The DC-05 also claims “Time Domain Jitter Eliminator and HyperStream III Architecture” to reduce signal noise and distortion, and I did find it to be extremely quiet and hiss-free. Finally, and most critically, it has substantially above-average driving power and pairs much better with planars and lower-efficiency IEMs than its cheaper rivals. It does run warm, but doesn’t seem to be a battery hog.

Said driving power really defines the DC-05’s sonic character—it has a rich, slightly warm tone which deepens the low end and makes drums and percussion sound larger-than-life, all of which has the effect of enlivening poorer recordings and lower-quality files.

High end is a bit smoothed over and some high-level details are missing; on better recordings, the DC-05 can sound a bit blunt, albeit never shrill or peaky.  The dirt-cheap Conexant CX31993 actually sounds more transparent and less colored than the DC-05, but significantly trails the DC-05’s dynamic slam and bass control.

Fairly compared to a price peer like the ($70) Hidisz S-3 (which on its own terms is quite energetic and bassy), the DC-05 sounds deeper, louder and fuller, while the more analog-sounding S-3 is truer-to-source and presents more high-end resolution.  The S-3 also places more air between instruments. I preferred the brawnier DC-05 for rock and the more nuanced S-3 for jazz and acoustic fare.

Moving up the foodchain to the $110 Cozoy Takt-C gives you a more neutral presentation, with much less bass boost and more treble detail, although the DC-05 worked better and sounded less reserved and more impactful with less efficient (>150 Ohm) buds and cans.

Ultimately, I probably wouldn’t be content with the DC-05 as my only dongle, as less adrenalized pieces pair better with certain sources and genres. That said, it is a step up from entry-level and the point at which diminishing returns starts to kick in. Recommended.

Non-disclaimer: bought it myself

Specifications iBasso DC-05

Contact us!

The post iBasso DC-05 DAC/Amp Review – Something Wicked This Way Comes appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Features and description

Externals

IKKO ITM01 is more or less the size of 2 AA batteries, a bit thinner than those, and much lighter in weight. It’s actually small and lightweight enough not to represent a significant burden to a smartphone once connected to its USB-C port.

The chassis is plastic, and its black satin finish is quite prone to scrathes, besides feeling not particularly resistant vs possible traumatic compressions or such. Still, perfectly adequate to normal daily use including quick pocketing/unpocketing during communing etc.

Internals

IKKO declares that ITM01 is developed around an ESS custom chip codenamed ESS9298 featuring low noise and high current output. I couldn’t find better specifications by searching on Esstech websites or around, sadly.

Face value specs are interesting, as the chip can accept out to 32bit / 384KHz PCM and up to DSD 128. No MQA support is offered though.

Output power is declared at 2V (125mW) @ 32 Ohm load, but with the big (positive) caveat represented by an adaptive gain to properly support more demanding loads – more on this later.

Input

Only digital input over USB is allowed into ITM01, with the specialty represented by a priorietary magnetic cable connector.

Unlike most competitors, the USB connector on IKKO ITM01 main body follows a special design encompassing a magnetized connector offering very quick disconnection capabilities while keeping extremely firm and solid connectivity while the plug is in place.

Among the advantages of the proprietary magnetic connectors is system resilience in case someone inadvertedly pulls the earphone cable: the magnetic plug will be “weak enough” in such case as to get disconnected rapidly, avoiding mechanical stress on other parts of the line.

IKKO ITM01 ships equipped with 2 replaceable short cables, one ending in a USB-A plug, the other in a USB-C plug. An Apple Lightning plug option is also available and can be separately purchased.

Output

The sole output port available on ITM01 is a 3.5mm single ended audio connector – with a quite uncommon specialty though: it fully supports microphones built into the connected drivers.

Which means that with ITM01 one can seamlessly switch from music listening to handling calls exactly like I would with a mic-equipped earphone directly connected to the phone. Or, that one can keep their mic-equipped headphone connected to IT01 and go from watching a movie to playing a game including audio chat.

Volume and gain control

ITM01 has hardware volume buttons on its main body, which are correctly liaised with system volume controls both on Windows and Android hosts: actionating upon the hw buttons host volume control moves up and down smoothly and without the need for any driver to be installed.

ITM01 also comes with a load sensing system, which switches to high gain mode when higher impedance drivers are connected. The threshold is not documented, based on my empirical essays I would say it’s around 32 ohm.

Other features

Tuning presets

ITM01 comes equipped with 3 “preset tunings”. Each “tuning” modifies the sound presentation, offering a different impact to the user.

The user can quickly select and cycle-through them by long-pressing the central button on the main device body. When each tuning is selected, a led on the chassis side will light of a different colour:

• Music (Yellow led)
• Movie (Blue led)
• Game (Purple led)

More on them below.

Ikko ITM01 Zerda Sound

Let me start by considering the “Music” (Yellow led) tuning preset.

One good thing that’s immediately noticed when using ITM01 is the significant power this unassuming thingie is able to feed into so many different drivers I could pair to it.

ITM01 delivers a lot of current into low impedance, low sensitivity loads (E3000, E5000 & such). And, it also drives HD600 or SRH1540 with authority in terms of powering, most certainly thanks to the selfswitching gain following the internal impedance adapting tech.

With that said, sound quality is in line with the device cost (50 bucks) so don’t expect big wonders: DAC reconstruction, while surely better than my phone or my PC’s built-in systems, is not particularly extended nor resolving, generally quite neutral with some bass accent.

The amping module lacks in dynamic range and most of all transparency. In addition to the general low budget situation, ITM01’s adaptive-gain capabilties present their bill here.

The situation with amping gets a bit better when ITM01 is connected via an appropriate USB conditioner (eg my Nano iUSB2), or to a less-noisy host, e.g. a battery based transport. But even with that, “pure” sound quality is not the reason why one would want an ITM01 in its pockets.

Switching to Movie mode (Blue led) the most evident change is in mid frequencies which are pushed significantly forward, both in terms of power and imaging. The soundstage gets narrower horizontally, but deeper, definitely more intimate. Imaging gets also trickier due to a sort of “central panning” switch.

Game mode (Purple led) can be seen as the opposite of Movie mode in a sense: instead of shrinking and concentrating the scene towards the center, and the mid frequencies, Game mode sorts of “furtherly distributes” the instruments along the horizontal axis, presenting a wider but almost totally flat soundstage. This is good while gaming to facilitate on steps / noises / events positioning although definitely not organic when it comes to music.

An important caveat: mode switching is not totally seamless nor totally instanteneous. In particular, volume jumps may happen between one and the next mode so it’s recommended to pause playback before switching.

Considerations & conclusions

At the end of the day everyting is relative in life.

On one hand I could say that IKKO ITM01 does not shine in tems of audiophile finesse. On the other hand, though, all better devices I heard cost at least twice as much.

IKKO ITM01 offers some very nice, and even unique features which make it worth considering as a very inexpensive, general-purpose, entry-level dac-amp dongle for music listening, gaming and even office communication support.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Ikko ITM01 Zerda Review (2) – Second Opinion appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Hard to drive with a phone (very low sensitivity); no bass or sub-bass; no slam; sounds tinny with some tracks; bulky plug in the way of many phone cases.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Koss is a reputable American company with over 60 years of experience that advertise with the slogan: “Hearing is Believing”. Founder John Koss invented the stereo headphone back in 1958. Over the years, Koss have introduced a few perennial favourites such as the 1984 Porta Pro or the 2004 KSC75, which are not only still in production, but they are also still very popular even with demanding audio enthusiasts.

Let’s not forget the 2017 KPH30i, which are sonically a tad behind the Portas/KSC75, but ergonomically ahead of them. We have evaluated these models in the context of the Yaxi earpads. For completeness, Koss also introduced a number of stinkers such as the “Plug”, which plugged my ear canals with undifferentiated noise.

The KPH7 were introduced in 2013, but it is not listed anywhere in Koss’s history. They are small on-ear headphones aiming for the super-budget crowd. Looking similar to the proven Porta Pros and KPH30i, the question is whether they are similarly good performers.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box is…hold it…the KPH7 don’t come in a box but in one of these weird see-through thingies you have to cut it out of while ruining your scissors…urghhh…these eco pigs are called “blisters”. And, what you get when the removal operation was successful is…the KPH7 without anything else. What do you expect for $5.49 USD?

Build quality is good. The KPH7 sit on ear, which means they leak music to bystanders. The headband is small and tight and the clamp pressure may not provide the biggest comfort for big heads. Cable and plug are somewhat generic but sturdy. The bulky plug may be in the way of many phone cases.

