Cons — Piercing upper midrange needs modification, stock tips useless, ordinary sound (the thumpy bass kills the fun); unimaginative design; pointless tuning filters (only one yields an acceptable sound); not sure whether they are their money’s worth.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Shenzhen company NiceHCK has accompanied this blog before it even existed. Loomis and I first discussed their iems over on Head-Fi – we both treasured the legendary $12 NiceHCK Bro model. One enthusiastic Head-Fier compared the NiceHCK N3 with the Campfire Andromeda (nah…), but Loomis nevertheless added it to his 2019 favourites.

NiceHCK have made themselves a name mainly with budget earbuds and quality earphone cables in all price categories. Their earphones, on the other hand, have been hit and miss, mainly because of poor tuning, but most of them have at least been interesting.

Their recent two midprice models are still in their catalogue at the time of this review: the $119 NX7 Mk3 with 4 BA + 2 DD + 1 piezo with exchangeable screw-on tuning nozzles (and exchangeable faceplates) and the $239 Lofty with their Beryllium-coated dynamic driver. The first had a piezo working against the other drivers and the second was overly ordinarily U-shaped for its price tag.

Their latest NiceHCK M5 sport 4 BA + 1 DD and 3 exchangeable tuning valves, which are actually back vents. We’ve seen this recently in the Hidizs MM2.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the earpieces with three tuning vents (grey:balanced/red: mid-treble/blue: basshead), screwdriver (!!!), 2 sets of eartips (S/M/L), silver-plated high-purity copper cable, a pleather storage case, and the paperwork.

The shells consist of 3D printed German resin shells with aluminum alloy faceplates added. They are small and ergonomic, with good fit and comfort. Nevertheless is the design somewhat boring and home made to me. Isolation depends on eartips used. It is mediocre with the SpinFit CP145.

The included monster screwdriver is somewhat comical and you have to have a quiet hand not to scratch the faceplates during vent change.

Tonality and Technicalities

The NiceHCK M5 offers 3 different sonic signatures, depending on tuning filter used: super bassy, warm-bright, and neutral-bright. The blue bassy filter yields a horribly vulgar sound and is largely omitted here. The grey “normal” filter creates an ordinary middle-of-the-road sound, and the red “treble” filter introduces harshness by the dialled down bass.

None of these signatures is tolerable to me without further modification: I taped 90% of the nozzle mesh off with 3M micropore tape, as so often with Shenzhen earphones in the past. This reduces the over-energized upper midrange, it rounds the sharp edges to some extent and adds volume to the midrange. Without, the midrange is breathy, thin, and strident.

Grey “normal” Filters

This yields a middle-of-the road sound that could not be more unexciting to the educated ear. Bass is very well extended but thumpy and somewhat fuzzy. It lacks definition and finesse. A bass we know from cheap iems. The thick bass dominates the whole presentation. Wonder what dynamic driver there’s in it.

The bass bleeds into the lower midrange, which is attenuated by the upper midrange energy. The micropore tape does a good job in removing midrange harshness. The M5 sounds smoother in the lower midrange than the modded Rose Qt-9 mk2s, though voices are honky and boxed in.

Lower treble is rolling off in panic and gets re-energized at around 9 kHz. This moves higher notes back and adds some tizziness…

The soundstage is relatively narrow but has good depth. Timbre is just ordinary and a turnoff for the educated listener – particularly at this price. The M5 sounds…cheap.

The other technicalities are ok. Midrange resolution is good, midrange note definition is good, too. Note weight is lean in the midrange. Spatial cues is decent as long as there is not much bass in the music.

Red “neutral” Filters

Reduces bass quantity without improving bass quality. This moves the midrange forward and adds harshness to the image while removing warmth – it becomes overpixelated, like an early-generation digital photo. Notes are very edgy. Bass is now thumpy in the background and anemic, vocals are strident, despite the micropore tape.

But midrange clarity, articulation, and transparency are greatly improved in my perception (but in my perception only), stage widens but becomes shallower. Still, bass and midrange don’t fit together. My ears can handle this sharpness only for a few minutes.

Blue “bassy” Filters

Horribly overdone thumpy bass. Just like your steak dinner drowned in barbecue sauce. Vulgar!

Concluding Remarks

The NiceHCK M5 are no outright bad earphones. They are pleasing to the lesser educated ear and therefore may be a good choice for the novice with well-filled pockets. But the over-energetic upper mids require user modding with micropore tape, and the stock tips are useless.

Of the exchangeable tuning filters, the “normal” ones creates an ordinary sound and the red ones with reduced bass a harsh sound. And the humongous screwdriver for installing them is outright ridiculous.

In summary, the M5 sound “middle of the road” (a rather narrow road that is) but don’t do anything above average nor do they look or feel special. The M5 cannot compete with their peers such as Moondrop KATO. Their tuning, particularly in the midrange, is yesteryear.

I don’t think NiceHCK understand how to market the capitalist part of the world. Just sticking some drivers into a shell while ignoring the competition is not good enough. The M5 are simply nothing special, they lack finesse, are uninspiring, and they are not competitive at $179.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Gallery

The post NiceHCK M5 Review – Ordinary Life appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Lacks macrodynamic punch and sub-bass rumble
– Notes sound smoothed over at times
– Lower-mids are somewhat recessed
– Imaging is hazy

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Elle Zhou of BQEYZ was kind enough to send me the review sample.
Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Questyle CMA-400i
Price, while reviewed: $200. Can be bought from HiFiGo

INTRODUCTION

The folks at BQEYZ are best known for their hybrid and multi-driver efforts. Their popular models such as the Summer or Spring had DD + BA + Piezo configuration. In fact, BQEYZ is one of the few manufacturers who still use Piezo drivers and has extensive know-how about this driver type.

