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.

In a sort of Nigel Tufnel/David St. Hubbins fire/ice schism my learned colleagues Alberto and Durwood have offered completely different takes on the 7Hz Timeless, with Alberto finding them lacking microdetail and unrefined in the treble, while Durwood praised their transparency and resolution.

I lean closer to Durwood on this one—with sufficient power, they epitomize the best qualities of planars—speedy transients, tight (if lean-textured) bass, energetic big-sounding midrange and highly resolving high end which captures the little nuances of acoustic guitars as well as anything I’ve heard at this price point.

I do agree with Alberto that some midbass oomph is missing and that they’re prone to a slight shoutiness/steeliness on some higher frequencies—saxes and female vox can occasionally sound overbright.

The 7Hz Timeless are also a poor match for mobile phones or less powerful sources. However, feed ‘em right and they are damn good and well worth the $200.

Disclaimer 7Hz Timeless

Borrowed form Durwood.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post 7Hz Timeless Review (3) – A Planar for the People appeared first on Audio Reviews.

So the Mifo would really have to sound good to justify the tariff, in which regard the Mifo are decidedly a mixed bag. Signature is generally mid-centric, with limited extension at both extremes (there’s some subbass thump, but midbass is conspicuously lacking in depth and quantity), with a narrow stage that tends to place the performers towards the center. Timbre is slightly anemic but quite accurate—guitars and voices are well-articulated and there’s no high-end sharpness or glare.

But (and this is a big but), the output on the Mifo is wholly inadequate—you need to max out the volume to get any sort of presence, and even then these lack snap and energy. Much cheaper buds like Lypertek Tevi or Soundpeats H1 sound a little more processed, but are otherwise more impactful, louder and far more engaging, while a comparably-priced mainstream piece like the Galaxy Buds isn’t necessarily better tonally, but has much better bass quality, much more high end detail and far superior UI.

TBH, I don’t get who Mifo is targeting with the S—they’re too pricey for kids, too feature-less for technophiles and, despite the pleasing tonality, are neither tuned for consumers nor for audiophiles. It does seem that Mifo’s prior releases have garnered some praise, and I’d hope that future iterations enhance the bass, widen the soundstage and, above all, crank up the volume. For now, though, these are a hard pass.

Disclaimer: sent free for review purposes by Mifo.

Product Page: Mifo S

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

Mifo S

The post Mifo S TWS Earbuds Review – A Mofo from Mifo? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Granted, there’s some evidence of cost cutting—no balanced outs, and the front panel switches and volume knob on the headphone amp seem a bit flimsy, but work as intended. Little of this would, of course, matter unless the SU-6/SH-6 sounded good, but fortunately they do.

As a headphone amp, the SH-6 isn’t a powerhouse (it hits its limits with my  250 ohm Beyers), but immediately impresses with its low end impact and control—slightly boomy IEMs like the Moondrop Kanas Pro  sound tighter, while more balanced pieces like the Whizzer Kylin HE03D or the 7Hz Timeless show palpably more low end depth and presence.

Other than juicing up the bass, the SH-6 is quite neutral in tone—neither bright nor warm–and added very little coloration across the spectrum. Compared to my trusty (tube) Aune T1 MK2, the SH-6 played louder, had the more expansive soundstage and presented a lot more high end detail; the Aune had the more analog, organic timbre, with the SH-6 sounding a bit leaner and more processed, albeit more resolving.

My ($150)  Project Head Box S2 actually was a close match tonally for the SH-6, with a comparable level of high-end detail, but lacked the bass thwack and speed  of the SH-6.

Moving to the headphone section of the pricier Chord Mojo gets you a richer, fuller-bodied sound, with noticeably better loud/soft dynamics and a wider stage. However I actually thought the bass on the SH-6 was crisper and extended deeper than the Mojo’s, which sounded smoother and not as sculpted.

The SH-6 likewise functions very serviceably as a digital preamp, again maintaining its neutral tone and tight bottom end, although careful pairing with sources/speakers is necessary, as the SH-6, in high-gain mode, can get a tad shrill with higher output devices or very sensitive speakers. 

The SU-6 DAC was initially the more intriguing of the pair, largely because of its lineage from the genuinely great ($450) SU-9, with which it shares a variant of the ES9038 chip. While I usually avoid measurements and graphs (which often skew my impressions on how a piece actually sounds), I cheated on this one and checked out Audioscience Review, which showed extremely good measured performance, including very high SINAD. In fact, the SU-6 was dead quiet, with no audible distortion.

