Ok, so my take on these is a little different.
Not to say I disagree on the analysis posted by most, rather how I feel about them.
To begin with, I feel Crin and BGGAR are actually saying the same thing.
Clairvoyance has been rated higher than Monarch for it's TONE by Crin.
And what I understood as the reason, is pretty much in line with what BGGAR feels.

However, while I agree to most what has been written... the wide soundstage, instrument separation, resolution, layering, I find that the tonality has not been pressed upon enough.

Now, to share my views, I don't think either of these can be recommended for people who listen to acoustic music.
Even, between the two, I don't think Clairvoyance is an easy pick, as I explain later in the post.
Here's the reasoning behind my primary view...
1. Most played fundamental frequencies on most acoustic instruments range from 100Hz to 500Hz.
2. The resonance/ring on instruments like acoustic guitar, toms on drums etc. lie between 100 - 500 Hz.
3. The reverb used on these tracks have important sense of atmosphere between 100-500 Hz.
So, the kind of tuning that these have will not do justice to acoustic instruments or music.
They will sound clean, wide and a little deep, but the cost of all that I mention above.
Now, I don't listen to acoustic music so I just searched for acoustic songs and came across...
Rather Be, by Jasmine Thompson.
When I switch between Clairvoyance and FLC8S, all that I'm saying is clearly noticeable.
The notes decay almost immediately once they are sung/played on the Clairvoyance.
This will happen more so on the Monarch than the Clairvoyance, but, neither will really take the cake here.

Now, this will happen in all kinds of music, but more noticeable/concerning when there are just a few acoustic instruments.
But, when there are a lot of instruments/samples/voices, this spectrum gets crowded and finds itself like a overlapped mess with information from so many instruments.
So, clearing out this spectrum coupled with a rise in the upper frequencies brings in a sense of clarity.
This clarity will improve the width, depth, imaging and also instrument separation.
It is, however, at the cost of the natural tonality of instruments, and a chunky body.

So, anyone considering these, should be looking for instrument separation, width/depth of the soundstage and imaging above music itself.
And in that, Monarch will take crown (as seen from eq-ing Clairvoyance to the response of Monarch).
Though Clairvoyance has a better lower end tonality (IMO), it also loses at the soundstage and instrument separation in doing so.
Clairvoyance is also not smooth in it's treble response.
Like, in case of a husky female vocals, you hear the husk, but not what led to it.
Or, High-hats play the sound "tssssp" instead of "tsshhp".
Like the extreme upper end is there, but the frequencies just before it have been scooped out.
The Monarch graph looks better there, and eq-ing Clairvoyance to that, confirms it.

So, while I'm happy with Clairvoyance, I would've been happier with Monarch.
And this is even when I don't believe in the Harman Curve, and prefer a full-bodied, natural sounding earphone, with a little bass-boost.

Look at it this way, whatever these earphones are meant to do, Monarch does it better.

Please don't give me flak for this, I'm just trying to say it in a way, it would've made better sense to me, and helped me choose better.

One more thing that I disliked is the height of the image sometimes.
On one song, it felt like the hi-hats were playing in my eye; very irritating.
Just keep all the sounds on one plane! it's not natural that there's one drummer playing the crash on ground floor and one playing the hi-hats on the first floor.

Ok, for those who already have Monarch and Clairvoyance and prefer the Clairvoyance,
they have got to try using the JH Audio/A&K Diana's cable with the Clairvoyance.
I kinda jumped off my seat listening to that combination.
It adds a little warmth, covers the potholes, adds some body, and makes the sound smoother and richer.
And THAT, makes me a lot happier.
I however, didn't notice this with any of the other cables, from the few that I have.
I think that this should've been the tonality of Clairvoyance to begin with.
The current tonality feels like they weren't sure which one to put out, so just put out both.
The difference in the tuning of both don't seem thought out, rather accidental.