The Autumn, being a single-dynamic offering, mark a shift in BQEYZ’s approach. Simplifying the driver count allows for easier tuning but also makes maintaining technicalities a challenge.

Do the BQEYZ Autumn pass the hurdle, or do they fall by the wayside? We’ll find out in the following.

PHYSICALS

Accessories

The BQEYZ Autumn come with 6 pairs of eartips, a 4-core silver + copper mixed cable, and the proprietary tuning magnets along side a tool to remove the magnets. A carrying case is also included which gets the job done without being flashy.

Build

General fit and finish are excellent here, with the BQEYZ Autumn having a polished aluminum shell. The shell is a two-piece design with the seam between the pieces barely noticed.

There are three vents on the inner-side of the IEMs. The nozzle is also metal. Lastly, BQEYZ has opted for 0.78mm 2-pin recessed connectors, which I personally prefer over flush or raised connectors.

Comfort and isolation

Comfort is very good but isolation is lacking due to the vents placed on the inner side of the earpiece.

Internals

BQEYZ went for a 13mm single dynamic driver here, with not much being told about the diaphragm material. Elle Zhou confirmed that they are using a 6 micro-meter ultra-thin PEN diaphragm.

The driver is housed in a dual-cavity structure which is becoming pretty standard lately.

BQYEZ Autumn Sound Analysis

Listening setup: BQEYZ Autumn with normal filter + stock cable + Radius Deep-Mount tips + Sony NW-A55

The BQEYZ Autumn have a slightly V-shaped tuning with emphasis around mid-bass and lower-treble. What makes them stand out is how relaxing the signature is, as the transients are rounded and leading edge of notes are softened out.

Bass here is mostly characterized by the mid-bass bloom that adds some extra decay to bass notes. Snare hits also get extra thickness and body as a result. This tuning works well for moderately paced tracks but leaves you wanting in fast metal tracks.

Sub-bass rumble is lacking, so sudden bass drops lack the physicality you expect. Macrodynamic punch is lacking as well, so the BQEYZ Autumn isn’t really suited for portraying the energy in tracks.

Mids are fairly well tuned. Lower mids are recessed but doesn’t sound drowned out. The recession gives a sensation of laid-back vocals that is devoid of shout or shrillness. If you don’t mind midrange recession, the Autumn won’t be disappointing. However, for those seeking more forward or energetic vocals – this ain’t it.

Then comes the treble, and here we have perhaps the only tonal oddity of the Autumn. The 5kHz peak is quite prominent and makes leading edge of cymbal hits sound a bit brittle. This presence region emphasis is needed to keep the Autumn from sounding overly dark but this also leads to over-crispness at times.

Upper-treble is well extended with resonances being heard well until 15kHz. The airiness is kept in check though so it doesn’t lead to fatigue.

Before getting into technicalities, let’s talk about the filters. The filters only increase or decrease the amount of bass but due to how we perceive sound, this change in bass markedly alters the presentation.

The normal filter is the one I found the most balanced, with the bass filter making things too bassy and the treble filter making the 5kHz peak even more prominent.

When it comes to staging, I found the stage width to be quite good. Everything is well separated, and the Autumn don’t sound cramped. However, stage depth is limited.

Imaging is also average with positional cues often being hazy. The saving grace here is the reproduction of microdynamics that allows you to delineate between instruments playing at differing volumes.

Finally, resolved detail is above average for a single dynamic IEM but the Autumn will be bested by a number of multi-BA or hybrid offerings in this range.

Compared to Final E4000

Final E4000 have been one of my default recommendations for a single dynamic driver IEM under USD $200.

In terms of build, the Final are no slouch with a similarly solid aluminium shell. Final went for a barrel shape and mmcx connectors but both IEMs are at equal playing field here.

Comfort and Isolation wise I think E4000 wins as they block more noise than the Autumn. Accessories are about par on both.

As for the sound, E4000 have a similarly bass-boosted, warm tuning but Final has even less emphasis in lower treble. This results in a tad darker tuning than the Autumn. Another noticeable change is the staging and imaging where the E4000 sound more expansive and accurate respectively.

Resolved detail is a bit better on the Autumn due to better upper treble extension. Macrodynamic punch is better on the E4000 meanwhile. Mids are also more engaging on the Final IEMs.

One advantage of the BQEYZ Autumn is the filter system that isn’t available on the E4000 at all. So if you want to change the tuning on the fly the Autumn will be better suited. E4000 are also more difficult to power, requiring better amping.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

BQEYZ have tuned the Autumn fairly well. They didn’t just try to copy-paste an existing target curve and instead went for their own flavor of sound which is rarer to see these days. I do wish that the Autumn were a bit better in terms of technicalities, esp the imaging department. BQEYZ’s previous offerings were better in this regard so this one is a backward step. 

Other than that, the Autumn are a solid pair of single dynamic IEMs, and on sale price they warrant a closer look.

MY VERDICT

4/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from HiFiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post BQEYZ Autumn Review (2) – Incremental Improvements 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.