Tonality and Technicalities

The KPH7’s signature is warm-neutral with the opposite of a bass boost. What? Yes, there is virtually no bass or sub-bass….confirming the frequency range given in the specs: the doors are shut below 80 Hz. To add insult to injury, the very low sensitivity of 91 dB makes these very hard to use with a normal phone. Additional amplification would be beneficial.

What’s left of the bass is quite tight, but any drum kit sounds as if somebody tortured the bottoms of plastic buckets with sticks. There is no rumble at all and no slam or impact either. Nobody at home down there.

This lack of support leaves vocals freestanding, marginally warm, always lean, sometimes tinny, but also provides a lot of space for them: spatial reconstruction is not bad at all. Whilst note weight is not great, note definition is also decent: piano keys, for example, are naturally reproduced. Timbre is as good as in the Porta Pros/KSC75.

Treble, yes, cymbals can be found…somewhere…thin, hesitant, like needles and they sound rather robotic.

Another issue derived from the “basslessness” is the aforementioned lack of kick…the KPH7 are not dynamic at all. Stage is a complete mess as musicians are all over the place. And so is resolution.

To bring this into context, when listening to Paolo Conte’s song “Canneloni”, a lively and bassy piece with a deep voice, the tomato sauce was entirely missing from the meal. Both bassline and voice sounded anemic. A rather bland, dry lunch.

Concluding Remarks

The Koss KPH7 are in now way competition to the KSC75 or Porta Pros. Although they offer decent spatial reconstruction, they lack bass and spice. But a real miss is their very poor sensitivity that makes them hard to drive with a phone. Why would one get extra amplification for a $5.49 headphone?

In summary, the KPH7, if used for music, are more for chilling than anything. They are probably best suited for podcasts and other spoken word performances. As in most cases, you get what you pay for.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Co-blogger Biodegraded bought these for me. Thank you very much.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post Koss KPH7 Review – Kinder Surprise appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Lean notes, lacks kick, shouty and unbalanced; springy cable.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Tripowin is one of Linsoul’s in-house companies. It was established in 2019 – and we rarely had the pleasure to test their products. Linsoul, of course, is a major Shenzen audiogear retailer.

The Léa is a single dynamic-driver earphone aiming to the super-budget crowd whose goal it is to find a cheap iem that punches well “above its weight”. I personally have yet to find such a model, let’s see whether the Léa can convince us.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the two earpieces, one set of eartips (S/M/L/), a pair of clip-on earhooks, and a cable. The shells ae built very well, the silicone eartips work for my ears, the cable is springy, rubbery, and tangles easily, but it does the job. Everything works out of the box.

Comfort and fit are good for my ears, isolation is average. The Leá are easy to drive with a phone.

Tonality and Technicalities

Leá’s signature is warm-neutral, organic, but notes are lean. It is unbalanced to my ears with lack of bass dynamics and too much of an edge in the mids.

Bass is exceptionally tight and clean right down to the lowest frequencies, although it does not reach very deep into the sub-bass. Slam is lacking. The low end lacks bite and is too polite.

This politeness is turned into the opposite in the midrange. Vocals are lean, and pointy, though overall still reasonably organic. They are attenuated by an over-energized upper midrange and lack weight, though note definition is ok. Call it shouty, there is too much harshness and some body lacking in the mids for my gusto.

The midrange is simply a too edgy and lean. When turning the volume up to reach satisfaction in terms of vocals body, all I get is bleeding eardrums. It is like the torture of Sisyphus as the desired result is never achieved. At low to moderate volumes, the midrange is fine, though.

Treble rolls off way to early. Cymbals are frequently buried and lack substance. They are clean but lack weight.

Stage is relatively narrow and has decent depth and height. Imaging, instrument placement, and separation are surprisingly good. So are clarity and resolution. But bass kick is lacking, painted over and taken hostage by the strident, over-energized mids, which knocks the whole experience out of balance.

In comparison, the $20 Astrotec Vesna sound fuller, wider, and smoother — just way more cohesive. Notes are also much better rounded in the Vesna.

Concluding Remarks

The Leá turn out to be too aggressive in the midrange and too dull at the bottom end for my ears. Some smoothness in the midrange is urgently needed. Technicalities are surprisingly good. They are average iems for listening at low to intermediate volumes in their price category. Build and haptic of the earpieces are excellent, though.

In summary, Leá offers nothing new, sonically. Another one for the lowest drawer in my desk.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Tripowin Leá Review – Sisyphus Revisited appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Supplied Spring tips are not the best match for CHU as they attenuate treble
– Mids can sound shouty at times
– Technicalities expose the cheap price tag
– Shell paint is prone to chipping off

INTRODUCTION

Moondrop’s last budget offering, the Quarks, left me unimpressed. The only thing those had going for them: price-tag. The neutral-ish tuning was too dry-sounding and the cheap build did not inspire confidence for long-term use.

Enter Moondrop CHU, their latest budget offering. Priced slightly higher than the Quarks, the CHU have far better build and accessories. The tuning, at least on paper (i.e. graph), looks closer to Moondrop’s VDSF target.

All good news so far, but how do they perform in real life? Let’s delve deeper.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Hifigo was kind enough to send me the CHU for evaluation.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i
Price, while reviewed: $20. Can be bought from HiFiGo.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The CHU come in a rather fancy packaging with Moondrop’s signature anime-artwork on top. Fortunately the fanciness do not stop there, as these come with Moondrop’s Spring tips bundled. These tips cost more than half the price of the CHU if purchased separately, so the value proposition is high here.

There are a pair of ear-hooks which add extra strain relief to the cable while helping in over-ear fit. You also get a carrying pouch inside but it’s rather horrible. It offers no protection and is made of a paper-like material that I don’t think will last long. Something’s gotta give, I guess.

BUILD QUALITY

The metal shell of the CHU is exquisitely machined. The fit and finish here is as good as the more expensive Aria. In fact, the CHU have similarly “baked” paintjob on the shell, and similar golden design accents. The two vents on the inner-side of the IEMs also have similar position, with one being placed near the nozzle and another slightly higher up in the shell.

The biggest point of contention for many would be the fixed cable. The good news here is that the cable has ample strain reliefs near the jack and shell, and the sheathing is not too stiff. As a result, you won’t get many kinks and untangling the cable won’t be too difficult. If used carefully, I expect the CHU to last a while.

My only gripe would be the lack of strain relief near the Y-split. A cost-cutting measure perhaps that could be avoided. Another issue which is sort of Moondrop specific: the paint job. These tend to wear and chip-off over time.

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The CHU are very comfortable once worn. Isolation is fairly good, though you’ll need foam tips for best isolation. Do note that the supplied Spring tips are smaller than usual sizes, so you’ll have to choose “L” size if you usually use “M” size on other tips, e.g. Spinfits.

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For this review, I mostly used the Questyle CMA-400i which is extremely overkill for such easy-to-drive (18 ohms, 104 dB/mW) IEMs.

As for eartips, this is where we run into some strangeness. As the supplied tips (and being fairly expensive), the Spring tips should be absolutely perfect for CHU. However, that’s not the case. The Spring tips attenuate the entire treble region noticeably, resulting in a smoother but less dynamic presentation.

As a result, for this review I chose the Spinfit CP-100+ tips. Even with the added cost of third-party tips I think the CHU are great value, so this small addition won’t change my final rating much.

MOONDROP CHU DRIVER SETUP

Moondrop has used a 10mm Nano-crystal coating composite Titanium-Coated Diaphragm in the CHU. In plain terms, there is a PET driver with perhaps a thin coating of Titanium. Overall, nothing spectacular and expected for the price-tag.

The acoustic chamber design is more interesting as the CHU use a similar system to Aria with two front-facing vents that equalize both the front and back-side air-pressure. As a result, driver control is easier to ascertain.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Moondrop CHU have a “sub-bass-boosted neutral” tuning. Moondrop calls it their VDSF target and higher-tier IEMs like the Blessing2 and Aria have similar target response.

Having the same graph does not mean that the CHU sounds the same as Blessing2 or the Aria. There are noticeable differences in the technicalities and presentation that set these three IEMs apart.

In terms of bass response, the CHU do reach as low as 30Hz, but the rumble is faint. Bass lacks physicality and doesn’t have the mid-bass punch or sub-bass slam you get from better drivers. Mid-bass notes are not the most textured, but CHU do a better job here than many of their peers. Bass speed is average, but again – not expecting miracles here.

The one thing that I like about the bass is that it doesn’t bleed into the mids. Even then, in tracks with a lot of bass undertones you will miss a lot of the notes. The driver is just not capable enough for that kind of workload.

