Tier 3C ($60-100)
(2C1) Head-Direct RE0
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Summer 2009 version of the RE0 IEM (cloth cable).
Current Price: $79 from Head-Direct.com (MSRP: $239)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 64 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 16-22k Hz | Cord: 4.1' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Soundmagic PL30 foamies, De-Cored Shure Olives
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) - Spare filters, a nice selection of silicone tips (both single- and bi-flanges), and a shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – classy-looking and solid metal shell feels sturdy, but there are occasional reports of splitting. Cabling is properly-relieved and features an L-plug in the current version
Isolation (3.5/5) – above average, typical for a sealed straight-barrel IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear, and still not bad when worn straight down
Comfort (4/5) – Housings are fairly small and light. Comfort hugely dependent on tips
Sound (8.3/10) – The overall sound is natural and boasts incredible clarity and top-notch separation in the average-sized soundstage. The high-end is incredibly detailed and seems to extend upwards endlessly. The microdetail in the treble is close to the best I have heard. Very impressive also is the apparent flatness of response. The mids have good clarity and are also incredibly detailed. They are very neutral with maybe just a hint of warmth, but lack lushness or liquidity. The lows are not huge in quantity, but very good in detail, extension, and control. These can drop below 35Hz and individual notes can be distinguished all the way down. Overall, it is a sound signature that makes it easy to both tune them into the background and pick out fine details, whichever strikes your fancy at the moment.
Amping: Like being amped, but don’t require it explicitly. High impedance rating is deceiving. Warm amp (e.g. T4) will make these more well-rounded for those who prefer a warmer, darker sound. A more powerful and transparent amp (such as a mini3) will take these to the next level, bringing to the table incredible speed and precision to match the best of the rest.
Value (10/10) – At $79, it is easy to recommend the RE0s as what is probably the best-value all-around earphone for the detail freak and accuracy lover. The RE0s’ sound signature is definitely not for everyone, but those looking for the absolute best accurate sound reproduction to be had in the realm of reasonably-priced IEMs will not be disappointed.
Pros: Top-tier sound quality for mid-fi money; superb detail, accuracy, separation, and clarity
Cons: May sound thin, boring, or bright to some, reported durability issues
(2C2) Ultimate Ears MetroFi 220
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Newer (2008) version of UE’s most expensive entry-level (MetroFi series) IEM
Current Price: $69.99 from B&H.com (MSRP: $79.99); $89.99 for 220vi with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18 Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 20-16k Hz | Cable: 3.8’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (3/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes) and a very convenient plastic carrying case
Build Quality (2.5/5) – Housings are completely plastic and feel somewhat cheap. Cable is sturdy but lacks strain reliefs on housing entry. Of note are the colored nozzles – red for right, gray for left
Isolation (3/5) – Ported and shallow-insertion might sound like a bad combination, but they isolate surprisingly well
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not too bothersome even when worn straight down. A shirt clip would help.
Comfort (3.5/5) – Housing is too fat for deep insertion and the stems make it hard to wear them over-the-ear. Still very light & comfortable for me, but buyers with small ears beware
Sound (5.6/10) – Overall, the sound is smooth and slightly warm. The soundstage is wider than average, with decent separation and positioning. The detail is nothing to boast about, but not a definite weakness, either. The mids and highs are present, although the top end is rolled off. The definite selling point of these is the bass – it is smooth, deep, and very powerful. It creeps in on the lower mid-range but I definitely wouldn’t call it bloated, just a bit muddy. There is a mid-bass hump typical of middle-of-the-road earphones, but it is well-integrated into the entire sound signature. I really do like how natural the bass sounds on these despite not being perfect from a technical standpoint. These are a good gateway drug for the budget-minded bass lover.
Value (5.5/10) – At the $80 MSRP I feel that Ultimate Ears overshot the actual value of these by $30-40. They’re a very fun, tap-your-toes type earphone, delivering a dynamic sound signature with an emphasized low end and are quite competent all-around; it’s just too bad that the lower-tier entries by the likes of Nuforce and Meelectronics can do the same at a much lower price.
Pros: Very solid bass, fun sound, nice carrying case, shiny
Cons: Can be uncomfortable for some, hard to wear over-the-ear, mediocre build
(2C3) Klipsch Image S4 / S4i
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Klipsch’s latest mid-range model that has received overwhelmingly positive reviews both here at head-fi and in the mainstream press
Current Price: $79.99 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $79.99); $99.99 for S4i with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 10-19k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug (S4i); 4.2’ L-plug (S4)
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange tips, and metal carrying case (S4i instead includes a velvet carrying pouch and shirt clip)
Build Quality (4/5) – Housings are plastic but seem plenty sturdy and have articulated strain reliefs. Cable is a little thin for my liking but very flexible and doesn’t tangle much
Isolation (3.5/5) – Block out an above-average amount of external noise
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Nonexistent when worn over-the-ear. Noticeable but not too bad otherwise. Included shirt clip helps further
Comfort (4/5) – Easier to insert when worn cord-down. When worn over-the-ear fit is very similar to the JVC HA-FX300
Sound (6.7/10) – Coming from the RE0 these seem colored and very heavy at the low end, lacking in clarity and behind slightly in detail as well. After some solitary time with the S4, I think that they are interesting earphones that deliver heavy bass impact, strong mids, and decent treble. The bass can be too powerful and boomy for my liking, but that’s more of a personal issue - at least they don’t give me bass headaches. It’s not quite as tight as I would like, but can’t really be called bloated either. I can see why this bass has mass appeal – it can easily satisfy the bass junkie without offending the audiophile. There is a very small amount bleed into the midrange, which is smooth and articulate, if a little off-neutral (leaning towards warmth) and slightly thin. The treble that the S4s put out is the weak point for me – it lacks the sparkle and smoothness of the RE0 and (even after 200 hours) still sounds somewhat harsh and sibilant. Soundstaging is decent enough but can hardly be called spacious and individual instruments can sometimes be harder to pick out than I would like.
On a final note, I had a small issue with the relatively low impedance and high sensitivity of these - they have a tendency to hiss slightly even with normally dead-silent Sansa Fuze, and the hiss with a crappy lineout like the one on my integrated speaker amp is downright unbearable. They are also fairly revealing of a poor source and recordings so I wouldn’t bother using them with an AM radio or that 96kbps webcast.
Value (7/10) – With a sound signature that can be appreciated by bass junkie, audiophile, and casual listener alike – and practicality to match – the S4s don’t lack in any area. However, as is often with FOTM earphones, the hype is excessive. For me, in terms of sound, the S4 lack the “wow” factor of the RE0, Phonak PFEs, and many others. That said, I still consider these good value for money despite the several issues I have with their sound.
Pros: Competent build, fit, and finish
Cons: Cables don’t inspire confidence, can be too bass heavy for some, hint of harshness/sibilance, prone to hissing
(2C4) V-Moda Vibe II
Reviewed Nov 2009
Details: Current Price: $84.99 from jr.com (MSRP: $119.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 12-22k Hz | Cable: 3.8’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (4/5) – Two sets of silicone single-flange tips (4 sizes each) in clear and black, over-the-ear cable guides, and soft leather carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – Housings are made of what feels like solid steel. Cables are thick and wrapped in cloth but tend to tangle and knot. Combined with the metal mic and remote, the whole construction weighs a ton. Left/Right markings are printed in silver (on the silver shells) on the inside of the housing, under the edge of the tip, and are absolutely impossible to see (but there is a microphone on the right-side cable)
Isolation (3/5) – Quite good for a straight-barrel dynamic IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – The cloth cable transmits quite a lot of cable noise unless they are worn over-the-ear. The included cable guides are a nice touch
Comfort (2.5/5) – Too heavy. Way too heavy. I can’t wear them cord-down because the weight of the earphones causes the housings to torque my ears until it hurts
Sound (5.6/10) – These are, to be quite honest, what I expected originally from the Monster Turbines. They are bass-centric and start rolling off pretty much right after the upper midrange. The bass is strong and smooth, but lacking in definition and control, which is surprising because the Turbines actually have more of it. They are also lacking slightly in detail and instrumental separation across the range. Clarity is not quite on-par with the Turbines or Klipsch S4s either. The midrange is smooth and well-positioned while the treble is slightly recessed and a little too laid back for my liking. They do sound quite dynamic, not unlike the UE MetroFi 220s, and can be extremely fun at times, but I wish they had a tighter low end.
Amping: The Vibe II benefits surprisingly from a little extra juice. Most of their glaring faults get toned down – the bass becomes tighter, separation increases, and the treble is evened out slightly. While still far from perfection, the improvement is noticeable enough that an amp may be a worthy investment for someone who already owns the Vibe II. To be honest, their fondness for an amp is extremely odd considering that they are only sold in iPhone headset form and usually lose that functionality when amped.
Value (6/10) – The V-Moda Vibe II are another one for the bass lover. With their unique styling and rock-solid construction they definitely stand out in a crowded market segment, but it seems that in the pursuit of originality V-Moda left sound quality on the sidelines. They don’t sound half bad by any means – on a scale set by some of the best universal IEMs in existence they place respectably. There are just too many lower-priced IEMs that set aside all the crowd-pleasing gimmicks and shoot straight for sq.
Pros: Solid build, fun sound signature
Cons: Tangle/kink-prone cabling, heavy, lack low-end control, treble roll-off
(2C5) Auvio Armature
Reviewed Jan 2010
Details: Flagship IEM from RadioShack’s in-house electronics manufacturer Auvio
Current Price: $59.99 from RadioShack (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver:BA | Imp: 55.5 Ω | Sens: 108 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cord: 
’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T400, Soundmagic PL30 single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), comply T400 tips (3 sizes), and a pleather carrying case with magnetic flap and inner pocket
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The housings are in two parts, the rear being nicely machined metal and the front – plastic. The plastic feels a bit rough and cheap. Cabling is fairly thick but somewhat tangle-prone. Strain reliefs are functional on the 3.5mm plug end but not molded on earphone entry.
Isolation (4/5) – Isolation is quite good with the stock silicone tips and improves further with the included Complys. Angled nozzle is conducive to deep insertion.
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down and non-existent when worn cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – The nozzles are angled as on the Klipsch S4 and the fit is very similar. Can easily be worn cord-up or cord-down.
Sound (4.9/10) – The Auvios produce a very flat and neutral sound that falls just short of expectations on a few levels. Extension on the low end is rather average, with the bass rolling off quickly past about 35 Hz. What is there is quite tight and accurate, though with little impact. The mids are slightly recessed and the soundstage is just a bit wider than average. Separation is mediocre and for the $80 MSRP I would also expect better clarity and detail in the mids and treble. The high end is fairly flat and extended, though devoid of sparkle and excitement, resulting in a slightly dark sound. Really, they aren’t bad at all, but after having heard the RadioPaq Jazz and Klipsch S4 I expect more from earphones with a list price of $80.
Value: (6/10) – Though the Auvios really excel on the usability front, the sound isn’t quite something I could get excited about. While they perform admirably from a technical standpoint, they lack a certain musical quality that keeps me coming back to earphones such as the RadioPaq Jazz and Soundmagic PL50. I was actually originally convinced that the Auvios utilized the same armatures as the Soundmagic PL50 (both are Chinese OEM single armature earphones with similar impedance and sensitivity specs). Having listened to both side by side I’d be very surprised if they did – the sound signatures are just that different. Needless to say I prefer the PL50.
Pros: Comfy, decent build quality, almost zero microphonics
Cons: Bland sound, optimistic MSRP
(2C6) Klipsch Custom 2
Reviewed Jan 2010
Details: Klipsch’s mid-range dual-armature earphone; one of the cheapest such setups on the market
Current Price: $75 from TigerDirect.com (MSRP: $199.99)
Specs: Driver: Dual BA | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 112 dB | Freq: 10-19k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (4.5/5) – Silicone single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) tips, cleaning tool, airplane adapter, and oversize hard carrying case
Build Quality (2.5/5) – The housings are rubber-covered plastic and quite well-made. The memory wire acts as a strain relief and the y-split and L-plug are both very impressive. The nylon cabling, however, is atrocious. It kinks and tangles endlessly, ruining an otherwise competent build
Isolation (4/5) – The long, steeply angled nozzles allow for deep insertion, resulting in impressive isolation
Microphonics (2.5/5) – Quite unpleasant despite these being worn over-the-ear and having a ‘memory wire’ configuration
Comfort (4/5) – Can’t fault the Customs here – they fit in the ear rather snugly and unobtrusively, not unlike the JVC AirCushions. Persons with smaller ears may find them harder to wear
Sound (6/10) – The dual-driver Custom 2 improves on the single armature Custom 1 by offering a wider dynamic range - the C1s’ lack of presence in the bass and quirky treble characteristics were my major gripes with them. With the C2s, low-end response is much improved with fuller-sounding, warmer, and more impactful bass that’s still just as tight as on the C1s. The midrange is similar to that found on the C1s – lush, airy, and clear. The treble is much tamer although it still carries some of the edginess and brightness of the Custom 1. Still, I managed to survive my 3-day evaluation of the C2 without listening fatigue (which I can’t say for the C1). The soundstage is slightly wider and deeper than with the C1s and detail is improved all-around, especially at the extremes of the frequency range. Like the C1, the C2 is an extremely sensitive earphone and added impedance cuts down on the hiss and makes the whole signature more coherent, so an attenuator is recommended.
Value (7/10) – As with the Custom 1, the MSRP of the Custom 2 is a bit of a stretch. Even at the current $75 price point, Klipsch’s own dynamic-driver S4 are a better buy for most genres. Though I wholeheartedly recommend the Custom 2 over the Custom 1, I can’t help but feel that Klipsch put on the brakes when engineering the sound of the C2 so that it would not compete with the higher-end C3 and the Image line.
Pros: Comfortable, well-isolating, detailed and smooth midrange
Cons: Downright awful cabling, excessive microphonics
(2C7) ViSang R03 / Brainwavz M2
Reviewed Mar 2010
Details: heavyweight bang/buck contender from one of VSonic’s daughter companies Current Price: $65 from ebay.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20 Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Note: The mp4nation Brainwavz M2 is identical to the R03 in every way except the 3.5mm plug (45-degree plug identical to that on the Beta Brainwavz is used on the M2) and the accessory pack (M2 does not include foamhybrid tips).
Accessories (4/5) – Silicone single-flange tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and clamshell carrying case (foamhybrid tips no longer included with mp4nation version)
Build Quality (4/5) – Sturdy aluminum housings, metal filters, and tough yet flexible cables. Strain reliefs are not molded but do the job and the cords lack a cable cinch and have some long-term memory character. Left/Right markings are a bit hard to see in direct sunlight
Isolation (3.5/5) – Typical of a ported dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (4/5) – Present when worn cord-down but wearing them over-the-ear is possible and a shirt clip is included
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are light but wearing them over-the-ear can initially be a bit tricky because of the long strain reliefs and resistive cable. The sizable driver bulge on the housing prevents particularly deep insertion
Sound (7.2/10) – Though I wouldn’t quite call them bass-heavy, the R03 certainly boast added low-end emphasis. Despite the boost, the bass is very smooth and calm. It stays completely out of the way when uncalled for and steps up in bass-heavy tracks. The bass also has a softness and delicacy to it that is rather rare and reminds me of my Monster Turbine Pro Gold as opposed to the hard-hitting low end of earphones such as the Klipsch S4 and Panasonic HJE900. The overall tonality of the R03 leans slightly towards darkness. The mids are front and center right where they should be, except when drums step out of line and too far forward on rare occasions. This is a positioning issue rather than a balance issue and is rarely distracting. Soundstage depth is actually one of the few areas in which the R03 could stand improvement before they take down some of the big players in the mid-range segment. Soundstage width is about average, around the level of the RE0, and imaging is rather good for what they cost, though they can’t quite keep up with the hologram-esque spacing of the Soundmagic PL50 and HJE900. Midrange clarity is superb and detail is equally impressive. The treble is smooth and moderately extended. It is not the focus of the presentation but instead a compliment. It is neither harsh nor bright nor sibilant. The R03 are also quite fast, at least on-par with the original Monster Turbines, and surprisingly transparent. Lastly, they have a very natural timbre, which is something a lot of budget IEMs struggle with.
As a final note, though the R03 themselves do not require an amp, I did try running them through a 68-ohm impedance adapter and a mini3. Together the two have effect of evening the R03 out, bringing forward the mids and treble and raising bass levels just a bit without sacrificing precision and control. Drums are less likely to misbehave with the added adapter and fine detail becomes even easier to catch.
Value (9/10) – The ViSang R03 is an incredible performer - a wholesome combination of build quality, comfort, and sound at a price well south of $100. In terms of coherency of sound signature they are up there with the best sub-$100 earphones I have heard. The combination of impactful bass, clear mids, and crisp treble give the R03 a very agreeable sound that can be enjoyed by both the audiophile and the casual listener in equal measure. And that fact alone makes them highly recommended earphones with a sound signature geared slightly towards the mainstream market compared to much of the gear talked about on head-fi. Do I personally still prefer a more analytical sound? Yes. But that does not prevent me from enjoying the R03 in the least. They are not perfect, but they are unreasonably good for what they cost.
Pros: Great build and sound quality
Cons: Mediocre isolation, L/R markings hard to see, cords have some memory character
Full review can be found here.
(2C8) JAYS j-JAYS
Reviewed Apr 2010
Details: Entry-level earphone from Swedish manufacturer JAYS
Current Price: $65 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $70)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 106 dB | Freq: 50-20k Hz | Cable: 2’ I-plug + 3’ extension
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange silicone (4 sizes) and foam tips, 4 sets of replacement filters, 3.5mm splitter, airplane adapter, extension cord, and leatherette carrying pouch
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Sturdy plastic housings feature proper strain reliefs though the relief on the 3.5mm plug is a bit hard. The cables are thin but behave well and don’t tangle
Isolation (3/5) – Insertion depth is quite good due to rounded housings, yielding reasonable isolation
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Very low when worn over-the-ear, but still not too bad otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – Extremely light housings make them very easy to wear. Flexible strain reliefs allow for easy cord-up use
Sound (3.9/10) – The sound put out by the j-JAYS is dark and warm. Low-end extension is rather average, rolling of smoothly past 35Hz. The bass could be tighter but there’s certainly a good amount of it. The midrange is in balance with the bass but lacks articulation. Clarity is poor and some vocals can sound downright muffled, which is a shame because the tonality is very natural, as good as any mid-range earphone I have heard. The treble is recessed, adding to the warmth of the sound. It is completely devoid of sparkle, but also of harshness and sibilance. Indeed, the j-JAYS are as smooth as earphones can get but the loss in clarity and detail is not a fair trade-off in my book.
Value (5/10) – Though the sound signature of the JAYS is typical of a low-end dynamic IEM, the price tag is not. From the way they are designed and packaged it is obvious that Jays puts user-friendliness first, and I applaud that - the j-JAYS certainly have an upmarket feel and make a beautiful gift. I just wish they had an upmarket sound signature to match.