INTRO

For those not familiar with the Drop Grell TWS1X, Grell was founded by one of Sennheiser’s top designers Axel Grell so there are high expectations from those aware of the association. For the rest they might be unaware of the wonderful products Sennheiser has created throughout the years.

If you peruse their about page it reads just like any other direct to consumer breakout brand forked out of a legendary following, promises of high quality parts, cutting edge tech, but with a direct to consumer pricing model.

Ever been in one of those relationships that you do not know how to describe and default to the cliche- It’s complicated? That is how I feel about the Drop Grell TWS1X. The sound is another wonderfully tuned Harman profile with lower bass boost absent of midrange bleed, a mild treble plateau that gradually fades with good technical abilities and features that sport a working ANC feature set.

Disclaimer: Thanks go out to Drop sending a free pair and for trusting me to review these as a first time product for Audioreviews. I hope they are not too let down by my critique, but we also need to be honest to readers-no sides taken. Price as tested $200. Tested with Firmware version 2.8.0

GOOD TRAITS

• Harman Sound Profile
• Small Wireless Charging case, also USB-C
• Case Charge level indicator
• Transparency Mode
• ANC/NAR mode works well
• IPX4 Splash Proof

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Manual not descriptive enough a quick start guide with universal pictures, but no manual to describe the features or SoundID.
• Fast Battery drain during storage
• Fitment-short nozzle stem
• Awkward pairing issues, sometimes only one connects if you put the wrong side in first.
• Storage orientation is opposite (Left earpiece on the right, Right earpiece on the left)

MODES

There are essentially 4 modes of operation

1. Normal (Transparency Off, ANC Off)
2. Transparency On
3. ANC ON
4. ANC ON + NAR ON

ANC, NAR and Transparent modes are not explained in the manual other than how to switch them on/off
Transparent is fairly obvious for an experienced user, but not a novice.
ANC=Automatic Noise Cancellation
NAR=Noise Annoyance Reduction (Not much information on what this does)
Switching between the modes is weird. Sometimes it says ANC on/off, other times it says NAR on/off with a 1 sec hold.
Pop noise when turning ANC mode ON.

COMFORT / CONTROLS

I don’t own a lot of wireless IEM’s because I have trouble keeping them in place. My only other pair is the wonderfully fabulous Sony WF-1000XM3, but even those I struggle with to keep them in place. I prefer something that locks in place in my ears.

So this is a bias I have and wanted to point out the Drop Grell TWS1X does not make this better. The stems are short, the ear wings don’t seem to help, and therefore I had to resort to using foam eartips which was still not enough to keep them in place if in moving around situations.

The controls on the Drop Grell TWS1X are divided amongst both sides so that volume (right side) and track changes (left side) are not confused with each other. In addition to that, Play/Pause on the right, and ANC/Transparency single taps are on the left. Upon inserting them into your ears, there is not much area to grip and I found myself cycling through modes as I inserted them or activating Google Search.

The responsiveness of the touch sensor was about equivalent to the Sony WF-1000XM3, however there were times I wish they would pause sooner. I had seen discussion that there is some delay to prevent unwanted commands from occurring.

Note: Firmware updates for the Drop Grell TWS1X are done through the SoundID app, which also allows a user to apply a personal EQ to earphones in their database, which is quite large. It appears to be similar to an app called Neutralizer. The SoundID app is a Sonarworks product, and not specific to the Drop Grell TWS1X.

PACKAGE CONTENTS

• Charging case with Wireless Charging
• USB-A to USB-C charging cable
• 3 pairs of silicone eartips (S, M, L)
• 2 pairs of foam eartips (M, L)
• 3 pairs of wingtips (various fits)

SOUND

Ok having moved past the hiccups with operation, the sound of the Drop Grell TWS1X is quite enjoyable. With modern music the bass blooms in the bottom end, yet I sense some compression action occurring most likely from the built in amplifier. With music that does not utilize the lower octaves, it comes of sounding balanced and tighter.

Activating the ANC mode adds even more echoing bass boost which again is fairly typical of ANC earphones that are designed to cancel out constant noise signals typically centered throughout the bass region and lower midrange.

Airplanes, public transport and lawn mowers are typical good uses. Since the boost is focused purely towards the bottom octaves, they avoid bleeding into the lower midrange.

Midrange is set forward, with a very intimate dry sound. Treble has good presence keeping things lively and delicate at the same time. Peaks and such are well controlled, for me the treble is the star of the tuning.

If I had to nitpick perhaps it could use a sprinkle of more airiness. Strings, flutes and cymbals are very natural sounding. If ANC is active and the NAR is turned on, I pick up some boost in the treble as well but it could all depend on what the ANC is trying to cancel out too. The NAR is sort of a mystery.

TECHNICALITIES

Timbre is fairly close to natural, the Drop Grell TWS1X favors width over depth, imaging is excellent and spacing is clearly delineated. Height information is mostly maintained on a level plane, with average lift. Volume is limited on these, occasionally I would catch them quickly ramping the volume down when activating the ANC as if they could play louder if allowed.

Transparency mode is useful in an office setting, or possibly in an active usage scenario, however as mentioned before I could not get them to stay in place with even a simple walking exercise.

The microphones are very sensitive so they pick up wind noise and whispers sound unsettling loud. You could potentially ASMR yourself using the transparency mode. I would like to see if this could be simmered down with future firmware updates maybe?