Speaking of the mids, the lower-mids could do with a bit of body as I think baritone vocals lack some of their signature heft. This is somewhat compounded by the nearly 10dB of rise to the upper-mids. Fortunately, the rise is not too drastic and only in certain songs do you hear hint of shoutiness, e.g. Colbie Caillat’s Magic. Nonetheless, the lower-mids never get the heft and weight I would consider “ideal”, so there’s that. Easily fixed with slight EQ though.

The treble response will probably divide the audiences. Those who prefer a bit more presence-region “bite” will be disappointed as the Spring tips smooth those out. This hampers resonances and upper-harmonic, and most noticeably kills the dynamics. The fix is simple: use other tips like Final E-type or Spinfit CP-100+. The graph shows how the Spring tips reduce the frequencies between 4-8kHz by 3dB or so. Upper-treble is also hurt but those measurements aren’t reliable.

General resolution is middling in the grand scheme of things, but for $20 only very few IEMs can claim better performance, and those who actually resolve more have other tonal oddities. Soundstage has decent height but lacks the width and depth of higher-tier IEMs. Imaging is mostly left and right but I don’t want to nitpick here because, again, price.

Dynamics is another area where CHU can perform better even for the asking price. With the changed tips, I find them to have better macrodynamic punch than stock form but the microdynamics are mostly average. Overall, technically the CHU fail to impress as much as they do with their tuning.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Moondrop Quarks

The Quarks are inferior in every single aspect. I can’t find a single area where they excel over the CHU, sadly.

vs Final E1000

I consider the Final E1000 more of a CHU competitor than anything else under $50. They have a similarly neutral-ish tuning and come bundled with the excellent E-type tips.

The bass on the E1000 roll-off earlier than CHU but has better mid-bass texture. Midrange is where Final knocks it off the park with the E1000 having a neutral-yet-engaging tuning without a hint of dryness. Lower-mids have adequate weight and upper-mids are smooth, articulate, and devoid of shout or shrill.

Treble also has slightly more energy and cymbal hits are easier to identify on the E1000. They also have some stage depth and slightly better imaging. However, the E1000 have availability issues and the price is at times higher than the suggested $25.

Depending on availability and price, I would pick the E1000 over the CHU if they cost less than $30. Other than that, with an increased budget, I’ll probably go for the Final E3000 or BLON BL-05S, provided an adequate source is present. However both of those IEMs cost more than twice the price of CHU so there is that consideration.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The TL;DR version of this review would be: “I recommend the CHU if you only have $20 to spend and are willing to shell out for a pair of third-party tips, or like the sound with stock tips”.

The CHU have familiar failings of the budget realm, namely a lack of technical chops especially in perceived stage and imaging, and Moondrop’s VDSF target does not really fit well if the driver is not fast or resolving enough.

However, looking at the competition with their bass or treble-heavy offerings, CHU are pretty much uncontested in the under $20 price-bracket, and deserves the recommendation.

MY VERDICT

4/5

Good tuning meets average technicalities, and the end-product is more than decent.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from HiFiGo and official Moondrop Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Moondrop CHU Review (1) – A Budget Benchmark appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Deserves a tad more upper midrange and treble extension for a wider stage and more sparkle; not the fastest driver; limited applicability of third-party eartips.

Executive Summary

Introduction

IKKO is a Chinese manufacturer that has initially delighted us with their very few however innovative <$200 earphones (and accessories). Their first iem, the IKKO OH1 stood out by its metallic, unconventional shells with a great haptic. The “masterfully jazzy” well-dosed V-shaped IKKO OH10 made it onto our Wall of Excellence. They excel by their superb imaging and staging – and offer a sniff into the premium segment at a mid-tier price.

The – in contrast to the OH10 – brighter tuned IKKO OH1S is a highly underrated marvel, possibly because many influencers had their listening experience guided by the frequency response graph. The OH2 is physically very similar to the OH2. It appears that IKKO wants to appease those customers with there OH2 who found the OH1S too spicy. Will it work?

IKKO are currently expanding their product range into dongles such as the IKKO Zerda ITM01, microphones (for YouTubers), small speakers, and other desktop accessories.

Specifications

:

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, the cable, a set of IKKO I-Planet foam tips, a set of oval silicone tips, a storage wallet, an IKKO pin, an MMCX tool for safely disconnecting cable and earpieces, and the paperwork.

Just like the OH1S, IKKO OH2’s shells are premium built with mostly aluminum alloy and some resin, and they feature one of the companyʼs trademarks: oval nozzles, which help forming any eartip into the cross-sectional shape of your ear canals.

The shells are rather small and light compared to the OH10, they look and feel great, sit firmly in my ears and are very comfortable. The small size of the earpieces is certainly a huge asset. Isolation is not the greatest for me.

I find the haptic and ergonomics premium: 10/10.

I really like the included cable (same as with OH1S): spindly, wiry, light. Coated with hard pvc, it has the right stiffness for me and is not rubbery at all. Great in the days where cables are increasingly becoming ropes pulling our ears down. Less is more, also in this case.

Tonality and Technicalities

IKKO have tuned the OH2 differently from their other popular models. It is not V-shaped like the OH10 – and it is not as treble extended as the OH1S, although both share the relatively flat frequency response up to 1.5 kHz. As in so many cases, the OH2’s frequency response graph is literally misleading as it leads speculations into the wrong direction.

From a helicopter perspective, the IKKO OH2 is somewhat dry and slightly warm sounding iem. For me, the included IKKO I-Planet foam tips worked best. But foams in combination with my ears always generate a rather dry bass.

And it is rather dry indeed. Sub-bass extension is good, there is plenty of rumble down there, and there is no boomy mid-bass peak. Nevertheless could the bass be tighter – and it probably is with a different tips/ears combination. I’d call the bass typical for mid-price single dynamic-driver iems, but nothing special. It is certainly not the fastest around and can be somewhat blunt in some recordings.

The vocals have very good weight and decent definition, they are not set back, which is an asset at this price tag. There is a small congestion from the hesitant upper midrange (pinna gain is <10 dB) which compresses male and female voices a bit. A tad more energy at around 2 kHz would make them wider and airier. Higher piano and violin notes lack sparkle.

The top rolloff starts already in the upper midrange but becomes dramatic at above 5 kHz. Treble extension is audibly lacking and compromises stage width and overall sparkle/air.

And whilst stage is narrow, it has a good height and depth. Imaging and spatial cues are good and resolution, separation, and layering are average. The OH2’s biggest sonic assets are its note weight and its very natural timbre.

IKKO OH2 Compared

The $79 Hidizs MM2 with their exchangeable out vents are more versatile and may have slightly better imaging and staging (more headroom), but I find the OH2 have a better organic reproduction , note weight, and cohesion. Instant wow effect vs. slowly growing likability! I also prefer the OH2’s smaller earpieces for their small design and premium haptic whereas the light yet bulky MM2 shells are reminiscent of the budget KZ fare. I’d say the OH2 appeal more to the older, mature crowd (like me) and the MM2 preferably to teenagers.

The $79 Moondrop Aria, viewed as the dynamic-driver standard below $100, is much faster, brighter, and leaner than the OH2. It is technically cleaner with a better defined low end, a better extended treble, and more width. But it also has an upper midrange glare that may be unpleasant for some. The OH2 is less analytical, warmer, deeper, but also thicker in its performance, it has more “soul” and is more engaging to me. The Moondrop may be the “better” earphone, but the OH2 is more enjoyable to me.

The main question may be how the OH2 compares to the $159 IKKO OH1S? Well the OH1S may be brighter but they benefit from their treble extension, which results in a wider stage and better imaging. They provide more headroom. They also have better note definition and resolution. I’d say the price difference is justified – and I, quite frankly, prefer the OH1S as they are the better iem.

Concluding Remarks

IKKO iems are totally underrated in the internet’s echo chambers that cultivate herd mentality pushing überhyped yet short-lived products to promote compulsive buying habits. IKKO iems have a long shelf live for a reason.

The IKKO OH2 are the mellow alternative to all these brightish <$100 earphones such as the Moondrop Aria. They impress by their haptic and accessories, which are essentially identical to the OH1S at twice the price. They further have a decent tonality with an intimate midrange and an organic timbre.

The OH2 will appeal to the more mature budget “audiophile”, who cares about substance rather than gimmicks.

To give you my personal perspective: I really like the OH2 a lot – and not only for their sound but also for their handling (the importance of which for daily use is typically undervalued in reviews). But then again, I could say the same about the OH1S and OH10.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post IKKO OH2 Review – A Purist’s Daydream appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Stock tips too small for some ear canals.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Another $20 piston-shaped single dynamic-driver iem? Don’t we have enough of these? No fancy faceplate, no detachable cable, no ear hooks? The cool kids have already stopped reading this. But, wait! These are good, so good that even a guy like me who has seen it all uses them. You better read on.

