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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact us!

Bluetooth & TWS

12

MW50+ Wireless Bluetooth Headphones

The post Master & Dynamic MW50+ Wireless Bluetooth Headphones – Pretty On The Outside appeared first on Audio Reviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the Caspian from Apos Audio.

Specifications Apos Caspian

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

In the Box…

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

Contact us!

Headphone Reviews

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

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

Executive Summary

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

Introduction

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

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

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

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

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

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

Tonality and Technicalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETSHUOER EJ07M Compared

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

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

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

Concluding Remarks

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

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our 316 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

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

Get the LETSHUOER EJ07M from letshuoer.net.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

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.

The included fabric-covered cable, however, is very microphonic and lacks any memory function, which makes fit awkward. I do note that HifiGo also sent me a lavishly-packaged Kinera Leyding cable (review to follow), which was much more-user-friendly.

Quasi-custom shaped shells are large and fairly heavy but comfortable for extended use and, especially with the grippy Azla tips, seal and isolation are excellent. Aesthetics are okay for the price point (I personally think the translucent acrylic undersides look a bit downmarket), but build is solid.

Pairing with source is hyper-critical for the SeeAudio Bravery—through much trial and error I ascertained that sources with higher output impedance (such as my Aune T1 Mk2 tube amp) made the bass sound bloated and tubby, while sources with lower output impedance, such as my Hidisz S3 dongle, considerably tightened the low end and sped up transients, albeit at the expense of some warmth and note weight. (I do believe that the Bravery is particularly susceptible to damping factors, whereby low damping makes causes slow, indistinct bass and high damping  makes it leaner but cleaner).

All that said, the SeeAudio Bravery is easy to drive at 18Ohm/110dB and, surprisingly, I found my unamped, Quad-DAC equipped LG mobile to be as good a match as any. Likewise, I found the included foams to provide the best combination of low end boom and zoom.

As thus driven and tipped, the SeeAudio Bravery presents a mildly U-shaped signature with a bright tonality and a lush note texture. This is a forward-sounding IEM, with a narrowish but deep and well-rounded soundstage which places the performance towards the middle but avoids congestion on complex arrangements. Instrument separation and layering are good but there’s not a ton of air between the performers. 

NOTE: The upgraded Kinera Leyding cable audibly widens the stage and increases the sense of space between musicians.  Low end is impactful for an all-BA–subbass isn’t deep as good DD sets and, at least with the stock cable pitch resolution isn’t optimal  and the lowest notes can sound slightly monotonic on some material (although, again, the upgraded cable improves low-end resolution, especially on electric bass).  

The SeeAudio Bravery does avoid excessive bloom and has plenty of midbass presence and volume. Mids are slightly behind but very clear; male voices have a lot of body. There’s a considerable rise and added energy in the upper mids and lower highs, which can make female voices and synths sound a bit sharp or shouty at times.  

Treble is well extended and very full-sounding, without the metallic edge that sometimes affects the mids. They are not as hyper-revealing or analytic as something like the NF NM2+, but retain nice sparkle despite their weighty highend presentation.  Percussion is particularly vivid and crisp and low-level details like handclaps and cymbal reverberations are captured well.  Integration between frequencies is good but not perfect—again the mids stand out just a little.

Tonally, the SeeAudio Bravery by no means aspire to transparency or audiophile accuracy—there’s a definite coloration to their sound which injects a lot of sheen and aliveness to the proceedings; uptempo genres have a real toe-tapping quality even if, as noted, these can sound a bit metallic at times.  

Well regarded, comparably-priced players like the Logitech UE900S or the JVC FXD1 are better at the technicalities, with more accurate, less colored timbre, better coherence and a smoother, less spiky midrange, while the Aune Jasper is likewise more refined and coherent, with better-tuned bass. However, the SeeAudio Bravery trumps all the aforesaid in that hard-to-define quality of listener engagement—it simply sounds bigger, bawdier and more exciting.

I remain undecided if  the SeeAudio Bravery is a good value at $279—it probably comes down to whether you favor its more dynamic, spicier quality over the more tonally accurate quality of a Moondrop, Shozy, etc.

Consider, however, that unlike most of its peers, which require a DAP or amp to sound good, the SeeAudio Bravery works well with a humble phone (although you’d also be well-advised to upgrade the cable, so perhaps it’s a wash). Undoubtedly, the bold tuning, with its aggressive upper  mids, will prove polarizing and/or exhausting to some. BUT they  dorock hard. Which, at the end of the day, is tough to put a price on.

Disclaimer: Sent to me gratis by HifiGo for review purposes. From our experience, HifiGo is certainly aggressive about pushing out samples, but have  never solicited (tacitly or otherwise) favorable reviews nor (unlike most of their competitors) gotten pissy when we’ve panned one of their products. So kudos to them.

Contact us!

All Our 274 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

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

The post SeeAudio Bravery IEM Review (1) – Young, Gifted And Whack appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Sub-par bass response
– Treble extension is lacking
– Rai Penta has below-average technicalities
– Price

INTRODUCTION

It’s hard being a flagship.

Just being “pretty good” across the board won’t cut it. Outright supremacy is the aim here, and that’s the bar that Meze Audio has set for themselves with their flagship Rai Penta, tested at $1099. It’s quite a jump considering that their previous highest-tier IEM was the Meze 12 Classics worth ~$80.

Meze did take their sweet time with the whole building and tuning process of the Rai Penta, which added further to the expectations. Then again — better safe than sorry. So, how close do the Rai Pentas get close to excellence? Read on.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The Rai Penta was sent courtesy of the Review Tour. I would like to thank Andy sincerely for organizing the whole thing.

Sources used: Yulong Canary, Questyle QP1R, LG G7
Price, while reviewed: $1100. Can be bought from Meze’s Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The accessory set is more than adequate, but with a few caveats. You get basically everything you might need: 8 pair of tips (regular silicone, double-flanges and foams), a really good 4-core SPC cable with Rhodium plated jacks, a balanced upgrade cable, a fancy-yet-practical carrying case, a 3.5mm to 6.3mm jack (handy for certain amps), an airplane adapter (a rare sight nowadays) and a small cleaning brush. All of these are of rather high quality and I personally didn’t feel the need to use a third-party tip.
4.5/5

BUILD QUALITY

Well, Meze hit the ball off the park right at the start. The Rai Pentas are meticulously built, and the feel in hand/while wearing is especially sublime. They are sculpted from a single block of aluminium, and are as smooth as pebbles. You don’t feel the joints at all, and boy do they feel dense! The mmcx connectors are rather robust and didn’t seem to lose their solidity even after multiple cable swaps.
The nozzle has three sound-bores: one for the dynamic driver, and the other two for the dual mid and high BA drivers. These bores are also milled from aluminium and is a rather unique feature of these IEMs since many multi-BA IEMs use plastic tubes to channel the sound towards the bore. On the back, there is a curiously designed vent (presumably for the dynamic driver) that Meze calls the PES (Pressure Equalization System). It does its job seemingly well as there is no noticeable driver flex.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The Rai Pentas are as comfortable as they come for a set of regular-fit universal IEMs. The smooth, beveled edges fit snugly in the ears and you can wear them for hours. Lying down with them is slightly problematic however as their weight tends to tilt them downwards. The stock tips are plenty comfortable for me, but you can of course try your favorite tips to see which fits best.
4.5/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

For this review, the primary source was Questyle QP1R. I used the stock tips since they worked fine for me. Also Rai Penta is fairly source agnostic so you can use any source to get it to loud volumes, but depending on source the balanced cable might provide slightly better separation.

DRIVER SETUP

The Meze Rai Penta is a 5-driver hybrid with a single-dynamic driver taking care of the low frequencies, two composite and customized (Knowles?) BA drivers for the mids, and two composite BA drivers for the highs and ultra-highs. The entire wave-guide and driver chamber is made up of CNC-cut aluminium, resulting in precise crossover-points and eliminating phase/crossover-related incoherency issues.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Meze Rai Penta doesn’t have a bass-heavy signature, which is in stark contrast to their previous two IEMs (11 Neo and 12 Classics) both of which had prominent sub and mid-bass impact (a guilty pleasure, I concede). Bass decay is faster than average dynamic driver IEMs but nothing to write home about. There is a slight mid-bass bloom that adds body to snare hits and to certain baritone vocals but that’s about it. The sub-bass seems rather muted, which is disappointing. It’s more of a faint whimper than an actual rumble. In Audioslave’s Be Yourself, the opening bass-line can be heard, but not felt, and that’s the weakest part of these IEMs for me. Many prefer a bass-light signature, however, so this might be what they are looking for.

Midrange is where the Rai Penta shows its true prowess. This is one of the best midrange renditions I’ve heard in any IEM, period. Nothing is accentuated unevenly, no absurd 3K gain or scooped lower-mids *cough* LCD i4 *cough*. Vocals have a effortless quality to it, and even the highest-pitched female vocals don’t sound shrill or fatiguing. String instruments have a very natural attack and decay, and best of all — they don’t exhibit the “BA-timbre” that I often dread. Micro-detail retrieval is also a strong point, even though they are not exaggerated as certain other IEMs at this range and is mostly there if you want to focus on them rather than being obtrusive. Listening to Ben Howard’s Old Pine was an absolute delight, and you could hear every single breath that the singer drew. Switching to some metal, Deftone’s My Own Summer has an interesting mix of clean and growling vocals, and the transition between them is seamless. No phase-issues here (something that often plagues multi-BA hybrids) and it’s a job well done. One thing that the Rai Penta does really well is pulling out the mid-range details off of bass-heavy tracks. This can come handy if your library consists of some poorly mastered tracks.

Treble takes a back seat, just like the bass, though it’s less extreme in this regard. There is some treble energy around 8KHz so cymbals hits have a pretty noticeable initial attack (really useful if you listen to a lot of rock and metal). However, it take a nose-dive from there on and barely rises post 10KHz, resulting in a treble response that’s very relaxing and sibilance-free, but rather unexciting and unremarkable. It’s not an issue for slower tracks, as Dave Matthews Band’s Crash Into Me sounds oh-so-sweet and you don’t really notice anything missing. It’s the faster, heavier tracks that suffer. Machine Head’s Aesthetics of Hate could definitely sound better, especially around the solo section where there are numerous rapid cymbal hits. The Rai Penta doesn’t do justice to the grandeur of tracks like these, so it’s definitely an IEM more suited for slower genres.

Soundstage is average in width and above-average in terms of depth. It’s not a holographic sound-stage, neither is it a densely-packed one. Instruments have good layering but they are not spread apart like some other IEMs in its class. The mid-range being pulled forward is another factor here so I wouldn’t call this a huge negative. Imaging performance is good, but not exceptional. Cardinality (top-right/top-left) is where it suffers compared to other multi-BA flagships, which is surprising since Meze’s budget IEM, the 11 Neo, had fantastic imaging for its class. The Rai Penta is definitely not worse than the 11 Neo, but it is not class-leading like the 11 Neo was. In Yosi Horikawa’s Crossing (my go-to track for testing imaging performance), the initial passage is remarkably well done, but the moment the song gets busier with multiple instruments that fade in and out, the imaging loses its sharpness. Also another area where the Rai Penta falls short is overall dynamics. Macrodynamic punch is lacking, whereas microdynamics are not its strongest suit, resulting in instruments playing at about similar volume.

Bass: 3/5
Mids: 4.5/5
Treble: 3.5/5
Imaging/Separation: 3/5
Staging: 3.5/5
Dynamics/Speed: 3.5/5
Timbre: 4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Beyerdynamic Xelento: The Xelentos are one of my favorite universal TOTL IEMs, and for good reasons. They are very comfortable and are built like a tank (though I’m always wary of the mmcx connectors), not too dissimilar to the Rai Penta. In terms of sound signature, however, they are somewhat the exact opposites of each other.

Xelentos have an extended sub-bass that’s lifted a few dBs over the mid-bass, unlike the Pentas where you have a mid-bass boost while the sub-bass has a rather early roll-off. Mid-range takes a back seat on the Xelentos and are clearly an area of superiority for the Pentas. In case of treble, however, Xelentos are noticeably more emphasized on the regions between 5–8KHz, thus giving an impression of better detail retrieval. This does not work well for poorly mastered tracks, where Rai Pentas are more forgiving. Then again, if you want a more extended treble — Xelentos will provide you that unlike the Mezes.