COMPARISON

Sony WF-1000XM3 (Discontinued street prices $50-150)

While both the Drop Grell TWS1X and the Sony WF-1000XM3 both utilize apps to control and EQ, the Sony requires the app to control the earphone settings. There is no way to access some of the features without the app.

The Drop Grell TWS1X on the other hand allows you to cycle through the different listening modes on the earphones themselves. The WF-1000XM3 is fully customize-able for the transparency mode though.

The Drop Grell TWS1X sounds more balanced than the V signature of the WF-1000XM3. Mids sound recessed on the Sony after listening to the Grell. The Grell also has a more rounded treble that allows many instruments to shine as opposed to the one note treble feel of the Sony.

The Drop Grell TWS1X has wireless charging while the Sony does not (winner TWS1X), but then fails on battery drain just from sitting around (winner 1000XM3). This seems like a toss up, except its more of a nuisance to grab a pair of dead earphones then be inconvenienced by having to plug them in to charge.

There is one final thing to note, when I bought my Sony I did some research that technically the battery can be replaced if you are handy. I don’t know if the Drop Grell TWS1X battery can be accessed without destroying the earphones. I might just be a nerd in this regard to worry about such silly things, but something to think about in our throw away society.

COMPLETION

Most of my concerns (and others) for the Drop Grell TWS1X appear to be the user experience, so if you can overlook the functionality quirks they are a wonderfully sounding set with nice features comparable to the Sony WF-1000XM3.

I know they are trying real hard to work through peoples’ concerns on head-fi and Drop so that is a glass half full half empty scenario. They are receptive to solving people problems, but it would be nice if there were no bugginess in the first place, I am referring to the single side pairing conundrum.

My two biggest gotchas are fitment and battery drain. Nothing more frustrating than having to charge them once a week even if not using them. However my biggest disappointment is that I cannot use them in more active situations.

This is the most frustrating part for me because the sound tuning is excellent and the ANC passed my lawn mower test. So if you plan to use them in a stationary situation that requires ANC or even just wireless usage, and don’t care much about the battery drain these are a wonderful set of wireless ANC IEMS.

SPECIFICATIONS

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it direct from DROP.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

The post Drop Grell TWS1X Review – Ambition Meet Frustration 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.

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.

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.

This piece is to report my experience with a glorious piece of old world technology, Scottish RHA’s CL2 planar IEMs. A privately owned sample was sent to me by an audiophile friend for assessment, and I now understand his love and jealousy for the item indeed.

Currently discontinued, these IEMs were marketed for around €900 back in their day (some 2-3 years ago).

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Apogee Groove+Burson FUN / E1DA 9038SG3-3000 – final E clear eartips – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Tonality

RHA CL2’s tuning as it comes out of the box is – simply put – just flawed. Based on a somewhat wide-v general shape, highmid frequencies (2-4Khz) are ununderstandably over excited which inevitably stirs the presentation into a bad sort of shout party. Sub-bass could also do with some more body physicality, but that’s minor in comparison. Highmids, as is, are just undefendable.

That’s bad, but that’s at least as bad as it gets. The great news instead is that RHA’s driver’s elasticity vs even important equalization corrections is close to divine. Using an ordinary PEQ you can push and pull frequencies as you please and CL2 will follow you pretty much into the tonality you exactly want.

The general timbre is that of a (high end) planar driver, so clear, defined and neat, therefore don’t expect what you can’t possibly get, e.g. DD-style attack in the bass, but within that you are free to think to CL2 as a blackboard to draw the tonality curve you prefer on, and that will be nibly delivered.

For my taste fast drivers (like planars) strictly relate to acoustic music like bebop or classical, and that’s why I shaped a sort of mild Vshape, with elevated high mids within the classical DF boundaries on one end, leaving the existing midbass where they are. More on this here below.

Sub-Bass

Sub bass is extended but less prominent than midbass. Especially for acoustic jazz application, a nudge up is really beneficial to standup bass and similar key instruments. A low shelf of +2 / +3dB is recommended.

Mid Bass

CL2 midbass is just great within its planar category. It has pretty much everything you can dream of: speed, definition, texture, detail retrieval – with the sole important limitation of gutt-felt attack which is of course technologically offlimits. Forget any distortion, barred of course that coming from your source so – beware! – CL2 are totally unforgiving on that. Use a clean source, or be ready to hear how dirty your source is. Musically speaking don’t feed them with Pink Floyd, just don’t. Feed them with Andrew Cyrille.

Mids

As previously mentioned, the first thing to do here is removing that elephant from the room: high mids need to be tamed down. I’m putting -3dB around 2.5/3Khz and another -4dB around 4Khz. Then we can talk: mids are now clear, defined, engaging, very detailed and somewhat lean.

Vocals

Vocals are a bit lighter than organic, both male and female although in slightly different ways. An (optional) way to add a bit more body to lower mids vocals in particular is by adding a +3dB high shelf hinged at around 7/800Hz. In such case of course the previous negative bell values at 3 and 4Khz need to be negatively increased by the same quantity. Don’t take notes here, I’ll add an EQ suggestions recap at the end 

Highs

CL2’s trebles are very good, sparkly, detailed, while making sure to stay on unoffensive territory. Even too much. Too much christiandemocrat, if the term makes sense to you. Beyond sonic preference, this is another example where CL’s agility vs equalization offers you an experimentation liberty that’s simply missing elsewhere: go head, adventure into pumping air trebles and last octave up … until you like or can bear. Just push: CL2 will follow, no distortion.

