother reading “all” my bla-bla (yeah, you’re forgiven):

What’s that?

Apogee Groove is a USB DAC-AMP device.

I’m pretty sure a wide portion of the budget audiophile community have never heard about this, in spite of it being on the market since 2015. Chances are many have never heard of Apogee Electronics Corp. in the first place, indeed.

Apogee is a US-based professional audio equipment designer and manufacturer in business since 1985. They earned their glory (and money) from audio professionals thanks to their patents and products: initially analog filters which would retrofit Sony and other high-end analog devices significantly upgrading their quality, later followed by breakthrough-innovative Digital Audio interfaces. Their target market is musicians, producers, and sound engineers – it’s therefore quite normal their brand is totally off the usual chifi marketing hype circus.

Groove is Apogee’s “entry level” portable DAC-AMP aimed at providing audio pros with an easy-going tool they can carry with them and plug onto their laptops while on the go, delivering a quality which needs to be in-line with Apogee’s higher-end equiment the same customer is supposed to regularly use in their studio. E.g. Apogee Symphony, to name something.

I’m not here for marketing but I find this storytelling video from Apogee’s web site explains superclearly what their intendend positioning is about Groove. (TL;DW: “[Dad, an affirmed musician,] is listening to super-high quality stuff all day every day […] so I bring the Groove, plug it into the laptop, and it feels and sounds as if it was in the studio”)

Getting closer to the actual device: no internal battery, Apogee Groove needs to be connected to a USB host (a PC for example) to even turn on. The USB channel is its only input – both for power and digital data.

“Cmon, cut it. It’s just a dongle!”

Yes and no. Structurally it’s a dongle yes. But it’s bigger, heavier and most of all it absorbs 340mA from the host, which is a lot. It’s therefore technically possible but practically unviable to use a phone, or a tablet, or even a lower end DAP as an easy host / transport. For on-the-go usage a Laptop is reasonably required, or some DIY creativity with a nice battery bank and a tool like iFi iDefender+. But let’s not deviate – for the sake of this article let’s say this is a “hi-power demanding dongle”.

It’s got a single output: 3.5mm single ended phone out. It supports PCM up to 24 bit / 192 KHz, and does not support DSD, nor MQA. Specifications are available here. Some numbers might seem odd at first glance.

“LOL! No MQA, no balanced output. My dongle’s specs are 3 times better, and I can use it for hours on my phone !…”

… Keep reading

As a DAC: just phenomenal

Die-hard measurement freaks may want to take a look here. No, it’s no ASR.

The reconstruction filter is very good, but by far the most important of all those graphs is the frequency response one, which is wonderfuly linear well into the 60KHz range, and that’s why when playing FLACs sampled at 96KHz Apogee Groove delivers clarity and space reconstruction audibly even superior to what it delivers from 44.1KHz data – where performance is nonetheless already a full pair of steps above the usual budget suspects.

Compared to Groove, some other systems (often coming with the not too secondary “feature” of a 10X price tag…) may arguably be even more precisely optimised for 44.1KHz data, but their response drops dramatically rapidly immediately after 20KHz (e.g., Hugo).

Enough graphs. Let’s audition.

Starting from the most evident part: Apogee Groove draws on space in a totally stunning way. Yes, already at 44.1KHz – and even more mesmerisingly at higher sampling rates.

Never heard something like that before, and I yet have to hear anything really similar let alone better. Spatial reconstruction is nothing less than phenomenal out of the box, and that, and imaging, are easily better than what I can hear from Chord Mojo, iFi nano iDSD BL, iFi Micro iDSD Signature, as well as Questyle QP1R, Lotoo Paw 6000 and Gold Touch – when considering their DAC performances. Groove is really one class above. At least one.

Apogee Groove’s DAC also delivers high end detail, texture, openness and intonation. All other DACs I heard as of yet barred none offer a paler representation of instrument textures. Some may have a blacker background (e.g. Micro iDSD Sig), or can offer higher sharpness on high end details (e.g. Mojo), but most if not all the alternatives I heard are fundamentally duller (in comparison) and/or smear on detail and/or miss out on that unique, incredibly well calibrated “suspense factor” Groove puts in transients.