Soundstage goes to the Xelentos, while imaging is about par on both. In summary: the choice between them would depend upon your own preference, as they complement each other rather than truly compete.

vs Campfire Andromeda: The Andromedas are build really well, but I’m not too fan of the paint-job myself (the green one that is) and they are significantly less comfortable than the Mezes. The stock cable of the Rai Penta is better, whereas the Andros got better stock eartips (Final E-type ftw!). A potential issue with the Andromeda is their hyper-sensitivity. These are too picky about sources, so you gotta spend some time (and most probably cash) to get them a suitable source where it doesn’t hiss like a kettle on a stove.

In terms of sound, both have a lean bass presentation, but I still prefer the dynamic bass on the Mezes (though it’s only marginally better than the allA Andromeda). Midrange is where the Rai Pentas shine, again. The upper-mids on the Andromeda sounds slightly more stringent in comparison and lacks the fullness of the male vocals that the Rai Pentas can deliver.

Treble, however, is the great differentiator between these two, with the Andromedas having one of the best treble responses around (even though they absolutely ravage poorly mastered tracks) while the Rai Pentas trading absolute detail retrieval for a more relaxing signature. In terms of soundstage and imaging, Andromeda reigns supreme. Both are, however, not suitable for metal genres and sub-genres for the most part as those genres are usually not mastered well and can get either too intense (Andromeda) or too dull (Rai Penta). So if you are a closet metalhead like yours truly, I guess you will be left asking for something different entirely. In terms of soundstage and imaging, Andromeda reigns supreme. Period.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Rai Pentas are not the $1000+ end-all and be-all of things. It lacks a distinct wow-factor, and that perhaps is the biggest flaw of these IEMs. That’s a darn shame though, as the midrange here is beautifully rendered. Despite the lack of extension on both ends, I can see how these might captivate long-time who tend to focus more on the midrange.

So while the Rai Pentas fall short of a number of aspects of the sound, they excel at certain others. The build quality is as good as it gets, and they do the midrange oh-so-well that it keeps a lingering “what if” in your mind — what if these got everything right? Ah well, who knows if such a thing even exists at all.

Meze got part of the equation right with their initial attempt at a flagship. The rest of it — hopefully they hit the jackpot with the successor. Meanwhile, if you are solely looking for a flagship IEM that excels at vocals and acoustic genres — give these a try. They just might be what you are looking for.

MY VERDICT

3.5/5

Great midrange tonality held back by sub-par bass response/technicalities.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get the Penta from Meze’s Website

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Meze Rai Penta 5-Driver Hybrid IEM Review – Master Of One appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Buttons on the front haven’t got the best feedback
– Amp section is underwhelming
– Noisy output from headphone out with sensitive IEMs/Headphones (might be fixed via FW upgrade)

INTRODUCTION

iFi Audio is on a roll lately with new releases.

First there is the Zen stack. The Hip DAC soon followed, and then came the iDSD Signature. The release of the Neo iDSD, however, was quite sudden as it’s been a while since iFi has released a desktop all-in-one solution.

Nonetheless, iFi refreshing their lineup is definitely a welcome move as they’ve been lacking options in certain price-points. The Neo iDSD aims to fill in the sub-$1000 bracket, and with a list price of 750 euro is definitely targeted towards premium buyers. This market segment is a very competitive one as products both below and above the price range can serve as quite viable options. The Neo iDSD ain’t short of tricks up its sleeve though to stand out.

A lot of ground to cover, let’s get right into it.

This review originally appeared on my blog.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Karina Dearman of iFi Audio was kind enough to send the iFi Neo iDSD as part of the head-fi review tour. Disclaimer.

Headphones/IEMs used: Sennheiser HD650, Final Sonorous III/E5000, Hifiman Ananda, Dunu Studio SA6/Zen
Price, while reviewed: 750 euros. Can be purchased from Amazon DE.

iFi Neo iDSD: PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

You get quite a few things in the Neo iDSD package. Alongside the usual RCA-to-RCA interconnect and a short USB 3.0 cable you also get a handy remote control (runs on cell battery), an antenna to improve BT reception, a metal stand where you can mount the Neo iDSD in vertical position, a 3.5–to-6.35mm converter, some spare rubber feet, and finally the iPower adapter. It’s definitely a complete accessory package but I have an issue with the super-short USB cable. The RCA-cable is short as well but I usually go for aftermarket RCA cables so that’s not an issue (and most buyers in this range will likely get a third-party one too). The USB 3.0 cable, however, is too short for desktop users. I wish iFi improves this part of the package in future products, esp at mid/upper-mid level pricing.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

The iFi Audio Neo iDSD looks quite unique and the design is a welcome departure from the boring rectangular boxes you see literally everywhere nowadays. The silver-colored chassis is made out of sandblasted aluminium. There is a solid heft to the unit despite its diminutive size. Speaking of dimensions, the Neo iDSD is on the smaller side vs other DAC/Amps in this price bracket, esp if you orient it vertically. Yes, the Neo iDSD supports both horizontal and vertical orientation and I went with the latter which not only makes it look sleek but also saves desk space.

The front of the unit has the OLED display up-top which is a Silentline OLED, i.e. it doesn’t add any noise to the signal path and shows the current input signal type, sampling rate, volume, and selected input. The display also orients itself accordingly based on the orientation of the unit courtesy of a built-in accelerometer. At the bottom you’ll find the input selector along with the power button, followed by the 4.4mm pentaconn balanced out and the 6.35mm single-ended out. Sandwiched between the display and the buttons are the volume knob (also acts as a navigation wheel incl. push function and has nice tactile bumps when in operation) and a white, diffused LED strip to indicate that the unit is powered up.

Oh, I almost forgot the Hi-Res sticker. Very important.

The back of the unit is where things get more interesting. Everything is labeled already (as you can see in the picture) but just to reiterate: the output can be either RCA-in or two 3-pin XLRs. Also at the very top you can see the antenna screw-in point to improve reception of BT signal. Other than the front and back, the sides of the unit are bereft of any controls or ports. All in all the build quality is excellent. I do have one nitpick: the power/input selector buttons are a bit wobbly. Minor nitpick though. Also ignore the scratch on the display on my unit, that’s how the tour unit arrived and brand new units should be spotless.
5/5

OPERATION

The Neo iDSD can be operated using the supplied remote or the buttons on the front panel. The operation using the buttons is a bit different so it’s best if you check out iFi’s tutorial videos:

Also note that to switch between fixed and variable line-out mode you’d need to restart the DAC while holding down the volume wheel. Weird, I know.

TECH INSIDE

As usual, the specs first:

The iFi Neo iDSD uses a Burr-Brown chip as per tradition. The BT5.0 is one of the highlights of the product and has LDAC support. iFi also uses a new proprietary PureWave topology where they go for a dual-mono setup with shorter signal paths than their previous designs. The default firmware is GTO-enabled by default and iFi also ditched the xBass/3D analog circuits. I am a bit bummed at the omission of the xBass but Neo iDSD aims to be a purist design and those analog DSP effects are anything but purist.

The internal components are all high quality as expected. TDK/Murata caps, FET-based switching to mute those annoying “pops” you encounter on some DAC/Amps, and native MQA full-rendering support. I confirmed the latter by setting up Tidal on Windows in exclusive mode and playing MQA Master files, which were seamlessly handled by the Neo iDSD (indicated by displaying MQA in the OLED display). At this juncture I should mention that it’s advised to install the iFi Neo iDSD driver package if you’re on Windows (Mac version coming soon). You can get it here.

The Bluetooth also works really well. I transmitted music from my Sony Walkman NW-A55 via LDAC without much fuss. iFi has really nailed BT support on this device.

SOUND

AMP PERFORMANCE

The amp section on the Neo iDSD is disappointing from my experience, sadly. The single-ended out is too underpowered and the balanced out, while powerful enough to drive the Sennheiser HD650 and the likes, lack the dynamism you get when these headphones are properly driven. iFi’s own budget Zen Can has far superior amplification for such headphones and when using the Zen Can as an amp with the Neo iDSD the lack of drive on the Neo iDSD is painfully obvious.

Another issue is the noise you get with sensitive IEMs. I’m not entirely sure if this is unit specific or a firmware issue (iFi did issue a FW upgrade to solve this issue but it didn’t improve things on my unit) but a few other reviewers have also experienced it (e.g. Currawong) so I’d advise against driving sensitive IEMs out of the Neo iDSD.

When connected to high impedance/less sensitive headphones/IEMs the output is clean and exhibits a nice smoothness. Things can get too smooth at times if you’ve connected the Neo iDSD to a warm headphone but overall it’s an enjoyable listen, provided that you use something that’s not sensitive to background hiss.
3/5

DAC PERFORMANCE

The iFi Neo iDSD is 50% DAC and 50% Amp on paper, but for my use case — it’s 100% a DAC and a darn good one at that. Heck, it is one of the best DACs out there in the price-bracket, period (more on this in the comparison section). There is no GTO filter here so I was curious how it might sound and as it turns out — the rendition is wonderful. Dynamics are spot on, the soundstage has great depth (albeit less impressive height and width). The best part was the midrange rendition: smooth without losing details and very engaging presentation. The treble isn’t on your face either but has good amount of sparkle and air. Please note that these impressions were made by using Cayin iHA-6 as an amp and then connecting the HD650/Sonorous III. The Neo iDSD was also set up in balanced configuration via the two 3-pin XLR cables.

One area where the Neo iDSD might not suite everyone as a DAC is soundstage width. It’s one of the regions where it falls a bit short. Another area would be the bass, which has great texture but lacks the meatiness some might prefer. For a more balanced, engaging presentation the Neo iDSD does really well, however.
4.5/5

PAIRINGS

I mainly used two amps with the Neo iDSD: the iFi Zen Can and the Cayin iHA-6. The former is a relatively budget offering and provides an upgrade over the built-in amp of the Neo iDSD IMO, esp when powered with iPower X. The Cayin iHA-6, however, took things to the next level. Exceptional layering, stage depth and micro-detail retrieval coupled with great dynamics. Given the ~$1300 price tag for both of these devices combined, I’d say you’re getting comparable performance to other DAC/Amp setups in a similar price-point, though this particular pairing is mostly suited for full-size headphones rather than IEMs (iHA-6 is too powerful for most IEMs due to 7W @ 32ohms rating from the balanced out). For general all-purpose use I think something like the Topping stack (A90/D90) will be more versatile, or perhaps pairing the A90 with the Neo iDSD.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Questyle CMA-400i ($800): The Questyle CMA-400i is my daily driver DAC/Amp and shares some similarities with the Neo iDSD. Both got fully balanced architecture, both can be mounted vertically (though the CMA-400i stand is very difficult to find), offers no analog input (to use as an amp alone) and both are using relatively older chipsets without any selectable reconstruction filter options unlike the latest DAC/Amps out there.

The similarities end there though. The CMA-400i is much larger and weighs substantially more, has 2.5mm and 4-pin XLR balanced out unlike the 4.4mm one on the Neo iDSD, and has no display/remote option.

In terms of sound, unlike the Neo iDSD the CMA-400i has a very clean output. Unfortunately selecting the gain mode is cumbersome (you need to push 4 DIP switches at the bottom of the unit to switch gain) but even at high gain sensitive IEMs don’t exhibit as much hiss as the Neo iDSD (and in low gain it’s basically silent). The sonic differences are also quite noticeable. The CMA-400i goes for an airy presentation and displays a high amount of detail. In fact, resolved detail is higher on the CMA-400i than on the Neo iDSD. Depending on headphone though this can get a bit overboard, but I personally like it for my use-case (most of my headphones are warm-ish). Neo iDSD plays it safe on that regard. Both got exemplary stage depth though Neo iDSD edges out the CMA-400i on that regard. CMA-400i hits back with better stage width/height and more impactful bass rendition. Also if you want native MQA the Questyle can’t help you.

As a DAC, the CMA-400i is close to the Neo iDSD, with personal preferences splitting the difference. As an amp though the CMA-400i is clearly better and is more versatile for headphones and IEMs due to less background hiss and better drive (Questyle’s Current Mode Amp is truly exceptional in this regard).

vs Topping D90 ($750): The Topping D90 costs as much as the Neo iDSD but since I’m mostly using the Neo iDSD as a DAC I thought this is an apt comparison. In terms of features the D90 is clearly superior to the A90 with the highest-rated AKM flagship chipset and a very sophisticated UI that allows you to modify the sound in a number of ways. I do prefer the Neo iDSD’s minimalist approach in this regard but those who love to tinker might veer towards the Topping D90.