Equalization Recs recap

Technicalities

Soundstage

CL2 offer very good space sizing both accross and in depth. Not the “most huge” room I heard yet in line with expectation on this price level, and vis-a-vis the other high quality technicalities on the product.

Imaging

Macrodynamics are very good, instrument placement is correctly executed in all occasions and casting on the stage comes accross as credible an fully natural

Details

Detail retrieval on highmids and trebles is finely granular and inoffensive / unfatiguing at the same time – an extremely difficult and therefore rare balance to achieve per my experience. Very good detail extraction also happens from mids and bass, with the sole already mentioned caveat regarding planar timbre necessarily keeping bass just a shiff south of truly organic, which also impacts on the realism of their details of course.

Instrument separation

Separation and layering are beyond beautiful; precision and definition are really outstanding and fully worth the price tag and much beyond.

Driveability

CL2 are extremely demanding in terms of amplification. They require a “high minimum” in terms of current delivery, and furtherly positively scale with the amp’s qualities. Amongst the multiple and diverse sources I have available in the end only desktop gear gave CL2 some serious glory, with the sole notable exception of E1DA’s 9038SG3 and 9039D. Pretty much everything else I have at hand right now doesn’t “open” them up appropriately due to scarse current delivery.

CL2 also easily pick hiss up from the source (in my case: Burson Fun), while on the other hand they prove quite resilient to FR skewage even when the amp pair offers a sub-idel damping factor (again for my case: Burson Fun).

Physicals

Build

Ceramic shells following the classical RHA shape are at the same time solid, resistant and – for my taste – greatly stylish to look at

Fit

CL2 fit rather well into my outer ears, although they tend to stay not perfectly still especially vs mandibular movements.

Comfort

Comfort is ok once fitted. The shape is not 100% ideal to me, but its rounded surface helps minimising pain points and such. Above average anyway.

Isolation

Passive isolation is rather average.

Cable

The privately owned unit I borrowed came with a third party cable so can’t comment on stock one(s).

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

7Hz Timeless

An unfair comparison looking at price tags: €200 for this chifi thingie, €900 for the scottish one – the latter better be really good ! Dual unfair insofar as per my previous piece on Timeless I don’t find those particularly brilliant even in their own price class. I’m mentioning them mainly due to their recent hype.

Similarly to CL2, ootb Timeless presentation also comes accross as flawed: a major distortion point at 9300Hz introduces a nigh-ridiculous, very invasive artificial tint to the timbre, which must be eliminated or the product is just unaudible, to me at least. Timeless also can benefit of some further sub-bass elevation, again like CL2 does. End of the similarities.

Timeless’ driver is very obviously less refined than CL2’s (heck! at 1/4th the price…) and this results in a much more pronounced, and unpleasant, “inevitably planar” timbre in the first place, and a dramatic lack of texture and detail in the bass line which is dull, uninspiring.

Timeless’ highmids are less shouty than CL2’s out of the box, but they still need EQ correction. No problem, if not for the fact that when downtamed Timeless’s high mids become dull, while CL2’s stay fully vivid, and extremely pleasant.

Even more importantly than all that precedes, Timeless’ technicalities are a joke compared to CL2’s: instrument separation is underwhelming at the very least on Timeless (even vs some non-planars by the way), microdynamics and detail retrieval are nothing more than average un the highs, inexistant from the bass, and soundstage depth is MIA (as in: Missing in Action), whereas CL2 ticks all those boxes with great competence, with a sole sub-top remark reserved to microdynamics which could be even better weren’t for the superfast driver nature of course.

Campfire Andromeda [2020]

Based on a totally different driver setup (5 x BA vs 1 x Planar) comparing Andromeda with CL2 is significant on 2 counts: their sonic presentation (speed, detail, timbre) and their prices categories (€900 vs €1100) are close enough.

You may read my take in detail on my earlier piece about Andromeda [2020], here let me go straight to the point: beyond their differences, Andromeda and CL2 share an almost magically spot-on balance between detail retrieval and control, resulting in smoothness all accross the board.

Neither are my exact cup if tea in terms of timbre: both is too fast, too technical for me. Of the two, CL2’s planar timbre is less pronounced than the (in itself decently moderately at the very least) Andromeda’s BA. What’s totally stunning on Andromeda, and even more so when directly compared to a single-driver product like CL2, is their tonal and timbral coherence across the entire spectrum, and the 5 different drivers working under the hood.

Conversely, and correspondingly, CL2’s single driver needs not pay any toll to the 5 (say: five) different drivers employed inside Andromeda in terms of bilateral extension, articulation, detail retrieval.

Both on my scoreboard excel on the same macro points: the already mentioned resolution/smoothness balance and timbre cleanness and clarity line up in both cases with superb treble delivery, and beyond good imaging, separation and layering. Again, both show their limits on bass texturing and microdynamics in general – which is of course inherent to the very nature of the driver technology of choice in either case.

Andromeda are much less elastic to heavy eq compare to CL2, on the other hand they require much less as their presentation is way more than viable already out of the box. They require much less “power” to be driven, but not a much “cheaper” source anyway: dealing with their very high sensitivity and very low impedance without turning into hiss or distortion in general is not easy.

Considerations & conclusions

RHA CL2 are just spectacular IEMs and they would still be worth every single cent of their price tag if they hadn’t been discontinued as a part of RHA’s disengagement from the higher segments of the audio market. The sole possibility is now finding a good preloved unit.

