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

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

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

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

Signature analysis

Tonality

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

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

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

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

Sub-Bass

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

Mid Bass

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

Mids

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

Vocals

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

Highs

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

Equalization Recs recap

Technicalities

Soundstage

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

Imaging

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

Details

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

Instrument separation

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

Driveability

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

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

Physicals

Build

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

Fit

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

Comfort

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

Isolation

Passive isolation is rather average.

Cable

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

Specifications (declared)

Comparisons

7Hz Timeless

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

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

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

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

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

Campfire Andromeda [2020]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considerations & conclusions

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

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

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

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

Cons — No pre-amp function/headphone jack; 4.4 balanced output is currently still a rare standard.

Executive Summary

The EarMen Tradutto is a natural, quasi-neutral sounding DAC that distinguishes itself from the competition through its minimalistic, artsy design and streamlined functionality. It works with headphone amps and stereo systems alike. A DAC for the demanding purist.

Introduction

Traduttore is Italian for “translator”. Tradutto is obviously a play on this as a digital analog converter translates zeros and ones into sound. And that’s what this $799 unit does: it is a DAC without a (headphone) amp. Its job is to create a quality audio signal that is then amplified by another device.

Across the Adriatic sea from Italy is Serbia, home of EarMen’s production facilities. From here you get “Made in Europe”. The company itself is registered in Chicago, IL. It was established in 2019 as a spinoff of Serbian premium manufacturer Auris Audio.

So far, EarMen have focused on few products of high quality. Their TR-amp is a great $250 portable, battery-operated DAC/amp that does justice to even to 300 ohm cans such as the Sennheiser HD 600. Their $200 Sparrow dongle features two circuits, of which the balanced produces the largest soundstage of my test population. Both devices are currently on our very own Wall of Excellence.

The Tradutto is EarMen’s first true “desktop size” device, although its use is not limited to workspaces and personal stereo, but it can also be deployed with a full size stereo system.

Specifications

Unfold for Full Specifications

Inputs	BlueTooth QCC5124	Bluetooth 5.1 ( AAC, SBC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX LL )
	USB
	TOSLINK	S/PDIF optical
	Coax	S/PDIF
Outputs	RCA (SE output)	output impedance = 300 Ω
	Balanced 4.4mm	output impedance = 600 Ω
Audio Formats	PCM	up to 768kHz
	DSD	DoP64, DoP128, DoP256, native DSD512
	DXD	up to 768kHz
	MQA	OFS (MQB/MQA Core), MQA,  MQA Studio
	Bluetooth	44.1kHz – 192kHz/16bit – 24bit
Single-end output
	USB input	S/PDIF input/BT
Output Level	2Vrms 0dBFS	2Vrms 0dBFS
THD+N	0.0003%	0.0003%
SNR	>116dB	>116dB
	A-Weighted	A-Weighted
Freq. Response	±0.014dB	±0.006dB
Fully Balanced Output
	USB input	S/PDIF input/BT
Output Level	4Vrms 0dBFS	4Vrms 0dBFS
THD+N	0.0003%	0.0003%
SNR	>120B	>122dB
	A-Weighted	A-Weighted
Freq. Response	±0.03dB	±0.003dB
Dimension LxHxW	150x30x150 mm	5,9″x1,18″x5,9″
Weight	550 gr	1,21lbs

[collapse]

Technology/Architecture

The Tradutto hosts the XMOS 16-core receiver chip and the ES9038Q2M DAC chip. The XMOS 16-core  (XU216) is one of the standards in premium DACs for processing the data received by the USB/S/coaxial inputs. It handles MQA decoding in the Tradutto, for example.

Similarly, the ES9038Q2M is a proven DAC chip that processes digital audio files up to 32bit/768kHz or DSD512.  You can find this chip across the board, from the $2150 Burson Conductor 3 (contains two of them), through the $300 DragonFly Cobalt and $200 Khadas T2 Pro, to the $80 Shanling UA2. EarMen’s own $250 TR-Amp also features this chip.

The (Un)Importance of the DAC chip: None of these “ES9038Q2M” devices sound alike (I have not auditioned the Burson). Against the echo chamber of “experts”, a DAC chip alone does not create a characteristic sound but is mainly responsible for the handling of audio formats. As Paul McGowan of PS Audio told me “The way a DAC sounds has everything to do with its output stage and little to do with its DAC chip”. Because of this general misconception, and to protect themselves from misinformation, many manufacturers do not disclose the DAC chip used at all (e.g. Sony). Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio adds the other factors that create the sound: power, filters, analog design, digital design, software etc. In order to compare DAC chips, everything else has to be identical, as for example in iPods Classic that featured either Wolfson or Cirrus chips.

Tradutto’s sound and sound quality are actually determined by the DAC’s analog part, which is the result of a combination of parts and engineering.

After filtering the signal’s jagged edges coming out of the DAC (chip), the output analog stage performs several duties, for example, amplifying, additional filtering, removing distortions and residual DC, buffering, and providing balanced and single-ended outputs.

The Tradutto’s analog output stage feature German WIMA quality capacitors “for high-end audio applications” to minimize THD, audio electrolytes in combination with American MELF low noise resistors, and SoundPlus OPA1642 operational amplifiers (“op-amps”) by Texas Instruments.

But even more important than the parts is the engineering. EarMen claim to have minimized jitter (“packet errors”) through the separation of DAC and analog part by the power supply. The printed circuit board is gold plated for optimal contacts. And the solid metal chassis minimizes external interference.

The Tradutto incorporates the Bluetooth QCC5124 SoC (“System on Chip”) for wireless listening – that follows the Bluetooth 5.1 standard.

Last but not least, the Tradutto features a fully balanced circuit, which will work with your balanced amplifier.

Physical Things

In the box is way more than stated in the manual. Apart from the DAC, remote control, power supply with adapters for worldwide mains access, Bluetooth antenna, and user manual, further included are a USB cable, a mesh bag for the power supply, and a microfibre cloth.

The Tradutto is a very compact but rather heavy device in its sturdy aluminum enclosure. The combination of relatively tall feet and the clean, square shape with sharp corners give it a minimalistic elegance with Italian design charisma.

The designers clearly had optical and haptical appeal in mind down to the smallest detail, which includes the font selected for the name on the front. The Tradutto therefore does not only address our ears, but also our eyes (and fingers)…and therefore all senses.

Functionality and Operation

It does

• create a full, rich, dynamic, natural sound
• connect to balanced and single-ended amplifier circuits
• accepts a variety of sources per Bluetooth (phone, dap), USB (computer), and coaxial/optical (CD player)
• come with a nifty rechargeable remote

It does not

• amplify
• work as pre-amp
• feature selectable filters

Front Panel

The minimalistic design is complemented by very clean operational elements on the front panel: 4 buttons with an audible, rugged quality mechanism and an unobtrusive OLED display that gives you bit/kHz numbers for the USB connection, and “COAX”, “TOS”, or “BT” for the other input options.

No dial knob, no “dancing” colour graphs, no selectable filters — form clearly follows function. The Tradutto is designed to work, to translate zeros and ones into the best possible, natural sound. No amplification, no headphone jack. That’s it.

Back Panel

The rear panel features all inputs/outputs (from L to R): 12 V SMPS power supply, Bluetooth antenna, optical, and S/PDIF in, and RCA and 4.4 cm balanced out. 4.4 cm balanced is not the most common standard but it saves space compared to an XLR socket. A 12 V SMPS power supply is included.

Remote

The Tradutto’s front panel’s four buttons are mirrored on the included remote.

The remote is made of metal, has a great haptic, and its buttons have the quality spring mechanism experienced at the front panel.

It charges through any 5V power supply/computer socket through its USB-C socket. Charger and cable are not included.

Sound

One thing I am horrified of in DACs/amps is sonic sterility. I am a child of the pre-digital era going back to the late 1970s, and – with earphones – sacrifice detail resolution for organic sound.

One of the biggest shortcomings of low-quality DACs is a lack of realism and depth of stage, but added sharpness, and a thin, distant midrange. After all, both a $4000 or a $100 DAC do one thing, and one thing only: create sound (quality), that then needs to be amplified. A wow effect does rarely indicate quality: it is the long-term enjoyment that counts.

I tested the Tradutto with headphones in a desktop setting, and also with speakers on my big stereo system. I could not test the 4.4 mm balanced owing to lack of a balanced amplifier.

w. Headphones

Equipment used: Macbook Air (WiFi off, battery operated) with different USB cables (stock, Belkin Gold, AudioQuest Forest), Questyle QP1R with Lifatec USA optical cable, iPhone SE (1st gen.); AudioQuest Golden Gate RCA interconnects; Burson Funk amp; Sennheiser HD 600 headphones.

It is very difficult to isolate the sound of a single stereo component in a chain so that I arrived at my description through comparison with other DACs.

My general impression is that the Tradutto plays very natural, very maturely, never analytical, never lean, never sharp or aggressive. It has natural dynamics and is well composed across the frequency spectrum.

Bass is tight, lower midrange is rich and full, there is no upper midrange glare, and cymbals at the top decay naturally and are well resolving. Soundstage is wide with great spatial cues.

Dynamics is naturally dosed, never overwhelming or too polite.

When substituting the Macbook/Tradutto source/DAC with the portable Questyle QP1R DAP (its built-in DAC is believed to rival $500-700 desktop DACs), there was quite a sonic difference: the Macbook/Tradutto combo had better dynamics, clarity, and extension.

Substituting the Tradutto with other ES9038Q2M chip devices removed any doubt on the general misconception of the role of a DAC chip for sound.

The $250 EarMen TR-amp (as DAC) sounds slightly warmer than the Tradutto and it lacks the upper extension — but it can compete with the amount of bass. It does not rival the Tradutto’s soundstage, clarity, separation, and detail resolution. But it never sounded sharp or digital, harsh or lean. The Tradutto sounded livelier, better extended, with better defined notes. TR-amp is thinner and less dynamic/energetic.

The Khadas Tone2 Pro sounds flat with an attenuated midrange. It lacks depth in comparison to the other two devices. Voices sound lean and distant, which adds a component of air and a good stage width. But it lacks richness and body.

AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt without dedicated line-out needs more of the Burson’s amping power than the other DACs (I only set its output volume to 80% to avoid distortion). It lacks a bit in dynamics but sounds rather organic and natural – and surprisingly full and rich. The Tradutto has more bite, it plays bigger and clearer…

In summary, none of these DACs sound alike.

w. Stereo System

Equipment used: Marantz SA8005 SACD player with Cirrus CS4398 DAC; Blue Jeans coax cable, Sys Concept 1300 strand optical cable, AudioQuest Evergreen RCA connectors; Luxman L-410 stereo amplifier; Heybrook HB1 speakers & Sennheiser HD 600 headphones.

Using CDs as source, I could easily A/B between the SA8005’s integrated Cirrus 4398 DAC and the Tradutto, and also A/B between the Tradutto’s coax and optical inputs.

The Marantz ($1400 CAD in 2014) is known for its smooth, rich, clean, well balanced tone quality and its natural reproduction. It has a sweet treble but lacks a bit of sparkle. Its integrated DAC is at about the same price level as the Tradutto as the basic version of this player was $550 CAD at the time.

When switching between Marantz and Tradutto (coax), the difference is…essentially zero at casual listening…and therefore ignorable for everyday use. But when spending some time and using my analytical ear, the Marantz is a tad bassier and warmer with a lesser controlled, fuzzier low end. This results in a narrower stage and less lower midrange separation and resolution.

The Tradutto has the tighter, faster low end and better note definition up to the lower midrange. It also plays a tad warmer than neutral (but less so than the Marantz) – which appears to be EarMen’s house sound (also found in TR-amp, Sparrow, and Eagle).

Towards the top of the spectrum Tradutto (coax) has a slightly better extension and both offer natural decay of high notes e.g. cymbals. And that’s where mediocre DACs fail — they sound articial.

Both Tradutto and Marantz have no attenuation in the midrange, no lean vocals, they are rich and lush. Vocals are better aligned in 3D space in the Tradutto, which also has the wider stage.

When switching from coax to optical, there is a difference in that the TOSLINK produces slightly slower transients compared to coax. The notes are more rounded and the sonic image is a tad smoother – also compared to the Cirrus DAC. Again, the differences are small.

Overall, the Tradutto is slightly better composed across the frequency spectrum than the Marantz — which plays essentially no role for my system for everyday use.

I re-produced the results with the Sennheiser HD 600 plugged into the Luxman amp.

What we learn is that the Tradutto sounds natural and not analytical or aggressive or lean. It does its job very well.

Bluetooth

The Qualcomm SoC delivers pretty much a prefab standard sound in a black “box” where the engineer cannot optimize the sound.

I A/B-ed Bluetooth vs. coax with two iPhones (same music), one hardwired into the Marantz, the other wireless per Bluetooth.

Bluetooth plays quieter, it looses some richness and intimacy, and is edgier, but it is still decent, and more than good enough for casual listening.

Connection was great, I walked around the 1000 sq ft floor of my house (with the iPhone) and never had any problems.

Concluding Remarks

After 2 months of testing, I conclude that the EarMen Tradutto does what it is supposed to do: generate an analog audio signal of the highest quality. And it promptly delivers. It is sonically marginally ahead of my high-end Marantz SA8005 SACD player and beats all other ES9038Q2M devices I compared it to by a mile.

Apart from its sonic capabilities, the Tradutto is aesthetically pleasing (“Italian design”) and handles well, with high-quality button mechanisms and a rechargeable remote.

The Tradutto is a mature product with Auris Audio’s experience behind it. It is small enough to fit on your desk/stereo system, easy to operate, and it sounds great. What else do we want?

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The EarMen Tradutto was supplied by EarMen for my review and I thank them for that. You can purchase it at the EarMen Shop. I thank Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio and Paul McGowan of PS Audio for discussion.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

Gallery

The post EarMen Tradutto DAC Review – It’s Only Natural appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Intro

The Questyle CMA Twelve (how dare anyone substitute a 12) DAC and Headphone amp combo is a solid hunk of amp with a very premium feel and a 2019 premium-ish price tag at $1499. All sorts of options up and down the scale. In my house the closest competitor is a whooping $200 stack of compact DAC and no frills headphone amp Liquid Spark + JDS Labs Atom.

Questyle has a wonderful track record for art and design however there is some not so happy thoughts on their customer service follow-through. The Questyle CMA Twelve DAC and Amp combo naming celebrates a whooping 12 year history in the headphone world. It’s a wonderful piece of machinery with a few minor near misses.

They claim a patented Current Mode Amplification technology sit inside cuddled up to Class A amplification. Sonically it does everything a premium product should do, powerful amplification, transparent noise-floor, butter smooth presentation with exceptional precision, I think I am in love.

Disclaimer

Let me first thank Audio46 for the opportunity to test this out in my home sanctuary. This is outside of the realm of equipment I usually consider so not a whole lot of equivalent equipment to compare it to. This audition audio tour sponsored on Head-fi set me back $20 in shipping, a small 1 week rental fee, how lovely.

Good Traits

• Solid Construction
• Excellent midnight black noise floor
• Resolution and clarity
• Input voltage for the masses, selectable 110/220V

Opinionated Commentary

There are only minor imperfections on the Questyle CMA Twelve

Low volume channel imbalance. It goes away after a few clicks up from 0 and is present on my normal setup as well. It should not a be a deal breaker, unless it exhibits this at listening level someone would actually use. There is also some electromagnetic feedback static induced into the circuit because it is motorized. Just more analog character charm.

The other strange thing I do not understand is if their claim to fame is the current mode amplifier running in their controlled/auto Class A bias mode, why is it not an option to toggle to headphone amp only mode with input from another DAC on the Questyle CMA Twelve?

A proprietary wireless receiver input that is not standard bluetooth. This is Apple thinking that the consumer will buy into a Questyle Ecosystem.

The last oddity is placement of the gain switches, there are 4 since they are independent for each channel (balanced). They are underneath. I understand from a circuit design perspective they wanted to keep it clean, but from a user experience it’s a tad annoying. If you never plan on using this with highly sensitive IEM’s no worries to be had.

Cosmetic Package

The design of the Questyle CMA Twelve has a geek side something that satisfies the more mature crowd without overly bright flashy displays, but instead goes for an engineer’s idea of a piece of lab testing equipment.

The indicator lights are not overbearing and very sharp looking. The toggle switches feel dainty, but my experience with these in my day job will no doubt prove to last a long time.

Power Consumption Tests

Seems silly to care but climate change anyone? No really my curiosity wanted to know how much extra power is used when switching into high bias setting on the Questyle CMA Twelve.

0.14/0.17A Standard vs High Bias
0.16/0.19A after warmed up
12W/15W Volume/load has no measurable bearing on this as expected for a Class A amp.
14W/16W after warm

Sound

The Bias switch does make a difference, I am glad they allow you to switch it on/off just to see the effect-show and tell. Bass has a little more haptic while the treble portrays everything more dimensionally.

Similar to going from a more dead room to a lively room, extremely subtle but still noticeable. The question is does this add coloring or remove coloring? I cannot answer but I would love to believe it makes it more expansive without coloring.

Testing the DAC output to my JDS Labs Atom, there was also a slight improvement in the separation of instruments, but as expected it is the total combination of the DAC and amplifier that are musical and organic.

The Questyle CMA Twelve treble comes off smoother and yet still more detailed. I found myself missing that extra little seismic information that it extracts when I went back to my Atom. Going from memory, I prefer the Questyle CMA also over the SMSL SH-9 due to the sterile cleanliness and the more analog volume control.

Power output should be plenty to drive almost anything, I don’t have anything besides the Sennheiser HD6XX that really needs the super power, but the Oppo PM-3 and JVC HA-FDX1 also benefited from the extra headroom. I pretty much used it in standard gain mode with everything since it was annoying to flip it over to make changes.

Other Fun Features

I am not really equipped to test these functions out but they are part of the Questyle CMA Twelve package for those interested.

• 4.4mm Pentacom or 4Pin XLR balanced output. I don’t have any cables to utilize.​
• Balanced output into an amplifier as a standalone DAC. I have no 2 channel system that would do it justice.​
• Proprietary 5Ghz wireless receiver input.​
• DSD playback, not my thing​
• Studio output, not a music producer/mastering engineer so no gear.​
• The Remote, probably more useful in DAC only mode. Buttons appear to be fuzz magnets.​
• Optical Digital Input
• SPDIF IN/OUT Composite
• AES/EBU input

Final Remarks

The Questyle CMA Twelve is a wonderfully sounding DAC amp combo that extracts the microdetails, plenty of connection options minus the ability to use it as a headphone amp only being the only drawback. If I had the desire to purchase gear over $300-400, this would be on my short list.

Since this product was released in ?2019 it doesn’t utilize the newest DAC chips or boast over the top SINAD numbers, yet it still sounds more musical and more transparent than my limited sampling. A caveat-I don’t want to pile on, but there have been some past complaints about support, and as you go up in price tiers the support is something you hope to never have to use.

Perhaps they will be more responsive if there is an issue, but this is something to consider with any brand in such a niche market. With that out of the way, overall excellent sounding DAC/Amp combo.