In terms of sound, the D90 is basically details galore. The stage is much wider and taller, though depth seemed similar. Mids are a bit pushed back on the Topping D90 at the expense of bass and treble presence. In terms of dynamics, I prefer the Neo iDSD though, as the Topping can feel a bit dull and uninspiring. In fact I enjoy listening to the Neo iDSD more than the D90 despite the latter having superior resolution and wider staging.

If you want a more neutral, almost boring presentation I think the D90 can serve you well and provide you with a feature set longer than the constitution. If you want a more engaging presentation though the Neo iDSD is the one I’d recommend.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The iFi Audio Neo iDSD is a far better DAC than an amp, basically that’s my takeaway after using it for over a month. The amp section leaves a lot to be desired from an all-in-one perspective but the DAC section is excellent and will give even dedicated DACs in this price bracket a run for the money. The BT support is seamless, it looks sleek, and I just love the vertical stand option. iFi broke the mould of making boring rectangular DAC/Amps and offered purist design which I definitely appreciate, though those looking for all the bells and whistles like selectable reconstruction filters or PEQ might have to look elsewhere.

If only the amp was less noisy in the output and had better drive for higher impedance/low-sensitivity cans I could see this one as an endgame DAC/Amp solution for many. Sadly, it’s a bit away from that crown. Perhaps the next one might break through the barrier.

MY VERDICT

4/5

Recommended (for use as a pure DAC, amp section might disappoint)

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Karina Dearman of iFi Audio was kind enough to send the iFi Neo iDSD as part of the head-fi review tour.

Get it from Amazon US/Amazon DE

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post iFi Audio Neo iDSD Review – Breaking The Mould appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Introducing the Contenders

Following the epic 2019 cage match between the NiceHCK NX7 and the TRN V90, our second fight is between two highly appreciated single dynamic-driver earphones: the challenger is the Sennheiser $349 IE 400 PRO taking on the $250 defender of the title, the Japanese JVC HA-FDX1.

The two contenders were chosen for different reasons. First, the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO is a relatively unknown model sandwiched between their budget IE 40 PRO and their flagship IE 500 PRO. Only recently did the IE 400 PRO surface as the winner of our internal Sennheiser competition. The company’s lates model, the Sennheiser IE 300, is very similar in terms of tuning and sound to the IE 300 (same frequency responses).

The JVC HA-FDX1 evolved from the screamy JVC HA-FD1 with the help of some Super Best Audio Friends, one of which suggested tuning filters to JVC. The resulting product was picked up and distributed by drop.com.

Let’s introduce the two fighters one by one:

Round 1: Packaging

Entirely unimportant for the build, haptic, or sound of any earphone, only good for marketing. As George Foreman said: “Never judge a fighter by his locker room“…replied notorious Casanova: “Never judge a book by its cover”. Got it?

In this case, the comparison would be unfair anyway as the drop-issued JVC HA-FDX1 came in a small, plain, unlabelled beige cardboard box (to minimize cost as it is not sold in stores) whereas the Sennheiser IE-400 was embedded in an oversized glossy package aiming to wave at the customer in an electronics store.

Round 2: Accessories, Build & Features

Both fighters are rather lean on accessories – and pretty much on par in terms of eartips selection and carrying case. The JVC HA-FDX1 offers three pairs of attachable nozzles for different sound signatures and the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO a cleaning tool.

In terms of build, the JVC HA-FDX1 are made of metal and the Sennheisers of some – I speculate – medical grade resin. The Sennheiser IE 400 PRO appear haptically less spectacular but are likely as rugged as it gets.

The JVC HA-FDX1 have a heavy quality cable that is attached by notoriously unreliable MMCX connectors – but one can therefore attach aftermarket cables. The Sennheiser IE 400 PRO have a a rugged proprietary connector and only Sennheiser cables can be connected. This section has no clear winner.

Round 3: Size, Fit, Ergonomics, Isolation

This one goes clearly to the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO: the shells are light, small, flat, and they sit flush held by a comfortable deformable/flexible memory wire. They are as comfortable as it gets and of maximum isolation.

The JVC HA-FDX’s metal shells are bulky and heavy. A least you can rotate the nozzles to wear the cable over-ear or under-ear. But the shells can become uncomfortable when wearing them for extended periods.

Round 4: Drivability

Even Steven. Both are not only driven easily by my iPhone, they also sound good without amplification. If amplified, the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO like a more neutral amp such as the Earstudio HUD100 whereas the JVC HA-FDX1 sound with with a warm amp such as the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, ifi Audio hip-dac or nano BL.

Round 5: Tonality and Technicalities

There is no doubt that the neutrally tuned JVC HA-FDX1 are technically and tonally superior over the warmer Sennheiser IE 400 PRO. They have a tighter bass, better midrange clarity and resolution, and better treble energy.

BUT: the warm Senns have better cohesion, they don’t have that glaring midrange sometime bordering on shoutiness, and the sound does not break up when playing them really loud.

The Sennheiser IE 400 PRO are more agreeable sounding and less fatiguing in the long run and they would probably still get the listener’s choice award over the JVC HA-FDX1.

Round 6: Practical Everyday Use

At home, the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO, considering their flatter shells, are more comfortable in bed (when rolling on the side).

On the road, the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO are also favourable because of their elevated bass and better seal both counteracting ambient environmental noise. They also fit better tighter with their memory wire and are overall more comfortable.

The JVC HA-FDX1 are best for serious music listening in an armchair at home. People will probably use the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO more often out of convenience.

Round 7: The Grand Finale

After a hard fight there is no real winner. Each of the contenders has their pros and cons. The JVC HA-FDX1 is a more technical earphone for living room use and the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO is more quality soul food for the road. Both are complementary. In the end, we keep both contenders in the cage until further notice.

Until next time…keep on listening!

The post Cage Match: JVC HA-FDX1 vs. Sennheiser IE 400 PRO appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Bass doesn’t retrieve every last detail, treble might be too rolled off for some and upper mids a touch too high for others, ‘light’ note weight in the mids and highs compared to full DD units.

Executive Summary

The Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk is a tonally balanced (with tasteful bass bump), technically focused hybrid that does just about everything right. Its highly resolving midrange features lighter note weights and excellent detail retrieval, imaging and instrument separation for a very ‘clean’ overall presenation. While technicalities are the first impression, I don’t find anything really ‘off’ about the timbre. Its revealing rather than euphonic nature would make it a complement to, rather than a replacement for, a good dynamic-driver pair.

Tonality and Technicalities

These in some ways have the classic Moondrop signature (before their attempts at diffuse-field neutral, eg SSR, SSP Illumination): a not-too-exaggerated upper midrange and a slightly rolled-off treble – but, with a bit of added bass, focused on the low- to sub-bass. The balance of the bass on these is very good, having a good low rumble along a level of mid- to upper bass that doesn’t intrude on the lower mids. It’s not bass-head material and neither does it overly warm things up. The bass, however, is the one area I find the technicalities of these earphones are a bit lacking: some detail is missing in some material, e.g., reverb trails fade too early and ‘dirty’ distortion is underplayed or absent.

In the upper midrange, I find that between a balanced-armature earphone and a dynamic-driver earphone that measure the same, the BA will seem to be more shouty and harsh than the DD, possibly because of the BA’s faster but ‘lighter’ transients. With the Moondrop Blessing2:Dusk, I find the upper midrange to be getting close to the edge of what’s acceptable, perhaps because of the contrast with a treble that rolls off early.

One of the main notables for me about these earphones is the resolution through the midrange. Detail retrieval is excellent, all sorts of microdynamics and subtle pitch variations being discernible even with amps that tend to gloss those aspects over (Dragonfly Black). At least partly because of this, imaging, instrument separation, and L to R staging are also very good. While sometimes an overly technical focus will make for an unsatisfying overall musical picture, I don’t find these phones to exceed the boundaries of good taste in this respect. For me another big plus is that the common ‘BA timbre’ of overly fast yet lightweight transients, most noticeable in how cymbal shimmers decay, is barely present in these earphones.

Source Synergies

While many all-BA earphones have a difficult impedance vs frequency profile, leading to amplifiers with somewhat elevated output impedances markedly changing the phones’ frequency response, hybrids as a class don’t seem to suffer from this as much. The Blessing2:Dusk is one of these, its impedance profile indicating that the mid-treble would be boosted significantly only if amps of 10 Ohms or greater are used.

In other respects they’re fairly amp-friendly too. They’re sensitive enough to be driven loud from portable sources and don’t seem to need great power to make them ‘wake up’, yet not so sensitive that they hiss or overly restrict the usable volume-pot range from typical headphone/IEM desktop amps. I don’t mind a bit of treble rolloff, so I found sources with a neutral or slightly laid-back signature to work best, allowing the midrange technicalities of the Blessing2:Dusks to shine through without emphasizing the upper mids too much. People wanting the last gasp of treble might prefer brighter sources.

Concluding Remarks

While a) I don’t really want to buy any more IEMs and b) I’m cheap, I’ve been thinking that a more technicality-focused BA or hybrid pair to complement the weightier, dynamic-driver timbre of the Drop JVC HA-FDX1 would be a ‘nice to have’. At their $US320 price, the Moondrop Blessing2:Dusk, with their well-balanced tonality, great midrange technicalities, and lack of ‘BA timbre’ have me thinking about it.

Contact us!

All Our Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

I received these from Jürgen as part of a tour initiated by Crinacle, and held them for two weeks, before sending them on to the next reviewer.

Get the Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk from SHENZENAUDIO.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk Review (2) – Minority Report appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — BA timbre; deserves more depth; big earpieces.

Executive Summary

The Moondrop x crinacle Blessing2:Dusk is a well-tuned, well-resolving earphone that is probably leading in its class.

Introduction

Well here we are again, in Chengdu, city of my fond memories, where Moondrop has risen high above “Chi-Fi” average. Chengdu is the capital of China’s mighty Sichuan province, known for its spicy however tasty foods – and for its panda bears….well, among others.

Moondrop have always pulled something special out of their hat, and much of it sounded a bit spicy, too. But despite the fact, that some of their models exceeded my personal hotness preference, I have always treasured them as something out of the ordinary. Many of my reviewed earphones I gave away, but not a single Moondrop.

I most recently analyzed the Moondrop Illumination, an $800 single dynamic-driver earphone, that could have made higher waves in the west with a bit less spice. And the original Blessing 2 were probably a similar case. So Moondrop brought Singaporian (gr)aficionado Corin Ako alias Crinacle on board to file a few corners off the Blessing 2. And, to take it away, he fully delivered on that purpose. But the attentive reader should also be aware that the iem was not designed by the tuner – who does not take any responsibilities for Moondrop’s “sins”.

Specifications

Drivers: 1DD (10 mm) +4BA (Treble unit: Knowles SWFK, Midrange unit: Softears D-MID-A)
Impedance: 22 Ω
Sensitivity: 117 dB/mW
Frequency Range: 20 – 20,000 Hz
Cable/Connector: 2-pin
Tested at: $330
Product page:
Purchase Link: SHENZENAUDIO

Physical Things And Usability

Tonality And Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air, iPhone SE (1st gen.), iPod Classic; Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt.

The Moondrop X crinacle Blessing2:Dusk is a well-tuned non-fatiguing (!!!), neutral sounding earphone that is driven easily with virtually anything. It comes with a classic BA timbre but is probably technically superior over most earphones in its price category. It features a well textured, subtle bass with natural dynamics on top of a well-extended bottom end. I find the low-end superb in its dryness and lack of mid bass bloat. But the dose is moderate and it may not be for bass lovers. There is a tinge of warmth that elevates it above sterile. Let’s call the low end pragmatic.

Want to see a FR graph? Try the original: https://crinacle.com/2020/12/06/behind-the-scenes-moondrop-x-crinacle-blessing2dusk/ The nozzles are quite thick so that I could not get my standard eartips for measurements over them.

The transition to the midrange is not the smoothest which is a design artifact. Vocals are in the Moondrop tradition of being neutral, lean, and atmospheric, supporting a clear and transparent midrange. The fact that the upper midrange is dialled back (Crinacle’s handwriting) compared to other Moondrop models adds a bit more body and volume to the vocals, however they could still be a bit richer for my taste. But, most importantly, Crinacle prevented the looming icepick.

Treble, in typical Moondrop style, rolls off early, but the extension is just fine. And, typically BA, it sounds a bit “technical”…which justifies the early rolloff.

Bringing this together: Holistically, the Blessing2:Dusk has that crystal clear glassy midrange sound that is nicely transparent but not realistic. This is an issue inherent to this type of earphone/driver…it is part of the design.

Staging is very good horizontally and vertically, but could be deeper. Then again, Blessing2:Dusk shines in terms of definition and separation. A very articulate presentation….and that’s where its money’s in.