Summarising: Apogee Groove delivers a totally unique dimensional feel to the sonic images. It’s technical, but musical. Controlled, but emotional.

Compared to mid-tier competition Apogee Groove’s DAC wins easy, and big. By just casually plugging it in and listening the difference it totally obvious.

Its DAC tuning quality taken per se is actually at an even higher level than its price would suggest when compared to professional tier alternatives, but in that case Apogee Groove’s small physical size starts to represent an issue as it makes it technically impossible to pack high level of power filtering inside, or a separate, cleaner powering line, like it can be found on superior systems (Holo May, Schiit Yggdrasil…).

The little kid can be belped a bit though, and per my experience it’s big time worth doing it, as its performances furtherly improve and significantly so:

• privilege a Linux distro + a technical, lightweight music player, or an Android box + UAPP, over a generic Windows or Mac system;
• filter out and/or divert the VBUS power line into a cleaner source;
• manage grounding issues and rebalance DC;
• reclock / regen the USB signal;
• etc

On my #1 desktop stack Apogee Groove is USB-connected to the laptop host and powered via an iFi Nano iUSB3.0 (my take on that here) + an Uptone USPCB. The difference vs plugging directly onto the host is totally evident: voicing is furtherly open, detailed, imaged. I’ll soon finalise my switch from the laptop onto a Linux based box to furtherly improve the upstream quality (iUSB3 is a nice filter, but it’s always better having less dirt to filter out in the first place isn’t it).

Surely, additional infrastructural elements as a better PS, some competent USB reclocker etc will add to the total cost. Again, if the comparison reference is mainstream chifi DAC or DAC-AMP none of that is needed: Apogee Groove will run circles around those “as-is”. Integrating Apogee Groove with additional infrastructural elements serves the purpose of making it “clinge to” much upper-tier (i.e. way more expensive alternatives).

As an AMP: here’s where it gets tricky

First time I plugged my E4000 into Groove I had a sort of jaw-dropping reaction. That was unlike any other source I ever tried. Most of this was surely coming from Groove’s DAC capacities, but how much did the AMP part contribute on that?

What I did was of course trying to plug all amps I had, or I could get (on loaner for reviews, from friends… I won’t make a list here) downstream and try and find differences. Basically: not a single sub 200$ amplifier I tried on there made Groove’s native output into E4000 better. Most of them (as a matter of facts: all of them except just one) reduced dynamics, made stage smaller or flatter, or compressed the range – read: they are less clean.

My amp sensei taught me that “amps don’t add to dacs – they can only take away, if they are not clean enough”.

The key amp job is leaving a DAC’s voice unmodified while properly feeding the load the odd way it sometimes requires – otherwise it will be the load i.e. the headphone/IEM to ruin the DAC’s work in its turn.

My first E4000-based test was simply telling me that Groove’s built-in amp stage is (sometimes dramatically) cleaner than all external amps I have at hand, while at the same time capable enough to optimally bias its transducers.

Why did this happen? And will this be “always” the case?

Apogee Groove’s amp stage uses a current gain IC in its main circuit and according to Apogee the whole amp shapes the current waveform, aiming at keeping that stable, unlike what traditional amps do, which is shaping the voltage waveform instead.

They call it Constant Current Drive^tm technology, and – to paraphrase Steve Jobs – “boy did they patent it !”. They are not even keen on talking or explaining its details – it’s indeed “not so clear” how exactly Apogee Groove does what it actually does.

Be as it may, Groove’s output promises to sound very coherent in virtually all supported situations, no matter how “restless” the load impedance is.

Another quite surprising feature is Apogee Groove’s uncommonly high output impedance: 20 Ohm.

Such is welcome of course when plugging high impedance cans, while it is in general a serious hurdle when pairing lower impedance earphones or IEMs, which would “sound bad” in such situation. Groove offers you to forget the “8X impedance rule”.

Summarising: Apogee Groove won’t incur into FR-skewing effect when driving low impedance loads, or higher impedance ones featuring wild impedance swings (HD800, anyone?).