Specifications

DAC+Headphone Amplifier Section

Outputs:
4.4 mm balanced headphone jack
4PIN balanced headphone jack
6.35mm headphone jack

Max Output Power(Po):
247mW @ 300Ω; 900mW @ 32Ω(6.35mm headphone jack)
825mW @ 300Ω; 2W @ 32Ω (balanced headphone jack)

THD + N:
0.00070% @Po=100mW, 300Ω
0.00167% @ Po=50mW, 32Ω

Frequency Response:
DC-20kHz(+0, -0.4dB)@0dBFS, 24Bit, 192kHz
DC-80kHz(+0, -3dB)@0dBFS, 24Bit, 192kHz

SNR: 112dB, non-weighting

DAC+Pre-Amp Output Section

USB Type B Input:
Support 44.1kHz-384kHz/16Bit-32Bit PCM and DSD Native DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, as well as DSD64, DSD128, DSD256 of DoP format
(Note: support Win XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Win10 and Mac OS)

Digital Input & Output:
SPDIF input and output, Optical input, AES/EBU input
Support 44.1kHz-192kHz/16Bit-24Bit PCM

Pre-Amp & DAC Section:
Balanced XLR x1 pair, unbalanced RCA x1 pair
STANDARD 14dBu: XLR: 5.084V RCA: 2.549V
STUDIO 20dBu: XLR: 8.887V RCA: 4.475V
THD+N@STUDIO 20dBu: XLR: minimum at 0.00085% RCA: minimum at 0.00115%
SNR: XLR:>112dB RCA:> 109dB (non-weighting)
(Note: FIX/ADJ: Fixed Output Mode or Adjustable Output Mode of the pre-amp.)

Contact us!

Disclaimer

Since Audio46 loaned this out, you can check out the QUESTYLE CMA TWELVE at their storefront. No affiliate links, no kickbacks.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

The post Questyle CMA Twelve – Blissfully Biased appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — May result in opamp rolling addiction; deluxe package is effectively a “must”.

Executive Summary

The Burson Funk is a highly versatile combined headphone/speaker amp that particularly impresses by its midrange reproduction and power.

Introduction

Melbourne is the less than 200-year old capital of the south-eastern Australian state of Victoria. As a young man, I was offered a PhD project at the city’s Monash University. It was a geological study on Venus. Yes, planet Venus of all. But since they could not guarantee field work, I migrated to Canada instead where I worked with a former lecturer from…Monash. And I am still there.

Although the world has become smaller in the meantime, I have never made it to down under – but always treasured Melbourne bands such as the Birthday Party, Crowded House, Dead Can Dance, and, lately, the rather funky King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard. Hey, after all, we are talking music here.

Burson Audio was established in 2001 out of Melbourne aiming to push the boundaries of innovation. They started with audio parts (“opamps”) before moving into complete amplifiers. The company prides itself of not advertising and not visiting trade shows (we don’t do that either…no ads here) – and they don’t buy reviews (I have not received an offer yet). This attitude, combined with their product quality is appealing to many so that Burson has generated quite a following. And, as far as I can assess, rightly so.

Specifications

Physical Things

During the design phase of their Lisa computer in 1981, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a meeting: “Well, circles and ovals are good, but how about drawing rectangles with rounded corners? ” This started a series of designs that persist right to the current iPhones. Nothing new here, though, Jobs was obviously following the idea of the Bauhaus school “form follows function“.

Burson also picked up on that German idea with their designs that are minimalistic and functional…and therefore attractive. After all, “less is more“.

The Burson Funk is a piece or art — and not only that. It is that square box with rounded corners and minimalistic operational elements. Build is as good as it gets, the enclosure made of a high-density aluminum. Rugged and heavy. A clever “ridge-n-groove” groove heat-sink structure increases and maximizes the surface area, which optimizes heat dissipation.

The “Cool Stand” also incorporates this design. And it keeps the Funk in an upright position, which further increases head dissipation by decreasing its footprint. Nomen est omen. Didn’t we know this from external computer hard drives?

Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere!  Steve Jobs.

Features

What it does:

What it does not:

Operation

Just like its general shape, the Burson’s operation is straight forward and strictly functional. The front panel offers two headphone jacks, one for 6.3 mm and the other for 3.5 mm plugs. There are three buttons, one for on/off, the second for toggling between headphone amp and speaker amp, and the third for low/high gain. High gain may be used for harder to drive headphones, and low gain for sensitive iems.

The applied settings are indicated by blue “pinhead” LEDs that are subtle and inconspicuous even in a dark room. The volume knob in the centre has good resistance when turning and is as accurate as could be.

The back panel hosts all sockets: RCA for source input, mic-bypass for gamers, speaker-cable connectors, and the socket for the power supply.

Amplification

The Burson Funk’s Class A headphones circuit offers a healthy 3.5 W at 16 Ohm and a still very generous 150 mW at 300 Ohm. It drives my 300 Ohm Sennheiser HD 600 with ease and will probably do justice to the most inefficient planar magnetic headphones. A low gain setting and the relatively low output impedance of <2 Ohm make the Funk also well suited for sensitive iems. I went as low as 16 Ohm iems in my testing and heard no hiss.

The Class AB circuit is designed for near-field listening, but 2*45 W on 4 Ohm speakers are overkill for desktop use. The Burson Funk works quite well for midsized rooms, too.

MCPS Power Supply

Burson have created their proprietary Maximum Current Power Supply “MCPS” that is included with all their amps. It is an ultrafast switching power supply that minimizes noise riding on the signal – and it lowers resistance and speeds up performance.

Opamps

Operational amps (“opamps”) are one of the building blocks of analog electronics circuits, used for signal conditioning, filtering, and/or performing mathematical operations, and therefore sound optimization and customization. They are easily plugged into/pulled out of the logic board (Allen keys for opening the enclosure are included).

Opamps fine tune the’s sonic signature, and help tailor the sound to the listener’s preference – similar to tubes in tube amps. Opamps are universally deployable across different amps independent of brand.

Burson includes a pair of their flagship V6 Vivid opamps in the “Deluxe Package” that produce an energetic and dynamic sound. They also offer opamps separately, for example, the V6 Classic, which generate a more laid back, relaxed sound with a vinyl charm.

The Funk holds two opamps (hence the supplied “pair”), one for the headphone circuit and the other for the speaker circuit. Feel free to use a different opamp in each signal path. Many users prefer the V6 Classic for headphone use and the V6 Vivid for speakers.

Caution, “opamp rolling” can be addictive!

Sound

Headphones

Equipment used: Questyle QP1R reference dap | MacBook Air + Khadas Tone2 Pro with Allo Nirvana SMPS; AudioQuest Golden Gate RCA interconnects; Sennheiser HD 600 heaphone; Sennheiser IE 300/400 PRO iems.

What became evident first to me was how the Burson Funk with the V6 Vivid opamp replaces the analytical signature of the Questyle’s own Class A amp with a slight warmth and an overall subtle tone colour moving the signature towards analog. Sound is quite natural and definitely not digitally artificial.

Bass with the Burson Funk is tight and the vocals above are placed where they should be, not back and not too up front. Voices are delivered with very good weight and definition, and with crispness, which is of utmost important for my enjoyment. I found that the Funk worked well even with the overly sharp recorded vocals in my test track portfolio. Vocals reproduction is the Funk’s biggest trait which would be my personal dealmaker.

Treble extension with the V6 Vivid is good without any grain. The top end is as sweet as the rest of the spectrum

In contrast, the Topping L30, hailed as one of the best audio products around by quite a few, failed my ears miserably in the vocals department and timbre. That’s where many cheap amps cannot convince: they attenuate the midrange, possibly for better perceived transparency, and they sound sterile and lifeless. The Funk does not suffer from these.

The opamp certainly justifies its “Vivid” name, but the dynamics are well dosed and not overpowering. If you want less punch, try the V6 Classic.

Stage has excellent depth and height, but average width. Headroom is plenty so that a balanced output is not missed. Resolution and separation are very good, too. Most headphone amps I have tested (“Topping L30” type) sounded digital, flat, and thin in comparison. But I have not auditioned many, admittedly.

Speakers

Equipment used: Marantz SA8000, Monster M-series RCA interconnects, Heybrook HB1 speakers (8 Ohm, 90 dB).

The Burson Funk’s Class AB speaker circuit is designed for near-field speakers on our desks. 45 W per channel @ 4 Ohm speakers appears to be overkill for our eardrums. I therefore undermined my reviewing task — also because I don’t have (space for) desktop speakers — and ran the Funk with 8 Ohm Heybrook HB1 speakers @35 W on the main floor of my 2000 sq. ft house. Sourced by the Marantz SA8005 SACD player, the Funk replaced my regular Luxman L-410 dedicated speaker amp.

The result was somewhat predictable. The Burson Funk lacks the Luxman’s sheer power, body, and note weight (“quantity”) but it excels in quality: that is better transparency and depth, better three-dimensionality, crisper attack, better defined notes and better detail resolution.

The Burson Funk is leaner than the Luxman, but never thin. It is a bit underpowered for that large area when listening to Metallica, but I still thoroughly enjoyed its fluidity with Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos by Café Zimmermann. Move the unit into a mid-sized room…and bingo.

Concluding Remarks

The Burson Funk is a gorgeous device that has been pure pleasure for me. Great to look at, great to handle, and very good sounding with lots of power. Most impressive is its vocals presentation.

It does more than justice to my 300 Ohm Sennheiser’s HD 600 and 16 Ohm Sennheiser IE 300/400 PRO iems. And it works well with my speakers the size of a bookshelf (“bookshelf speakers?”) in a mid-sized room. Thanks to the “Cool Stand” finally an amp that fits on my crowded desk.

There is nothing I dislike about the Burson Funk other than perhaps my desire to try more opamps. Well done, cobbers!

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The Deluxe Package of the Burson Funk was provided unsolicited for this review by Burson – and I thank them for that.

Get the Burson Funk HERE.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Burson Funk Headphone/Speaker Amplifier Review – Versatile Muscle appeared first on Audio Reviews.

I’ve been auditioning them for quite a while now and to be frank I would need extra time to deliver an even more matured opinion. The reason is simple in its complexity: Andromeda 2020 are no easy individuals. On them I see hear a number of glorious lights and some shadowy parts, and I’m writing about each one here below of course, but much beyond that, Andromeda 2020 are one of those few devices where the articulated ensemble makes up for something more and beyond the sum of its parts.

[ In parentheses, this is not the first driver granting me such feeling, and in my experience such “magic” is not strictly related to the product’s market segment – read: price – but let’s not digress here ]

With this in mind, let’s take a look at the details first, then we’ll quikly climb up onto the big picture.

At-a-glance Card

Full Device Card

Test setup

Sources: Apogee Groove + Burson FUN + IEMatch / Questyle QP1R / Sony NW-A55 mrWalkman / iFi Micro iDSD Signature – Comply Foam TS-400 tips – stock Campfire Silver Plated Litz cable – lossless 16-24/44.1-192 FLAC tracks.

Signature analysis

Technicalities

Physicals

Specifications (declared)

Housing	Machined aluminum shells with anodized emerald green outside finish. “Tuned Acoustic Expansion Chamber” internal structure
Driver(s)	2 BA for high frequencies, 1 BA for mid frequencies, 2 BA for low frequencies [BA manufacturer undisclosed]
Connector	Custom Beryllium/Copper MMCX
Cable	Campfire Audio Litz Cable – Silver Plated Copper Conductors with Berylium Copper MMCX and 3.5mm Stereo Plug
Sensitivity	94dB
Impedance	12.8 Ω
Frequency Range	10 – 28000 Hz
Package & accessories	Campfire Audio Sustainable Cork Earphone Case – Final Audio Tips (xs/s/m/l/xl) – Campfire Audio Earphone foam Tips (s/m/l) – Silicon Earphone Tips (s/m/l) – Campfire Audio Lapel Pin – Cleaning Tool
MSRP at this post time	$1099,00

Considerations and conclusions

Analysing Andromeda 2020 requires the usual 2 – 3 pages. What I reported might be agreed upon or not, as always, but as I mentioned at the beginning there’s a higher layer here: Andromeda 2020 have a comprehensive personality going beyond their timbre, their tonality, and all that technical jargon.

At the current status of my experience, I would report Andromeda 2020 as a greatly clean, skillfully musical, detailed and smooth acoustic performer. Their solid identity evidently stands-out from the mere, arid list of their elementary parts – that’s my point – and reaches the user before, and with more authority than each and all of those.

Andromeda 2020 delivers a proficient, clear, expansive musical experience. Critical-listening to them, going with a flashlight looking for the reason why bass is like this, mids are like that is … nearly preposterous.

By the way, if you are one of my usual “25 readers” you know that Andromeda 2020’s signature does not match my ideal preferences – I find its musicality too engineeristic. It lacks drama, for my taste. Even that considered, though, Andromeda 2020 genuinely appeals me to “just putting them on” and go with the smooth, articulated, open musical flow they grant.

Finally, and on the flip side, it’s important to underline that they “don’t come easy”, not even a bit. Their purchase price is “important”, and chances are they may trigger the need for a source upgrade, which might possibly cost another pretty penny… So be warned!

Disclaimer

The Andromeda 2020 sample has been provided free of charge by the manufacturer. They can be purchased here. As always, we are not affiliated, don’t get commission, etc.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

The post Campfire Andromeda 2020 Review (1): Out-Standing Identity appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Introduction

The Cayin fantasy is a $799 single-dynamic driver earphone with a Beryllium diaphragm which I had for ca. 2 weeks as part of a Head-Fi tour. Cayin have mad themselves a name with high-end daps, and they are currently entering the premium earphone segment, too.

Specifications

Physicals

I never completely unboxed the Cayin Fantasy because of the short time period I had it for. Therefore here a stock picture of the content. The earpieces arere comfortable but isolation is not great. I’d rather like to focus on the sound in my brief analysis.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air, iPhone SE (1st gen.); DragonFly Cobalt, Khadas Tone2 Pro, DragonFly Red, Jitterbug FMJ,

The Cayin Fantasy is a fast single DD earphone with great imaging that will be polarizing over its 4- 5 kHz peak.

Bass is as speedy and dry as it gets. Absolutely superb. No mid-bass bloat, no thumping, just a very composed and focused signal. Sub-bass extension is not the biggest so that some may miss that low-end rumble (I personally don’t).

Male vocals in the lower midrange have very good weight and definition, the reproduction is very realistic. But the higher notes of female voices or saxophones or violins can get fatiguing to my ears. That’s where that 4-5 kHz peak comes in, which introduces harshness and grain to some ears when listening at higher volumes. But it brightens up older recordings. It comes as no surprise that midrange has great clarity.

Treble extension is very good, too. Cymbals in the 7-10 kHz range are extremely well defined and crisp, but may be a bit sharp and bright for younger ears (they are mostly fine for my old flappers).

Technicalities are excellent for a single DD: expansive staging in all directions yielding a “cavernous” or “holographic” experience. Stage is wider than deep but deep enough. Lots of headroom.

Detail resolution is outstanding and instrument placement and separation even more so. I cannot think of any other earphone I could locate instruments on the stage so well – and guess distances between musicians.

At $799, the Cayin Fantasy is in line with the $800 Moondrop Illumination and the $700 Dunu Zen. Zen has more depth and less treble extension, and also some midrange glare, and it excels in microdynamics.

The Moondrop, I cannot remember in detail, but it was probably the least bassiest of the lot and is not quite as resolving as the fantasy. I also had perceived the Illumination as bright.

These comparison are from memory and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Concluding Remarks

In summary, the Cayin Fantasy is a great single DD earphone, but ultimately too bright for me. Please also check out our Cayin amp and dap reviews, such as the C9 Portable Amplifier and the N6ii with three different motherboards.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

I’d like to thank Cayin for this opportunity to add to my experience in the premium segment through a Head-Fi tour. I also thank the next reviewer, Head-Fier dweaver, for having a nice chat on the door.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Cayin Fantasy Review – Light My Fire appeared first on Audio Reviews.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

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

BUILD QUALITY

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

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

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

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

USABILITY

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

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

BATTERY

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

AMP ARCHITECTURE

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

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

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

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

CLASS-A (SOLID STATE)

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

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

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

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

CLASS-A/B (SOLID STATE)

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

NUTUBE + CLASS A, A/B

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

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

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

PAIRING NOTES

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

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

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

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

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Diablo

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

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

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

vs Cayin iHA-6

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

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

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

vs Headamp GSX Mini

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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

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

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

TEST TRACKS

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

MY VERDICT

4.75/5

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

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

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

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

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

Cons — Upper midrange glare, lack of treble extension.

Executive Summary

The $700 Dunu Zen is a natural sounding single-dynamic driver earphone with immersive depth and fantastic macro- and microdynamics and resolution that falls short of perfect only by its upper midrange glare.

Introduction

Dunu does not need an introduction, they have been providing the community with quality audio products since 1994. And they had been on my radar for the last five years, recommended by my German colleague “Chris, the Headphone Collector“. But whereas my co-authors have filled our blog with Dunu reviews, I have only had the opportunity to analyze one of their premium earphones now.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

I am skipping the package content as I never really unpacked the whole lot because of time constraints adherent to the short period I had this loaner for. I simply used stock cable and the earpieces, and added SpinFit CP 500 eartips upon the recommendation of co-blogger Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir.

So I rather focus on my sonic perceptions and some simple comparisons with the Zen’s presumably closest competitors: Cayin Fantasy and Moondrop Illumination…and less so with the JVC HA-FDX1.

Tonality and Technicalities

Equipment used: MacBook Air & DragonFly Cobalt; iPod Classic 7th gen.; SpinFit CP500 eartips.

I since am a bit limited in my listening experience as I had the Dunu Zen only for two weeks as part of the Head-Fi tour. You may also want to read Kazi’s more detailed review for more details.

TL;DR: the Dunu Zen are characterized by their immersive, natural sound (timbre/dynamics) while having a great resolution and staging. They offer this rare combination of traits of multi-drivers and single dynamic-driver earphones.

And they also defy the idea of tuning a driver according to a trendy model curve. The Dun Zen appear to be tuned according to their driver, which results in a rather “ugly” frequency-response graph but a great sound (and not the other way round; plenty examples exist).

What stroke me most every time I used the Dunu Zen is that extended low-end with this well-layered, well-textured, articulate mid bass that creates a wonderful “depth of field”. The beefy, visceral low end comes with a natural punch. This results a warm tonality with full, rich drums and re-inforced deeper vocals. Simply seductive and essentially perfect.

And does not smear at all into the lower midrange. Voices are very well defined, nicely sculptured but the higher vocal notes could be a tad richer and creamier. There is a tendency toward sharpness/are a bit sharpened by that 12 dB gain from 1 to 2 kHz that adds some glare just below shoutiness. Nevertheless, the vocals are organic with good note definition.

Treble is crisp without being edgy. Cymbals are very well defined as you are used from a piezo. There is no smudging going on at all, but also no harshness. Good definition. Upper treble is lacking a bit.

Staging is not the widest but rather deep, and instrument placement and separation are bordering on spectacular. What is truly amazing is the macro- and microdynamics as well as macro-and micro-resolution. All this results in great spatial cues with – I had mentioned it already – lots of depth.

Yes, the piano and forte sections of an orchestra are handled very well, and so is the small dynamic nuances. For example, I really enjoyed the subtle dynamic variations of an oboe and its interplay with a harpsichord as in this DGG recording. And all this at a very natural, authentic timbre. Attack and decay are just right.

Dunu Zen compared

At $700, the Dunu Zen is in line with the $800 Cayin Fantasy and $800 Moondrop Illumination. Zen has the biggest depth and least treble extension of the three. The other two cannot compete in terms of punch and microdynamics.

I have to be cautious with details as these comparisons are based on memory – they were all loaners which I analyzed at different times. Please take my comments with a grain of salt.

The Cayin is brighter, wider, and also has excellent detail resolution, but it has this 5 kHz peak that introduces harshness and grain to many ears. And it lacks sub-bass extension.

