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.

Had a great first day at the High-End Munich 2022. Met up with a lot of people, especially Vitalie Sandu of SoundNews.net. Couldn’t meet Resolve and Cameron because it was almost afternoon by the time I got there and I had to talk with some people quickly.

Tried the Kann Alpha Max, proper upgrade over OG Kann Alpha. The OS is still sluggish but the mids on these are noticeably more organic. Has the same bass punch and crystalline treble as the original so I think this is a good upgrade.

Then met the awesome people at Final Audio, and tried their latest TWS which I forgot the model number of (will take note tomorrow). They also had Stax SR-X9000 which is a phenomenal headphone. The driver is a thing of beauty, just check the picture.

Spirit Torino from Italy had the Mistral which sounds “grand” for a wireless headphone. Will check it out even further tomorrow. On the DAC side, DCS Bartok Rossini is a good one that I tried today but yeah well it didn’t sound like something exorbitantly exceptional. Need a closer listen tomorrow (today I listened the Meze Elite and DCA Ether 2 on them).

Spirit Torino also had the craziest headphones I’ve seen till now: Spirit Torino Valkyria. Costs $12K, made to order, Titanium housings, weighs like 800gms or so, and of course the cable is fixed. There are also some ruby-like materials inside and a carbon-fiber driver housing because why not.

As for the sound: these slam like a freight-train. One of the most energetic headphones I’ve heard, even though there was no sibilance or harshness upon initial listen. Also they have a very “grand” sense of stage height, though stage depth and width didn’t seem as impressive as the Stax X9000 or the good ol’ HD800S.

Also tried Campfire Audio’s new flagship, the triple-dynamic one. It has very good bass and an energetic signature. Gotta listen again tomorrow to form longer impressions. Mr. Ken Ball was also very welcoming and we had a good chat about the pricing of this, which is more about the exclusivity than sheer performance over the Solaris 2020.

Met with the legend Mr. Axel Grell himself (he came up with the legendary Sennheiser HD-series models as well as the Sennheiser HE-1). 

Had a really nice discussion with him regarding his tuning philosophy and how he looks at the recent trend of “target-hitting” headphones and earphones. Needless to say, he’s one of the coolest guys around.

Also had the chance to try out the Heavys headphones, that are marketed towards metal-heads. I have pre-ordered one already so couldn’t help trying the current prototype out. In terms of sound, the tuning is nearly finalized. I offered some feedback regarding certain design decisions as they wanted to hear my thoughts. Let’s see how the final unit turns out.

As for the sound of the Heavys, they were quite coherent for multi-driver headphones. Upper-mids are not drowned out at all, distortion guitars are put forward. Vocals also come through well. Cymbals are present without being sharp or spiky. Decent separation in fast section, with double pedals being separated from snare hits.

Surprise of the High-End Munich show for me was the Meze 109 Pro (I think that’s the model number). They are still in prototype stage but if the final thing sounds even slightly better than this one, well, we got a potential winner.

I asked the Meze Audio reps about some technical details and they’ve shared some information. So far, it’s using a 50mm bio-cellulose dynamic driver. The driver housing is also encased in a Beryllium-plated metal that probably does something, did not get into those details since I was running short of time.

As for the sound, it’s got really nice bass with rich texturing and excellent layering. The mids were warm and smooth but didn’t lack detail. Staging was impressive with surprisingly good depth and height.

Couldn’t test these further but knowing that the pricing will be under $1000, I am really excited to try them out once they hit the market. Planned release: Q3 2022. Looking forward to these.

The Stax SR-X9000 are stupendously good. One of the best headphones out there, without a doubt. They have incredibly lifelike stage depth that rivals that of Susvara. In terms of bass and raw resolution, I think they are better than the Susvara, with the SR-X9000 having a bit more snap in the treble. Susvara still has that romantic smoothness, but the Stax are just as good, in a different way.

I also met up with iFi Audio reps, courtesy of WODAudio where Werner was very welcoming and we had a great discussion about headphones and gear in general. I listened to the new iFi Pro iDSD and Pro iCAN stack, paired with the ZMF Atrium. Needless to say, this was an excellent setup and I look forward to reviewing the iFi Pro stack in the near future.

High End Munich 2022 – Photographic Impressions

The post HIGH END Munich 2022 Audio Show Impressions 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 — 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 — NF Audio NM2 have cheap plastic shells
– Can get intense after long listening sessions
– Upper-midrange glare
– Treble can sound too forward at times
– Separation could be slightly better
– Stock cable has poor ergonomics

INTRODUCTION

I am not too familiar with NF Audio as a company, so I decided to take a shot at their NM2 single-dynamic model when they were offered. They claim to have years of experience in making “real” monitoring earphones, so their entry-level IEMs should showcase their expertise.

There is a plethora of sub-$100 IEMs these days and every other review will claim one of them to be the “best” under $100. NF Audio NM2 entered this crowded market with some established heavy-hitters already staring them down. Let’s see if these can carve themselves a niche.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. KeepHiFi was kind enough to send me the NF Audio NM2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55
Price, while reviewed: $90. Can be bought from KeepHiFi.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Packaging of the NM2 is rather interesting with vinyl-like shapes abound. In terms of accessories, you get a bunch of eartips, a round carrying case (looks cool but a bit cramped), and a stock cable that has one of the worst memory wires in existence. The memory wire is so stiff that the IEMs pop out of the ear at times by itself.

Apart from the memory wire portion, the cable itself is good: supple, well-braided, and doesn’t carry much touch noise. You also get a 3.5mm to 6.35mm adapter, keeping true to the “studio monitor” status of the IEMs.
3/5

BUILD QUALITY

Build quality is the weakest point of the NF Audio NM2. I find the plastic shells cheap and they feel fragile. The finish is also subpar and reminiscent of $5 budget IEMs. Even the nozzle is plastic instead of metal, which some $5 IEMs nowadays have as well. It’s clear where NF Audio did their cost-cutting, but I wish they left the build quality somewhat passable for the price bracket.
2/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Comfort and isolation are very good, with the single vent near the 2-pin connectors not allowing much outside noise in. The plastic shell is ironically a help here due to their lightweight and skin-friendliness.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For the review, I used Spinfit CP-100+ tips and Sony NW-A55 DAP (MrWalkman firmware modded). The NM2 are fairly sensitive so won’t need much powerful sources.

DRIVER SETUP

NF Audio used a dual-cavity 10mm dynamic driver for the NM2, with the twist being that there are two rear cavities to further optimize the pressure behind the diaphragm. The driver is called MCL2-10, though I have no idea what that acronym stands for.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

NF Audio NM2 treads the fine line between “bright” and “energetic”. In loose terms, the NM2 can be categorized as “bright V-shaped” even though that description does them a disservice.

Bass response on the NM2 is very interesting. It has the sub-bass rumble and mid-bass punch, but lacks some of the mid-bass texture. This results in a bass response that is fast and (mostly) accurate while lacking the fullness of low notes.

Midrange is where the things can become divisive. The lower-mids could have done with a bit more body, but they don’t sound overly recessed as the mid-bass bump adds body to the lower-midrange. Upper-mids can be contentious due to peaking around 4KHz which adds intensity to guitar riffs and leading edge of hi-hats or cymbals.

Fortunately, the intensity is counterbalanced by the boosted sub-bass. In most tracks the upper-mid glare is masked by the sub-bass frequencies. Only in acoustic or vocal-oriented music do you notice the peakiness in that region.

Treble can be too forward on some tracks due to the aforementioned 4KHz peak but things never got sibilant or splashy. Treble is well-done here with adequate sparkle and good upper-treble extension. Triangles and cymbals decay naturally with their resonant frequencies being audible beyond 14KHz. Many IEMs in this range opt for treble roll-off and NM2 does it better than most here.

Soundstage is fairly wide but lacks the depth due to the forwardness in the upper-midrange. Imaging is accurate with good cardinal and ordinal placements of instruments (within the limitations of the in-ear form-factor of course).

These are especially adept at locating the position of the microphone relative to the speaker or singer. As a result, while live recording with a stereo mic you can notice if the singer is singing off-center.

Macrodynamic punch is above-average but there are other IEMs that do it better. The lack of mid-bass fullness somewhat dampens the impact here. Microdynamics (subtle gradation in volume) are excellent though as you can track the subtle shifts in volume even in busy tracks.

Separation is good when it comes to mids and highs but the recessed lower-mids can make some low-notes smear into each other. Timbre is mostly good with a hint of metallic sheen to some higher-pitched notes. In general, the NM2 are excellent for acoustic or live music and also suited for live microphone monitoring.

Bass: 4/5
Midrange: 4/5
Treble: 4/5
Staging: 4/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 4/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Dunu Titan S, Moondrop Aria, Tin T3 Plus

So, I somehow ended up with all three of the contenders for the “best under $100” tag, namely: Dunu Titan S, Moondrop Aria, Tin T3 Plus, and of course: NF Audio NM2.

I will go about it a bit differently this time around, and rank each of the IEMs based on a specific aspects.

Build: Titan S = T3 Plus > Aria >> NM2

Titan S with their metal shells and T3 Plus with the resin shells – both have excellent build. Aria’s paint tend to chip off and NM2 has the build quality of $5 QKZ IEMs.

Accessories: T3 Plus = Titan S > Aria > NM2

T3 Plus got a good cable and decent tips but the carrying case is poor. Titan S got a great carrying case (better than many expensive IEMs come with) and good tips but meh cable. Aria got horrible cable and meh eartiops and case. NM2 got the worst cable of the bunch, replacement recommended.

Bass: Aria = Titan S > NM2 > T3 PlusAria has slightly denser bass whereas Titan S has more “neutral” bass tuning. Both are fast with good texture. NM2 can sound thin in mid-bass at times and T3 Plus lacks texture.

Mids: NM2 > Titan S > T3 Plus = Aria

Both T3 Plus and Aria have issues with lower-mids. NM2 handle lower and upper mid pretty well, so does the Titan S. However, Titan S tended to get slightly shoutier.

Treble: Titan S > NM2 > T3 Plus > Aria

Aria has the weakest treble response among these. T3 Plus has a bit more energy in lower-treble. Titan S and NM2 both got good treble extension but the NM2 has more focus near lower-treble which can be fatiguing. If you like higher amount of treble: NM2 for you.

Soundstage: Titan S > Aria > T3 Plus = NM2

Perceived stage is widest and deepest on Titan S. Aria comes second though the margin between Titan S and Aria is sizeable. T3 Plus sound congested, whereas NM2 can sound too forward at times.

Imaging: Titan S > NM2 = Aria > T3 Plus

Separation: Titan S > NM2 > T3 Plus > Aria

Dynamics: Titan S = Aria > NM2 > T3 Plus

I am bit torn here. Microdynamics are superior on Titan S whereas Aria has better macrodynamics (e.g. sudden bass drops). NM2 does both better than average but doesn’t exceed the performance of the benchmarks.

Overall, I think the Titan S ticks most of the boxes. It’s got good technicalities coupled with a neutral bright tonality that works well. NM2 is the most technical among them and will cater well to those who need more information up top.Aria meanwhile got the best timbre and has the smoothest signature here. T3 Plus is more of a mixed bag due to the odd-sounding bass.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

NF Audio NM2 are primarily let down by their uninspiring design and cheap build, which is a shame. The tuning is unconventional and offers something unique among the myriad of Harman-target doppelgangers. This gives rise to a “nice” problem – there are a number of good choices for the end-user and it becomes confusing to pick the right one.

While the NM2 nails technicalities, tonality could have been better or smoother for general listening. However, the intended purpose of these IEMs are studio monitoring and for professional applications there is usually some presence-region emphasis. On that front, the tuning choices are justified.

The NF Audio NM2 earns my recommendation for studio monitoring purposes, and will suit those who prefer an energetic and engaging listen.

MY VERDICT

4/5

NF Audio NM2 will cater to those looking for an energetic, technical tuning.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from KeepHiFi.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post NF Audio NM2 Review – Choosing The Right One appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Shells can feel too heavy
– 1.5KHz bump in the mids make baritone vocals sound chesty
– Not versatile for all genres
– Imaging lacks precision, layering could be better
– Middling microdynamics, macrodynamic punch could be better
– Not as resolving as some of their peers

INTRODUCTION

Earsonics reached out to me somewhere around January to ask if I were interested in one of their latest releases. They did not reveal if the product in question were IEMs or something else, and there was also some embargo in place until the launch of the product itself.

Needless to say that my curiosity got the better of me and I only knew about the specs of the IEMs two weeks after receiving them.

The ONYX are Earsonics’ latest launch and aims to capture the super-competitive mid-fi market. They are priced in a category I like to term “The Twilight Zone” – the point where diminishing returns start arising. Being a quad-driver hybrid with 3 BA drivers for mids and highs and a dynamic driver for bass, the ONYX got the spec-sheet right for the asking price.

Let’s see if Earsonics could create something unique for the price range.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Thibault from Earsonics was kind enough to send me the ONYX for the purpose of evaluation.

Sources used: Yulong Canary, Questyle QP1R, Cayin N6 II, LG G7, E1DA PowerDAC V2
Price, while reviewed: 490 euros. Can be bought from Earsonics website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Earsonics supplies a nice 4-core cable that is supple and doesn’t form kinks easily. The heavy shells do tend to get entangled due to the thinner cable gauge. You also get 6 pairs of eartips (2 pairs of dual-flange, 2 pairs of foams, and 2 pairs of silicone), a hard-shell carrying case, and a cleaning tool. Pretty well-rounded accessory wise.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

The ONYX are absolute tanks when it comes to build. The dense aluminium shells are reassuringly heavy. The 2-pin connectors are recessed into the shells, making the connection more robust than protruded ones.