They deliver an incredibly refined clear and lifelike presentation – a mixture that’s as desireable as rare to effectively find. They can (and must) be freely equalised to have their tonality shaped precisely as per the user taste, and deliver a nothing short of stunning level of technicalities.

Sincere thanks to Simone Fil for the loan and assessment opportunity.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post RHA CL2 Review – Hands Down The Best Planar Yet appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Relatively high impedance…benefits from amplification.

Executive Summary

Introduction

BQEYZ made themselves a name back in 2018 with one of the first neutrally tuned budget iems, the $30 2DD +2BA BQEYZ KC2, at a time when budget meant V-shaped. The KC2 is still available and has a dedicated following.

The company continued a class higher with the $139 1DD +1BA +1 EST BQEYZ Spring 1, which had wonderful vocals but a somewhat pillowy bass. The subsequent 1DD +1BA +1 EST $169 BQEYZ Spring 2 improved the bass somewhat. All of the above were metal built.

The subsequent $129 1DD +1BA +1EST BQEYZ Summer deviated with its translucent resin shells and finally featured the desired punchy bass.

We have collectively analyzed all of the above to the hilt, including Durwood’s study of the effect of nozzle mesh on the Spring 1’s frequency response.

The latest BQEYZ model is named “Autumn” after the third season of the year, hence “Tre Stagioni” (three seasons). With their BQEYZ Autumn, the company reverts to metal shells being essentially identical in shape to the Summer’s.

New is the driver configuration which is a single DD. BQEYZ also offer maximum sonic flexibility by including three sets of magnetic tuning vents at the font of the shells. Each of these pucks constitutes a different front vent with its very own bass response.

It is an interesting approach contrary to the JVC FDX1, the perceived bass response of which is dosed by screw-on nozzles containing different filters. Although these alter the JVC’s upper midrange response, the effect is only heard at the low end, as the human ear registers the whole frequency spectrum in context.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the 2 earpieces, the cable, 3 pairs of tuning pucks in a holder, the magnetic tuner pole, 2 sets of eartips (S/M/L), a brush, and a carrying case. The three tuning pucks (“bass”, “normal”, “treble”) are actually the inner earphone vents (also called front vents). They come in different openings: the smaller the bassier. We describe the relevant physical principles in this article.

The metal pucks are inserted and removed with the included magnetic pole. This takes as long as a tire change during a Formula 1 race. The magnetic fit guarantees minimal wear and tear even when swapped frequently. Very handy.

The earpieces are made of CNC machined metal and are built very well. The overall haptic of shells and cable is great. BQEYZ have addressed the criticism of the BQEYZ Summer’s resin shells.

Fit and comfort are very good, isolation is rather poor for my ears. The cable has silver-coated copper and high-purity copper strands. It is loosely braided with minimal contact area between the strands for minimum interference. I find the cable rather pliable and light – it has no microphonics.

2 sets of eartips (S/M/L) are included, one wide bore and the other narrow bore. Note that the nozzle diameter exceeds the usual 4.5 mm so that many third-party eartips will not fit. You may try the SpinFit CP500 or any Azla SednaEarfit models if going for third-party tips.

Tonality and Technicalities

A universally valid assessment of the BQEYZ Autumn is difficult as tonality and technicalities depend on the interplay of several factors: magnetic tuning puck + eartips + source (in any combination). This versatility allows to you pretty much to create your own favourite sound.

Considering its 46 Ω impedance, the Autumn benefits from amplification, although it works surprisingly well with my iPhone SE (1st gen.). For example, the powerful Apogee Groove produces a much cleaner and better defined image than the weaker AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt.

Using the JitterBug FMJ with the Apogee Groove makes quite a difference in that it ads definition to the image. The difference is actually considerable.

With the wide-bore stock tips, the “bass” vents generate more…yes…bass…which drowns the vocals out somewhat — and the “normal” vents bring voices more into the foreground without sacrificing bass impact. But this latter combination may be bassier than the combination of “bass” vents and JVC Spiral Dots.

I played with the stock eartips but got the best results with the JVC Spiral Dots that disperse some of the mid-bass and produce the tightest possible low end. Bass generally digs deep but the vocals move into the foreground with the JVCs. Signature becomes brighter but notes also cleaner and more articulate.

I also experimented with the vents, and the normal ones yielded the best result (in combination with the Spiral Dots). The bass vents “overthicken” the low end, move the vocals back and therefore remove intimacy and detail.

My favourite combination therefore is the normal vents with the JVC Spiral Dots.

So, how does the BQEYZ Autumn sound, actually (with “normal” puck and Spiral Dots)? It has the classic slightly warm single-dynamic driver sound with a rather crisp attack adding some edge.

The low end is on the tight side, it is well extended and remains focused to the lowest frequencies. There is no mid-bass hump as emphasis is on the lower frequencies, just above sub-bass. Drum kicks in the mid bass are not as pronounced as they could be but they are nevertheless hard as a rock – and dry.

Lower midrange is standalone without bass bleed. Male and female voices are somewhat recessed, of medium note weight, energetic, and natural. There is no shoutiness but we are getting there, although that 5 kHz peak is not irritating to my ears.

Midrange temperature is a bit cooler than in the bass region but still not quite neutral. Midrange resolution is very good, everything clean and clear there. Note definition is very good.