Astrotec’s parent company dedicated to acoustic research was established 20 years ago, the current branding exists since 2011. Their first earbuds and earphones were released in 2012. You may have heard of their Lyra earbuds and the Delphinus series iems. The brand is better known in China were it is regarded as belonging to the 10 best domestic earphone brands.

Vesna is the poetic word for spring in some eastern European countries. And, yes, spring is coming (in Canada) as I write this. So, no coincidence that this earphone is released in…yes you guessed it. Let’s see whether the Vesnas keep what I promise.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earphone with fixed cable, a set of eartips (S/M/L), storage bag, a USB-C dongle, and the paperwork. The dongle does not work with any Mac device (iPhone of MacBook) and appears to be designed for Android and Windows devices.

There is also a version with 2-pin detachable cable available, the Vesna EVO version.

The earpieces are well made of “airplane-grade aluminum alloy” and feature a prominent nozzle lip to keep the eartips in place. They feel substantial between my fingers and not budget like. The diaphragm used is Japanese LCP (liquid crystal polymer). The cable is spindly, not rubbery, and without microphonics — and therefore good for me.

The comfort/fit of the cylindrical earpieces is as good as expected, as this shape is not (much) in contact with the concha. Isolation is not great. The 30 Ω Vesna work well with my iPhone SE (1st gen.).

Tonality and Technicalities

The Vesna have a warm, (relatively) rich signature with a realistic attack and an overall surprising sonic quality. Sure, they are still budget earphones but their overall cohesion is pretty good and they are attractive and engaging to my ears/brain.

No, the bass does not dip particularly deep – its merely ok – but it is as tight as my wallet. Not the biggest rumble down there and the slam may a bit on the polite side. No midbass hump, no sub-bass hump. The bass is agile and warm. Best actor in a supporting role. Not bad at all.

Vocals are the big surprise…they are intimate, articulate, have decent note weight and the notes are well defined and rounded, too. Exceptional quality at this price point. Yes, you can turn the music up and the voices remain smooth and are not stabbing you in the chest…or rather eardrums. A huge asset. Typically, budget iems are lean and piercing in the midrange, these are not. Therefore, no shoutiness either. Hurrah!

Treble is non intrusive. Cymbals may sound metallic and energetic, but they still keep some subtlety. Extension into the lower treble is very good but resolution is not the greatest.

Stage is reasonably wide, not very deep, and also not too high. Imaging and spatial cues are outstanding for its class, attack is delightful: no harshness, nimble, very pleasant on my ears. Separation, layering, and resolution are also very good for the class. I would like to repeat: note weight and note definition both stick out. Timbre is also great: everything sounds natural.

Looking back, the combination of a warm signature, a speedy, non-syrupy bass, and smooth, silky vocals creates an overall very pleasant listening experience for me.

Astrotec Vesna Compared

The Vesna is the best <$30 iem I have heard in a long time – and they may be a valid successor to the discontinued Moondrop Crescent. The similar looking Venture Electronics Bonus IE is way too sub-bassy in comparison, and therefore blunter sounding at its low end, although it also has an overall organic timbre.

The $25 Tripowin Leá lacks dynamics, and cohesion in comparison, though it has a more impressive build with detachable cable. It is harsher and aggressive sounding in the midrange.

The Vesna, I say it again, can be turned up to the hilt without sounding piercing or aggressive.

Concluding Remarks

Well, another $20 earphone withe non-detachable cable and piston-shaped earpieces. But hey, this one is more cohesive than any of its siblings I have tested (through its flatter tuning). It does essentially nothing wrong, not even remotely. On the contrary, it is an engaging, enjoyable listen for me, even with much higher-priced iems in my drawer. The Vesna’s will go in my glove department for use at the supermarket.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 302 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The Vesna was provided unsolicited by Astrotec – and I thank them for that.

Get the Vesna directly from Astrotec or their from Astrotec Official Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Astrotec Vesna Review (1) – Best In Class? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Even allowing for some recency bias, the Xumee immediately registers as a real find, with a full-bodied, crisp attack, good driving power and notable dynamics and bass impact. It synergized surprisingly well with my new crush, the difficult-to-drive 7Hz Timeless, which sounded louder and more  expansive with the Xumee than they did unamped.

Likewise, the 60 oHm Koss KSC75 took on a palpable physicality with the Xumee, sounding bassier and more like full-sized cans. The Xumee did run out of steam on my 250 ohm Beyer DT 990, which had sufficient volume but sounded wimpy and bloomy at the low end.

On more sensitive (<32 ohm) IEMs, the ($13) Conexant CX31993 sounded more transparent and presented more high end detail, but lacked the energy and low end control of the Xumee, while my current budget fave,  the $23 Meizu Master, matched the Xumee for output power and impact, but sounded a bit coarse in comparison, with a bit of graininess at the high end.  

Moving up the food chain to the $70 Hidisz S3, however, demonstrated the Xumee’s budget roots—while the Xumee played louder and had more low-end presence, the S3 was clearly the more refined, with more lifelike, less artificially bright timbre and a smoother (though still quite detailed) high end. However, the Xumee was a better match for brighter IEMs like the Blon A8 and Whizzer Kylin HD03D than the $75 Audirect Atom 2. So much for price/performace.

While my personal donglequest will undoubtedly continue, I’d venture that among the current flood of barely-distinguishable cheap dacs the Xumee is likely the best.  I’m glad I bought it instead of that fifth of Jim Beam.

On a somewhat related note, I also sampled the surprisingly cheap ($9) Apple USB-C audio adapter, which Jürgen has reviewed favorably here. Simply stated, the Apple does not play well with any Android or Fire devices, producing very low volume and a rolled-off high end.  

The lightning version, OTOH, works perfectly well with my wife’s iPhone, with more than adequate output and a very clean, uncolored presentation. I’m not sure what Apple’s reasoning is here, but if it don’t work it ain’t a bargain.

Non-disclaimer: bought it myself . You find it at amazon.

Contact us!

Xumee

The post Xumee USB-C DAC Dongle Review – A View From The Cheap Seats appeared first on Audio Reviews.

INTRO

OneOdio has sent me several of their products and I thought I was finished after the trilogy of the Wireless C, Pro 10 and Monitor 60, but then they asked if I was interested in their latest open back OneOdio Monitor 80. Of course I wondered what could OneOdio do with open back designs since none of their previous offerings were of this variety, the answer is something with delicate silkiness intimate and non-fatiguing.

GOOD TRAITS

• Non-Fatiguing sound signature
• Good height reproduction
• Lower volume listening preferred due to the boosted warm bass presentation

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Stinky chemical smell with the hard zipper case
• Detail retrieval

PHYSIQUE

The OneOdio Monitor 80 over ear open back is clearly destined for home/stationary use with the 250 ohm impedance and large stature although they provide a fold-able design and hard carrying case. It comes with two long adapter free cables, one coiled and one straight. The adapter free design is something carried through on almost all their models where one end is 3.5mm and the other a 6.35mm or ¼ single ended plug that can be switched around to be plugged into one side of the headphones and the equipment it is connected to.

The headband on the OneOdio Monitor 80 is that same larger one used on the Monitor 60, but with one minor but important change, a 45 degree offset swivel that is also travel limited. This simple change reduces the chance of the ear cups flopping down. A straight earcup swivel is beneficial for DJ one cup usage but annoying any other time. There was a little squeakiness in one of the swivels, but that is fairly standard for plastic on plastic designs.

Fuzzy heavy grain plush covers the earpads, not as fine of a texture found on the Philips Fidelio X2HR or the Sennheiser HD6XX for example. The padding has plenty of give I rate it as medium firmness again in comparison to the above two models. The earcups are also denser than past OneOdio models and gives off a lower noise when tapped on. I rate the density of earcup plastic on the same level of the Philips SHP9500 and tick below the X2HR.

PACKAGE CONTENTS

• Hard Zipper EVA Carrying Case
• Coiled 3.5mm to 6.25mm 1.5-3.5m long cable
• Straight 3.5mm to 3.5mm 3M long cable
• Headphones with Adjustable band, velour earpads and swivel articulated earcups

SOUND

I forget what a pleasure open back headphones deliver in positional staging since I spend more time using IEMs. The OneOdio Monitor 80 present nice width and height, with no crowding. Depth is defined nicely too. Macro details are excellent, it does fall a little short on micro details. It’s not as noticeable unless directly comparing say the Philips X2HR (Orig $300 now $150) or Sennheiser HD6XX ($200).