The shell itself is a two-piece design held together by two small torx-headed screws. The sides of the shell have a unique dual-slit mechanism that apparently relieves the internal pressure. The nozzle is ergonomically angled but due to the small diameter might not fit every third-party tips out there. I did find the Spinfit CP-100+ to fit nicely, but Spinfit CP-500 slipped out. Note that there is no wax filter on the nozzle, so cleaning them periodically is recommended.

The Earsonics logo is stamped into the faceplate, and this rounds up a rather unique shell-design. I think the Onyx stand out from the rest of the competition in terms of industrial design and are identifiable immediately unlike the regular resin-shell affairs.

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

This is where I encounter my first qualm with the ONYX. The shells are too heavy to be listening to the IEMs while lying down, which is something I do often. Also the fit is not the most stable (due to the weight) and can even slip out of the ears without a deep fit. Isolation was above average with the stock dual-flange tips. The foam tips offer even better isolation so try those out if you need more silence.

SOURCE

The Earsonics ONYX are very easy to drive (16.5 ohms, 122 dB/mW) and can also handle some impedance mismatch (i.e. slightly high output impedance, I tested up to 3.2 ohms).

DRIVER SETUP

Earsonics went for a 1DD + 3BA setup for the ONYX, where the single dynamic driver takes care of the bass, the dual-BA takes care of the mids, and the single BA treble driver is in charge of the highs. There is a three-way crossover and the driver nozzles or diaphragm are placed onto a 3D-printed acoustic chamber that Earsonics calls “Acrylic Heart”.

Cool naming schemes aside, the chamber also houses the BA dampers and precisely calculated sound tubes to alleviate phase mismatch. The nozzle also has a “tuning resonator” called “TrueWave” which I suspect is there to suppress unwanted resonances.

All in all, a competent driver setup and the engineering in place looks top-notch, as expected from a brand like Earsonics. Let’s see if all these translates well when it comes to the sound.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Onyx have a dense, laid-back tuning where the delivery is dominated by low-end.

Sub-bass frequencies are bold and often masks the low-mid details. The mid-bass sits around 7dB below the sub-bass frequencies, resulting in some loss of texture. This gives rise to a unique bass response where the mid-bass sounds muted and lacks impact comapred to the sub-bass rumble.

Such response works well with tracks like Poets of the Fall’s Daze but can’t keep up in tracks with more nimble bass-line and subtle shifts in mid-bass notes, e.g. American Football’s Where Are We Now. This lack of texture is not too noticeable on snares and percussion instruments and the slower decay works well in heavy snare hits.

The midrange is where many will feel divided. I find it a mixed bag, personally. Going by the graph, the unconventional peaking around 1.5KHz should be rather honky and nasal but in practice the sound does not feel so congested.

Most of the times male vocals sound about right, if somewhat laid back or recessed due to the aforementioned sub-bass prominence. This is likely due to the subsequent peaking around 3.5KHz that counterbalances the dip around 3KHz. Baritone vocals, however, sound “chesty” and too dense and lacks articulation at times.

String instruments also lack the bite in the leading edge of attack, with sharply tuned guitars sounding somewhat blunted. Same applies to heavy distortion guitar riffs and other plucked instruments.

The treble follows a similar “peak followed by a dip” nature of the midrange. However, a deep insertion somewhat smoothes out the lower-treble peakiness while a shallow fit exaggerates the bump near 6KHz. This may result in occasional splashiness but again is alleviated by tip-change.

Treble in general sounds muted and laid-back, exemplified by the toned down cymbal and triangle hits on Dave Matthews Band’s Crash into Me. This may work for those who prefer a darker treble, but I found it to limit resolution and layering/separation of the ONYX.

Speaking of resolution, resolved detail often seems middling due to the sub-bass’ masking effect and rolled-off treble. Imaging is a mixed bag with good left/right delineation but when it comes to ordinal imaging (top-left/bottom-right etc.) the ONYX cannot quite deliver with the same precision. This is often referred to as “three-blob imaging” with things being placed left, right, and center only.

Macrodynamic punch should be excellent here with the bass focus but the slow decay of the driver slightly tapers the experience. Microdynamics were middling too with subtle gradations in volume not being as readily apparent as some of their peers.

One area where the ONYX impressed is staging. Partly due to the tuning choices and partly due to the internal acoustic chamber, the stage depth is very good with vocals being projected somewhat farther away than the center of the head (a issue plaguing most IEMs). Stage width was also good though that may be a byproduct of the lower-mid recession.

Bass: 4/5
Mids: 3.5/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 3/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Dunu Studio SA6​

The Dunu Studio SA6 are my personal benchmark for IEMs around the $500 mark and acts a great reference point while comparing other IEMs in the “Twilight Zone” of pricing.

In terms of build, both are excellent but I will always side with metal if it’s metal vs resin so ONYX gets the nod for build quality. Comfort is better on the SA6 though due to much lighter shells. Isolation is about similar on both, whereas the SA6 have better supplied accessories due to the excellent modular cable.

In terms of sound, Dunu put more focus on clarity and resolution than hard-hitting bass. The SA6 is better than most all-BA IEMs when it comes to bass but can’t hold a candle to the grunt and physicality of the ONYX’s bass response.

Mids are another case though and I personally much prefer the SA6’s midrange tuning. I find it to be about perfect for my tastes as not only are vocals articulated, the string instruments sound magnificent with superb tonal accuracy.

The treble is more extended on the SA6 as well with better defined cymbal hits, esp crash cymbals have a more satisfying leading edge on the DUNU IEMs. Staging is better on the ONYX, whereas imaging is slightly better on the SA6 (they are no imaging champ).

Separation and speed goes to the SA6 as the slower dynamic driver on the ONYX feels sluggish in comparison. Dynamics are better on the ONYX, however, with the SA6 having similar microdynamics and slightly worse macrodynamic punch.

Overall, I would pick the SA6 for a more resolving and articulated listen, whereas the ONYX is better suited for bass-driven and energetic tracks.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Earsonics ONYX have a unique tuning, especially compared to the more popular adherers of the Harman-target (or its variants). The bass response is good and the general coherence is excellent given the multi-driver nature of the IEMs. Earsonics put a lot of R&D into the driver placement and configuration, and that shows.

However, I think the sub-bass is too boosted and the bass driver could be faster. That way the lower-level details would not be as overshadowed by decaying sub-bass notes. I also wish that the treble was a bit more extended since the lack of air impacts the sense of clarity. Imaging could be better yet and the heavy shells are a bit tiring for me.

All that being said, a bassy tuning is not too common in the $500-ish price range and the ONYX offer something for those who prefer a dense, energetic listen. Give this a try if you like your bass to be bold and brash, even at the cost of some fine details.

MY VERDICT

3/5

The Earsonics ONYX are held down by sub-par technicalities and resolution.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Earsonics Online Shop

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Earsonics ONYX Review – Dark Soul appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Campfire Honeydew have plastic shells
– Hard-hitting bass
– Recessed midrange
– Not the most resolving in treble
– Might appear overpriced

INTRODUCTION

Campfire Audio has a penchant for “big-bass” IEMs. They are never to shy to add some hefty dose of low-end to most of their models. The Solaris, Polaris, Comet, even the Andromeda 2020 – all of them have a robust low-end presence as part of the tuning philosophy.

Campfire Audio Honeydew aims to be the entry-level basshead IEMs in Campfire’s lineup, and one of the de-facto basshead IEMs under USD $300. I have been using the Honeydew for almost 5 months now, so this will be a long-term evaluation. Let’s see if Campfire Audio could reach the goals they set of themselves.

DISCLAIMER

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Ken Ball of Campfire Audio was kind enough to send me the Honeydew for evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Hidizs AP80 Pro
Price, while reviewed: $250. Can be bought from Campfire Audio’s Official Website.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The unboxing experience is the signature Campfire Audio style: it feels like you are unwrapping a gift box. The accessories provided are the same as the ones with Campfire Satsuma, with the carrying pouch sporting a darker olive hue. The cable is again the Smoky Lite SPC 4-core cable with Beryllium-Copper connectors.

Supplied eartips include Final E-type (5 pairs), foam tips (3 pairs), and Campfire silicone tips (3 pairs). There’s also the Campfire lapel pin. I have no qualms at all regarding the stock accessories, esp at this price point.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

The shell is ABS plastic, which is not my favorite material overall. Plastic is fragile and metal shells or resin shells will last longer. The spout is stainless steel though. The bright yellow color of the shells are quite a looker and I find them unique. Your mileage may vary.

There is a single vent on the face-plate for pressure equalization. The housings have mmcx termination which has been robust for me over 5 months of use. One thing I can’t get over is the seam where the shell pieces join. It’s no big deal but something I notice. As was my conclusion with the Satsuma, I would’ve preferred a metal or resin shell here.
3.5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The Honeydew are very comfortable to wear due to their lightweight and ergonomic fit. Isolation is average though as the vent on the back lets some noise in.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

Most of the listening was done on the Sony NW-A55 as I found it to be one of the best pairings. Stock cable and Spinfit CP-100+ tips were used, as the stock E-type tips made the bass overbearing.

DRIVER SETUP

Campfire utilized a single bio-cellulose diaphragm (probably mixed with PET) in a dual-cavity setup for the Honeydew. They also have their 3D-printed acoustic chamber that acts as wave-guide and suppresses resonance. It’s refreshing to see more single-dynamic IEMs in the midrange market.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Campfire Honeydew have a strongly V-shaped, basshead tuning. Contrasting to the Satsuma which were rather bass-lite, Campfire Audio put the low-end front and center here.

Speaking of bass, there is a massive +15dB boost in the sub-bass region that starts from around 300Hz. Sub-bass notes cast a haze over the mid-bass, upper-bass, and even some lower-midrange fundamentals as a result. This can be too much for many so an audition is advised. Do note that the bass doesn’t sound as overbearing if you’re listening while commuting (the engine noise etc. cuts down the sensation of the bass).

When it comes to the bass quality, it is a bit of mixed bag. Mid-bass notes lack texture due to the sub-bass haze. However, sub-bass itself is dense, hard-hitting, rumbles with authority, and rather agile thanks to a faster driver-diaphragm. Those looking for sub-bass emphasis will feel at home here.

Sadly, the midrange takes a back seat here, at times even taking the very last seat in the auditorium. Lower-mids sound drowned out and upper-mids are repressed. Fortunately there are no annoying peaks or shoutiness in the mids (not that it was on the cardsdue to the sub-bass boost). Male vocals do not sound wrong, fortunately, but the higher-pitched vocals and female vocals lack energy and articulation. String instruments fare similarly with lower-level details getting lost in the mix in bass-heavy tracks.

The treble response is characterized by a lower-treble peak around 5.5KHz that adds some brilliance to the signature. Cymbal hits sound a bit distant but there is some sparkle to them. Upper-treble is muted and there is a lack of air in general. Cymbal hits sounded fine for the most part, but in some tracks there was a hint of splashiness in the highs. In fast paced tracks with lots of cymbal and hi-hat hits, they tended to get smeared at times. In short: decent treble response, but nothing to write home about.

When it comes to imaging and spatial cues, the Honeydew perform surprisingly well. There is no “gap” when instruments or vocals are panning from left-to-right, and even ordinal imaging (things happening on top-left/top-right etc.) was good. Staging is somewhat narrow but sounds “deep” due to recessed vocals. Stage height is about average. Instrument separation was pretty good as well even though the bass would somehow blur the outlines of certain instruments, e.g. pedals.

Dynamics are also another strong suite. Macrodynamic punch was authoritative with the satisfying bass slam adding to the experience. Microdynamics (subtle changes in volume) are very good as well, though falls slightly behind a few competitors. Lastly, timbre is heavily affected by the sub-bass haze but there is no metallic sheen to the sound unlike some metal-deposited single-DD IEMs.

Bass: 4/5
Midrange: 3.5/5
Treble: 3/5
Staging: 3/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 4.5/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Final E5000

Final’s E5000 are notorious for two things: their power-hungriness, and the sheer amount of sub-bass that they can deliver when properly powered.

In terms of build and design, I am partial to the E5000. They are also more comfortable for me as I prefer bullet-style designs. The Honeydew are very comfortable as well so no extra points to Final. Isolation is slightly better on the Final due to deep fit but it also leaks more sound. Finally, accessories wise the Honeydew wins due to a larger eartips collection.

As for the sound, it’s basshead vs basshead. Honeydew have even more sub-bass emphasis whereas the E5000 have a more impactful, slammy mid-bass punch. The sheer amount of texture in E5000’s mid-bass make them a delightful listen. Vocals are less recessed on the E5000 and have a lush, soothing presentation that has great articulation as well. Honeydew fall behind in the mids as a result.

Treble is where the Honeydew have more presence. E5000 have somewhat darkened treble even though upper-treble response is better than the Honeydew. Staging is better on the E5000 whereas imaging has more precision on the Honeydew. Separation is good on both but Honeydew does it a bit better.

E5000’s Achilles Heel is their source requirement. Few sources can do them justice and the cheapest one (Apogee Groove) costs $200. In that regard, Honeydew is very easy to drive and should better fit those without good sources.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Campfire Honeydew is slightly more expensive than the Satsuma but have far more character in their sound signature. They aim to be basshead IEMs and Campfire Audio has achieved that target I’d say. It’s not for everyone and the recessed mids will be a point of contention. I am not a big fan of the at-times narrow staging and the lack of mid-bass texture vs some of the competition too.