I find that the Blessing 2:Dusk handle synthetically produced sounds as in techno and industrial particularly well, but are less suited for rock, jazz, and orchestral.

In comparison to the Blessing 2:Dusk, the more expensive single dynamic-driver Moondrop Illumination sound much more organic, albeit a bit too bright for my gusto – and they are technically less capable. In the $300-$350 segment, the single DD Sennheiser IE300 and IE400 PRO don’t offer the Blessing 2: Dusk’s clarity and separation, but a more organic, coherent, less distorting sound in much smaller shells.

The Tuning?

Just as we want it. It would have been informative to have had the original Blessing 2 to compare to. But from my experience with Moondrop’s in-house tuning, it is kind of obvious what Crinacle did: first he made sure that the mid-bass was not bloated and second he toned down the upper midrange to avoid shoutiness, that is hardness and aggression in the middle frequencies. I am actually surprised that he did not boost the mid bass more, as I know from the JVC HA-FDX1 tuning filter discussion that he likes more bass than I do. Well done, Crinacle.

“You can always tune an earphone, but you can’t tuna fish – Unknown

—

---

Moondrop have been somewhat notorious for their shoutiness so that I had already proposed an upper-midrange-muffling reversible tape mod for the Moondrop Starfield and the Moondrop SSR [links bring you to the respective modding sections]. Thanks to Crinacle’s tuning, this is not necessary for this model. I suggest a similar sonic modification for the Moondrop Illumination. But, hey, as it looks, Moondrop have considered these suggestions in their recent Aria model.

Discussion: How Important Is Timbre?

Timbre (“measure of the naturalness of sound”) is strangely enough generally not included in a device’s tonality assessment but rather in “technicalities”. This is odd as many “audiophiles” sacrifice technicalities such as separation and layering for timbre. One appears to exclude the other.

Crinacle places the original Blessing 2 into the “kilobuck” category and ranks them as “Tone Grade S“, the highest of is ranking list. From my limited experienced with pricey iems, I would not disagree. The Blessing 2:Dusk as the modified younger brother (it is fair to assume that Crinacle would not rank these any lower than the original) do remind me of the $1300 AME Custom Argent in their über-midrange transparency. And that’s what you probably get elsewhere in BA-land for $1000.

The question is: how important is natural sound reproduction considering that BA timbre sounds only realistic with, let’s say, Kraftwerk’s “We are the Robots”.

Take the rustic Canadian BTO song “Four Wheel Drive”, for example. Randy Bachman’s raunchy Gretsch rhythm guitar powering custom-made Garnet amps (the famous “Winnipeg Sound”) loses much of its its meat/substance and visceral character in the glassy, crystal clear network and distortion of any BA drivers. The “Winnipeg Sound” simply retains its character better even with cheap Koss Porta-Pros.

Or take a Chopin Cello Sonata, where you seriously wonder what power supply the Cello is connected with to the mains. Again, the cello sounds more realistic with a cheap dynamic driver. Most BAs/hybrids are the sonic equivalent of overpixelated photos: sharp but unrealistic.

This begs the general question of how timbre should be graded?

Concluding Remarks

Despite the BA timbre (which is part of the game), it was a pleasure listening to the Blessing2:Dusk for a couple of weeks. I don’t think there is a technically better earphone at this price.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimers

I held the Blessing2: Dusk for two weeks as part of a tour initiated by Crinacle, before sending them on to the next reviewer, who is our very own Biodegraded. Also check out his review…coming soon.

Get the Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk from SHENZENAUDIO.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post Moondrop x Crinacle Blessing2:Dusk Review (1) – Big Heart Of Glass appeared first on Audio Reviews.

As I am going deeper and deeper into my audio passion, one of my most “interesting” discoveries has undoubtedly been that an apparently high end, high efficiency IT system (e.g. an hi-tier Laptop) can be quite far from being an ideal platform for an apparently “light” data transfer activity such as streaming digital audio from where its passive containers (the FLAC or WAV files) are, up to a USB-connected DAC.

The first and simplest perplexity an IT enthusiast, or specialist, comes up with when confronted with the above situation is typically a variation of:

“Cmon… A bit is a bit! The PC just has to transfer a digital file to a digital device, via a digital interface. Don’t tell me you ‘hear’ deterioration in the process as there can’t obviously be – data will not deteriorate!”.

Of course it’s exactly like that. A bit is a bit, and the very same bits stored into (say) a FLAC file onto the PC’s hard disk will reach the externally connected USB DAC once sent over. No doubt. No error. Too bad that this is not the point.

Cables as trojan horses

DACs are devices supposed to take such digital data (FLAC or whatever files) and convert their contents “on the fly” (i.e., while still receiving them one little chunk at a time) into analog data (i.e. the music we all want to enjoy). So far so logic. The problem is that a few unobvious caveats apply.

First of all it’s important to understand that while EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) and RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) investing, say, a laser printer while printing a Word page on paper is not going to significantly (or at all) change the quality of a 600 dpi printed text, DAC chips and the rest of the circuitry around them will greatly change their behaviour, and ultimately reproduce “different sounding music”, when subject to EM/RF (and other) perturbance.

And no, it’s not enough to protect (“shield”) the DAC against perturbances in the human audible frequency ranges (20-20.000 Herz give or take) because this is not “only” about preserving the DAC’s job result after it obtained it, rather it’s about making sure the DAC is not “disturbed” while it’s doing its job.

The bad news is in facts that DAC chips, and the electronics “around” them inside their box are sensible to frequencies up to a few Giga herz (!), sadly coming from a virtually infinite spectrum of possible origins.

“Well then this is mostly about properly shielding the physical DAC box, so any possible “waves” polluting the environment near my DAC will not get in, no? Is this why I often read that a desktop device will most often be better than a mobile one?“

Sadly, no.

Or yes, of course you would want a “nicely shielded dac box”. That’s quite logical. But that’s not enough.

Seriously pernicious interference (“noise”) can first of all come from the DAC’s power supply itself. Converting from Alternate Current (supplied by the wall outlet) to Continuous Current (required by the DAC electronics to work) creates in general (let me simplify here) a lot of “side effects”, which are nasty for our DAC, and are transported into it by the very electrical cable which is needed to feed it with the “good part” of its required power.

Ideally, we would want:

1. a “side effect free” Power Transformer, to generate an as apriori-pure CC as possibile, and
2. shielded power transport cables to avoid “collecting noise on the go”.

Furthermore: the USB cable is another trojan horse for noise – and the more so if the same cable is used to carry both data and power into those DACs that do not have a separate input port for an independent power supply.

A PC 99.9% of the times has not been designed with audio-grade EMI/RFI prevention in mind, for the simple reason that it won’t be required by 99.9% of its uses. All sorts of “bad waves” (I’m again vulgarising here) do happen inside the PC, and do indeed propalate out via any connected electrical conductor – there surely included the USB cable, the same on which our “a bit is a bit is a bit” data is unawarely travelling.

Timing is vital

Should the above (vulgarised) scenario be not enough, there’s even more to take care of. Again, I’ll make this a bit simplistic but give me some rope here, or wordage gets too complicated it all’d get even worse

Data communication between a PC and another PC, or between a PC and a HD for example, are designed to be “as quick as possible”, while not necessarily “as time-regular as possible”.

While saving your Word file from your PC memory to your HD the actual writing speed might vary during the process as a consequence of many factors (your PC doing something else at the same time, the HD receiving other files at the same time, the HD speed recalibrating following thermal variations, etc etc etc). When that happens, your file will save like one tenth of a second faster or slower. Who cares.

In a very bad case a peak of interference will force a data packet retransmission: a full second might be lost in the process (how bad!…). What really matters though is that no quality difference will be there at the end: our file will be “perfectly intact” on the HD.

Not the same applies when the “receipient” is a DAC.

Audio devices require to receive digital data on a perfectly timed schedule. Otherwise (guess what?) the DAC being unable to autonomously correct such schedule, it will convert data at the “irregular” pace with which it receives them, and the result will be “different music” than expected.

Data flow into the DAC must follow a sort of atomic-clock-precision “metronome”.

Now guess what else: when you connect an external DAC to a PC via USB, the default choice is using the PC’s internal “metronome” (called “Clock”), which – you know that by now – is sub-par for our audio purposes as it never was designed with the level of accuracy, and never equipped with those pace-granting gimmicks a DAC desperately needs.

Furtherly, even when the PC and the DAC “somehow manage” to adopt an adequately reliable clock to keep data flow pacing as regularly as the DAC wants, internal PC EMI/RFI can – and will – screw timing up every now and then anyway. And, DAC chips in general don’t come with built-in “circuitry” capable to correct such “hiccups” on the fly.

Lastly: as pacing is so important each DAC has its own independent metronome clock generator inside, used to master the timing of all its internal operations. A similar little device (“oscillator”) than the one used inside the PC generates that, just a more precise (and expensive) one. Too bad that such device is an electrical device like all the rest inside there, so should inbound power supply be not perfectly clean… yes, you guessed it

What a mess. What can we do?

Well very simply put what I just tried to say until now tells us that first and foremost a “generic” IT system (a PC, a Laptop…) is for a number of reasons far from being an ideal choice as an “audio player” when audiophile-grade results are wanted.

To solve the problem there are three possible conceptual approaches

1. Adopt more “audio-adequate” systems as digital players, and/or
2. Adopt “higher tier” audio devices (DACs) equipped with appropriate “noise countering” circuitry, and/or
3. Adopt additional devices, stacked “in between” the digital player and the DAC to “correct issues” on the go

A super-simple example of type-1 approach is using a battery powered device as digital player: it will infacts apriori have less power-originating noise as it will not require a power transformer (although careful here: batteries are not totally noise-free either… but let’s not overcomplicate the story now).

Always in the type-1 area: stay away from general purpose PCs, even more so if they are beefed-up gaming rigs. Every single chip on the motherboard is a potential (and effective!) source of EMI/RFI and of time-pacing perturbance.

Even on “simpler hw” machines then gaming rigs the more different stuff the operating system is asking the hw to do while sending data out, the worse for our case. Using an appropriate SBC (Single Board Computer) class device driven by a stripped-down OS where only the essential processes to our special case are kept alive is a technically much healtier – if technically steeper – path to follow for best results given the situation.

A DAC offering the possibility to get power from an independent, audio-quality Power Supply instead of sucking it from the host via the same USB cable used for data is then the first and simplest example of type-2 approach.

DACs capable of inverting the default master-slave USB protocol, and play the “host” role themselves while receiving USB data from the host are another. And so on.

An example of a type-3 approach is an iFi device I purchased a few months ago, called Nano iUSB3.0

Nano iUSB 3.0

Nano iUSB3.0 is an apparently unassuming silver “box” to be installed “along” the USB line, right in between the Digital Player (my Laptop, in my case) and the DAC.

As the name suggests, Nano iUSB3.0 support is limited to DACs getting their input data from a USB cable, and can’t be used on SPDIF inputs instead. It comes with its own power supply too. And, it serves 3 main purposes

1 – Nano iUSB3.0 provides clean(er) power

Let’s consider a DAC receiving both data and power from the USB cable. In such case I’ll connect the DAC to Nano iUSB3.0’s “Data+Power” output port. Nano iUSB3.0 injects the clean(er) power coming from its own clean(er) power supply in there, while at the same time cutting the link with the dirty(er) power coming from the host.

Alternatively, if our DAC can be separately fed USB data and 5V DC power from 2 separate ports, I’ll connect the DAC’s power port into Nano iUSB3.0’s “Power only” output port. Nano iUSB3.0 will deliver my DAC the power coming from its clean(er) power supply, furtherly “cleansed” by its own internals.

iUSB3.0 comes bundled with iFi’s iPower, a decent-entry-level audio-grade SMPS (Switched-Mode Power Supply). It can of course be furtherly upgraded by “simply” adopting further quality power supplies, such as iFi’s own iPowerX, or any suitable (9V) third party SMPS or Linear PS.

Mind you: a higher quality PS may, that alone, cost a few times the price of a full stack…

2 – Nano iUSB3.0 actively cancels (a lot of) incoming electrical noise

The concept is quite similar to Balanced analog lines: a second signal is generated identical to that of the incoming electrical noise, but in the opposite phase; the two signals are then “summed” together, which cancels the noise leaving the “good” part intact. iFi Audio calles the technology Active Noise Cancellation+^(R).

According to better engineers than myself iFi’s approach is significantly better than cheaper “passive filtering” alternatives, which act on mid + hi freqency interference only. Active filtering acts on lower frequencies too. 