The Philips SHP9500 ($80) is a closer comparison, but still has improved layering and depth than the Monitor 80. The piano percussion is easier picked up on the Philips SHP9500. Sometimes after a long day, the softer appeal of the OneOdio Monitor 80 is appreciated.

Bass is punchy and warm, a little more peaky than the Philips X2HR with slightly less lower midrange and some low end extension roll off that is normal for open backs. The Philips X2HR edges out the OneOdio Monitor 80 on Bass and Cello in terms of fullness. While the Philips X2 and Philips SHP9500 is considered quite bassy for open backs, the Monitor 80 brings it up a notch.

Female vocals sound a little shrill and recessed compared to the Philips X2, but perhaps it is not fair comparing an originally priced $300 headphone to a $100. Comparing to the Philips SHP9500S is a closer comparison for vocal presentation.

Treble is nice and sparkly albeit smoothed and soft. Just enough of the edge taken off but still very realistic sounding. Listening late at night on low volume was relaxing given the treble still shines while having that extra bass toned down and not lost. At louder volumes, I felt it struggled a bit but it is also highly possible my JDS Labs Atom just didn’t have enough gusto to really amp it up.

OUTRO

The OneOdio Monitor 80 is a great starting point for a budget open back, for warm bass and sparkly highs with above average technical details. My favorite budget pick is still the Philips SHP9500S and if you are willing to stretch your budget, the Philips X2HR is usually around $150 on Amazon. If you don’t already own a headphone amp, the Monitor 80 is going to require you to open your wallet for that accessory as it is a necessity with the 250ohm impedance.

OneOdio is clearly looking to take a piece of the pie for critical home listeners. There is not a whole lot of options between $100 to $150 in open backs, with the exception of the Sennhesier HD59x series or Beyerdynamic DT770 which is known for being analytical and sometimes fatiguing. Hifiman also offers soem planar options near this price range.

The Oneodio Monitor 80 is a rarity in that sense and a good night-time listen when I prefer listening at lower levels. It does not dethrone either of older model Philips but instead adds a nice option if looking for a lighter softer presentation with warmer bass. It is in good company.

SPECIFICATIONS

• 40mm driver
• 100db+/-3db Sensitivity
• 250 ohm Impedance
• 10Hz-40Khz Frequency Respone
• < 1% Distortion
• 1600mW Max Input Power

Contact us!

The post OneOdio Monitor 80 Review – Caution Higher Power appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Note: this earphone was first released as KZ ZEX, later as KZ x CRN ZEX. They are all the same earphone.

I have no direct experience with KZ products. Most of all, as my 15 readers know very well, I’m never enticed about overhyped products in general. If something, hype works towards distancing me from something, not the other way around.

That being said, I’ve recently been sent a pair of privately owned KZ CRN with a request for an extra assessment in light of the known (and let me add: quite pointless) drama emerged on social platforms a few weeks ago, which I won’t bother you with the cloying details of here.

KZ CRN (a.k.a. KZ ZEX Pro) are still available for purchase on multiple Ali Express shops for prices around 30-35€

Here’re my findings.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / Questyle M12 / E1DA 9038D – stock white silicon tips – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

One can guess that KZ CRN presentation may have been originally intended as a U shape, although the design intention was evidently missed due to a bad job done someplace, revealing itself most of all on the treble segment.

With that said, and within the limitations and the issues I will say more about in a bit, the ensamble – once corrected – comes accross as not tonally bad at all, and this should definitely be underlined.

The timbre is what mainly “reveals” the product’s (corrupted) multidriver nature. Long story short, one can clearly hear timbre incoeherence between bass and mids+trebles, and most of all a major timbre mixup all over the highmids and presence trebles.

A suspect about the origin of the latter issue is the crossover setup being completely screwed, and instead of separating BA / MEST drivers’ frequency scopes it lets them overlap for a large area. In more vulgar words it’s as if I’m hearing “both” a BA and EMST timbre… aka as “a mess”.

Again mine is a guess. I don’t know what’s precisely going on inside KZ CRN really (and/or inside the specific sample I received, of course). What I do hear is that their tonal levels are more than decently calibrated accross the most part of the spectrum, while such good job is depleted by some evident cause screwing the overall experience. Such effect is totally obvious. I wonder how could developers/tuners approve a product like this, which type of customer did they think this would be liked by? Whatever…

Bass is fully extended and strongly elevated – sub bass more than mid bass. The (inexpensive) driver itself proves unable to deliver big wonders on the tech side so apart from a nice volume, and not overly sloppy transients, we are left orphans of organic note weight and most of all texture.

Mids are surely the best part of KZ CRN’s presentation. Quite organic, well rendered, organically calibrated. Nice. On the low side they suffer some timbre incoherence with the midbass but not an excessive one. No sibilance on the upper hand. Really commendable vocals for such a low price.

Trebles is where the main disaster happens. There’s first of all a major flaw at 8 Khz where a sharp peak keeps polluting the entire tonality, delivering unnatural metallic notes. As is, they are just unaudible to me, period. Technically, this can be aposteriori greatly mitigated by a sharp EQ intervention: a narrow negative bell by at least 5 / 6dB, or even a band stop filter if you wish, centered on exactly 8khz will bring me back into audible territory.

In addition to this, presence trebles are dramatically rolled off shortly above the aforementioned peak, from approximately 9-10Khz on. Again, a “substantial” high-shelf filter helps recupe the situation into a much better result.

As I already mentioned above, this situation on the trebles region makes me suspect a screwup at the crossover level, with the MEST on one hand inappropriately overlapping the BA, thereby potentially generating or exhalting the 8K issue, and on the other hand being excessively tamed thereby resulting “audible enough” to contribute with its timbre (also in negative, where mixed with the BA’s one), yet not enough to deliver enough air up above.

Hence the surgical intervention of a high-shelf above 9 / 9.5K, to bump the MEST up, but only above a certain frequency range, thereby adding air back without (overly) exciting the aforementioned BA/MEST interference.

While we’re talking corrections, a slight taming on midbass might also help making them a bit faster. You won’t get better texture from the driver there though.

I would consider at this point legitimate to wonder wether one should invest competence and resources on doing what the manufacturer wasn’t able or willing to do, and “fix” an unhearable 30€ product into a decent one, or just bin it. The answer is very personal I guess.

Technicalities

If EQ-corrected KZ CRN’s tonality can be called “good” not the same can be reported about their technicalities. I presume there’s not much to dig to understand why here: little money pay for short blankets, compromises do apply.

Soundstage is nicely extended, but one-dimensional. KZ CRN almost totally lacks space depth.

Instrument separation and layering are not bad, yet imaging is close to tragic: whenever more than 2 or 3 instruments are playing together macro dynamics fail quite rapidly and spatial positioning goes down the drain with it. There’s no fix.

Physicals

One very surprising aspect of KZ CRN is the incredibly ergonomic fit. They are seriously comfortable, wish many of my other much better sound quality (and higher priced) drivers were half of this.

Passive isolation is also not so bad. Can’t say much about the cable, it looks pretty solid in terms of construction.

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

Senfer DT6

An historical low cost (< 30€) tribrid designed around 1 DD ,1 BA and 1 Piezo driver.
Out of the box DT6 is tonally warm, with a significant midbass presence, very good low mids and trebles and tamed highmids. As is, it’s not bad at all. An optional EQ correction pushing the highmids up, adding +2dB to the entire treble line, and (for my taste at least) lowering the midbass by -2dB makes DT6 presentation close to spectacular when put in perspective to their negligible price.

Comparing DT6 vs KZ CRN “after the corrections”, KZ CRN delivers more neutrality and clarity, yet much less “substance” (note body & texture) behind that, while DT6 sounds warmer, more musical, more engaging. Timbre incoerence on DT6 is less than KZ CRN. Technicalities are monumentally better on DT6, unlike KZ CRN, offering near-holographic soundstage and very good imaging and separation.
DT6’s fit may be an issue though, and a serious one for some.

Final E1000

To me (and I reiterate that) the absolute best and therefore sole rational choice below 30€, E1000 carry a single DD driver, and masterful tuning which makes them extremely enjoyable already out of the box.
A perfectionist might want to apply some finetuning EQ to raise the too timid sub-bass (< 80/90hz), and help up the highmids and trebles with a modest bump up from 1.5/2K on, to my taste just that. Such EQ finetuning is even “more optional” than in DT6 case.

Comparing eq-corrected KZ CRN vs E1000, and taking timbre coherence off the table for obvious reasons (easy win for E1000 of course), E1000 first of all comes off better for stage drawing, and most of all imaging; detail retrieval is a give&take (much better E1000 down low, somewhat better CRN on mids/highmids). Timbre is clearer and tonality more neutral on KZ CRN, but their underlying note aridity is bad; I do prefer E1000’s warmish coloration on top of much more organic, credible notes accross the spectrum.