As a standalone DAC (decoupled from the SH-6), the SU-6 sounded slightly bright, with a taut note texture and mostly balanced throughout the spectrum, with an etched, slightly sharp-sounding high end which can sound a little intense on amplified instruments (note that the adjustable digital filters have a small but audible effect on mitigating the intensity).

Microdetails are very present (you can clearly hear the difference between 32/768 files and lower rez stuff), though Bluetooth streaming sounded like typical Bluetooth—compressed and somewhat rolled off at the high end.

Paired with the SH-6, the SU-6 takes on the bassy-but-not-bloated character of the amp, while retaining its slight harshness at the highest frequencies. It’s a good combo nonetheless, with a high level of resolution and good PRAT. The 3x pricier SH-9/SU-9 combo, at least from memory, is more powerful and refined at the high-end, though the qualitative differences are incremental. 

Most of the other reviews I’ve read have labelled the SH-6/SU-6 a good “beginner setup”, and like anything else you can certainly spend more and get better. Frankly, unless you’re driving 600 oHm planars I wouldn’t feel a lot of compulsion to upgrade from this little stack—it does many things well and its bass quality trumps a lot of pricier pieces. Bargain.

Disclaimer

This stack was sent to me by SHENZHENAUDIO for review purposes and I thank them for that. It will go to Durwood for a 2nd opinion.

SMSL SU-6 DAC: tested at $169.99. Get it from SHENZHENAUDIO.

SMSL SH-6 amp: tested a $119.99. Get it from SHENZHENAUDIO.

Contact us!

SMSL SU-6 and SMSL SH-6

The post SMSL SU-6 DAC and SH-6 Headphone Amplifier/Preamp Review (1) – Bargain… 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.

The central gimmick of the MW50+ is interchangeable, magnetic on-ear/over-ear pads, which are extremely easy to swap out. As others have noted, however, the over-ear pads tend to come loose and, other than providing slightly better isolation, don’t sound as good as the on-ear pads, which enhance the bass presence and  expand soundstage. (My impressions below are based on the on-ear setup).

The MW50+ are undeniably purty leather-and-metal things, with nary a scrap of plastic in sight. Fit is secure and long-term comfort pretty good, although they do have some clamping force and feel somewhat heavier than their specified 205g weight. Battery life of 16hrs. is well below the norm, but connectivity and range are solid. There’s no app or ANC, though I found these adequate for gym use. The dimunitive control buttons are extremely hard to find and use.

Soundwise, the MW50+ immediately register as a bass-boosted reverse-L, with a warm thick tonality, a very wide soundstage and good stereo imaging—it’s a surprisingly party-hearty, consumer tuning which makes no pretense of accuracy. Low end is voluminous if not super-deep and just barely avoids sounding boomy or bleeding into the full-sounding mids.  High end rolls off fairly early but avoids stridency or coarsness –these miss some microdetail and drums sound slightly veiled.  Timbre isn’t the most lifelike—everything sounds a little juiced up—but fairly analog, especially in wired mode.

The bass remains the Achilles heel of the MW50+–it’s actually pretty well sculpted, but there’s just too much of it, which gives an incoherence to the proceedings—these tend to sound more like a big sub w/small satellites than an integrated full range speaker. The MW50+ sound richer and better than the Apple or Bose 700 over-ears, but substantially trail the better-integrated $350 Sony XM4, which also has vastly better UI and tech.

Likewise, the AKG N60 (originally $249 but widely available for $60) are better-tuned and cleaner sounding, with more tonal accuracy and less intrusive low end, while my trusty Status Audio BT One (which feel like a cheap plastic knockoff compared to the elegant, lavishly built MW50+) sound less refined and resolving at the high end but otherwise hold up pretty well for $99. For all their flaws, at the $129 ticket I’m not unhappy with the MW50+–they have a certain toe-tapping quality and rock unapologetically.

However, I’m sure I’d be more dismissive if they didn’t look so luxurious or if I’d paid the list price. Not a purist set, but fashionistas will enjoy

Non-Disclaimer: bought them myself. Product page: Master & Dynamic

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

12

MW50+ Wireless Bluetooth Headphones

The post Master & Dynamic MW50+ Wireless Bluetooth Headphones – Pretty On The Outside 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.

As so tipped, the subbass presents good rumble, if not the lowest octaves, and note texture gains considerable weight. Mids are  forward, full-bodied and clear, especially when amped, and high end is quite detailed, though lacking some of the subtleties of more analytical sets. 