“Wow. So… Groove is the ultimate amp, all good, all fantastic?”

No. Groove’s amp stage has two quite significant limitations, and a third partial one.

First: depending on load requirements Apogee Groove may, and will, lack power.

Apogee Groove takes power from the USB2 line (supports USB3 if need be), and more precisely absorbs a maximum of 340mA from there, while on the output side it delivers 40mW and a bit more than 5V (!!) into 600 Ohm.

With that, beasts like HD800 (300 Ohm 102 dB), or HD650 (300 Ohm, 103 dB) will be perfectly supported as they welcome / require as high voltage as possible – and 5V starts to be “a pretty bit” – but absorb very little current, and Apogee Groove’s unique capability to cope with wide load impedance swings does the rest.

On the flip side, Groove falls short when paired with the like of Shure SRH1540. That’s because relatively low impedance & low sensitivity headphones require little voltage but a lot of current, and Groove simply won’t have enough (like all of its direct competitors by the way, but that’s another story).

Second: Apogee Groove won’t support all crossover setups.

In Apogee’s own words: “Apogee does not recommend the Apogee Groove for use with multi-driver balanced armature in-ear monitors. Due to the design of the balanced armature drivers and crossover networks used in this type of headphone, the Groove’s Constant Current Drive amplifier technology may result in uneven frequency response when used with certain models.”

Apogee Groove’s very technology aimed at automatically compensating for impedance mismatches and misalignments is at the origin of this (a crossover filter is working on capacitive components!…).

No harm to the circuits will happen when trying, they will just sound “bad”, not coherent. Shuoer Tape, Oriveti OH500 are examples.

Luckily, not all multidriver IEMs include filters: final B1 and B3 for example do not – and in facts are perfectly supported by Apogee Groove, as the disclaimer does not even apply to them in the first place really.

And even more luckily, to my direct experience a few crossover-equipped multidrivers do nonetheless work properly even on Apogee Groove’s unique amp stage: Ikko OH10, KBear Lark, Intime Sora 2 are all examples of this.

However the main message stands: for multidriver IEMs we can’t rely on Groove’s internal amp stage. Apogee told us crystal clear their technology doesn’t take responsibility for this.

The main way around the issue in employing a separate downstream amplifier of course. Again, be ready to spend some money for it to avoid depleting on other aspects of the output.

What also in some case works is adding an impedance adapter on Groove’s output. I am not 100% sure as to “why” exactly this works but it does. I suspect in such case Groove “sees” a stable full-resistive load, and does not engage in trying to compensate impedance variations.

Third and last: odd limitations on some (few) specific drivers.

Groove’s technology allowing for “8X rule disregard” does work like magic… almost always.

To just toss some examples, I auditioned final E3000, A3000 and E4000, or Tanchjim Oxygen on “quite a few” (!) sources.

If I consider mobile / transportable devices (DAPs, DAC/AMPs), Apogee Groove beats them all on DAC performance grounds, and is the best overall source (i.e., including the AMP stage) with the sole possible exception of Lotoo Paw Gold Touch (but it’s debateable, really). Which is twice as suriprising if I consider Groove’s native output impedance. Virtually impossible is also to find a better alternative looking amongst desktop class devices, but that’s logical as those are primarily designed for overears – typically requiring optimal voltage vs current modulation.

On the other hand, drivers like Koss KPH30i (60 Ohm 101 dB) paired to Apogee Groove present a very modest yet audible mid-bass bump – typical of an impedance mismatch situation. And in facts applying an impedance adapter (e.g. an iFi iEMatch, or equivalent) solves the problem.

Why exactly Apogee Groove can “perfectly manage” even lower impedance drivers, and doesn’t entirely support KPH30i is frankly still obscure to me. May be some specialty on KPH30i tuning? Difficult for me to say.

I might mention another “imperfect support” example, which is final E5000. But my extended experience with those taught me it’s them to be enigmatic. It’s simply not honest to take them as a benchmark for a source “normality” – if something, the other way around indeed!