I find E1000’s bullet shape comfortable but that is subject to wide personal variations. E1000 has a fixed cable and this might irritate the senses of some phobic – I will never understand them frankly, not on a 30€ device really.

Considerations & conclusions

Simply put, and without needless sugarcoating, KZ CRN are a flawed project.

Out of the box they are close to unaudible to me. Well ok, you know, I’m an exacting (read: nasty) reviewer. Let’s tame this into saying they must be clearly addressed to very undemanding customers. Whatever.

Applying some aposteriori EQ the situation can be made dramatically less tragic. In a sense, this makes my general opinion even worse about this: even within all the logical limitations connected to the inexpensive parts which need to be involved on such a low cost finished product, the problem is clearly not in the hardware per se, but exclusively in the competence – its lack thereof really – of the people involved in the development and/or at least the final approval of this specific model. It’s been my first experience with a KZ product. I hope my second will be better, or I guess I’ll hardly find the time for a third.

With all that said, once severely corrected KZ CRN are more than audible, actually quite nice really – especially on the tonality side, while more limited on the technicalities front.

Disclaimer

A deep thank you to Simone Fil for the loan, and our always so rich opinion exchange on audio topics.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post KZ CRN ZEX Review (3) – Pointless Drama appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Rose-gold accents on the Hidizs MM2 cable might be a turn off
– Lower-midrange recession
– Upper-midrange sounds strained on treble and neutral filters
– Steep treble roll-off post 7kHz.
– Needs to be priced lower to be competitive

INTRODUCTION

Before proceeding with the review, I should clarity that this review is an extension of Jürgen’s take on the Hidizs MM2. As such, I’ll just breeze through the usual build quality/packaging sections and go straight for the sound analysis.

Hidizs’s latest IEM release are the MM2 and they feature a hybrid setup with 10.2mm dynamic driver for bass and mids + 6mm magnetostatic driver for the treble. This combo is often seen on more budget-tier IEMs so Hidizs need to differentiate their product somehow. Turns out, they opted for a tuning system based on removable screws on the back of the IEMs.

Let’s see if the tuning system alone is enough to make the Hidizs Mermaid MM2 an worthy contender in the <USD $100 IEMs space.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Hidizs sent the MM2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Lotoo PAW 6000, Sony NW-A55
Price, while reviewed: $80. Can be bought from Hidizs’ Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

ACCESSORIES

Both the stock cable and the carrying case deserve a mention here, since they are some of the best you can find in the packaging of IEMs under USD $100. The stock cable is supple, doesn’t tangle easily, and looks great. The carrying case is somewhat over-engineered yet maintains a muted outlook. Rather unexpected for a pair of budget IEMs.

BUILD QUALITY, FIT, COMFORT

I agree with Jürgen regarding the build quality, fit, and comfort. His review also went through the mechanism of the tuning filters (which are rear-mounted instead of being front-mounted) so check that one out for further details.

I should note that I prefer the rear-mounted filter system as opposed to nozzle or tip mounted ones since they are more cumbersome to swap. Also it’s need stating that the passive noise isolation is below average, as the rear-vents allow noise inside. No driver-flex was noticed which is a plus.

HIDIZS MERMAID MM2 TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound signature of the MM2 can be described as variations of “V-shaped” tuning with varying degrees of bass and lower-treble depending upon the choice of rear-filter.

I think the bass response is the star of the show here with punchy mid-bass and good amount of rumble in the sub-bass region. The slam is also above-average so these drivers are moving good amount of air.

The issue arises in the lower-mids region where, with the stock and bass filter mids sound too recessed, resulting in distant male vocals, snare hits etc. The aggressive pinna gain around 2.5kHz compounds this further with high-pitched or soaring vocals sounding strained, as can be heard on Alexisonfire’s This Could Be Anywhere in the World. The male vocals do gain a bit of thickness with the bass filter but then again the large amount of mid-bass drowns out the subtle articulations of voice, resulting in a lack of resolution.

Treble peaks around 4kHz and then goes for a steep decline from 7kHz onward. This robs off the airiness of cymbals and hi-hats, resulting in a muted presentation devoid of shimmer and resonances. The magnetostatic driver is supposedly aiding the treble response and whereas some magnetostatic timbre can be heard, the sheer extension is lacking. Treble overall is not bad, it is just unremarkable.

What is remarkable though is the staging performance of the Hidizs MM2. Stage is wide, with instruments often being placed outside your ears in binaural tracks, e.g. Amber Rubarth’s Strive. Stage depth also seems above-average though that is mostly attributable to the lower-mids recession. Imaging was above-average though lacked the precision of some of their peers. Instrument separation is above average but is often let down by the overshadowing bass.

Jürgen mentioned the timbre to be somewhat plasticky and unnatural. I wouldn’t call the timbre plasticky myself but it definitely lacks some of the richness one would expect from a natural-sounding setup.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Dunu Titan S

Dunu’s budget model of the refreshed Titan series have 11mm dynamic drivers with LCP diaphragm. Dunu went for a more neutral-bright tuning with the Titan S and the driver is also faster than the MM2 during transients. Due to the upper-mid and treble focus, the bass on the Titan S doesn’t have as much authority as the MM2 bass.

One area where the Titan S surpasses the MM2 is sheer resolution, with the Titan S being more revealing of mastering flaws and also having better imaging. Staging is not as wide and tall as the MM2, however, neither is the macrodynamic punch as evident.

Given the similar price, the Titan S offer great value for those who are after a neutral-ish pair of IEMs. The Hidizs MM2 will cater more to those who prefer a mainstream or V-shaped tuning, or those who find the Titan S to be overly bright.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The IEM market is the most ruthless in the under USD $100 segment as new models pop up almost daily. Hidizs MM2 stand out with great accessories and a filter-system that is quite unique, while offering various levels of bass.

Unfortunately, the mids and treble frequencies are somewhat off in terms of tuning and that mars the experience. The treble roll-off hurts the sense of resolution the most, something one would expect from IEMs at this range.

I do think the Hidizs MM2 would offer better value had they been priced somewhat lower, and just like Jürgen I’d also assume $20 -30 lower retail price based on sound alone. The accessories are quality however, so maybe you are paying the extra for those goodies.

MY VERDICT

3.25/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Hidizs Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Hidizs MM2 Review (2) – Yet Another Budget Contender appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Timbre not the most organic; large shells; rose gold not for everyone.

Executive Summary

The Hidizs MM2 is a well resolving iem that let’s you adjust the sonic signature with three screw-in outer vents. Another novelty is a magneto-static driver for the treble.

Introduction

Hidizs are a Chinese company that came on strong recently with their dongles and digital analog players. We analyzed their popular S3 Pro and S9 Pro DAC/Amps and their very good AP80 and AP80 Pro X players. As it looks, the company has a bit of catching up to do when it comes to earphones. Their MS1 Rainbow model received a mixed reception from Durwood and Loomis.

Hidizs’ latest MME iem implements a few semi-novel ideas, “self tuning” and a magneto-static driver for the uppermost frequencies.

Earphone tuning, the practice of generating a specific frequency response, has become an important marketing tool. YouTube/blog influencers lately picked up on it, projecting their personal preferences in the shape of “target graphs” onto the consumer – which provides a new revenue stream for them and the companies alike.

The consumer also benefits – from the lack of unpleasant surprises: no more “screamers” with icepick signatures in the mail anymore means much less risk of losing our money. On the downside, the consumer has to cope with silly avatars of the “celebrity tuners” on the shells – and an extra royalty to them.

So, why not do it yourself? There are several methods to tune your earphone according to your taste. First, the old “taping vents and nozzle methods”, as described in many of our reviews and also explicitly in our blog. This is referred to as “reversible modding“, which is based on simple physical principles. It is called “reversible”, as you can easily bring the iem back to its original state without any damage done to it.

But there are more convenient methods. For example, the Anew X-One comes with tuning modules that are being plugged into the faceplate. These look like little opamps and probably alter the earphone’s impedance. JVC’s HA-FDX1 deploy exchangeable nozzles containing different filters that change the midrange frequencies but keep the low end consistent. BQEYZ use a different method in their Autumn iem in that the user can change the width of the inner vent with magnetic pucks.

Hidizs have yet another approach to user tuning in their $79 MM2 by providing screw-in outer vents that change both lower and midrange frequencies. For the case you are confused now: the physics of “venting” is explained in our article. Let’s see how well it works for the MM2.

Specifications Hidiz MM2

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces, cable, 2 sets of silicone earpieces (wide-bores and narrow-bores), 3 sets of tuning valves (bass, normal, treble), carrying case, and the paperwork.