HE03D Specifications

• Frequency Range: 20-40Khz
• 5th Gen 12mm Density DLC Dynamic Driver
• 1.2m 6N OCC 3.5mm cable
• 35 ohm Impedance
• Sensitivity: 112db @ 1khz
• Distortion: 1% @ 101db
• Rated Max Power: 10mW

A few thoughts-at-large:

1. in contrast to Durwood, and likely due to our different tip preferences, I found the HE03D’s reproduction of hi-hats and cymbals to be excellent, with estimable snap and quick transients;

2. soundstage in any formulation is fairly narrow, and these tend to work very well with solo performers or small ensembles and less well with fuller arrangements, where instrument placement gets imprecise; and

3. aesthetics and build are commensurate with the $200 SRP, however the heavy shells do compromise long-term comfort.

I wouldn’t choose the Kylin HE03D as my daily driver—their open-air design and lack of isolation limit their utility, and their more intimate presentation make them less optimal for brain-bleeding rock. However, at least when carefully paired with tips and source they show the coherence and tonal accuracy you’d expect at this price point. Well-tuned and worth a listen overall.

Disclaimer

Borrowed from Durwood.

Get it from the official Aliexpress Store, or various distributors of your liking.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post Whizzer Kylin HE03D Review (2) – Quick Hit appeared first on Audio Reviews.

The  $500, open-backed Caspian arrive in a plain box with a nice leather carrying case and a garden hose-sized cloth-coated XLR to ¼” cable. Their aesthetics and design are a matter of taste — I thought the (real) oak ear cups might have looked more natural in a lighter color–but the stainless steel frame is very solid and these should last a lifetime or two.

The Caspian have some heft (13.3 oz) and considerable clamping force, but the sheepskin pads feel soft and pliable and I found these comfortable for extended listening sessions. (Note that Apos also included its balanced XLR Flow cable, which will be the subject of a separate review).

Listed at an efficient  33Ohm/128db, the Caspian get plenty loud with just a mobile or a dongle (you’ll need a ¼” to 3.5mm adapter, which was a curious omission), but gain crispness and richness when amped. My modest Aune T1 tube amp drives ‘em okay, but they really needed my buddy’s Chord Mojo to show their full potential, and I would not recommend running these without high-quality, higher powered amplification.

According to Apos, the Caspian’s designers sought to make a “fun-as-hell” phone that “didn’t ruin your favorite albums with merciless detail-retrieval.” Some pundits have thus branded the Caspian as “audiophile for beginners,” which is both partly true and somewhat dismissive, as if more sophisticated listeners all crave a highly resolving, flat tuning.   

In any event, the Caspian achieves its stated goals—it immediately registers as a loud, rich-textured, unabashedly basshead phone. Low end is seismic, with a ton of emphasis in the upper bass (80-160 Hz) region. It is by no means articulate or taut bass, and decay is slow.  

Depending upon source, the low end can sound bloated and/or overdone—Jymie Merrit’s acoustic double bass on Art Blakey’s “Moanin” sounded more like an overamped electric, while the deep  dub parts on the Clash’s “Sandanista” sounded borderline out-of-control.  But, in fairness, never dull.

Soundstage on the Caspian is less expansive than expected—it’s deep but  fairly  low-ceilinged and within-your head. There’s adequate separation between performers, but a tendency on denser fare to bunch the performers towards the middle, and stereo imaging is less precise. Mids, however, are full bodied and have very good clarity, which keeps them from being overshadowed by the massive bass.

As advertised, the Caspian are not detail-monsters, and compared to most of its price peers there is  some roll-off of the extreme high frequencies. However, most will find their level of resolution to be just fine—brass and reeds sound life-like while cymbals and hi hats have good snap.

Tonality is slightly warmer than neutral and has a juiced-up, amplified quality which works much better for rock than for subtler fare; the Caspian avoid stridency or coarseness and do well with lower-quality files.

Compared to something like the ($500ish) Hifiman Sundara planars, the Caspian have a narrower stage, less precise imaging and considerably less high-end extension. However, the Caspian were, by a wide margin, the more exciting, engaging listen, with a much weightier note texture—the Sundara sounded bass-shy, overanalytical and somewhat thin by contrast.

The Sennheiser HD600 is a closer match—the Senn is also technically superior and coherent throughout the spectrum, with more air between instruments and sparkle on top and much tighter (tho less impactful) bass which avoids the overbearing, electronic overhang of the Caspian’s.  

However, after hearing the Caspian there’s something just a bit clinical and studio-monitorish about the Senn—at least on heavier fare its highs seem a bit overpixilated and lacking in body and warmth, while the darker Caspian were more opaque but also more musical.