What I would like is to see/hear is a better balance; with the soundstage being brought about by some open design like the FD5, or more BAs to cover 100-500Hz, if that brings about better instrument separation without sounding muddy, (or lean due to lack off), or some real research in design, than to accomplish that using the easiest way out... clean out the frequency spectrum.

Now, I've been to a lot of studios, recorded in some, have a pair myself... and I'm yet to hear any with the sound/frequency response like that, so I don't know what's that all about.

Anyways, I hope this helps.

I'm someone who likes warm sound with a good amount of bass and good amount of shimmer in the sound.
So, this review maybe biased towards my liking for sound.
However, I've tried to keep things rather technical rather than a fairytale.

Summary (After the confusion cleared after over 50 hours of critical listening...phew!):
I really like the sound of DMG and it sounds between FLC8S and Triple Fi 10 Pro.
It's follows what is called a U or a V, I call it neutral.
The Bass is pretty good. Bass-heads might need Bass-Boost, after which these would sound at par with Bass-Heavy earphones.
Mids are a mix of warmth and clarity.
Treble could be a little harsh sometimes, but for most part, is well extended, and there a good amount of sparkle.
Instrument separation is very good, though not great.
They can be driven straight out of a phone.
The earphones do feel heavy to wear.

Physical Characteristics:
(My earphone is black in color)

Shell:
Material: Metal
Weight/Feel: ~13gms/Heavy
Comment: Tiring after some time

Cable:
Length: 3 feet, 25 cms
Weight/Feel: ~12gms/Medium

Shell/Cable Weight Ratio: ~1
This makes the earphone easier to handle, wind, etc.
The down side though is that the earphones are already heavy, this adds to the weight.

Nozzles:














Technical quality: I think compression (acts like a high-pass filter at loud volumes with a lot of bass)
Silver: No compression, ULF at same level as Mid Bass (no resonance or high cut)
Black: Mild compression, Reduced ULF, Mid-Bass Hump
The compression here is more noticeable at high volumes with Bass turned up
Gold: Reduced Bass up to 110Hz. Again, more noticeable at higher volumes.
I personally feel that the nozzles perform perfectly as per design; I don't see a reason why the manufacturer would choose to ship them otherwise.
I don't think that they intended to do anything similar to the FLC nozzles.
For example, if the Gold was meant to reduce high frequencies, one would see a high density material.
I don't see that, what I see is a net like material that doesn't seem to have high-cut characteristics at all.
And, I hear very little (if at all) difference in anything starting from lower mids upwards, between the nozzles.
Bass needs a lot more volume of air moved for us to perceive, you reduce volume of air, you hear less bass in comparison to other frequencies.
Highs are very susceptible to direction (line of sight)... some highs reflected from the net makes one feel that they have reduced a bit maybe.
Now, the compression is activated when a lot of air is getting generated, and that's when I feel the real difference.

Tips:
Soft Rubber (Shallow fit): 3 Pairs, 1S, 1M, 1L
Silicone (Transparent): 3 Pairs, 1S, 1M, 1L
Silicone (Blue -Standard fit): 3 Pairs, 1S, 1M, 1L
Even with so many options for tips, none of the tips gave me a good seal.
So, I'm using the tips from my other earphones.

Bass:

Tracks used for critical listening:
Slick, Song Holy Hall, The Precipice - Tribal Tech
Chris Cox Megamix - Britney Spears
Shone - Flo Rida

20Hz-30Hz
Hardly anything there...

Ultra Low Frequency/Sub Bass/Low Bass (30Hz-60Hz):
The quantity here is enough but not the quality.
The low bass notes do sound, but are not tight.
There seems to be a slow rise and fall here, not fast enough for Bass runs, low kicks or waveforms.
Due to this, body colored nozzles feel better.
Example:
The kick on The Precipice feels loose with the silver nozzles, but a lot better with the black ones.
The dual kicks, one mid and one low in succession fourth count each bar on the MegaMix, feels loose on the low and great on the mid.
Similar response observed on the other tracks listed for Bass.