That being said, I still prefer the Honeydew for commuting over my other IEMs. Their lightweight nature makes them great for long-listening sessions and the extreme sub-bass shelf gets toned down a lot due to attenuation.

I can cautiously recommend the Honeydew as a pair of EDC (everyday carry) IEMs, especially for listening while commuting. For more analytical or technical/tonally correct listen, better to look elsewhere.

MY VERDICT

3.75/5

Contact us!

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Campfire Audio Honeydew Long-Term Review – Unabashedly Basshead appeared first on Audio Reviews.

INTRODUCTION

Final Audio’s E-series IEMs are their most popular model, by far. All of them have a cylinder/bullet-like shape, they all come with the famous E-type tips, and they all sport a 6mm dynamic micro-driver.

Naturally, this raises confusion among potential buyers as to which one they should get. I have personally purchased five different E-series IEMs so far, and extensively tried the remaining one (E2000). This post would be a short summary of the E-series IEMs, their relative strengths and weaknesses, and which one may fit particular preferences.

Thus, without further ado, let’s get straight into the comparison.

Note: all the IEMs are either purchased by me or given as a loaner (E2000) so no strings attached to them.

Sources used: Questyle QP1R, LG G7, Cowon Plenue R2, Sony NW-A55
Price: between $20 – $280

GENERAL SUMMARY

At first, I’d summarize the general sound signature or specialty of each of the E-series IEMs. Later on, I will provide a short comparison (based on my personal impressions, of course). I won’t provide measurements here since this post is meant to be a short summary of things instead of a comprehensive analysis, which you can read in the reviews of the IEMs.

A few bullet points regarding the IEMs:

• All E series IEMs use the same driver diaphragm but the driver assembly is different
• Only E4000 and E5000 have separate bass reflex chamber behind the housing
• Only E500 and E1000 have plastic shells, rest are metal
• All of them come with the same 5 pairs of E-type tips
• Only E4000 and E5000 come with detachable cable
• There are “C” variants of E1000, E2000, and E3000. The C stands for communication and basically means they have an inline mic. Sound is unchanged.
• E500 and E1000 do not come with any carrying case or pouch.
• When measuring, all E-series IEMs show some degree of channel variance or imbalance. This is expected apparently and while listening you mostly don’t notice it.

FINAL E500

The most specialized Final Audio IEMs in the E-series. These look similar to E1000 but costs about $5 to $10 less (depending on region). Many buy the E500 simply to get the supplied E-type tips and I myself got them for that reason at the first time. What I did not realize back then is how good they sound when watching movies, listening to binaural tracks, or just gaming in general.

E500 are basically the best gaming IEMs until you go into the VR3000 price-range (which cost four times more). With binaural tracks, they can render the sense of space convincingly with precisely positioning each element in the stage. Yes, there are far more expensive IEMs that do these better, but that is beside the point. What you get for $20 or so is such insane value that it boggles my mind. The tips alone cost $15, so you are getting the best “gaming” IEMs for… $5?

A no-brainer.

FINAL E1000

The most neutrally-tuned Final Audio IEMs. They have a frequency response graph that is the best kind of neutral: uncolored without being dry. The driver is limited in technicalities but again, at this price, that’s not what I am after.

The E1000 do not have good bass extension, or spectacular imaging/staging/separation like some of their brethren. They do one thing well better than the rest in the lineup: an uncolored presentation that is perfect for monitoring and mastering. An excellent “beater” IEM if you are into video editing or podcasting.

FINAL E2000

The staging is what you notice the most when you listen to them. The vocals are slightly recessed (making them a bit V-shaped) and coupled with the open-back nature and mid-bass quantity you get a quite immersive soundstage. The bass response is mid-bass heavy and lacks sub-bass rumble/impact. Midrange is its special suite as the male and female vocals sound sublime.

The E2000 have the most peaky treble among all E-series IEMs and can potentially get slightly sibilant on some highly susceptible tracks (Under Pressure by David Bowie, for example). Considering the peers though, treble tuning on E2000 is quite good. Imaging performance is decent, but not the best in its price class or among other E-series stuff. I’d personally rank them the second lowest among E-series IEMs.

FINAL E3000

The dark horse of the E-series, and also my second most favorite E-series IEM. Instrument separation esp air between instruments is the best among all E-series IEMs, yes, even the E5000. Bass has more rumble and impact than the E2000 but still rolled-off at the extreme end. Midrange is almost similar sounding to E2000 but has less focus on upper-harmonics resulting in an even smoother midrange rendition. Treble is delightful and portrays all the details without ever imposing itself.

If the E2000 is cottage cheese, the E3000 is creamy Gouda cheese. Soundstage is massive, falling behind to only two other <$100 IEMs that I’ve heard. Imaging is also fantastic in the price-class. Things get all the more impressive when you realize that Final tuned the E3000 to have a similar presentation to their flagship: Final D8000. Yes, only Final can try and capture literal lightning in a bottle, and you do get a glimpse of the D8000 signature in the E3000. For the price – I can’t ask more.

FINAL E4000

Add more sub-bass extension to the E2000, add a bit more vocal-presence and you get the E4000. A very balanced tuning that doesn’t excite anyone right out of the gate but you appreciate it the more you listen to it. I usually recommend it to the mature listener, someone who knows his preference well and wants something no-frill that will be solid with most genres at a budget and won’t have the imaging/soundstage/fit issue of the Etymotics.

I don’t like the stock cable though, I’d recommend getting a third-party one if possible. Also this one requires a good source, ideally with high current output (>200mW @ 16ohm).

FINAL E5000

Final E5000 are objectively not the best IEM and many downright label them as overpriced, but this hits all the right chords with me. I never knew I was a closet bass-head until I listened to them, and the bass on these are world-class, being better than most <$1000 stuff out there barring a certain LegendX, maybe the Hyla CE-5. They are the only IEMs ever that made me fall asleep while listening to Machine Head’s The Blackening. The soundstage is cavernous, and while the imaging is hazy the little strums of guitar and intimate pluckings are so well picked out and placed – it gets addictive. The vocals meanwhile make them indispensable for me.

I’m a sucker for the HD650 vocals and these are the one of the few IEMs (<$1000 bracket) that get close to said level of precision be it female or male vocals. I do not mean they sound like the HD650, they just evoke the same feeling of midrange liquidity, if that’s the term.

The Final E5000 are not for everyone, but once you start appreciating it – it becomes really hard to let go of. The treble has excellent upper-treble extension and while it’s not as on-your-face as on the E4000/E2000, it’s the most refined treble in the whole lineup once you focus on the attack/decay pattern of cymbal hits and hi-hats.

It does have the most absurd source requirement, in typical Final fashion. The sources that I have found to work best on them (listing the portable ones here): Questyle QP1R, Cowon Plenue R2 (balanced out), Cayin N6ii (E01), Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Cayin C9, Apogee Groove. The E5000 are indeed tough nuts to crack.

COMPARATIVE RANKING

Finally, my own ranking of the E-series based on their specialty:

Bass: E5000 >>> E4000 >> E3000 > E2000 > E500 > E1000
Mids: E5000 >> E3000 = E4000 > E2000 > E1000 > E500
Treble: E5000 > E4000 > E3000 > E1000 > E2000 > E500
Soundstage: E5000 >> E3000 > E4000 > E2000 > E500 > E1000
Imaging: E3000 (E500 in binaural tracks) > E5000 > E4000 > E2000 > E1000 > E500 (this one really suffers in non-binaural tracks)

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To conclude, I present my very biased –
Final ranking: E5000 > E3000 > E4000 > E1000 > E2000 > E500 (a specialty item with limited use-case unfortunately).

It’s not straight forward to pick the “best” Final E-series IEM. The most expensive one might not be suitable for you, or you might get something you can’t drive with your current sources. I suggest the E1000 and E3000 as relatively “safe” bets. They are inoffensive in tuning and the E1000 especially don’t need very powerful sources. The E3000 do scale well with better sources and provide spectacular separation, unlike anything in their price range.

I believe every IEM enthusiast need to try or own at last one pair of E-series IEMs. They are going strong for over four years now and that kind of longevity is rarely seen in the modern portable audio scene.

Contact us!

The post Final Audio E-series Earphones Roundup appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Hip-DAC2 can feel unwieldy when paired with large phones
– Narrow staging
– Somewhat colored tonality won’t suit neutrality seekers
– Single-ended output is underwhelming
– A proper line-out would be perfect

INTRODUCTION

iFi Audio hit the homerun with the original Hip-DAC. It had excellent build, the design was unique, and the sound was different to most in the market with a warm, rich tuning that could power most reasonable headphones and IEMs.

The release of the Hip-DAC2 came as a surprise to me as I didn’t think the Hip-DAC was being outperformed by its peers. In fact, the Hip-DAC is still on of the best portable DAC/Amps under $250. On paper it appears that the Hip-DAC2 is mostly geared towards Tidal enthusiasts, having a major improvement in MQA decoding capabilities.

Let’s see if the Hip-DAC2 can prove itself to be just as good as its predecessor.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. iFi Audio was kind enough to send me the Hip-DAC2 as a loaner.

Earphones/Headphones used: Dunu Zen, Dunu Zen Pro, Final FI-BA-SS, Campfire Andromeda 2020, Sennheiser HD650, Sennheiser HD560S, Final Sonorous III.
Firmware versions: 7.30, 7.3b
Price, while reviewed: 190 euros. Can be bought from WOD Audio.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

iFi Audio went for a minimalist package with the Hip-DAC2. You get the essentials: a type-C to USB type-A female cable (for connecting to phones), a USB type-A male to female cable (for connecting with the PC), and a type-C to USB type-A male cable for charging.

There is an optional case that you can buy but it cost 29 euros extra.

BUILD QUALITY

Build quality of the Hip-DAC2 mimics that of the original Hip-DAC and it is excellent. The housing is sandblasted aluminium with a Sunset Orange color scheme (vs Petrol Blue on the original). The volume pot has a silver-gray finish this time around whereas the OG had a golden knob.

There are two buttons on the left side of the volume pot (xBass and PowerMatch respectively) and two headphone outputs on the right side (4.4mm balanced and 3.5mm single-ended). The bottom of the device houses a USB type-A male port for connecting to devices, and a type-C port for charging.

The volume pot also acts as a power button and has two LEDs on both sides to indicate remaining charge (white for >75%, green for >25%, and red for >10% capacity). These LEDs also show the current sample rate and file format. The following image shows all the colors and their corresponding sample rate or format.

Engaging either xBass or PowerMatch lights up the tiny white LEDs underneath the buttons. Overall, excellent build quality with no noticeable room for improvement.
5/5

HANDLING

The Hip-DAC2 is fairly lightweight at 125gm, but due to the 70mm width can be awkward to hold in hand. This becomes more noticeable when you’re stacking the DAC/Amp with a large phone (most modern phones are large anyway). As a result, I preferred to use the Hip-DAC2 with my laptop rather than on-the-go with my phone. Also, the aluminium shell is quite slippery, so not the best experience when using as a portable device.
3.5/5

BATTERY LIFE

Clocking at around 8hrs of playback time, the battery life on the Hip-DAC2 is decent if unremarkable. The 2200mAh battery pack could have been upgraded over the original but that would increase weight and thickness so it’s a compromise iFi has to make. Recharging takes about 3 hours on a typical phone charger.
3.5/5

INTERNAL HARDWARE

iFi Audio are most comfortable with using the BurrBrown chipset and here it appears again. The BB DSD1793 chipset offers native DSD encoding and with the updated XMOS controller can now decode MQA files at a hardware level. This feature, admittedly, is of little use to non-TIdal HiFi users but it doesn’t hurt to have an extra feature.

The potentiometer is fully analog, thus not facing some of the limitations that digital potentiometers may have. However, being analog in nature, it may degrade over time. The Global Master Timing clock has been upgraded here over the original Hip-DAC. The amp sections remains unchanged on paper, with quad JFET OV4627 op-amps (customized for iFi Audio). The amp circuit also uses a dual-mono design for the balanced output.

Other extras include the xBass feature which is an analog EQ and mostly aims to “fix” the sub-bass roll-off issue on open-back headphones. In reality, many open-back headphones suffer from distortion in those regions and applying an EQ might cause further distortion and clipping. The other feature is the PowerMatch button that acts as a gain switch for headphones (iFi advises keeping it off for sensitive IEMs).

Speaking of power outputs, the Hip-DAC2 outputs 0.4W @ 32ohms from the balanced out and 280mW @ 32ohms from the single-ended output (which also supports their proprietary S-balanced tech). The voltage swing can go as high as 6.3Vrms from the balanced out and this comes handy when driving high impedance dynamic driver headphones.

The PCB design is excellent and the components are high quality so I have no qualms about the internals of the Hip-DAC2. I would have loved it even more had it had a true line-out with fixed voltage output. Pairing the Hip-DAC with external amps could make it a great desktop solution. Maybe something for the Hip-DAC3.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound of the iFi Hip-DAC2 can be summarized as warm-neutral. It has the characteristic iFi Audio warmth with smooth treble and an engaging midrange. The bass is mostly neutral but can be pushed higher with the xBass switch.

One area where the Hip-DAC2 falls short of its peers is the soundstage width. You won’t have the stage width of some of the ESS chipset-based DACs in the price range. On the plus side, the imaging was precise for the most part, provided you have headphones/IEMs with good imaging. Treble also doesn’t exhibit the rather common “glare” you find in many dongles these days.

One thing to note is that changing the firmware can bring subtle changes to the sound due to changes in reconstruction filter. I used both the default 7.30 firmware and the 7.3b firmware. The former had a more laid-back treble and had a slightly wider stage, while the latter had sharper treble with more up-front upper-mids. Do note that these are subtle changes and won’t drastically alter the sound.