At-a-glance Card

Conclusion

Besides simply “sounding incredibly better” than anything I had tried before, from the day I got it Apogee Groove has been extremely educational for me as it represented my affordable opportunity to hear and understand superior-tier sound quality.

There’s no going back for me: lower quality reconstruction filters, lack of spatial depth, and fuzzy or at best approximate imaging and layering are something I just don’t have a single reason to bear anymore.

As I tried to describe, there ain’t such thing as a Graal. Apogee Groove, too, has its limits. No direct DSD support is one, and USB2 (24 bit 192 KHz) maximum PCM resolution is another. It also lacks MQA support but that’s never been nor will be any of my concern. Also, the need to “help out” its built-in amp stage to cope with some specific loads turned out to be less of an issue for me than it appeared initially (ymmv).

Anyhow, Groove is so good that not only I adopted it as my core infrastructure on both my home stacks (yes, I bought a second unit after the first) but I even started modulating the rest of my gear relative to it, instead of the other way around. This is fundamentally due to budget restrictions: an headphone amplifier which is “clean enough” to hold true to Groove’s output, while offering appropriate power modulation for this or that driver which is not perfectly biased by Groove directly is no toy.

So I started to reason as follows: does a driver I like work perfectly on Groove? Does it even scale up with Groove? It’s a keeper! Does it not? Better be a really outstanding piece of gear! E.g.: SRH1540 – those are so good as to justify an adequate amp stage just for them, even if it’ll end up costing no way less than 350$ (eyeing a Jotunheim 2 as a minimum acceptable quality stadard at the moment).

That’s what I mean for “game change”: Apogee Groove flipped my perspective.

This is actually a general concept indeed, and a general recommendation. Who is keen on getting the best sound quality into his ears often gives priority to drivers (headphones / IEMs – it seems logical as they are the bits producing the actual sound, right?), then AMPs (as they are those supposed to “feed” the drivers well), keeping DACs last, and not even considering where does digital music come from (the player, a.k.a. “transport”).

The above paradigm is totally wrong. DAC first. Always. The DAC is the voice. Amping me as I sing totally off-key is pointless believe me. Same with a crappy DAC. Get a good DAC. The best your budget can buy. At the same time, make sure the DAC isn’t sent too much crap (i.e. spend money on the transport). Only then you are ready to define your budget for an AMP, and finally you will know which drivers you can choose.

I didn’t mention Groove’s price. Guess. Then open the last spoiler.

Even factoring the extra cost in for an iEMatch to keep at hand and use for this or that odd-behaving IEM – which I learnt is needed with just about any desktop-class amp anyway – I solidly put Groove’s price in no-brainer territory for the quality it delivers.

Final disclaimer: My Groove devices are my own property since day one, have not been supplied as loaners or any other sampling form.

This article also appears on my personal audio site, here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Apogee Groove Review – Changing The Budget Game For Good (since 2015) appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Curiously, neither of us seem to like it very much—notes have an artificially lean texture and high end sounds metallic—it’s the sonic equivalent of a meal at a high-end restaurant which is well-prepared using high-quality ingredients, but just doesn’t taste that good. KBear’s cheaper offerings like the KB04 and (esp.) the Diamond are less “refined”, and present a less detailed high-end, but are viscerally more satisfying, not to mention considerably cheaper.

Ç’est la guerre.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: pure beryllium diaphragm dynamic
Impedance: 17 Ω
Sensitivity: 98 dB/mW [neutral amplification needed]
Frequency Range: 20 – 20,000 Hz
Cable/Connector: 4 strands of 6N single crystal copper/2 pin 0.78 mm
Tested at: $159

DISCLAIMER

The KBEAR Believe was provided unsolicited to Jürgen by KBEAR Official Store for our analyses and we thank them for that.

Get the Believe from KBEAR Official Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Contact us!

The post KBEAR Believe Review (4) – Random Thoughts appeared first on Audio Reviews.

With this question I approached an ifi nano iDSD BL USB DAC-AMP, and this article is about how it went for me.