The Moondrop is has the least mid-bass of the lot, and is the least resolving. It comes across as bright and aggressive to my ears, like the Cayin.

It may be a bit unfair to compare the $250 JVC HA-FDX1 with the Dunu Zen. But, the JVC had been hailed by some as possibly the best single DD on the market 2 years ago.

Well, the JVC cannot quite keep up with any of the three in terms of staging – and its timbre comes across as somewhat metallic. But it is a decent choice for the budget audio enthusiast.

Concluding Remarks

Although the Dunu Zen is not perfect, it is close. It comes in second on my eternal list, just beaten by the 3000 Euro VisionEars Elysium. I absolutely love the Dunu Zen for its immersive, seductive listening experience and its microdynamics: never have I enjoyed the synergy of an oboe and a harpsichord so much.

I am still considering buying one for my amp/dacs reviews. The usual problem: too much gear and no money…and the Zen Pro coming. The Zen Pro incorporates tuning suggestions by the graphing crowd.

I hope the company has not compromised sound quality for sales-generating graphs, as currently seen with DACs and amps. We’ll see.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

All Our Earphone and Earbud Reviews (with Links)

Disclaimer

The Zen was provided as part of a Canadian Head-Fi tour and I think the organizers for that.

Get the Zen from Dunu.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Dunu Zen Review (2) – Almost Perfect appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Introduction

These brief notes are to complement Jürgen’s earlier review of the Vision Ears Elysium and VE8, with which I mostly concur. As with Jürgen’s review, my impressions are mainly comparisons between the two models because I’ve heard nothing else near their price range to compare them with. All listening was with with stock cables and (med) tips (which are Spinfit tips CP145s) and Audioquest DragonFly Black or Ifi iDSD Nano BL (‘Direct’ output unless noted) – perhaps rather ‘lo-fi’ sources for such expensive earphones.

Tonality and Timbre

VE8 bass is good – strong, extended. Nice timbre for a BA; still more ‘tight’ than ‘fast’, but similar to how I like it on a good ‘fast’ DD (JVC HA-FX1). Maybe too strong, kick drum & bass can come across as further forward on the stage than everything else but the vocalist. On the Elysium, mid to low bass (guitar) is strong, low to sub bass (kick drum) less so than VE8, ie less bass extension, but again it’s of excellent quality.

In contrast to some commentators, I thought bass guitar has better texture (reverb on decays) than on the VE8, maybe because it isn’t overwhelmed by the sub-bass. But, what would be nicer still is if the VE8 sub-bass level was present here too (yes, I want to have my cake as well as eat it).

VE8 mids are slightly honky – not good with vocals with nasal or honky signatures, and there’s noticeable emphasis on some horns and distorted guitars. They’re forward and can come across congested on some material.

By contrast, the mids on the Elysium are the star, further back in the mix while also being smooth and with fantastic timbre, not a trace of nasality or honk even with challenging vocals. Liquid, organic, and well integrated. Piano & vocals, wow. This is the best midrange I’ve yet heard on an IEM.

Treble on the VE8 is extended but smooth, the best I’ve heard on a BA (for the price of these, it should be!). It nonetheless seems a bit blunted in cymbal attacks, possibly as a result of a tonality in which the lower treble area is a bit recessed.

The Elysium treble imparts a slightly odd timbre to cymbals (because of the electrostatic drivers?) but is nicely extended, probably more than my old ears can really appreciate. Compared to the VE8, a lower treble boost is evident, and I’d say more accurate, with the transition from upper mids into treble being better balanced. Timbre-wise the Elysium treble seems a touch fast in both attack & decay, but compared to the VE8 cymbal hits are more prominent (if not louder), and decays are longer.

Pressing the Elysiums further into my ears exaggerated the treble, in contrast to the usual IEM experience of exaggerating the bass. Individual listeners’ treble experience will likely depend on seal and insertion depth.

Technicalities

Imaging & separation: imaging is more precise on the Elysium, separation between instruments more defined on the VE8.

Macro & microdynamics: VE8 is slightly ahead here, but is maybe a bit unrealistic (overdone) in amplitude on the macro. Elysium does better gradations, rather than ‘on-off’, with dynamics in the mids, and better captures subtleties there.

Pitch resolution: In the mids especially, this is better on the Elysium – small pitch change subtleties are rendered better, with more gradation.

Source Considerations

While the Elysiums are happiest with a more powerful source, the VE8s are more typical multi-BAs in that they have a very slight hiss noticeable in silences from the DragonFly and from the Nano BL’s ‘Direct’ jack at playing volume. This is unfortunate, because the ‘iEMatch’ jack’s relatively high output impedance lowers upper mids & treble by up to 3.3 dB.

Source matching will be important with both of these earphones, because as both listening and frequency-response measurements show (see Jürgen’s review), neither has an exaggerated upper midrange – yet both have impedance vs frequency curves that will suppress upper mids and treble if the amplifier that’s driving them has an elevated output impedance.

On the graph below, the tan curve is my impedance measurement for the VE8 and the blue curve is that supplied by Vision Ears after we queried them as to why my measurement was so different from the 22 Ohm (@ 1 kHz) specification given on their website.

VE replied that the 22 Ohm spec was for a prototype version, and the correct number is 16.4 Ohms as on their blue curve. The other curves on this graph show the effects on the VE8’s frequency response using amplifiers of up to 5.5 Ohms output impedance (purple, lowest, curve).

The Elysium has an even more extreme impedance vs frequency curve, increasing exponentially from single digits in the treble to > 200 Ohms in the bass. This will interact with amps of higher output impedance to tilt the frequency response darker, with the greatest effect around 12-13 kHz. 

Contact us!

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

Disclaimer

I too thank the tour organizers and VE for the opportunity to hear these two pairs. Also we thank Marcel from VE for providing his impedance measurements and discussion.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8 Review (2) – German Magic appeared first on Audio Reviews.

INTRODUCTION

Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8. Vision Ears are a company out of Cologne, Germany, that specializes in premium items, universal fit and custom fit. Their products don’t come cheap, they are somewhat luxurious, we therefore don’t talk about money in the brief review, but rather about reward. Head-Fi and Audiotiers offered the Vision Ears Elysium and the Vision Ears VE8 for 8 days as part of the Canadian Tour. The time was a bit short for a full review, however I took good notes to give you my impressions. One thing up front, this was a great learning experience. After listening to these premium products, I now even see the budget and mid-tier offer in a different light…I therefore recommend every analyst to grow on testing such premium products.

The Vision Ears VE8, as the name may imply, is an 8 BA earphone whereas the slightly pricier Vision Ears Elysium features drivers of three different technologies: surprisingly a BA for the low end, a dynamic driver for the midrange, and two electrostatics for the upper end. In detail…

There is a complimentary view with some more measurements by Biodegraded:

SPECIFICATIONS ELYSIUM

Drivers: 1BA for bass – 1 dynamic for mids – 2 electrostatic for highs
Impedance: 14.2 Ω at 1 kHz
Sensitivity: 105 dB at 1mW
Frequency Range: X – Y Hz
Cable/Connector:
Tested at: 2500,00 EUR (incl. 19% German VAT)
Product Page: Vision Ears

SPECIFICATIONS VE8

Drivers: 2 x Bass – 2 x Mid – 4 x High 
Impedance: 16.4 Ohms ( at 1 kHz )
Sensitivity: 120 dB SPL at 1 mW 
Frequency Range: X – Y Hz
Cable/Connector:
Tested at: 2150,00 € 
Product Page: Vision Ears

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Follow these links for some background information:

My tonal preference and testing practice

My test tracks explained

Equipment used: MacBook Air/iPhone SE (1st gen.) and ifi nano BL (IEMatch for Vision Ears VE8 and Direct out for Vision Ears Elysium).

The Elysium needs a lot of power, probably owing to the electrostats, and they are not well driven by a phone. The VE8 are more content with low-power sources.

Most – if not all – tour participants and reviewers preferred the Vision Ears VE8 over the Vision Ears Elysium. In contrast, I found the Elysium fantastic and the VE8 “nothing special” (considering the price). The Vision Ears VE8 have toned-down upper mids similar to the Campfire Andromeda; they sound warmer and thicker, but also more congested and less energetic than the Elysium. This produces an inoffensive, agreeable meat-and-potato sound that fits most musical genres but it lacks the engagement factor, especially with female voices. The Elysium are overall more energetic with a “wider” sound. They have a boosted upper midrange that usually does not work for most earphones – but it does in this case (no shoutiness!), which points to the driver quality. I find the sonic image of the Elysium way more articulate and refined compared to the Vision Ears VE8 with breathtaking vocals reproduction. Best I have experienced in any earphone…though my selection is limited.

Both models are very similar at the low end: subtle, articulate, clean bass and sub-bass, well dosed and tasteful. Good, realistic attack. Minimalistic, slightly warm and never anemic…well separated from the lower midrange. Bass attack and decay are excellent. The difference in the upper midrange let’s the VE8’s bass perceive as a bit thicker, less focused, and thumpier as the human ears hear the whole frequency spectrum in context. The Elysium have the sharper drums attack.

The Elysium takes the lead in the vocals, and that by far. Voices in the Elysium are brighter, have more life, more bite/energy, more detail, more air, more corners, and more appeal. Note definition is generally superior over the VE8. In comparison, the vocals in the VE8 are “duller”, darker, more intimate, and have the lesser resolution…which also results in more body and more midrange intimacy. The fuller body is probably the reason why most protagonists prefer the VE8 over the Elysium. Midrange in the Elysium has more filigree and air – and is better resolving. Vocals have just the right intimacy and not too much intimacy in the Elysium. They are spicier but not too spicy. There is a good balanced between upper and lower midrange. The VE8’s midrange offers the sonic equivalent of an optical illusion.

And the Elysium extend their lead in the treble. Holy moly, I have never heard such clean, nicely separated, super dry, crisp cymbals. The two electrostats don’t overdo anything, they don’t emphasize the highs, they just refine them. Truly an outstanding sonic experience. The VE8’s treble are not bad either but cymbals are less pronounced and a bit covered/less separated by/from the thicker midrange.

The lean but energetic vocals in the Vision Ears Elysium means great midrange clarity, transparency, and detail resolution. Stage is very wide and tall, with realistic depth. Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” at Live Aid put me right into Wembley Stadium. Rather holographic imaging. The VE8s have the narrower stage.

Vocals timbre is natural in both earphones despite the differences in energy level.

Elysium has better midrange clarity and transparency, better 3D rendering, better separation between instruments, more energetic voices, a more subtle bass, and better spatial imaging. Everything sounds more crowed and less open in the VE8. Overall, the Elysium are definitely the sharper knife in the drawer.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Elysium constituted a highly educational experience and changed my approach to sound. The two electrostats produced cymbals so crisp – never heard that before. I found the energetic Elysium more engaging and involving over the thicker, fuller bodied but less resolving VE8s. In this tour kit, I perceived the VE8 more as decoration or support for the Elysium. In fact, the Elysium made so weak for a moment that I considered selling my house to afford one. But in the end, I will have to wait until I wander the Elyisan fields (or the Champs-Élysées before) to experience such (sonic) enjoyment again.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The two models were part of a semi-private Head-Fi tour. I thank Bill Barraugh for organizing it.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

RELATED…

The post Vision Ears Elysium and Vision Ears VE8 Review (1) – Life Less Ordinary appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — The atrocious, hilariously horrible carrying case Airpods Max comes with (that you can’t avoid using)
– 9KHz peak with ANC on
– Sounds overly processed with noticeable BT compression
– No high bit-rate codec support
– Clamp can be uncomfortable, can feel heavy
– Call quality is mediocre, voice sounds muffled even in a quiet room
– Overpriced

INTRODUCTION

The moment Apple removed the headphone jack from its latest iPhone 7, it spelt doom for the headphone jack itself on all flagship devices. It’s incredible how something as innocuous as the 3.5mm jack became the bane of existence for Apple and how they called it “courageous”, but that rant is best delivered elsewhere. 

This is a review of the Apple Airpods Max, Apple’s most expensive headphone, and one of the most expensive bluetooth headphones out there. If you are someone who is enamored (!) by the Apple ecosystem and also an audiophile, this review shall address your concerns regarding the tonal and technical proficiency of the Airpods Max.

If, however, you are someone who wants the latest trend, I think you can skip the rest of the review and just get the Airpods Max right away (the prices are dropping nowadays). It is definitely the most advanced Bluetooth headphone out there right now, and the competition will take a year to catch up at the very least. However, caveats apply, as always.

All relevant specs here.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. I bought the Airpods Max with my own funds.

Sources used: Apple iPhone 11, Apple iPhone SE, Google Pixel 4XL
Price, while reviewed: $550. Can be bought from Apple’s Web-store.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

The Airpods Max come with the (now infamous) “Smart Case” and a lightning-to-USB-C cable. That’s about it. The “smart case” is the worst headphone case in existence and $5 Aliexpress cases with questionable design decisions are less useless.

This smart case is an absolute abomination in design (it looks like a silicone bra), the material choice (attracts gunk/dust and gets dirty real quickly) , the absolute lack of protection (doesn’t even cover the headband), and the absurd requirement for the Airpods to be kept in the cover to put them in deep sleep mode (they don’t turn off otherwise). Usability nightmare.
1/5

BUILD QUALITY

Premium, super-solid, futuristic — these are the operative words. The Airpods Max is built exceptionally well. It’s mostly anodized aluminium with some rubber and plastic parts. There is a curious lack of branding all around, no Apple logo/branding to be seen anywhere.

Let’s talk about the headband first since I find the headband design quite interesting. It’s a two-piece metal construction with the inner steel frame adding rigidity whereas the outer frame (rubber coated) houses the upper-portion of the headband (a fabric layer). The sliding mechanism for size-adjustment is also very solid, though I wish there were some markers for finer adjustments.

The earcups themselves are two chunks of aluminium and are packed with several mics, sensors, receivers, and buttons. This is the most sophisticated earcup design I’ve seen till now and is an impressive feat of engineering.

The right earcup has two buttons up top: the rotary dial (digital crown, as Apple says) that acts as both volume and playback control (press down to play/pause, press twice to skip), and a square button that toggles between Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) on/off. Lastly, The lightning port (ugh) is at the bottom for charging.

Opting for lightning instead of type-C is baffling, but I guess they thought of the ease of use for existing iPhone users. The left earcup is bereft of any controls but has an antenna cut-out for RF transparency.

What’s not immediately apparent but catches your attention once you look closer: the numerous microphone holes in both of the earcups. In fact, there are a total of nine microphones. Eight of these mics (two on the top and two of the bottom of each earcup) works for the ANC and the remaining one is used for voice pickup. Two of the eight ANC mics also help in voice pickup, and that rounds up the entire mic assembly.

Other than that there are other interesting design decisions. The earcups can rotate into a flat position for storage, and there is a spring-loaded swivel mechanism which I haven’t seen anywhere before (and a great design decision IMO).

The earcups attach/detach magnetically, and there’s an IR sensor inside each earcup (underneath the cutout in the earcup on the inner-side) that detects if you’ve worn the headphones or not (something that doesn’t work on Android/Windows for some reason).

A highly sophisticated build with premium materials. I guess I can’t really ask for more.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

The earpads have a cloth exterior with memory-foam inner. Unfortunately, the clamp force is a bit too high. Competing products like Sony 1000XM4 and the Bose QC35ii have superior wearing comfort, and that acts as a detriment.

The headband material is surprisingly comfortable though and distributes pressure evenly across the top of the head. It’s the clamp around your temples that is uncomfortable. The ~400gm weight is also noticeable while wearing.

As for noise isolation, the Active Noise-Cancellation here is class-leading indeed. You can only hear faint irregular noises, but most noises like hum of your laptop, the noisy bus engine are well taken care of.

I also like the transparency mode and found it fantastic during commute (as you can hear the surroundings while crossing the street, or trying to follow a conversation).
4/5

CONNECTIVITY

The BT reception is generally strong, but there were some connection drop issues with older iPhones that had BT 4.0. With BT 5.0 devices and the newer iPhones (that are compatible with the H1 chip) the connection was rock-solid. Pairing was also quite simple irrespective of OS/device.

The biggest downside here is the lack of any lossless codec as Apple is using the archaic AAC codec even in their flagship headphone. It’s a major shame and the BT compression is quite noticeable in many tracks. Call quality is also middling as the voice sounds somewhat muffled.
4.5/5

AIRPODS MAX DRIVER SETUP

Apple doesn’t tell much about the driver setup apart from that it’s 40mm. Looking at iFixit’s teardown I think it’s a PET diaphragm with a PVD metal plating (likely Titanium). The driver looks cool in a matte-black finish but that’s about it. I don’t think there’s much to write home about here (otherwise we wouldn’t hear the end of it in Apple’s promo materials).

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Apple Airpods Max has a warm, slightly V-shaped (or U-shaped, as some say) sound that focuses more on the “fun” side of things rather than going for neutrality.

The bass response is definitely north of neutral with a sizeable sub-bass boost but the mid-bass is left untouched, resulting in a clean bass-response with no mid-bass bleed. Bass is fairly textured but lacks in definition and speed, partly due to the driver limitation and partly due to the BT compression that takes a toll on the bass region. 

The midrange is perhaps the best aspect of the Airpods Max. The recession in the lower mids tend to drown out male vocals in some tracks with lots of instrumentation, but that’s about my biggest complaint here.

The slight warmth in the lower-midrange coupled with lack of shoutiness in the upper-mids and generally correct tonality makes the Airpods Max good at reproducing both male/female vocals and string instruments. Acoustic guitars sound especially nice with crisp attack and a natural decay. 

The treble is where things start to get divisive. With the ANC on, there is a noticeable rise in the 9KHz peak and the treble becomes fatiguing. With ANC off, however, that issue is mostly mitigated, and in the transparency mode it is completely gone.

It’s ironic that a headphone that went through so much trouble for ANC sounds its worst with that feature turned on. If you are treble-sensitive and want/have the Airpods Max, I’d highly recommend keeping the ANC off/transparency mode on.

As for the rest: resolved detail is middling. This is about as resolving as the $65 Philips SHP9500 and I’m not exaggerating in the slightest. In busy tracks, the cymbals turn mushy and it’s hard to pick apart leading edge of notes.

The staging is fairly tall but lacks height and depth. Apple uses heavy DSP to give you a sense of space (esp when listening to songs with Dolby Atmos) but such tracks are rare and most of all: the DSP tricks sound artificial and lacks the natural stage expansion of an open-back headphone. However, compared to other BT headphones, the staging here is above-average indeed.

Finally, imaging is fairly accurate. Center-imaging suffers though, as is the case with most headphones. Dynamics are fairly good with the macrodynamic punch being delivered with authority (though the sub-bass emphasis can make snare hits and pedals sound a bit muted). Microdynamics are decent for a BT headphone but nothing to write home about.

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

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Sony 1000XM4 ($300): The Sony 1000XM4 is widely popular for a few good reasons: it’s very comfortable, it’s got the branding, and the sound signature is a bass-boosted V-shaped that many find “fun” to listen to. It’s also got LDAC support and good ANC.

However, the Airpods Max has better build and controls, and the ANC on them is superior. Also the sound has better midrange resolution and imaging. Almost twice-the-price better? I don’t think so, but hey – it’s Apple.

vs Bose QC35ii ($200-ish): The Bose QC35ii has been on the blocks for a long time and I find it to be a very enjoyable pair of BT headphones. The ANC is fantastic (nearly as good as the Airpods Max) and they are supremely comfortable to wear. The lightweight helps in carrying too.