I no longer have my ($450) Grado RS2e to compare, though from memory the Grado had the wider stage, imaged better and had more transparent, delicate highs, but were somewhat undercooked in the lower registers and lacked the sheer physicality of the Caspian.

So is the Caspian a good value? Well, paired with a suitable amp,  they’re a  well-built, high-octane  alternative to the ubiquitous flat or Harman-tuned $500 cans. For me, even with my unrefined palate, their low end is just a bit too much—these coulda been a real contender if it had been dialed down a few dbs.

However, there is undoubtedly a big swath of listeners who crave just this sort of visceral thrill, and l hope the bombs stop falling long enough for these to continue to reach our shores.

Disclaimer: sent to me by Apos for an audition—I’ll be passing them on to the noted gangster rap aficionado Durwood for his unbiased opinion. We do not participate in Apos Audio’s affiliate program.

By the Caspian from Apos Audio.

Specifications Apos Caspian

• Driver: Graphene-coated multilayered composite
• Driver unit: 50mm
• Frequency response: 5-45,000Hz
• Sensitivity: 115dB
• Impedance: 33Ω
• Maximum input power: 500mW
• Ear cup outer material: Natural sheepskin leather
• Ear cup inner material: Acoustic memory foam
• Thickness of pads: 1” (27mm)
• External dimensions of pads: 4.5” x 3.4” (115mm x 88mm)
• Height and width of ear pad opening: 3” x 1.7” (77mm x 45mm)
• Grille material: aluminum alloy
• Headband materials: stainless steel, natural leather outer lining, bio-leather inner lining, polyurethane foam insert
• Yoke material: stainless steel
• Weight: 13.3oz (378g) 

In the Box…

• Apos Caspian headphone
• Leather carrying bag
• Stock headphone cable (single-ended 6.35mm termination)

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post APOS Caspian Headphone Review (1) -Another Music From a Different Kitchen appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Elaborately packaged, with extensive marketing materials espousing  particularly baffling gobblygook about “DMT4 architecture” and “FEA finite element analysis;” I do find their slogan “Faithfully Recreating the Original Sound” to be better than most of its ilk.

The aluminum and plastic shells look pedestrian but are extremely lightweight and comfortable, with a flat, compact shape and raked nozzles  that fit snugly within the concha and provide for excellent seal and good isolation. (These would  work well for sleeping).  

I like the silver-plated microphonic-free Litz cable, which has useful memory. Not quite as sensitive as the (126dB) spec would indicate, although they were capably driven with just my LG and I didn’t hear any advantage when paired with a dongle.

Specifications:
Brand | TANCHJIM OLA
Sensitivity | 126dB/Vrms
Impedance | 16± 10%
Frequency range | 7-45kHz
THD | < 0.3%
Driver | 10mm dynamic driver
Cable | 1.25M 3.5- 0.78PIN
Technology | DMT 4
Cable Material | Litz crystal copper silver-plating
Diaphragm material | polymer grapheneModel | OLA
Tested at | $39.99
Purchase Link| SHENZHENAUDIO

While prior Tanchjim releases have generally been touted as warm and Harman-tuned, in the sense of having elevated midbass and upper mids, the OLA were surprisingly bright and bass-shy. To my ears, they aspire to that “Japanese tuning;”  like the Kumitate and Ocharaku I’ve heard they have considerable treble extension and some added energy in the midrange, which notably emphasizes female voices.

Even with the “bass-enhanced” eartips, subbass is conspicuously lacking in impact; such lowend as exists is presented mostly as soft and very lean midbass. Soundstage is fairly rounded and within your head; performers tend to be bunched towards the middle of the stage. They do show considerable microdetail; drumheads and cymbals have good snap. Using foams adds bass texture but not really depth.

The OLA does avoid the coarseness or shrillness of cheap BAs; they are more coherent and truer-to-source than bawdier, bigger-sounding peers like the KZ ZS10P and they have a more natural timbre than the overpraised Tin T2.

These might have considerable appeal to fans of this more “reference” tuning. However, I cannot get past the OLA’s lack of the lower octave—they simply sound incomplete, like well-resolving surround speakers in need of a sub. For the same money, the Blon BL03 or KBEAR KB04 sound weightier and more engaging, if not necessarily more revealing.

Bottom line: not my cup of Sake, though well-designed and not without their sonic virtues.

Disclaimer: Got these unsolicited from SHENZHENAUDIO.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post Tanchjim OLA Review – Carnivores Beware appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Wildly venerated as the Great Audiophile Bargain, and utilizing the same driver as ancient designs like the PortaPro and KSC35, the <$25 KSC75 look and feel cheap but can actually withstand a fair amount of abuse (as a bonus, they come with a lifetime warranty).