Input

nano iDSD BL is a USB DAC-AMP, and more precisely USB is its sole input. No SPDIF digital input option, nor analogue inputs or any kind by that matter (aka: the device can’t be used as a mere amp).

Like all USB DAC-AMPs it can be plugged onto just about any USB-capable source such as a PC a Laptop a phone or a tablet, and it will be “seen” as an audio card. Full Windows 10 support requires a driver, which is freely downloadable from ifi’s site.

Nano iDSD BL’s USB 2.0 digital input connector is quite uncommon: it’s actually a USB A male installed in a recess of the chassis’ back panel. Due to that, the cable to connect to the nano iDSD BL needs to have a Female (!) USB A termination on the device end, in lieu of the usual Male one.

A few USB OTG cables with different terminations are bundled within the package. (Ah by the way… if you don’t know what OTG technically means, read here. You might discover why that otherwise good cable of yours refuses to work with your phone…)

• USB-A Female to USB3.0-A Male, 1m long, usually good to connect to a PC
• USB-A Female to USB-C Male, 15cm long, good to connect to a PC or a phone or other transports
• USB-A Female to USB-B Female, 15cm long
• USB-A Female to USB-B Female adapter (same as above, but no short cable in the middle)

No Apple cable is supplied – Lightning or 30-pin – so that’ll have to be purchased separately if needed. Neither is a micro-USB adapter (or cable) supplied, useful to hook onto non last-gen phones and tablets.

Boring cabling apart, something of paramount importance is behind the USB input port: nano iDSD BL incorporates most of the features offered by ifi iPurifier3, the company’s standalone USB “cleanser” which takes care of reclocking, rebalancing and regenerating the USB signal on the fly.

Especially when connecting to noisy hosts like a PC or a Laptop the sound quality improvement is totally apparent and, at least in my experience, the sole reason not to employ an iPurifier3, a galvanic separator, and a cleaner power supply on the input gates of a good DAC is their relatively high cost – which indeed in the case of a budget DAC can easily exceed its price… even a few times over.

According to nano iDSD BL literature and some answers I got from their tech people, the device includes the same REBalancer as the original iPurifier, together with some additional USB buffering circuitry (market-named “Zero Jitter”) which pursues the same ends of the REClocking part inside iPurifier3. Considering an iPurifier3 is separately sold for € 130+, including many of its functionalities inside the nano iDSD BL (€ 230-ish) is a great value proposition.

Outputs

On the output side, nano iDSD BL has 3 ports: two 3.5mm females are on the front panel, one labelled “Direct” the other “iEMatch”, and the third one – on the back panel – is a 3.5mm Line Out.

The font panel “Direct” port unassumingly presents itself like just any single-ended analogue output port, and indeed it does work as such when you plug a 3.5mm single-ended terminated IEM or Headphone cable on it.

Direct output specs are quite interesting:

• Output impedance is nicely lower than 1 Ω
• Supported load impedances range from 15 Ω to a whopping 600 Ω – an uncommonly extended range on this price bracket, especially on the high end.
• Output power is not bad: 20mW (> 3.5V) @ 600 Ω load, 285mW (> 2.9V) @ 30 Ω load and 200mW (> 1.7V) @ 15 Ω Load.
• The declared system dynamic range is > 109dB (@3V) and THD+N is listed as <0.005% (-86dB).

While both latest values are not particularly impressive, they are definitely in-line with the product price bracket and it’s also worth noting that thanks to the above-mentioned built-in “purification” features nano iDSD BL will do its job on an “apriori less noisy” digital signal. This made me expect better results than what printed numbers say and as I’ll report later I was kinda right.

Two very important additional things are now to be noted about output.

First: the iEMatch port.