According to iFi, this technology only inside Nano iUSB3.0 is responsible of reducing output noise floor by > 40dB (> 100x).

To give some indicative numbers, a standalone SMPS like iFi iPowerX has a declared DC noise floor of 1uV, same league as the direct competitor Allo Nirvana SMPS. Nano iUSB3.0’s DC output features 0,5uV noise floor instead.

3 – Nano iUSB3.0 “fixes” the USB data stream

Nano iUSB3.0 re-clocks, re-generates and re-balances the USB data signal. What does that mean?

As mentioned above, precise timing is a relevant factor when digital audio data (e.g. a FLAC song file) is streamed between a “host” (a PC) and a digital audio device “client” (our DAC), and sadly the host’s clock is not adequate to properly take care of this.

Nano iUSB3.0 reverses the Host/Client clock relation : it uses its own internal clock – Re-Clock^(R) – to “pace” the stream incoming from the PC removing undesidered frequency variations (“jitter”) and other stuff.

Secondly: the presence of possible DC offsets between the two ends of an USB communication channel – e.g. due to ground loops, or to EMI – is another potential source of inconsistencies. Nano iUSB3.0 corrects – Re-Balance^(R) – DC level differences at the two ends of the USB line to prevent these issues.

Finally, again as mentioned above, if there is “noise” (interference) down a USB line then some digital data packets will get disrupted, and a retransmission of those packets takes place between the devices. If the receiving device is a digital audio device a retransmission for error correction screws timing up (much, much more than “simple” clock jitter of course!). Accurate data will still reach the destination, but not “on time”.

Nano iUSB3.0 rebuilds – Re-Generate^(R) – the entire USB data stream from scratch, “cutting the rope” with inbound packet noise and providing the DAC with a “full-renewed”, correctly timed stream of digital data.

Last but not least: Nano iUSB3.0 does all this at USB3 speed (5 Gbps), which means it can process on-the-fly digital data streams up to the maximum resolutions currently supported by TOTL DACs.

So much for the technology. But does it actually work?

Hell yeah !

I put Nano iUSB 3.0 up in between my laptop and two totally different level USB-powered “dongles”: Meizu HIFI DAC Pro and Apogee Groove.

The improvement when listening to the cheap Meizu HDP is nothing less than huge.

The difference is very apparent on Apogee Groove too, although percentually lesser. Groove already incorporates high-end (for its class and size) dejittering technology, so Nano iUSB3.0’s impact is “mainly” about USB data stream “fixing”, and power cleansing.

At a higher or more modest level, depending on how much of its tech is already incorporated into the DAC the overall sound quality output induced by plugging Nano iUSB3.0 into the chain is evident.

Low tones are where the effect is more perceivable: back instruments and vocals suddenly gain better readability. The sound fuller, but at the same time more controlled, punchier and structured.

On the extreme, listening via Meizu to a well mastered song with “silent moments” on one channel I would normally say such silence is “quite silent”. Then I connect it through Nano iUSB3.0… and I find out that such supposed “silence” did in fact have “some sound” – as in “pressure felt on the timpanus” – before, which is now gone.

On Groove, sans Nano iUSB3.0 the same “silent moments” are nearly on par with those reproduced by Meizu + Nano iUSB3.0, while stacking Nano iUSB3.0 behind Groove I perceive further de-pressure, and some very faint sounds (e.g. a performer moving) get audible, or more audible, which were covered before.

Powering Groove via Nano iUSB3.0 generates a whiff higher SPL accross all frequencies (music comes out a bit louder), whilst perceivably reducing the high/low tones gap. In more vulgar words this means that without Nano iUSB3.0 a song lead vocals and instruments are presented by Groove at (say) SPL=10, and back guitars at SPL=5, while by adding Nano iUSB3.0 I will have front lines at 10.5 and back lines at 6. Everything is a little bit louder, but low tones gain more than high ones. This of course grants further clarity and detail to back-line voices.

As I mentioned already, effect on bass frequencies is better control and texture. Again, on Meizu the difference is literally from night to day. On Groove, which is already making masterful bass control a main cipher of its art, this equates into further bass texture – of which I’ll always be thirsty anyway.

On trebles significant more crystallinity is offered. On some tracks, and on bright-leaning drivers, this is even more apparent and may lapse into somewhat unforgiving output (the IEM tuner’s art will show here… if some has been applied, that is…).

Soundstage: improves not much in term of size rather in terms spatiality. Final E3000, for example, being already a blessed IEM on that respect, now allows me to better guess the room size / shape. Sound is more “coherently around me”.

Imaging: not only instrument positioning is furtherly palatable in a “more clearly lit” stage, as it sounds logical, but some instruments also appear better reciprocally spaced.

OK, it works. But…

Do I really need it ?

That’s a significant question and – in less then a thousand words – it depends on the current stack status.

By direct expericence Nano iUSB3.0, or “part of it”, is needed if

1. The DAC is host-powered only (i.e., it gets powered via the VBUS bit within the USB cable connecting it to the host, and cannot accept power from a separate port), and/or
2. The DAC is non-pro class (not even low-end-pro-class), and lacks all or most USB-noise prevention / suppression features, and/or
3. The host (i.e. the device from which the digital stream is coming) structurally generates a lot of USB noise in the first place. Simply put the more hw&sw-complex the system is, the more “noisy” it will be.

Again, let’s take my specific case as a practical example. At home I have two “stable audition positions”: my desk, and my nightstand.

On my desk the host is represented by my Laptop, and my reference DAC is an Apogee Groove. This ticks #1 and #3 in the list above. Due to Groove internals #2 is a lesser priority, although still significant.

On my nightstand the host is represented by a Raspberry PI model 3B+, powered by an iFi iPower PS, and the DAC is (another) Apogee Groove. There, #3 is in a much better situation vs the desk PC alternative: Raspberry 3B+ is an enormously simpler system compared to a laptop, hw circuitry on the motherboard is much less, and less noisy; its operating system can be (and in my case indeed is) stripped down to the sole parts needed for the specific task its going to cover; it’s indeed powered by an entry-level nevertheless audio-grade PS like iPower; and a few other minorities.

If I connect Groove natively onto the Raspberry first, and I subsequently try via the Nano iUSB3.0, I can indeed hear improvement but to an evidently lesser extent compared to the desktop host case.

Correspondingly, I didn’t expect much, if any, benefit from interposing Nano iUSB3.0 between a battery driven transport e.g. a DAP’s USB-DAC-out and the Groove, or even the Meizu HD Pro dongle. And in facts that’s precisely that happens. Yes there is some improvement but a battery driven DAP doesnt generate big USB noise in the first place, and provides a much more “clean” VBUS power… you just cant fix what aint (totally) broke can you. A little (little!) bit more of difference is (maybe) there when the host is an android phone but still…

…All of it ?

The good with multipurpose multifunction devices is that with just one cost and one item you “do it all” or most of it. On the flip side these devices are not cheap in general – and Nano iUSB3.0 is no exception! – so a situation where only one of its features would really be “needed” may be a problem.

To make things even more difficult the device I got is called “Nano iUSB3.0” and has been discontinued last year, iFi replacing it with its “doubled-up” sibling called Micro iUSB3.0. Very similar internal features, just 2 of each outputs: 2 clean USB data & power out, 2 extra USB power-only out, and one other more feature. All for a quite sensible €500-ish pricetag. Not a bag of chips…

So, do I (we) really need “all or nothing” ?

Indeed the market offers the various features inside iUSB3.0 in form of “unbundled” devices. Again, the unbundled approach will be more money efficient when just one or two features are required, less efficient when you need them all.

Let’s make some examples.

ifi Micro iUSB 3.0 is actually Nano iUSB3.0 bigger brother. “Bigger”, first of all, in the sense of “double”: it features dual power+data and dual power-only output ports, instead of 1+1 as offered by the Nano. In addition to that, Micro iUSB is even more effective on clean DC power delivery: it’s output noise floor specs on 0.1uV instead of 0.5uV as the Nano does. Finally, Micro iUSB3.0 offers one more important feature which is Ground Loop killing.

iFi iPurifier3 is the name of iFi’s “standalone” device doing “just” USB rebalance/reclock/regen and Active Noise Cancellation on the VBUS pin. This may be a good choice for example if the DAC features a separate power supply port, and it is already equipped with a high end power supply – in such case it’s the data line that needs to be taken care of “only”. Attention: iPurifier3 only supports output rates up to USB2 High Speed (480Mbps), which means it will top out at 24bit 192KHz digital resolution (or maybe a bit more: some better assessment would be worth on this one).

iFi SPDIF iPurifier2 is the name of a similar device to iPurifier3, taking care of SPDIF coax connections instead of USB ones.

iFi iDefender+ is iFi’s smart USB “passthrough” adapter, with 2 inputs and 1 output. Put it in between the host and the DAC and it will kill ground loops by implementing the same trick included into Nano iUSB3.0. Additionally, feed iDefender+’s side-USB port with power coming from a better PS (e.g. iFi iPower, iPowerX or iPower Elite, Allo Nirvana, Shanti, or even a super lownoise battery pack!) and iDefender+ will pass that cleaner power to the DAC instead of the power stream coming from the host VBUS bit.

Unlike Nano iUSB3.0, iDefender+ will not furtherly filter the power coming from the side-PS cleaner, though. So no Active Noise Cancellation in there. Finally, iDefender+ supports USB3 Super Speed rates (5 Gbps).

iFi iSilencer+ is a sort of “simpler iPurifier3”. It applies REbalance to the USB data stream (but no REclock nor REgen), thus already reducing jitter quite a lot, and Active Noise Cancellation onto the VBUS power bit. Probably due to not getting involved into REclok/REgen, unlike iPurifier3, iSilencer+ supports USB3 Super Speed rates. I guess it can be considered a very interesting entry-level option, and I would be curious to assess how it pairs with an iDefender+ upstream.

Audioquest Jitterbug is supposed to be a furtherly simpler iSilencer. It does passive EMI/RFI filtering and jitter suppression. No Active Noise Cancelling on the power line.

Uptone ISO Regen is supposed to be a “similar” competitive alternative to iUSB3.0, with the one major additional built-in feature (galvanic isolation) on one end, and some lacking differences on another.

And finally iFi Nano iGalvanic 3.0 is in its turn supposed to be ISO Regen’s direct competitor, featuring galvanic isolation, USB reclock/reblance/regen executed both before and after the isolation, USB3 Super Speed (5 Gbps) support, and an internal high end power transformer – but unlike Nano iUSB3.0 no Active Noise Cancellation nor an input for a higher-tier Power Supply.

I didn’t personally test any of such alternative devices (yet), I’m just mentioning them here to give a quick idea of the possibilities to be assessed. Talking about iFi ones, based on them incorporating the same technology found inside my Nano iUSB3.0 I am let’s say reasonably confident about them being equally effective, each for its own bit of course.

My reference DAC (Apogee Groove) is very well equipped for USB noise filtering, but – also given its very small physical size – simply can’t possibly do much in terms of power filtering. So if I were to restart from scratch, in terms of investment min-maxing I’d probably bet on taking care of the powering part first (e.g. by means of an iDefender+ paired with an Allo Nirvana, or even a Shanti PS). Subsequently, I might want to add an iSilencer or a more expensive (and complete) iPurifier3 to help Groove on USB data line “upstream correction” too – also helped by the fact the Groove itself is limited to USB2 High Speed rates.

So why did I get a Nano iUSB3.0 instead? Honest: just luck. The Nano package having recently been discountinued by iFi in favour of the dual-sized (and dual-priced!!) Micro package, this triggered a stock clearance sale from my local disty last year whereby I could harpoon a Nano iUSB3.0 for less than the regular price of an iDefender + iPower… How could I have left it there?

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

The post iFi Nano iUSB3.0 Review – Clean The Stream Up appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Liquid Spark + iEMatch / Questyle QP1R / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman – Acoustune ET07 eartips – Linsoul LSC08 6N OCC single crystal copper cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Pairing care

The most important note and warning for whoever plans to adopt Oriveti OH500 (or any other very low impedance driver for that matter) is remembering that 12 Ohm is no joke for the majority of low-tier mobile sources, and most if not all desktop headphone amps.

What can – and shall – happen pairing OH500 to an inadequate source is a significant bump-up taking place in the mid-bass area – where OH500 does not need a further embodiement, if something it would actually need some slimming care if you ask me. Another unwanted possible mishap, caused by their low impedance and relatively high sensitivity (110dB), is high mids getting into sharply glaring behaviour as soon as you start raising the volume a bit.