60-120Hz:
The black nozzles bring a good thump here, while the silver nozzles reduce the thump by bringing in more ULF.
The bass is enough for some, but not for bass-heads unless, one wouldn't mind turning on the bass boost.
Once that is done, these turn out to be a beast at the bass, bringing them on par with the bass-head earphones I've heard.
The bass drivers are very capable just not tuned towards emphasized bass (personally, I can't call these bass-emphasized earphones)
Example:
The bass runs on Slick feels tight and natural, and feels at the same volume as the low drums.

Upper Bass (120 - 240)
This is great to begin with. The bass runs feel natural and extend very well with the right quantity and quality of body.
The crowd here is very well managed and for the most past, you don't feel it sounding muddy.
Low Mids:
Here, you find that the drivers are tuned to provide somewhat of a balance between adding body to the voices and providing separation.
So, the vocals neither feel too intimate, nor too distant. It's a very good balance but if you like one over the other...hmmmm???
This also helps keeping the spectrum from getting too crowded here due to the fundamentals.
This is more like a trade-off, I don't like it but don't dislike it either. Call it necessary evil.

Mid and Upper Mids:
These are good. The textures are very vivid and clear.

Highs:
The Treble on these extends pretty well, but I do find a few harsh peaks some times.
They are not very fatiguing, but they do tire me after, say an hour of on and off listening.
One could try bringing things down centered at around 6K but you lose the fun... an important characteristic of their sound.
Example: The snare hits on "Slick" feel a little tiny and a little sharp.
They should ideally be centered around a little lower frequency.

Voice (Texture, Intimacy, Body, Response through the octaves):
Beautiful - Faith Hill
Hurt - Christina Aguilera
Secret - Yanni/Chloe - from the album Truth of Touch
Now we are free - Lisa Gerrard/Hans Zimmer - Gladiator Soundtrack
insane - Sofi Tukker
Last Note of Freedom - David Coverdale - from the OST of the movie Days of Thunder
Still of the Night - Whitesnake
Turned my Upside Down - Sara K, from Bowers & Wilkins Very Audiophile New Recordings
Long after you're Gone - Chris Jones, from Bowers & Wilkins Very Audiophile New Recordings

The vocals are neither too intimate nor too distant, they provide a good balance between the sounds.
The texture is great on most tracks, while on some, like Hurt, I do feel that need for some more intimacy.
If not an increase at 250Hz, a little reduced mid-treble would have helped here.

Separation/Soundstage:
Hypnotic, No More - Wild - From the Album Time, Wild/Orion/Tim Bran
Ganesh - A R Rahman - from Bombay Dreams
Potter's village - A R Rahman - from Meenaxi - Tale of three cities
Like it like that - Guy Sebastian

The separation and soundstage are very good, but not great.
This can be attributed to the earphones tuned between intimate and distant presentations.
That said, they don't sound tiny at all, and you don't feel that it's you singing.

Body:
Pink Noise, M-Noise
Du Hast - Rammstein

The sound is almost full, leaving just a little increase I would've liked from 250 to 500Hz.
Because of the reduced gain at upper Bass or Lower Mids, fullness of sound is sometimes lacking a bit.
Although M-Noise feels perfect, Pink noise doesn't feel all that full.
The sound is between lean and warm or full-bodied.

Response:
Logarithmic Sweeps
Ideally, here I should've felt the dBs increase logarithmically till about 1K, but there was a slow movement starting 300Hz and then normal movement from 600.
Rest was just fine... the highs felt a little louder like I mentioned earlier, but just a little.

I feel this falls right between my TF10 and FLC8S.
It comes in third, after TF10 in the first place, and FLC8S at the second, replacing T2 at that spot.
That said, I don't find it inferior to either, just differently tuned.
I choose TF10 at the first place because I like warm, intimate sound; one that can be heard for hours at a stretch without any fatigue.
I choose 8S at the second spot due to tighter bass and reduced harshness, although on other counts, DMG is comparable.