Like almost everyone else, I found the included earclips to be cumbersome and ill-fitting, and I replaced them with the aftermarket, $7 Parts Express headband. Thus shod, the KSC75 are exceptionally comfortable—virtually weightless, without clamping pressure. Considering the open design, isolation is a bit better than expected although they’re much better for walking the dog than for the subway.

At 60 oHm the KSC75 are a surprisingly tough load for a cheap consumer piece—my quad-DAC LG G8 drives ‘em adequately, but they scale considerably with more power.

Oft described as “neutral”, the KSC75 are better characterized as warm and balanced, without undue emphasis on any frequency. Bass is ample in quantity but lacks depth and can sound soggy/muddy, especially with lower-powered sources (amping tightens and adds punch to the low end).

Note texture is fairly rich—there’s a slightly syrupy, dark quality—but these are clean-sounding overall and wholly without grittiness or sharp edges. Mids are full-sounding and slightly forward—male voices in particular have a lot of body.  Treble is silky-smooth though lacking in extension; drums and cymbals sound rounded-off and attack transients are slow.

Soundstage on the KSC75 is unexpectedly narrow and low-ceilinged (think small club); instruments stay well-separated on less dense fare, but these can sound a bit congested on orchestral works and more complex arrangements.  Acoustic music sounds very natural and live.

Their lack of microdetail and speed notwithstanding, I can see the wide appeal of these—they nail that elusive quality of tonal accuracy. Like a good vinyl rig, they  sound very true-to-source and uncolored; perhaps because of the limited extension they make lower-quality files sound less compressed.

Well-regarded budget cans like the $80 Philips SHP9500 have punchier, tauter bass and present more information but sound more artificially juiced at the high end; I actually preferred the KSC for extended listening.  On a lark, a drinking buddy and I A/B’d the KSC with his ($500) Hifiman Sundara planars. Perhaps needless to say, the Sundara’s are technically superior in virtually every respect—far more revealing, more expansive-sounding,  crisper.

Yet both of us felt that, comparatively speaking, the Sundara was over-analytical, in the sense of drawing your ears to the separate frequencies as opposed to the seamless whole, while the homely Koss presented a more coherent performance and presented a nice alternative for less critical listening. 

I don’t want to overrate these—they don’t capture a lot of low-level  nuance and they won’t satisfy bassheads. However, they are dirt cheap, comfortable, and unabashedly “musical”. Which means, I suppose, there’s no reason not to buy them.

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

The post Koss KSC75 Review – Pills And Thrills And Bellyaches appeared first on Audio Reviews.

SuperEQ S1 ANC TWS Headphones

Very large and  very garish-looking (with the addled slogan “Be Free Be Young” embossed on the headband), the Beats-inspired SuperEQ S1 are nonetheless well-built, light, and comfortable. Pairing was instantaneous and connectivity good; the physical control buttons are well-placed and easy to master.

ANC on these is, at least from the standpoint of noise-cancellation, quite impressive—especially since the large pleather pads seal very tightly, virtually no outside noise intrudes. Feature set is otherwise pretty basic—micro-USB charging,  Bluetooth 5.0, no AptX, no app—but battery life is very good.

With ANC enabled the S1 sound is noticeably compressed—a bright artificial-sounding V-shape with deep boomy bass, a conspicuous midrange dip and rolled-off, billowy high end.

Disabling ANC improves matters markedly—low end is still thumpy but better etched, while midrange sounds warmer, fuller, and more dynamic, and treble is more extended and detailed.

Tonality is still somewhat synthetic and drums lack some snap (these are, after all, $50 phones), but they actually work well for movies and podcasts, with a physicality and fullness that keeps you engaged. In practice, the passive isolation on these is so good that I felt no need to use the ANC.

The S1 surprise in a couple of regards. First, soundstage is impressively wide and enveloping, with good height, almost like an open-back wired set. Secondly, their wooly bass notwithstanding, stereo imaging and instrument placement are accurate, and complex arrangements are well sorted-out.  

Frankly, the S1 aren’t sonically far off from the far pricier Beats Studio, which have tighter low end but an otherwise similarly expansive stage and metallic timbre.

The S1 won’t appease audiophiles and their aesthetic seems purposely designed to alienate anyone older than 13. That said, they have their sonic virtues and, as a knockabout set will get you through the lawnmowing as well as anything.