The sound signature is more mid-bass focused than the Apple Airpods Max and tends to sound thicker in general with less treble presence. A non-fatiguing sound that’s middling in resolution but very inoffensive.

The Airpods Max, again, has superior build and ANC. However, the tonal profile is different enough to cater to different audiences. Moreover, the price is markedly lower on the Bose. It’s an inferior headphone to the Airpods Max no doubt, but for the price, it’s a very good performer.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Apple Airpods Max has stunning looks and perhaps the best balance of sound among wireless headphones around $500. There’s one BT headphone that’s superior in almost all aspects to the Airpods Max, the Hifiman Ananda BT, but it retails for twice as much ($1000) and is an open-back headphone. Plus, the design isn’t anywhere as cool.

In terms of raw sound quality and comparing against wired offerings, the Apple Airpods Max stand no chance. It’s slightly worse than the Philips SHP9500 and that tells it all. Sennheiser HD600/650 duo are on an entirely different dimension altogether, and the Hifiman Sundara/Beyerdynamic DT1990 are technically far more proficient. 

However, you don’t get the Airpods for sound quality. The entry level Airpods are about as resolving as $10 earbuds, and Millions of people bought them. The price point is a bit too high on the Airpods Max though and for non-audiophile, style-conscious consumers it might be a bit too high a premium to pay. 

If you are someone who loves the Apple “ecosystem” (though said ecosystem barely helps here) and got the budget for it, Airpods Max will probably earn you more style points than anything else out there. The sound without ANC is quite good and the easy to use control scheme can be refreshing.

Unfortunately, I can’t recommend the Apple Airpods Max to the regular audiophile as they are overpriced, over-designed, and under-performing. They look cool, but you can’t see them when worn. You can feel them though, and the high weight coupled with high clamp-force is not ideal. The sound quality is way below average and will be bested by certain wired headphones under $200.

If you really need a BT headphone, the Bose QC35ii will be an inoffensive, inexpensive option with good ANC as well and great comfort. The Airpods Max, meanwhile, belongs more in lifestyle photo-shoot than actual real-world use.

MY VERDICT

3/5

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Apple Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Apple Airpods Max Review – Mainstream Flagship appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Recessed mmcx port on Sony IER-Z1R housing can be an issue for 3rd party cables
– Bulky housing gets uncomfortable and might not even fit
– Can deliver over-bearing bass at times
– Mids are lacklustre, average in terms of resolution and engagement factor
– Center-imaging isn’t class-leading
– Somewhat source-picky

INTRODUCTION

Sony needs no introduction.

I mean, you have used at least one of their products in your lifetime. Thus, let’s cut to the chase. The Sony IER-Z1R is their flagship (universal) in-ear monitor. Priced at $1700 retail, these are true top-of-the-line contenders in the IEM space and is looking for a place among the best of the best earphones around. 

Does the Sony IER-Z1R justify the hefty price-tag, or is it another underachiever? Let’s find out.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. My dear friend Syed lent me his personal unit.

Sources used:  Cowon Plenue R2, Sony NW-A55, Sony WM1A, A&K Kann Alpha
Price, while reviewed: $1700. Can be bought from Sony’s Official Website

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

An accessory set fit for a king, preceded by a regal unboxing experience. The IER-Z1R puts most flagship packaging to royal shame *cough* 64Audio *cough*. It’s a TOTL product through and through and Sony spent considerable time into the packaging and accessories. The jewelry box like assembly with sliding trays keep the various items into their own compartment. The stock cables are built well and is very ergonomic with no touch noise, but they are a tad too long for my liking. Does help when you connect the IEMs to desktop amps though. There are too many tips to count and you get an oversized box to store the IEMs with felt-lining inside. Overkill, impractical, but very cool.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

The Sony IER-Z1R is built and sized like a tank. The zirconium alloy shells are absurdly large. Everything but the nozzle is super-sized, including the recess into which the mmcx port sits. As a result one must choose after-market cables carefully. Most third-party cables have a thinner mmcx stem that will be literally eaten up by the Z1R (thus I’d recommend the Sony stock cable or the kimber cable).

Back to the housing, the backplate has a perlage pattern often seen on luxury watches (a metal tip rotates on top of the metal plate to form such a pattern). The shape of the housing mirrors the shape of the inner acoustic cavity (more on this later) and thus have a unique design rarely seen elsewhere. The top of the IEM houses the color-coded channel markings, where I can see something that resembles a vent. Other than that, no other vents or asymmetries in the housing.

The design stands out and draws attention, as is customary for Sony’s signature line of gear.
5/5

COMFORT, ISOLATION, AND FIT

Comfort = horrible. Fit = atrocious. Isolation = above average (when pushed deep into the canals, basically how these IEMs are supposed to be worn). Wearing the Sony IER-Z1R for any length of time is a challenge and will definitely be the deal-breaker for most people. Auditioning the IEM before purchasing is strongly advised. 
1/5

SOURCE AND EARTIPS

The best source for the Sony IER-Z1R is Sony’s own WM1A Walkman DAP. People often talk about “synergy” between source and IEM, and very few pairings showcase such synergy. I myself tried the Z1R mostly with the Cowon Plenue R2 during review, however, and used the stock Sony Hybrid tips. Later on I tried it with the WM1A and that did improve upon my issues with the mids. If you are planning to get an IER-Z1R, the WM1A/WM1Z DAPs are recommended.

DRIVER SETUP

The Sony IER-Z1R has a triple-driver hybrid setup, with two dynamic drivers in charge of bass/mids and upper-treble, and one BA driver in charge of the treble. 

The largest driver in this array is the 12mm bass/midrange driver that has a Magnesium dome with Aluminium-coated LCP surround. This ensures better pistonic motion and a very high excursion. The excursion is further aided by a resonance chamber and tube structure in the back of the driver. All of these results in the signature hard-hitting, dense bass of the Sony IER-Z1R.

The upper-treble tweeter also has a very interesting design. It’s a 5mm micro-dynamic driver with Al-coated LCP diaphragm and offers up to 100KHz response — a figure that’s inaudible by all humans but aces the numbers game. In practical use, the 5mm driver has very fast transients and offers the timbral accuracy of a dynamic driver instead of the artificial BA timbre or the fleeting, lightweight nature of EST tweeters.

Lost in all these is the miniscule side-firing BA treble driver that mostly handles lower and mid-treble. It’s a Sony proprietary T-shaped armature pin and has better timbre and slightly slower decay than typical Knowles BA drivers.

Sony doesn’t just stop here, rather they place these drivers in a coaxial orientation in a 3D-printed magnesium alloy chamber. The material choice is to reduce resonant frequencies and also the unique design results in a straight sound path for each driver, thus avoiding the usual cross-over tubes. Very fascinating driver setup all in all, but it’d all be for naught if the sound quality isn’t up to the mark. Fortunately, that’s not the case at all.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Sony IER-Z1R has a V-shaped sound signature, but that’s a reductionist statement to say the least. The IER-Z1R lives and breathes bass. The sub-bass sets the foundation of the entire sonic delivery and boy oh boy if this ain’t the best bass response in an earphone on this forsaken planet. I’ve heard IEMs with even more emphasized bass or faster bass, but the delightfully textured bass on the Z1R is second to none when it comes to providing the sense of rhythm. The slam, the slightly extended decay (unlike the super-fast BA bass), the subterranean reach of the sub-bass — it’s the whole package. The mid-bass is no slouch either (unlike the DF-tuned IEMs around) and snare hits/pedals have superb definition/body. Macrodynamics are some of the best I’ve ever heard. If you’re a bass-head, this is your endgame (as long as your ears are large enough).

The other aspect of the IER-Z1R that is apparent right away is the sense of space it portrays. The stage width is as good as many full-size open-backs. The stage depth is remarkable, and coupled with precise imaging you truly get that out-of-the-head experience. The one aspect where it falls short of the likes of, say, Hifiman Ananda in terms of staging is the stage height. This is where the large drivers on full-size headphones flex their muscles. 

Despite the bass focus the treble on the IER-Z1R is… perfect. It has adequate sparkle and air without veering into the “bright” zone. Cymbal decays are well-extended and even in sections with super-fast cymbal hits the notes don’t smear into each other. Transient response overall is excellent. There is a slight peak around 5.5KHz but that never became a bother for me personally. This is where insertion depth comes into play because with a less-than-adequate insertion the treble becomes splashy. If I had to nitpick about the treble response it would be the slightly soft leading edge of notes. This rounded nature of upper-frequency notes help in avoiding listening fatigue but can take away the rawness of crash cymbals. Nonetheless, Sony has made a good trade-off IMO and the treble is nearly as good as it gets in the TOTL range.

Unfortunately, Sony focused a bit too much on the bass and treble and the midrange played second-fiddle to both. The mids here are just about okay I’d say. Male vocals sound somewhat muffled and female vocals, despite having more focus than male vocals, are robbed off of the emotion that certain IEMs in this price are capable of displaying. Also instrument separation and microdynamics weren’t as great as I hoped it would be, partly due to the recessed lower midrange. String instruments lacked the bite and their undertones were often muddied by the bass. Mid-range performance is definitely the weakest link in the IER-Z1R signature and that’s disappointing given the stellar bass and treble.

To summarize: if you like V-shaped sound signature and aren’t too bothered about the subtleties of vocals — this is it, this is the IEM to end all V-shaped IEMs. 

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

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Campfire Andromeda ($1000): The tuning of the Andromeda and the Z1R couldn’t be more different. Whereas Campfire Audio went for a relatively balanced tuning for the Andromeda 2020, Sony is proud of their bass driver and tuned the Z1R with sub-bass focus in mind. Bass is where these two IEMs differ the most. Andromeda 2020 has typical fast BA bass that’s nimble without being punchy. The Sony IER-Z1R’s bass is slower but makes up for that with slam and punch and sub-bass that rattles inside your eardrums.

Midrange is where the Sony pulls back a bit whereas the Andro 2020 (in contrast to the Andro 2019) gains some presence. Vocals are more prominent on the Andro 2020 and midrange in general is better executed, I’d say. String instruments esp shine on the Andromeda. 

As for the treble, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 has really well-executed treble that’s smooth, non-fatiguing, and well-extended but pales in comparison to the treble on the IER-Z1R. Cymbal hits have a presence and crunch that’s just missing on the Andromeda 2020. 

In terms of soundstage/imaging, the former goes to the IER-Z1R whereas the Andro 2020 has slightly better center-imaging than the IER-Z1R but similar cardinal/ordinal imaging otherwise. 

If you want visceral bass punch and some of the best treble under $2000, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be your pick. However, the Andro 2020 has a more balanced tuning and acts as a complimentary tuning to the IER-Z1R’s exciting delivery. Comfort is also much better on the Campfire Andromeda, so there’s that.

vs Final A8000 ($2000): The Final A8000 is their current single-DD flagship and sports a pure Be diaphragm driver. While the A8000 has north-of-neutral sub-bass rise, it pales in comparison to the level of mid-bass thump that the Sony IER-Z1R provides. However, the A8000 bass is faster and will cater well to those who prefer a nimble bass presentation. 

In terms of midrange, I prefer the A8000’s vocals by a margin over the IER-Z1R. Final knows how to tune the midrange and the vocals/string instruments are as articulate as they can be on the A8000. Every subtle nuance is highlighted including vocalists breathing in/out. Timbre is another strong point here with the metallic tinge of steel strings being evident against the more natural, softer tone of nylon strings. 

The treble region is where the Sony IER-Z1R pulls ahead with no sharp 6KHz peak (A8000’s biggest downside) and more extended upper-treble. This leads to an even wider soundstage (though A8000 has very good stage width). Imaging is about even on both with center-imaging being slightly less accurate on both IEMs. Overall resolution is about similar on both, with the more resolving A8000 midrange being counter-balanced by the smoother yet better extended treble on the IER-Z1R.

Between these two, I’d pick the IER-Z1R if you can get a fit and don’t bother too much about midrange. However, the A8000 is a great choice if you prefer well-realized vocals/string instruments, a faster bass response, and don’t mind the 6KHz peak/willing to tune it via PEQ.

vs 64Audio U12t ($2000): Finally, Goliath vs Goliath. The 64Audio U12t is one of the best IEMs available around the $2000 mark and is one of the best all-BA IEMs out there. By swapping the APEX modules you can also increase the bass response in them (M20 offers a bit more bass). This comparison is made with the M20 module. 

The U12t has perhaps the best BA bass out there, and it’s quite a feat indeed. However, it can’t out-muscle the physical grunt of the Sony IER-Z1R’s bass response. The mids are better tuned on the U12t, as is a theme in this comparison. The treble is where we find interesting differences. The U12t goes for a smoother treble presentation with rounded notes, whereas the IER-Z1R has a more immediate sense of attack that gives cymbal hits/hi-hats a really nice bite. I think depending on taste you might prefer one over the other, I myself find the Z1R’s treble response more appealing.

Soundstage is wider and taller on the IER-Z1R but stage depth is about par on the U12t. Imaging is tad more precise on the U12t, though these are marginal differences. Where I found more palpable was the difference in coherence. U12t, despite the 12 drivers, sounded more coherent than the IER-Z1R. Also a slight note about build/accessories: Sony IER-Z1R is quite a bit ahead on those aspects.

In conclusion, if you want a smoother, laid-back listen with great all-round performance, the 64Audio U12t will serve you really well. For those who need more excitement and fun-factor, the Sony IER-Z1R shall be on the top of your list.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In hindsight, it’s quite easy to review and recommend the Sony IER-Z1R. If someone wants the best bass available in an IEM, they should definitely try the IER-Z1R. It’s an unabashedly fun, colored tuning that works well across various genres. 

The big elephant in the room: the fit. Without a deep, snug fit you’d have a hard time finding what makes the IER-Z1R so special, making it rather necessary to trial these beforehand. 

If you can get a fit, and if you love bass — the Sony IER-Z1R is a no-brainer really. I am yet to find something that tops it as the bass-head endgame, and if you know that’s what you want and got the right-sized ears — get ready for some brain-rattling.

Test tracks:

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

MY VERDICT

4.5/5

Highly Recommended if you want the ultimate bass-head IEM.

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The unit was on loan from a friend.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

SONY IER-Z1R PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Sony IER-Z1R Review – Sheer Bass-Head Delight appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Cayin N6ii has poor battery life with the E01/T01 motherboards exacerbated by standby battery drain
– Archaic SD425 CPU is neither frugal nor performant
– Very aggressive background process management renders 4GB of RAM useless
– New motherboards are pricey

INTRODUCTION

Cayin knows their stuff.

Unlike many recent Chinese brands, they have been around for quite a while. They’ve been focusing on the portable market recently, and the Cayin N6ii is their latest offering (which is a successor to the original N6).

The new model ditches the awkward look of the original and settles for a more traditional candybar style. Meanwhile, it also brings in an Android-based UI/UX, offers a properly modular ecosystem with swappable motherboards that change the entire DAC/Amp circuitry along with the available outputs, and bumps the price accordingly because of course.

Cayin was kind enough to send me the N6ii as part of the review tour (courtesy of Andy Kong), and it retails for ~1500 euros here in Germany. There are currently three motherboards available: A01, T01, and E01, with prices ranging from $300–400 or so.

Yeah, that’s quite a steep price of admission, but does the sound quality live up to it? Let’s find out.

N.B. All relevant specs are here. Don’t wanna bore y’all with walls of numbers.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. The Cayin N6ii was sent as part of a review tour kindly organized by Andy Kong. Disclaimer

Price, while reviewed: $1200 (with E02 motherboard)

IEMs/Headphones used: Final E5000/E4000/E3000/E1000, Cayin YB-04, Tin T4, IMR R1 Zenith, MeeAudio Pinnacle P1, Audeze iSine10, Dunu SA6/Zen, Sennheiser IE40 Pro/HD650.

CAYIN N6ii: PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Many seem to demand a premium unboxing experience when it comes to flagship/Top-of-the-Line product, and they do have a fair point: if you are spending a premium, you should expect a special treat. Cayin takes care of that rather well.

The box itself is quite big and heavy and has dense foam-padding inside to protect the device. You get all the necessities: a type-C charging cable, a leatherette case with red stitching (pretty cool in person), a 2.5mm-4.4mm balanced adapter, some plastic screen protectors (not a fan of those myself, looks cheap and gets smudgy after a while) along with a tempered one, and finally loads of paperwork for you to admire.

I can’t seem to think any other major omissions, and while the accessories are not of exceptionally high quality (the tempered glass protector doesn’t cover the entire display) they do the job just fine.
4/5

BUILD QUALITY

For such a high price tag, you expect impeccable build and fortunately Cayin delivers, for the most part. The whole device feels very dense, premium, *enter words synonymous to luxury*. Both the front and back of the device is covered by tempered glass (not the premium Corning Glass, which is a bummer) and this ensures RF transparency. Unfortunately, I found the applied oleophobic coating to be inadequate as the device started to get smudgy real quick without the screen protector, which you should be using anyways due to the top display being slightly curved and lifted off of the side-rails (thus making it more vulnerable to face-down drops).

At this point, I should mention that the sand-blasted finish that Cayin opted for is absolutely awesome. It feels great in the hand and adds some character to the otherwise (subjectively) boring design.

On the right side you get all the buttons: a circular volume dial flanked by ridges to avoid accidental activation (which doesn’t work well, as we shall see soon), and it also doubles as a lock/power switch (activated via pressing inwards).

Then, you get the row of forward/play-pause/backward buttons. On the left side, you get the solitary micro-SD slot. I can already hear groans of those who prefer two SD card slots, so tough luck mates. The bottom of the device houses the type-C (thankfully!) port and the I2S (Inter-IC Sound) port, which is rarely seen on DAPs. This can be very handy if you intend to use the Cayin N6ii as a transport, as I2S doesn’t suffer from jitter issues that plague optical outputs. More info on I2S here.

One thing to note on the back is the two Torx T5 screws on the top left/right corners. These can be taken out to pull the motherboard out of the device (by pressing against the small ridge). Do make sure to turn the device off before doing so to avoid possible bricking/other issues.

Finally, we get to the top — and here are all those nifty output jacks, or jack if you are using the E01 motherboard (spoiler: my favorite one of the bunch).
While I like the overall build quality and port selections, I have a few qualms with overall attention to detail, which you expect in such a flagship. The bezels around the display, for one, are asymmetric, and it triggers my OCD right away.

Then there is the motherboard swapping mechanism. It is not the most user-friendly as the motherboard doesn’t slide on any rails and it’s basically very stiff overall. The T01 motherboard can be easily removed via attaching a headphone jack and then pulling against the jack itself, but the E01 motherboard doesn’t offer such hack and you have to struggle to get it out. This stiffness somewhat mars the otherwise excellently executed modularity aspect of the device. Perhaps a spring-loaded/assisted mechanism could have had helped here, but obviously that would make the inner design more complicated.
4.5/5

DISPLAY

The display at 4.2″ and 1280*768 pixels won’t blow you away if you are using a mid-range smartphone, but considering the DAPs of yesteryear this is a major improvement. It’s IPS, got decent viewing angles, has very good sunlight legibility and also has a pretty dim minimum brightness as to not blind you while using in the dark. The pixel density of 355ppi is enough for most I’d say (it’s above what Apple used to tout as Retina for those keeping count) and while the colors seem a bit washed out — this is a marked improvement. There is a small circular dot beneath the display that acts as a home-button/back key combo of sorts. It also houses a white LED that breathes while charging.