Comparison with both, TF10 and FLC8S:

With the FLC8S, I don't use the mid-high frequency filter at all. I used another material as a filter that reduces the highs instead of a roll-off.
I also don't use the LF filter, I've covered that with a very airy loose cloth, that allows no restriction to air.
I don't use any ULF filter either, I've created my own reactive seal which can be seen on my review of the FLC8S.
So, the sound of DMG is between TF10 and FLC8S almost in all parameters.
TF10 is very intimate, while 8S is a good out of head experience.
DMG is somewhere in between those... maybe, just out of head?
Instrument separation on TF10 is good, while it's great on FLC8S.
On DMG, the separation is very good. Better than TF10, not as good as FLC8S.
There isn't much sub-bass on TF10, though the Bass is tight. 8S bass is tight even at the sub-bass.
The Sub-Bass on DMG is good in quantity but not tight, while the rest of the bass is tight.
The highs on TF10 are tuned quite differently. They shimmer than sparkle.
They are not fatiguing at all.
8S has more of a balanced treble, not harsh, but not as crisp as TF10.
The highs on DMG are a little sharp but do feel good on most songs, and add to the instrument separation.

I would recommend this to someone who is not sure if they want an intimate or neutral earphones.
I would also suggest these to someone who would like a neutral earphone but has never heard a neutral earphone.
And then, if all your previous earphones were less than half the price, then this should be on your list to choose from.
If you don't care about the measurements or anything I've spoken about and would like some fun earphones to listen to,
Get the Tin Hifi T2 at less than half the price and cover the vent hole near the nozzle.
It's a different sound... good bass, lot of space, amazing and unreal airiness to the sound;
Get it, you won't regret it.

A little note for someone who is just starting out...
The posts on this website can be overwhelming.
The reviews will make you feel like, if you're not listening to a neutral earphone, you're not listening to the right balance...
Do not take people's (including me) word for it, no matter how many of them say it... choose your own sound.
Here's a little technical explanation...
The target curve that the flat-response earphones try to match up to are very general...
For example... they try to be flat till 2K and then reduce per octave, and account for the resonance in ears due to the length and shape of the ear canal.
This would be slightly different for everyone, but it's still a good average.
What they don't account for is everyone's sensitivity...
If you use an app like the Neutralizer, you'd realize that we hear relatively lesser at low frequencies and very high frequencies.
You'll realize that you're a lot more sensitive to mids and lower-treble than bass and higher-treble
So, for you to hear the same amount of bass as mids, the bass has to be turned up a bit.
So does the treble from, say 14K upwards.
That really makes the required response in the shape of a shallow U or V, depending on one's sensitivity.
So, if you don't share the same opinion that neutral response earphones are better, it's fine... really!.

I loved it till there was just Pro-Grade and Consumer grade stuff...
Not to divide on the basis of expensive and inexpensive, rather the use cases.
When I worked in the studio as an assistant, we had some boring monitors, but not the mixing engineers car.
It had the bass that could crush a skull with windows closed; so you see, Pro for work, Consumer for leisure.
It's like, people like me are obscure these days, with everyone just talking about neutrality in sound.

I hope you found the review informative and would help you decide on these.

I would've never imagined that my first ever post on this website would be a review of, the now old, FLC 8S, that I've had for years, and just when I'm thinking of buying a new set of different iems.

But I read that Forest Wei visits these forums, so I thought maybe I’d give my 20 cents (yes, not two), so that I have something to look forward to, the next time I plan to buy a new set.

So, let me talk about myself, the earphone and then about a design reconsideration that might help this design get even better.

"Water, water everywhere, not a drop to drink." - "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

With 36 different (maybe not so distinct) combinations, it still leaves a standard consumer, "me", wanting more… bass, mids, treble… ok, maybe not mids

I did, before this (and still do), own a TF10. The only way I could even convince myself to buy them for the price, was that I had a few engagements that I had to honor, and I had changed cities and so, couldn't do the acoustics. Now, let me be honest... When I bought those, I didn't suddenly see the light at the end of the tunnel. I was expecting so much more… to be blown over, shocked, surprised… any emotion! But as I mixed my first track... god!!!... just perfect. That was when I realized the kind of gems they are. In time, I was hooked! Never touched an eq… ok maybe a little bass… ok, maybe just a little more…

I could never imagine going to any other; but as luck would have it... one day when changing the complys on them, the front part just popped out. $#@%!