Inside nano iDSD BL ifi put a modified iEMatch circuit, offering non user-selectable -16dB attenuation and 4Ω output impedance. Is it as effective as the standalone version? Let’s see:

1. As for reducing noise floor (hiss) audibility on extra sensitive IEMs the benefit is entirely there: -16dB is quite bearable attenuation vs nano iDSD BL’s max power so yes it’s well calibrated, it works big time. Indeed, I just recently used it to tame hiss from possibly the “hissiest” IEM I ever auditioned: TRN BA8 – which I wrote about here.
2. As for maximising resolution connected with digital-domain volume control : no, you don’t get that from nano iDSD BL’s iEMatch port… for the simple reason that nano iDSD BL already has analogue volume control (a feature normally implemented on higher tier models). iEMatch can’t “fix” what is not broke in the first place
3. As, finally, for impedance matching… well, I have my doubts here. 4Ω output impedance is… if you ask me not low at all when it comes to managing extra-low (<16Ω) impedance IEMs, and anyhow it’s more than 4 times higher than the Direct port’s own impedance, declared at <1Ω. Penon Sphere (6 Ω) does in fact sound more open, un-veiled and simply “better” on the Direct port vs. on the iEMatch port.

Synthetically: nano iDSD BL’s “iEMatch output port” is nice to have, although just for reducing / removing hiss from too-sensitive IEMs.

Second: S-Balanced wiring.

Many non-entry-level budget-tier balanced-scheme source devices offer both headphone output options, via two separate ports: one for balance-ended cables, the other for single-ended cables.

Ifi adopted a smart in-between option called “S-Balanced” (short for “Single-ended compatible Balanced”). Refer to their own whitepaper for a nice technical description. It is included in ifi Pro iCAN, xCAN, xDSD and nano iDSD BL.

As a consequence, instead of the usual dual separated output ports on the chassis, a cabling scheme is put in place behind the 3.5mm phone port on nano iDSD BL :

• When plugging 3.5mm TRS plugs – aka the ordinary 3.5 male connectors found at the end of 99.9% budget fixed-cable IEMs, and modular single-ended cables alike – the port delivers “normal” single-ended output. All single ended drivers on the market will seemlessly work in there. In addition to that, thanks to how internal cabling is designed, they will also get 50% reduced crosstalk – for free.
• When plugging 3.5mm TRRS plugs, aka “Hifiman 3.5mm standard” (see here) – the port delivers full “balanced-ended” output to balanced-cabled drivers, resulting in quite apparently cleaner and more dynamic sound.
  3.5mm TRRS termination is very uncommon on today’s balanced IEMs and Headphones, so I needed to procure myself an adapter to exploit that (and you won’t be lucky enough to already have one in your drawer either, I’m afraid).

This is nice as it delivers full balanced-ended quality, and even improves single-ended quality a little bit, while keeping full backwards compatibility, all without requiring further faceplate space for an extra female connector.

Add that such dual-standard “trick” is applied both behind the Direct and the iEMatch port, too !

On the flip side, I find it odd that no 3.5 TRRS adapter is included inside nano iDSD BL’s box. Ok maybe I shouldn’t expect one to be bundled for free, but why none is available as an orderable SKU# from ifi ?

Other features

Nano iDSD BL supports a wide range of digital input formats and moreover resolutions: DSD up to 256, PCM up to 384KHz and – drumroll here – MQA up to 192KHz.

I’m not at all interested into MQA so I’m not going to assess that – and even if I did I would have zero comparative experience to rely on.

On the back panel a small switch also allows the user to choose between two filters labelled “Listen” and “Measure”. The Listen option enables a Minimum Phase bezier filter, while the Measure option switches to a Linear Phase Transient-Aligned filter.

The topic may become too technical but let me try to simplify: a Minimum Phase filter makes sound “behave” more closely to our human auditory system – which is incapable of perceiving vibrations before an impulse, and tends to like when those following it over time are smoother – and is therefore by many called “more musical”. A Linear Phase filter yields a little bit edgier notes, which is indeed preferred by a population of listeners, but most of all comes handy when submitting the device to sampling and measuring, hence its given label name (“Measure”).

One more very important note is deserved about available firmware versions and their differences.

When I acquired it, my nano iDSD BL unit carried the latest available fw, version 5.3c. I looked into possible firmware variations and I found something quite interesting, as follows:

As you can read on ifi’s PDF paper linked above, Gibb’s Transient Optimised (GTO) filter is supposed to be an upgrade to the previous Minimum Phase Filter. There’s much more to it, read the paper

Long story short again: by downgrading from 5.3c to 5.3, thus going back to the “original” Minimum and Linear Phase filters and their upsampling algorithms I perceive a distinct sound output improvement! May be a matter of tastes of course, or maybe related to the GTO upsampling being less refined (yet) than its predecessors. Be as it may, to me it sounds better, and I settled to 5.3.