Pros: Incredibly complete package, very comfortable, user-friendly
Cons: Where’s the clarity? Cable is too short without extension, too long with it
(2C9) Thinksound Rain
Reviewed May 2010
Details: Thinksound’s pricier “crisp and balanced” wooden IEM
Current Price: $64.99 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Comply T/Tx400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, and unbleached cotton drawstring pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The wooden housings are accented by machined-aluminum nozzles. Combined with the etched L/R markings and general attention to detail, the Thinksounds have a very upmarket feel. The short strain reliefs are functional and the rubberized cable, despite being rather thin, does not tangle much. The 3.5mm I-plug is well-relieved and sturdy
Isolation (3/5) – Average due to massive rear vent
Microphonics (4/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cord-down, very low worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings of the Thinksound Rain are longer and thinner than those of the TS01. Wearing comfort is just as good since the housings are still light and easy to wear over-the-ear. However, sleeping in the Rains is not a good idea due to the length of the shells
Sound (6.9/10) – I reviewed Thinksound’s lower-end TS01 head to head with another wooden earphone, the Woodees IESW101B, and found them to be different interpretations of a very similar sound signature, each unique strengths and weaknesses. The sonic signature of the higher-end Thinksound Rain seems to offer a blend of the positive traits of the other wooden earphones while downplaying the flaws. Unlike the enhanced-bass TS01, the Rain is advertised as having a crisp and balanced sound, which is true - the low end of the Rain is significantly lighter than that of the TS01 and the treble is tamer. The slightly flatter bass allows the Rain to relay more fine detail at the bottom of the range. They are still far from bass-light and can hit quite hard when prodded but the low end extension suffers noticeably in comparison to the Thunder. The bass on the Rain is full-bodied, no doubt, but the rumble of the Thunders is lacking.
Moving on to the midrange, the Rain, unlike the TS01, doesn’t drop off at all, sounding more forward and natural than the TS01 does. Detail and clarity are noticeably better and everything just sounds crisper. The tamer low end imparts little warmth on the midrange but the lush liquidity that’s so pleasant with the TS01 is not lost. Unlike the TS01, however, the Rain does not exhibit stridency towards the upper midrange. As a result, they sound smoother overall despite the lack of warmth. Musical elements like the crack of drums or snares never sound jarring the way they can with the TS01, even with silicone tips. Unlike bass extension, which suffers as the result of the flatter low-end response of the Rain, treble extension doesn’t seem to be affected by the flatter top end. The treble is crisp and clear, with a bit of sparkle and natural reverb. The Rain don’t exactly manage the delicacy or effortlessness of the RE0 but will satisfy a treble lover more than, say, a ViSang R03 or Soundmagic PL50.
Finally, presentation is another area in which the Rain surpasses the TS01 in my book. The soundstage of the Rain is significantly broader. It’s not a wide-sounding earphone like the Cyclone PR1 Pro but it is well-spaced and conveys both intimacy and distance fairly well. Imaging is better and orchestral pieces sound more natural and less dense. Like the TS01, the Rain also has a good sense of timbre, whether with guitars or woodwinds. It’s not perfect, but then for the price it’s not expected to be. In my weeks with the Rain I’ve also learned something else – the Rain is a very good IEM for movies. Something about the way it positions audio is very believable and the highly detailed nature of the mids and treble helps bring out intricacies that may otherwise have been missed. And of course the impactful bass helps complete the overall experience.
Value (8/10) – On the grand scale, the Rain is not radically different from the TS01 in sound. It is the little improvements, however, each changing the sound slightly but in the right direction, that come together to make a product that is significantly more capable overall. The Rain is more balanced, more neutral, and more natural-sounding than that TS01. It is smoother overall and boasts a more lifelike presentation. Both Thinksound earphones put up a good fight on the usability front as well – their design is simple but functional. And of course Thinksound’s environmentally-friendly approach to product design is a value-added proposition for those who sleep better at night knowing that the earth is just a little bit greener because companies like Thinksound and Ankit are doing business.
Pros: Great aesthetics and attention to detail, solid performance, environmentally-friendly design & packaging
Cons: Not as sleep-friendly as the TS01
(2C10) Rockford Fosgate Punch Plugs
Reviewed Jun 2010
Details: Dynamic-driver IEM from car audio firm Rockford Fosgate
Current Price: $89.99 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $99.99); $129.99 for PP15mmi with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 10-18k Hz | Cable: 4' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down
Accessories (3.5/5) – Single flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sizes) silicone tips, hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The large, ergonomically-designed housings are made out of plastic with the exception of the Rockford Fosgate badges and the metal-mesh filters in the nozzle. While not exactly high-rent, the housings do feel solid enough for everyday use. The flat cable is soft, flexible, and feels rather sturdy. However, the cord lacks strain relief on housing entry as well as at the Y-split
Isolation (3/5) – Reasonable but far from class-leading due to the vented design. The vents also make the Punch Plugs susceptible to wind noise in breezy conditions
Microphonics (4.5/5) – The rubberized flat cable found on the Punch Plugs is not very energetic and generally carries almost no noise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The body of the Punch Plugs is designed around the sizable bulge that contains the gargantuan 15mm drivers. Ideally, the bulge itself rests inside the wearer’s ear and the long plastic nozzle is inserted into the ear canal. The ergonomics suit me well but make no mistake – the housings of the Punch Plugs are huge and could easily swallow a few of the smaller in-ears whole. Those with small ears or narrow ear canals will likely want to give the Punch Plugs a pass if long-term comfort is a priority. Additionally, the Punch Plugs cannot be worn with the cord looped over the ear unless the Left/Right earpieces are reversed. The flat cable is rather prohibitive of such use as well
Sound (6.8/10) – The advertising materials for the Punch Plugs claim that the earphones transport the “Power, Clarity, and Ground Shaking Bass” of Rockford Fosgate subwoofers directly into the listener’s ear. The bass produced by the Punch Plugs is indeed very powerful and yet surprisingly accurate and controlled. They aren’t the most bass-heavy earphones out there but they are very hard-hitting, especially at higher volumes. The low end of the Punch Plugs carries quite a lot of information and always sounds well-integrated into the music. Predictably, though, the sub-bass does roll off and midrange bleed occurs in small quantities. The midrange of the Punch Plugs is slightly veiled but still quite dynamic and involving. Though the earphones tend to gloss over fine detail, they impart a unique grungy texture on the midrange, making it sound raw and slightly rough. This tendency is related to the fact that the gigantic drivers of the Punch Plugs have a rather small dynamic range and don’t relay subtlety very well.
Despite the raw-sounding midrange, the treble produced by the Punch Plugs is never harsh. Upper-end presentation is slightly recessed but crisp and accurate, rolling off gradually but a bit too early for my liking. Because of the recessed treble and aggressive bass, the Punch Plugs take on a very dark tone. In fact, the tone of the Punch Plugs contends with the FutureSonics Atrio M8 for the title of the darkest earphone I own. Can the dark tone be a negative? Certainly, but it depends on personal preference more than anything else. For listeners who favor bright and sparkly sound, the Punch Plugs require some heavy equalization in the mids and treble, to which they respond fairly well.
In terms of presentation, the Punch Plugs boast decent soundstage width and depth. The sonic image is slightly blurred resulting in a less separated and more blended sound and contributing to the ‘garage band’ feel of the earphones. The Punch Plugs also need a good amount of volume to bring out detail – those who like to keep the volume minimal will likely find them a touch boring. All in all the signature of the Punch Plugs is very unique and, while not technically perfect, is sure to find its fans.
Value (7.5/10) – The Punch Plugs compete well with other earphones in their price bracket, providing that the listener enjoys the particular flavor they bestow on music. Their sound signature lacks compromise – it is dark, raw, and powerful. Low notes hit hard, the midrange is grungy and thick, and the treble is crisp but recessed. The construction utilizes no exotic materials or flashy design elements but the aesthetics are far from forgettable – while I was initially disappointed with the sheer quantity of plastic that went into the Punch Plugs, the design grew on me just as the sound signature did. The Punch Plugs are neither audiophile earphones nor studio monitors – they are tuned purely for rocking out, and on that count they do deliver.
Pros: Nearly no microphonics, ergonomic design, unique and coherent presentation
Cons: Lack of strain relief on cable entry, fit is problematic for those with small ears, slightly prone to wind noise, love-it-or-hate-it sound signature
(2C11) Sleek Audio SA-1
Reviewed Jun 2010
Details: Mid-range entry from Sleek Audio, notable for the wooden housings, a sonic tuning system, and detachable cables
Current Price: $74.99 from soundearphones.com (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 25 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (3 sizes) silicone tips, treble tuning filters (2 sets), and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The wood-and-metal housings look and feel quite solid. Detachable cables are a huge plus and the connectors are identical to those used by the Panasonic HJE900. The cord itself is a bit thin and plasticky but flexible, properly relieved, and, of course, replaceable
Isolation (3.5/5) – The isolation is quite adequate, helped by the slim, easy-to-insert housings
Microphonics (4/5) – Cable noise is low when worn cable-down and nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are long, slim, and rounded at the front for a more unobtrusive fit. The cable exit point is angled a bit awkwardly for over-the-ear use but general wearing comfort is very good. It should be noted that the SA1 sounds best with a very shallow seal despite being well-suited for a deep fit
Sound (5.9/10) – First off – the tuning system. The SA1 features a simplified version of the VQ tuning system utilized in Sleek’s flagship SA6 earphone – all that the user is allowed to do is choose between two treble ports. To my ears (and I freely admit to liking my treble bright) there is no inherent disadvantage in using the silver treble-heavy ports. The earphones do not lose much bass quantity or quality and the lower midrange is unaffected by the filters. The upper midrange and lower treble are emphasized slightly by the silver ports and, to my ears, sound more balanced than with the black ports. I want to stress that the difference is small and in the big picture the Sleeks are bright earphones either way – those who are offended by brightness will not find solace in the black filters.
The general sound signature of the SA1 emphasizes smoothness over clarity. The bass is tight and punchy but lacking in body, rumble, and extension. In fact, the bass put out by the 6mm drivers of the SA1 reminds me of bass produced by certain balanced armatures – quick and accurate but not particularly realistic or informative. On the upside, the lower midrange is clear of bass bleed and generally sounds quite smooth. Detail and clarity are quite impressive at first listen. However, part of the perceived clarity as a result of the bright treble – comparing the SA1 side-by-side with earphones such as the Grado iGi or Yamaha EPH-50 reveals the actual clarity of the Sleeks to be a step below both - around the level of the cheaper Meelec M9 and Nuforce NE-6 to my ears. The slightly thick sound works well for stringed instruments and vocals and, combined with the slightly emphasized treble, gives the SA1 a ‘shiny’ signature that reminds me of the Audio-Technica ATH-CK100, though the timbre of the $400 Audio-Technicas is noticeably more realistic. The treble is quite smooth and, despite being slightly forward, suffers from neither harshness nor sibilance. Top-end extension is decent and treble detail is impressive for the money without sounding aggressive in the least.
Presentation is where the sound of the SA1 goes slightly wrong for me. Granted, the comparably-priced earphones I have been using lately (the ViSang R03/R02, Hippo VB, Yamaha EPH-50, Brainwavz M1, etc) are all high bang/buck contenders when it comes to sound and have unreasonably good instrument separation. However, in a field of these five <$80 earphones, the SA1 sounds notably congested and quite narrow. Instrumental separation is sub-par compared to the others, which is why I would not recommend them for complex rock and metal recordings, big-band jazz, or orchestral music despite the excellent rendition of stringed instruments. Using the earphones with an extremely shallow seal helps alleviate the problem somewhat – with the largest Sony Hybrid eartips and a very shallow fit, soundstage width is about average to my ears. However, isolation takes an expected hit and they don’t feel quite as secure to wear. On the whole, as long as soundstage size is not a prime concern, the SA1 is a solid mid-range earphone.
Value (7.5/10) – The Sleek Audio SA1 offers a combination of features not usually found at its price point. Wooden housings, detachable cables, and tuning systems are all quite rare to begin with and finding them on a single earphone – one with an $80 price tag – is notable in itself. The Sleeks do look and feel like a quality product but have a few drawbacks in functionality and performance. The tuning system does not have a radical effect on the sound and will likely only be used once - those who like to switch off different-sounding earphones often will find no solace in the SA1. The sound signature is quite pleasant and coherent, with the major flaw for me being the narrow soundstage. Though this can be fixed to an extent by using an extremely shallow seal, isolation and fit suffer in the process. As a total package, the SA1 is worth the asking price. For the best bang/buck in sound quality alone, better options abound.
Pros: Well-built, comfortable, low microphonics, detachable cables
Cons: Optimal sound quality and isolation are mutually exclusive, not trivial for over-the-ear use, tuning system useless in the long run
(2C12) Hippo VB
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: Mid-range dynamic IEM from Jaben’s house brand, Hippo, boasting ‘Variable Bass’ technology
Current Price: $79 from unclewilsons.com (MSRP: $79)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 18-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flanges
Wear Style: straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, hard clamshell carrying case with wrist strap, and bass tuning ports (3 sets)
Build Quality (3.5/5) – Metal shells with screw-in bass ports in the rear and filterless nozzles. The cable is properly relieved and doesn’t tangle much but feels a bit cheap – sort of like the new Head-Direct cable found on the RE-ZERO and RE252. The L-plug is excellent
Isolation (3/5) – Quite decent for day-to-day use with well-sealing tips
Microphonics (3/5) – Rather bothersome when worn cord-down; average otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The VBs are typical straight-barrel IEMS when it comes to fit but the housings aren’t small or rounded at the front, resulting in fairly shallow fit. The cord is rather flexible and wearing them over-the-ear is easy
Sound (7.7/10) – The Hippo VB gets its designation from the ‘Variable Bass’ tuning system, which consists of three interchangeable screw-in bass ports/plates that are fitted at the rear of the shells. The high-bass, medium-bass, and low-bass plates are marked with zero, two, and three white dots, respectively (and, unless I’m reading it wrong, the packaging actually has the markings listed backwards). The changes resulting from swapping the plates are small but noticeable. With the medium (two dot) plate, bass quantity is just a bit short of the Sennheiser IE8 (on minimum bass setting) and about on par with the Monster Turbine Pro Gold. Compared to the medium setting, the high-bass plate sounds a bit less controlled and slightly darker. The low-bass plate makes the sound brighter and seems to exacerbate the sibilance towards which the VB can be prone while offering no improvements in control or clarity over the medium plate. Needless to say, after initial testing I left the two-dot bass plate on for the duration of my listening.
With the medium tuning plate in place, the bass of the VB is nothing short of superb. It is well-textured, full-bodied, and extremely deep, matching the Future Sonics Atrios in extension and offering even better linearity. The sub-bass has great rumble and is very controlled - mid-bass bloat common to mid-range earphones with lots of bass is completely absent. As a result, the bass of the VB sounds rather different from that of midbass-heavy earphones like the Sennheiser CX300 – the VB offers plenty of sub-bass rumble with a bit of punch. The resulting sound is extremely layered and well-separated as opposed to the more blended and integrated sound offered by earphones like the FA Eterna and ViSang R03. The peculiar presentation is enjoyable in its own right but may surprise those expecting CX300-like midbass. Expectedly, midrange bleed is completely absent, giving way to clear and accurate mids. The midrange reminds me of the Head-Direct RE0 with less microdetail and overall refinement. It is controlled and detailed but tends to sound a tad thin and quite dry compared to the similarly-priced ViSang R03 and Fischer Audio Eterna. The midrange is quite adequate, but it’s neither a strength nor a weakness of the VB - the dryness, combined with the powerful subbass, does give the VB a certain garage band feel that works well with certain tracks but I think the more lush and liquid mids of the R03 and Eterna work better with bass-heavy earphones.
If the midrange of the VB reminds me of the RE0 in several ways, the treble is antithetical to that of Head-Direct’s mid-range heavyweight. Though very crisp and extended, it is fairly forward and quite aggressive. The earphones tend slightly towards sibilance, though the reports I’ve read seem somewhat exaggerated - compared to something like the Grado iGi or Klipsch S4, the sibilance of the VB is quite mild. However, the high end of the VB does lack the delicacy and refinement of the RE0s, instead appearing very edgy and a bit metallic. If I had to pin it down, the edgy nature of the VB’s treble reminds me of a certain lower-end Grado that had surprisingly hard treble – namely the older SR80.
As for presentation, the VBs do have a fairly wide soundstage with good separation but tend to stray little towards the extremes. They can portray both distance and intimacy but the Eterna does it better, and has a wider dynamic range to boot. Still, the overall sound of the VB is quite uncolored, which is usually a plus in my book, and the VB is less sensitive than the Eterna when it comes to source matching. Lastly, the unique balance of the VB aids in low volume listening as the bass detail, which is usually the first thing to go when the volume of a dynamic earphone is reduced, stays very strong with the VB even at low listening volumes.
Value (8.5/10) – Easily one of the top earphones in its price bracket, the Hippo VB offers a unique sound signature with unparalleled bass depth and sub-bass power, no mid-bass bloat, a crystal-clear but dry midrange, and extended but edgy treble. Listening to the VB is an intense experience and won’t suit everyone’s tastes – it is not the earphone to use while enjoying a glass of fine whiskey in front of the fireplace. For the same reason, the VB is not an easy earphone to recommend for hi-fi newcomers looking for bass-heavy sound – it has neither the warmth nor the thickness usually associated with fun and bassy sound. Both the ViSang R03 and FA Eterna fit the expectations of a fun-sounding IEM better and make better everyday companions for those who value isolation and durability. But for those in search of a raw and visceral sound with maximum bass depth, the VB is very hard to beat no matter the budget.
Pros: Deep bass, great clarity
Cons: Microphonics can be bothersome, strangely thick stock tips, mostly useless tuning system, edgy treble
(2C13) Fischer Audio Eterna
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: Mid-range dynamic IEM from Russia-based Fischer Audio
Current Price: est $68 from frogbeats (MSRP: $67.49)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18 Ω | Sens: 110 dB | Freq: 8-22k Hz | Cable: 4.3' L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single flanges
Wear Style: over-the-ear
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange (2 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, over-the-ear cable guides, cloth carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings of the Eterna are fully plastic but feel quite solid despite showing some molding artifacts. The nozzles feature metal mesh filters and the cabling is properly relieved. The cables, while thick and tough, possess some annoying memory character and aren’t as soft as I would like. For me, cable guides are a must to keep the cord in place
Isolation (4/5) – Surprisingly high with stock single- or bi-flange tips
Microphonics (4/5) – Low since over-the-ear fit is compulsory
Comfort (4/5) – Ergonomic angled-nozzle housings are very comfortable for prolonged use, not unlike higher-end Shure and Westone models. However, the Eterna is rather bulbous and as a result not nearly as friendly towards those endowed with less aural real estate as smaller earphones
Sound (7.7/10) – The Eterna is the last earphone in my small group of bottom-heavy test subjects, and arguably the most distinctive. The driving force behind the Eterna’s signature is the bass, which is quite vociferous even when compared to the Hippo VB and ViSang R03. The Eterna’s low end is more conventional in nature than that of the VB, with much of the bass coming in above 100Hz. Though the mid-bass hump of the R03 comes in even higher, the Eterna’s is bigger and gives nearly as much warmth to the midrange while at the same time reaching lower into the sub-bass (though not as low as the VB, IE8, or Atrios). The bass is fairly forward, not immensely accurate, and sounds a bit ponderous on certain tracks but bleeds far less than expected into the midrange and generally remains very enjoyable.