Lower treble rolls of substantially. Cymbals are a bit back and don’t have the best definition – but they are still ok. Resolution is better in the midrange than in the treble region.

Stage is average in width, height and depth. Spatial cues is very good. Attack is sharp and crisp without being aggressive. The dynamic driver is rather nimble. Stage positioning and separation are also good. Timbre is good.

I am a bit short in my sonic description as it mostly applies to this very particular setup.

BQEYZ Autumn compared

The dynamic-driver competition in the $200 region is tight. The Tanchjim Oxygen (which I don’t know) and the JVC HA-FDX1 are standard staples on our Wall of Excellence (also count the 1+1 IKKO OH10 in). The Moondrop KATO is arguably the company’s best dynamic-driver offer.

To disappoint you, it is impossible to tell which is the best of the lot as they are very close in terms of (sound) quality. But they differ quite a bit in ergonomics.

For example, the IKKO OH10 is very heavy in one’s ear, and so – but to a lesser extent – is the KATO. The Oxygen have short nozzles that may not fit everyone and the JVCs have a weird shape altogether that may not be the most comfortable for many either. In this respect, I prefer the Autumn’s compact shells.

But what I can say is that the Autumn sound more refined than the brighter $139 BQEYZ Summer, particularly in the midrange. The JVCs are not as crisp as the Autumn, they are smoother, dampened, with more rounded notes – but not as deep. The Autumn are rougher around the edges, more dynamic/energetic, and they have more midrange body and a much better sub-bass extension.

The Moondrop KATO are brighter than the Autumn (in my setup), with a wider but shallower stage. They have a smoother bass and vocals are not quite as intimate. They also have more sparkle with more air in the midrange. And they are more prone to shoutiness. How graphs can deceive us. Voices are a bit thicker and more rounded in the KATO. Treble resolution is similar between the two.

As I tend to say (well I stole it from Alberto): pick your poison!

Concluding Remarks

The BQEYZ Autumn are well built and good sounding single-dynamic driver earphones that fit their price category well – and that can prevail against their tough competition.

Whilst it is difficult to rank the large crowd of $200 single-dynamic drivers, the Autumn stick out in two aspects: comfort/fit and sonic versatility through the included tuning front vents. They are, in my opinion, the best offering in BQEYZ’s 3 season series.

Tre stagioni? Quattro stagioni! Now we are ready for “inverno”. No, that’s not what you think*…learn Italian…

Until next time…keep on listening!

*Italian: winter

The post BQEYZ Autumn Review (1) – Tre Stagioni 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.

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.

Cons — V-shape; heavy earpieces, shoddy cable.

Executive Summary

Introduction

The OH10 “Obsidian” has been hanging on our Wall of Excellence for a while, mainly triggered by Alberto, who had written a glowing review. He characterizes the OH10 sensibly and exhaustively so that there is not much room for things to add.

I have tested the OH10 for 1/2 year with endless source combinations.

IKKO is a company that has excelled through excellent builds and a rather small quality rooster of iems (and lately other products), each of which has had a rather long shelf live. The company obviously designs sustainable quality, which is not easy to find in the Shenzhen environment.

The OKKO OH1, their first offering, may have been a bit bright for my taste, but it stuck out from the field because of its sturdy metal build and the unusual shape of their earpieces. It was recently superseded by the smaller OH1S, which is highly underrated because of anti-hype by the usual YouTube screamers. The OH10 was introduced between the two models. It has been on the market for a while, and it is still as relevant as on its first day.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

Please relieve me for once from describing the photo showing the content. Yes, the cable is crap and I use Final E tips.

The metal earpieces are super heavy and relatively big – and probably more suited for home use, but their haptic is great. The nozzles are long enough. Fit is good, comfort depends on how much I move, and isolation is average.

Tonality and Technicalities

I was for the longest time in the belief the OH10 featured a crisp single dynamic driver…but it is rather a 1+1 (dynamic driver and balanced armature driver) constellation…which speaks for its cohesion. Both drivers obviously harmonize well with each other.

To give you the helicopter perspective: the OH10 excels by its fantastic bass slam and its excellent imaging. The price paid is recessed vocals and treble extension.

OK, ’nuff said already. Now you know what Alberto and I think of the OH10.

Co-blogger Kazi gave his snappy account on Facebook:

• Unique shell design and very dense shell material. 
• Too heavy for some, myself included. I find them to weigh down on my ears after a while.
• Isolation is lacking.
• Sub-bass is excellent. Punchy, agile, with good amount of rumble.
• Mid-bass is slightly thinner than expected but got good texture. 
• Vocals are recessed. Not gonna set the world alight with midrange performance.
• Upper-midrange can feel peaky at times. I found them to be too up-front on some hard rock tracks. 
• Treble is inoffensive, decent amount of sparkle but lacks the extension and air of upper-tier stuff. 
• Good staging, not as wide or deep as E5000 but fairly balanced across all three axes. 
• Imaging is decent, did not stand out to be as much as, say, the Falcon Pro. 

IKKO OH10 Compared

People keep asking for comparisons with the IKKO OH1S “Gems”, which is redundant as both sound totally different. The OH1S is more forward and brighter, and one cannot replace the other. That’s why companies run different models simultaneously…duh!

More interesting appears to be a comparison between the OH10 and the Unique Melody 3DT with its three dynamic drivers. As you can see, both have largely overlapping frequency responses. But I have to disappoint you again as both iems sound completely different. The UM 3DT is much more analytical and less engaging than the OH10.