My biggest peeve here: those bezels on the side. It irks me every time I notice them in the daylight. Perhaps I’m too used to the ever-shrinking bezels of the smartphones, but I still think the DAP manufacturers can use better screens on their flagships products, esp AMOLED displays might provide some benefit with battery life as long as dark mode is used throughout.
4/5

HANDLING

At ~290gm, the Cayin N6ii will make its presence known — be it in your pocket or in the palms of your hand. The smaller footprint (compared to most smartphones nowadays) somewhat helps in handling, though it is counterbalanced by the 22mm thickness which reminds me of the good ol’ Nokia phones.

That thickness is required it seems with the modular motherboards and everything, so I won’t be too picky about that. There are other bones to pick, as it stands, with the prime culprit being those playback control button cluster on the right side. They are too trigger-happy and gets pressed randomly (esp when inside the case). Due to the weight of the device, you may often put pressure on the buttons during general handling and as a result it becomes rather annoying.

Fortunately, you can turn them off when the device is locked via Settings (Settings -> Lockscreen Button Settings -> Play/next/prev -> Turn off). This, however, is a poor solution since one of the reasons why many enjoy using their DAPs is that button trio.

Another issue is the volume wheel that scrolls often when, again, trying to pull them out of the pocket. They are fine while using the device in hand. However, I have turned off both these buttons while the device is locked to preserve my sanity. At least the buttons are clicky with good feedback and the volume wheel has satisfyingly crisp steps.

Finally, the positioning of the headphone out. Putting it on top means that the wire adds extra strain on the port while handling the device, and also a readjustment of grip is mandatory every time you pull it out of the pocket. Minor issue, but these niggles add over time.
3.5/5

UI/RESPONSIVENESS

Welcome to Android, everyone! Which means, welcome to all its flexibility, functions and the pain-points it brings along. Cayin is using Android 8.1 which would be unacceptable on any phone in 2020 but since it’s a DAP — all is well. /s

First up: boot times. It takes about 22 seconds to go from cold boot to fully mounting the SD card and being ready to go. This is not too bad by any means given there is a paltry Snapdragon 425 CPU here along with 4GB of RAM (my LG G7 for example takes ~15s to boot up, running an SD845). This, however, doesn’t bode well to those who prefer to turn the DAP off when not using it and turning it on again to conserve battery. This is part of the trade-off of running Android though and one I guess many won’t mind.

Next up: navigation, and this is where I encountered the first hurdle. Cayin apparently wants you to go with “one-button navigation” with the small circle at the bottom acting as a home/back button combo. A short press takes you back one level, and a long press takes you back home.

Simple, innit?

Not really.

Because to go into multitasking view, guess what, you have to swipe up from the bottom edge. This inconsistency leads to a somewhat jarring experience for those who’ve been using Android for a while with the traditional navigational cluster. The button is also placed awkwardly around the bottom edge of the front with a large blank space between itself and the display and that definitely spoils the aesthetic somewhat.

Fortunately Cayin allowed full access to Google Play Store services by default (unlike certain other manufacturers) and it works as expected. I could easily log in to my Google account, install Tidal and call it a day. It also comes with HiBy Music preinstalled which many seem to prefer. And that’s about it. No bloatware (though that odd browser named Via is a potential candidate) and mostly stock-ish build of Android apart from some curious omissions (no search function in Settings, for example).

The overall operation is mostly smooth, but issues crop up every now and then. Despite having such large amount of RAM, apps often disappear/relaunch due to aggressive background task management (likely employed to conserve battery, still a giant pain). Initially there were a lot of bugs in the SW but Cayin has ironed out most of the kinks over time via OTA firmware upgrades. I really wish Cayin used a better processor instead of the SD425 though, something like SD636 would have increased the overall fluidity many folds.
4/5

CONNECTIVITY

You get the much needed Wi-FI (dual-band ac, of course) and Bluetooth (sadly of the 4.2 variety and not 5.0). Reception is decent, and BT range is satisfactory and supports LDAC. There’s type-C and S/PDIF and the aforementioned I2S. All bases are covered and unless you really need 4G/cellular support for some reason this is kind of as complete as it gets (barring BT 5.0).
4.5/5

BATTERY LIFE

Prima facie, one would expect N6 II to have great battery life given the mammoth ~6000mAh battery. That’s almost twice as much as most smartphones and, on paper, should see you throw at least half a week.

Reality is different, sadly. First up, the standby batter drain is quite odd as the phone seemingly drains battery even when turned off. Secondly, during regular operation, depending on the motherboard, the battery can go flat within 6–7 hrs of playback.

If you want the best battery life, you gotta stick to the A01 motherboard as both the (sonically superior, IMO) T01 and E01 motherboards suck the juice faster than a honey-bee. Typically you should last around 3 days on a charge if you listen to music/stream them online via Tidal/Spotify on the A01. The T01 is the worst of the bunch from my experience, with the older design chipset being a total power-hog and I had to run to the charger barely a day and half later. The E01 fared slightly better and you might get an additional hour of playback’s worth, but even then it’s mostly around the 7–8 hours of playback mark.

The battery also takes quite a while to charge due to the massive capacity. It apparently supports Quick Charge 3.0 as per Cayin, but AFAIK the SD425 supported only QC 2.0. Either way, there is some form of Quick Charging so I can’t complain, albeit it still takes ages to get to 100% and something akin to Xiaomi or Oppo/OnePlus’ ultra-fast charging tech would likely be needed in similar future products.

Granted, the E01 is running a desktop DAC chip (ESS 9038Pro) and also operating in discrete class-A (switching to the A/B mode improves battery life by a further hour and half or so). Still, that doesn’t explain the standby battery drain and overall poor standby power management. For such a massive battery, this is a disappointing performer.
3/5

AMP MODULES

We gotta talk about them amp modules.

The A01 is running the AK4497EQ chipset, the T01 is using a dual PCM1792A (similar to the original N6) and the E01 has the highest specced DAC-chip of them all: the ESS9038Pro.

Each module comes with a T5 screwdriver to help in unmounting the old motherboard and installing the new one. The motherboard themselves only go in one way, so no option to mess up the direction. They use a connector that’s eerily similar to the Mini PCI-E connectors of the old.

Each motherboard also comes with their own set of output array and reconstruction filter settings. The T01, running the oldest chipset, has the least amount of reconstruction filter options, while the E01 has too many of them to keep count of. A01 is in somewhat the middle of the road in terms of options. The E01 lacks balanced out, while both the A01 and T01 has a 4.4mm balanced out (that has more output power and apparently better “separation”, though I couldn’t quite hear any improvement on that regard).

I initially decided not to try and describe the “sound” of each motherboard because frankly, it’s quite impossible (for me at least) to “remember” the sonic characteristics of each of them as just swapping the motherboard itself takes at least a few minutes. Auditory memory is hardly reliable and thus I decided to go with the highest specced and seemingly “best sounding” motherboard — the E01. Even then, I’d try to rummage through some notes I made about each motherboard.

A01 IMPRESSIONS

A01 didn’t sound anything special, frankly, so it was out after 10 minutes or so. It was too warm and colored sounding to my ears. Some may like it with specific IEM/headphone pairings (e.g. bright ones) but in general I found it to be the weakest offering among the three motherboards.

T01 IMPRESSIONS

T01 had the most dynamic presentation and definitely has a very fun signature. The coloration here is akin to the ones A&K players have: north of neutral yet tastefully done. The balanced out also has a lot of power in tow. Staging is widest with this motherboard as well (from memory, take with some salt). However, this motherboard is very power hungry, esp from the balanced out.

E01 IMPRESSIONS

E01 had the “smoothest” signature of them all, and I love myself some class-A goodness. It’s also got a bit of warmth to the overall signature but doesn’t veer too far off of neutrality and pairs well with any IEM. The power is lower than the T01 in terms of absolute volume but frankly it drives most headphones and IEMs excellently (barring those pesky inefficient planars). The E01 also sounds different between class-A and class-A/B mode. The A/B mode had a bit more dynamism but didn’t sound as tone-neutral as the class-A mode and also sounded a bit edgier in the treble region to my ears.

For the rest of the review, I will mostly describe the sound with the E01 motherboard as it is the one I liked the most and given the short tour period, the only one I could assess in a long-term nature.

SOUND SIGNATURE ANALYSIS

Motherboard used: E01
Filter used: Apodizing
Gain: High

Most of the critical listening was done with the HD650.

The first thing you notice with these is the lack of hiss. Even with my most sensitive IEM (JVC FX700) I could barely hear a very faint white noise when pushing the volume up very high. Job well done, Cayin, though for that price — it better be well done!

Next up is the quality of the mid-range rendition. I am very particular about vocals and Cayin doesn’t disappoint. No oddities in the vocal texture/breathing and everything sounds as it should, though there is a certain emphasis on the mid-range that’s difficult to miss. Instrument separation is good, but doesn’t stand out like certain desktop setups. The best thing about its sound though is how addictive it gets with the E01 motherboard after a while. It’s also not too revealing of poorly mastered tracks, which might or might not be a good thing depending on your preference and associated gears.

Frankly, if you are going by measurements alone, the Cayin N6ii gets trounced by the likes of iBasso DX160. However, that player doesn’t quite sound as enjoyable as the N6ii does with the E01/T01 motherboard. Dynamics are on a different level on the Cayin and I believe that’s what Cayin focused the most on while tuning this one.

Despite all this, you might feel disappointed with the lack of good PEQ support, or lack of any DSP effects like JetEffects (Cowon got that one absolutely nailed down). If you want to change the sonic profile, aside from swapping out the entire motherboard you’re straight outta luck, and that’s a massive bummer. Changing filters help, but lack of DSP options that competition offers is a slight letdown.
4.5/5

AMP PERFORMANCE

The amp performance varies depending upon which motherboard you install.

And then it also depends on the app you’re using. Talk about oddities.

On the stock music player, the amp seems to have a higher/full gain, while on other apps like Tidal/YT Music the amp gain is reduced. I don’t know why this behavior is there as apparently Cayin bypasses the resampling of stock Android audio pipeline via something they call Direct Transport Audio (DTA). Nonetheless, it’s yet another peculiarity to add to the growing list.

The volume scale is out of 100, which is good. I don’t get the point of 120/140 volume steps for the most part, so kudos Cayin. Using the HD650, on the stock player, I need about 62/100 to get to good listening volumes. This value reaches to ~72 on Tidal/YT Music. On the Final E5000, I need ~45 on the stock player, while ~55 steps seem to take care of it in Tidal. It’s quite annoying really to have to switch volumes the moment you switch apps and something I hope Cayin sorts out in a future FW upgrade.

If you need more power, the balanced output on A01/T01 will cater you better, even though those as well fall short of driving power-hungry planars perfectly. Stuff like HE4XX will run just fine, but more inefficient planar designs won’t reach their full potential. For such a portable device, however, I guess I can’t really complain with the power output here. It’s not exceptional, but it’s plenty for the most part.
4/5

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Questyle QP1R (discontinued): The QP1R is my personal go-to DAP for daily use, and is one of the few DAPs with class-A amplification built-in. It uses an older chipset, however, being almost four years old. I personally like the design on the QP1R more, and there are reasons for that. The volume knob is nearly impossible to activate accidentally, and it’s build even better than the Cayin N6ii in a sense with the Gorilla glass panels on the back and front (instead of regular tempered glass on the Cayin) being “embossed” into the aluminium casing itself. However, the navigation and overall operation is archaic and cumbersome compared to the far more modern N6ii. It also lacks the Balanced output (A01) and A/B amplification mode switching (E01) of the Cayin DAP, along with the modularity aspect.

In terms of sound, the E01 motherboard has more output power than the QP1R, though it’s not as huge a difference as it shows on the specs. Both can drive low sensitivity IEMs or high impedance headphones like the HD650 to satisfying volumes and plenty of bass punch. What they can’t do, however, is deal with inefficient planars, at least not that well. Sound signature is largely similar on them, and the slight differences I noticed at times may be attributed to the slightly higher output impedance on the Cayin N6ii (0.15ohm vs 0.6ohm). Sonically, both are very similar when volume matched in class-A. In A/B mode the Cayin has more energetic albeit a tad unrefined signature, so it’s the class-A mode that I cared about.

In short, the Cayin N6ii seems like a natural upgrade to the Questyle QP1R. As Questyle has stuck with their awkward-at-best navigation system even on the latest QPM, the Cayin N6ii will offer a viable upgrade path to those who want to use streaming services without losing the sound quality of the Questyle player(s).

vs A&K KANN Alpha ($1000): The A&K KANN Alpha is a very interesting A&K offering in the sense that it doesn’t cost “as much” as their other premium DAPs and manages to sound nearly as good as those higher-tier offerings. A&K offers an unique coloration (their house sound) which is more of a love/hate thing. I personally love that particular take on sound and the KANN Alpha is indeed one of my most favorite DAPs in the price range.

In terms of build quality, both are excellent. UI/Responsiveness goes to Cayin N6ii though as the Kann Alpha can be a bit of a pain to use. Handling is awkward with both of these DAPs due to their sheer weight and size. Battery life is better on the Kann Alpha, however.

As for the sound, the Cayin N6ii+E01 is a more balanced, neutral presentation compared to the larger-than-life presentation that the KANN Alpha offers. Staging is wider on the KANN Alpha and the background details are slightly pushed forward. Dynamics are similar on both. Where the Cayin N6ii wins is the bass texture and midrange rendition. Vocals on the N6ii are an absolute treat. Treble was also extremely natural on the Cayin N6ii where coloration was more evident on the Kann Alpha. Output power is also higher on the KANN Alpha and if you want to drive full size cans the KANN Alpha is a better option. I did find the N6ii to have slightly better layering with the E01 motherboard.

Overall, I like both of these DAPs and find the Cayin N6ii + E01 combo more of a compliment to the A&K KANN Alpha than a competitor. The T01 module is another story though and given the overall increase in battery life I prefer the KANN Alpha to the Cayin N6ii + T01 combo. Do keep in mind that the modularity of the N6ii ensures that you can try different motherboards for different pairings, something the KANN Alpha doesn’t offer (you need to go for the A&K Futura SE180).

vs Lotoo PAW 6000 ($1500): The Lotoo player is positioned differently from the Cayin N6ii. It doesn’t have a smart OS, it doesn’t have swappable motherboards, and it doesn’t have as much output power as the Cayin player. it does, however, have much faster boot times, better battery life/handling, and a near-reference presentation. The way the Lotoo PAW 6000 delivers bass notes is something unique to it: rich, full of texture, and every subtlety can be felt (given a suitable headphone/earphone of course). Staging is also wider on the LP6K and its ability to portray micro-details is simply unmatched in the price class. Moreover, the DSP effects and PEQ options are very handy.

The Cayin N6ii on the other hand goes for a more relaxed presentation (with E01) and pairs better with brighter IEMs/heapdhones than the Lotoo PAW 6000. Microdynamics are also slightly better on the N6ii though these are marginal, negligible differences.

It’s hard to pick one for me since I like both of these DAPs. If offline playback is what you do mostly I’d probably pick the Lotoo PAW 6000 since it’s focused solely towards music playback with no smartphone-like distractions. For the streamers out there, N6ii with E01/E02/T01 can be more appealing. In terms of sheer sound quality though, you won’t go wrong with either.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In the end, the Cayin N6ii faces all the trials and tribulations any flagship device faces, and is accursed by the fruitless exercise of chasing perfection. So, Cayin focused on the sound tuning, and while this is not a benchmark champ, I can’t quite find any faults with it sound signature, no matter which IEM/Headphone I throw at it. Barring a few notoriously difficult to drive headphones — this will make your gears sound as well as they are capable of with more than enough volume. The switchable motherboards also bring lots of possibilities. Not to mention: the stellar build quality. This is definitely one of the best sounding players out there under the $1500 mark.

While I can’t fault N6ii in the sound and build department, the rest of it is rather bland. The design is mundane and with the asymmetrical bezels and home button placement this is far from a trend-setter. Some may scoff at just one microSD slot (though 500GB+ SD cards are available), while others like me might have issues with the trigger-happy playback button cluster/headphone out location.

The biggest issue might arise with the battery and the OS though. Also, using a rather old 28nm(!) node obviously doesn’t help with power management. A much newer SoC e.g. SD636 would not only have made the DAP much faster while operating, but also have cut down the power draw by quite a margin.

Despite all the caveats, I crave for the N6ii. It doesn’t check all the boxes, but it checks the most important one — sound quality.

The Cayin N6ii will likely suit them who are willing to pay the price for one of the best sounding portable devices out there. The competition is stiff, but given the overall sound quality and flexibility on offer, it’s hard to go wrong with the Cayin N6ii (with E01 motherboard, for me).

MY VERDICT

4.25/5

Recommended with the E01/T01 motherboards

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

Get it from Musicteck

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

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

The post Cayin N6ii with E01/T01/A01 Motherboards – A Comprehensive Review appeared first on Audio Reviews.

At-a-glance Card

Do I need a DAP?

Audio life after owning an Apogee Groove becomes a bit more complicated in a sense. Do I want to go back to lower quality output, even in exchange for better portability, or more collateral features?

The question actually admits more answers than it might seem at first tought, in consideration of what one really wants or needs.

In my specific case I don’t commute on my way to/from work for one. Also, I currently suspended all business travel due the pandemic and it will take quite longtime before I resume that. My job doesn’t allow me to listen to music while working. For all these reasons I’m sharply inclined to get the real best audio quality out of the always-too-short-time I can dedicate to music listening, which most frequently happens in a quite, controlled space such as at home, in the evenings, or at work, during lunchbreak, or few other instances.

So in short: while at home Apogee Groove it is. What else? If something, I might need to add a desktop amp to that but that’s another story. But no need for a DAP at home, really.

How about on the go?

Well… Apogee Groove is a relatively power-demanding battery-less dac-amp, a “fat dongle” I might call it, and as such a still quite compact and lightweight thing. So option #1 for mobile use is… still the Groove! Wherever my laptop can follow me, that’s a very viable option, the main one really.

How about something actually pocketable? Like a DAP, in facts.

I used to own an Hiby R5 but that’s not an option anymore. Don’t take me wrong, I still believe R5 is worth its money as a complete device – mostly due to its huge feature set, connectivity, etc, all at a reasonably moderate price. It’s just me: simply put, I grew past it. Sound quality off the Groove is just so uncomparably better I just can’t listen to something so obviously less clean, resolved, detailed, and musical anymore.

So I sold the R5. The guy who grabbed it from ebay scored a good deal, I tell ya.

And before you ask: no, I still do prefer not to use my phone as an all-in-one device. I use the smartphone as a phone and an internet device and I prefer to keep it as is. Also, I don’t really care about Tidal or other subscription based music streaming service, as most of the music I like is not there anyway, which takes away a very solid reason to a smartphone being directly or indirectly involved in the game. I’m not there, no.

It needs to be a(nother) DAP.

Not the tinyest, I don’t care about ultra-pocketablity – I’m a couch potato, I don’t go jogging or gymming anyway.

Not the widest connected either – see above.

It “just” needs to sound superbly well while playing lossless hires “stuff” from local TF cards. For as little as it seems, this is not easy – if the minimum reference is a Groove. As a matter of facts I auditioned quite a few mainstream brand (Hiby, Shanling, Fiio) models in the sub-€1000 arena. Nothing good for my “new” tastes there.

Then I followed a friend’s rec, and I eyed a recently discontinued model by a chinese manufacturer of higher-end equipment: Questyle. After some watching around I eventually landed a good deal on a pre-loved QP1R unit, a model originally released back in 2015. A very well cared-of sample in spite of its 4 years of age… and here I am.