The midrange of the Eterna is warmed up by the mid-bass hump and sounds a bit veiled and recessed in comparison to the aggressive low end. However, it is still more forward than the mids of the VB/IE8 - two earphones that generally sound more distant than the Eterna does. Like the bass, the midrange has good body and sounds rather lush and sweet, especially compared to the dry and colorless VB, but also lacks the clarity and fine detail of the Hippos and many higher-end earphones. Transparency is at least on-par with other earphones in the price bracket and emotion in vocals is conveyed to the listener adroitly. Similarly, the treble of the Eterna is competent but not outstanding. It is not at the forefront of the sound signature but remains in excellent balance with the midrange. Though the highs are rather clean, they do lack the crystal clarity of more analytical earphones as well as more treble-focused budget entries such as the JVC HA-FXC80 and don’t quite have the extension of the VB or IE8 (but fare better than the rolled-off treble of the ViSang R03). Most importantly, the Eterna's treble is smooth and non-fatiguing in nature, remaining very likable despite the lack of sparkle and microdetail.
In terms of presentation, the Eterna is a spacious-sounding earphone that loses a bit of air due to the general thickness of the sound. The soundstage is quite wide and has decent depth. It doesn’t have the out-of-the-head feel of the IE8, but for an IEM it is very spatial and engaging - more so than the Atrios, for example. Separation is hindered ever so slightly by the thickness but still quite good for a bass-driven earphone. Imaging is solid and the sound is properly layered. Like most mid-range dynamic IEMs, the Eterna needs a bit of volume to reach its technical best. Personally, I found that my enjoyment of the Eterna’s presentation varies greatly from track to track, perhaps more so than with any other IEM. On extremely fast and busy tracks, I found myself wishing for a bit more clarity and resolution. On slower and/or less complex tracks, the musicality of the Eterna's sound signature starts to show and gives one of the most enjoyable listening experiences in the its price range.
Lastly, a note on the differences between the two Eterna revisions. The review above is based on the 2nd revision of the Eterna, which is the model currently stocked by Fischer retailers. However, the question on everyone’s mind seems to be whether the rev.2 Eterna is actually a step backwards from revision 1 of the earphone. Luckily, I was loaned a rev.1 model by a fellow Head-Fier for comparative purposes. To my ears the two revisions of the Eterna are extremely similar in sound – they have far, far more in common with each other than either one has with any earphone I’ve previously heard. However, even just noticeable differences can manifest en masse. My impression of the differences as a whole is that the rev.1 Eterna is something of a rev.2 Eterna gone wild. It is very clear that Fischer Audio attempted to ‘fix’ the significant mid-bass hump of the rev.1 by evening out the response of the rev.2. However, despite being even bassier than the 2nd revision, the rev.1 earphone actually has slightly superior low-end clarity and resolution. It is also not quite as thick-sounding, leading to slightly better air and separation and making the soundstaging seem even more impressive. The newer Eterna does have some advantages of its own – the evened-out response helps bring the treble into focus, making detail easier to pick out, and the midrange has slightly better presence. And then there’s the background hiss, which is quite noticeable with the older model but almost nonexistent with the newer one. Yes, I personally like the Rev.1 earphone a little better still – it just sounds more unique, more special. But the fact that only the new revision is currently available will not stop me from recommending the Eterna in the least.
Value (9/10) – The Fischer Audio Eterna is not a balanced earphone. Its sculpted response was not designed for absolute fidelity and it would make a pretty poor studio monitor. What the Eterna does best is deliver the fun factor in a completely unadulterated form. The sound of the Eterna is big, smooth, and powerful, but at the same time it is both reasonably detailed and quite forgiving. The Eterna makes a great earphone for movies, for the gym, or just for being out-and-about - it doesn’t fatigue and never becomes boring. Truth be told, the Eterna has become one of my favorite bass-heavy sub-$100 IEMs, alongside the ViSang R03 and Hippo VB, despite being oh so very far from my preferred sound signature. Just as importantly, the Eterna does not disappoint in the usability department – it is comfortable, well-built, and highly isolating. If I had one complaint, it would be that the cables don’t stay behind my ears without the cable guides, but I expect that to straighten itself out over time. Either way, having to use ear guides is a small price to pay for a highly enjoyable listening experience at a bargain price.
Pros: Big, smooth, and powerful sound, good isolation, low microphonics
Cons: Voluminous housings, cable guides required to keep cord in place, not for lovers of analytical sound
Special thanks to mvw2 for the rev.1 Eterna loan
(2C14) Grado iGi
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: First budget-oriented IEM from Grado Labs
Current Price: $89 from Amazon.com (MSRP: $89)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24 Ω | Sens: 105dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ 45-degree plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-langes
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (1.5/5) – Large bi-flange silicone tips (2 pairs), conical silicone tips, and foamhybrid tips
Build Quality (3/5) – The generic housings are similar to those used on the VSonic R02ProII but made completely out of plastic. A rubber sheath covers the rear of the housings and extends into a long strain relief at the cable entry point. The cord is flexible and rubberized but quite thin and very prone to tangling
Isolation (3.5/5) – Adequate for a ported dynamic IEM, especially with bi-flange tips Slightly prone to wind noise due to side-facing vents
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not particularly bothersome but still present when worn cable-down. Sadly neither a cable cinch or shirt clip are present to reduce microphonics
Comfort (3/5) - Since the iGi are missing the usual slew of single-flange tips, they are not very friendly toward those with smaller ear canals. The conical tips are the closest thing to small single-flanges Grado chose to include with the iGi but getting a proper seal with them is tricky. Aftermarket Sony Hybrid tips are highly recommended for anyone having trouble getting a seal with the stock selection. Wearing them over-the-ear can be a bit tricky at first due to the long rubber strain reliefs. The thin and flexible cable compensates for this to an extent
Sound (6/10) – Since I first heard the SR60 several years ago, I’ve been hooked on the Grado house sound and my headphone collection has contained at least one example of the Grado signature. Much of my listening, however, is done on the move – an application for which open-back Grados are particularly unsuited. The idea of a reasonably-priced Grado in-ear - the iGi was particularly attractive to me as a fan of both IEMs and the Grado house sound. Fast forward several months after the release of the iGi and there they were - on my desk and immaculately packaged. What came next were months of agonizing attempts to like the sound. Don't get me wrong - the iGi do several things very well for a reasonably-priced in-ear. But those hoping for SR60-like value for money will be sorely disappointed.
The bass response is tight and quick, with little rumble but plenty of impact. Low end extension is good but the emphasis is on mid- and upper bass. The bass transitions into the lower midrange with no bleed and the lower mids are quite smooth and natural. Clarity and detail are both good across the range and the iGi manage to reproduce a sense of space, something many in-ears struggle with. The soundstage boasts impressive width and mediocre depth, resulting in a spacious but poorly separated sound.
The upper midrange is where it all starts to go wrong, however. Despite the significant break-in time give to my set, the iGi are overly harsh and quite sibilant to my ears. I will admit that I have a very low tolerance for such phenomena - even the generally well-liked Klipsch Image S4 lack treble refinement to my ears. Tolerance aside, the iGi simply lack smoothness. There are several very noticeable spikes in the frequency response, which negatively affect the reproduction of certain instruments and vocals. The upper-midrange spikes can cause the crack of snare drums to sound very sharp. Uneven treble around 10kHz causes cymbals on some tracks to be downright piercing. All of this is even more puzzling considering that the promotional materials for the earphones claim an “ultra-smooth top end”, the exact opposite of what I hear. As a result, the iGi are poorly suited for rock and metal, genres usually considered to be the calling card of Grado products. They actually sound best with trance and electronica – vocal-light genres with minimal natural harmonics that benefit greatly from the tight bass, overall clarity, and extended upper treble that the earphones deliver. It should also be said that the innate flaws of the iGi wreak havoc when combined with low bitrate tracks and the earphones are very sensitive when it comes to source matching.
Value (5/10) – The Grado iGi are the company’s first attempt at a reasonably-priced in-ear earphone. Unfortunately, their mediocrity in build quality, comfort, isolation, and microphonics makes it difficult to justify the $90 price tag. However it is sound quality, the eternal centerpiece of the Grado philosophy, where the iGi should fare best against the competition. Sadly, the lack of control in the upper midrange and lower treble makes them sound harsh and sibilant. Don’t get me wrong - there is much to like when it comes to the clarity, detail, and bass. I just wish I could enjoy them for more than an hour before listening fatigue settles in.
Pros: Good bass control, spacious and detailed sound
Cons: Generic design, tangle-prone cabling, poor tip selection, mediocre isolation, harshness and sibilance in the upper mids/lower treble
(2C15) Head-Direct (HiFiMan) RE-ZERO
Reviewed Aug 2010
Details: Limited edition TRRS-balanced earphone from HiFiMan/Head-Direct
Current Price: $99 from Head-Direct.com (MSRP: $99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cord: 4' L-plug + 3” TRS adapter (L-plug)
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: UE Single Flanges, De-Cored Shure Olives, Meelec M11+ Short Bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) - Single flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange (2 sets) silicone tips, shirt clip, spare filters (5 sets), 3” soft balanced->TRS adapter, hard balanced->TRS adapter
Build Quality (4/5) – Shells are made of sturdy-feeling metal and identical to those used by the RE0 except for the dark silver finish. Long rubber sleeves protect the cable and the 3.5mm L-plugs on both the standard cable and soft TRS adapter are identical to the one used by the higher-end RE252
Isolation (3.5/5) – Above average and potentially higher with the right tips, typical for a sealed straight-barrel IEM
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Low when worn over-the-ear, and still not too bad when worn straight down
Comfort (4/5) – Housings are fairly small and light. Fit is quite unobtrusive in either configuration
Sound (8.4/10) – Released to commemorate the three-year anniversary of Head-Direct’s RE line of on-ears, the limited edition RE-ZERO is meant to be an easier-to-drive alternative to the slightly cheaper RE0 with a touch more bass. However, the most unique feature of the ZERO is the fact that it’s wired in a fully balanced configuration utilizing a 3.5mm TRRS plug for use with balanced amplifiers and sources. Not having a balanced source on hand, all of my listening was done in the usual manner (Sansa Fuze, iBasso T4, mini3) using the included soft adapter. Clearly Head-Direct delivered on two of their promises – the 16-Ohm RE-ZEROs are no more difficult to drive than many mainstream IEMs though they do have a bit of scaling headroom left over and they are, indeed, balanced.
Whether the ZEROs have more bass than the RE0, however, is open to interpretation. I have not heard the RE0s in a long time but still have a pretty good idea of how they compare to my CK10s, which have similar overall balance minus the low-end roll-off. For me, the difference in bass quantity and power between the RE0 and RE-ZERO is little more than barely noticeable – both lag behind the BA-based CK10 in quantity of impact, with the ZERO sounding slightly more filled-out. The ZERO is just as tight and punchy as the RE0s were with a low end that is slightly fuller but make no mistake - the RE252 is fuller still and the folks over at Head-Direct are in no way endangering their flagship with these. While very accurate and fairly detailed, the RE-ZERO presents bass (and indeed everything else) with a delicacy that is lacking in most of the competition and which may or may not appeal to the individual listener.
Moving on to the midrange, the RE-ZERO greets the listener with the usual clarity and detail of RE-series earphones. The mids are very slightly warm and transparency is good. The midrange of the RE-ZERO is generally extremely competent – I can’t call it forward or recessed, thin or full, wet or dry. I remember finding the mids of the RE0 a bit thin but the RE-ZERO has none of that. Like the bass and treble, the midrange lacks the satisfying crispness of armature-based earphones and sounds all the more relaxed for it. Harshness is also imperceptible to my ears all the way up into the treble. The treble itself is very clear and detailed but rather gentle as far as analytical earphones go. I remember the RE0 being quite effortless and energetic when it comes to treble reproduction and the RE-ZERO doesn’t really make me feel quite the same way – it is more like the RE252 in that regard. An interesting side effect is that the RE-ZERO is affected less strongly by the treble-taming qualities of open-cell (e.g. Comply) foam tips – welcome news for those who find silicone cushions offensive.
In terms of presentation, the RE-ZERO is again as competent as the RE0 but doesn’t quite run with the top-tier big boys. Its soundstage is only slightly bigger than average and while it does convey both intimacy and space well, it is not the best earphone for those who must be able to pinpoint the source of every sound in the soundscape. The somewhat relaxed presentation of the RE-ZEROs results in relatively hazy positioning despite good overall separation. One last thing to note is that I don’t consider the tonality of the RE-ZERO impeccably realistic compared to truly high-end sets – it reminds me a bit of a grayscale image in that regard – all of the detail is present and everything is instantly recognizable and yet confusing it with reality would take an effort.
Value (10/10) – The Head-Direct RE-ZERO is not an up-and-out upgrade over the legendary RE0. Instead, it is a somewhat more versatile take on the same design with a new-but-not-unfamiliar angle on the Head-Direct house sound. So what does the extra $20 buy over the RE0? Well there’s the obvious – pretty silver shells and a spot in the limited 1000-unit run of the earphone. There’s also the lower impedance, which reduces the power dependence of the earphones, if only slightly, and of course the possibility of running the IEMs in balanced mode should such an opportunity arise. Most important, however, is the sound signature. The RE-ZERO is clearly not designed to appeal to current RE0 owners as an upgrade. Those who were unimpressed with the RE0 or RE252 should probably keep away from the RE-ZERO as well. However, anyone who’s ever heard the RE0 and found them to be slightly too energetic or even piercing at the top or a bit too thin or laid-back in the midrange should like the RE-ZERO more. New users should likewise choose between the two sound signatures but keep in mind that the differences between the two earphones are quite minute.
Pros: Top-tier sound quality for mid-fi money; compatible with balanced amps/sources
Cons: Sound signature not for everyone, TRS adapter required for use with most 3.5mm jacks
(2C16) Meelectronics M11+
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Updated version of Meelec’s tiny flagship
Current Price: $65 from meelec.com (MSRP: $64.99); 69.99 for M11P+ with mic (shown)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.6’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock short bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4.5/5) – Standard single-flange (3 sizes), elongated single-flange (3-sizes), short bi-flange (3 sizes), and standard bi-flange silicone tips, cord wrap, airplane adapter, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Unchanged from the old M11, and with good reason – the build of the M11 earphones is sublime. The housings are all-metal and feel very solid. The cabling is typical Meelec – long, thick, and flexible, and the hockey stick-shaped 3.5mm plug is adequately protected
Isolation (4/5) – Slim housings lend themselves well to deep insertion and the new fit kit makes getting the perfect seal easier than ever before
Microphonics (4.5/5) – Very low when worn cord-down; nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – About as good as conventional straight-barrel IEMs get. The housing is tiny but easy to grip when inserting/removing and the extensive fit kit should make finding the right tips quite easy for almost anyone
Sound (5.8/10) – Despite the excellent design and functionality, the sound quality of old Meelec M11 was always just a bit disappointing when juxtaposed with the physical attributes. With the M11+, Meelec attempted to finally give the M11 housings the drivers they’ve always deserved. Though the overall tone of the M11+ is similar to the popular M9 and M6 models, the signature has undergone some drastic changes. First off, the M11+ is rather bass-heavy. The low end is controlled and extended but carries enough impact to rattle the brain loose. When bass is present on a track, it is nearly always dominant with the M11+. The small drivers don’t move much air, which makes the bass impact all the more jarring, and the motion of the driver itself can be carried through the housing on certain tracks. Occasionally I found myself bumping down the lower bands of my equalizer to evaluate the midrange properly, which isn’t to say that the mids are recessed – the M11+ is less V-shaped than the M6 tends to be – but the low end really draws attention to itself and, on rare occasions, can almost completely overshadow the lower mids.
Though the M11+ is slightly more balanced than the M9/M6, the midrange still gives some emphasis up to the bass and treble (but not enough to be called recessed). It is strong and smooth and the tone is quite neutral, if not particularly natural. I wouldn’t call the mids of the M11+ transparent, either, as they have a thickness to them that may or may not appeal to the individual listener. Clarity and detail, on the other hand, are very good and easily one-up Meelec’s renowned M6 model. Especially on bass-light tracks, the mids and treble of the M11+ impress with their crispness and overall competence. That said, the treble of the M11+, while not often harsh or sibilant, sounds a bit edgy to my ears, not unlike that of the Hippo VB. A lack of dynamic range exhibited by the small drivers doesn’t help and the earphones sound ‘shouty’ on certain tracks. Not a bad sound for pop or electronica but a few of my rock and jazz tracks made me wish for more subtlety. Top-end extension is quite decent and the treble detail stays strong all the way to the roll-off point (in contrast to the Westone 1 I’ve been using lately). The M11+ is definitely no RE0 but it does compete well with the majority of <$80 dynamics when it comes to detail and clarity.
Much like the sound signature itself, the presentation of the M11+ is not technically perfect but has its own appeal. While the M11+ simply lacks the sheer expanse of something like the Fischer Audio Eterna, soundstage width and depth are both adequate. Stereo separation is excellent and the sound is mostly well-layered, though the bass can step out of line on occasion. I had the chance to switch between the M11+ and the similarly-bassy but slightly cheaper Sennheiser CX281 and the Senns just sound completely flat in comparison, as if all of the instruments are equidistant from the listener. Positioning and imaging suffer slightly from the thickness of the M11+ but I wouldn’t call the earphones congested. Airiness is lacking slightly compared to the entry-level M9 model as well. Tonally, the M11+ is hard to place. It doesn’t sound all too dissimilar from the M6, though the heavier bass balances out the treble brightness better on the M11+. Some instruments don’t sound entirely realistic but using the M11+ exclusively for a couple of days ‘fixes’ this.
It should also be noted that the specs of the M11+ are deceivingly mild – in reality, the M11+ likes power far more than an earphone with a mere 16Ω of impedance should. Hooking them up to an amp really loosens the drivers up – dynamics and soundstaging undergo the biggest improvements but the whole spectrum becomes just a little bit cleaner and tighter with my mini3 and Music Valley RC-2. I am still vehemently opposed to the idea of purchasing a mid-range amp for entry-level earphones but if you have on lying around, might as well try running the M11+ through it. The difference won’t be night-and-day but it’s noticeable.