Overall transparency and resolution was good for the price point, though again I could hear some roll-off in the upper-treble frequencies and separation was nothing exceptional. Moreover, the background hiss is noticeable with sensitive IEMs, so if you want a very dark background the Hip-DAC2 will disappoint.

PAIRING NOTES

Sennheiser HD650

The Sennheiser HD650 is one of the few headphones that scale according to the source quality. On paper, the Hip-DAC2 has the required voltage swing to power it, but reality is a mixed bag. The HD650 got loud from the balanced out but lacked the dynamics it can display on a more powerful amp. Separation was not the best either. I would not recommend the Hip-DAC2 for such high impedance dynamic drivers if you want to maximize their potential.

Final Sonorous III

Final Sonorous III is a closed back pair of headphones and are very efficient. Despite the efficiency they are quite transparent to source quality. The Hip-DAC2 drove them excellently with no loss in dynamics and the bass was quite pleasant. The upper-mids had more glare than usual, though, and the treble extension was lacking somewhat. Nonetheless, I would call the Hip-DAC2 a good pairing for efficient dynamic driver headphones.

Hifiman Sundara

On the planar magnetic side, we have the Hifiman Sundara. With a 94dB @ 37ohms efficiency, these are not the easiest headphones to drive. The Hip-DAC2 did get them loud with good enough dynamics. Moreover, the xBass switch was handy to add some slam and physicality to Sundara’s otherwise flat, dry bass. I would call these two a good pairing, though Sundara can do better when paired with high end amps.

Dunu Zen and Dunu Zen Pro

The Dunu Zen and Zen Pro both exhibited hiss from the balanced out of the Hip-DAC. However, the overall sound was quite pleasant. The Hip-DAC2 was not as resolving as the Questyle CMA-400i or Lotoo PAW 6000 with the Dunu Zen and Zen Pro, but none of its $200 peers sound any better with these IEMs so there’s that.

In general, the Hip-DAC2 pairs well with moderately efficient IEMs and some inefficient ones. The warm signature complements somewhat analytical headphones and IEMs. On the other hand, I would not recommend it for power-hungry planar magnetic headphones and IEMs, or very high impedance dynamic driver headphones. Headphones and IEMs with a warm tonality might not be the best pairing as well, e.g. Final E5000.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Hip-DAC

There is little to externally differentiate between the original Hip-DAC and the Hip-DAC2 other than the different paintjob. In terms of sound, the changes are mostly minor. The Hip-DAC2 has more transparency in the upper-mids (OG Hip-DAC sounded smoothed out in that region) and slightly wider stage. The imaging also seems somewhat more precise though I’m not too convinced about this improvement.

Most noticeable difference will be for those who believe in MQA. I am not an MQA user and these supposed improvements were thus untested. I mostly stuck with DSD and PCM files and for those, the OG iFi Hip-DAC is nearly as good as the newer version.

vs Apogee Groove

Apogee Groove has a very different amp architecture and is not really smartphone-friendly due to its higher power-draw and lack of internal battery. The amp architecture is also very different and has a very high output-impedance that messes with most multi-driver IEMs.

I found the Groove to pair really well with high impedance dynamic driver headphones, esp the HD650 and the likes. Some inefficient single-dynamic IEMs like the Final E5000 also pair excellently with the Groove. Unfortunately, the Groove is abysmal with low-impedance low-sensitivity planar magnetic headphones. They are also not as intuitive to operate as the Hip-DAC and lacks the xBass/PowerMatch features.

Overall, the Hip-DAC2 is more universal whereas the Groove is superb with a select few headphones and IEMs but below-par with the rest.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Holistically, the iFi Hip-DAC2 is a minor improvement over the original. I don’t think existing Hip-DAC owners need to upgrade to the Hip-DAC2 unless they are fully into the Tidal ecosystem and appreciates hardware MQA decoding.

That being said, those who are looking for a battery-powered DAC/Amp for desktop or laptop use and occasional phone pairing, the Hip-DAC2 is pretty much one of the best under $200. The original Hip-DAC is still available at Amazon Germany and costs $20 less, but I think you can just get the newer version since the price increase is marginal.

The Hip-DAC2 remains one of the best portable DAC/Amps under $200 and rightly earns my recommendation for using with desktops and laptops. Sadly, it is still not a good pairing for sensitive IEMs and leaves room for improvement when powering planar magnetic headphones. Something’s gotta give, after all.

MY VERDICT

4/5

A minor upgrade to an otherwise great portable DAC/Amp.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from WOD Audio.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post iFi Audio Hip-DAC2 Review (1) – Subtle Improvements appeared first on Audio Reviews.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

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

BUILD QUALITY

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

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

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

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

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

DRIVER SETUP

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

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

KZ ZEX FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs BLON BL-03

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

MY VERDICT

2.5/5

Interesting driver configuration let down by questionable tuning decisions.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from KZ Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

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

Cons — Shell size of the BL-MAX may be too large for some
– Prone to attracting scratches
– Mid-bass lacks texture
– Lower-mids are recessed
– Treble is muted and rolls off early
– Average imaging/staging
– Somewhat compressed dynamics

INTRODUCTION

BLON has been around for a while as an IEM/Headphone manufacturer (circa 2014 as per their logo). However, they reached stardom with the BLON BL-03 which have earned a place in our Wall of Excellence as the de-facto budget IEM. Since the breakout success of the BL-03, BLON has tried to re-capture the lightning in the bottle but never gained the same traction.

Enter BLON BL-MAX, their latest attempt at improving upon the BL-03, or perhaps providing something different enough to co-exist (just as the BL-05S were). Priced well under $50, the BL-MAX face stiff competition, even from within the family itself. Do the BL-MAX justify their existence, or are they doomed to fall into obscurity? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Dunu was kind enough to send me the Luna as part of the Review Tour (thanks Tom!)

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i
Price, while reviewed: $36. Can be bought from KeepHiFi.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

BLON is notorious for their below-par (often atrociously poor) accessories. This time around, though, they decided to at least provide a good quality cable. The stock cable of the BL-MAX is quite good IMO and I don’t see any reason to go for a third-party one unless you are too bothered by the (slight) stiffness. The stock tips, as always, are horrible and must be ditched if you care about fit. Finally, there is the fabric carrying pouch.

Overall, it’s an improvement for BLON but things can get better.
3/5

BUILD QUALITY

Build quality of the BL-MAX is solid. Each earpiece has a two-piece metal assembly (zinc alloy) with a visible-but-unobtrusive seam. There is a singular vent near the nozzle and at the bottom you have the protruded 2-pin connectors (not my favorite). The backplate has a chrome-finish that’s prone to picking up smudges and scratches and looks similar to the earcups of the Apple Airpods Max.

It is a fact that the BL-MAX shells are rather… maximized and looks quite menacing in the photos. However, the inner-side is mostly ergonomic and slowly tapers into a more “human-like” shape. Overall, the build quality is as good as one should expect at this price with the scratches being a concern.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Comfort seems to be a major point of discourse when it comes to the BL-MAX. For me it was not an issue once I swapped tips. For others, they found the housing to be too big to wear. I can only talk about my own experience but I also acknowledge that others may have issues given the unconventional shape.

As for isolation – it’s above-average once you get the right tips to fit.
3.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

BLON BL-MAX doesn’t need much amplification and ran fine on the Sony NW-A55 (which has fairly weak amplification). Eartips are another story, however. I highly recommend changing tips. Spinfit CP-145 worked great for me, your mileage may vary.

DRIVER SETUP

The BLON BL-MAX is their first dual-driver IEM with a 10mm CNT driver (likely 1st gen) for the lows and mids, and a 6mm micro-driver for the highs. The micro-driver uses a “lightweight” diaphragm as per the promo materials but the exact composition is missing. I assume it’s a PET/PEN diaphragm since a metal plating would surely be advertised.

An interesting thing is the orientation of the drivers which are stacked together vertically. This kind of driver assembly was first used on JVC’s FX-T90 and a “throwback” revival on the BL-MAX reminds me of the olden days.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

In a nutshell, the BL-MAX has a sub-bass boosted V-shaped signature with darker treble. Some also call this a W-shape these days.

Given the sub-bass prominence one would expect that the bass would be skull-shaking but in reality it’s not that dense of a bass response. You do hear the sub-bass rumble and some mid-bass punch but due to the driver limitation texture is lacking. The slow decay exacerbates the problem with the mid-bass sounding rather one-note. Fast-flowing bass sections are often reduced to a hum that fails to portray the rhythmic nature of these notes. I have seen some suggesting to EQ the bass to be even more prominent but I’d advise against that since this CNT driver is already at its limit.

Mids are quite alright though there is the obvious lower-mid recession that drowns out male vocals and low-notes in bass-heavy mixes. Fortunately, the upper-mid has adequate amount of gain and thus female vocals are well-articulated, so are string instruments and guitar riffs. Treble meanwhile is characterized by a noticeable peak around 5KHz that tends to make leading edge of cymbal hits somewhat exaggerated. However, the treble rolls-off quickly after that with perhaps a slight peak around 8KHz.

None of these treble are too noticeable in most songs since the sub-bass masks the peakiness. However, in songs with sparse instrumentation (acoustic tracks, singer/songwriter stuff) you may experience the unevenness in the treble region. The treble lacks extension and air and sounds darkened up top as cymbal and hi-hats decay abruptly, with no sense of airiness or sparkle.

Due to the recessed mids, soundstage feels “wide” but in reality it’s not very deep or tall. Imaging on the other hand was surprisingly decent and could even portray some “ordinal” directions well. Instrument separation was above average. General resolution is below average, and dynamics (both sudden changes in volume and gradual ones) are compressed. Compressed, as in: you don’t feel the immediacy of a sudden bass drop, or the minute changes in volume level of instruments/vocals. However, most budget IEMs fail in this category so no big deal there.

Bass: 3.5/5
Midrange: 4/5
Treble: 2.5/5
Staging: 3.5/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 2.5/5

BLON BL-MAX FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

Channel-matching is very good for a budget IEM, so a job well done on that front.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs BLON BL-03

The OG superstar of the BLON family still remains unchallenged and seems to have been one of the rare “justified” hypes in recent years. The BL-03 is cheaper than the BL-MAX, has a worse fit, and requires both cable and tip changes.

However, once you have managed to get a fit, the BL-03 has a more analogue-ish tone with a warm tuning that offers a colored-yet-appealing midrange. The treble is also more present than the BL-MAX.

BL-MAX strikes back with better imaging, staging, instrument separation, and a deeper bass-reach. The sub-bass on the BL-MAX is better than on the BL-03. If you prefer to have a more mid-centric tuning the BL-03 is still an excellent IEM. For those who think the BL-03 needs more sub-bass or find the upper-midrange shouty – the BL-MAX can be a good alternative.

vs BLON BL-05S

The BLON BL-05S is my personal favorite BLON till date. It offers the best technicalities among all BLON offerings that I’ve tried and the tuning is pretty solid as well. The fit is a notable improvement over the BL-03 and even the BL-MAX but the cable and tips still require swapping out.

Once you change the cable and get appropriate tips, the BL-05S sounds better than the BL-MAX in nearly all categories except for sub-bass rumble (BL-05S is rolled-off in that region). Imaging and separation is class-leading on the BL-05S so the BL-MAX don’t sound that impressive anymore. However, the BL-05S has a controversial color and I know many who didn’t buy simply because of the jade-green paintjob. BL-MAX has their own idiosyncrasies though with the oversized shell, so it’s a toss-up between them on aesthetics.

For my personal taste and given the much improved technicalities, I will pick the BL-05S over the BL-MAX. If you think the BL-05S sound thin in the mids or too dry in the bass for your liking – BL-MAX might suit you better.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The BL-MAX did not stand out or impress in a hyper-competitive market and got overshadowed by its own brethren. It’s a complicated situation where BLON is somewhat bogged down by their own success.

BLON has been ramping up their release cycle lately with new IEM releases appearing almost every month. On one hand, it’s good to have more options in the market, and the potential for another “budget gem” is ever welcome. On the other hand we got this “scattershot” approach where brands try random stuff to see what sticks.

The BL-MAX does not look like a scattershot to me as the design and driver assembly hint towards a more planned approach. However, BLON did not get it right with their first dual-driver IEM, esp since dual-dynamic setups are hard to pull off. I hope BLON goes back to the drawing board, retunes the drivers/swaps them for something better, and while they are at it – redesigns the shell since it has caused fitment issues for some.

MY VERDICT

3.25/5

BLON BL-MAX fails to impress, but they are not too shabby either.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Blon BL-Max was provided by KeepHifi and I thank them for that.

Get it from KeepHiFi

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post BLON BL-MAX Review – Size Matters appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Fit of the FIIL CC2 can be awkward
– Lack of noise isolation due to open acoustic design
– Sub-bass roll-off
– Midrange coloration may not suit everyone’s tastes
– Average resolution and dynamics

INTRODUCTION

FIIL has made a name for itself in the True Wireless and Wireless earphone/earbud/headphone space. They have a large collection of Bluetooth audio devices and most of them seem rather interesting in their respective price brackets.

The FIIL CC2 is an update to the original FIIL CC that was positioned as an Apple Airpods alternative. The half in-ear design and similarly open acoustic structure makes the CC2 rather different from the in-ear designs out there. The competition is strong in the True Wireless space, so let’s see how well the FIIL CC2 holds up.

The ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. FIIL was kind enough to send me the CC2 for evaluation.