What the … !

It takes 10 seconds listen to determine that sound-wise QP1R runs circles around all other “chifi” DAPs I ever tried. Double-circles, actually, around my previous R5.

For almost everything else – usability, connectivity, features – instead, the exact opposite is the case. But let’s keep this for later.

Sound reconstruction superiority vs low and mid-tier chifi DAPs is so huge that comparing QP1R to them seems by and large inappropriate, useless and misleading. The difference in terms of clarity, detail, stage, imaging is gigantic. QP1R’s DAC belongs to a totally different quality league, period.

From the DAC performance standpoint, the cheapest DAP device I auditioned which I can honestly call comparable to QP1R is Lotoo Paw 6000. A much cheaper one – Sony NW-A55, upgraded with Mr Walkman’s firmware – is not playing in the same ballpark with QP1R, yet solidly in the one just below. All other “usual suspects” fall instead into the just-forget-about-this category, in comparison.

Taking DAC-AMP devices in considerations, I’d say QP1R comes accross almost as clean and similarly musical compared to Apogee Groove, which still has the lead in terms of spatial drawing though.

QP1R is also detailing approximately at Chord Mojo level. Another similarity vs Mojo is on tonality, which is warm-ish.

QP1R sound is clean, impactful, detailed but most of all unbelievably dynamic. Amongst all its numerous positive sound features micro dynamism is no doubt QP1R’s most stunning and possibly unique point. After auditioning devices 5 times its historical list price I still have to find something “really” superior on that aspect.

“Musicality” is also a very evident feature of QP1R voicing, and that’s an effect that comes out even a tad more evident than from the Groove, and that’s saying something.

QP1R reconstruction filter’s ringing envelope is quite elongated after the pulse. That’s the origin for its mellow timbre.

Someone labelled that “analogue”, which in lack of more precise wordage I feel can give a good hint into what I’m trying to convey. Going back to Mojo, that is by comparison edgier – not sharply and offensive overall, it never is, I’m just saying relative to QP1R or Groove – thus offering a “higher detailing sensation”.

Also, Mojo’s very special ability on closing the sound level gap between front and back sound lines by comparison makes the latter on QP1R come through as less loud and therefore detailed. This is Mojo’s kinda unique specialty though, not the other way around.

In terms of spatiality QP1R is I’d say on par with the Mojo, which is good, miles better than more ordinary devices,  although still quite a pretty step south of Groove’s totally special capacity to render the impalpable sensation of the actual stage size. I’ll have to live with that I’m afraid.

Current Mode Amplification

What I described until now is mainly QP1R’s capabilities as a DAC.

Oh by the way: a very nice feat is also QP1R’s line out option. By just connecting a 3.5mm cable into it the device automatically switches into Line Out mode (1.9V RMS), no need to click/tap any options in the GUI – very handy! Also, the port itself is a multi-mode port: it accepts both copper and optical connections, depending on the adapter which is being used.

Coming to the headphone output option, QP1R only offers single-ended connectivity. Its superior quality nudges me to give justice to those more expert than me who noted “you’ll find balanced output better than single ended only until you’ll start attaining higher-tier devices, where single ended output is implemented competently enough in the first place”.  Balanced topology, in other words, is often adopted on mobile and/or budget-tier devices to partially overcome some structural limitations, so to say, and it becomes way less important once you build the foundation better from day one.

Fact is: QP1R 3.5mm phone out sounds lovely. Clean and transparent in respect to what its internal DAC module is offering, and superbly competent in coping even with the most capricious IEMs on the opposite end.

Of course by sound cleanness I’m not referring to lack of audible background noise, which is kind of obvious and after all quite common, even on lower tier devices. Clean sound decodes into QP1R’s ability to pass the whopping soundstage expansion and spectacular separation and imaging which the DAC module is capable of along to the drivers, unharmed. 

This is certainly due to its well engineered class-A amp module, adopting Questyle’s own proprietary (and patented) technology called Current Mode Amplification. A description can be found here: https://www.questyle.com/en/technology. It’s an interesting read, I do recommend you take it.

These are the official specs:

Output Impedance: 0.15 Ω

Apart for the very low Output Impedance, which is of course a major plus when dealing with IEMs, these output power figures appear nothing less than “ridiculous” (8,8mW on a 32Ω load??) compared to those of many low end daps, and of some phones too.

Nothing could be more misleading. I frequently rotate a total of 7 different IEMs on QP1R and the sole one which hints me to choose Mid gain is – you guessed it – final E5000. All the others are perfectly & fully dynamically driven by Low gain.

As too few people still know, an amp’s cability is not even remotely completely described by its “(milli) Watts” power figure. I won’t write a treaty here. Long story short: headphones (all of them) require current to make their transducers vibrate and produce sound. High impedance drivers require relatively little current, but higher voltages to work best. Low (sub 32 Ohm) impedance drivers – like those inside IEMs – require more current in comparison and they must be applied very low voltages to work best (or at all!). QP1R’s Continuous Current Drive technology is designed to deliver the right “form” of amplification to the various different drivers, with particular regards to low impedance ones.

While I’m at it, High Gain is the least desireable option on QP1R: dynamic range is perceivably contracted there, so it’s good that it turns out not to be vital to exploit it, at least for my selected drivers’ range. Luckily, I encountered no IEM (yes, planars included) really requiring High Gain from QP1R.

Everything else

All of the above said about sound, QP1R is – simply put – the antithesis of modernity and convenience in terms of connectivity, features and ergonomics. On all these counts, it’s actually a fossil if there’s one, let’s say it clearly.

Connectivity:

• No Wifi: so forget OTA upgrades, DLNA access to servers, Tidal, Qobuz etc
• Outdated BT, and exclusively dedicated to TWS driver connectivity
• USB DAC-IN available: QP1R can be connected to a USB host and be used as an external DAC-AMP
• No digital output (not even USB DAC-OUT) available
• No analog input available
• 3.5mm single ended phone output
• 3.5mm multi-mode (Coax/Toslink) line out

Storage

• Internal memory. Capacity depends on model release. My unit has 32GB available. USB connection to a PC is required to read/write files on that partition, at an incredibly sluggish, turtle-level speed, too.
• Dual TF card. Officially supporting 128GB cards, I could successfully use 512GB cards though. Database reconstruction after card swap is quite fast, at least that.

UI / UX and sw features

• Calling it primitive is making a big and honeestly undeserved compliment.
• No touch screen
• An infuriatingly badly engineered scrollwheel (where’s my iPod1?)
• A totally buggy visual battery charge indicator (even on latest firmware)
• Very limited Graphical EQ capabilities, and not well working either
• No Parametric EQ nor any other sound shaping features

Battery

• Dramatically undersized
• No more than 8 hours autonomy (with a brand-new battery…)
• A short sleep timeout setting is recommended, as the Class-A amp will equally consume juice while playing or not…

Conclusions

QP1R sounds unbelievably good. I extended the most sincere thanks to the friend who recommended it to me. He anticipated I would find it good, indeed I found it much more than good.

QP1R sound is nothing short than gorgeous. It’s clean, detailed, extended, musical. It also features a quite unique “analogue” timbre. In terms of amping it supports all low or moderate impedance loads I tried on it with the sole exception of my Shure SRH1540 – which are a bad client per se honestly.

Stunning sound quality apart, as I mentioned above pretty much all the rest … requires a lot of patience! QP1R is a sort of dinosaur, pretty much that.

I was looking for a no-compromise, higher-end-sounding DAP at a still reasonably affordable price, and that’s what I got. QP1R delivers that, only that, and I’m totally fine with it.

Disclaimer

Bought it myself.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Questyle QP1R – Welcome In! appeared first on Audio Reviews.

I did take my sweet time on this one as I’m particularly sensible to the topic. If one thing I learnt of this hobby is that source quality comes ages before drivers quality. I won’t anticipate the conclusions but in a nutshell Micro iDSD Signature is a remarkable player, sporting some great and even some unique features.

At-a-glance card

Physical endowment

Infrastructure

The device is easily transportable, but nowhere near to pocketable. Not really eligible if you are looking for a walker. Good as a sitter though.

Battery

Micro iDSD Signature exclusively works from its internal battery, it never gets power from the USB VBUS bit.

This is good from the sound performances standpoint as while playing it relies solely on local battery generated power which is apriori less electrically dirty compared to the power coming from an uncontrolled host, or from a budget power supply unit.

On the other hand this means Micro iDSD Signature needs to be charged, and this happens from a separate USB port, a USB-C one.

The battery charging circuit is compatible with quick chargers and protected vs excessive voltage. Based on a direct interview I had with iFi tech people the maximum exploited charging amperage is 1.5A – whatever above that will not harm the unit, but will be wasted.

Next to the USB-C port dedicated to battery charging there is a tiny color-phased led: that is the sole visual indication informing us about the battery charge level.

Battery capacity is above decent. iFi declares circa 12h on Eco mode, 9h on Normal mode depending on load and volume of course. My experience matches such values, give or take.

Lastly, micro iDSD Signature has no “sleep” feature: if you leave it on while not playing batteries will go on discharging.

Inputs

Micro iDSD Signature has no analog input. So unlike its predecessor Micro iDSD Black Label it can not be used as a standalone amplifier. Which is a pity, as the amp section is not bad at all as you’ll read later.

Two digital input are available: USB and S/PDIF.

The S/PDIF port accepts either 3.5mm coax or Tosink optical connections (a Toslink mini-plug adapter is supplied), but exclusively supports PCM only up to 192KHz sample rates.

The USB port is iFi’s “usual” recessed-USB-A-male connector (same as on Nano iDSD BL, Hip Dac, etc). Depending on firmware, up to PCM 768KHz / DSD512, in addition to MQA, are supported through this channel.

As mentioned above, the USB-A port is for data only and no power charging happens from this end. Which is good, as VBUS is usually a major source of electrical noise and therefore distortion.

The bad news though is that Micro iDSD Signature includes only limited, anyhow insufficient, “USB filtering” features. And it shows.

Ifi’s description talks about an “intelligent memory buffer” relying on a high precision internal clock. The presence of a (legacy) iPurifier circuitry inside is also in the specs. That said, I tested Micro iDSD Signature both natively plugged onto my PC and plugged through my Nano iUSB3.0 conditioner – and the output quality difference is significant. USB dejitter inside Micro iDSD Signature is sadly not something to write home about and this is bad when looking at its DAC module quality (more on this later) which does deserve a much better effort on this front.

My assessment has been conducted using Nano iUSB3.0 upstream. For your curiosity, here you can find some info on Nano iUSB3.0 and the general digital stream conditioning topic.

Outputs

Micro iDSD Signature offers both 6.3mm and 4.4mm phone analog output, and 2xRCA line output.

The Line output works on fixed parameters: > 2V voltage, < 240 Ohm impedance, > 117dB (A) are the key declared values.

Phone outputs come with some very interesting modulation features such as the option to select 3 different amplification power levels (labelled Eco, Normal and Turbo mode), and engaging a built-in iEMatch circuit. Much more on these down below, in the Amp module section.

Very appealing is also the adoption of a full-analog volume control, technologically offering better quality compared to a (cheaper) digital volume modulation option.

Finally, Micro iDSD Signature offers 2 switchable sound shaping options called XBass+ and 3D+, which I again I will cover in better detail later below.

Power mode selection, iEMatch circuit, Xbass+ and 3D+ only apply to headphone outputs. All of these are totally uneffective on Line output.

Differently to what happens on most similar devices, Micro iDSD Signature provide exactly the same power levels either on its 6.3mm or on its 4.4mm phone out ports.

This is evidently not unrelated to the fact that both ports are actually linked to the same “S-Balanced” internal circuit.

I’m a strong supporter of the S-Balanced concept. So much so that I think iFi should dedicate more attention to it and better “close the loop” in terms of offering their users all the tools needed to fully exploit their technology. Let me explain.

For how hard I tried, I never found a 6.3 TRRS M connector available for purchase. Nor I would know where to buy a 4.4mm TRRS M to 3.5mm TRS F adapter, for that matter. iFi themselves do not offer any of such adapters on their options catalogue – and this is really odd to say the least.

Long story short, while and right because I understand the value of the S-Balanced option included on iFi Nano iDSD Black Label much better – where no 4.4mm nor 2.5mm native-balanced port is available – in the Micro iDSD Signature case I think no user possibly can take advantage of the connectivity flexibility opportunity, which will rest as an unexploited value.

So in daily practice the user will expoit Micro iDSD Signature’s balanced-ended and single-ended phone outputs “the old way”, “as if” they were a single-ended-only port (6.3) and a balanced-ended-only port (4.4).

Unlike what happens on most competition the user will get equal power from either port, and very similar cleannes too (the S-Balanced circuit behind Micro iDSD Signature’s 6.3 port will deliver uncommonly low crosstalk to single-ended loads as per design – you did read the whitepaper didnt you?).

The DAC module

Firmware options

Like most if not all other iFi DAC devices, Micro iDSD Signature can run a range of firmware variants, each offering specific features or optimisations. I find iFi’s approach of leaving the user free to choose amongst such different options a very welcome added value.

Firmware packages and the apps required to flash them are freely available on iFi’s web site, here.  The flashing process is really easy and straightforward, at least on Windows platform (did not try on Mac).

The 3 significant versions to choose from for Micro iDSD Signature are:

I’m not much into DSD (I’ll explain why in a later article maybe) and I don’t de facto currently own nor plan to own music files sampled above 192KHz, so the two options which get my attention are 7.0 and 7.0c.

Their fundamental difference is one only but a significant one at that: with 7.0c iFi’s own GTO (Gibbs Transient Optimised) filter replaces Burr Brown’s native reconstruction filters.

I strongly recommend you read iFi’s whitepaper about why and how this may be technically desireable, or not.

Did you read the paper? C’mon do it! Seriously…

As you’ve seen the paper focuses on throughly illustrating GTO’s output features while leaving another important aspect in the background: with 7.0c Micro iDSD Signature will systematically upsample all digital input coming from the USB port up to 32 bit / 384KHz resolution prior to feeding the DAC chips. For what I seem to have understood this is fundamentally required for the GTO filter itself to work as intended.

It’s at this point worth noting (or remembering, for those who follow my articles) that I already experienced iFi’s GTO implementation in conjunction with Micro iDSD Signature’s smaller sibling, the Nano iDSD Black Label.

My full take on that is here, but in short: on Nano iDSD BL the GTO option “sounds worse” than the native ones – for my tastes at least. My suspect is in that case the upsampling effort ended up not adequately turned into higher sound quality delivery due to inherent dac bandwidth limitations.

DAC performances

Micro iDSD Signature on firmware 7.0 offers very nice DAC performances.

Range is superbly extended, sub-bass is fully and correctly rendered, bass is bodied and especially phenomenally controlled, mids are present without exaggerations and trebles are powerful and vivid.

Particularly significant are cleanness, note separation, imaging and layering.

Directly compared to my reference DAC which is Apogee Groove (my take here), Micro iDSD Signature on firmware 7.0 has a deeper lowend extension on one side, a less extended treble span on the opposite side. Tonally it comes accross even more controlled than Groove on the bass (up to delivering a “leaner” flavour there), very similar on the mids and trebles. Draws on 3D space very, very well, although still not precisely at Groove level. On space rendering alone, Micro iDSD Signature is the single DAC that comes closer to Groove that I heard as of yet, and that’s saying quite something.

A very evident feature of Micro iDSD Signature DAC which is worth underlining is tight transients.

The “Bit Perfect” option is very tight. All notes are snappy, razor cut. Switching onto Minimum Phase or Standard transients get a tad more relaxed, less “dry”, yet the general impact stays way into “analythical” territory, especially when compared to a more “musical” alternative e.g. Apogee Groove.

In terms of transients rendering Micro iDSD Signature is actually more on Chord Mojo ballpark – for those who have experience with that. Mojo stays a bit ahead of Micro iDSD Signature on its unique capacity to close the gap between front and back instruments, however Micro iDSD Signature provides quite evidently better results in terms of extension, lack of coloration, and detail, and seriously beats Mojo on space rendering (which never was Mojo’s specialty, there’s that…).

With firmware 7.0c Micro iDSD Signature will upsample all digital traffic incoming from the USB line prior to passing it to its DAC chips.

While this does not produce any “dramatic” difference when the original samples come at an already high resolution (96, 176 or 192 KHz), an evident improvement is audible when 44.1 or 48KHz material is being supplied, and especially so of course if the track mastering is good.

The improvement is of course mainly on spatial reconstruction, size shaping and imaging.

Pulling back the comparison vs Apogee Groove, firmware 7.0c comes out as a major point of advantage for Micro iDSD Signature. Both DACs show great mastery beyond the 40KHz mark (where most of the information on space, reverberations etc come from) but that only is applicable if there actually is some digital data in that region to be decoded. On native 96KHz++ material the two DACs compete head-to-head. On lower sample rate material Micro iDSD Signature offers a built-in, automatic and very well implemented (!) upsampling option, while Groove has to rely on the same happening on the host (if ever.

Another interesting note: Micro iDSD Signature is very much able to exploit the GTO upsampling and convert it into a tangible benefit to the user when busy with sub-hires music at the very least, while the same does not happen on Nano iDSD Black Label. Why? I don’t know. I suspect this is either because the GTO algorithm is better implemented on fw 7.0c (usable on Micro iDSD Signature) vs fw 5.3c (usable on Nano iDSD BL), or because Nano’s lower-tier DAC section is unable to exploit the opportunity. Or both.

Another very important note to make about GTO is that it renders transients even tighter compared to the already tight Bit Perfect option on non-GTO 7.0 package. And, there’s no escape: when 7.0c is installed only one filter is available – no Minimum Phase or Standard alternatives are attainable. You better like it as is…

And simply put, I don’t. I find it excessive. I do appreciate of course clarity and cleanness, and precise rendering of each note – it’s a matter of “levels”. This is of course totally subjective. I have friends considering GTO’s reconstruction “supremely natural”. I’m afraid I can’t anticipate which one you will prefer.

One dufitul last note: I don’t use MQA, so I did not try / test Micro iDSD Signature’s proficiency on that. Not big loss for you as due to what I just wrote I honestly haven’t got any decent experience / opinion to offer on this topic, other than the trivial comments you can easily find everywhere and don’t certainly need me to paste here.

Summarising: Micro iDSD Signature offers very, very good DAC performances. Imaging and spatial drawing in particular are nothing short of spectacular. GTO firmware offers automatic well-executed upscaling to sub-hires audio tracks. Transients are rendered from quite to very tightly, which more musical-sounding presentation lovers might not like.

The AMP module

As I quickly pointed out up above, Micro iDSD Signature offers some very interesting features when it comes to its internal amp section.

Firstly, its internal S-balanced architecture is equally available on both the 6.3 and 4.4 port, although for the reasons explained above in the real world scenario you can bet the two ports will be used as if the former was single-ended only, and the latter balanced-ended only. Too bad.

Secondly, and obviously related to the previous point, both ports provide the same output power levels – so choosing either is not a matter of power delivery, rather of convenience, and of a little cleaner output (better xtalk value) when a balanced connection is established on either port – so de facto on the 4.4 one for lack of avaialble 6.3 trrs connectivity options.

Finally,  it allows for power level reconfiguration at the click of a switch to optimally supply high impedance cans – requiring as high voltage swings as possible – or low impedance and low sensitivity ones, like planars – requiring little voltage and very intense currents – or even IEMs. Three different “powering levels” are available, selectable with a switch on the device side, and a built-in IEMatch module is also available for added measure.