Value (8/10) – Engineered to correct the sub-par sound quality of Meelec’s flagship, the M11+ competes well with the aging M6 model in sound quality and boasts the superb ergonomics and aesthetics of the original M11. The sound of the M11+ is best described as ‘concentrated’ – hard-hitting bass, smooth and thick mids, and crisp and edgy treble. For those who really like their bass impact, the sound of the M11+ should be plenty enticing but the earphones just can’t quite match the realism of the pricier competitors from brands such as Head-Direct and Fischer Audio. Those who do settle on the M11+ should be pleased with the massive fit kit as well as the comfort and build of the earphones. As a total package, the M11+ is a worthwhile buy but, being priced into a much more competitive tier than any of Meelec’s previous earphones, it just doesn’t shame the competition with audio prowess the way the M9 and M6 did upon release.
Pros: Extensive fit kit, excellent build quality, very small & comfortable, high isolation, low microphonics, powerful sound
Cons: Quite bass-heavy, not entirely realistic tonality
(2C17) Phiaton PS210
Reviewed Sep 2010
Details: Phiaton’s ‘half in-ear’ dynamic offering designed to sacrifice isolation for a less intrusive fit
Current Price: $99 from amazon.com (MSRP: $119.00)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32 Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 10-27k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Sennheiser short bi-flange, Comply T400
Wear Style: Straight down
Accessories (3.5/5) – Single flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and semi-rigid cylindrical carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The PS210 housings resemble a cross between the higher-end Phiaton PS200 and the Yamaha EPH-50. The rear halves of the shells are metal and look similar to the PS200 shells except for the ‘turbine blades’, which are not articulated in the PS210. The driver bulges and nozzles are plastic but feel quite sturdy. The strain reliefs on housing entry are a bit too long and rigid for my liking but do the job. The cable is identical to that of the PS200 and features a metal Y-split and short but flexible molding on the plastic 3.5mm I-plug casing
Isolation (2.5/5) – As expected, the half in-ear design drops isolation down into mediocrity, though aftermarket biflange tips can be used for a deeper seal
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low but hard to avoid completely as the PS210 cannot be worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4/5) – The driver housings are rather large and the earphones aren’t nearly as light as the all-plastic Yamaha EPH-50 but the ergonomic design still works rather well and the four sizes of silicone tips are a welcome inclusion
Sound (7.5/10) – The Phiaton PS210 shares its half in-ear fitment style with the Yamaha EPH-50, which is similarly-priced on paper but can be found far below MSRP in the wild. Listening to both side by side reveals why – the EPH-50 is a decent budget-oriented earphone but it lacks the refinement and technical capability to compete with my top picks in the $60-100 range. The PS210, however, is another story. Keeping in mind that the EPH-50 is a bass-heavy earphone in the grand scheme of things, the PS210 simply has so much more finesse and control that picking between the two is a no-contest proposition. The low end of the PS210 is tight and well-defined. Impact quantity lags far behind the EPH-50 (though not quite far enough for the PS210 to be called bass-light) but the quality is excellent. The bass is quick but rather soft, boasting little rumble or slam but good accuracy and realistic attack and decay.
The midrange is quite clear, with decent detailing but not much texture. The resulting sound is extremely smooth and quite transparent. The far sweeter mids of the PS210 make the EPH-50 sound like a screaming child – the Yamahas really aren’t capable of great subtlety. The treble is also very smooth and quite well-resolved. The highs are detailed enough to keep up with the better sub-$100 earphones (RE0 being the exception) but never sound sharp or aggressive. Softness is really a recurring theme of the PS210’s presentation. Top end extension is impressive, making the PS210 a rather well-rounded earphone, much to my liking. The way the PS210 presents sound is quite fitting of the half in-ear design. The soundstage is fairly wide and has good depth of positioning and excellent air. Separation is quite decent though these clearly weren’t designed as studio monitors. What they are is an excellent set of relaxation earphones that offer surprising refinement of sound and a very pleasant overall presentation. Lastly, the PS210 is a rather inefficient earphone so hiss out of laptop jacks is not a problem. A dedicated amp is not necessary, however, though the earphones do scale up somewhat.
Value (8/10) – The Phiaton PS210 is a rather unique offering from the Korean audio giant. Designed to fall somewhere between an IEM and a conventional earbud in both fit and isolation, the PS210 is otherwise an extremely competent mid-range earphone. The build quality is quite solid though the earphones are larger than my other half in-ear earphones, the Yamaha EPH-50, and absolutely dwarf the tiny EPH-20. However, those with smaller ears may have some trouble getting a seal. The sound is balanced, refined, and spacious. Those who like an aggressive sound should look elsewhere – perhaps at the EPH-50 – but for a relaxing and yet highly proficient listening experience the PS210 is among the best earphones in its class.
Pros: Well-designed and comfortable, balanced and spacious sound
Cons: Low isolation
(2C18) JAYS t-JAYS Three
Reviewed Jul 2010
Details: Ergonomically-designed mid-range dynamic from Swedish audio house JAYS
Current Price: $100 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 15-25k Hz | Cable: 2’ I-plug + 3’ extension
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock Single flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (4.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (5 sizes), 3.5mm splitter, airplane adapter, extension cord, and plastic protective carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The matte-black rubberized plastic housings are very pleasant to the touch and feel rather solid. The paper filters used by the old j-JAYS have been replaced with a permanent metal mesh and the cable has undergone a slight improvement as well, though it remains somewhat plasticky and still carries a bit of memory character. Strain reliefs are short on cable entry and nonexistent on the y-split but the modular cord provides extra protection from snags and tears
Isolation (3/5) – The ergonomically-styled t-JAYS are shallow-insertion earphones and isolation is only average
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Microphonics are present in the cable and can be bothersome. Though JAYS claims that the t-JAYS can be worn over-the-ear, channels have to be swapped in order to do so. Admittedly, microphonics are nearly non-existent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The t-JAYS are very light but the design leaves a bit to be desired. Though the shells are some of the most ergonomic I’ve seen on a longitudinally-mounted dynamic-driver earphone, the cable exit points on the bottom of the earphone prevent them from being flush and can cause a fair amount of discomfort over time. Over-the-ear comfort is much better but requires stereo channels to be swapped
Sound (6.6/10) – Right out of the box the t-JAYS gave me a small reminder of the signature of my previous JAYS dynamics, the j-JAYS. Like the j-JAYS, the t-JAYS are slightly dark and a bit warm, with good low-end extension and big, hard-hitting bass. Happily, the t-JAYS don’t suffer from a lack of clarity and easily outpace the j-JAYS in overall sound quality from the get-go. The large drivers provide deep and plentiful bass without a loss in clarity. Though the bass tends towards ‘boomy’ rather than ‘punchy’ on certain tracks, the t-JAYS exercise impressive control over their voluminous low end most of the time. Compared to the bass-monster Fischer Audio Eterna, the t-JAYS sound cleaner and more restrained but lack the texture and articulation, as well as the sheer bass weight, that all make the Eterna’s low end so engaging. Compared to the cheaper Sony XB40EX, the low end of the t-JAYS is better in every way except impact and rumble quantity, making the bass of the XB40EX sound like a runaway train on a downhill incline.
The midrange of the t-JAYS is warmed up slightly by the bass but remains in focus at all times, which is always a pleasant surprise for a bass-heavy earphone. The midrange emphasis of the t-JAYS lags slightly behind the mid-forward ViSang R03 but makes the XB40EX and even the Eterna sound a bit recessed in comparison. The mids are full and very smooth, boasting great detail and clarity. In fact, though the mids are not as thick or sweet as those of the R03, the clarity is arguably better, helped along by the prominent treble lending an extra bit of air to the sound.
The treble itself is crisp, clear, and in good balance with the midrange and low end. It is a bit hyped-up and can sometimes make already-sibilant tracks more sibilant, though it won’t add any artifacts to well-mastered recordings. Detail and sparkle are not class-leading but competitive in both quality and quantity. Unlike the warmed-up midrange, the treble can sound a bit hard-edged and sterile but softness of note is something only a few budget-oriented dynamics get right,and the t-JAYS are generally very inoffensive, unlike the Hippo VB or and other treble-heavy dynamics in the price range. Upper-end extension is solid and only misses the smallest bit of information at the very top, much like the ViSang R03.
The presentation of the t-JAYS is best classified as ‘competent’, along with the rest of the sound signature. They are warm earphones but the prominent treble gives a bit of much-needed air to the sound. The soundstage is moderately wide and seems a bit tubular in nature – nothing out of character for mid-range dynamics. It isn’t as enveloping as the 3-dimensional space of the R03 or wide-open presentation of the Thinksound TS02 but does give a good sense of both distance and direction when it comes to sonic cues. Instrumental separation is again not exactly class-leading but perfectly adequate for the type of consumer-oriented sound JAYS seem to be pursuing with their dynamics.
Value (7/10) – After my disappointing experience with the entry-level (and now defunct) j-JAYS, I was really hoping that the t-JAYS would sacrifice some of the style for substance. Happily, JAYS managed to pack in more of both. The t-JAYS Three are mainstream earphones with a mainstream sound signature but the aesthetics and presentation simply go above and beyond. While I’m in equal measure a fan of the no-frills approach to product packaging taken by companies like Thinksound and RadioPaq, opening a package from JAYS for the first time is an experience in itself. The one attribute I will complain about is the over-the-ear fitment – though the t-JAYS are claimed to be designed for both cord-down and over-the-ear wear, the latter, while far more comfortable, requires a swap of the left and right earpieces. Ergonomically-designed dynamic-driver earphones are fairly difficult to come but the t-JAYS are just a tease without a Left/Right channel swap adapter of some sort. Aside from that, the t-JAYS seduce with a wholesome accessory pack, decent build quality, and competent sound, not to mention the 2 year warranty. For those who have ears large enough to accommodate the t-JAYS in the cord-down configuration (or don’t mind reversing channels) and aren’t bothered the modular cord, the t-JAYS have plenty to offer. And, like all of the other JAYS products I’ve come across, they make a great gift.
Pros: Incredibly presentable package, solid sound quality
Cons: Over-the-ear wear requires channel reversal; cable is a bit too thin, microphonic, and tangle-prone
(2C19) Fischer Audio Silver Bullet
Reviewed Oct 2010
Details: Mid-range dynamic from Fischer Audio styled after a bullet casing
Current Price: $60 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $67.50)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 12-22k Hz | Cable: 4.1’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and fabric carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – Though the metal shells of the Silver Bullet are extremely sturdy, they have a tendency to oxidize over time from contact with skin oils – a purely cosmetic issue but an issue nonetheless. The plasticky cable is mediocre – though relatively thick and flexible below the Y-split, it is quite thin above the split, hardens over time, and has no sliding cord cinch. Housing-entry strain reliefs take the form of small rubber grommets which may be a threat to the cable over time. The one big positive is the 3.5mm L-plug, which is large and very well-relieved. Lastly, the Silver Bullet can exhibit moderate driver flex with well-sealing tips so those easily annoyed by such noise may want to stay away
Isolation (3.5/5) – Isolation can be decent with longer tips but the large housings prevent deep insertion with single-flanges, at least for those with smaller ears, resulting in isolation that’s only slightly above average
Microphonics (3.5/5) – The plastic cable carries quite a bit of noise when worn straight-down but remains silent with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (3.5/5) – The metal shells aren’t particularly heavy but the weight is noticeable in the ear. The design is tapered very slightly toward the front but those with smaller ears will still only get a shallow fit. The lack of strain reliefs makes it easy to route the cables over-the-ear and aside from the weight the SB fits like a conventional straight-barrel in-ear
Sound (8.1/10) – Let me start off by saying that the Silver Bullet I got to audition had had its stock filters replaced with those from the Head-Direct RE-ZERO, not for any modding purpose but simply because the stock ones came loose. According to the owner the original Silver Bullet filters are similar to the Head-Direct RE0/RE-ZERO filters in thickness and composition so the sound shouldn’t be substantially affected by the swap. A point to note – we also tried the (mesh) RE252 filters in place of paper ones and the results were horrifying – the Silver Bullets became bright and shrill in the treble and somewhat hollow-sounding in the midrange. Perhaps a bit of foam in the nozzle could be used to balance them out with mesh filters but RE0/RE-ZERO filters work much better.
As is obvious from the score above, the SB is one heck of a performer as far as sound quality goes. It doesn’t have a particularly distinctive sound signature but what it does, it does very well. The low end of the Silver Bullet is powerful and refined – two qualities that rarely go hand-in-hand in budget-oriented earphones. For my tastes the overall amount of bass that the SB produces is plentiful but the nature of the bass is rather delicate. Impact is well-defined but soft – the bass sort of rolls from one note to the next. The SB is neither the quickest nor the punchiest earphone in its price bracket. It is, however, very well-controlled and not at all muddy. Compare to Fischer Audio’s own Eterna model, the Silver Bullet boasts better bass clarity and superior overall balance, never allowing the bass to step out of line or produce a note out of turn.
The midrange is warmed up slightly by the soft yet impactful bass but never overshadowed – the low end is maybe a quarter-step ahead of the midrange on the SB but the midrange recession is not as noticeable as with the Eterna. Much more obvious is just how liquid and rich the midrange of the Silver Bullet sounds next to the somewhat terse Eterna (and, by extension, the similarly-priced Hippo VB). The mids are very smooth but still very clear and detailed – easily on par with the other good $60-100 dynamics. The treble, too, impresses with its smoothness (as long as paper filters are in place) and clarity. It carries just the right amount of sparkle without coming across as harsh or sibilant. The last bit of top-end extension isn’t as strong as it is with the Hippo VB or Head-Direct RE0 but the Silver Bullet easily keeps up with its other competitors. On the whole I wouldn’t call the treble of the SB laid-back but it really doesn’t draw attention to itself – ‘wholly pleasant’ is how I can best characterize it.
The presentation of the Silver Bullet, I feel, deserves a separate mention. The SB is a spacious-sounding earphone that never feels exceedingly distant. The instrumental separation is quite excellent and there’s lots of air around individual instruments. The soundstage not only has good width and depth but also some height, which is rather rare for budget-minded in-ears. It really sounds surprisingly realistic and involving - the presentation of the Silver Bullet is more immediately likeable than that of the Eterna, which has the immersion factor but lacks the cohesiveness of the SB and can take some time for a listener to come to terms with. Overall, the Silver Bullet really doesn’t do much of anything wrong as far as sub-$100 in-ears go. It’s one of the very few budget earphones out there I can’t imagine anyone hating - and that says quite a lot about every aspect of its sound.
Value (8/10) – Taking into consideration only sound quality, the Fischer Audio Silver Bullet is quite simply one of the best bang-for-the-buck sets out there. With impressive bass depth and impact, slightly warm and very clear mids, smooth and sparkly treble, and a well-separated and spacious presentation, there’s a lot to like and very little to dislike about the Silver Bullet. As a total package, however, it is let down by durability and usability issues, the cable being the principal offender. Looking at the build quality of several Fisher Audio earphones, it’s difficult to believe that the SB is in the same price tier as the Eterna and more than twice as expensive as the TS-9002. Those planning to use the SB as day-to-day IEMs would really need to be extra careful with the cord. The sound of the SB is worth the trouble, at least in my book, but in order for it to become the one mid-range earphone that stands above them all, Fischer really needs to re-think the cable and include hard case with the next revision.
Pros: Incredibly airy and three-dimensional sound, very good all-rounder
Cons: Mediocre cabling, moderate driver flex, no cable cinch
Special thanks to Inks for the extended Silver Bullet loan!
(2C20) Thinksound TS02+mic
Reviewed Oct 2010
Details: Latest eco-friendly creation from “Green” IEM manufacturer Thinksound
Current Price: $90 from amazon.com (MSRP: $89.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges, Comply T400
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, and cotton carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The TS02 is similar in construction and appearance to the two other Thinksound models. Like those of the TS01 and Rain, the housings of the TS02 are made out of wood and aluminum. The rubbery cable, long strain reliefs, and beefy 3.5mm plug are all sourced from the other Thinksound earphones as well. Worth noting is the lack of a sliding cable cinch and mild driver flex exhibited by the TS02
Isolation (3/5) – Again, the isolation of the TS02 is very similar to that of the other Thinksound earphones – limited by the rear vent of the earphones and moderately shallow fit. In addition, mild wind noise is present in windy conditions
Microphonics (4/5) – Low as the PVC-free cable doesn’t bounce around a whole lot. Wearing them over-the-ear eliminates microphonics but may be undesirable for those who use the microphone
Comfort (4/5) – The fit of the TS02 is very similar to that of the Thinksound Rain as the earphones are very similar in size. They are unobtrusive and remain comfortable for hours but I wouldn’t recommend sleeping in them – the shorter shells of the TS01 are better-suited for that
Sound (7/10) – Thinksound promises a warm and balanced sound with the TS02, which is slightly counterintuitive on a technical level since ‘warmth’ implies a certain emphasis on lower harmonics. Pedantry aside, however, the TS02 is a very musical and enjoyable earphone - not a paragon of clarity by any means (at least compared to the similarly-priced RE-ZERO and Ety MC5) but an excellent set for relaxed listening. The bass is deep, full-bodied, and very smooth. They aren’t bass monsters but they provide a weighty punch that reminds me of my much-pricier Monster Turbine Pro Gold. Texture and detail are quite good – not obscured by excessive impact or lack of body. They don’t extend unflinchingly into the sub-bass the way Hippo VBs and FS Atrios do but there’s no lack in rumble or tactility, at least not for my tastes. In addition, the reverb of the TS02 is surprisingly realistic, which may or may not have something to do with the wooden housings.
The midrange is warm and liquid and lags slightly in emphasis behind the bass. The mids aren’t recessed like those of the FA Eterna, nor are they as forward as those of the ViSang R03. Clarity and detail are good but not class-leading. Like the other Thinksound earphones the TS02 has a certain inimitable lushness to its mids that always keeps me entertained. Other earphones carry more air in the mids but the TS02 doesn’t lag too far behind most at its price point. Moving towards the upper mids, the TS02 remains smooth and controlled – a big improvement over the TS01. Even straight out of the box there’s almost none of the TS01’s harshness and unevenness, just smooth and competent treble with plenty of sparkle and definition. Those who like a more laid-back presentation may want to look at the ViSang R03 or even the Eterna since the TS02 is quite crisp but anyone coming from a Panasonic HJE900 or even Klipsch S4 should feel right at home with the treble quantity.
The presentation is broad and quite engrossing overall. The soundstage has good depth and width. There’s a thickness of note that prevents them from being as precise as the Ety MC5 or RE-ZERO but positioning and imaging are still pretty good. The TS02 is not the widest or most three-dimensional earphone in its price range but it is one of the most coherent – it never sounds disjointed, which again makes it a good all-rounder with a popular but nevertheless enjoyable sound signature. As a sidenote, I really liked the Rain for movies because of its frequency balance and ‘big’ sound and the TS02 is even better-suited with its rumbly sub-bass and spacious presentation. Many of the highly-detailed in-ears simply draw too much attention to background noise when it comes to movies and gaming but the TS02 balances things out just right and manages to remain absorbing but not distracting, which says something about the earphone’s overall SQ as well.