Sources used: Google Pixel 6, iPhone SE

Price, while reviewed: $70. Can be bought from Amazon US.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

FIIL CC2 has a fairly compact packaging that covers the essentials. You get the earbuds themselves housed inside the carrying/charging case and a charging cable. Given the earbud style design, there is no need for silicone eartips, though I wish they had one of those silicone wings that helps better fit the earbuds.

The charging case, however, is fantastic. It’s a CNC-milled aluminium shell that houses an ABS plastic chamber (the chamber contains charging circuitry etc.). I love the design of the carrying case and it definitely stands out among the crowd.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

The earbuds themselves are made out of plastic that has a metal-like finish in the stem and matte black driver housings. Each stem houses the battery and required wireless modules. At the bottom of each earpiece you will find two gold contact-points for charging and a mic. At the top, you get the status LED. At the side there is a dot that acts as a touch-input. Tapping it twice/thrice performs several operations (customizable in the app).

The earbuds are quite lightweight, though nothing feels flimsy or cheap. Solid build quality, overall, even if nothing extraordinary.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The FIIL CC2 earbuds have an Apple Airpods “inspired” shape (also called half in-ears), though there are differences in curvature of the driver housing. For me it was fairly comfortable but after a while the hard plastic shell became distracting. The fit wasn’t the most secure for me as well, though my friends had a much better time and they could even go on a run with these in their ears.

So I guess the fit will vary but should be fine for most people (unless you have non-earbud friendly ears like mine). Isolation is almost non-existent, however, so don’t expect these to drown out traffic/commute noises.
3/5

SOURCE, CONNECTIVITY, AND BATTERY LIFE

I used my Pixel 6 and Sony NW-A55 for most of the critical listening. I also tried with an iPhone SE and my laptop. The FIIL CC2 worked fine with all of them. Battery life was very good for my use since I didn’t listen to them longer than an hour. Simply sliding the earbuds back in the case recharges them and with just a few minutes of charging I could go on for another hour or so.

The problem with the battery life is mostly down to the continuous playback time: it’s about 3 hours or so if you use them without putting them back in the charger. The charging case holds charge for ~18 hours which is very good and I needed to charge the case once a week. It’s only if you are using the earbuds consistently for more than 3 hours shall you run into problems with battery life.

As for connectivity: Bluetooth connection was fairly stable. I didn’t notice any lag or random dropouts from any of my devices (ranging from BT 4.0 to BT 5.2) You can also install the FIIL App and customize the presets/change EQ modes/assign gestures. Finally, a small note about call quality: the FIIL CC2 mic records sound better than the much more expensive Apple Airpods Max. I had no problem talking with others even in moderately noisy environment and calls sounded loud and clear.
4.5/5

DRIVER SETUP

The FIIL CC2 uses a 13.1mm single-dynamic driver with a Titanium-plated dome and PET surround. The acoustic structure itself is open and thus expands the soundstage beyond your head, at the expense of noise leakage and isolation.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound signature of the FIIL CC2 can be described as warm with a lower-treble tilt.

The most noticeable aspect of the sound is the sub-bass roll-off. You only hear sub-bass frequencies well from above 40Hz. The rumble factor is missing in action, though the moderately bumped up mid-bass does add some punch to the bass. Either way, the bass is not very textured is mostly tuned to give a sense of rhythm rather than cater to the bass afficionados.

Being very particular about bass myself, I was a bit disappointed but at least FIIL played within the limitation of the driver and acoustic structure rather than being overzealous with bass boost and add distortion.

Thanks to the mid-bass boost (which is fairly moderate and mostly thickens the lower-mids rather than cloud them) the vocals come through well even in some bass heavy mixes. However, there is some strange mid-range coloration going on. To my ears, the mid frequencies start to rise from 500Hz and then suddenly go down around 800Hz. Then it starts rising again from 1000Hz and peaks at 3.2KHz or so (to my ears).

So there is adequate pinna gain but the strange peaks between 500-1000Hz can make male vocals sound strangely colored and nasal at times. Female vocals were mostly fine and didn’t sound shouty to my ears. String instruments were decently portrayed though I think they could do with a bit more clarity (mostly due to the lower-mid tuning I guess).

As for the highs, the FIIL CC2 opt for a sizeable lower-treble peak at ~5.8KHz and then another mid-treble peak ~7KHz, after which the treble rolls off rather quickly post-10KHz. The 5-6KHz peak is definitely noticeable and brings cymbal hits forward and makes certain acoustic instruments sound metallic. It also makes some percussion instruments sound compressed. Overall, this treble peak isn’t too problematic (e.g. doesn’t introduce sibilance) but should definitely be EQ’ed down in the FIIL app IMO.

Lastly, the staging is rather open and definitely a neat trick of the FIIL CC2 due to its open acoustic design. Imaging is also better than average for the price range. Separation was good, but the overall resolution was rather average. Also note that the FIIL CC2 lacks in dynamics due to the sub-bass roll-off and lack of upper-treble.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4/5
Highs: 3/5
Soundstage/Imaging: 4.5/5
Speed/Dynamics: 3/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Apple Airpods

The Apple Airpods are nearly 3x as much expensive and doesn’t come with as neat a carrying case as the FIIL CC2. However, if you’re an Apple user it will integrate seamlessly with all your Apple devices. For someone like me who only use an iPhone sporadically – this is not a selling point. So I’ll focus on comfort and sound aspect mostly.

The FIIL CC2 was more comfortable for me than the Airpods, though both lacked isolation. The FIIL CC2 app is also something the Airpods lack (and CC2 is more customizable as a result) but then again if you are getting Apple products you do not do a lot of customization either way. As for sound, the Airpods are noticeably worse than the FIIL CC2.

The bass is looser and distorts easily on the Airpods in bass heavy sections. In the mids, the FIIL CC2 resolves slightly better than the Airpods with better separation. The treble is rolled-off on both but the CC2 has the lower-treble peaks that gives a sense of enhanced clarity and presence of high notes. Staging is deeper on the CC2 though both has an out-of-your-head staging, just that the Airpods feel more congested due to the bass tuning. Imaging is more precise on the CC2 as well.

Overall, I find the FIIL CC2 to have noticeably better sound quality than the most popoular True-Wireless earbud on the planet.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The FIIL CC2 is designed really well and has crossed off most of the checklist: good battery life, decent comfort, good call quality, above-average sound quality. The one area where it falls short is isolation but that’s an intended design decision.

However, based on sound quality alone, the FIIL CC2 will fall short of other wired earphones in the price range. Then again, that applies to even the most expensive wireless headphone out there.

So considering the limitations and the current state of the competition I can recommend the FIIL CC2 for someone who is looking at an Airpods alternative. It sounds better than the Airpods and while it lacks the seamless software integration of the Apple product, the companion app along with the large price gap makes the FIIL CC2 a good option.

MY VERDICT

4/5

A good Airpods alternative, though there are better sounding wired earphones out there.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Amazon.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post FIIL CC2 Review – Beating the AirPods appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Moondrop Quarks have fragile plastic shell
– Lack of sub-bass rumble
– Dry timbre
– Poor technicalities in general

INTRODUCTION

Moondrop has been teasing about a pair of single-dynamic ultra-budget earphones for the while. So it is fair to say that there has been quite some anticipation building up to the Quarks. As it stands, Moondrop Quarks are their cheapest earphones and also the cheapest earphones to offer a neutral-ish tuning.

Given the cheap price of admission it’s hard to not get impressed by the Quarks, at least on paper. Reality can be sobering, though, so let’s see if the Quarks can keep up with the competition.

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

Source used: Hidizs AP80 Pro

Price, while reviewed: $13 (no mic version). Can be bought from Shenzhen Audio or Moondrop Offical Store.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Not much to talk about here, really. The packaging is kinda unique for Moondrop though as it is bereft of any anime artwork. Other than that – the tips are not good and the carrying pouch is meh. I’d highly advise getting third party tips.
1/5

BUILD QUALITY

The Moondrop Quarks do look quite decent from afar, esp the transparent shell and color-coded back-plates give a nice visual touch. Sadly, up-close the illusion evaporates. The plastic is decidedly cheap with a shoddy finish, the cable is springy, and the innards lack the polish of higher-tier earphones. But hey, we are talking about the price of a decent lunch. Understandable omissions.

One curious omission was that of vent, since there are no visible vents on the Quarks. Moondrop calls this a fully-enclosed structure and it will be interesting to see how that affects the sound.
3/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Due to the light-weight nature and bullet-type shell, the Moondrop Quarks fit rather easily. However, there is some pressure build-up in the ear-canals due to lack of back-vent but it was not much of a problem for me. Your mileage may vary.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For a budget device, the Quarks required surprising amount of power and the driver seems rather inefficient with a sensitivity around the 97-98dB/mW region. This means that you will require a source with above-average output power to drive them properly. I think most modern dongles will suffice even though Apple dongle, out of phones, will likely fall short.

As for eartips, I found the stock tips to be a poor fit for me and opted for Final E-type tips with a size smaller than I usually use to help with the deeper fit.

DRIVER SETUP

Moondrop Quarks utilizes a 6mm micro-dynamic driver with a PET diaphragm. Nothing to write home about, really, though I am not expecting such at this price point.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound signature of the Moondrop Quarks can be described as “Neutral” with a dry midrange and somewhat rolled-off treble.

When it comes to the bass, the Quarks aren’t a good performer even with the best of seals. The bass lacks texture and rumble and thus sounds rather one-note. Deep sub-bass is reduced to a generic hum and as a result you don’t notice the subtleties in fast-flowing basslines.

The midrange appears to be the bread-and-butter of this kind of tuning and the Quarks mostly delivers on the “clarity” front. The upper-mids are prominent followed by a recession in the lower-mids and this leads to a sense of “cleanliness” in the midrange. However, due to the driver limitation the entire midrange ends up sounding dry and lifeless. The tonality of the midrange is correct, but it lacks engagement.

As for the treble, it is rolled off post 6/7KHz. This results in muted cymbal hits and a sense of compression in the high registers. Staging is hampered as a side-effect and you get a very in-your-head presentation. Imaging is also mostly left/right with no distinction between ordinal and cardinal directions. Overall timbre is dry though not as artificial as the cheap BA drivers in this range. Overall resolution is middling as well owing to the textureless bass and rolled-off treble. Dynamics are disappointing too due to the lack of perceivable end-to-end extension.

A very middling display, overall, only redeemed by the tuning choice (neutral midrange) which is rarely found in the budget range.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4/5
Highs: 2.5/5
Soundstage: 2.5/5
Imaging: 3/5
Dynamics: 2.5/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Moondrop Spaceship

The Moondrop Spaceship is priced slightly higher ($20) and has been the cheapest single-dynamic offering in Moondrop’s lineup before Quarks.

In terms of build quality, I’ll give the edge to Spaceship due to its metal housing. Comfort is similar between these. However, the sound is where things get interesting and both tend to target a neutral signature. In my opinion, Moondrop Spaceship executes the neutral signature better with superior technicalities and more natural timbre. The driver on the Spaceship is seemingly superior to that of the Quarks as well.

Both of these IEMs are bass-lite but the Spaceship bass has more texture (with a tip change of course). Midrange isn’t as dry on the Spaceship and has better male vocal rendition. Treble also has more sparkle and definition on the Spaceship. Soundstage is slightly wider and imaging is more precise on the Spaceship.

The biggest issue with the Spaceship, however, is how power hungry it can get. You’ll need a good source to power them fully and that’s a contradiction given most people aiming for budget IEMs will pair them with budget sources. Either way, in terms of sound alone, the Spaceship is better than the Quarks and well worth the extra $7.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I hoped the Moondrop Quarks would be a stand-out due to the initial fanfare, but alas. In fact, it’s the tuning target alone that acts as the saving grace for the Quarks since it is mediocre in terms of everything else e.g. build quality, bass performance, timbre etc.

If you want a budget IEM with neutral tuning, the Moondrop Quarks can be worth looking into, though be prepared for third-party eartips. Even then, Moondrop Quarks doesn’t quite become the budget miracle I hoped it would be. So it becomes just another option instead of being something more.

MY VERDICT

3.5/5

Decent, and that’s about it.

Contact us!

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Moondrop Quarks Review – Neutral On A Budget appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Campfire Audio Satsuma has a plastic housing
– Lack of sub-bass rumble and impact
– Peaky lower-treble leads to fatigue
– Not the best technicalities in the price-range
– BA timbre

INTRODUCTION

Campfire Audio needs to introduction at this point. Hailing from Portland, Oregon they’re known for the TOTL models in Andromeda and Solaris. Usually their products are priced in the middle and upper-tier ranges, so when something like Satsuma (priced at $200) arrives it does draw some attention. It used to be (now discontinued) Comet that held the budget spot, so the Satsuma is a spiritual successor of sorts, albeit in a different clothing.

Being a single-BA model and going for a “balanced/natural tuning” (as per Campfire’s promo materials), the Campfire Audio Satsuma faces stiff competition from IEMs priced below and higher. Let’s see if it can measure up to the task.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Campfire Audio was kind enough to send me the Satsuma for the purpose of evaluation (thanks Ken!)

Sources used: Hidizs AP80 Pro, Lotoo PAW 6000
Price, while reviewed: $199. Can be bought from Campfire Audio’s Storefront.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Accessories and packaging are two things Campfire Audio never skimps on. The Satsuma is packaged as well as their high-end products and comes with a plethora of tips including my personal favorite Final E-type (5 different pairs). The cable this time is the Smoky Lite SPC 4-core cable with Beryllium-Copper connectors. You also get a nice carrying case alongside the signature Campfire lapel pin and a cleaning tool.