SuperEQ Q2 Pro ANC TWS Earbuds

The SuperEQ Q2 Pro buds sport the more modern Bluetooth 5.2 codec, as well as ANC; however noise-cancelling is compromised by their large bulbous shape, which provides for less-than-optimal comfort and seal. I found the touch controls unresponsive and frustrating (there’s no volume control) and connection to my phone was fitful.

Soundwise, the Q2 Pro present an energetic L-shape with massive, subwoofer-style bass which packs plenty of visceral punch but lacks tautness and, at least, on less-heavy genres, is over-emphaiszed.

Midrange is full-bodied and very clear, while treble (in contrast to the over-ears) is crisp, with considerable extension and sparkle; percussion is unexpectedly  well-reproduced and subtle microdetails are present (note that as with the S1, the Q2 sounded less compressed and more revealing with ANC off).

Soundstage is within-your-head, with limited height but pretty good imaging; instruments are cleanly separated. Tonality is somewhat aggressive and ballsy—these lack the aliveness of pricier Sennheiser or Cambridge, and can be exhausting, but the Q2 work well for techno and hiphoppy fare, with a real toe-tapping quality.

Purely on their musical merits, I’d rate these on a par with my previous <$50 go-to, the Fiil T1XS, which has a similarly thumpy low end but good clarity and energetic presentation, although pricier pieces like the Lypertek Tevi and Status Between Pro have better-tamed bass and more overall refinement.

Despite their overdone megabass, both the S1 and Q2 sound better than their cut-rate price point would suggest and most non-critical listeners will find these more than adequate. 

If pushed to buy just one, I’d probably opt for the S1, which has less natural timbre than the buds, but better controls and UI. In any event, neither of these are the expected generic junk — SuperEQ is off to a solid start and I’d fully expect future iterations to be even better.

Visit the SuperEQ store on amazon.com.

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

The post SuperEQ S1 ANC TWS Headphones and SuperEQ Q2 Pro ANC TWS Earbuds Review – Loud, Cheap, And Out Of Control appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Ergo, when my Powerbeats Pro bit the dust, and Status offered a $99 Black Friday deal on the (nominally $149) Between Pro, I succumbed.

Oddly shaped, with a large rectangular stem, the Between Pro have some heft but are more comfortable than expected, while the physical control buttons are responsive and accessible without adjusting the buds. There’s no app or ANC but passive isolation with the large tips and rubber wings is very good and 12-hour battery life is SOTA.  

The case, however, is really badly designed—the charging port is at the bottom and the buds are inserted vertically, which (unless you have nails like LaToya Jackson) makes them extremely difficult to remove.

The Between Pro’s big selling point for audio obsessives, is its triple driver (2 DD/1BA) array which, on paper at least, promises better high frequency reproduction than the typical (single DD) TWS norm. Instead, the Pro offers a more balanced, mid-focused signature which pushes vocals forward but has limited highend extension.

Timbre is slightly warmer than neutral and notes have good but not exaggerated body. Subbass is visceral and has surprising depth; midbass isn’t the most sculpted but avoids excess bloom/bleed, while treble isn’t as detailed as, say, the Klipsch T5, but quite natural sounding.

Technicalities are generally very good—transients are quick, imaging and stereo separation is precise—and soundstage is well-rounded, albeit somewhat narrow and inside-your-head. Where these trail price peers like Cambridge Melomania and Senn 400BT is overall coherence—there’s an occasional sense of listening to separate drivers for different frequencies, rather than a seamless whole.

Overall, though these avoid the artificial tonality of most of its ilk, especially at the high end; drums and percussion are reproduced accurately and voices are full and clear.

Absent a lot of tech features, and burdened by a few ergonomic quirks, the Between Pro seemed a tad overpriced at their original SRP, especially since you can get comparably-equipped, good-sounding buds like SoundPEATS H1 or Lypertek Tev Z3 for around $80. Like its over-ear brethren, however, the Between Pro are a professionally executed product that should please the masses.

Non-disclaimer: bought ‘em on sale

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

The post Status Audio Between Pro TWS Earbuds Review – Souled American appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Square, protruding buds are light but large size may compromise comfort for some; passive isolation is only fair but call quality is good. As with most such mainstream products, volume seems limited, and these CX 400BT need to be cranked near the max.

Tip sensitive—foams enhance bass but deaden the high end while biflanges or narrow bore silicons show more detail at the expense of subbass depth. Accompanying app is minimalist but functional.  Touch controls work better than most.