Value (8/10) – The TS02 is a very pleasant earphone that borrows quite heavily from both of Thinksound’s older models - the TS01 and Rain. The bass impact, weight, and rumble, as well as the warmth and musicality, come straight from the TS01. The smoothness and soundstage come from the Rain. These qualities are exactly what I originally liked about the Thinksound earphones and all make the TS02 a competitive entry among sub-$100 in-ears. Sure, $100 is a bit more than most of the bass-heavy earphones in its class, but it is also the only one that ships with a mic and a cleaner conscience.
Pros: “Green”; aesthetically pleasing; plenty of bass, sparkly treble
Cons: No cable cinch, mild driver flex, slightly susceptible to wind noise, a touch pricier than comparable (mic-less) models
Full review with comparisons to a multitude of other earphones can be found here
(2C21) Earjax Lyrics
Reviewed Nov 2010
Details: Ergonomically-styled dynamic-driver earphone from US-based manufacturer Earjax
Current Price: $80 from earshack.com (MSRP: $119.95)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 24Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 15-25k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, stock heat-activated foamies
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (6 sets in 3 sizes), triple-flange silicone tips (2 sizes), heat-activated foam tips, shirt clip, carabiner, 3’ extension cord, and hard clamshell carrying case with removable cord winder
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The distinctive shells of the Lyrics are made of a matte, rubberized plastic and, though some molding artifacts are evident, generally feel quite sturdy. The cable used by the Lyrics is unique as well - sheathed in smooth, clear plastic above the y-split and woven nylon below. The casing on the straight 3.5mm plug is metal, which I’m not usually a fan of, but a flexible rubber grommet protects the cord from its sharp edges
Isolation (3.5/5) – The Lyrics are vented at the front and don’t lend themselves too well to deep insertion when worn cable-down but isolation is still sufficient
Microphonics (3.5/5) –Low when worn cable-down, nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The shells are fairly bulbous in shape and not quite flush with the ear when worn in the intended, cable-down manner. They aren’t uncomfortable but they don’t just disappear, either. Worn cable-up the Lyrics stay comfortable much longer
Sound (6.4/10) – The flagship of Earjax’s product line, the Lyrics is a ‘pleasant’–sounding earphone: slightly bassy, a bit warm, and quite spacious. Signature-wise the Lyrics sound like a slightly more laid-back JAYS t-JAYS Three. The first and foremost thing noticeable when comparing the Lyrics to the lower-end Earjax Tonic is how much tighter and cleaner the bass is. The Lyrics has far less mid-bass bloat as well as better sub-bass extension. Naturally, more bass detail is revealed by the Lyrics. The bass remains punchy and tactile but never becomes overwhelming, reminding me of the Brainwavz M2 and M3, both in impact and tone.
The midrange of the Lyrics is free of bass bleed and quite clear. It is laid-back almost to the point of sounding veiled, in stark contrast to the Brainwavz earphones, but still carries good detail. The clarity is compromised slightly by the veil but the smoothness and fullness of the mids are impressive. Treble extension is good and the slightly veiled mids of the Lyrics make the high end seem a bit more prominent. Again, the sound of the Lyrics is ‘safe’ more than anything.
Perhaps the biggest strength of the Lyrics is the ambient presentation – it’s an earphone with a ‘big’ sound – the soundstage has good width, depth, and even height. The soundstage depth of the mid-forward Brainwavz M2 is clearly inferior and even the higher-end M3 is given a run for its money. Positioning and imaging are good as well, though the laid-back presentation does mean that you won’t get the ‘intimate’ moments with the performer that you may get with more forward sets. It’s a good sound for music that doesn’t hinge on vocals and benefits from a spacious presentation.
Value (7.5/10) – Like the lower-end Tonic, the Earjax Lyrics is a very well-packaged earphone with solid build quality and great overall usability. It is much more refined in sound than the lower-end model but at the same time is pitted against far more serious competition by its price tag. The laid-back sound signature brings about a slight drop in clarity compared to similarly-priced sets such as the FA Silver Bullet but the Lyrics is still a good earphone for those in search of a smooth, balanced, and spacious sound and a good alternative to the pricier JAYS t-JAYS.
Pros: Excellent accessory pack; balanced, smooth, and spacious sound
Cons: Slight midrange veil, not the best at portraying intimacy
Full review can be found here
(2C22) Sunrise SW-Xcape v. 1
Reviewed Nov 2010
Details: First IEM released by Vietnamese OEM Sunrise under their own brand
Current Price: N/A (discontinued) (MSRP: $79.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The shells used by the Xcape are quite similar to the ones on the RE0/RE-ZERO. They are metal and have non-replaceable filters and decent-length strain reliefs. The cable is slightly thinner but also smoother and more flexible than those used by the newer HiFiMan earphones
Isolation (4/5) – They are comfortable enough when inserted fairly deeply and isolate about as well as a straight-barrel vented IEM can
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down, nonexistent cable-up
Comfort (4.5/5) – The metal housings are longer than those used by the HiFiMan earphones but tapered towards the front, allowing for deeper fitment and more comfortable insertion (wonder why more manufacturers don’t do this). Comfort is about as good as is possible with straight-barrel in-ears
Sound (8.4/10) – The Xcape doesn’t just share aesthetic themes with the HiFiMan RE0 and RE-ZERO but quite a few aspects of its sound as well. All of the things that made the RE0 a brilliant mid-range earphone are present in the Xcape – clarity, detail, separation, and cohesiveness are all up there with the very best in the price range. As with the RE0, nothing is out of place with or missing from the sound of the Xcape but Sunrise did tune the earphone to set it apart from the HiFiMan models, giving it a warmer and thicker sound and tilting the balance slightly away from the treble.
The resulting signature is arguably even more balanced than that of the RE0. The bass is quite well-extended, dropping off gently past about 40Hz but still audible at 25. The lows are tight, clean, and very accurate – the bass of the Xcape isn’t particularly impactful or rumbly but it is punchy and well-textured. Up until it begins to roll off the response of the Xcape is fairly linear so those looking for bass quantity over quality will be sorely disappointed, though not quite as much so as with the HiFiMan RE0. The Xcape is still a lean-sounding earphone in the grand scheme of things but in an accurate way that armature lovers will probably find pleasing. In a way its bass reminds me of the crisp and well-measured low-end response of the Klipsch Custom 3 – an impressive feat for a mid-range dynamic.
The midrange of the Xcape is free of bass bleed but still slightly warm in nature. It is neither forward nor recessed in balance, sounding a bit less intimate than the RE-ZERO, in part due to the ZERO having a smaller soundstage overall. The Xcape is a dry-sounding earphone on the whole but the terseness is most noticeable in the midrange with crisper, cleaner, and less reverberant notes than those produced by the RE-ZERO or similarly-priced Brainwavz M3. The detail retrieval of the Xcape is difficult to fault and it keeps up with the ZERO, beating out the M3 and nearly anything else in the price tier, but the ZERO and M3 both sound softer and more fluid than the Xcape. The ZERO, which has a more upward-tilted midrange balance, gives guitars more bite and female vocals more energy but the highly textured – almost too much so – sound of the Xcape, combined with a more downward-tilted balance, works well with male vocals. The high levels of texturing result in a sound that is almost ‘etched’ but the earphone remains smooth and free of vocal sibilance well into the upper midrange. One odd thing about the midrange of the Xcape is that despite being slightly less forward than that of the RE-ZERO, it is the Xcape’s mids that are more likely to overshadow higher and lower notes on a track and not the ZERO’s.
The treble of the Xcape is quite a bit more straightforward than the midrange. It is crisp, clear, and detailed – about on-par with the HiFiMan earphones in quality. The Xcape manages to sound analytical but at the same time neither cold nor bright – something very few other budget-minded earphones are able to accomplish. Admittedly, the RE-ZERO is slightly smoother but the difference isn’t great. Presentation-wise the Xcape is a bit more spacious than the RE0/RE-ZERO, which have more well-defined soundstage limits, but still falls within the confines of ‘average’ as far as higher-end in-ear earphones go. In addition, the RE-ZERO still sounds ‘bigger’ and more headphone-like on some tracks. The reason, I think, is that the soundstage of the Xcape, with its greater width and depth, is more tubular in nature while the RE-ZERO manages to cover more area on a plane (i.e. has better front-to-rear and top-to-bottom presence). Separation is very impressive and the crisp, clear treble gives the Xcape plenty of air.
One last point worth noting regarding the Xcape – though the earphone doesn’t require an amp, it is fairly inefficient and cuts hiss very well. Normal listening levels with the Xcape require 3-4 extra volume notches on my Cowon compared to the Head-Direct RE-ZERO and Brainwavz M3. An amp, even a relatively powerful one, can therefore easily be used to modify the sound signature of the earphones though I can’t recommend purchasing one just for the Xcape. Since the earphone is so well-balanced, a V-shaped amp will result in the earphone attaining a slight v-curve in its sound signature and vice versa.
Value (10/10) – The Sunrise SW-Xcape is a very impressive IEM any way you look at it. In terms of value-for-money it is clearly competition for the RE0/RE-ZERO crowd, not obviously displacing the HiFiMan earphones but rather offering a different flavor of the analytical dynamic signature. The slimmer housings of the Xcape are slightly friendlier towards those with smaller ears (though the RE0 shells are already difficult to fault) and the smooth, low-energy cable stays out of the way, just as it should. The Xcape also proves that the balance of the universe is not upset when a nice carrying case is included with an already high-bang/buck earphone (take note, HiFiMan!). Of course the most important factor is still the sound and on that front I can see personal preferences leaning a listener either way. Personally I still like the more liquid signature of the RE-ZERO better by a hair but could happily live with either earphone – and that’s something I don’t see myself saying about any two other midrange dynamics at the moment.
Pros: Comfortable; user-friendly; very clear, detailed, and well-separated sound
Cons: May be too dry or analytical for some
(2C23) Brainwavz M3 / ViSang R04
Reviewed Nov 2010
Details: The flagship of mp4nation’s Brainwavz line, also known as the ViSang R04
Current Price: $90 from mp4nation.net (MSRP: $89.50)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 115 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.2’ 45°-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic bi-flanges, stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The shells used by the M3 are very similar to the ones used by the aging Music Valley SP1 with two major exceptions – a metal nozzle is used by the M3 in place of the SP1’s plastic one and the cable doesn’t feel like it will fall apart at any moment. There are still no soft strain reliefs but the thicker, sturdier cable should hold up well nonetheless
Isolation (3/5) – The odd housing shape of the M3 prevents it from being inserted deeply and the earphone is vented at the rear. The resulting isolation is average
Microphonics (4/5) – Low when worn cable-down, nonexistent cable-up
Comfort (3.5/5) – The plastic process on the side of the housing is meant to hook into the antitragus of the ear but for me it just digs into it painfully. Mercifully they can be worn over-the-ear with longer tips (the housings ‘arms’ will end up pointing outward) and are quite comfortable in that configuration
Sound (7.7/10) – The long-delayed flagship of mp4nation’s Brainwavz line bears a definite sonic resemblance to the lower-end models but leaves little doubt regarding its position in the lineup. Fitting issues aside, I have to admit that the M3 is a very pleasant earphone to use – balanced, poised, and non-fatiguing. The lack of any real sonic flaws is probably its greatest strength – whereas the M2 is a fairly colored earphone with forward mids and mediocre soundstage depth, the M3 manages to steer clear of the more polarizing sound signature elements of its sibling.
The bass of the M3 is very much to my liking – it is well-weighted and full-bodied but remains under control at all times in contrast to the M2, which can overemphasize mid-bass frequencies on occasion. The low end of the M3 is a bit more substantial than that of the M1 but retains the softer character and roundness of note, at least when compared to high-impact sets such as the Klipsch S4 or crisper, tighter earphones such as the Sunrise Xcape. Compared to the M2, the low end of the M3 is more extended and has a significantly smaller mid-bass hump, resulting in a more linear bass presentation. Those who found even the M2 to be bloated but aren’t willing to move to a ‘flat’ earphone such as the RE-ZERO or Xcape should be satisfied with response of the M3, which is quite natural without sounding lifeless or analytical. Reverb and decay are especially impressive and a fair tradeoff for the slightly relaxed bass.
The midrange of the M3 is warm and full. The reduced mid-bass intensity of the M3 means that the midrange of the M2 is warmer still but neither earphone makes the other sound ‘off’. The M2 does have the more forward midrange of the two earphones, which gives it more energy as well as some added ‘clarity’ in the vocal range – a good thing since the natural clarity of the M2/M3 isn’t quite on-level with the RE0 or Xcape. The M3 also lacks the texture and microdetail of the Xcape, both in the midrange and treble, but performs admirably next to more mainstream in-ears such as the Thinksound TS02. For the price its mids are undoubtedly competent, however, and the top-tier clarity of the Xcape bartered fairly for a more lush and liquid sound. One similarity that the M3 does share with the Xcape, for better or for worse, is the slight downward tilt in balance as opposed to the more treble-biased RE0 and RE-ZERO.
Expectedly, the treble of the M3 is deemphasized slightly in comparison to the bass and midrange. It is not absent entirely, however, and detail actually pops out better with the M3 than the M1 and M2. Extension, too, is better with the M3 despite the treble being completely inoffensive and non-fatiguing on the whole. As with the rest of the M3’s signature, the treble is very smooth but not as clear or crisp as that of the more treble-biased earphones out there. The RE-ZERO, for example, has significantly more sparkle at the top and even my FA Eterna comes out ahead for the type of treble response I personally find appealing.
Presentation, on the other hand, is a definite strength of the M3 and the one area where neither the M1 nor M2 can hold a candle to the flagship. From the very first listen, the M3 sounds ‘big’ – spacious, full-bodied, and quite realistic for an IEM. The soundstage of the M3 has pretty decent width and, unlike that of the M2, good depth. I do feel that the M1 carries more air due to the increased treble emphasis, but imaging and separation are still improved slightly with the M3. Tonally the M3 is not a far cry from the M2 but it is less colored on the whole. Like the M2, the M3 also doesn’t mind a bit of extra impedance and an amp, tightening up slightly and developing better resolution when matched with my 68Ω adapter and mini3. Obviously I still can’t recommend spending $20 on an adapter and $80 on an amp to get a touch more performance out of a $90 earphone but the potential is there despite the low impedance and high sensitivity of the earphones.
Value (8.5/10) – Being partial to the other Brainwavz/ViSang models, I expected to like the M3 but had reservations about its price tag and physical design. In a way, the M3 falls in line with my expectations – it is an earphone to be purchased purely for the sound. There is little doubt that the M3 is on the whole a better-sounding earphone than M2 and M1, but not necessarily better in every specific case. Despite their few flaws, the M1 and M2 are magical, musical, user-friendly and, best of all, reasonably cheap (by Head-Fi standards), and for the non-Head-Fi crowd, the gains made by the M3 may be too subtle to make up the price difference. In the context of this review, however, the M3 competes on a whole different level quite successfully and offers some of the purest audio enjoyment in its price class.
Pros: Lush, balanced, and spacious sound
Cons: Average isolation; cable-down fit may not work for some; bassheads and analytical listeners need not apply
(2C24) Monster Lil’ Jamz
Reviewed Dec 2010
Details: Entry-level dynamic-driver earphones from Monster Cable
Current Price: $60 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99.95); $100 for ControlTalk version w/mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – While very solid at first glance, the Lil’ Jamz really aren’t as well-thought-out as the higher-end Turbine line. The metal housings are quite heavy and rock-solid but the strain reliefs aren’t flexible and have sharp edges. The cable cinch takes the form of a thin piece of metal and seems like it may sever the cable if pulled on. The cord itself is extremely pleasant to use – soft, rubbery, and flexible – but not as thick as those used on the Turbine earphones. The metal casing of the 3.5mm plug has a tendency to come loose but a drop of super glue should fix it
Isolation (4/5) – As with the Turbines and MD Tributes, the isolation is surprisingly good for a dynamic-driver in-ear
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4.5/5) – The housings are heavy but very small and tapered at the rear for a comfortable fit. The flexible cable makes it easy to wear the earphones cord-up or cord-down. Unfortunately, tip selection is not comparable to that of the Turbine earphones with only Monster’s narrow-channel single-flanges included. The Lil’ Jamz are also much more sensitive to insertion depth than the Turbines, requiring a deep seal to sound their best
Sound (5.9/10) – Being very familiar with Monster’s higher-end Turbine line, I was expecting the cheaper Lil’ Jamz to take the sound of the $179 Turbine “Originals” in an even more mainstream direction, adding bass and warmth. Imagine my surprise when instead I heard something cold, clear, and bright to the point of shrillness. The surprising nature of the sound is due in part to the included tips – Monster’s narrow-channel silicone single-flange tips work fine with the bass-heavy Turbines but accentuate the treble peaks present in the response of the Lil’ Jamz. With the stock tips, the Lil’ Jamz always sound as if they are sealed improperly – bass-light, piercing, and boasting excessive stereo separation. The solution is to use thicker, shorter tips with a deeper insertion to make the Jamz sound a warmer, smoother, and more intimate – stock Soundmagic PL30 or Meelec tips worked fine for me. Open-cell foam can be used to the same effect but also cuts down on treble extension very slightly. With generic single-flange tips and a deeper seal, the Lil’ Jamz become usable and, at times, enjoyable. The bass is clearly several notches above baseline in quantity but the Lil’ Jamz aren’t bass monsters. Low notes are impactful but soft and rounded – not particularly tight but not flabby, either. Extension is impressive, easily dropping below 30Hz, and there is no mid-bass bloat but the low end of the Lil’ Jamz still yields to the Turbines as well as direct competitors such as the Thinksound TS02 and ViSang R03 in fullness, texture, and detail. However, more mainstream competitors such as the Sennheiser CX300 and Skullcandy FMJ show the appeal of the Lil’ Jamz to the general populace as a fully-fledged upgrade from these consumer-grade in-ears.
The bass imparts a very slight bit of warmth on the lower midrange but is counterbalanced by the bright and prominent treble. On the whole, the earphones still possess a fairly cool tone. The midrange is slightly recessed and surprisingly clear – perhaps even more so than that of the Turbines – but lacks weight and texture. On the whole the Lil’ Jamz sound fairly thin for a Monster earphone. There is noticeable stridency towards the top of the midrange, which is alleviated slightly with aftermarket tips and putting some hours on the drivers. On occasion the earphones still hit a note jarringly hard for my liking, especially on female vocals.
The treble, too, exhibits some odd traits, namely ringing and resonance that I haven’t heard from an IEM since I sold my Grado iGi. I found the response so uneven that I ran them through a tone generator. I generally only trust my ears to about 6dB so in order for me to call something a ‘spike’ or ‘hump’ it has to be pretty noticeable, and there are definitely several of those between 4 and 12 kHz, giving the Lil’ Jamz an odd ‘nasal’ quality. On the upside, treble extension is decent with the earphones staying strong into the upper 14 kHz range – on-par with the ViSang R03 and a bit poorer than the Fischer Audio Eterna.
In terms of presentation the Lil’ Jamz sound distant and overly separated with the stock tips – like two point sources outside of one’s head. With proper tips they can be made intimate enough to be enjoyable but still don’t have the three-dimensional immersion of something like the ViSang R03 - their sound is more tunnel-like in nature: wide but lacking in height and depth. It is well-separated and the excellent clarity helps with the imaging and air. Overall not a bad presentation that reminds me of the Meelectronics M6 but with a more intense coloration - partly the result of the greater ‘sparkle’ of the Lil’ Jamz.
