NICEHCK BRO Review – A Smooth Ride In The Budget Segment
Pros — Coherent, fluid musical performance with a natural sound; lots of accessories; great value.
Cons — Prone to sibilance in suboptimal recordings.
category. The only downside is its inclination to sibilance. The BRO features an exchangeable MMCX cable. Overall, it is a good earphone and excellent value for money. It can be purchased only from the NICEHCK store: https://goo.gl/4n8Ls6
DISCLAIMER
I was asked by Jim NICEHCK to review this earphone and purchased it for $0.10 from the NICEHCK store. The regular price of this configuration (silver-plated cable; no remote) was $24 at the time. I was further asked to link to the product: https://goo.gl/4n8Ls6 .That’s it.
As always, I test earphones with a cross section of music that provides a broad coverage of the frequency spectrum, including naturally generated sounds such a voices and classical instruments. To me, as a rule of thumb (and first approximation), the value of an earphone is correlated with the quality of voice reproduction.
INTRODUCTION
The BRO was originally released in 2017, and at the time of this review, was enjoying considerable appreciation as a good-sounding earphone at a low price. The model was updated in 2018 with new colours but it remained technically identical to the original according to Jim NICEHCK. It is claimed by some that the BRO shares hardware with the higher-priced and less-accessorized BGVP SGZ-DN1 but the question remains whether the tuning is identical between them.
SPECIFICATIONS
- Product Name: NICEHCK BRO hybrid in-ear earphone
- Brand: NICEHCK
- Model: BRO
- Drivers:1DD + 1BA driver
- Impedance: 16Ω
- Earphone sensitivity: 108±3dB
- Frequency range: 20-30000Hz
- Weight: 15g
- Interface Type: MMCX Interface
- Price: $21 to $24 (according to cable configuration) Product
- Link: https://goo.gl/4n8Ls6
PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES
The plain white box contains two sets of rubber earpieces in each standard size (S, M, L), a pair of foam tips cable, one pair of earhooks, and a shirt clip. Another pair of medium-sized tips comes on the earpieces. Everything you need, except perhaps a case.
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY
The earpieces are made of plastic, the faceplate is translucent and the main body is transparent, allowing a view into the interior. The plastic is as good as you expect at this price and the glueing is just fine. The included “upgrade” cable is in the $7-8 class (estimated) and also ok.
ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT
The earpieces are rather small and should therefore fit even smaller ears quite well. In terms of cable which is worn over-ear, you have the option to “stiffen it up” around the ears with the included earhooks. The earphones didn’t bleed into the neighbouring bed at night, and they worked quite well on a noisy city bus.
SOURCE AND EARTIPS
I used the iPhone 5S with or without the audioquest dragonfly 1.5 black. The large included tips were too small for my ear canals. I used my standard third party ones.
TONALITY
The strength or this earphone is its overall tonal coherence without harshness, piercing treble, thumping bass etc. All departments (bass, mids, treble) harmonize very well so that there is not a single weak point, other than some sibilance in mediocre recordings. A smooth, fluid ride that gets even better when connecting the audioquest dragonfly dac/amp to my iphone 5S (the “fly” has a lower output impedance than the iPhone).
The sound is slightly warm leaning towards neutral. Classical string and wind instruments as well as vocals are surprisingly naturally reproduced. The Bass is not overly extended, robust, and reasonably well focussed, it does not affect the mids in any way, and it tightens nicely with the dragonfly connected. The mids are refreshingly forward and would be my deal sealer. And the highs are pleasant and well resolving. Soundstage width is upper average, it is wider than deep and relatively accurate; resolution, imaging, layering, and instrument separation are very good. Unexpectedly good!
This sonic homogeneity and fluidity works well for Max Bruch’s Romance and Motörhead alike. A good allrounder which I used fatigue-free for hours at a time.
SELECT COMPARISONS
I don’t think any detailed comparisons are necessary considering the BRO’s moderate price measured against its overall very balanced and even performance. I have yet to find an earphone in this category that performs “better”…although I don’t know all competitors. My similar looking, warmer and quite decent sounding KZ ZST (PRO; $15–20), for example, has a noticeably softer yet stronger bass and a narrower stage.
The NICEHCK BRO comes in some situations close to my UE900S benchmark ($399; $179 on sale) in terms of resolution and tonal accuracy. Being slightly more coloured and “adrenalized” in contrast to the UE900S, the latter sounds somewhat more forward with more accurate instrument placement and
layering – but not as much as the price difference would imply. And the UE900S has the considerably drier and faster bass and a generally more natural timbre.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The NICEHCK BRO is a good performer without any obvious weakness at a moderate price – and “good performer” means independent of price in this case. It shines particularly at more sophisticated music with many competing instruments such as classical or jazz: reproduction that benefits from a natural timbre, an accurate soundstage, and good resolution and instrument placement. But the BRO also rocks the casbah if desired – and it does that very well, too.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Comparison with the UE900S is loosely based on discussion with loomisjohnson.