Each screw-on tuning valve represents an outer vent. The included tuning vents therefore differ in opening diameter: the bigger the “hole” the more bass is produced.

The earpieces are very light and somewhat bulky…you see a lot of space inside them. But maybe these large “resonance chambers” are needed for the sound signature. They fit well, are comfortable, and don’t seal very well for my ears. Their lightweight comes in handy.

The cable is excellent: pliable, light, and it has no microphonics. Just the rose gold colour mix (and maybe the handbag-like carrying case) may not hit everybody’s taste. Both sets of eartips fit me well but I prefer the wide-bores.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air | Earstudio HUD 100 (low gain) with AudioQuest JitterBug FMJ | stock bass filters | stock wide-bores.

Since Hidizs give you the option to perform your own tuning with the included screw-in filters, I started tinkering with them…and finally decided on the bass vents as the created the “most substantial” sound experience for me with a great vocals reproduction.

In the big picture, the Hidizs MM2 is all in one: a neutral sounding iem (normal filters), a warm one (bass filters), and a screamer (treble filters ).

In my favourite “bass” configuration, the MM2 deliver a “fun” signature with some surprisingly good sonic characteristics.

Bassy filters means serious bass, without being too serious. Focus is on sub-bass. It digs deep, very deep – and with some energy. Mid bass slam has still good impact. This makes the low end a bit blunt and less tight than I want in some tracks. I don’t think the bass is overdone, though. All in good doses. It’s fun tuning after all.

The transition to the midrange works rather well. I would not call it bleed but the bass re-inforces the vocals in the lower midrange department quite efficiently. Although recessed, female and male voices are not lean or thin but have some nice richness and creaminess. They are not your stale black coffee but more a mocha latte with 2% milk. Notes are surprisingly well rounded. The MM2 beats a notorious weakness of budget iems in this department. And, although there is enough energy in the vocals, there is no shoutiness.

Treble is well resolving. Cymbals are very crisp, clear, and well carved out, but also a bit robotic, which is an artifact of this kind of driver. And since the treble sits a bit back, the cymbals are frequently covered up to some extent. I take it the magneto-static drivers are connected and working (as opposed to some of the competition’s).

Stage is no the widest but has good height and decent depth (with the bassy filters). Resolution, separation, and layering are astonishingly good. But…the timbre…is somewhat plasticky and could be more organic. Once I got used to it is as fine. That’s the biggest concern I have about this earphone – and I’d take $20 off for that.

And if you want to know how the MME compares to its peers, you find it in Kazi’s review.

Concluding Remarks

So why not tune yourself? By screwing in tuning filters you also screw the noisy YouTubers…that bad pun may be allowed. Hidizs have done a decent job with the MM2 and the tuning filters, which can be helpful particularly for newbies who want to learn different sonic signatures. Nevertheless, the MM2 could be $20 cheaper imo. But, maybe Hidizs let you tune your own price, too…see included coupons.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Hidizs MM2 Review (1) – Screw The Tuners appeared first on Audio Reviews.

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.

Hidizs’ new MM2 earphone features 2 drivers, a dynamic and a magneto-static one. It features three different screw-in outer vents to vary bass response. (you find the physical principles here). I have not had much testing time yet so I cannot yet comment on the sound.

Here you have the opportunity to check out the MM2’s physical features.

Specifications Hidizs MM2

Images

The post PhotoGraphed: Hidizs MM2 appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Intro

These days, frequently, a reviewer collaborates with a manufacturer to design earphones with his or her tuning. Such products are generally very much hyped by the reviewers themselves or their fanboy or both. The US$99 Tripowin X HBB Olina (will be known as “Olina” from now) is such a product.

Recently, there have been endless mentions and discussions on this earphone. As the name implies, Olina is a collaboration between Tripowin and HawaiiBadBoy (HBB) of Bad Guy Good Audio Reviews YouTube channel.

The Olina is being promoted as using the same 10mm Carbon Nanotube (CNT) dynamic driver and tuned similarly to another Chi-Fi single dynamic driver classic – Tanchjim Oxygen (will be known as “O2” from now). The O2 retails for US$280, although you can buy one for around US$200 from Drop right now.

Tanchjim O2 is known for its coherent, smooth yet technical sound. Olina, as claimed by many, to be as good as if not better than O2… So, to validate these bold claims, I picked up a loaner unit from a friend.

So, is this “CO2” or “Cloned-O2” is as good as those claims? The O2 is my own personal set. Let’s find out…

DISCLAIMER: The Tripowin X HBB Olina was a loaned set from a friend. I will keep my impression straight-to-the-point and as truthful as possible.

My listening was done with as many sources and platforms as possible for fair results. This includes playback from both desktop and portable setups. The music I use ranges from pop and rock, jazz and classical, as well as EDM and movie OST.

Initial listening was done with an all-stock configuration. I also experimented with third-party accessories and PEQ during subsequent listening tests.

Hits

Harman Target tuning for versatility! Dynamic, punchy and full-bodied bass with just the right touch of sub-bass. Midrange is clean and highlights micro-nuances and textures very well. The vocals are crisp, clear and vivid. Treble extension is excellent with ample amount of air and space. Music instruments such as percussion, trumpet and saxophone come across as clean and pristine.

Stage has good dimensions with pinpoint imaging, good instrument and channel separation. Overall tonality is bright, lavish and contrasty. Technical performance is very good at this price. Smooth and rounded housing allows long listening sessions without discomfort. Fit is surprisingly stable for such chunky earphones.

Misses

Very forward vocals almost to the point of shouty and nasally, dominating almost the entire frequency spectrum. Upper-midrange may sound unnatural due to the harsh and plasticky timbre. Bass isn’t as powerful as some of the other HBB collaborations. Sub-bass rumble not as defined as O2.

Unfortunately, the mid-bass lacks texture and detail despite its slightly bright nature. Because of this, certain instruments like bass and cello may sound a bit hazy and one-dimensional. Despite its very good technical performance, I find it strident and a bit artificial.

You can have very good technical performance and still sound natural at the same time… Fine examples are Acoustune HS1697Ti and Moondrop KATO. The overall presentation of black box, gray housing and gray cable aren’t the most aesthetically-pleasing (to me).

Matching

Due to its forward vocal and bright-sounding nature, Olina is best paired with a laid-back and warm sounding tube DAC/amp, such as the Woo Audio WA7 Fireflies. For portable DAP, the Cayin N3Pro synergies well with Olina.

I would also replace the stock cable to one made of pure OFC copper from any reputable brand (personally I go for Yinyoo). I understand HBB suggested pairing with SpinFit CP-100. Being an eartip connoisseur myself, SpinFit won’t be my first choice. I would go for either Canal Works CW Dual Nozzle or JVC Spiral Dot. Both of these eartips tame upper-midrange harshness and glare.

Suggested PEQ Settings

41Hz, +5.0dB

Low-shelf,330Hz, -1.5dB,

Low-shelf2, 500Hz, -3.0dB

Q=1.805,000Hz, -3.0dB

Q=3.09,500Hz, -4.5.0dB

Q=8.012,700Hz, -6.0dB

Q=8.0Preamp gain: -1.5dB

Conclusion

Now the MOST IMPORTANT question… Is Olina tuned similar to O2? My firm and definite answer is “NO!”…

Then is Olina as good as O2? Again, no! O2 is another league altogether (to me at least).

Then what the hell is Olina good for? If you like very forward and bright vocals, Olina may be your cup of tea. In comparison, O2 has better tonality, overall coherency, finesse and technicalities. Olina just sounds bright, harsh and aggressive. 

Here is a fine example that same graph does not equate to same sound. On paper, both Olina and 02 measure very similarly but actual side-by-side listening proved otherwise.

Appearance-wise, Olina looks drab with the gray-and-gray theme. The name Olina supposed to mean “joy” in Hawaiian native language, unfortunately this presentation doesn’t “spark joy” for me.

There you have it… Another hype train crashed and went up in smoke… Or should I say another bag of air labeled as “CO2” or Cloned-O2.

Gallery: Olina vs. Oxygen

All Our 322 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Contact us!

The post Tripowin x HBB Olina Review — “CO2” (Cloned-O2)? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

This is a visual intro to the IKKO OH2 Opal. IKKO have been a company offering a small but fine selection of iems. That has changed lately as they have expanded into electronics. We at audioreviews.org have followed their iems since their OH1. The $199 IKKO OH10 made it even onto our Wall of Excellence.

The OH10 have a very safe, likeable V-shaped tuning with no peaks or pierces and huge stage. They are a first taste of the premium segment at a mid-tier price…and therefore a rare example of justifying the otherwise hollow marketing term “entry level” (with respect to premium).