No qualms in the accessories department. Supplied ones are all of high quality and negates the need for third-party alternatives.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

The Campfire Audio Satsuma’s build quality will be rather divisive. While metal alloy shells and resin have been the most popular material choices in terms of IEM shell, Campfire Audio went for a different route and picked… ABS plastic. The bright orange colorway would be difficult to pull off without an ABS shell, but the durability remains a question mark. Plastic, after all, won’t be as durable as resin/metal.

There’s a noticeable seam on the shell (where the two parts join), which is another minor annoyance. The spout is stainless steel, at least, and these sport the same robust mmcx connections as Campfire’s higher-tier models. Overall, I am not too impressed with the material choice and overall finish here.
3.5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Due to the lightweight nature and lack of vent, comfort and isolation is at a high level. The IEM shape is also very ergonomic and should fit even smaller ears (with appropriate tips).
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

I used the supplied Final E-type tips and did most of the listening on Hidizs AP80 Pro. I did also try on the Lotoo PAW 6000 DAP and Questyle CMA-400i DAC/Amp but the Satsuma didn’t really scale much with source. It did pair better with warmer sources than the analytical ones. In terms of amping needs – at 46ohms and a low sensitivity (exact figures in mW not given but should be ~98dB/mW) the Satsuma does require a bit more juice than usual. It’s not too hard to drive though, just get ready to push the volume up at times.

DRIVER SETUP

The Campfire Audio Satsuma uses a single, full-range balanced armature driver with a ported design (there’s a small opening at the back of the unit). While Campfire Audio doesn’t disclose the exact driver model I guess it’s one of the Knowles RAB series full-range drivers (e.g. the RAB-32257). The driver sits within a 3D-printed acoustic chamber and does not use the typical filter-based designs. Instead, Campfire tunes the acoustic chamber itself to reduce resonance and shape the FR.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

In terms of overall tonality, the Campfire Audio Satsuma can be described as neutral with a lower-treble emphasis. The Satsuma isn’t really bright sounding per-se, but the lower-treble peak (between 6-7KHz, depending on insertion depth/tip) is noticeable in occasions.This focus on upper-registers give the Campfire Audio Satsuma a sense of clarity and cleanliness, at the expense of long-term listening comfort. You can use the supplied foam tips to somewhat dampen the treble but then the Satsuma sounds even less dynamic and bland, so I would consider that a downgrade.

For a single-BA driver, the bass here is decent, but not class-leading. Sub-bass rumble is only noticeable above 40Hz, anything below is just a low hum devoid of texture and subtlety. Bass slam is weak, so is the perceived texture. Bass speed is slightly slower than non-ported BA designs.

The mid-bass is better defined and the slight emphasis of upper-bass frequencies lend some warmth to the lower-mids. The transition from lower-mids to upper-mids is oddly handled. The 1-2KHz range is mostly flat and then there’s an abrupt shift towards 3.5Khz by almost 10dBs. This leads to certain male vocals sounding constrained in the upper-registers whereas most female vocals sounded fine. Due to the mid-bass boost, the shoutiness in the upper-mids were mostly constrained (unless you are listening to a vocal-centric track with little bass, e.g. Damien Rice’s I Remember, 2:46 onward). Other than that, string instruments sounded fine.

While the mid-range tonality is fairly good (barring high-pitched male vocals), the lower-treble peak (~6KHs to my ears) can be fatiguing in the long run. It’s not only grating in tracks like The Pretty Reckless’ Death by Rock and Roll, it also make the percussion instruments sound compressed. There’s another peak ~8KHz and then the treble tapers off post 10KHz. Not a lot of air frequencies here, but the fatigue is mostly caused by the aforementioned lower-treble peakiness coupled by another mid-treble peak.

Soundstage is not that wide, but the Satsuma does not sound congested at all. Imaging is above average for the price but not an absolute standout, as you don’t quite feel the sense of ordinality (top-left/bottom-right etc.). What the Satsuma does best is separation and layering. However, neither of those aspects are class-leading (more on this in the comparison section). Overall dynamics is nothing to write home about. Microdynamics are average whereas macrodynamics are compressed and sudden bass impacts lack the immediacy and slam one expects. Overall resolution is also middling for the price category, and the timbre has a slight BA artificiality to it (though less than some of its peers).

Bass: 3.5/5
Midrange: 4/5
Treble: 3/5
Staging: 4/5
Imaging and Separation: 4/5
Dynamics and Speed: 3/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

The ~2dB channel imbalance under 200Hz is mostly within specs and isn’t noticeable while listening.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Campfire Audio Honeydew ($250): While the Campfire Audio Satsuma and the Honeydew are priced closely and have similar designs, they have a polar-opposite sound signature. Satsuma goes for a mostly balanced, neutral-ish presentation whereas Honeydew throws caution to the wind and goes for a very V-shaped route with its single-DD setup. Bass is Honeydew’s bread-and-butter, whereas the staging is also very wide (due to recession in the mids among other reasons).

The Campfire Audio Satsuma and Honeydew are complementary rather than competitions of each other. If you need skull-rattling bass and don’t care much about mid-range emphasis, the Honeydew is the better option. For those looking for a balanced tuning: Satsuma is the one in Campfire’s entry-level lineup.

vs Etymotic ER3XR ($150): Etymotic ER3XR requires a special, deep-fit that bypasses the second-bend of the ear canal and for some it can be too painful. I can’t use Etymotics for more than half hour due to the discomfort they cause. So before going ahead with this comparison, I should point out that caveat.

In terms of isolation, the ER3XR surpasses the (otherwise very good) Satsuma. As for sound quality, Etymotic goes for a sub-bass boosted DF-neutral signature for the ER3XR (ER3SE is the one for those who want linear bass). As a result, there’s more of a sub-bass presence on the ER3XR than on the Satsuma, though both lack rumble and texture in the bass notes. Mids are also somewhat different with the ER3XR going for a dry, colorless midrange rendition wheres the Satsuma has some added warmth in the lower-mids. Upper-mids are also less prominent on the Satsuma than the ER3XR, which leads the latter to have more up-front voicing.

Indeed, vocals and instruments are better articulated on the Etymotic whereas the subtleties are less obvious on the Satsuma. Treble is also smoother on the ER3XR though both of these IEMs aren’t what I’d say sparkly in the treble region. Imaging and staging is notably better on the Satsuma (an inherent weakness of the Etymotic design) whereas separation is better on the ER3XR. Same goes for resolution where the ER3XR blows past the Satsuma, being perhaps the most resolving IEMs under $200.

I’d personally pick the ER3XR as long as fit isn’t an issue.

vs Final A4000 ($130): The Final A4000 is part of their new A-series model of IEMs and has a similar plastic shell to the Satsuma. It’s a single-DD design and the tuning decision was to focus on technical performance across the frequency range.

Well, Final A4000 is a single-DD IEM that has many characteristics of a BA IEM. However, the bass response is where it supercedes all single-BA designs incl. the Satsuma. Sub-bass rumble and bass impact is on another level altogether. Staging is also noticeably wider/deeper whereas the imaging is more precise. Mids are somewhat distant sounding vs the Satsuma though, and the treble is a different kind of spicy where the lower-treble peak causes long-term listening fatigue and doesn’t work at all with poor mastering, but isn’t too grating upon short listen. Overall resolution is also higher on the A4000 with subtle details being more readily picked up.

If you want a bit more engagement than the Satsuma tuning and can handle the peakiness of treble, the A4000 will be more technically proficient of the two.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Campfire Audio Satsuma is a mostly balanced sounding earphone that is let down by some questionable treble-tuning and middling technicalities. While the comfort/isolation is great and the accessories are plentiful, I’d prefer if it were more resolving and fatigue-free for the long-term listening sessions.

MY VERDICT

3.5/5

Does not stand out in terms of technical performance or tuning

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Campfire Audio

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Campfire Audio Satsuma Review – Orange Is The New Neutral appeared first on Audio Reviews.

We pursue a different approach and have “built” this “Wall of Excellence” brick by brick to list portable audio gear of all types that has been doing a great job for us. And “us” means eight authors. Reconciling such a large number of informed opinions means rigorous and effective filtering. Our selections are therefore relatively safe. We do not compare on our WoE and therefore do not rank. If is’s on it’s on.

This is not a shopping list either and we will not accept requests for additions from third parties. Our wall is strictly personal. Info on all contributors is appended below.

It should be noted that we cannot know every product and therefore our list has holes. But we always strive to keep these as small as possible.

Please bookmark our dynamic Wall of Excellence and keep checking back as it will always be work in progress. You find it easily in the top toolbar.

Now it is time to dip in. Please enjoy yourself.

And don’t forget: If it ain’t here, WE don’t want it :). Check out your eight “bricklayers” below.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

The post Introducing Our Wall Of Excellence appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Cayin C9 is rather heavy
– Very faint amp hiss with sensitive IEMs
– Gets warm in class-A mode after more than an hour of operation
– NuTubes don’t sound like classic tubes, tube purists may feel disappointed
– Won’t replace desktop setups if you’re running inefficient planar headphones
– Eye-watering price that gives you a pause before purchase

INTRODUCTION

Cayin is no stranger to amps. In fact, they make some of the best desktop amps out there, including the venerable iHA-6 and the top-dog, the HA-6 (one of the best amps I’ve ever had the pleasure to listen to, by the by).

The Cayin C9 is their flagship portable amp, meant to be more transportable than portable given the ~0.5kg of weight.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Cayin C9 was sent to me as part of the EU Review Tour (thanks Andy!)

IEMs/Headphones used: Dunu Zen/SA6, Final FI-BA-SS/E5000, UM MEST mk. 2, Campfire Audio Holocene, Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman Ananda

Price, while reviewed: $2000. Can be bought from Musicteck.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

In terms of accessories, you get two high quality interconnect cables (a 4.4mm to 4.4mm balanced cable, and a 3.5mm to 3.5mm single-ended cable). You also get a type-C cable for charging (supporting QuickCharge), a screw-driver (for removing the battery bay), and some spare screws. That’s about it, no carrying case or anything. The accessories aren’t plentiful given the price-tag but you do get all the basic necessities.
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY

Cayin C9 has a two part design: the front part has the amp circuit along with the controls/switches, and the back side has the battery bay which can be slid out. The top of the device is aluminium with CNC-cut windows (covered by glass) that houses the NuTubes, and the bottom of the device has a sheet of glass on it (I do wish this portion was also aluminium for consistencies’ sake). The tubes glow green when turned on and takes about 3/4 seconds to warm up.

The front of the device has… everything. Well, everything bar the pre-amp/line-in toggle button (on the left side of the device, you need to press it along with selecting pre-amp input mode on the front panel to activate the mode) and the USB-C port/battery indicators (on the back of the device, with the battery bay). Both the 3.5mm and 4.4mm inputs/outputs are on the front, along with the power switch/operation indicator LED button. There are toggles for (from left to right) line-in/pre-amp input mode, gain (High/Low), Timbre (Solid state/Tube), operation mode (Class-A/AB).

Lastly , there is the volume knob which is an ALPS rotary encoder and has quite high precision from my experience with no channel imbalance even at extremely low volumes (it’s electronic and resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps). The knob takes some force to rotate though, and it’s somewhat recessed into the housing to prevent accidental volume changes (which can be damaging due to the extremely high output power on the C9).

I don’t really have any complaint about build quality here.
5/5

USABILITY

The Cayin C9 is more of a transportable than a portable device. In other words, they need to be stationed somewhere (a desk/bedside) and not really portable in a shirt/pant/coat pocket (unless you love unsightly bulges). Other than that, it’s quite easy to operate the device once stationed on a desk. Changing between modes is easy to do without looking once you get the layout memorized. However, due to all the controls being on the front, it can a pain to hook it up as a sole headphone amp with a desktop DAC (then you need to reach on the back to connect/disconnect headphones and IEMs). As of now it is more suited to connecting with DAPs than desk setups.

Another interesting aspect is that there is a slight delay every time you change modes. This is something you have to take into account for on-the-fly A/B comparison as the changes introduced by the tube mode, for example, won’t be instantaneous.
3.5/5

BATTERY

The Cayin C9 uses four 18650 Li-ion batteries and apparently switching batteries may bring subtle changes to the sound signature (I did not verify this). It supports quick charge so recharging is quite quick, and I managed ~8 hours on a single-charge in class-A/High gain mode from the balanced out. This is not a stellar showing but given the power and performance here it is within expectations. Do note that Cayin have built several protection mechanisms in the battery powered circuitry (and you cannot bypass battery power here, not sure why would you want to anyway since the battery power is better than direct AC input for this particular use-case). You can read more about the power delivery method here.

AMP ARCHITECTURE

The internal architecture of the Cayin C9 is fully discrete and fully balanced. Cayin also didn’t use a traditional IC/Op-amp based circuitry, rather opted for fully discrete design. The volume control is resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps.

Instead of trying to explain all the nitty-gritties in detail (which isn’t really my forte) I’d instead link to the Cayin head-fi thread (click here). There you will find amp schematics alongside a closer look at the internal components.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Cayin C9 is an absolute chameleon of an amp when it comes to tonality and technicalities. Between the class-A/AB mode and solid-state/tube timbre, you can have 4 different signatures, and this is quite helpful when it comes to pairing IEMs with a specific sound signature. Please note that due to the way the mode-switching works in this amp (has a 2-5 seconds delay depending on mode) some of the A/B comparisons below are based on auditory memory and listening notes. In other words: take them with some salt (though I am fairly convinced about the different bass reproduction in class-AB mode and the general characteristics of the tube mode).

CLASS-A (SOLID STATE)

This is my most favorite mode, and apart from very bass-heavy stuff I preferred almost everything in my collection in this mode.