Lastly, the form factor is not “ultrasmall” nor “ultrathin” but it stays very easily transportable, and pocketable – at least in terms of coat pockets. With a little intention it can be “paired” with another device, also exploiting the 2 rubber bands found in the box. Weight is also quite light (139g) and the 1200mAh battery offers up to 10h of theoretical life, which I could test down to 7-8hrs max which is good in its class.

How does it sound…

After all these structural descriptions it’s finally time to go back to the prologue and assess how this light (also quite money-wise) device performs in terms of sound output.

…as a DAC-AMP ?

Much like in virtually all other cases I encountered, true-balanced output is better than single ended on nano iDSD BL too. Once the 3.5 trrs adapter riddle gets sorted, using nano iDSD BL’s true-balanced features is a strong recommendation: soundstage, imaging and most of all dynamics get significantly better.

Even on its balanced Direct output nano iDSD BL’s general tonality is warm, and timbre is dark-ish. Bass is well bodied in positive, yet relatively slow in negative, this predominantly resulting in some bleeding into the mids. Trebles lack some sparkle, not a masterpiece but better than the bass. Range extension is by-laterally, deifinitely on par with devices on this price bracket at least as far as my experience goes. Soundstage and imaging are on the average mark for the price.

…as a DAC, with another AMP ?

Nano iDSD BL’s Line Out port offers surprising better quality.

Plugging the amazing little amp that I use as my “hyperportable transparency reference” (iBasso T3) in, nano iDSD BL’s sound presentation changes dramatically: “darkness” goes away and the general timbre becomes definitely neutral, tonality keeps a modest, possibly welcome warmth, treble suddenly becomes airy and unoffensively sparkly. Clarity goes up 2 notches, soundstage gets airier, separation gets much better too. By the way: T3 is single-ended only!

So putting it simply: nano iDSD BL internal amp does not seem to offer justice to the quality of its dac, which in facts seems capable to kick much above its weight.

…(unfairly) compared to the Mojo ?

I started the day asking myself if this device could hold a candle to Mojo sound-wise though. How about that? Simply put: as a standalone unit the answer is “not by a mile”, while as a DAC to be complemented by a decent (or even good, why not) external amp the score changes quite a bit.

Compared to nano iDSD BL’s Direct full-balanced output Mojo’s output wins hands down an all counts: bilateral extension, bass and treble control, clarity, soundstage, imaging. It simply partakes to a higher class, full stop.

Escaping from nano iDSD BL’s internal amp via the LO port, and adopting an even inexpensive amp as the above mentioned iBasso T3, the gap reduces big time. Mojo still wins by definition, extension and its outstanding (unique in its bracket, possibly) capacity to manage background voices with incredible clarity, but the timbres and tonalities become at least comparable, in the same ballpark so to say.

…or vs to other “more in-line” alternatives ?

Ok nano iDSD BL is not a Mojo. Where does it stand then ?

Let’s run another head to head comparison: Fiio BTR5 DAC/AMP.

The two devices are apriori not really equivalent in terms of intended use, and features: BTR5 is indeed marketed as a BT DAC-AMP for IEMs mainly, with some complimentary USB connectivity but that’s all, nano iDSD BL as an easily portable USB device supporting MQA, higher DSD and PCM resolutions, and high impedance cans. Still, BTR5 gained vast market appreciation in terms of high-sound-quality-for-its-price, and being its price roughly 40% less than nano iDSD BL’s I’m stimulated to compare the two, using BTR5 as a USB device in this case of course.

Compared to nano iDSD BL, BTR5 bass is less bodied (but also less bleeding), mids and highmids come up much less controlled, grainy, and raising volume makes them edge quite quickly. Stage on BTR5 is evidently narrower, imaging is more congested, instruments come accross less defined and separated. BTR5’s dynamics, while not bad per se, are also a notch below nano iDSD BL’s.