At least from memory, the CX 400BT sound a great deal like the MTW II—warm, somewhat laid-back and  L-shaped with a bit of midbass boost. Soundstage is fairly narrow and is somewhat limited in height but imaging and layering are outstanding—you can place the position of each performer precisely. Very coherent; subbass has pretty good depth and rumble while midbass isn’t super-sculpted but avoids bloom.  

Treble isn’t as detailed or sparkly as class-leaders like the Klipsch T5 II—there’s some smoothing of the highest frequencies—but these avoid sterility and do a good job with lower-quality files. The Cambridge Melomania has more midrange presence and sounds truer-to-source, though the CX-= 400BT has cleaner stereo spread and otherwise shares the Melomania’s  mellow, analogue tonality—you can listen for hours without fatigue. 

Ultimately, the CX 400BT occupy a strange place in the middle of the TWS universe—they’re  not particularly well-designed or featured and aren’t optimal for the gym or the subway, while cheaper favorites like the Soundpeats H1 have a more energetic, fist-pumping (albeit less natural-sounding) presentation.

However, Sennheiser does know how to tune an IEM, and if you’re going to use them indoors and sound quality is your priority, the CX 400BT outguns mainstream peers like Sony/Samsung/Beats.

Non-disclaimer: bought ‘em “Renewed” on Amazon for $69, which registers as a good buy.

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

The post Sennheiser CX 400BT TWS Earphone Review – German Co. With Chinese Voice Prompts? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

To the extent I ever think about cables, I’m a moderate—generally, I neither believe that all well-made cables sound the same nor that you can radically change an IEM’s  tuning with a cable. I’ve also previously rejected as fantastical the notion that silver cables are brighter than copper or that heavier gauges are somehow better. However, the Leyding did have enough of a sonic impact that I’m starting to rethink some of my preconceptions.

The plastic-sheathed 8-core braided Kinera Leyding doesn’t look or feel especially luxe, except for its modular output design, which provides for detachable 2.5mm balanced, 3.5mm single-ended and 4.5mm balanced plugs. Build seems solid, with metal connectors and gold-plated plugs, but the 3.5mm plug is too stubby to fit in the protective case on my mobile (I had to use a M to F extender, which admittedly is not a great sacrifice). The cable does feel soft and supple around your ears, and (in contrast to the stock Bravery cable) is free from microphonics and awkward memory.

Contrary to my preconceptions, the Kinera Leyding very significantly changed the presentation of the SeeAudio Bravery. First and foremost, it boosted the volume considerably—while I leave measurements to my more technogeek colleagues, I hypothesize that the Leyding has lower impedance than the stock Bravery cable (less impedance=greater volume).

However, it also made the already-bright Bravery brighter and made the low end, which had somewhat slow decay with the stock cable, audibly tighter. Not all of these changes were favorable—guitar strings and female vox with the Leyding sounded a little more shrill/digital, albeit more detailed. Overall, however, the Kinera Leyding was an improvement.

Results with the ($49) KZ ZS10 Pro were less successful. Again, the phones sounded louder with the Leyding than with the stock copper cable (which is $9 on KZ’s website) and notes seemed weightier. However, the Kinera Leyding tended to bloat the bass to a painful level, which was better-controlled with the cheaper original.

With the Moondrop Kanas Pro, whose stock cable is thinner but also silver plated copper, the differences were much more subtle—I may have heard a bit more weight in the notes with the Leyding, but I can’t swear that there wasn’t some expectancy bias in play. 

I’m happy to own the Kinera Leyding—the detachable plugs are useful gimmick, it’s very comfortable to wear and a definite enhancement to some phones. You could probably find an equivalent performer for less  (though given its lavish presentation the Leyding seems fairly priced). Above all, it made me actually care about cables for the first time, which is worth something. 

Disclaimer: gifted by and available from HifiGo. Thanks, guys and gals. 

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

The post Kinera Leyding .78mm 2 pin Cable Review – Better Living Through Science appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Easy to drive with a mobile, although amping with a modest dongle better controls the slightly tubby midbass region and gives these a bit more crispness. Somewhat tip-sensitive, with narrower silicons giving ‘em a bit more subbass depth.

My more learned colleague describes the Tforce’s tuning as  “diffuse field near neutral” (I would have called it balanced), which isn’t to say it’s flat—there’s some added emphasis in the midrange which pushes vocals forward and provides for good clarity.

Coherent, in the manner of good single DDs, with clean instrument separation; tonality is slightly warm and pretty natural, without shrillness or artifacts, while resolution is likewise good though missing some low-level detail and subtleties in drumbeats and acoustic guitar strings.