Value (7/10) – Contrary to my expectations, the Lil’ Jamz are not a low-budget version of the Monster Turbine earphones, offering instead a heavily colored, sparkly sound signature closer to something I’d expect from Denon or JVC. To be honest, I’m very surprised at the positive press that the Lil’ Jamz enjoy on sites like CNET and Amazon – the signature is not what I would consider ‘mainstream’. Regardless, the Lil’ Jamz are another decent, if slightly overpriced, earphone from Monster. The discreet design, unobtrusive form factor, and soft cable make them a pleasure to use while out and about and, while the weak plug casing and poor stock tips detract from the value somewhat, Monster does provide a generous 3-year warranty for the Lil’ Jamz and aftermarket tips really aren’t that difficult to find.
Pros: Comfortable, handsome and understated design, user-friendly cable, impressive clarity & sparkle, 3-year warranty
Cons: Minor construction issues, needs aftermarket tips, heavily colored sound
(2C25) Nuforce NE-700X / NE-700M
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Flagship in-ear from one of Head-Fi’s favorite brands
Current Price: $65 from amazon.com (MSRP: $65); $79 for NE-700X version w/mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.8’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and triple-flange silicone tips, soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The metal housings are very solid and there are no visible seams – a welcome change from the original Nuforce NE-7M, which had a tendency to come unglued. The unique strain reliefs grip the circumference of the shell but can probably be damaged if tugged hard enough. A small red ring around the right strain relief takes the place of L/R indicators. The cable is rubbery, uncharacteristically long, and equipped with beefy metal-and-rubber y-split and an equally beefy metal-jacketed 3.5mm plug
Isolation (3.5/5) – The bulky housings prevent deep insertion and are vented like most dynamics, resulting in average isolation
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Annoying when worn cable-down; not bad with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (3/5) – The shells are surprisingly large for an earphone with 8mm drivers and won’t work for everyone, at least not with single-flange tips. The rear edge of the shells can push against the outer ear and the edges are fairly sharp but comfort is still decent on the whole
Sound (7.3/10) – Nuforce first entered the IEM arena more than two years ago with the NE-7M and NE-8 models – one a conventional-fit iPhone-compatible earphone with a bass-heavy sound signature and intense tonal coloration and the other an ‘audiophile’ over-the-ear model with impressive clarity and anemic bass. While the NE-8 all but faded into obscurity, the NE-7M thrived, giving rise to a microphone-less offspring (the NE-6) and gaining a large following. It is no surprise, then, that the NE-700X, as the model numbering implies, borrows far more heavily from the NE-7 than the NE-8. Its bass is nice and full, placing plenty of weight on individual notes and contending with the best of the rest in impact and power. Extension is quite good, with a solid bit of rumble at the bottom and nearly as much depth as the Fischer Audio Eterna – enough to satisfy all but the most serious bassheads without losing resolution. Low-end detail and texture are solid as well – the bass of the NE-700X really isn’t the quickest in the realm of <$100 dynamics but it’s not downright bloated, either, and the impact doesn’t obscure low-end detailing. It can be a little excessive at times for my taste but switching to a slightly shallower fit helps balance the NE-700X out.
There’s a tinge of bass bleed to the midrange but nothing offensive – just enough to give the NE-700X a bit of coloration and warmth. The mids are generally smooth and a bit thick. Overall balance is good but the bass of the NE-700X makes the mids and treble sound slightly recessed. As with the Eterna and the new Meelectronics CC51, the clarity of the NE-700X is good for a thicker-sounding, bass-heavy set but not as striking as that of the mid-forward M2 or treble-heavy RE0 despite the decent overall balance and highly resolving nature of the Nuforces. Detail and texture are good but I feel that the Xcape still reveals more microdetail at the expense of sounding slightly more etched than the NE-700. The treble transition is mostly free of harshness and sibilance once the drivers have a few hours on them. In terms of emphasis the high end is about even with the midrange but treble presentation is slightly laid-back. There is a small amount of sparkle and extension is very reasonable but the NE-700X is softer-sounding at the high end than the Xcape or Eterna and slightly dark on the whole.
When it comes to presentation, the NE-700X impresses with its consistency and well-roundedness. It doesn’t have the spaciousness of the Eterna or the airiness of the Phiaton PS 20 but still sounds fairly natural. The soundstage has good width and good depth, beating out the similarly-priced Brainwavz M2 and keeping up with the pricier M3. Combined with the smooth and crisp sound signature, the soundstage of the NE-700X makes for an involving, if not very aggressive, experience. That said, I still feel that like the old NE-7M, the NE-700X puts the fun factor first and absolute accuracy second – not that there’s anything wrong with that. Interestingly, the NE-700X is still engaging and enjoyable at lower listening volumes, which is not something I can say for the Dre Beats Tour or even Monster Turbines. Lastly, while the NE-700X does not need an external amplifier, it is a bit less efficient than the average mid-range dynamic - the Brainwavz earphones, Phiaton PS 20, and Eterna all reach high output levels more easily that than the Nuforces.
Value (8.5/10) – Taking the general formula of the ever-popular NE-7M and improving on it in pretty much every way, the Nuforce NE-700X is an extremely competitive earphone, with build quality and all-around usability to match the impressive sound quality, all at a very reasonable price. While the NE-700X doesn’t break any barriers sonically, it combines many positive traits – traits that wouldn’t have scored as highly on their own - in a single and very coherent package, all the while sounding more natural on the whole compared to its predecessor. Personally, I find the NE-700X a bit too bassy for its own good but, as an earphone aimed at the consumer market, perhaps the NE-700X is better off not appealing to me at all.
Pros: Well-built; deep, impactful bass; well-rounded presentation
Cons: May be uncomfortable for those with smaller ears; not for those in search of neutrality or balance
Special thanks to slntdth93 for the NE-700X audition
(2C26) MEElectronics A151
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: First armature-based earphone from MEElec
Current Price: $75 from meelec.com (MSRP: $74.99)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 27Ω | Sens: 111 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flange, stock tri-flange, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips and zippered clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings are plastic but seem quite sturdy. A short sleeve protects the braided cable, which is by far the best thing about the earphones. The cord soft, flexible, and very light – a pleasure to use while out and about. The straight plug is quite generic but has adequate strain relief
Isolation (4/5) – The nozzles are thinner than those of the other Meelec earphones and despite the bulbous housings, the A151 can be inserted pretty deeply. Isolation is very impressive with the bi- and tri-flange tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) – The flexible braided cable carries very little noise but since the Meelecs can actually be worn cable-down (unlike the Westone earphones), a tiny bit of noise can be coaxed out of it with some effort
Comfort (4.5/5) – Though the A151 was designed for comfortable over-the-ear wear, it can be worn cable-down as well. Either way the nozzles are angled and of adequate length and the housings are rounded at the front for comfortable insertion. The light and unobtrusive cables helps make the A151 a pleasure to wear
Sound (7.4/10) – The mid-range IEM market has undergone some drastic changes in the past year and half, not the least of which has been the rapid influx of high-performance dynamic-driver earphones. Back when the <150 segment was dominated by the likes of the Westone UM1, Shure E3, UE SuperFi 3, and Ety ER6, single-armature was the de-facto standard in the price range. Despite the relatively high cost and some inherent limitations of single-armature designs, there is still much to like about such setups. Armature-based earphones are rarely lacking in control or clarity and have some practical advantages, such as the ability to function in a fully sealed chamber. All this can be said about the new A151 from MEElectronics, a single-armature design priced to compete with the likes of the Soundmagic PL50, Westone 1, and Ultimate Ears SuperFi 5.
Starting at the low end, the A151 immediately takes on typical armature characteristics – speed, control, and clarity to match the best earphones in the price bracket. Bass impact is just ahead of the Head-Direct RE0 and on-par with the Sunrise Xcape. Bass depth and extension aren’t competitive with bass-heavy dynamics like the Eterna, Nuforce NE-700X, or MEElec’s own CC51 but control and texture are very impressive. As with most single armatures, the driver struggles to remain detailed at the limit of its sub-bass response but, as with the pricier Westone 1, there is a bit of added mid-bass punch compared to the Soundmagic PL50 or UE SuperFi 5. The slight bit of added punch makes the A151 somewhat warm for an armature and there is a very slight lower-midrange bias. Despite this, the A151 sounds very accurate and carries good detail and texture through both the bass and the midrange. The mids are fairly well-balanced – not too forward, but definitely not recessed. Clarity is similar to the Head-Direct earphones but the A151 lacks the added bit of brightness resulting from the emphasized treble of the RE0 and RE-ZERO. It is also a touch less crisp, producing smoother, thicker, slightly less transparent notes.
The treble transition is smooth and neither harshness nor sibilance is present. The treble itself is clean, clear, laid-back, and low on sparkle. The detail is there but it presented in a very non-fatiguing way. Compared to the brighter RE-ZERO, the darker A151 is less airy but also less fatiguing. Treble extension is mediocre and treble emphasis is no match for higher-end, more balanced armature-based sets such as the Ety HF3. There is also a bit of grain at the very top, likely resulting from the armature running out of steam at the very limit of its response range, but on the whole the A151 is rather soft-spoken for an armature-based earphone. The soundstage is similar in size to the Sunrise Xcape and Head-Direct RE-ZERO – not large but well-rounded and coherent. Instrumental separation and positioning are similarly good without being unnaturally exaggerated. Looking at the entire hierarchy of BA-based IEMs, the A151 reminds me most of the Klipsch Custom 3 – both have that slightly thick, dry, and full-bodied sound with an aversion to brightness and listening fatigue and a well-balanced presentation.
Value (9/10) – MEElec’s first armature-based earphone may not break any new sonic ground with its dry and accurate sound signature, but it delivers a very wholesome package of sound quality and functionality at a very reasonable price. The cable may just be the best I’ve seen on a sub-$100 earphone and the isolation, microphonics, and comfort all make the A151 a direct competitor of the much-pricier but similarly well-designed Westone 1. Fans of bassy, trebly, v-shaped, or mid-forward sound signatures would probably want to pick something else as the A151 is none of those things but if accuracy and low listening fatigue are priorities, the A151 competes with some of the better earphones in its price range.
Pros: High isolation, very comfortable with the right tips, excellent cable, solid sonic characteristics
Cons: N/A
(2C27) ECCI PR401
Reviewed Jan 2011
Details: Flagship earphone from China-based hi-fi manufacturer ECCI
Current Price: $75 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $75)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 103 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4.5’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), shirt clip, and large clamshell carrying case (extra Sony Hybrid tips included when purchased from lendmeurears.com)
Build Quality (4/5) – As with all of the other ECCI earphones, the housings of the PR401 are made of aluminum and feel quite sturdy. In terms of size, the shells of the PR401 are surprisingly shallow – a bit more than two times smaller than those of the Nuforce NE-700. The thin and narrow flat cable is lightweight and strong enough but slightly more tangle-prone than the thicker flat cables of the Sony XB40EX or Dre Beats Tour
Isolation (3.5/5) – The short shells of the PR401 may hinder deep insertion for some but I get pretty good isolation for a vented dynamic with the ECCIs
Microphonics (3.5/5) – The thin and flat cable carries a good bit of noise when worn straight-down but isn’t as difficult to route over-the-ear as with other flat-cable earphones. The included shirt clip helps as well
Comfort (4/5) – The housings are lightweight and quite small. They are also quite short and not at all conducive to deep insertion but the PR401 sounds fine with a shallower fit
Sound (7.7/10) – I’ve been a big fan of the PR-series earphones since before the ECCI brand split off from its parent company, well-known Chinese amp manufacturer Cyclone. After the rebrand, ECCI immediately released the PR100 and PR200 which, while very solid all-rounders, never impressed me as much as the old PR1 and PR2 when it came to overall refinement. The PR300 came later and spiced up the sound of the PR200 by adding a slight bit of boost in the bass and treble regions. Still, the PR300 failed to capture the spacious feel and incredible detail of the old PR1 Pro. The PR401, however, as the model number indicates, adds another level of performance to the PR300 plus a little something on top – a ‘wow’ factor, if you will.
At the bottom end the PR401 resembles the PR300, offering punchy, emphasized mid-bass falling between the Fischer Silver Bullet and Brainwavz M2 in quantity. The bass response is full-bodied and impactful but at the same time well-controlled and quite accurate. As with the PR300, bass is not the sole focus of the PR401 but there is more than enough to make for a fun listening experience. The bass emphasis does give a very slight bit of warmth to the lower mids but the bright treble acts as a good counterbalance. The midrange itself is slightly recessed next to the bass and treble but is free of bass bleed and retains good detail and clarity. Instruments sound crisp and natural and vocals have decent energy even next to the mid-forward M2. Unlike the even more v-shaped Klipsch S4, the PR401 never sounds thin and remains smooth throughout the upper midrange and lower treble. There is still a good bit of treble emphasis and sparkle is plentiful. The treble is clear, crisp, and detailed, with surprisingly good (though not RE0-good) extension up top.
My favourite aspect of the PR401, however, is the presentation, which finally re-captures the spaciousness and realism of the old PR1 Pro. The soundstage has great depth and good width and the added treble emphasis gives the PR401 a slightly bright overall tone and an airy feel. As with the old PR1, the PR401 does a good job with layering and positioning, tracking multiple instruments very well for a mid-range earphone without sounding thin or disjointed. On the whole, I would say that the PR401, in both balance and presentation, is the mid-range equivalent of JVC’s much-pricier HA-FX700 woody. Sure, the PR401 doesn’t quite keep up in detail or refinement and lacks both the convincing timbre and incredible positioning precision of the $350 JVCs, but there certainly isn’t a more logical top-tier upgrade to the PR401 than the FX700.
Value (9/10) – The ECCI PR401 is another one for the growing list of truly excellent mid-range earphones coming out of the increasing competition in the market segment. In contrast to the Brainwavz line and Fischer Audio earphones, the PR401 is faintly v-shaped in response, emphasizing bass and treble slightly over the midrange. It also borrows a trick or two from the old Cyclone earphones, bringing to the table a spacious and airy presentation with good separation and impressive imaging. With comfort, isolation, and build quality to match, the PR401 is a very impressive package and a fairly unique alternative to the multitude of excellent choices already on the market.
Pros: Impressive sound quality & presentation, compact form factor, great all-around usability
Cons: Cable can be tangle-prone
(2C28) MEElectronics SP51
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Mid-range dynamic IEM from Meelectronics boasting ‘Sound Preference’ tuning technology
Current Price: $60 from meelec.com (MSRP: $59.99); $70 for SP51P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 15-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, hard clamshell carrying case, and Sound Preference tuning ports (3 sets)
Build Quality (4/5) – The SP51 uses metal housings with screw-in rear ports identical to those of the Hippo VB, though Meelec chose to add a mesh filter to the nozzle. The clear cabling is typical Meelec – more supple and yet thicker than the rubbery cords used by Hippo and terminated with a nice L-plug
Isolation (3/5) – Fairly average due to large rear vent but good enough for daily use
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite good with cable-down wear, nonexistent with over-the-ear fitment
Comfort (3.5/5) – The SP51s are typical straight-barrel IEMS but the housings aren’t small or rounded at the front, resulting in relatively shallow fitment. The cord is rather flexible and wearing them over-the-ear is easy enough
Sound (6.9/10) – Though the SP51 uses the same housings as the Hippo VB, the 10mm drivers chosen by Meelec are unrelated to those selected by Hippo and result in a substantially different sound signature. The ‘Sound Preference’ tuning system is analogous to Hippo’s ‘Variable Bass’ tuning and consists of three interchangeable screw-in rear ports. Unlike the 1-dot, 2-dot, and 3-dot ports used by the VB, the ports of the SP51 are characterized by their color – black (“extreme bass”), gun metal (“enhanced bass”), and silver (“balanced”). The black port is an open vent and provides the maximum amount of bass (though not as much as leaving the earphones open at the rear, which is not recommended as it hurts definition across the range). I am not a huge fan of the ‘extreme bass’ configuration as it takes away much of the bite of the SP51, reducing bass definition as well as crispness in the other frequencies. The silver and gun metal ports both feature the same vent as the black port but with a different acoustic filter placed in front of it. The silver port, dubbed ‘balanced’ by Meelec, is my favourite of the three. The gun metal one, dubbed ‘enhanced bass’, hypes up the bass and adds some emphasis to the lower treble, The gun metal port will appeal to those looking for more of an M6/M9-type sound from the SP51 and may as well have been called the ‘fun’ port. I feel that it is the silver and gun metal ports that best exemplify the technical capabilities of the SP51 while the black port sacrifices too much resolution to deliver huge amounts of soft-edged impact.
As with so many mainstream earphones, the SP51 was designed to first and foremost satisfy the bass lover. Even in the balanced, silver-port configuration, the bass of the SP51 is above baseline and slightly more prominent than with the lower-end CX21 model. With the gun metal and black ports, the bass quantity of the SP51 competes with Meelec’s M-series earphones as well as sets like the Sennheiser IE6 and Thinksound TS02 – earphones that I can call ‘bass-heavy’ without thinking twice. Most of the emphasis is on the mid-bass frequencies but low end extension is quite good as well. What’s more interesting is the character of the SP51’s bass. It is soft and round rather than sharp and punchy, giving up a bit of speed and quick attack/decay times for smoothness. It also tends towards ‘boomy’ as the amount of air allowed to escape form the rear vent is increased. In the ‘balanced’ configuration there is slightly more impact to the bass than there is texture and note but since the bass is kept well in check, this isn’t a problem. However, the bass-heavy configuration seems to amplify both aspects equally, resulting in a whole lot of air being moved but only moderate levels of texture. On extremely fast tracks this kind of presentation can get the best of any earphone and the SP51 is no exception – the huge amount of impact can get smeared with the black filters.
In the balanced configuration, the midrange of the earphones is ever so slightly recessed but the laid-back nature of the bass makes this a non-issue. With the ‘fun’ and ‘bass-heavy’ filters, the midrange recession becomes slightly more noticeable and bass bleed – slightly more likely. However, next to sets such as the Fischer Audio Eterna, the SP51 is still a well-balanced earphone. The boost in the lower midrange with the black and gun metal filters results in vocals being given a bit of extra fullness and microdetail is slightly smoothed-over on the whole. Next to Meelec’s own CC51, the SP51 sounds somewhat distant and lacks most of the warmth and thickness that make the CC51 sound so ‘creamy’. It’s no surprise, then, that the cheaper SP51 can keep up with the CC51 in clarity, though the 6mm microdriver used in the ceramics has better detail and resolution.