The best part about the class-A mode is the bass rendition. This is, by far, the best bass reproduction I’ve heard on a portable amp. The sheer grunt of the sub-bass (provided you have a suitably extended IEM) is unmatched. No DAP I’ve tried till date including the likes of Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Sony WM1Z, Questyle QP1R, or the A&K SE200 could come close. I went through a huge portion of my library to simply enjoy the basslines in a completely different manner.

The sheer control Cayin C9 has over the sub and mid-bass is also uncanny. Snare hits are authoritative, sub-bass rumble is very much present, but it doesn’t overwhelm and actually corrects the bass-bleed issue in certain IEMs (Final E5000, for one). The best part about the bass: its density, given you got a good bass reproduction on the transducer side of things. The Cayin C9 isn’t a miracle-worker of course even in class-A mode. If you are pairing it with a BA-only IEM, the bass can only be so good. You’ll miss the texture and slam of good dynamic-drivers and that’s expected. Thus, the class-A mode is especially suited for dynamic driver IEMs/Headphones and the efficient planar magnetic ones.

All this talk about bass made me almost ignore the delightful midrange in the class-A mode. There is an analogue tone to the entire sound and vocals sound especially rich. However, transients aren’t softened at all and there’s a sense of transparency to the entire presentation. The stage depth is another aspect that seemed best on class-A mode, though I’d attribute it to the sub-bass response that is often perceived as depth while listening to tracks with an elevated sub-bass line. Separation was stellar with balanced out and I don’t think it can get any better in terms of perceived channel separation.

CLASS-A/B (SOLID STATE)

If you found the class-A mode to be a bit bass heavy and the mids to be somewhat up-front, then the class-AB mode evens things out. The bass is less authoritative and the midrange esp vocals get slightly pushed back. So you end up with a more relaxed, wider presentation overall. I would recommend this mode with bassy IEMs or headphones. Channel separation was excellent in this mode as well.

NUTUBE + CLASS A, A/B

Last but not the least: NuTubes. The Korg NuTubes are miniaturized triode vacuum tube that uses vacuum fluorescent display technology to emulate the class tube distortion. Basically: you get the tube sound without having large, heat-generating, extremely microphonic vacuum tubes. More info can be found here.

That’s the sales pitch at least. In practice, I didn’t find Korg NuTubes to be as tonally rich and colored as traditional tubes. Cayin’s own N3Pro, for example, has a more drastic and noticeable coloration via JAN6418 tubes. The coloration here is subtler. When coupled with class-A mode, the bass becomes somewhat loose and lacks the texture, definition, and authority vs the solid-state mode. Resolved detail is also masked somewhat. Female vocals sound richer, however, and some harshness/shrillness is smoothed over. Treble detail is also masked to a degree esp the attack-decay of cymbal hits aren’t as pristine as they are on the solid-state mode.

In the end, I found the NuTube to work best with the class-AB mode for my tastes and gears. With some bright or neutral IEMs the tube mode works quite well in reigning down the harshness. However, don’t expect the stellar separation and resolution of the regular class-A mode with the tubes engaged.

PAIRING NOTES

The Cayin C9 made nearly every IEM/headphone in my collection sound, well, better. Given the numerous modes I think one can mix and match and make it work with any IEM. However, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 had audible hiss even at low gain, so if you own very sensitive IEMs you may want to use an iFi IEMatch in-between. Final FI-BA-SS, meanwhile, didn’t hiss much even though it can detect hiss on many sources.

There was a slight amount of hiss on the Dunu Zen but the end result was simply stunning when pairing the Cayin C9 with Lotoo PAW 6000. I used the balanced line out mode and the presentation was very dynamic. The resolved detail was desktop class and frankly – I can see myself ditching even high-end DAC/Amp setups for this combo (LP6K + Cayin C9). Cayin C9 + Questyle CMA-400i was less drastic a difference though the sound was softer and more rounded than the regular headphone out of the CMA-400i.

Lastly, I paired the Cayin C9 with the A&K SE200 and it was another excellent pairing. The A&K’s AKM output gained even better microdynamics and I could listen to the Sennheiser HD650 in its full glory. Many prefer this particular headphone from OTL tube amps so I decided to try the tube mode on the C9, but the end result wasn’t aligned to my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I found the Cayin C9 to take on the characteristics of the DAC/DAP it’s connected to while enhancing some parts of it (mostly bass response, channel separation, and dynamics). As such, I’d recommend the Cayin C9 even for TOTL DAPs like Lotoo LPGT, provided you are willing to splurge for the diminishing returns.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Diablo

The iFi Diablo ($1000) is a powerhouse of a portable DAC/Amp that’s mostly intended to drive power-hungry headphones. It is excellent with inefficient planars (apart from the most demanding ones like Hifiman HE-6/Susvara) and as such works better in terms of powering planars than the Cayin C9.

That’s about it, though. The amp section on the Cayin C9 is superior to the Diablo in terms of tonal richness, bass reproduction, and powering IEMs and efficient headphones. The stellar separation of the C9 cannot be found on the iFi Diablo as well, and staging is more cramped as a result on the iFi Diablo. Moreover, it doesn’t have as many different modes as the Cayin C9 incl. the NuTubes.

As an amp, the Cayin C9 is indeed superior to the iFi Diablo. However, at half the price the Diablo also has a built-in DAC section and doesn’t rely on stacking as the Cayin C9 does, which is something buyers shall take into account.

vs Cayin iHA-6

In the end, I decided to compare the Cayin C9 with other desktop amps because that’s what most of the target audience would be looking into (desktop-class performance in a more portable format). The Cayin iHA-6 ($700) is one of the best amps under $1000 IMO, and I love pairing it with the iFi Neo iDSD (review coming soon for the iHA-6 soon). The iHA-6 is huge and heavy so if the Cayin C9 can somewhat replicate the feeling of transparency you get with the iHA-6 – that’s a major win.

Turns out that the Cayin C9 is actually… better than the iHA-6. Wait, hear me out. It’s not better in terms of power, iHA-6 can push 7Watts (!) into a 32ohm load from the balanced out whereas the C9 manages a mere (!) 4Watts. However, when not driving super-demanding planars, the Cayin C9 simply has better imaging and dynamics (esp microdynamics). The iHA-6, despite being similarly transparent in the midrange, sounds edgier in treble and not as effortlessly resolving. Another issue with the iHA-6 is that it’s beyond overkill for IEMs and might even blow the drivers out if you’re not careful. Moreover, iHA-6 has very high noise-floor for sensitive drivers.

The realization that an amp 1/8th size of the venerable iHA-6 can outperform it in most scenarios is rather shocking for me, but that’s how it is. The C9 is almost 4x the price of the iHA-6, but it seems you do get your money’s worth of performance at a much smaller footprint.

vs Headamp GSX Mini

The Headamp GSX-Mini ($1800) is one of my all-time favorite solid-state desktop amps and something I recommend everyone to try out. Given its desktop nature, it completely outshines the Cayin C9 in terms of output power and headphone driveability, though with moderately sensitive planars like Final D8000 Pro/Meze Empyrean you’re not really gonna need extra juice out of either of them.

I’ll skip over build etc. since it doesn’t really make sense when you’re comparing apples to oranges (desk amp vs transportable amp), but in this case there aren’t many competition to the C9 so desktop amps it is. However, one thing I must note: the volume knob on the GSX-Mini. It’s fabulous, class-leading. I want to fiddle with it for absolutely no reason, it’s that good.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sound. There is a distinct difference in presentation between these two amps. The Cayin C9 goes for a transparent signature with slightly warm/analogue midrange and a sizeable increment in bass texture. The Headamp GSX-Mini takes a more laid-back approach with the bass but focuses on midrange and treble more. Outstanding detail retrieval is its calling card and there it does beat out the Cayin C9 marginally (when paired with full-size headphones).

However, the Cayin C9 strikes back with superior staging/imaging. The GSX-Mini can feel a bit closed-in in comparison. As a result the GSX-Mini works great with planars like Arya which have a naturally wide staging and the sound gains more focus with the GSX-Mini (if that’s what you want). The Cayin C9 meanwhile works better with IEMs and headphones that have relatively more intimate staging (e.g. Dunu Zen, Focal Utopia).

Overall, with the correct matching/pairing of headphones, the GSX-Mini does outperform the Cayin C9 in terms of resolved detail. That the Cayin C9 competes with a full-on desktop amp priced similarly is testament to what Cayin has achieved with the C9, and I am left even more impressed at this point.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If you’re someone who owns a premium DAP (>$1000) with a high quality line-out and intend to make the absolute most out of your IEMs and less demanding headphones (as in, less than the Susvara/1266 Phi/HE-6) – the Cayin C9 will pretty much be an endgame addition at this point. The weight of ~500gm makes it hard to carry around but I am mostly using it while on the desk/lying down and it works absolutely fine that way.

The biggest issue of the Cayin C9 is its price-tag of $2000. Only the most effusive of enthusiasts would pay that much for a headphone amp that improves upon the intangible aspects of the sound you get from a high quality DAP. However, once you hear it there’s no going back and the dynamism it brings is truly one-of-a-kind.

Cayin chased perfection with the C9, and I daresay that they came dangerously close to it. I’ll miss listening to it, but hopefully not for long as I plan on getting one for myself.

TEST TRACKS

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

MY VERDICT

4.75/5

Endgame performance, but you gotta pay a pretty penny. #HighlyRecommended

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

CAYIN C9 Was sent as part of the EU review tour. You can buy it from here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Cayin C9 Portable Amplifier Review – Chasing Perfection appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Hidizs AP80 Pro has average battery life
– Finicky touch response
– MSEB implementation isn’t the best
– Somewhat dry tonality
– Stock silicone case is horrible

INTRODUCTION

Hidizs have been around the block for a while now, mostly focusing on portable DAC/Amps, dongles, and the occasional DAP/IEM. The AP80 Pro is their update to the original AP80, and it brings in a dual-DAC architecture and a balanced output. The rest of the device is rather intriguing too with DAC support, MQA decoding capabilities, and sporting Hiby OS which has a lot of bells and whistles to tweak the sound.

Without further ado, let’s see if the Hidizs AP80 Pro can justify its $170 price tag.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Hidizs was kind enough to send me the AP80 Pro for evaluation.

Firmware version: 1.5

IEMs/Headphones used: Final FI-BA-SS/E5000/Sonorous III, Dunu Zen, Campfire Audio Holocene, Meze 12 Classics V2, Etymotic ER2XR

Price, while reviewed: $170. Can be bought from Hidizs website (please note: this is an affiliate link, proceedings will go to a charity of choice)

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The packaging is fairly minimal but you get all that you need to get started: a type-C charging cable, an OTG cable, and a horrible looking silicone case. The case does its job but makes the entire device look ugly which is a shame given the great design. Nothing is left out, but nothing stands out either in terms of supplied accessories.
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY AND HANDLING

The Hidizs AP80 Pro was quite a bit smaller than I assumed it to be. It fits right in the palm of your hand though the sharp edges can feel uncomfortable. The design is a popular one: aluminium frame sandwiched by two sheets of glass. The screen protectors are pre-applied and that’s a good thing.

The scroll wheel is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s rather sturdy (doesn’t wobble as much as many others) and has defined clicks. However, the clicks feel mushy and the movement has a scratchiness to it. I am nitpicking but hey – I am a bit too particular about rotating knobs.

The playback buttons have good feedback, however, and I love that Hidizs put all the ports at the bottom of the device (unlike many flagship DAPs out there). On the left side you’ll find the microSD card slot (up to 512GB+, absolutely necessary since the Hidizs AP80 Pro lacks in-built storage). The top is bereft of anything.

Overall, the Hidizs AP80 Pro has a good build and the design is rather unique indeed. I do wish the scroll wheel was better (despite using ALPS potentiometer).
4.5/5

DISPLAY AND USER INTERFACE (UI)

The display is a 2.45″ Samsung IPS panel (480*360) with capacitive touch layer underneath. Since the display isn’t laminated, it shows a loss of contrast when viewing from an angle (and not the best under direct sunlight). Display brightness is quite good though, and the pixel density is good enough to hide pixellation from working distance.

Hiby OS is what Hidizs is using here, and it’s a pretty solid DAP OS. It takes ~10 seconds to boot, and then you go straight into a “launcher” of sorts. Here, you can access the actual music player, or use the FM Radio/Pedometer/BT DAC/eBook reader (why?)/System Settings/About menus. It’s a pretty straightforward launcher though I wish there was a faster way to get back to the launcher screen from within the music player app (right now you have to exit the app and then only you can get to the launcher screen).

I think the most impressive/noteworthy part of the Hiby OS is its MSEB feature. It’s a sort of DSP/Parmetric EQ combo that allows you to fine tune aspects of the output such as warmth/brightness/bass rumble/male vocal thickness and so on. It’s fun to play with if you’re into tweaking the sound of your DAP, and can help in fixing some tonality issues in many IEMs.

However, the implementation here on the AP80 Pro isn’t as good as the one found on Hiby R6 2020, or even the Hiby R3 Pro Saber. Both of those had a more convincing tweak to the sound whereas on the AP80 Pro it feels like you’re just using a multi-band EQ and never really have the same control on shaping the sound.

Sliding up from the bottom of the screen brings a menu that’s not unlike iOS’ Control Center. Here you can adjust the volume/brightness, control playback, and switch Bluetooth on/off, select gain level (low/high), switch between DAC or Storage mode when connected to USB, and finally switch between line-out/headphone output mode. Use the last one with caution though since it just maxes out the volume to reach the nominal 2Vrms output level (it’s not a true line out where there is only voltage gain).