At the Normal power level – the intermediate one of the three total – Micro iDSD Signature outputs something short of 2W max power (a bit less than 1W RMS @ 32 Ohm) and 5,5V max swing. That’s already great power.

My Shure SRH1540 (46 Ohm 99dB, but much more current hungry than spec facevalues tell) are biased very satisfactorily on Normal level: bass is full while also staying very controlled, trebles are nicely sparkly – within the limits of a treble-polished driver like 1540 of course.

Indeed, switching iEMatch on makes the situation even better as it tames a further bit of the unneeded voltage swing, making bass come out futher controlled and cleaner. A real pleasure to hear. IEMatch High setting is already sufficient in this case, which is consistent with SRH1540 impedance being still significantly higher than IEMatch-H’s 2.5 Ohm output impedance.

Switching Micro iDSD Signature to Turbo is not a good choice for SRH1540 – and that’s perfectly in line with logic too. The effect of excessive voltage swing on a low impedance load like that is similar to a taxing “Super High Gain” option: dynamics get closed-in, range is compressed, highmids get glary and expecially midbass goes too bloomy.

Same situation takes place with Koss KPH30i (60 Ohm 101 dB). Best biasing is obtained from Normal power + IEMatch-High. Eco power makes them sound muddy(er). Turbo power is totally excessive, KPH30i presentation gets unnatural.

As those who follow my articles probably already know, I’m not into high impedance cans, nor into extremely power hungry planars so I won’t comment on how the Turbo option does in those cases. Suffice here to say that Turbo setting promises 10V max and a tad more than 4W max power (1.5W RMS @ 64 Ohm), not peanuts at all for a portable device and many budget desktop ones either!

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I must stand and vigorously clap hands at how iFi solved the IEM equation instead: the combined benefits of the Eco power option and the built-in IEMatch module are nothing short of spectacular.

As all technically aware audiophiles know, IEMs despise high voltage and most times high power altogether. Impedances below 32 ohms – sometimes as low as 8 Ohm or less – like those on IEMs require (require, not simply prefer) low voltage swings, which is the exact opposite of what a voltage modulation amp powerful enough to drive higher impedance headphones is designed for.

When up to driving IEMs the very first thing to do on Micro iDSD Signature is to set the power switch to Eco setting. This makes sure the maximum delivered voltage is limited to 2V, and the maximum power is 500mW on an 8 Ohm load, which is way more than 99.9% of IEMs out there requires.

All of my IEMs are in facts perfectly driven by Micro iDSD Signature, on Eco mode and – on a case by case basis – with IEMatch set to Ultra or High. Same for my final Sonorous-II (16 Ohm 105 dB) which are closedback overears electrically behaving very much like IEMs: the best setup for them is Eco, with IEMatch turned off, although Normal + IEMatch Ultra is also a strong contender.

Micro iDSD Signature already comes with a number of features making some of its IEMatch built-in circuitry redundant, read useless: I’m talking about very low output impedance, support for loads as low as 8 Ohm and a volume pot in the analog-domain. That said, the IEMatch module stays beneficial to 2 main purposes: further reduce output voltage swing, and eliminate sibilance on hyper-sensitive IEMs.

The former of the two benefits is especially intriguing: on a case by case basis some drivers do sound better under Eco power other sound better under Normal power with IEMatch Ultra switched on on top. And for some others… it’s hard to tell – e.g. final Sonorous-II, Tanchjim Darling, final E5000.

Mind you: from a purely technological standpoint the topic is arguable upon to say the least. Post-attenuation does come with benefits and drawbacks like, I guess, everything else in life. The information I want to convey here is not how exactly I recommend to set Micro iDSD Signature to work best with this or that IEM, rather that the device offers the flexibility to try different ways to that target.

A truly multipurpose amp – finally!

As I mentioned before, to my knowdge at least there’s no single amp implementation out there yet which is capable of feeding different impedance/sentivity drivers with equally optimal results. And to my understanding, there’s a solid technological reason for this : high impedance cans “sound better” when submitted to high voltage swings, low impedance HPs and IEMs distort in the same condition. Simple as that.

Conceptually we have 3 possibilities then:

1. Use different amps for the various cases.
2. Use a high voltage amp, and aposteriori cut its output voltage down. That’s where attenuators e.g. IEMatch may help.
3. Use a sort of “configurable” amp…

Micro iDSD Signature’s amp can be reconfigured to optimally support very high impedance cans (Turbo mode) or low sensitivity cans (Normal mode) or low impedance + high sensitivity IEMs (Eco mode) offering each category its own best welcome powering profile.

When facing low impedance loads, in addition to selecting Eco power mode there may still be need to engage the built-in IEMatch module to furtherly reduce output voltage, which will benefit current delivery to particularly sensitive drivers, and/or cancel some hiss out of the most sensitive of those.

Of course a curious question as this point might be “which of the two features should I preferably use before the other: Eco power mode, apriori limitating voltage swing, or IEMatch, cutting it down aposteriori” ? I had my own opinion on that already but I asked iFi’s designers’ take on this.

With regards to Turbo/Normal/Eco modes vis-a-vis headphone matching, our AMR audio background means that we are of the opinion that while the impedance of a headphone is a factor to consider in matching, the over-arching one is actually power > sensitivity.

This is why we developed the headphone calculator which takes the power output of a headphone amplifier and compares it to the headphones to be used. The resulting volume level will give the customer the best insight into the ‘matching’. Just like a 1,000W Mark Levinson would be a poor match for high-sensitivity horns rated at 110dB sensitivity. Or a 10W 300B SET would not drive 87dB Magicos.

iFi’s headphone calculator is indeed an informative but most of all educative tool. Playing with it we can find out how wrong are common assumptions about this or that driver (IEMs or Headphones alike) requiring “high power”…

I can’t begin to stress how brilliant I find iFi’s choice to equip Micro iDSD Signature with what it takes to allow the user to substantially change its amping behaviour to cope with the dramatically diversified nature of those drivers out there. A really, really welcome idea, and a unique one in the mid-tier segment this device partakes into at the very least, but to my knowledge in the one above too.

Sound shaping addons

Similar to what is also offered on other iFi devices, Micro iDSD Signature’s amp section features two optional circuits providing bass enhancement and imaging improvement at the flick of a switch.

Both features are according to iFi’s documentation entirely implemented in the analog domain. No DSPs are involved which promises the minimal impact on sound quality of course.

“XBass+” behaves like what an EQ expert would call a low shelf positive filter. By ear I would say it pushes lows up by 2dB-ish from 100Hz down. Very personally speaking, I don’t like these types of options in principle – irregardless of their implementation quality that is – my fundamental position being: if I want more bass than the one delivered by the driver I’m using right now… I swap on a different driver. In the special Micro iDSD Signature case, XBass+ may be actually welcome to “compensate” the device super-lean bass presentation, especially as delivered by the GTO filter (fw 7.0c).

“3D+” is a “crossfeed filter”, i.e. a function that puts “some” of the right channel output into the left one and viceversa, simulating on headphones what happens when listening to loudspeakers. Within its limits (it’s not parametric, configurable etc – just a mere on/off) and situationality (effects are totally evident on some tracks, minimal on others) the trick is really nice, and I used it quite often. My main application case are those original jazz masters from the 60ies where mixing tended to be executed by hard panning each instrument on a single channel only: 3D+ sounds almost magical in those cases.

Conclusions and evaluations

Well, I’m certainly not known for generosity when it comes to assign good scores. This time I must say that from the technical standpoint Micro iDSD Signature deserves a very high mark.

DAC reconstruction quality on high-res lossless material is at the absolute top I found below 1K$ and possibly above. The sole other devices who can play an even match with Micro iDSD Signature on this part are Apogee Groove and Questyle QP1R, all the rest being a full class below at the very least.

Not only: adopting firmware 7.0c Micro iDSD Signature automatically upsamples all USB input thereby granting a significant share of the same quality to sub-highres tracks. Upsampling is not black art, it is very possible to implement that on the host, and feed competing DACs with the same improved input, and obtain improved output from those too – but it must be done, and done right, which is an extra burden and cost, while Micro iDSD Signature does it “out of the box”, and does it right too, and this is a major value on my scorebook.

Micro iDSD Signature’s DAC is so good that a no brainer rec is to exploit the Line Out option and interconnect into a serious quality desktop amp any time that’s possible (nothing short of a Jotunheim-2 at the very least will make Micro iDSD Signature’s DAC decent justice), but mobile DAC+AMP standalone operation will not disfigure at all when compared to no matter which top alternative device in its same price class.

Always talking about standalone mobile features, Micro iDSD Signature’s ability to reconfigure its amping section on the fly to optimally cope with IEMs or low impedance cans or high impedance hps or “nasty” planars is totally brilliant, and deserves – that alone – a standing ovation for the idea, and the implementation quality too.

As always where there’s light there’s some shadow too. The DAC section is so good that the lack of adequate built-in USB dejitter is very evident, and frankly I find it almost disappointing. On an even more subjective level, all filters in general and the GTO filter in particular deliver extremely tight transients – some may find them “more natural”, I find the opposite.

Last but not least, the price – and the value. At € 699,00 EU list price Micro iDSD Signature is not an inexpensive device. And please add another € 50 at the very least (iSilencer) or better another € 150 (iPurifier3) to dutifully add some very deserved USB cleansing.

Is it worth it?

Well, evaluating it in terms of a truly mobile (if not pocketable) device, not relying on host batteries, offering top class DAC competence, and truly capable to optimally bias anything, from the “easiest” IEM up to the “nastiest” planar overear well… Micro iDSD Signature is an easy win.

Such consideration does not make its price tag cheaper of course, but at least for my experience finding another battery driven device with similar output quality at a significantly lower price – at least to my knowledge – is today a hard task.

Totally different is of course the perspective if we plan a mainly static, “desktop” application. In such case Micro iDSD Signature stays a very significant device, but the price of its unexploited portions would make its cost/result score poorer.

Disclaimer

This Micro iDSD Signature device has been provided as a temporary loaner unit by iFi for the sole purpose of my assessment.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

You find an INDEX of all our dac/amp reviews HERE.

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

The post iFi Micro iDSD Signature – Standing Ovation appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Requires tip rolling
– Upper-midrange glare
– Peak around 8KHz can be an issue in some recordings
– Soundstage width is below-average
– Lack of upper-treble air

INTRODUCTION

Single-dynamic driver IEMs have been a rare breed in the flagship territory for a while.

In the years past, most TOTL stuff have either been all-BA or hybrid designs. A subtle letdown for those who prefer a single dynamic setup due to the coherency and the dynamism they are capable of producing.

Dunu raised some eyebrows at the beginning of last year when they announced the Dunu Luna — a $1700 pure Be-foil totting single-dynamic flagship that introduced a number of “firsts” for both the company and the IEM scene in general. The Dunu Zen is a somewhat downscale version of their flagship but this time it’s totting an Magnesium-Aluminium alloy driver. Parallels can be drawn between Focal Utopia/Dunu Luna and Focal Clear/Dunu Zen and you wouldn’t be wrong.

That being said, the Dunu Zen isn’t just some cut-down model, rather it’s got its own identity in terms of tuning along with the ECLIPSE driver system that’s been specifically developed for this model (and will be used in future Dunu models).

As usual, there’s a lot to cover here, so let’s get right into it.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Dunu was kind enough to send me the Zen as a review loaner (thanks Tom!) Disclaimer

This review was initially published on my blog.

Sources used: Cowon Plenue R2, Questyle CMA-400i, iFi Hip DAC
Price, while reviewed: $700. Can be bought from Dunu’s Official Website.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

IN THE BOX…

I’ll just link to my unboxing video here:

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

Let’s just say that the Dunu Zen sports the best stock cable you’ll get under $1000 mark. Everyone should take a note from Dunu when it comes to the quality and quantity of accessories they provide. The Dunu Zen does have a lot of similarities with the Dunu Studio SA6’s accessory pack though the former comes with an extra airplane adapter and a nice shirt-clip. Also there are some extra pairs of tips that are eerily similar to Sony hybrid tips. Aside from those there are the Dunu signature blue and white tips, though I wish the blue ones had a less stiff stem.

If I have to really nitpick: I wish they came with some Spinfit CP-145/CP-500 tips. That’s about it.
5/5

BUILD QUALITY

If Batman had an IEM, the Dunu Zen would probably be it.

A 316L stainless steel body with a glossy piano-black finish, a slit on the back for Dunu’s proprietary ACIS (Air Control Impedance System) mechanism (now installed as a module), and another vent near the nozzle. The Zen’s build in a nutshell. The circular radiant pattern on the back gives the Dunu Zen a distinct look. The design has some similarities with their flagship, Dunu Luna, with a side-mounted stem that houses the mmcx port but the Dunu Zen has its own design language. Compared to the Luna there aren’t as many subtle design cues but for less than half the price I’m not expecting those either.

The shells feel positively dense, has a unique design, and has no visible imperfections. Biggest issue: it’s a fingerprint magnet and difficult to photograph (!) but those are nitpicks at best.
5/5

COMFORT AND ISOLATION

Isolation is good, though one must note that the Dunu Zen leaks sound due to the ACIS vent. Comfort is excellent as well with a snug fit. Due to the weight of the shells though the fit isn’t as secure as some resin-shell pseudo-custom designs out there.
4/5

DRIVER SETUP

Dunu debuted a new driver system with the Zen that goes by the ECLIPSE trademark. This system doesn’t necessarily indicate the diaphragm material rather how the dome, driver surround, and voice-coil attachment process is executed.

The Dunu Zen has a 13.5mm dynamic driver system with a Magnesium-Aluminium alloy diaphragm where the micro-pores on the diaphragm surface have been filled with nanoDLC to increase surface stiffness. The driver also has a W-shaped dome and this entire assembly reminds me of the Focal Clear driver (which is one of the best dynamic driver systems out there btw).

Another interesting thing about the driver dome here is that it occupies a larger area than the typical driver systems. The magnet assembly is also unique in that it’s a ring-type motor and has 1.8T magnetic flux which is the highest among all single-DD out there to my knowledge.

What all this means is that the Dunu Zen’s driver system allows it to have superior driver control, much better excursion, and faster transients than most other single-dynamic systems out there (with the exception of the Be-driver IEMs).

The following images can be referenced for more detail (All are courtesy of Dunu).

Dunu definitely has poured a lot of work into this new driver system, but it will all be for naught if the sound quality doesn’t live up to the engineering efforts. Fortunately, that’s not the case.

All sound impressions are made with the Dunu Zen + stock cable (2.5mm/4.4mm plugs) + Spinfit CP-500 tips.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Dunu Zen has a mostly warm presentation with some emphasis in the upper-mids and mid-treble. The upper-treble is rolled-off whereas the sub-bass gets a boost around the 60Hz region which then slowly tapers off as it reaches 20Hz.

Before proceeding further with the sound impressions, I must talk about the effect tips/insertion depth have on the Dunu Zen’s signature. After trying out several tips I noticed a pattern. The Dunu Zen sounded the best when the distance between the mesh on the nozzle and the output bore of the tip was minimized. Having a larger distance would negatively affect separation/imaging and emphasize the peaks ~2.5KHz and ~8KHz. This leads to a shouty, shrill presentation that I didn’t like personally.

Minimizing the distance with the Spinfit CP-500 tips, by sliding the eartip stem down to the base of the nozzle (pictured below) and then going for a snug fit (by trying to push the IEMs as far in the canals as possible) resulted in a superior presentation. The upper-mid peak only showed up on certain recordings and the 8KHz peak was far less intrusive. Instrument separation and imaging also improved noticeably.

One negative thing about reducing the gap between the nozzle and tip-bore is that it reduces the soundstage width. Given the tonal improvements it’s a worthy sacrifice IMO.

When set up optimally, the Dunu Zen’s bass response stands out the most. The mid-bass texture is some of the best I’ve heard out of an IEM across any price point. Yes, it’s bested by the Sony IER-Z1R’s bass texture but that thing puts almost every IEM to shame when it comes to bass. It’s a wholesale upgrade over any IEM out there that uses a balanced-armature driver for bass and even most hybrid setups. Another aspect of the bass that stood out was the reverb which coupled with the natural decay resulted in an almost physical bass-response. This driver, however, is capable of much more and you can EQ it into a sub-bass monster. With the Cowon Plenue R2’s “Mach3Bass” DSP preset the bass response is frankly bass-head level and almost trades blows with the IER-Z1R. Then again, that’s DSP-based cheating in a sense so I’d only refer to it as a fun experiment.

The transition from bass to mids is handled well with the corner-frequency at ~300Hz adding some body to the mid-bass without clouding the lower-mids. It does add a bit of heft and warmth to the lower-mids and coupled with the emphasized upper-mids (~10dB higher than lower-mids) you get an almost euphonic midrange presentation. Warm, rich, engaging — these are the operative words when describing the Dunu Zen’s midrange. The 2.5KHz peak though can be exaggerated in certain tracks with high pitched female vocals/guitar distortion and can even get slightly shouty, though it never got uncomfortable for me. Your mileage might vary. Male vocals are superb though with baritone vocals getting special treatment. String instruments are put on the forefront and acoustic guitars esp has a nice bite to them.

The treble, then, is the most contentious part of the Dunu Zen’s signature (along with the upper-mid peak though it looks scarier on the graphs IMO). It rolls off drastically after 11KHz or so. Dunu does explain that this is due to the Zen’s driver having higher distortion in the upper-treble region but this also put off those who prefer an airy, ethereal treble. To offset this treble peak, perhaps, Dunu decided to add more presence near the 8KHz region and this can be detrimental if you’re listening to poorly mastered tracks. On most well-mastered material this treble peak didn’t really bother me and even in some shoddily mastered songs I never felt any sibilance or shrillness. Cymbals, hi-hats have slight emphasis on the leading edge of the notes and in busy passages the cymbal hits never bled into one another. It’s the resonance that’s often lost, as can be heard in Lamb of God’s Ruin (2:40 onwards). The treble is resolving enough overall, but I do admit a bit more air would be beneficial.

All that being said, the most underrated part of the Dunu Zen is its overall dynamics, especially how well it handles microdynamics (gradual shift in volumes). Macrodynamics are no slouch either with sudden bass-drops being delivered with gusto. The dynamics are definitely aided by the speed of the driver. The Dunu Zen has the second-fastest dynamic driver I’ve heard till date, with the top spot being taken by the Dunu Luna and Final A8000. Transients are near-instantaneous in their delivery and this leads to a sense of speed that’s hard to come across in the single-dynamic IEM space. No, it won’t beat a planar magnetic headphone for speed but given the physical constraints Dunu did a mighty fine job.

Then comes the soundstage and while the stage depth and height is some of the best in its price class, it’s the stage width that takes a hit. The instruments are placed very close to the listener which somewhat increases note-size. Some might prefer a less intimate and more spacious, ambient listening. For them the Dunu Zen’s presentation will likely be disappointing. However, the superb imaging and instrument separation makes up for the intimate staging, for me at least. For a single-dynamic driver the separation and imaging is truly impressive. Cardinal/ordinal/center imaging is spot on, even convincingly portraying events that are occurring behind you. The separation is also aided by the superior microdynamics with instruments playing at different volumes having their individual place in the stage without overlapping or smearing.

TL;DR: If you can get the ideal fit, Dunu Zen will deliver one of the most dynamic, rich sound out of a single-dynamic setup under $1000. It boasts a tactility of notes across the spectrum that’s very difficult to come by in its price range, esp in all-BA and hybrid setups.