It’s worth noting that that out of the box my pair of SP51s was unpleasantly sibilant – bad enough for me to forego using the earphones completely for the first 50 hours. I can still hear a touch of sibilance out of them on certain tracks with the gun metal-colored rear port but not with the silver one, which I prefer, or the bass-heavy black one. With the silver plate in place, the treble of the SP51 is clear and articulate. It won’t keep up with the armature-based A151 in detail but performs fairly well for a mid-range dynamic-driver earphone, much like that of the UE500 or Thinksound TS02. Extension is reasonably good and the earphones tend to sound airy no matter which tuning ports are used. The overall presentation of the SP51 is spacious and competent. Though the SP51 has better soundstage width than the CC51, it is slightly more vague when it comes to positioning. The CC51, while a bit intimate on the whole, presents music more coherently and three-dimensionally. The SP51, on the other hand, is reminiscent of Meelec’s aging M9 - airy and spacious but wider than it is deep and not pinpoint-accurate. It’s a fitting presentation for the type of smooth, slightly boomy sound that the SP51 puts out but competing with the higher-end CC51 and A151 in accuracy was obviously not on the agenda when the earphone was tuned.
Value (8/10) – Though the Hippo VB may seem like the most natural point of comparison for Meelec’s new tunable earphone, it is quite obvious that the SP51 pursues a slightly different signature – one that emphasizes mid-bass at its bassiest and nothing at its most balanced. Though the ports of the SP51 seem more potent at shaping its sound signature than those of the hippo VB, it still is not quite the 3-in-1 earphone many budget-minded music lovers might hope for. Still, rather than simply pick one port and stick with it, I imagine some may alternate between two of the three. For me, the silver “balanced” port edges out the gun metal “enhanced bass” port slightly, though many will find the SP51 to be lacking impact in this configuration. With the “enhanced bass” port, the SP51 can be considered a less v-shaped and more refined upgrade to the popular M9 and M6 models but the black “extreme bass” port sacrifices too much tightness in favor of bass ‘boom’ in my opinion. Ultimately, the SP51 makes a good entry-level set for those curious to play with the balance of an earphone and, while it won’t quite keep up with the Hippo VB when both earphones perform at their best, the SP51 is cheaper, more readily available, and backed by Meelec’s excellent warranty and customer service. Add to that the superior cable of the Meelec version and the option of having the iPhone-compatible SP51P for $10 more and the SP51 starts to make sense in terms of value-for-money.
Pros: Tunable sound signature
Cons: Mediocre isolation, bass tends towards 'boomy' on extreme bass setting
(2C29) MEElectronics CC51
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Ceramic-shelled flagship of Meelec’s ‘clarity’ series
Current Price: $80 from meelec.com (MSRP: $79.99); $90 for CC51P with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16 Ω | Sens: 98 dB | Freq: 18-20k Hz | Cable: 4.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 6mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, and hard clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The CC51 uses ceramic housings – a first for an earphone readily available in the US (Nakamichi’s ceramics have been available overseas for quite some time). Slightly resembling those of Apple’s dual-driver monitors, the shells of the CC51 are slim and ergonomic. The 6mm driver sits right in the nozzle (as with the JVC and Hippo microdriver earphones) and is protected by a fine mesh filter. Very mild driver flex is present on occasion. The shells have a nice weight to them and the cable is protected by a short strain relief (which has hard-to-see L/R markings stamped into it). The cable is different from the other Meelec earphones and more similar to the one found on the HT-21 headphone. It’s supple and tangle-resistant but thinner than the usual clear-coated Meelec cords. An L-plug completes the picture. Warning: the earphones ship with a shirt clip already on the cord. Extreme care should be taken when it is removed as its sharp edges can shear the cord quite badly
Isolation (4/5) – The housings are vented on the side but allow for relatively deep insertion and isolation is quite good overall
Microphonics (4/5) – Decent when worn cable-down but the curved shells are less than ideal for over-the-ear wear so microphonics aren’t as easy to eliminate completely as I would like
Comfort (4/5) – The slim, angled shells are very ergonomic and quite unobtrusive. The 6mm drivers of the earphones do need to be inside the ear canal for the CC51 to sound their best so those with extremely narrow canals may want to give these a pass but for everyone else they should be quite comfortable
Sound (7.7/10) – The CC51 is the pinnacle of Meelec’s new ‘clarity’ series and - judging by the MSRP – of the company’s entire model range. From the get-go the earphones exhibit the type of smooth and well-balanced sound that I found so easy to like with the Xears TD100. The bass is tight but impactful, boasting good depth and speed along with realistic attack and decay times. Impact quantity and bass body beat out the lower-end CW31 but fall a tad behind the ECCI PR401 and Xears TD-III, allowing the CC51 to maintain impressive resolution at the low end without being labeled lean or anemic.
The midrange is warm and very smooth. Like the Xears TD100 and TD-III, the CC51 has a slight thickness of note and generally sounds lush and full-bodied. Though the signature of the earphones may make it seem like the CC51 is a misuse of the ‘clarity’ label on Meelec’s part, the natural clarity of the tiny dynamic drivers is surprisingly good, as it has been with all of the microdriver earphones I’ve tried. Whereas the thickness of the TD100 put its clarity just below competitors from Brainwavz and Hippo, the CC51, despite similar note thickness, ranks just above them. It is also slightly clearer than the entry-level CX21 without sounding nearly as lean – an impressive feat considering that clarity is the CX21’s main focus. Detail and texture are good as well – for a warm-and-smooth earphone the CC51 is quite crisp and resolving. Harshness and sibilance are absent from the upper midrange and lower treble, though with a couple of tracks I felt that they could be pushed over the line at very high volumes. Again reminding me of the Xears TD100, the CC51 is very slightly laid-back at the top – not enough for it to be called recessed or for the overall tone to become dark but enough that the earphone derives no artificial clarity or airiness from the top end.
The presentation of the CC51 is slightly on the intimate side but very enveloping and coherent. Soundstage width and depth are about average but the CC51 can also portray a bit height – something most earphones struggle with. Layering and imaging are not pinpoint-accurate but still quite precise for a mid-range earphone. Instrumental separation is also good and the CC51 never sounds congested. There’s a slight lack of air and openness in the upper registers due to the laid-back nature of the treble but this is only noticeable next to something like the RE-ZERO – on its own the CC51 does not sound stuffy in the least. The timbre and dynamics of the earphones are also worth mentioning as both are above-average for models in the price range and remind me of the Brainwavz M3 or even Panasonic HJE900s. Overall, I feel that the sound signature of theCC51 is a little better than the sum of its parts, being a clear and yet strangely musical experience. As always, I cannot attribute the timbre, dynamics, clarity, or any other aspect of the signature to the ceramic housings (not unless I had an identical earphone made out of plastic to use as a control) but it just so happens that the CC51 is a solid all-around performer regardless.
Value (9/10) – Over the past three years, we have watched the transformation of Meelectronics from a small electronics supplier with a single decent $20 earphone to one of Head-Fi’s favourite budget IEM manufacturers. The company’s new ceramic flagship, priced to compete directly with some very serious mid-fi performers from companies such as HiFiMan, ViSang, and ECCI, aims higher still. Happily, the 6mm microdrivers used in the CC51 are impressive in their own right, offering plenty of clarity and resolution on top of a smooth, warm, and well-balanced sound signature. The ceramic housings are pleasant to touch, sturdy, and quite comfortable, though perhaps not for those with extremely narrow ear canals, and the earphones are generally quite user-friendly. Those who can live with their few minor quirks are sure to be impressed.
Pros: Impactful bass, good natural clarity, smooth & balanced sound signature
Cons: Very mild driver flex; not for those with very narrow ear canals; removing shirt clip may be hazardous to the cable; L/R markings can be hard to see under low light
(2C30) Phiaton PS 20
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Phiaton’s mid-range ‘half in-ear’ model
Current Price: $79 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 31Ω | Sens: 101 dB | Freq: 15-22k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges, Sony Hybrids
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (2.5/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) – The design of the PS 20 is an interesting one, with a bit of unprotected cable showing between the metal bits past the beefy strain relief and ergonomically-angled asymmetric shells. There is a second, smaller strain relief on the 3.5mm plug but none on the cable’s metal y-split. The cable itself is average in thickness but doesn’t tangle much and handles kinks well
Isolation (2.5/5) – As with the PS 210, the half in-ear design of the PS 20 drops isolation down into mediocrity, though aftermarket biflange tips can be used for a deeper seal. Phiaton does offer a pricier active noise-cancelling version, the PS 20 NC
Microphonics (4/5) – Very low but the PS 20 cannot be worn over-the-ear very easily so cable noise is difficult to eliminate completely
Comfort (4/5) – The Phiaton PS 20 is a ‘half in-ear’ design, meaning that the earphone fits like a conventional earbud but has a nozzle protruding into the ear canal. The earpieces are ergonomic and relatively lightweight but the sheer size of the drivers will make them uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears. Those who generally find in-ear earphones unpleasant, however, may actually be able to tolerate the PS 20 due to the shallow fit of the earbud-inspired form factor
Sound (7.6/10) – Each model of Phiaton’s in-ear range is unique in its own way. The flagship PS 200 is fast, accurate, and bright. The mid-range PS 210 is spacious, ambient, and very well-balanced. What was missing until now is the opposite end of the spectrum – a warm and bass-heavy in-ear earphone – the new PS 20. The bass of the PS 20 is robust yet pleasant. Low notes are full-bodied and well-weighted, with plenty of impact and a tiny bit of ‘boom’ to the bass. Extension on the low end is moderate, with the otherwise extremely competent bass presentation missing a bit of rumble at the lowest of lows. On tracks that call for it, the bass of the PS 20 can be quite aggressive – easily on-par with the popular Klipsch S4 and Sennheiser IE6 earphones in impact but missing a tiny bit of depth. What’s impressive, however, is how small an effect the punchy bass has on the midrange. The midrange one of the most enthralling aspects of the PS 20’s sound - clean, smooth, and articulate, it is neither too forward nor too recessed in the overall presentation. The bass weight does impart a small amount of warmth on the mids but overall transparency is still impressive – a trait the PS 20 shares with the older PS 210. Vocals come through with authority and surprising clarity for such a large driver – absolutely no veil is present with the PS 20. The texture and microdetail, on the other hand, suffer slightly in comparison to the similarly-priced RE-ZERO and Sunrise Xcape but the greater smoothness of the PS 20 is likely a worthy tradeoff for most users.
The treble is laid-back and inoffensive. Harshness and sibilance are absent altogether but those looking for a bright and sparkly sound will want to look elsewhere – overall the PS 20 leans towards a darker tonal balance. There is nothing missing from the top end of the PS 20 – detail, clarity, and extension are all reasonably good for the asking price - but compared to the similarly-priced Etymotic Research MC5, RE0, or Xcape treble energy is lower by a significant amount. On the upside, those who find themselves easily fatigued by prominent treble will love the PS 20.
We come now to the presentation – quite possibly the most impressive trait of the PS 20. Being a half in-ear design, the PS20 doesn’t sound as ‘in-the-head’ as most entry-level in-ears. Instead, the presentation is spacious and more earbud-like in nature. The soundstage has good width and depth and – surprisingly –good height as well. Whereas other in-ears have a tendency to sound ‘tubular’ – i.e. portraying left-right distance well but staying near the horizontal axis at all times – the PS 20 sounds immersive and engrossing. It is neither too intimate nor too distant and the excellent clarity helps it separate out individual instruments. Positioning and imaging are not as precise as with the flagship PS 200 but reasonably good for the price – it can sometimes be difficult to place instruments in the sonic space but the basic distance-and-direction cues are there - it really takes a very congested track to throw the PS 20 off balance.
Value (8.5/10) – The PS 20 is yet another impressive entry from the upmarket audio firm, retaining the overall sound quality of the pricier PS 210 but heading in a more mainstream direction with the signature. Aside from having the strongest and most full-bodied bass of Phiaton’s in-ear range, the PS 20 impresses with the clear, transparent midrange and spacious, engrossing presentation. The size of the housings may be an issue for those with smaller ears and the isolation is expectedly mediocre but those who do not mind the form factor are sure to be impressed.
Pros: Well-weighted and punchy bass; very immersive presentation
Cons: May be uncomfortable for those with smaller outer ears; mediocre isolation
(2C31) Pioneer SE-CLX60
Reviewed Feb 2011
Details: Mid-range IEM from Pioneer commonly mis-advertised as a ‘Flex Nozzle’ design
Current Price: $95 from iheadphones.co.uk (MSRP: $99.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 5-25k Hz | Cable: 4.4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 4mm | Preferred tips: Sony Hybrid
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (2/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes) and shirt clip
Build Quality (4/5) – Though Pioneer advertises the CLX60 as having ‘aluminum housings’, it is only the rear part of the shells that is aluminum. The front half, including the nozzle, is plastic and the protrusion on the side of the housings is made of hard rubber. In addition to conventional L/R markings and the asymmetric design, the CLX60 also has a red filter on the right-side nozzle (a-la Earjax Tonix) for easy identification. The cable is reasonably sturdy and very well-relieved but feels plasticky and has a bit of memory character
Isolation (3.5/5) – Average due to large size and vented housings
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low with cable-down wear; nonexistent when worn cord-up
Comfort (3.5/5) – Though Pioneer advertises the CLX60 as a ‘Flex Nozzle’ design (a-la CLX50), the nozzles are actually fixed-angle and don’t flex at all. The only thing that flexes (barely) is the rubber extension on the side of the housings, which is designed to hold the earphones in place and cannot be removed by design. The shells of the CLX60 are quite large (about 40% larger than those of the RE0 in every dimension) but light and not uncomfortable. Though the ear hook does keep the CLX60 in place quite well, my ears get sore in 2-3 hours from the pressure exerted by the housings, partly due to the nozzles not being angled enough for my liking
Sound (7.2/10) – Though the general sound signature of the CLX60 is not all that different from the lower-end CLX50, there is one marked difference between the two – the amount of bass boost present. While the CLX50 can easily be called bass-heavy, the bass of the CLX60 is on-par with reasonably balanced sets such as the Meelec CC51 and Fischer Audio Silver Bullet. I find it interesting that Pioneer chose the CLX50 to be its flagship in the US market and not the more balanced CLX60 but perhaps the decision had nothing to do with the earphones’ sonic characteristics. In general, the low end of the CLX60 is tight and punchy. Compared to the lower-end model, the CLX60 is missing a bit of bass body, sounding leaner and thinner both at the low end and in the midrange. As a result, the overall bass quantity of the CLX60 seems to be only slightly greater than with the HiFiMan RE-ZERO despite the noticeably greater impact.
On the upside, the bass does not bleed into the midrange, which is crisp, smooth, and very clear. Though the entire midrange is slightly forward compared to the bass, the upper midrange is particularly strong and the overall balance reminds me of the Maximo iM-590. Guitars are given ample bite and most vocals come across with authority. The accentuated upper midrange gives the headphones a bright overall tone and draws more attention to the clarity. Transparency is quite decent as well and there is absolutely no veil over the mids. Unlike the iM-590, which can be a tiny bit sibilant, the treble of the CLX60 smoothes out before sibilance can become an issue all the while maintaining a high level of treble sparkle. Treble clarity and extension are again quite good just as they are with the cheaper CLX50.
The presentation, too, is reminiscent of the CLX50 – the earphones sound very airy and the soundstage has good width and decent depth. Instrumental separation and positioning are both quite impressive for a mid-range dynamic though there seems to be an inner limit to the soundstage. On the whole, the CLX60 is a competent performer – not neutral by any means but fun in a bright-and-colored way. The sound signature can get tiring after a while and the timbre is a tad off to my ears, putting the CLX60 in the same boat as the Denon AH-C710 and Monster Lil’ Jamz, but after listening to more conventional dynamic-driver earphones, the Pioneers are at the very least unique and refreshing. Also worth mentioning is the bit of background hiss exhibited by the CLX60 with most portable amps and DACs – in daily use the CLX60 appears a bit more sensitive than the specs imply.
Value (7.5/10) – With the SE-CLX60 boasting superior ergonomics, solid overall sound quality, and a more unique sound signature compared to the lower-end CLX50, I can only assume that Pioneer made the CLX50 their US flagship by some freak clerical error. Though the CLX60 has little going for it in terms of accessories, the build quality is good and microphonics are quite low, making the earphone well-suited for day-to-day use. The sound signature is interesting as well – well-balanced and spacious with emphasis on the upper midrange and a brighter overall tone. It's worth noting that the sheer size of the shells may lead to fit problems for some and there are ergonomically-designed earphones with better nozzle angles out there. As a total package, however, the CLX60 is quite good for an earphone from a mainstream manufacturer and may be worth a look for those who don’t have to import it.
Pros: Far less asinine in design than CLX50; well-built; low cable noise; interesting sound signature and competent sound quality
Cons: Quite large; meager accessories
Big thanks to jant71 for the SE-CLX60 loan
(2C32) Woodees IESW100L Blues
Reviewed Mar 2011
Details: Woodees' follow-up to the IESW101B model, featuring updated construction and a 3-button iPhone remote
Current Price: $80 from amazon.com (MSRP: $129.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (4 sizes), shirt clip, and velour drawstring carrying pouch
Build Quality (4/5) - Though the housings of the Blues are still the same size and shape as those of the original Woodees, the cheap-looking orange accents have been replaced with sturdier-looking gold-plated metal bits and the wooden part of the housings has been painted black. The Woodees logo, which rubbed off far too easily on the old model, has been moved to the strain relief and L/R markings have been left out completely. The striped nylon-sheathed cord is one of the better cloth-type cords I’ve come across – soft and flexible but prone to neither kinking nor tangling. The cable is protected by long rubber sleeves and features a sliding cinch and gold-plated Y-split and 3.5mm plug. Mild driver flex is present upon insertion
Isolation (3/5) – Limited by the size of the housings but quite decent for everyday use
Microphonics (4/5) – Very mild when worn cord-down, nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings of the Blues are rather large and heavier than those of the old model. Those with smaller ears may have trouble getting a good fit but the earphones can be worn comfortably over-the-ear despite the longer strain reliefs
Sound (6.8/10) – The sound signature of the Woodees Blues is on the balanced side of things – a contrast to the bass-heavy sound produced by the majority of most wooden earphones. The bass trails the similarly-priced Thinksound TS02 noticeably when it comes to depth and rumble, which is not to say that the Woodees are anemic in the least. Their bass is still very present and full-bodied – even a bit boomy at times - with plenty of impact and good clarity and articulation. The TS02 simply has an easier time portraying great quantities of bass due to its longer attack and decay times, which make its low end sound softer and fuller than that of the Woodees. On the other hand the bass of Blues is tighter and punchier – enhanced, but never blown out of proportion. Aside from the balance-oriented Meelec CW31, the bass of the Woodees it is the most linear and arguably the most true-to-source among all of the mid-range wooden earphones I’ve heard.
The midrange of the Blues is warm, lush, and sweet. Due to their leaner low end, bass bleed is less significant with the Woodees than with the Thinksound TS02, Xears TD-III, and Skullcandy Holua. The detail and clarity are impressive as well, competing well with the Xears TD-III and Brainwavz earphones. The treble transition is quite smooth, with only a touch of unevenness and very mild sparkle. Treble clarity is not quite as spectacular as midrange clarity, especially next to more treble-heavy earphones such as my Sunrise Xcape, but the Woodees do sound nearly as effortless as the TD-III when it comes to extension and really don’t lack treble quantity by my standards.