The smaller $159 IKKO OH1S shows a completely different tuning with a strictly linear bottom shelf and a rather “vivid” treble that caused some confusion with the reviewers. The rumour arose that the OH1S don’t have “enough” bass and to much spice in the upper registers. In fact, their bass response is just fine and the treble extension may be a matter of taste.

What was also unusual is their oval nozzles for which I had issues finding third-party tips suiting my ears. On the other hand, the included IKKO foams work well in that they provide a good seal and help with the bass.

IKKO responded to the criticism of the OH1S with the new IKKO OH2. They are a tad larger than the OH1S and have the same accessories – at a much lower price. The biggest difference is in the tuning: while the bass shelf was kept the same, upper OH2’s midrange was somewhat reduced, and much of that treble extension was shaved off. The result is a more generally appealing sound.

Specifications IKKO OH2

Images

Get these earphones from IKKO Audio.

The post PhotoGraphed: IKKO OH2 vs. IKKO OH1S appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Strong tip and source dependence; fixed cable.

Executive Summary

The Whizzer BS1 is a warm sounding iem of interesting design and haptic that, when sourced right, provides for a relaxed and resolving natural listening experience.

Introduction

Whizzer is a Shenzhen company, established in 2016, that focuses on high-quality budget to mid-tier earphones with appealing industrial designs. Apart from sound quality, they emphasize aesthetics, as seen, for example, in their Whizzer Kylin HE01 with its traditional jewelry appeal, or their minimalistic Whizzer Kylin HE03AL. Most recently, our own Durwood tackled the new Whizzer Kylin HE03D.

The new <$30 Whizzer BS1 is a “paygrade” below the above, but nevertheless features innovative optical and mechanical designs.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the iems, 2 sets of silicone eartips (wide/narrow bores), shirt clip, storage case and paperwork. The shape of the earpieces and the fixed textile cables are reminiscent of early Xiaomi iems.

The light earpieces are different from the mainstream in terms of shape with the angled short nozzles and their relative soft feeling between the fingers. Because of the short nozzles, I need long stemmed eartips. The stock ones don’t fit my ears. You have to insert the earpieces deeply to get optimal sound, though isolation remains mediocre (for my ears).

Careful, nozzle angle and shortness may not work for everybody’s ears.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: Sony NW-A55, iPhone SE (1st gen.); MacBook Air + AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt; SpinFit CP145; Azla SednaEarfit Light (long stemmed)…stock tips were too small for me.

It takes some TLC and time to unleash Whizzer BS1’s sonic qualities. And if done right, they sound amazing considering their price: warm and lush with great timbre and resolution. But it takes a warm source and the right eartips, in my case the DragonFly Cobalt and the SpinFit CP145. The “colder” Sony NW-A55 or iPhone SE in combination with the long-stemmed Azla SednaEarfit Light sounded harsh and unpleasant.

The eartips alone make a huge difference: the Azlas have better low-end rumble but also bring out that pinna gain more, which is fatiguing to my ears after a while. The SpinFits narrow the stage somewhat and clip the sub-bass slightly, but also add some smoothness to the mids.

For this earphone, you can for once, forget about the graph as it does not reflect the above characteristics and differences. Whilst the graph bears a strong resemblance to the Moondrop SSR’s, the latter is way more aggressive sounding.

The problem is that my characterization of the BS1 is in most aspects only valid for this particular setup, so please read more reviews to get the complete picture.

Sourced by MacBook Air + DragonFly Cobalt with SpinFit CP145 eartips, and a very deep insertion depth (!!!), I recorded an excellent spatial cues and a wide and tall stage with reasonable depth. The sound is slightly on the warm side, at a pleasant “temperature”.

Vocals are intimate and somewhat in the foreground without being piercing (as said, this was a different story with my iPhone SE). Note weight and note definition are both surprisingly good and enjoyable. Voices sound natural and relaxed. The upper midrange is dialed back which contributes to the more relaxed vocals and a lack of shoutiness.

This lower midrange is underlain by a clean, well layered, warm bass that can be adjusted with eartips. The Azlas produced a bit more sub-bass rumble whereas the SpinFit CP145 a more focused mid bass with still enough sub-bass extension. Speed is typical of a dynamic driver. Slam is well-dosed but not overbearing. I find the low end very composed and out of the way of the midrange – as it should be.

Treble is a bit subdued. High notes are migrating in the background but the good treble resolution makes up for it. There is no grain up there, all relaxed. What’s strange is that I don’t register that early drop-off shown in the graph. Sure, there is no overbearing 4 kHz energy but high piano notes sound well extended and sparkly.

Apart from the staging, resolution is astonshingly good across the frequency spectrum and so are layering and separation. I find my way across the stage quite well in the BS1. Transient as nimble and timbre is natural.

Concluding Remarks

The Whizzer BS1 is a different beast in that it is open back. If sourced properly, it is a very good iem that excels by its organic timbre and its surprisingly good resolution, separation, and layering.

On top of its sound qualities, it features a very unusual and interesting design. Kudos for Whizzer for having deviated once again from the same old same old the market offers.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Gallery

The post Whizzer BS1 Review – Art Nouveau appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — The usual earbud disease: lack of slam and depth; fixed cable.

Executive Summary

The NiceHCK EB2S is a metal-built warm-neutral sounding earbud with an organic timbre and great vocals reproduction that still lacks the bass slam and extension of iems or more expensive earbuds.

Introduction

NiceHCK have been known to the community for their quality earphone cables and their budget earbuds. Unfortunately, earbuds and I don’t harmonize very well as my ears somewhat resonate sound, which frequently results in non-existing upper midrange peaks (in my perception) and fatigue. This is luckily not the case with the EB2S.

I have reviewed the original NiceHCK EB2 in my early days (2018), and they beat my Sennheiser MX 560…after all, Sennheiser invented earbuds. And although I don’t like earbuds, the original EB2 were good enough to keep as reference.

Spoiler alert: the EB2S are a substantial upgrade over the EB2, they are enjoyable to listen to, and they provide good value. And I am really glad that they are good considering I had ripped apart the last three reviews units sent to me by NiceHCK. There is always hope.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the buds, a velvety storage back, several foams, and the paperwork. I have to say that I am not too keen on anime girls on the box aiming to increase sales. Earphones are earphones, and anime is anime.

The earpieces are made of metal and have a great haptic. The fixed high-purity oxygen-free fixed cable is somewhat standard and has average jewelry appeal for this class.

The earpieces have standard fit and comfort, and the usual lack of isolation.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: Sony NW-A55 ; stock foams.

The EBS2’s is a very pleasant sonic surprise. Typically, cheap earbuds sound thin and tinny, the EBS2 does not. It has some nice tone colour with a natural timbre. Sure, it does not have the depth and slam of expensive buds but it is by itself competent enough to be enjoyed by me.

Star is vocals rendering: voices are intimate, well resolving, they have decent weight (for an earbud), and are rather natural. Notes are well rounded – transients are as they should be. Midrange is overall very clean and clear.

Bass extension is the problem child, as in most earbuds. The EB2S digs somewhat down, much better than any other sub-$30 I have tested, but not as deep as any given iem. Nevertheless is there some sub-bass. Bass itself has good quality slam which lacks in quantity. In summary, the low end is rather light (hence the intimate vocals) but well layered and well composed.

Treble is well extended and surprisingly well resolving. Nothing strident up there. Interestingly, high notes are pretty forward.

This lightness of the low end results in a relatively shallow stage that has a good width nevertheless. Spatial cues is very good and so are instrument separation and layering.

All ok but I still miss the hard punch of an iem. For me, such signature is more for mellow moods.

The EB2S is superior over the original NiceHCK EB2 in essentially all aspects: soundstage, imaging, resolution, clarity…at a similar tonal temperature. It is more refined and mature at a similar price.

It also beats my previous budget earbud reference, a DIY by the late Head-Fier HungryPanda, in terms of staging and it smokes the VE Monk Go and similar $5-10 cruelties in a pipe.

The EB2S’ microphone works well for phone calls. You find a sound sample behind this spoiler.

Concluding Remarks

The NicHCK EB2S is a polite but mature sounding earbud for relaxed listening. It is a substantial upgrade over the original EB2. Considering the good quality of its inline microphone and the rather weak isolation, it is great for use in situations where you cannot completely disconnect from your ambient background whilst having to answer phone calls.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 303 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The EB2S was provided by NiceHCK and I thank them for that.

Get it from NiceHCK Audio Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post NiceHCK EB2S Review – Grown Ups appeared first on Audio Reviews.