But what this tells us the limitations of frequency response graphs for characterizing the sound of iems.

Concluding Remarks

The IKKO OH10 gives $$$ conscious audio enthusiasts access to premium quality at a mid-tear price. With its excellent imaging, it plays in the league with the big, expensive boys…not on top, but well above the bottom.

What you sacrifice is comfort through the large and heavy earpieces and some vocals intimacy through the V-shape. But the OH10 does full justice to high-quality sources way above a phone.

It is for good reason a standard staple on our Wall of Excellence…and will remain there for a long time…and im my collection. Kudos to IKKO for demonstrating sustainability in the short-lived world of Shenzhen consumerism.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 316 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The Ikko Gems OH1S were provided by Ikko for my review and I thank them for that. I also thank Alberto and Kazi for discussion.

Get the Ikko Gems OH1s from ikkoaudio.com

Gallery

The post IKKO OH10 Review (2) – On Our Wall Of Excellence 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.

Cons — Strangely implemented EST causes narrow soundstage; deserves more accessories.

Executive Summary

The LETSHUOER EJ07M is a very enjoyable neutrally-tuned vivid performer with an added bass boost.

Introduction

LETSHUOER are a Shenzhen company specializing in OEM. They are having a current hit with the $149 planar magnetic LETSHUOERS12. The LETSHUOER EJ07M are the company’s current flagship iem and improved version of their very first iem, the $850 EJ07.

Whilst I am always critical with newcomers skipping elementary school and taking shortcuts, the EJ07M is a good pair. I found it first non descript, but it slowly grew on me. And it grew quite big. It is an earphone more on the lean side without being sterile.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box is…actually not much for an iem of this price: the earpieces, an occ copper cable, 2 sets of silicone eartips (S/M/L), a little box with foams, a cleaning brush, a metal case, and the paper work. Just like the S12, the EJ07M features rather small earpieces, which provide for a good and comfortable fit (for me). They are made of aviation aluminum alloy with fancy, one-of-a-kind faceplates. The company claims they block up to 26 dB of ambient noise. Their low impedance makes them easily drivable.

I found the earpieces’s haptic and form factor great, but the isolation was only soso for me. The cable’s wire structure may be of great purity/quality, there is no microphonics, however the overall jewellery effect is rather small.

LETSHUOER’s translucent standard stock tips worked well for me.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: Sony NW-A55; Macbook Air + AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt or Earstudio HUD100 (high gain); white stock tips.

The EJ07M is tuned in a gentle U-shape, with a bottom-end emphasis on sub-bass, a moderate pinna gain, and an early treble rolloff. It is essentially neutral with a sub-bass boost. The graph resembles “the personal target curve of the season” of many reviewers (we at www.audioreviews.org don’t have such a thing), which excludes disturbing peaks and other unpleasant surprises. Its presentation is on the lean but never analytical side.

Sub-bass extension is decent (and the rumble can be a bit fuzzy), mid-bass is focused/, slightly lean with a crisp attack and fast decay, much faster than expected from a single-dynamic driver. It has a good kick and tactility. There is no mid-bass hump that pounds unpleasantly against my eardrums.

Transition to the neutral lower midrange is smooth and without bleed because the low-end boost is so far below that it does not affect vocals and instruments (crisp piano), which have very concise note definition and energy. They are not overly rich but never thin and also not recessed (vocals can be intimate), and the corners can be somewhat sharp. The midrange is very clean and clear and there is no shoutiness (although we are getting close). All this makes for great speech intelligibility.

Treble rolloff starting at 4 kHz narrows the soundstage and limits sheen. This is surprising as you would expect outstanding extension from an electrostatic driver, as perfectly demonstrated in the Vision Ears Elysium, for example. High notes are very subtle and back. A very sparse use of the EST.

Soundstage has good depth but the aforementioned limited width. Dynamics is very good, there is plenty of impact in the attack. The music is more moving back and forth than sideways. Spatial cues is very good. Lean notes make for lots of space between instruments on a crowded stage and great midrange clarity. Transients are generally fast, particularly at the recessed top end. Resolution is very good!

In summary, the “edgy” EJ07M is well rounded (sic!) and does nothing wrong.

LETSHUOER EJ07M Compared

The $150 magnetic planar LETSHUOER S12 iem plays bassier, has a wider but shallower stage, a tad warmer, and therefore less neutral. The EJ07M offers better vocals rendering, better (micro-) dynamics, and similar resolution.

The more organic $600 single DD Oriolus Isabellae plays thicker, richer, softer, and more relaxed, lagging behind in resolution and crispness and energy in favour of timbre and a soothing temperature.

Compared to the warmer, bassier $699 Dunu Zen single DD, the EJ07M lacks depth and body and plays swifter and more brittle. The Zen has a pronounced upper midrange glare and an earlier treble rolloff.

Concluding Remarks

The LETSHUOER EJ07M excels by doing well in all departments, though not achieving the highest possible score in each of them. It delivers a swift, neutral sound with a boosted sub-bass and technicalities in line with its peers. Nevertheless is its main competition internal, as the excellent $150 LETSHUOER S12 is not far behind in most aspects.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 316 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The EJ07M were provided by LETSHUOER and I thank them for that.

Get the LETSHUOER EJ07M from letshuoer.net.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post LETSHUOER EJ07M Tribrid Review – Dreimal Gut appeared first on Audio Reviews.