To make some explicit examples, the above 100% happens when pairing to Hidizs AP80Pro, Hiby R3, R3Pro, R5 and R6Pro, Fiio X3-III and BTR5, and I presume many other same-tier direct competitors. Ditto for desktop amps e.g. Liquid Spark or ZEN CAN. In all those cases adopting an iEMatch or a similar impedance adapter is more than a rec, really.

Sony NW-A55 is OK in terms of amping, but I find its warm tonality not an ideal addition to Oriveti OH500’s already warm soul. QP1R is a 100% good, so are Lotoo Paw 6000 and Gold Touch. Same for iFi Micro iDSD Signature, provided its built-in iEMatch is switch on at Ultra setting.

Conclusions

When properly paired Oriveti OH500 are very good IEMs. I mainly love their timbre, their distinct personality: they are full-bodied, authoritative, they fill the space with almost tactile sound, in all segments of the spectrum.

To my very personal musical preferences, mid-bass transients are a tad too relaxed – I do prefer snappier plucks and punchier hits down there – yet OH500 never seem to lose control and delivers nice lows texture and layering at all times. What I prefer are highmids and presence trebles though. Those are really something: a wonderful compromise between fullness and detail, crispness and air.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

All Our >250 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

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

All Our >250 Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

The post Oriveti OH500 Review – Nice With You If You Are Nice With Them appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Stock cable can be a bit heavy for some
– Not as good in macrodynamics as some single-DD/hybrid IEMs in this range
– BA bass is still BA bass, subtle BA timbre in the high notes
– Dips at 4KHz and 6KHz might take away the energy of distortion guitars and cymbal hits
– Not the widest staging or the most precise imaging for the price-bracket

INTRODUCTION

It’s hard to stand out in the IEM space lately.

New brands pop up every now and then with claims of performance that far belies their price-tag, having measurement graphs that seem just about perfect, hitting a specific target curve. Driver count that would seem overkill even in $1000+ IEMs just a few years ago.

It’s really hard to stand out.

Dunu, having dealt primarily with single/multi dynamic drivers and hybrid IEMs for the past decade or so decided to move towards multi-BA setup again. Their new Studio series of IEMs are strictly multi-BA setups and have two models for now: SA3 and SA6. The SA6 is the higher-tier model and aims to bridge the gap between kilobuck IEMs and the relatively budget offerings. I’ve been using the Studio SA6 for the past four months (almost) and I believe now I’m ready to share my long-term verdict, i.e. not a rushed review to gather some sweet, sweet SEO.

So, is the DUNU Studio SA6 a stellar showing, or just another also-ran? Read on.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. DUNU-Topsound was kind enough to send a review unit of the Dunu Studio SA6. Disclaimer.

Sources used: Questyle CMA-400i/QP1R, Cowon Plenue R2

Price (while reviewed): $550

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

IN THE BOX…

The Dunu Studio SA6 packaging is smaller than expected, as usually products in this price-bracket come with oversized packaging. Despite the below-average sizing it’s chock-full of accessories. First up: the cable, and this is the centerpiece of attraction no doubt. It’s their DUW-03 cable that retails for $200 as of the time of writing. The cable is an 8-core SPC affair, braided in Litz config. The termination is Dunu’s patented “quick-switch” modular plugs where you can easily swap out plugs by pulling at the plug end. It’s also spring-loaded so the mechanism didn’t get loose after multiple swaps. My biggest gripe about the cable is that it’s a bit too solid, a bit too heavy. I’d have preferred a lighter PVC jacket, but then again — heavy duty cables tend to be heavy. As a bonus, you also get two extra terminations: 2.5mm and 4.4mm pentaconn. Nice!

Then we have the case, which has a blue PU leather outer and felt-padded innards. The case has a small compartment for storing the extra terminations and such so that’s a nice touch. Next up: eartips. There are 11 pairs of eartips in total: 3 pairs of black tips, 4 pairs of white tips, and 4 pairs of blue tips. I personally found best results with the white tips but I’d suggest trying them all out.

Finally, you get a cleaning tool and a 6.35mm converter. The only thing missing is a shirt-clip but with a cable this nice I’m willing to ignore that.
5/5

APPEARANCE, HAPTIC, AND BUILD QUALITY

I’ve made a lot of fun of resin shells in the past since most of them are very generic and look shoddy compared to certain stainless steel finishes out there.

The Dunu Studio SA6 manages to make me eat a humble pie.

The quality of the resin itself is immaculate. No bubbles, no grain, no unevenness. Practically flawless in terms of appearance and haptics with UV-curing and an enamel-like finish that doesn’t attract fingerprints. The Studio SA6 looks pristine even after months of use. The faceplate is stabilized wood underneath where each pattern and color-combo is going to be unique for each earpiece. This is a nice perk and so far I’ve liked every single faceplate I’ve seen. Some might want more customization but I like the randomness myself (esp since they all look good to varying degrees). Then again, this is something one gotta decide for themselves.

The nozzle is a bit short and stout but with the eartips on it should fit snugly. There are three bores in the nozzle, each connected to the bass, mid, and high drivers. I’ll discuss further about the driver configuration in the sound section. There is a single vent beside the 2-pin connector (recessed, thankfully) on the underside of the IEMs. This allows the Sonion vented woofers to have greater excursion than a closed design.

Finally you get to see the switch which is quite easy to flick with your fingernails (even when wearing the IEMs). This is a welcome departure from other designs where one requires fiddly SIM-card ejector like tools to toggle the DIP switches.

Overall: fantastic build quality. I can’t find a single flaw or point of contention.
5/5

ERGONOMICS, COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Due to its pseudo-custom fit and moderate nozzle length, the Dunu Studio SA6 offers a very snug, stable fit. I’ve worn it for hours and didn’t feel the need to take it out. Isolation is also above-average despite the vent in the housing. However, there can be some pressure-buildup inside the ear while pulling them out so I’d recommend not yanking them out of your ears and taking it slow.
4.5/5

TECH INSIDE

The Dunu Studio SA6, as the name suggest, is a 6-BA setup. Dunu’s website didn’t mention the exact model number of said BAs but the bass drivers are two Knowles 38D1XJ007. This particular model has a very high excursion for a BA driver and also has better textured bass than its Knowles counterparts. In fact, I think this is the only woofer/bass driver manufacturers should use if they want some decent bass response out of an all-BA setup. Moving on, the mid-range driver is an unspecified Knowles model, though I presume it’s a full-range Knowles driver customized to only have responses in the midrange frequencies. Finally, the treble driver is also unspecified but I believe it’s a Knowles SWFK-31736 dual-tweeter.

The tubing and crossover circuit inside is also interesting. Despite only one tuning switch, the circuitry is quite elaborate. The internal wiring is also SPC for those who keep track of these things. Finally, the tubing has similar length for the mid and treble drivers but the one for the Sonion woofers has a longer pathway. I suspect this is to improve bass rumble (apparently increasing tube length for the bass driver can improve bass response). Each tube also houses an acoustic filter to act as dampers.

SOUND

The general sound signature is mostly balanced with a warm, bassy tilt when the switch is put to “on” position. I did all my listening in this mode as the fuller lower-mids sound more natural to me. I won’t call it neutral because the upper-mids are a bit colored than dead-on-neutrality, though that’s not a bad thing in this case.

Sound impressions are made with Final E-type Clear tips and stock cable. The switch was set to on position.

Bass: There usually is a lot of contention regarding BA bass drivers. They lack the excursion, texture, and slam of their DD counterparts but does offer faster transients and nimbleness. That being said, bass without physicality feels undercooked so I myself am not a fan of BA bass.

The Dunu Studio SA6 changes that notion by a margin, though not entirely so. First off, these vented Sonion woofers are superior to the Knowles/unvented bass drivers when it comes to overall physicality and slam. Sudden bass drops have a body that’s missing on most BA-only IEMs. Secondly, there’s actual bass decay which is a bit similar to DD bass unlike the other BA drivers where there is no reverb which leads to a sense of artificiality.

As for the bass itself, there is a noticeable sub-bass emphasis but it doesn’t get into overkill category. The sub-bass frequencies are boosted over the lower-mids by about +5dB which is just about right for me. Many modern IEMs (e.g. ThieAudio Clairvoyance) boosts this region by ~10dB vs the lower mids which gives rise to the “2.1 subwoofer effect” that I personally dislike (sub-bass sounds detached from the rest of the sound). Fortunately the SA6 is rather coherent and the transition from bass to mids is quite even-handed. The mid-bass has slightly thicker notes than neutral which gives more body to snare hits and double-pedals. Flicking the switch to “off” position does thin down the snare hits slightly so if you want a closer to reference representation you can have that as well. In fast flowing bass section there was no smearing at all, though the bass didn’t quite have the same articulation as a good DD, or the scalpel-precision of typical BA drivers.

Where the bass falls short is the texturing and rumble you only find on good quality DD IEMs. Also if you are into super-nimble BA bass then you won’t get that here since the bass has a bit longer decay than typical BA setups.

To summarize: this is perhaps the best BA bass you can get around the price bracket, but still falls short of excellent DD bass. Something’s gotta give.
4/5

Mids: The midrange is where the Dunu Studio SA6 truly shows its prowess. It’s near-immaculate, at least for the genres I listen to/my taste (Rock/Metal/Pop/Singer-songwriter). The biggest issue with the midrange is the slight coloration in the upper-mids that makes higher-pitched vocals sound somewhat strained on some tracks (e.g. Billy Talent’s Surrender), but this is so rare that I’m inclined to blame the mastering for it.

With the switch turned on, the lower-mids are full and provides adequate heft to Baritone vocals, e.g. Colin Hay’s I Just Don’t Think I’ll Ever Get Over You. The upper-mids peak around 2.5KHz and are ~7dB higher than the lower mids and this provides adequate pinna gain without sounding diffused or shouty. At the same time acoustic guitars and guitar riffs get adequate bite. In terms of tuning and tonality — this is pretty much spot on. Another thing of note is the timbre which is quite natural but does exhibit some BA artificiality in cymbal-heavy tracks. The Studio SA6 does keep the timbre fairly natural and that’s commendable given its all-BA nature and how even many higher-tier IEMs ignore the timbral characteristics for sheer technical proficiency.

Beyond the tuning itself, the resolution is very good for the price bracket. You don’t get the macro and microdynamics of higher end IEMs (and that’s likely the biggest weakness of the SA6 if I am to nitpick) but what you get here is again — excellent, if not class-leading for the price bracket.
5/5

Treble: The treble tuning is what I’d call safe on the Dunu Studio SA6. The presence region is characterized by two dips: one at 4KHz, and another at 6KHz. The 6KHz dip in fact sounds more like a frequency cut that tones down the sibilance region. Whereas the 4KHz dip is barely noticeable, the 6KHz trough manifests as slightly hazy lower-treble. So if you are into super-sharp cymbal hits or pitch-perfect violin tones, the SA6 just might let you down a bit. However, this also allows the Studio SA6 to be very suitable for long-term listening as peaks in presence region can lead to listening fatigue. I myself am sensitive around that region so I’m fine with Dunu’s decision of de-emphasizing those frequencies. That being said, on tracks like Lamb of God’s Ruin this toned down lower treble makes crash cymbals sound somewhat tamed, which might not be the most ideal presentation in this case.

Upper-treble has above-average extension but nothing to write home about. After around 11Khz or so I couldn’t really hear much of it. There are certain competing IEMs that extends further in this region so if you prefer an airy presentation the Dunu Studio SA6 might not be the ideal choice. For me though this treble is overall done very well and I can’t ask/expect more at this price-range.
4.5/5

Soundstage: The overall staging is average, with decent height and depth but not much width. The stage depth is lacking a bit vs certain other IEMs in the price bracket though stage height adds some much needed dimensionality to the music. In short: well-rounded staging that doesn’t feel narrow or intimate but isn’t a stand-out either. This can likely be tweaked via tip change so I’d encourage trying various eartips and finding one that provides the best staging.
4/5

Imaging: Imaging has good cardinal and ordinal positioning though center-imaging is diffused as usual. This leads to the loss of some subtleties in vocal and lead instrument positioning, for example. Spatial cues are well portrayed even if they have a slight fuzziness in terms of location. Instrument separation is a strong point, however, and will satisfy most if not all buyers in the price bracket.
4.5/5

Source and Amplification: At 113dB sensitivity and 60ohm impedance the Dunu Studio SA6 can be run off of most budget dongles. It does scale somewhat decently with higher tier sources as I’ve found on the Questyle CMA-400i desktop DAC/Amp but you’d get ~90% of the performance out of decent dongles alone.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Moondrop Blessing2 ($320): The Moondrop Blessing2 (1DD + 4BA) has become a default recommendation for many under $500. The Studio SA6 aims to challenge for that spot.