Analyzed aspect-by-aspect, it’s hard to find fault with the Yuan Li—it’s a capable, professionally-executed phone. However, my visceral reaction is that it opts for safety over excitement—compared to peers like Moondrop Starfield or the Shozy 1.1/1.4, the Yuan Li lacks a bit of high end extension and  sizzle and come off not so much as dull but as unengaging.

The Yuan Li would make a good entry drug for someone looking to enter this IEM rabbit hole—it does very little wrong and much right. However, you’d hope that subsequent releases from its maker will amp up the PRAT.

Disclaimer: Borrowed from Durwood who received them free of charge from HifiGo which sells them on their website here and also on Amazon.

Contact us!

All Our 282 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

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

The post Tforce Audio Yuan Li Review (2) – Do No Harm appeared first on Audio Reviews.

The 2DD/BA/piezo GK10 is a warm (cf dark-sounding) V-shaped piece with emphasis on the voluminous but somewhat sluggish midbass, recessed mids and a grainy but  reasonably detailed treble. There’s adequate separation between instruments, but imaging is confusing—the performers seem to be randomly placed in a scrum towards the middle of the stage.

Drums lack some snap and the highest frequencies seem to be veiled by the big low end. For all that, the GK10 is a pleasant enough listen—there’s no harsh edges or sharp peaks, and tonality is fairly analogue-sounding.  However, it’s difficult to hear just what all those drivers are doing—these lack the quick transients and high-end transparency of  other budget piezos like the NX-7 or BQEYZ Spring. Okay overall, but the more revealing KBEAR KB04 or a TRN STM are much better for much less. 

Specifications

• 1 balanced armature for high frequency
• 2 piezoelectric ceramic for ultra-high frequency
• 7mm graphene diaphragm dynamic for middle frequency
• 8mm dome titanium diaphragm dynamic for bass
• Panel: stable wood
• Shell material: ABS+PC
• Impedance: 8Ω
• Sensitivity: 106dB
• Frequency response range: 20-30kHz
• Cable material: 8-strand silver-plated
• Connector: 2pin 0.78mm
• Cable length: 1.2m

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Hifigo kindly provided this set to Durwood for no charge, for everyone else they can be found on Amazon on Hifigo’s store page.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Geek Wold GK10 Review (2) – Another Opinion appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Nominally $149, though the street price is as low as $59, the Elevoc Clear are well-built, with high quality plastic buds and an especially durable-looking charging case. I don’t really like the stem-down Airpod-style design (which irrationally reminds me of Rudy Gulliani’s dripping hair dye), and the Elevoc Clear are heavier than some of their counterparts, though comfort is pretty good.

Touch controls are logically laid out and responsive (perhaps overly responsive, as you tend to hit them even with slight adjustment of the buds); however, there is no volume control on the buds, which is a conspicuous omission for this type of product.

Battery life of 5-6hrs. isn’t  special, but pairing is immediate and connectivity flawless. Especially since multiple tip choices assure a good seal, the ANC really is exceptional—only the lowest frequencies intrude. Likewise, call quality is as good as advertised—even in  heavy winds voices (incoming and outgoing) are crystal clear and background noise is filtered out very effectively.

As a music phone, however, the Elevoc Clear is curiously tuned—it has a syrupy, mid-focused tonality with slow transients and extremely  restricted HF range.  Low end is presented mostly as midbass, which doesn’t bleed but lacks depth and punch; mids are smooth and somewhat full-bodied but not very realistic-sounding, while high end lacks detail and extension, without a lot of  snap or sizzle.

Soundstage is very narrow and constricted—the performers are pushed to the middle of the stage and stereo imaging is vague. The overall effect is inoffensive and not unpleasant—there’s no harshness or spiky frequencies , but for lack of a better term, these sound somewhat Bose-like in that there’s not a ton of low end or high end information—you get the contours of the music without the essence.  

Most notably, the volume level, which was more than adequate for calls, was low for music—you need to max these out to really hear them, which undermines their utility for gym, outdoors, etc. Seemingly, this tuning was a conscious choice, as if Elevoc’s target audience merely  want unobtrusive background listening in between their Zoom calls. To each his own.

If you need TWS for communication, the Elevoc Clear have their considerable merits—their call technology actually trumps Apple and Samsung at a cheaper price. However, as a musical instrument, these just don’t cut it and, especially with my declining hearing/sanity, would be a pass.

Disclaimer

We received the Clear unsolicited for review purposes from Elevoc. You can purchase them at indiegogo.

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

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

The post Elevoc Clear NC Earbuds Review (1) – Spanner In The Works appeared first on Audio Reviews.