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

FREQUENCY RESPONSE GRAPH

My measurements of the Dunu Zen are slightly different than those you see online, esp in the sub-bass region. However, I repeated my measurements numerous times (always trying to center the resonance peak ~8KHz) and the result didn’t change.

SOURCE AND AMPLIFICATION

The Dunu Zen needs a source with low-noise floor since it’s susceptible to hiss. Also I’d recommend a source with low output impedance. It’s very easy to drive otherwise with 112dB sensitivity and 16 ohms impedance. I personally got the best performance out of Questyle QP1R (desktop source) and Cowon Plenue R2 (portable source), 2.5mm out.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs Fiio FD5 ($320)

The Fiio FD5 is Fiio’s flagship single dynamic model but is priced quite a bit below that of the Dunu Zen. There are some similarities though: both are using high magnetic flux N52 magnets and both are totting DLC coating to some extend (though Fiio further PVD coats the DLC diaphragm with Be).

In terms of accessories, build, and comfort — the Dunu Zen has the upper hand by a margin, esp when it comes to the cable. Zen’s stock cable is miles ahead. The Fiio FD5 does come with the handy Final mmcx assist but that’s about it. When it comes to sound, the FD5 does have better upper-treble reach but it’s a poor imitation of the Dunu Zen’s bass response at best. The midrange is also more engaging on the Dunu Zen. Imaging, separation, dynamics — all are the Zen’s forte, only the soundstage width is better on the FD5 (though height and depth, again, goes to Dunu Zen).

To my ears, the 2x prime premium of the Dunu Zen over the Fiio FD5 is worth it.

vs Dunu Studio SA6 ($550)

I think these IEMs are more complementary than competitive. One is an all-BA setup whereas the other is a single-DD offering.

Both are built well but opt for very different design materials and philosophies. Studio SA6 is a pseudo-custom, 3D-printed resin shell whereas the Zen is an all stainless-steel affair. I’d give the build to the Zen since I’m a sucker for metal housings. As for comfort, I personally prefer the ergonomics of the SA6 more due to its snug fit (the Zen has a slightly looser fit). Both are comfortable for longer wearing sessions, but I’d pick the SA6 if I had to monitor stuff for hours, for example. Both come with similar accessories but I much prefer the tip collection on the Zen. Given its price tag though the SA6 has phenomenal accessory set that rivals many $1000+ options. Zen is more source picky than the SA6. If you want to drive your IEMs out of a budget dongle (though I don’t know why anyone would do that with IEMs like the SA6/Zen) then the SA6 is the better choice. Both scales with higher tier sources but Zen is more transparent to underlying source characteristics.

Now the sound is where things get interesting. In terms of overall signature, the Studio SA6 is definitely more “balanced” of the two, with the Zen having more mid-range emphasis.

Breaking things down, the bass is where things become very stark. The Studio SA6 has excellent bass for an all-BA setup but it can’t hold a candle to the Zen’s texture/articulation of bass notes. Snare hits for example have a physicality that’s missing on the SA6. However, sub-bass rumble is more evident on the SA6 in atmospheric mode. But bass notes are not as well defined as the Zen or even other unvented bass BA drivers (this is an issue with the vented Sonion BA: trades off absolute bass control for slam/physicality).

In the midrange, the SA6 is a bit more laid back and this works well with a variety of genres. Zen’s more up-front midrange might make it too up-front in some recordings (mostly Pop songs with an already emphasized female vocal). I do prefer the male vocals on the Zen more. String instruments are superb on both but Zen highlights the undertones better.

Lastly, the treble. Here in terms of absolute extension, the Studio SA6 is better. However, cymbals sound more lifelike on the Zen. It lacks the airiness I find on the SA6 but the initial hit and subsequent decay sounds more natural to my ears. Sustain instruments (e.g. violin) showcase a more natural decay on the Zen than on the SA6. In the end, this will be dependent upon one’s preferences. If you like the crispness of BA treble and want more extension then the SA6 will be the better fit. If you want a more natural decay and lifelike overtones, Zen is likely the way to go.

As for the rest: timbre goes to Zen, hands down. SA6 is less fatiguing in comparison (I wouldn’t call either fatiguing though, but SA6 is more relaxed). Imaging/separation is superior on the Zen whereas the SA6 has a wider stage (though stage depth/height goes to the Zen). Dynamics are also better on the Zen though for an all-BA set the SA6 is no slouch.

Last but not the least, the value proposition. I think the studio SA6 offers more value in general. The tuning is more suited to a range of genres, the accessories are practically same barring some extra tips and airplane adapter, the fit is slightly better and the overall sound quality is pretty close. The tuning switch is also pretty handy.

That being said, the Dunu Zen is the superior IEM, at least for my tastes/music library. I’m a sucker for a single-DD (esp a well-tuned, technically proficient one) so I guess this is where my bias shines through. Then again, this hobby is mostly a chain of biases and preferences so it’s alright.

vs Dunu Luna ($1700)

I’ve already reviewed the Luna and the Dunu Zen shares a number of similarities with its big brother. First, the basics. Build, accessories, comfort are all better on the Luna. For the price premium though, one should expect this. Luna, though, is more source sensitive than Zen.

Now I’m gonna go straight into sound. In terms of tuning the Dunu Luna is more of an acquired taste than the Dunu Zen. The Dunu Luna has a rolled-off sub-bass and a pretty emphasized 4KHz region (though again, the graphs are scarier than reality). This makes the sound signature more colored and due to the bass roll-off certain genres aren’t done full justice. That being said, the Luna bass is more textured in comparison and has far superior speed. In fact, the Dunu Luna has the fastest dynamic driver in any IEM I’ve heard till date (incl. the likes of JVC FW-10000 and Final A8000). In terms of transients, it’s hard to best the Luna. Dynamics are also superior on the Luna. Resolution is higher, and treble has better extension and articulation. Imaging, staging, separation — all these are just better on the flagship model.

The Dunu Zen though offers a lot of the Luna’s performance at less than half the price, while having better sub-bass extension (thus making it more genre-versatile). Moreover, both the Zen and the Luna offers the same “headphone-like presentation” that’s hard to come by in IEMs. So if you’d want the test of Luna without breaking the bank: Zen’s got your back.

vs Final A8000 ($2000)

Final Audio’s flagship IEM doesn’t quite offer the dizzying array of accessories you get with the Dunu Zen, and the cable is more pedestrian to boot (I so hope they included a balanced cable with this one). I do prefer Final A8000’s carrying case more. IMO it’s the best case-design out there.

In terms of build and comfort they are about par. However, it’s the sound where the differences lie. Similar to the Dunu Luna, Final A8000 is a single pure Be-foil driver and offers nearly the same zippy transients, speed, and technical prowess of the Luna.

The sub-bass on the A8000 is not as rolled-off as the Luna and thus it offers a direct challenge to the Dunu Zen. I do think the Zen is bested by the A8000 in both bass response and upper-mids presentation. That being said, the Dunu Zen has a warmer lower-midrange which I personally prefer. Also, A8000 has a presence region peak ~6KHz which was somewhat fatiguing for me. Dunu Zen doesn’t have such issues. Center-imaging was surprisingly slightly better on the Dunu Zen as well.

The sound signature is different between the A8000 and Dunu Zen, so is the technical prowess where the Final pulls ahead. But again, for less than half the price, Dunu Zen doesn’t sound like that much of a downgrade, and I even enjoy it over the A8000 on poorly mastered tracks (A8000 is brutally revealing).

vs Sony IER-Z1R ($1700)

This is more of a David vs Goliath fight due to the Z1R being Sony’s universal IEM flagship and having a more than 2x price premium, but the conclusion isn’t so cut and dry.

First up: packaging and accessories. The Z1R unboxing experience is as royal as it gets and the Dunu Zen seems fairly pedestrian in comparison. However, when it comes to the actual accessories, the Dunu Zen has the Z1R beat IMO. The tip collection on the Z1R is still great but Dunu just has far superior cables and the quick-switch plug is sheer genius. Also I prefer the Dunu Zen carry case over the jewelry-box like Z1R case which looks awesome but has poor practicality. Next, build quality. Both are well built but the Z1R’s Zirconium shell has a density which is very hard to beat. The Zen build is no slouch by any means but I just can’t get over the steampunk vibe of the Z1R.

Regarding fit and comfort: this one goes to the Zen, hands down. The Z1R is proper huge and won’t fit small ears at all. Also the Z1R requires the nozzle to be fairly flush with your canals so not everyone will find it a pleasant experience. I find it fairly well fitting but still the weight and sheer presence of it persists. The Dunu Zen meanwhile simply disappears in comparison. It’s a heavy IEM but the weight is well-balanced IMO.

Finally, the sound. If I have to summarize: IER-Z1R has the better bass and treble, Dunu Zen has superior midrange (esp vocal and string instruments rendition). Now, a bit more detail. The bass on the Z1R is truly world-class. It’s the best bass I’ve heard till date. The tactility, the sheer physicality and slam, the texture, the sub-bass rumble — it’s practically flawless bass for my tastes. The treble meanwhile has good amount of sparkle and air frequencies are portrayed well. This also gives rise to a massive soundstage and imaging is also very precise (though the Dunu Zen has similarly precise imaging to my ears, but the stage is considerably narrower).

The Zen has great bass but it’s not as good as the Z1R. Also the Zen lacks upper-treble extension which can be problematic for those who needs an airy presentation. However, when it comes to the vocals, string instruments, grand piano — Dunu Zen is my pick simply because the Z1R puts the male vocals/string instruments in the backseat whereas cymbals, bass, female vocals take the front stage. Also the Zen sounds more coherent (though the Z1R is remarkably coherent for a hybrid). Zen also has better center-imaging (center-imaging is a bit diffused on the IER-Z1R in comparison due to the sheer width of the soundstage).

So yeah, the IER-Z1R is every bit the flagship it’s supposed to be, but for an IEM that retails for $1000 less, the Dunu Zen is no less enjoyable and I even prefer it depending on track/genre/mood.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This review turned out to be a lot longer than I expected. For those who need a quick summary: The Dunu Zen is one of the, if not the best single-DD options available under the $1000 mark. It sits at the zenith of single-dynamic IEMs in that price bracket, from my experience at least.

Technically it’s right up there with some of the multi-BA options and bests Dunu’s own Studio SA6 along with a few others. Tonality-wise, if you can get the ideal fit (shouldn’t be too difficult with tip rolling), you’re gonna have a blast with most of the genres.

It’s not without its drawbacks though and that upper-mid peak can be quite contentious, along with the lack of upper-treble air (though this isn’t as big a deal for me, your mileage may vary). For the majority of the tracks I listen to, though, the Dunu Zen has been absolutely fantastic. Moreover, it gives you much of the Dunu Luna’s technical prowess at $1000 less. Its dynamics are hard to beat, and if you are someone who values the coherency and presentation of a single dynamic-driver the Dunu Zen is something you must try.

MY VERDICT

4.5/5

Contact us!

PHOTOGRAPHY

DISCLAIMER

This review unit was provided by Dunu.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

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

The post Dunu Zen Review – Zenith appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Very source AND volume dependent; rather bright and therefore aggressive sounding at higher volumes; shallow soundstage; music bleeds to bystanders; LACK OF TUNING FILTERS; haptically not much different from the company’s budget/mid tier offerings; mediocre accessories for its class; expensive.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Moondrop Illumination is a warm-bright single-dynamic-driver earphone that will please the purist but it can be aggressive sounding for many at higher volumes.

INTRODUCTION

I like single-dynamic drivers. In fact, I prefer them over hybrids. Yes, I sacrifice technical competence for natural sound. What good is it when a symphony sounds detailed but artificial?

Reviewers have to listen analytically for the review’s sake in the short preparation period, and there is a tendency for many to find ever new and unusual adjectives, fancy attributes, and flowery language to make themselves and their review stick out.

But apart from advances in prose one should also have the recreational listening experience in mind, looking ahead to the everyday use of the product beyond a review. How long will the appeal last? This long-term enjoyment, which defines the real value of a product, relies less on strict technical performance but on factors such as “sonic comfort”, for example. And that’s where dynamic-driver earphones are typically underrated.

I have been following Moondrop for the last few years observing their shift in tuning philosophy from Harman target towards diffuse-field neutral. Together, we steered our Spaceships and Super Spaceships (Pulse and Reference) through the odd Starfleld across the Milky Way. We are now reaching the outer edge of our galaxy, where we encounter some…erm…Illumination. And, while asking for forgiveness for my flat humour, I will describe this phenomenon as follows.

SPECIFICATIONS

Drivers: 11 mm dynamic
Impedance: 25 Ω @ 1 kHz
Sensitivity: 124 dB/Nrms @ 1kHz
Frequency Range: 20 – 20,000 Hz (IEC60318-4); 10-50000Hz (1/4Inch Free field Mic)
Cable/Connector: OCC copper with SPC shielding + replaceable plugs (2.5 mm single ended, 2.5 mm/4.4 mm balanced); 0.78 mm, 2 pin
Tested at: $799
Product Page/Purchase Link: Moondrop Official Store

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

In the boox were the earpieces, the occ copper cable with replaceable plugs, airplane adapter, spare filters with tweezers, eartips, and a case.

The haptic of the earpieces is not much different from the discontinued $180 KPE or the current KXXS models…other than that the colour is golden and not silver. The silicone eartips are the same as in all other Moondrop models. Even the twisted cable is not out of the ordinary (it works). The only extravaganzas are that monstrous retail box and the Louis-Vuitton-grade carrying case. Overall, I am missing the “little luxury” expected from this price category.

The metal earpieces are reasonably small, not too heavy, they fit me well and are comfortable over longer sessions. The nozzles are long enough even for my problematically huge ear canals, and they don’t have a lip (but I never “lost” the eartips). Isolation is quite good for me…but not for my wife next to me (or the guy on the bus), as sound bleeds owing to the design. And I had to swap the stock eartips for the SpinFit CP145 to optimize seal.

The Moondrop Illumination are driven very easily.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

Follow these links for some background information:

My tonal preference and testing practice

My test tracks explained

Equipment used: MacBook Air alternating with Khadas Tone2 Pro (balanced circuit) and AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt; ifi Audio Nano BL (IE Match).

The Moondrop Illumination follow the classic recent Moondrop tunings of being slightly warm towards the bottom end but bright-neutral in the midrange and with a relatively early rolloff towards the top end. In fact, the Moondrop SSP’s and Moondrop Illumination’s graphs track each other.

I tested using mainly two dac-amps which produced slightly different results and enjoyment levels with the MacBook Pro. It became clear early that the Illumination rely strongly on source and that a warm amp produces the best results.

The natural Khadas Tone2 Pro (“T2P”) produced great headroom and w i d e soundstage but a robotic, metallic, digital timbre and lots of harshness. The warmer Dragonfly Cobalt (“DFC”) eased that pain with a more organic, natural, bassier sound adding lightness/ease, overall body but a smaller soundstage (in all dimensional) with lesser technicalities. And the midrange still remained somewhat on the bright side, which is unpleasant for my ears at higher volumes. As a last resort, I rolled the warmest of all my possible dac-amps in: the ifi Audio Nano BL, but it did not make a huge difference to the DFC in terms of temperature.

In detail, bass of the Moondrop Illumination is relatively subdued (more so with the T2P, but clean, well textured, and well extended). It is slightly meatier with the DFC. Bass by itself is actually excellent.

The elegant, minimalistic bass moves the midrange into focus, which is shouty and harsh with the T2P at higher volume while yielding a nice transparency at lower volumes. The elevated upper midrange improves clarity and transparency, but it can hurt my ears.

Midrange is lean to varying degrees depending on dongle, but vocals and piano notes are intimate, well sculptured, well defined, and, yes, you heard it before, they can be sharp. I’d attach a smoother, less edgy midrange to a premium earphone.

Treble rolls off early, classic Moondrop, but any high note I hear has very good definition (for a single DD earphone). The T2P produces the treble in a robotic manner whereas the DFC introduces a more natural and therefore slower attack and decay. T2P’s cymbals sound metallic and overpixelated.

Soundstage is rather wide with the T2P’s balanced output but not very deep, independent of source, that’s what you expect from a moderate low end. Technicalities certainly lag behind multi-driver earphones, which is also no surprise. Separation, layering etc. are good but they did not blow me, the budget guy, out of my socks with the DFC, they were better with the T2P.

What is actually very well implemented is dynamics. Listening to a symphony, the impulse is very natural and so are attack and decay, and this also works very well for electronic music. Good balance in this department.

Also very good is the natural timbre, despite its bright spin. At low to moderate volumes, it ads that layer of silk and smoothness you want from a single dynamic driver. It is like adding a tube to your ears…

THE MOONDROP ILLUMINATION COMPARED

Yes, technicalities in the Moondrop Illumination are better than the Sennheiser IE 400 PRO or IE 300, those cannot compete in terms of clarity, definition, and refinement, but they are more cohesive sounding, at least at higher volumes. The Illumination, in turn, sound more open. You can turn the Sennheisers up without regret where the Moondrop Illumination start screaming.

The Moondrop Illumination are also technically better than the JVC HA-FDX1 with their wider stage and their cleaner sound across the frequency spectrum. The JVCs sound less refined in comparison.

The identically tuned Moondrop SSP sound a tinge more aggressive than the Illumination, have a smaller stage, and can’t compete with their timbre either – BUT BUT BUT, they come at 1/20th of the price. I like the Moondrop SSP for quiet listening sessions – but moving up to $800, expectations are naturally much higher.

In any case should you pair the Moondrop Illumination with a warm dac-amp. A neutral analytical dac-amp will make them sound too aggressive for many. I wished Moondrop had gone for a tuning similar to their excellent $30 Crescent, which were premium earphones with sloppy technical competence.

VALUE

OK, at $800 the Moondrop Illumination do not come cheap. They face much competition from multi-drivers in this segment, but none from any single-dynamic driver, other than perhaps the Beyerdynamic Xelento and the Dunu Zen…none of which I have tested (Zen loaner is on its way). And you can go up to $2000 in that category. Value above a certain price is perceived as – and we know that – diminishing return. In the end it depends on what type of buyer you are.

In the case of the Moondrop Illumination, you have to like a bright midrange in an otherwise warm sounding iem. I find it problematic that, at this price, you have to pair the Moondrop Illumination very carefully in order to make them sound decent (at least for ears like mine). They should work universally. And cable and eartips are rather basic for “premium”.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Moondrop Illumination appear to have been tuned for the Asian market with their boosted upper midrange. But depending on source and volume, you can actually get the pleasant dynamic-driver sound I expected from them. It is a good and bad earphone in one from my perspective.

I am surprised that Moondrop, with their outer-space vision, did not equip this model with tuning filters (as the aforementioned JVCs and even some $10 iems such as the KZ ED9) to appeal to a universal, not to say a galactic audience….and to generate a broader market appeal. Adding brightness to the usual technical limitations of a dynamic driver, the Illumination will probably have a tough stand against their hybrid competition.

For me, these Moondrop Illumination mainly work well for naturally generated sounds/acoustic instruments.

But that should not keep you from having a good look at them if you do like this kind of tuning.

And while I just mailed this unit to the Super* Review YouTube channel for “further processing”, I am eagerly awaiting the Moondrop Dusk Crinacle from audiodiscourse.com. That’s great and that’s how it should be.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

The Moondrop Illumination were provided on loan by Moondrop up my request. And I thank them for that. Following my review, I sent them on to Super* Review, a popular YouTube channel.

Get the Illumination from Moondrop Official Store

Our generic standard disclaimer.

About my measurements.

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

Measurements

The post Moondrop Illumination Review – Good And Bad…But Not Ugly 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.