In terms of build, comfort, and accessories — the Dunu Studio SA6 absolutely obliterates the Moondrop Blessing2. Blessing2 looks ghetto in comparison to the craftsmanship of the Dunu IEM. Also the thick nozzle on the Blessing2 can be a bit of a pain (though it was not for me).

As for the sound, the bass texture and overall dynamics is the only criteria where the Moondrop Blessing2 has the upper-hand. Bass slam, punch, articulation are superior on the Dunu Studio SA6. In terms of the midrange, the Blessing2 midrange is mostly clarity-focused, having both lower-mid thinness and some shoutiness. This pretty much makes the Blessing2 midrange a no-go for me since I prefer more body to the vocals/tones and I’m averse to shoutiness. The treble is where the Blessing2 does showcase better performance, even though it’s marred by a strong BA timbre. Imaging is slightly better on the Blessing2 with more defined positional cues but instrument separation is still better on the Studio SA6 IMO.

In short: I think the Dunu Studio SA6 is worth the ~$200 price premium.

vs Sony IER-M7 ($550): Being close to the Studio SA6’s price, Sony’s IER-M7 (four T-shaped BA drivers, Sony proprietary) becomes a viable alternative. In terms of build and accessories again the Dunu studio SA6 pulls ahead though the IER-M7 does offer a really nice tip collection (better than the Dunu one). Comfort is very good on both, with the Sony having slightly better isolation.

In terms of sound signature, what stands out the most for the Sony is its timbre which is very natural, organic and doesn’t really sound like a BA driver. If you are someone who needs natural timbre I think the IER-M7 deserves an audition. Now, the bass has more slam and physicality on the Dunu Studio SA6. The lower-mids are very good on both, and I personally think the IER-M7 has a lush tone that works well with vocal-focused genres. The treble is where the Studio SA6 pulls ahead, and same applies to instrument separation. Imaging, however, is slightly better on the IER-M7. Overall resolution is also higher on the Studio SA6.

In short, if you need a lusher, more organic presentation then the Sony IER-M7 is a good alternative. If you need better bass/dynamics and more resolution in general, the Dunu Studio SA6 is the better choice.

vs Dunu Zen ($700): Dunu Zen is the step-up model from the Studio SA6, at least in terms of Dunu’s product placement. These two are very different however with the Zen being a single dynamic-driver model vs the 6BA affair on the Studio SA6.

In terms of accessories, they are pretty similar. In terms of sound signature, though, they complement each other rather than compete. The Zen is capable of visceral DD bass (depending on track) with supreme texture, whereas the SA6 is a more nimble affair in comparison and has a more easygoing tuning in general. The Zen has superior macro and micro dynamics whereas the Studio SA6 has slightly more upper-treble extension.

To summarize: the Studio SA6 is the better value IEM, but the Dunu Zen is the better IEM, at least to my ears.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

For me, there are two types of IEMs: the specialists, as in those who focus on a specific part of the frequency range and/or excels with certain genres. Then there are the generalists: those who play most genres well but doesn’t excel at any of them. The latter category is safe to recommend but often becomes boring and lacks the soul that makes an IEM special.

Dunu Studio SA6 bucks that trend. It’s a generalist IEM that’s truly special in its overall sonic delivery. The bass is near-DD like in terms of extension and slam, the midrange is masterfully tuned, and the treble despite its safe tuning doesn’t skimp on resolution by much. Soundstage, imaging, instrument separation, dynamics — all are very competitive for the price bracket. The superb build and class-leading accessory set are just a couple extra cherries on top.

Dunu has a breakout hit with the Studio SA6 and it deservedly earns my highest recommendation.

MY VERDICT

Overall Rating: 4.75/5

Highly recommended. A leader in its price-bracket.

Our rating scheme explained

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Dunu Studio SA6 was sent as a loaner for the purpose of this review.

Can be purchased from DUNU Official Store.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

PHOTOGRAPHY

The post Dunu Studio SA6 Review – Special Generalist appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Matchy matchy folks that like to make their stack look neat and tidy the SMSL SH-9 / SU-9 combo is pretty nifty. Previously my run-in with the SMSL SU-9 was a great experience, and now the SMSL SH-9 made it’s way to Chicago and has impressed this simpleton with clarity and sharpness.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

So apparently I am behind the times a bit rocking my O2 Headphone amp. The no frills, down to business, and simple design with straight-forward design goals was an easy sell to me. I think this was 2012 technology, but nothing wrong sometimes with simplistic. However, when something so recognizable such as THX comes equipped in an amplifier you can’t help but wonder is it good? We all know the THX tone “deep note”, but what about “The World’s Most Linear Amplifier Technology for Headphones and In Vehicle Audio Systems”? I can’t help but grimace when anyone claims world domination, but it works to sell so everyone keeps claiming the title. So I don’t think anyone sets out to make a non-linear amp, the trouble is always the filters at the ends (bass and treble) that make something non-linear.

If I am to believe the marketing verbage for THX AAA, they want hifi (don’t we all), low noise, low distortion, and low power consumption. The low power consumption is a weird thing for a desktop amp, but okay I’ll bite. Heat is the enemy of transistors, so keeping things cool is a plus. The rest is just plain bragging rights, most decent amps will keep noise and distortion below our detectable thresholds until driven into clipping and hopefully better than the source of the music. The SMSL SH-9 definitely fits this mold and excels.

Just in case you didn’t already know, the SMSL SH-9 comes equipped with balanced and unbalanced inputs and outputs, two gain modes, and a pretty slick looking display about the size of a computer router.

NIT-PICKINGS

Three feet again? Seems silly, with four it really does make things stable. That is an easy remedy, sticky feet can be found at the local hardware store. The following is a personal grievance and a design choice, the volume control for several reasons. First is the notched control, I prefer more fluid control. Second is the 256 stepped ladder, it clicks ever so slightly inside too as it switches to the next volume level. This is great for ensuring a particular level, but seems overly complicated. Third is the 100 steps (not all 256 steps are utilized to make it more linear according to the SMSL SH-9 manual). It takes too long to reach the top or bottom, feels like about 5 full turns on the knob. The analog control of the O2 is more to my liking. Lastly, the bottom range does not allow for precision low level, I would say the first 5 notches sound the same level and then an abrupt off. I think the taper needs improvement, but then again who listens to an amplifier at low levels? There is a volume mode setting that affects the switching of the relay to preserve the life of relay according to the manual. Probably nice to have, but does make one wonder about how many cycles is it good for?

OUTRO

My previous review of the SMSL SU-9 had me excited, the SMSL SH-9 is also a great product however I don’t get the same sense of tingly excitement while using it. I don’t normally sit still and listen, so the SMSL SU-9 is a product I would use more. Either way, the SMSL SH-9 is well designed headphone amp using some of the latest technology available for headphone amplification. I think it would pair nicely with the SMSL SU-9 or as a mix and match setup where you want precision, clarity and sharpness.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

This was a loaner boner from APOS Audio, get it here. We have joined the affiliate program so that the proceeds can be used for good things, not to line our pockets. All proceeds donated to CIVL.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post SMSL SH-9 THX AAA-888 Balanced Headphone Amplifier Review (2) – News for You Crews, Sleeker Than Grease appeared first on Audio Reviews.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our previous reviews of Sennheiser’s three recent in-ear monitors aiming at musicians are summarized – and the models ranked according to their sonic performance. While build, fit and accessories are nearly identical, the mid-price IE 400 PRO lead the pack in terms of sound quality, followed by the budget IE 40 PRO. It may come as a surprise that the premium-priced IE 500 PRO fail our test completely both sonically and value wise. The company is currently addressing audiophiles with their new Sennheiser IE 300, which is price wise close to the IE 400 PRO.

INTRODUCTION

German company Sennheiser is one of the world’s most competent headphone and microphone manufacturers – operating since 1945. For the last dozen of years or so, they have also very successfully moved into the in-ears monitor segment, among others. Their latest addition is the IE PRO series of three in-ear monitors aiming at DJs, sound engineers and musicians using them live on stage. These three models, the Sennheiser IE 40 PRO, Sennheiser IE 400 PRO (for drummers and bass players), and Sennheiser IE 500 PRO (for vocalists) are priced at €/$99, €/$349, and €/$599, respectively. The IE 400 PRO and IE 500 PRO were released in March 2019 and are Made in Germany (press release). The IE 40 PRO were launched in 2018 and are manufactured in China.

OUR DETAILED REVIEWS OF THE SENNHEISER PRO SERIES

Sennheiser IE 40 PRO (2019-04-25)

Sennheiser IE 400 PRO (2020-10-05)

Sennheiser IE 500 PRO (2019-06-23)

TECHNICAL AND PHYSICAL SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES

All three in-ear monitors (iems) use the same dynamic driver principle: the IE 400 PRO and IE 500 PRO was Sennheiser’s latest 7 mm driver, the IE 40 PRO an older 10 mm generation. Note that the IE 400 PRO and IE 500 PRO are technically and haptically identical, despite their considerable price differences. In terms of accessories, The IE 40 PRO and IE 400 PRO share the same black cable with a round cross section that shows some microphonics. The IE 500 has a white, braided cable without noise transfer that tangles up easily. All three models feature the same proprietary cable connector and Sennheiser offers both kinds of cables individually so that people can “upgrade” their IE 40 PRO and IE 400 PRO.

In terms of accessories, the IE 40 PRO has a soft storage sleeve whereas the two premium models come in a hard case.

SONIC DIFFERENCES

The big difference between the IE 40 PRO and IE 400 PRO is: the more modern driver of the more expensive model is faster; it deliver a tighter bass, more midrange clarity and transparency, the sound is a bit more lifted off the ground. But these sonic differences are much smaller than the pricing suggests. The IE 500 PRO lags both in terms of sound quality because of a dip in the upper midrange. This produces a muffled and congested sonic image. For details see the three individual earphones reviews and the video below.

STRANGE MARKETING

Considering that the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO and IE 500 PRO are technically IDENTICAL, they are only tuned differently, and share the same packaging and accessories, one is wondering how Sennheiser assigned a completely different pricing to these models: €/$349 vs. €/$599 is a difference of €/$249…for…? In my opinion, the IE 500 PRO is not worth its money by a long shot as the €/$99 Sennheiser IE40 PRO sound better. The factor of 6 in price difference would be unjustified by any scale. Sennheiser may have speculated on different types of customers: the ones that don’t want to make compromises would go for their flagship IE 500 PRO and the ones who want a bang for their back go for the IE 40 PRO. Not sure where the IE 400 PRO fits in there and I speculate it is the least selling of the PRO series. The problem is that the IE 500 PRO does not deliver what is advertised, particularly in the midrange that is unacceptably muffled and congested.

THE NEW SENNHEISER IE 300 PRO

In mid February 2021, Sennheiser released the IE 300 model in Asia – the rest of the world is following in March. At $300, it is priced slightly below the IE 400 PRO. The IE 300 have essentially the same frequency response as the IE 400 PRO and both are therefore very similar sounding. The main sonic difference is in the midrange. Vocals in the Sennheiser IE 300 are more intimate and lively, but also leaner, and the midrange as a whole has increased transparency. This results in a better midrange atmosphere and spatial cues compared to the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO, which, in comparison, have fuller bodied, more relaxed, smoother vocals and a shallower stage. Depends what you prefer!

In terms of physical differences, the Sennheiser IE 300 have standard MMCX connectors – which fit third-party cables. They do not come with the classic Sennheiser silicone eartips but shorter and thinner ones, and taking into account the relatively short nozzles, the IE 300 do not sit as deep in the ear canal as the PRO models. This may create fit issues for people with large ear canals. Full review and video to follow.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Sennheiser IE 400 PRO has crystallized as the best of the three PRO models. It is a very good sounding earphone agreeable to most of us. It has no significant weakness and is a very good deal when occasionally on sale. The Sennheiser IE 40 PRO is not far behind, sonically, and is always a good buy. The Sennheiser IR 500 PRO flagship, however, has a muffled, muted sound and, at 6 times the price of the IE 40 PRO, is only third in the race.

Until next time…keep on listening!

COMPARATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE PRO SERIES MODELS

The post Sennheiser IE PRO Series Models IE 40 PRO, IE 400 PRO, IE 500 PRO…and the new Sennheiser IE 300 – What’s The Difference? appeared first on Audio Reviews.