Such comparison refers to both devices’ balanced outputs by the way, using a pair of TIN T4 as IEMs.

Let me try another comparison I have at easy hand: my ol’ Fiio X3 mk-III.

I find it interesting as a comparison as I’ll be using X3 as a standalone device, not connected to my PC and therefore apriori unaffected by USB noise. As X3’s balanced output is – as an exception to what commonly happens – not really better then its single ended one, I’ll run this comparison on both devices’ single ended channels for a change. I’ll use a pair of final E1000 as supremely neutral drivers.

X3 comes out as a further bit warmer (nano iDSD BL’s SE already being such), and its trebles are even less extended – which on the up side makes it nigh-impossible to make X3 go edgy let alone screamy. X3’s soundstage is also a bit less extended, imaging is on par. Simply put: the two devices’ single ended phone out are definitely comparable in terms of overall quality.

Now let’s compare the two devices’ Line Outs – always with the help of my iBasso T3.

X3’s tonality stays almost unmodified, trebles become just a little bit edgier but it’s a nuance; soundstage, imaging and separation get better.

On the other hand, as previously noted, nano iDSD BL gets much better when its LO is exploited: bass is cleaner and faster, bleeding is very modest, treble still unextended but much airier, detailed and engaging, soundstage and separation get 2 notches up.

Winding down

Alas!… ifi nano iDSD BL does not sound on par with Mojo, costing 2.5X more. Is it really a problem? Of course not.

Its phone output quality, especially on the full-balanced side, is in line with its price bracket, and offers the significant extra advantage of the built-in iEMatch circuitry proving decisive to cope with extrasensitive IEMs hiss, paired with direct support – and enough muscle power – for 600 Ohm headphone on the opposite end.

Its DAC – taken alone – is more than good, I’d call it outstanding actually. Its reconstruction quality is not so easy to find at this price in a semi-pocketable device. Those – like me – who want to pull the max out of nano iDSD BL in terms of sound quality will pair it with a portable amp, and will get a very significant device for a quite affordable overall price.

At-a-glance card

A final, quick PS: the unit I am talking about is my own property, it has not been provided as a review unit.

Contact us!

The post iFi Audio nano iDSD BL – A nano Mojo? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Soundwise, the SONY WF-1000XM3 present a sort of reverse-L signature, with boosted subwoofer-type bass which retains pretty good definition despite a tendency to sound a bit boomy; the low end does tend to dominate the proceeding although it doesn’t smear or bleed into the higher frequencies. As with the over-ears, the SONY WF-1000XM3 has a warm tonality with a rich note texture and a wide soundstage, albeit with limited height and depth; well-placed performers sound like they’re playing in a large, low-ceilinged hall. Mids are full-bodied and clear, while high end is smooth, with limited extension—these are clearly tuned to avoid harshness and grain, such that some microdetail and sheen is missing on cymbals and acoustic guitar strings.  (Note that some have complained about the lack of AptX and LDAC codecs). I found these very listenable overall—less detailed but also beefier and less-compressed sounding than the Galaxy Buds +. Purely on sonic merits, I still prefer the Cambridge Melomania, which offers the same warm, analogue quality but better-integrated bass and a bit more sparkle. Comparison to the Liberty Pro 2 is closer—the Sony has a more natural timbre, while the Pro 2 has better-behaved, less obtrusive bass and more high-end extension.  However, neither holds up to good comparably-priced wired IEMs like the Shozy Form 1.4 or the KBear Believe, which have a significantly higher level of resolution and present more information and nuance.

At the end of the day, I’d rate these as a very good example of the TWS genre, which is to say they’re very well designed, work well for calls and media, and more than serviceable for non-critical music listening. Especially if noise cancellation is a priority, these are easy to recommend.

Disclaimer: borrowed from Durwood, who bought ‘em with his own hard-earned trust funds. 

Contact us!

The post SONY WF-1000XM3 True Wireless Earphones Review – Good Enough appeared first on Audio Reviews.