Speaking about the performance of the DAP, it’s pretty good and much better than a certain Fiio M6. However, you won’t get even low-end smartphone level of smoothness. There will be missed swipes and taps and the entire UI runs at 30fps or lower so things won’t be very smooth. It’s absolutely usable though and a far cry from non-touch DAPs like Questyle QP1R in terms of usability.
4/5

BATTERY LIFE

Battery life was about average especially from the balanced out. You get between 8-10 hours of playback based on the device/volume level used mostly due to the 800mAh battery used. This is far from the battery life you get from some competing DAPs, namely Sony NW-A55 (~35 hours) or the Cowon Plenue D (~90 hours, it’s not a typo). In AP80 Pro’s defense – those don’t have quite as much output power or balanced circuitry as the Hidizs DAP. However, we are considering raw battery life only, so it’s an area where Hidizs can do better. The battery charging speed is fairly good though and should top the DAP up within an hour and half.
3/5

PAIRING NOTES

The Hidizs AP80 Pro is not a powerhouse and won’t run the Sennheiser HD600 and the likes well. There’s a noticeable lack of bass extension and slam with the HD650, for example. Final Sonorous III fared much better though the bass wasn’t as well-controlled on the AP80 Pro as it is on desktop sources.

As for IEMs, even with the sensitive Final FI-BA-SS I couldn’t notice any hiss and the sound was fairly dynamic. Dunu Zen had a good pairing though the upper-mid glare was more noticeable here. Best pairing was with the Meze 12 Classics V2 and the Campfire Holocene.

TECH SPECS

Hidizs decided to use the tried and tested Sabre ES9218P DAC chips in dual-DAC configuration, and are using the built-in amp circuit of these DACs. This isn’t a bad thing really since it allows you to get reasonably good amp performance in a small package. I couldn’t find the output impedance figures anywhere though, bummer. Full specs are here.

TONALITY, TECHNICALITIES, AMP PERFORMANCE

The Hidizs AP80 Pro has a slightly colored tonal profile, with a bit more focus in the bass region and some emphasis in the upper-midrange (a common tonal trait of these ESS chips). There is some dryness in the midrange that makes male vocals sound a bit distant and coarse. This can be somewhat mitigated by the MSEB tweaks but I prefer not to use DSP/EQ too much myself. The bass and treble could be a bit more resolving given the competition.

The best part about the AP80 Pro’s sound signature has to be its soundstage which is quite wide and never feels closed-in even with IEMs that can feel narrow on some DAPs. Imaging isn’t as accurate as higher-tier DAPs but for the price I don’t expect much better. Separation is also very good provided you have a resolving enough IEM.

Speaking about amp performance, the balanced output was powerful enough to drive the Final E5000 quite loudly, but the E5000 didn’t have quite the bass control that you can get on something like Questyle QP1R/Apogee Groove. Also the balanced output won’t run pesky planars, though some low-end planars like Hifiman HE-400se sounded alright.

Still, for these headphones I’d recommend a desk amp. The balanced output also has better channel separation. I’d personally recommend using the balanced output on the AP80 Pro since it’s noticeably better than the single-ended output.

All in all, the Hidizs AP80 Pro is a good performer for the price bracket. It has good staging and separation capabilities but doesn’t stand out in the other performance criterion. The amp section is fairly powerful from the balanced out but won’t run high impedance headphones that well so it’s mostly for moderately sensitive IEMs and headphones.
4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Hiby R3 Pro Saber ($210): At $40 extra, the Hiby R3 Pro Saber gives you WiFI capabilities (supports Tidal playback) and a more powerful balanced out. It also noticeably increases the battery life. You do lose out on the superior industrial design of the AP80 Pro and the Hidizs DAP has a better display.

That’s all on paper though. In terms of absolute sound quality, I can’t really notice much difference between them. The Hiby R3 Pro Saber has a bit more sterile tone (not a good thing in my book) but counterbalances that with better MSEB implementation (also the OS is more feature-rich on the Hiby R3 Pro Saber). The extra output power is handy if you want to push some higher impedance headphones but with most IEMs this extra power didn’t really matter.

In terms of specs, the $40 extra for the R3 Pro Saber is well worth it. However, if you’re after absolute sound quality and not the extra bit of power and can live without Tidal playback, the Hidizs AP80 Pro will give similar performance at a lower cost.

vs Sony NW-A55 ($200): I’ll say it outright – the Sony NW-A55 is my most favorite DAP around the $200 price bracket. It’s got a great industrial design, the display is fabulous, the UI is snappy, and the sound signature is gorgeous (as Gordon Ramsey would say). The best part about them are the modded firmware by a certain MrWalkman and they bring different tuning to the stock signature.

The Sony DAP is hard to find (it’s biggest con), lacks balanced output, and doesn’t have a lot of output power. Oh, it also uses the forsaken WMPort so you gotta carry that cable around. Battery life is exceptional though at ~35-40 hours of playback. Standby times are also excellent as I rarely turn it off and still have enough juice left for on the go use.

As for sound, the Sony NW-A55 reigns supreme in midrange rendition. The mids on the Sony DAP is unlike anything you’ll hear in this range and has a analogue-ish feel to it. The bass and treble is about similar on both DAPs, though I felt the bass to have slightly better texture on the A55. Staging and separation is where the AP80 Pro pulled ahead. Also, Sony NW-A55 doesn’t have anything like MSEB (though it has Sony’s own proprietary DSP based tricks).

Between these two, I’ll personally pick the Sony NW-A55. If you need a balanced out and more bells and whistles – the Hidizs AP80 Pro may be a better fit for your use-case.

vs Fiio M6 ($150): The Fiio M6 is horrible in almost every aspect. The Hidizs AP80 Pro is far superior. Please avoid the Fiio and save yourself hours of frustration. Thank you.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Looking at the rest of the <$200 DAP market, the Hidizs AP80 Pro seems like a good value proposition. I don’t see a major weakness here. The issues I have are not really deal-breakers and competing DAPs have similar/worse problems. The display is good, the UI has quite a lot of features, and the design is a standout.

The middling battery life and the finicky touch response are the only sore points. Among its competitors, I do have a soft spot for the Sony NW-A55, but if you want better staging and separation over a more refined midrange tonality – the Hidizs AP80 Pro will serve you better than most other DAPs in this range.

MY VERDICT

4/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Hidizs Store. Check out their YouTube channel.
You can get 5% off with the following code: KMMBD5 (AP80/AP80 pro/DH80s/MS2/MS4/S9 pro/MS1/H2)
You can get 3% off with the following code: KMMBD3 (S8/MS1 rainbow/Seeds/H1/BT01/S3pro)

I have to mention the above offers due to contractual obligation. Also, the links above are affiliated, proceedings will go to a charity of choice.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Hidizs AP80 Pro Review – Value Proposition appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Meze 12 Classics V2 is tip sensitive
– 6KHz peak can be fatiguing on some tracks/sources
– Slight metallic timbre
– Fixed cable that’s tangle-prone

INTRODUCTION

I have always admired Meze’s philosophy in terms of product development. In stark contrast to recent craze of releasing “Pro” versions and numerous rehashes of the same IEM within months of each other, Meze develops products with a long shelf-life in mind.

The Meze 12 Classics V2 is the successor/upgrade to their original Meze 12 Classics model which was released almost 5 years ago. The intention of the original model was to have a similar sound signature to Meze 99 Classics (their most popular headphone model) and the updated model tries to do the same.

Let’s see if Meze’s long awaited budget offering can hold against the current competition.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Meze was kind enough to send me the 12 Classics V2 for the purpose of evaluation.

Sources used: Sony NW-A55, Hidizs AP80Pro
Price, while reviewed: $70. Can be bought from Meze’s Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The Meze 12 Classics V2 have the usual bunch of tips (3 pairs of regular tips, 1 pair of dual-flange) and a nifty carrying case. That’s about all you get. I do wish the single-flange tips were of higher quality as I found them inadequate to provide a good seal (and thus made the Meze 12 Classics V2 sound subpar).
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY

Wooden IEM shells usually look gorgeous and the Meze 12 Classics V2 is no exception. The housing is a 3-piece design with a walnut housing sandwiched between two aluminium “caps”. The dark walnut wood is contrasted by the copper color-trim of the aluminium pieces and the design exudes class.

Too bad that the fabric-covered cable is a pain to use while commuting. It’s janky, it’s bouncy, it gets coiled in your pocket, forms kinks easily – not a fan at all. Also the cable is fixed but my old Meze 11 Neo is still alive after 5 years (!) so I’d not be too wary of the fixed cable provided you use these carefully. There is a raised nub on the left strain-relief for channel identification.

There is a single vent right beside the cable-entry in the housing. There is adequate strain-relief all around. My biggest gripe is the cable, otherwise the build quality belies the price-tag.
4/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Given the bullet-style shell, it’s a fairly comfortable IEM and can be worn both cable-up and cable-down. There is some minor driver flex that subsides after a while. The isolation is good but depends on the tips used.
4/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For this review, I mostly used the Sony NW-A55 player and the Spinfit CP-100+ tips. The warmer signature of the A55 somewhat mitigated the treble peak on the 12 Classics V2 and was quite enjoyable for on-the-go listening. I’d recommend pairing the Meze 12 Classics V2 with a warm source for best results.

DRIVER SETUP

Meze 12 Classics V2 is utilizing an upgraded 8mm Titanium-coated PET driver with a copper-clad Aluminium wire voice-coil. This driver isn’t as fast as the Titanium coated driver on the Dunu Titan 1 but is better than a regular PET driver.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The general sound signature of the Meze 12 Classics V2 can be described as V-shaped. However, this is a rather well executed V-shape since the lower mids aren’t too recessed and male vocals have good intelligibility. Bass frequencies dominate the spectrum with deep bass tones having some added reverberation, likely due to the slower decay of the driver. However, the bass has decent texture and thus doesn’t sound one-note. Sub-bass rumble is lacking though, and I expected more slam from the driver (as it was the case with the old 11Neo).

The lower-mids get some warmth from the rise in the upper-bass and in some tracks you can feel the bass bleed into the mids. In most cases though this was kept well under control and lower-mids didn’t sound muffled (albeit they sound distant). The upper-mids are fairly prominent thanks to the 3KHz peak and female vocals sound more in balance with the rest of the frequencies.

The point of contention would then be the lower-treble peak which is rather scary in the graphs. Playing a sine-sweep with the IEMs in my own ear, I can hear the lower-treble peak become strong post 4KHz and sustain itself until 5.6KHz. Then, another peak starts from ~7KHz and sustains until 8KHz. However, these peaks aren’t as fatiguing in real-world scenarios and I couldn’t hear sibilance in any of my test tracks (incl. Evanescence’s Bring Me to Life). This tuning, however, may cause fatigue if you’re sensitive in those regions in the long run.

Dynamics are decent, esp macrodynamics. However, microdynamics (gradual change in volume) isn’t as noticeable and the lack of sub-bass rumble makes sudden bass drops sound less dramatic. Soundstage is impressively wide but lacks depth. Imaging is mostly left/right but due to above-average instrument separation things don’t sound congested at all. Timbre had a metallic sheen to it, a common problem in most Titanium-coated PET drivers.

Bass: 4/5
Mids: 4/5
Treble: 3/5
Imaging/Separation: 4/5
Staging: 4/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3/5

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Meze 12 Classics (discontinued): So, did Meze really improve upon the original 12 Classics? Yes, they did. The driver is noticeably faster, bass is better controlled, the imaging/staging are better, and I prefer the new copper-trim a lot more. A true upgrade in all aspects barring the cable.

vs Moondrop Aria ($80): The Moondrop Aria (2021) is my current benchmark in the <$100 price-bracket. Does the Meze 12 Classics V2 dethrone them? Not really. I find the Aria to have better tonal balance overall and better imaging/faster transients.

However, these are differently tuned IEMs with vastly difference preferences in mind. Those who need an exciting, colored, V-shaped presentation will find the extra energy in the Meze 12 Classics V2 that’s lacking on the Aria. However, the detachable cable on the Aria just makes it a better deal for just $10 extra if you want a more balanced sound signature.

vs Final E3000 ($50): The Final E3000 is another favorite of mine under the $100 mark. It also shares a V-shaped sound profile and has a fixed cable + bullet style shell just like the Meze 12 Classics V2.

In terms of sound, three areas where the E3000 absolutely trounces the 12 Classics V2 are: staging, imaging, instrument separation. I also find the vocals to be more “engaging” on the Final E3000, but that’s more down to personal preference (slightly thicker lower-mids on the Final IEM). The Meze 12 Classics does have a more prominent treble, better bass extension, has a more robust stock cable vs the E3000, and is easily driven from most budget sources (the E3000 needs a good source).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Upgrading a classic like the OG Meze 12 Classics V2 is a tough task, but Meze has done well with the version 2.0. However, competition is far stronger than it was 5 years back, and the 12 Classics V2 isn’t as straightforward a recommendation as the OG was.

For me (and many potential buyers) the fixed cable may be a deal-breaker. Also those who are sensitive to peaky treble may find the 12 Classics V2 over long listening sessions. However, it’s one of the few well-tuned V-shaped sound signature under $100, and that counts as a strong point.

The Meze 12 Classics V2 gets my recommendation if you’re looking for an IEM with V-shaped sound signature (under $100). The design is excellent, the tuning mostly solid, and Meze usually supports their IEMs for a long time. That’s more than you can say about a lot of offerings lately, so there’s that.

MY VERDICT

4/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Meze Official Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Meze 12 Classics V2 Review – Updating a Classic appeared first on Audio Reviews.