I’ve been perfectly content with the $99 Schiit Magni and the $149 Pro-Ject Head Box, and I didn’t expect to blown away by the SMSL SH-9, which has neither an onboard DAC nor (more conspicuously) a preamp out. Technologically, the SH-9 is the far more advanced product, with the same much-vaunted THX AAA amp as much pricier units and a very well-executed relay volume control, which provides for  much finer control and better channel balance than conventional volume pots. In contrast to its cheaper rivals, noise floor and distortion are, as advertised, inaudible; I heard no hiss even on very sensitive phones. I tested the SMSL SH-9 with phones ranging from 16 ohm to 250 ohm and found its power to be adequate, not overwhelming; for whatever reason I found the low-gain setting to be more anemic than the specs would suggest and that even my more sensitive phones sounded fuller and better in high-gain. You do notice, however, that the amp runs very warm, which could be an issue in poorly ventilated racks.

As with the SU-9 DAC, the SMSL SH-9 has a distinctive sonic character—energetic and slightly smooth, with a boosted midrange presence. The overall effect is to sweeten the high end and to substantially tighten the bass—my new Aune Jasper (reviewed here) sounded more impactful and detailed with the SMSL SH-9 than with my USB-powered portable dac/amps, while even a cheap piece like the Koss Portapro or Aiaiai Tracks on-ears took on a fuller sound, with much punchier low end. The  Schiit and Pro-Ject amps, by way of comparison, are more transparent and less colored—they’re closer to the “wire with gain” approach and don’t change the character of the headphone’s signature to the same extent. The ($549) Chord Mojo, at least from memory, also sounded truer-to-source, though depending upon the quality of the recording not necessarily better.

At the end of the day, I had no material qualms with the SMSL SH-9’s performance. As a value proposition, it has much of the topography and features of (and likely measures as well as) exponentially more expensive mainstream gear. Its visual symmetry with the superb SMSL SU-9 DAC is another obvious selling point. For whatever reason, I still question whether my aging ears can fully appreciate the differences between the SH-9 and cheaper-but-still functional amps, and viscerally I didn’t have the gotta-buy-it sensation that I did with the SMSL SU-9 DAC. However, more discerning listeners will find much to appreciate here, and there’s no doubt SMSL knows what it’s doing.

Disclaimer: Apos loaned me this unit for review; it will be passed on to my colleagues before being returned to Apos. Tested at $289.

Get the SMSL SU-9 from Apos Audio through our affiliate link. 100% of the money raised supports Chicago musicians via CIVL.

Contact us!

The post SMSL SH-9 THX AAA-888 Balanced Headphone Amplifier Review (1) – Value appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Even by the incredibly loose standards of Chifi, the marketing hype for Aune’s single DD Jasper is ridiculous enough to make Stephen Miller blush (“multi-gradation diaphragm” “ultra-linear symmetric magnet”).  Aesthetics and build, however, are commensurate with the $299 pricetag, with high-quality resins and supple and a noise-free, stiff cable; small, sleek headshells have a reassuring heft and (at least for me) provide for extremely comfortable fit, although isolation is surprisingly subpar and lots of street noise intrudes.  (Note in this connection that Jurgen, who loaned these to me, could not get a suitable fit and, accordingly, his sonic impressions are much different than mine).

The Aune Jasper can be driven with just a mobile but improve markedly with more power, with more midrange presence and overall sparkle. I did much of my listening with my modest Meizu Master HiFi portable DAC/Amp, although they scaled well and sounded beefier and bassier with the SMSL SH-9 headphone amp (review to follow).

The Aune Jasper present a generally  balanced signature, albeit with slightly elevated midbass region. Tonality tends to neutral/uncolored, with perhaps a little brightness in the highs; note texture is relatively lean and, in contrast to something like the Shozy Form 1.4 the Aune Jasper is somewhat relaxed-sounding, without a lot of added treble energy. Soundstage is average in width and depth but has good height, and stereo separation is particularly noteworthy. Performers are accurately placed.

Bass is the superstar of the show here—it’s not thunderous or impactful but shows adequate depth and absolutely stellar speed, attack and detail—as on the very best planar speakers every low note sounds chiseled and meticulously reproduced. (Again, my impressions here are completely opposite from JK’s, who as a result of his struggles with fit found the bass to range from anemic to thumpy depending on tip choice). Mids aren’t notably full-bodied—female vox in particular can sound a little recessed or thin, but are presented cleanly; I simply could not hear the elevated upper mids to which JK refers. Treble is the X-factor here—it’s well-extended and detailed (though not so much so as to sound clinical), with a lot of snap and sparkle, but (as noted below) can sound harsh or sublime depending upon the source.

The Aune Jasper is as source- and material-sensitive an IEM as I’ve heard—feed it well-recorded high-rez files from a good DAP and they’ll sound superb; feed it badly-recorded MP3 files and they’ll sound overly revealing and even strident, like a cheap BA. Tips are also critical—my usual large foams tended to blunt the blur the high end, while wide-bore silicones seemed to work well.  Something like the UE900 or Moondrop KPE is smoother and more rounded on top and better suited for unamped usage and/or lower-quality files. However, in terms of technicalities—imaging, coherence, timbral accuracy–the Aune Jasper is on another level  than the aforesaid and trumps recent favorites like the Shozy Rouge or Form 1.4—the Jasper has less coloration and more overall refinement. It simply sounds like the more expensive phone. The comparably-priced JVC HA-FDX1 match the Jasper in terms of coherence and tonal accuracy, but for me at least had less PRAT.

There’s a surplus of excellent phones at the $150- $200 mark which are easier to fit, drive and pair, while even >$100 models like the KBear Diamond gives you a reasonable facsimile of this tuning at a much lower price. If you’re up to the challenges and their quirky shapes works for your ear canals, however, the Aune is a step beyond and justifies the price tag.

Subject to the above qualifications, the Aune Jasper is highly recommended.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: 10mm Dynamic Driver unit with MGD (Multi-Gradation Diaphragm)
Impedance: 32 Ω
Sensitivity: 102 dB/mW
Frequency Range: 5 – 40,000 Hz
Cable/Connector: MMCX
Tested at: $300
Company Page: Aune
Purchase Link: HifiGo

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Aune Jasper was kindly provided by HifiGo for our reviews. Thank you very much. Shipped from Canada by the previous reviewer.

Get it from HifiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

MORE…

The post Aune Jasper Review (1) – Brutally Revealing appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Short nozzles; meagre eartips selection; hard to drive; problematic fit for some western ears.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Aune Jasper is a single-dynamic-driver earphone with a natural timbre that may have severe fit issues for some because of its short nozzles, which also strongly affects the sound perception. Since I have problems with fit, I forwarded the Aune Jasper to the next reviewer for a more realistic opinion. Please ignore my sonic perceptions and read Loomis Johnsons’s review instead:

INTRODUCTION

Aune is a Chinese company that specializes in headphone dacs and amps – from budget to premium. The brand is very popular in their homeland. The Aune Jasper is their first earphone model – a single dynamic driver. The company claims to have invested 3 years of R&D into the Jasper. They implemented a driver with high damping force, high speed, and high stiffness, which should result in a lifelike sonic experience with very low distortion and great resolution. The Jasper is obviously designed with the domestic markets in mind – which are much bigger than the western ones. The question is how the Aune Jasper works for my teutonic ears, physically and sonically.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: 10mm Dynamic Driver unit with MGD (Multi-Gradation Diaphragm)
Impedance: 32 Ω
Sensitivity: 102 dB/mW
Frequency Range: 5 – 40,000 Hz
Cable/Connector: MMCX
Tested at: $300
Company Page: Aune
Purchase Link: HifiGo

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

The accessories of the Aune Jasper are actually quite sparse for a $300 earphone. Apart from the earpieces, an MMCX cable, cleaning tool, cleaning cloth, and a single set of eartips (S/M/L), the box contains a fancy storage container. The company’s lengthy R&D had obviously focused on the domestic market as neither do the earpieces fit me well – nozzles are way too short – or do the eartips seal. I always have the desire to push the earpieces deeper and deeper into my ear canals. Paradoxcially, while fit is poor for me, the comfort is good.

Cable of the Aune Jasper is of the rubbery kind, which has fallen out of fashion by now, although there is no noticeable noise transfer. The earpieces are reasonably small and resemble the Sennheiser Pro series. But they are heavy compared to the Sennheiser’s as they are presumably made of metal. The shiny earpieces are fingerprint magnets so that the inclusion of cleaning cloth was wise.

In summary, the presentation of the Aune Jasper reminds me of my 2016 purchases such as the B&W C5 Series 2 or the Nad Viso HP20.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Follow these links for some background information:

My tonal preference and testing practice

My test tracks explained

Equipment used: MacBook Air, EarMen Sparrow and ifi Audio Nano BL; stock cable; large stock tips/Azla SednaEarFit Light/Spinfit CP145.

Please take my sonic description with a grain of salt, as they may vary for you with your different ear canal geometry that harmonizes better with the Aune Jasper’s nozzles. Being able to use the stock tips may give you a more favourable bass perception, which may result in a different overall sonic impression. And since this earphone was not built for my ear canals, please read our other review by Loomis Johnson.

The Aune Jasper’s sound is strongly dependent on the tips and type of amplification used. But even under the most favourable conditions, they sound rather ordinary to my ear considering their price – they may sound different to yours. Let me explain.

First, Houston we have a problem, mainly with the short nozzles. Using the stock tips I cannot not get a proper seal – or not a proper bass. Bass is anemic, which emphasizes the perception of the 12 dB pinna gain. Vocals are over energetic, too bright, and overly intimate. Shouty galore! The soundstage is shallow, it feels as if you are sitting in front of the first row in a concert. I have the feeling to push the earpieces deeper into my ear canals all the time.

Using Spinfit CP145 eartips, the standard that comes with many premium earphones, changes little. They reduce shoutiness but also take out some life.

I then tried Azla SednaEarfit Original Series Light. First, they have long stems that passively extend the Aune Jasper’s short nozzles, as seen before in the Blon Bl-03, for example. Second, they have a 14 mm wide canopy that provides a good seal to my ears. And, no, our famous “Flip Tips” did not work in this case at all.

Deployment of the the warm sounding ifi Nano BL (in “direct” mode…the Aune Jasper require a lot of juice) is necessary to keep the upper midrange in check.

The Azlas bring out that mid bass hump you see in the frequency response graph, which essentially eliminates the shoutiness as it moves the focus towards the low end. The Tuner Jasper’s sound is now well rounded, bass extension starts to exist, however the low end is not particularly layered or articulate. Bass is rather ordinary which makes the whole sound perception ordinary. Sure, this is to the most extent a function of the tips selection, which is controlled by the short nozzles. You choose between a thumpy, somewhat boomy bass and a shouty midrange. That bass, at least, adds some three-dimensionality to the stage but it also cuts into clarity. This perception varies with amplification used. The warmer ifi Audio Nano BL produces a warmer, darker image than the faster, brighter sounding Earmen Sparrow.

Midrange in the Aune Jasper is fortified by the bass: vocals are now perceived to be fuelled from below rather than from above in the frequency spectrum. vocals gain weight and body compared to stock tips but also become a bit muddy and congested with the Nano. Midrange transparency is reduced by the bass smearing into it.

What also does not contribute to clarity and transparency either is that strong rolloff in the uppermost midrange and lower treble. Sure, this excludes sibilance but lower treble extension is audibly lacking which squeezes the soundstage width. Cymbals and high notes can sound washed out. Nevertheless does the upper treble provide some sheen and sparkle…and possibly some fake resolution.

Dynamics of the Aune Jasper could be more engaging. There could be a bit more attack for my taste whereas decay is ok.

The bass also affects most other technicalities: separation, layering, instrument placement…are all not great for a $300 earphone, soundstage is barely average in width only. Timbre is good. The Aune Jasper do show their potential in music passages without a prominent bass…in such situations they do sound very good.

And harmonic distortion is indeed very low – you can turn up the volume high on the Aune Jasper.

WHAT WOULD I DO DIFFERENTLY?

I would clearly dial down that upper midrange and also extend the nozzles. Both these properties point to an earphone design for the domestic market.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Aune Jasper did not work well for my ears. The nozzles are too short so that I could not unleash its full potential. Please refer to Loomis’ review for the true story.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Aune Jasper was kindly provided by HifiGo for our reviews. Thank you very much. Following my review, the unit was shipped to the next reviewer.

Get it from HifiGo

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

MORE…

The post Aune Jasper Review (2) – Short Story appeared first on Audio Reviews.