I decided to try something new, and this time, I went through this forum, and bought FLC8S, because I could alter it to my taste.
Shocked, I realized, I couldn't... going through the 36 combinations, I found none that suit my preference.
(I'm not going to spend my time explaining the sound of all the filters (there are enough reviews for that), except tell you how did I get the most out of them)
And then, it happened... so far, I've always been someone who takes things out and puts back in... altering it, even when it's not meant to be altered. That explains blue led (instead of stock green) and custom mesh in front of the tweeters on my Yamaha MSP5A monitors, four three-way switches on my guitar, etc.

I like a fuller sound... very good bass (thumping with good impact) + good body (200-500Hz) that make the male voices sound deep and female voices powerful + corresponding intensity at 500-7K that so that there are enough dynamics, structure, and the sound doesn't feel muddy, and then a slow rise from 7K onwards so that there is a good amount of airiness in the sound... pronounced huskiness in the voice, crisper shimmering of high-hats, etc. Ok, may be a very shallow U.

The closest available combination for this was the red + black + gold filter.

But this still lacked some to the extent I liked... I needed more bass, more body, more shimmer.

So, the first to go, was the LF filter, then the MFHF filter, and then the red came in... or was there already.
Now, it was almost there...
Unfortunately, though this was the closest to what I liked, it brought in distortion… lots of it. The sound started to feel like I was pushing it beyond its limits.

Though the earphones weren't meant for this kind of configuration, I think a change in the design of the ULF (and maybe even the LF) filter could’ve helped in its use as such.

With removal of the LF and MFHF filters, we are letting the diaphragm vibrate freely, instead of giving it resistance to keep it in control, by keeping the two filters in.

This, coupled with the addition of the red filter that doesn't let any air pass through the ULF vent, I think, creates some kind of incorrect pressure chamber; free movement at one end and very strong restriction at the other.

OK, now, what allows the changes in the sub-bass response? The red, black and clear filters, right?
These work on the principle of stopping/resisting the airflow though the ULF chamber. This is not very efficient.

Now, please try this, use my config, pump up the bass a bit, and first try to recreate the issue I face.

Then take the red filters out and tape the hole instead. You'll see that the bass reduces just a little bit (still a lot higher than black filter) but clears up the muddiness a lot.

This happens because although you've closed the hole, you've added a little more breathing space for the diaphragm to move.

I know that the diaphragm was never thought of, to work under these conditions.

The question is, “why?”. Was is not expected that some people would like the bass a lot more. Even if you use red, black and gold filters, this happens if you pump up the entire bass region using an equalizer.

So, a better ULF filter design would've been, maybe a larger hole, and the filters in the form of a ring with a diaphragm made from a balloon-like material with varying tension depending on the bass response required. Higher tension for more bass and lower tension for less bass. This allows the diaphragm to have certain restriction in movement and aid the diaphragm in returning to its original position.



So, I’ve been using these without the LF and MFHF filters, and with a balloon cut-out taped at the hole of the ULF filter.



This brings the bass somewhere between the red and black filters but the distortion has reduced considerably. The distortion is lesser than with black filters and boosted bass. This also seems to reduce the harshness in the sound.

Removal of the LF filter completely has given a fantastic body to the sound, the vocals, lower keys on Pianos LFOs etc. Downside, the sound feels a little closer.



The removal of the MFLF filter has opened up the mids and highs in a way that has flattened the sound out. I miss the airiness of T2s though.



So, there you have it... a few more combinations, beyond the 36.
Should make the 8N more appealing, but you can't go wrong with this one either, especially if it's available for reduced prices.