The soundstage of the Blues is above-average in size and quite airy. They lack the sheer space and depth of the TD-III but seem to have a cleaner, more well-separated sound due to the greatly diminished bass quantity and leaner presentation. Positioning and instrumental separation are adequate and the Woodees strike a good balance between the more intimate sound of the Skullcandy Holua and the overly-ambient presentation of the Fischer Audio Daleth. On the whole, I find the signature of the Blues to be the ‘safe’ choice among wooden in-ears as they are so unlikely to offend with their balance or voicing. Interestingly, despite being said to share drivers with the new Blues model, the older IESW100B had very noticeable treble harshness to my ears and the new model does not. I can’t be sure whether the difference is attributable to the differences in the design & construction between the two or to variances between individual drivers but the point stands – the grating treble of the IESW100B is not an issue with the IESW100L.
Value (7.5/10) – Though not radically different from the cheaper IESW100B model, the Woodees Blues offer improvements in build quality and aesthetics, as well as a standard mic and 3-button remote. The price increase puts the Blues in direct competition with Thinksound’s TS02+mic model. Indeed, the two earphones perform similarly enough from a functional standpoint but pursue slightly different sound signatures. The Woodees are leaner-sounding and quite balanced next to the bottom-heavy Thinksounds, offering a bit more clarity and airiness to counteract the more impressive bass depth, smooth and lush midrange, and convincing timbre and dynamics of the Thinksounds. The 3-button remote might be a deal-breaker for some but from a sound signature standpoint it will come down to personal preference between the two.
Pros: Tangle-free cloth cable; good overall build quality; low cable noise, 3-button remote standard, clear and relatively balanced sound
Cons: No dedicated L/R markings
For a longer review of the Woodees Blues, complete with comparisons to the Thinksound TS02, Xears TD-III, Skullcandy Holua, and Fischer Audio Daleth, see here
(2C33) Monster Jamz
Reviewed Mar 2011
Details: Dynamic-driver earphones from Monster Cable slotted below the Turbine and Beats Tour in the Monster range
Current Price: $90 from amazon.com (MSRP: $119.95); $100 for ControlTalk version w/mic
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: N/A | Cable: 4’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Generic single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear or straight down
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (6 sizes), shirt clip, and soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (3/5) – While very solid at first glance, the Jamz really aren’t as well-thought-out as the higher-end Turbine line. The metal housings are heavy and rock-solid but the strain reliefs aren’t flexible and have sharp edges. The cable cinch takes the form of a thin piece of metal and seems like it may sever the cable if pulled on. The cord itself, however, is extremely pleasant to use – soft, rubbery, and flexible. The metal casing of the 3.5mm plug has a tendency to come loose but a drop of super glue should fix it
Isolation (4/5) – As with the Turbines and MD Tributes, the isolation is surprisingly good for a dynamic-driver in-ear
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; very low when worn over-the-ear
Comfort (3.5/5) – The housings are larger and heavier than those of the Lil’ Jamz and have a tendency to come loose during physical activity. Fitment depth is very important but the Jamz benefit from a shallower seal compared to the Lil’Jamz and Beats Tour
Sound (6.0/10) – While the cheaper Lil’ Jamz sound like a dilute version of Monster’s Beats by Dr Dre Tour, the Jamz are more reminiscent of the Turbine line with their warm, mid-bassy antics. Unfortunately, the Jamz don’t have the combination of bass depth, detail, and refinement that makes the Turbine earphones special. The bass of the Jamz rolls off earlier than that of the Turbines, resulting in a distinct lack of sub-bass rumble to go with the sizeable mid-bass hump of the Jamz. Interestingly, the Jamz do not benefit from a particularly deep seal, in direct contrast to the Dr Dre Beats Tour. When pushed too far into the ear canal, the Jamz lose bass quantity and body, becoming tinny and slightly anemic in terms of impact. Optimal bass response is achieved with a moderately shallow seal and I actually found myself using larger tips than usual to coax that last bit of impact out of the Jamz. Even when sealed properly, the bass of the Jamz, like that of the Lil’ Jamz lacks a bit of texture and detail. At lower volume levels all that the Jamz produce is a basic mid-bass thump, only differentiating low notes with the volume turned up a bit.
For an earphone with a fair large amount of mid-bass boost, the Jamz have expectedly warm and ever so slightly muffled-sounding lower mids. In contrast to the Lil’ Jamz, there is no bright and prominent treble to counteract the bassy warmth of the Jamz and the mids are thicker and not as recessed. Fine detail is masked slightly by the thickness – the Turbine does a better of job of keeping its low end in check. Treble response is easily the most laid-back among all of the Monster in-ears, with absolutely no harshness, sibilance, or even sparkle present and noticeable roll-off at the top. Depending on the track, the sound of the Jamz alternates between slightly relaxed and downright dull. The nondescript presentation doesn’t help either – the Jamz are neither as forward as the Beats Tour nor as spread-out as the Lil’ Jamz. Again, excessively deep fitment can affect the Jamz negatively, collapsing the soundstage and making them sound less natural, but even with the best fit I was able to find, the presentation is still a bit vague compared to competing earphones such as the Fischer Silver Bullet and ECCI PR401.
Value (6.5/10) – It would seem that the midbass-heavy balance of the Jamz should appeal to the non-audiophile much in the same way the ever-popular Sennheiser CX300 does – the Jamz are not nearly as aggressive as the Beats by Dr Dre Tour and not as bright or tinny as the Lil’ Jamz. Closer examination, however, reveals that the Jamz commit the worst crime of all – complete blandness. Personally, I still like the Jamz better than the more colored Lil’ Jamz and downright offensive Beats Tour, but there is no denying that their sound signature, light on both treble and sub-bass, has a dull, lifeless quality to it. What gives the Jamz some value is the 3-year warranty and their forgiving nature when it comes to poor recordings and low-bitrate rips. If neither of those things are a priority, I would highly recommend looking elsewhere.
Pros: User-friendly cable, 3-year warranty, sound is very relaxed and non-fatiguing
Cons: Minor construction issues, very sensitive to insertion depth, bland-sounding
(2C34) Etymotic Research MC5 / MC3
Reviewed Apr 2011
Details: First dynamic-driver earphone from the pioneer of universal in-ear monitors
Current Price: $79 from amazon.com (MSRP: $79); $99 for MC3 with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 100 dB | Freq: 20-15k Hz | Cable: 4’ 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 2.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock triple-flanges, Shure Olives
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Triple-flange silicone tips (2 sizes), Etymotic foam tips, Etymotic Glider tips, replacement filters (1 set), filter replacement tool, shirt clip, and zippered soft carrying pouch
Build Quality (4.5/5) –Though the MC5 is lightweight and for the most part plastic, the outer (colored) bits of the housings are aluminum and the cables are Kevlar-reinforced and well-relieved all around. The slightly rubbery cabling is very flexible and doesn’t stick or tangle and the entry-level Etys really feel like a quality product all around
Isolation (4.5/5) – Typical of Ety earphones, isolation just doesn’t get much better than this
Microphonics (4/5) – Quite low when worn cable-down, nonexistent with over-the-ear wear
Comfort (4/5) – Depends on the eartips used but the included assortment should fit most people. With a good fit the slim housings don’t contact the ear and the cable exit angle actually works for over-the-ear wear, making the MC5 very comfortable for those who can handle deep-insertion earphones
Sound (7.7/10) – First, a note on tip choice – though the included foamies and Glider tips were very comfortable for me, I settled on the triple-flange silicones and my trusty Shure olives for sonic reasons. The Gliders, though comfortable, seem to accentuate the weaknesses of the MC5 and the stock foamies simply have no comfort advantages over Olives and muffle the top end more.
Though the dynamic driver used in the MC5 is a departure for Etymotic, the audio engineers managed to develop a moving coil transducer that, for the most part, conforms to the Ety mold. The MC5 really does its best to emphasize no one frequency range above others and covers enough of the frequency spectrum to compete with most earphones in its class. The dynamic transducers move more air than the balanced armatures used in other Etymotic earphones and as a result the low end of the MC5 is more punchy and tactile but not as microdetailed or textured as that of the higher-end ER4 and HF5 sets. The bass is tight, controlled, and reasonably quick for a dynamic driver but lacks the reverb and sheer presence of some of the more energetic-sounding dynamic earphones in the price range. Extension is quite linear down to about 40Hz and drops off gradually beyond that, though the earphones do respond well to equalization. Naturally, the low end of the MC5 is never intrusive and imparts no coloration on the midrange – the MC5 invariably remains calm and composed no matter how bassy the track.
The midrange of the MC5 comes with fewer caveats than the bass. Due to the extremely balanced nature of the MC5, they can seem a bit mid-centric at times but in reality there’s no particular emphasis on any part of the middle registers. The mids produced by the MC5 are clear, and detailed but not as crisp as those of armature-based Etys. They are not overly defined but still just a touch grainy and quite dry. With a poor or shallow seal, the upper mids can step out of line on occasion, bringing with them bouts of vocal sibilance but with well-fitting tips sibilance is minimal. Moving on up, the treble of the MC5 is accurate and prominent but not hyper-detailed as it tends to be on analytical armature-based earphones such as the Etymotic HF5 and Phonak PFE. Compared to the HF5 and even the RE0, the treble of the MC5 is not nearly as crisp, bright, or energetic, instead appearing softer and more controlled. Like the midrange it can be just a touch grainy and yet isn’t what I would call ‘sparkly’. Still, the MC5 is definitely not for the treble-sensitive.
Etymotic earphones usually do a good job of separating out individual instruments but aren’t known for providing the most three-dimensional presentation in the world of high-end in-ears, and the MC5 is no exception. The soundstage has good width but only average depth. Soundstage height is also something many in-ears struggle with and the MC5 is no exception - there are earphones that provide a more immersive experience for the money, such as the Fischer Audio Silver Bullet and Head-Direct RE-ZERO. The RE-ZERO is especially interesting since that is the one dynamic most likely to be compared to the MC5 and for me, despite sounding more intimate on the whole, the RE-ZERO has the more natural presentation by a margin – better height, better depth, slightly better positioning and imaging – the presentation of the RE-ZERO is simply bigger and more true to life. The RE-ZERO also has better dynamic range to my ears, though not by much.
Tonally, the MC5 is not as cold-sounding as the higher-end armature-based Etys, not as clinical. It is also slightly more forgiving of low-bitrate rips and poor mastering but the whole garbage in = garbage out adage still applies on the whole. Clipping, distortion, sibilance – any and all mastering artifacts will be made apparent by the MC5 but not to the same degree as with the HF5 and ER4. It should be noted also that the MC5 is not a very efficient earphone – much less so than the higher-end HF5 or the HiFiMan RE-ZERO. Though an amp is not strictly necessary, it does help slightly with the microdetail and resolution of the earphones out of a weak portable player. On the bright side, the MC5 cuts hiss well when used with sources that have a high noise floor.
Value (9/10) – The Etymotic MC5 is a capable dynamic-driver earphone from a company that doesn’t normally do dynamics. Like all things Etymotic, the MC5 is well-built, well-packaged, and highly isolating but requires deep insertion to sound its best, which may take some getting used to for those new to Ety earphones. The sound is clear, accurate, and neutral but for many the MC5 will lack the desired bass presence and treble energy. Even those who like a highly analytical sound may find the MC5 slightly boring, slightly inept at conveying energy and excitement. The MC5 is easily more consumer-friendly than the higher-end Etymotic earphones but I can’t help feeling ever so slightly underwhelmed every time I use them. Unless isolation is a priority, I will keep picking the RE-ZERO up out of the drawer every time.
Pros: Stellar noise isolation; solid build quality; fairly clear, balanced, and accurate sound
Cons: Deep-insertion form factor takes getting used to; can be slightly boring/lifeless
(2C35) Beyerdynamic DTX 71 iE
Reviewed May 2011
Details: Entry-level model from Beyer’s recently-refreshed IEM line
Current Price: $69 from beyerdynamic.com (MSRP: $69)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 104 dB | Freq: 20-22k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes) and zippered soft carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The housings of the DTX 71 are all-plastic but the molding quality is very good. Strain reliefs are fully integrated and the rubbery cable is sturdy and fairly flexible. The 3.5mm L-plug and y-split are both very well-relieved
Isolation (3.5/5) – Good for a straight-barrel dynamic
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; nearly nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The DTX 71 is a lightweight straight-barrel in-ear and doesn’t require particularly deep insertion to sound its best. As a result it remains quite comfortable even for lengthy listening sessions
Sound (7.3/10) – The sound of the DTX 71 is mainstream in nature but quite good on a technical level and pleasant overall. The balance is skewed slightly towards the low end, with weighty and impactful bass that is nevertheless not quite as prominent as with the higher-end DTX 101. Bass depth is impressive and control is retained for the most part. If anything, the low end of the DTX 71 actually does a better job of staying out of the way than that of the DTX 101, appearing only slightly boomy next to tight-and-fast dynamics such as the RE-ZERO and Sunrise Xcited. While clearly not intended for analytical listeners, the DTX 71 manages to draw as much attention to the sub-bass than the mid-bass, which helps the midrange stay veil-free.
The midrange of the DTX 71 is slightly forward, falling just short of the low end in relative emphasis. The mids of the similarly-priced Xears TD-III are slightly more prominent while those of the Xears Resonance are more recessed. Clarity and detail are good though some of the more analytical earphones around the price point have an advantage here. Texture levels are quite good as well and the DTX 71 leans towards a slightly dryer, grittier sound compared to the TD-III. The tone of the earphones leans slightly towards darkness though there isn’t a significant lack of upper midrange emphasis. In fact, my two Beyerdynamic IEMs both boast impressive presence and smoothness across the spectrum.
Top end extension is moderate – similar to the Brainwavz M2 and Sunrise Xcape IE but not as impressive as with the RE0. Treble presence is quite good but the DTX 71 definitely holds a bias towards the midrange and low end. The presentation is competent – average soundstage size and good layering mean that the sonic cues are all laid out quite well for a dynamic-driver in the DTX 71’s price range. Part of the reason that the presentation is not a definite strong suit of the earphone is the average dynamics – the Sunrise Xcape IE, for example, is noticeably more adept at conveying softness and delicacy. The Beyer IEMs are both slightly shouty in nature, though by no means to a degree where the dynamics become a distraction.
Value (8.5/10) – The DTX 71 iE is a consumer-class earphone from a large Hi-Fi manufacturer. Expectedly, it does very little wrong both when it comes to sound quality and usability. More surprising is that the DTX is priced in accordance with its performance – something I’ve given up on when it comes to mid-level earphones from brands with a full-sized headphone focus. AKG, Grado, and even Sennheiser could learn a thing or two from the DTX 71 iE.
Pros: Lightweight, well-built, easy to live with; sound quality competent all around; less bass than DTX 101
Cons: Mesh carrying pouch is underwhelming; cable noise can be annoying with cable-down fitment
(2C36) Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE / MMX 101 iE
Reviewed May 2011
Details: Mid-range model from Beyer’s recently-refreshed IEM line
Current Price: $89 from beyerdynamic.com (MSRP: $89); $125 for MMX 101 iE with microphone
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 12Ω | Sens: 102 dB | Freq: 10-23k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), cable clip, VOIP/Skype adapter, and zippered soft carrying case
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The housings of the DTX 101 are slightly smaller in size than those of the DTX 71 and boast a metal outer shell. Strain reliefs are fully integrated and the rubbery cable is sturdy and fairly flexible. The 3.5mm L-plug and y-split are both very well-relieved
Isolation (4/5) – Good for a straight-barrel dynamic
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; nearly nonexistent otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The DTX 101 is slightly heavier than the DTX 71 but the housings are slimmer. Like the lower-end model, it doesn’t require particularly deep insertion to sound its best and remains quite comfortable even for lengthy listening sessions as a result
Sound (7.5/10) – If the low end of the DTX 71 is merely ‘emphasized’ compared to a balanced in-ear such as the RE-ZERO, the DTX 101 can definitely be characterized as a bass-heavy earphone. The bass isn’t quite as authoritative as that of the Fischer Audio Eterna or a well-sealed Nuforce NE-700X but it is at the very least on-par with the Monster Turbine and Thinksound TS02 and can definitely be excessive for my taste. The low end of the DTX 101 is deep and powerful, providing impressive sub-bass presence. It is at least as controlled as that of the DTX 71 but is disadvantaged slightly by the relatively greater bass emphasis of the higher-end model. Next to more analytical presence the bass does sound a touch boomy, as expected, but for the quantity of bass to be contained, the DTX 101 performs quite well.
The midrange is warmed up by the emphasized low end and comes off slightly more colored than that of the DTX 71. It is also more recessed relative to the low end, though the mids of the Fischer Audio Eterna are more recessed still. The clarity of the Eterna wins out by a hair while detail levels are quite evenly matched between the two. The earphone remains smooth moving into the lower treble. The treble itself is a bit more extended compared to that of the lower-end model and the entire sound signature is a touch cleaner and more airy as a result. The difference is very small, however, and doesn’t affect the tone of the earphone – the greater bass presence ensures that the DTX 101 sounds a bit darker than the DTX 71.
The presentation of the earphones is similar to that of the DTX 71 with a slightly larger soundstage side and a marginally better layering. Due to improved treble extension, the DTX 101 sounds a bit more open than the 71 but again the difference is small. Darker tone aside, the DTX can also compete in timbre with some of the better dynamics in the price range. Worth noting is the low impedance of the DTX 101 – like the DTX 71, the higher end model was obviously designed with portable devices in mind and an impedance adapter does help with the severe impedance mismatch when plugging either earphone into a computer or full-size amp.
Value (9/10) – Better than any press release or marketing material, the design of the DTX 101 iE shows that Beyerdynamic has taken their new in-ear line very seriously. The engineers obviously did their homework regarding what works and what doesn’t creating an earphone that – save for some cable noise when worn cable-down – provides excellent real-world usability. Though no fancy materials or innovative cabling solutions are used in its construction, the DTX 101, like the similarly-priced Etymotic MC5, should be able to withstand considerable abuse. Sonically, the DTX 101 is not a large step up from the cheaper DTX 71 model, but it is the little differences that help the 101 remain a competent performer despite the bass-biased balance. Personally, I prefer the balance of the DTX 71, but that hasn’t stopped me from enjoying the DTX 101 while out and about.
Pros: Very well-built; good overall sound quality with heavy bass; skype adapter included
Cons: Mesh carrying pouch is underwhelming; cable noise can be annoying with cable-down fitment; not as balanced as DTX 71 iE
(2C37) Dunu DN-11 Ares
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Mid-range earphone out of China clearly inspired by the design of the Monster Turbine Pro Gold
Current Price: $75 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est $93)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes) and wide-channel (3 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, zippered carrying case, magnetic-clasp soft carrying pouch, drawstring carrying bag, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Modeled after Monster’s Turbine Pro Gold, the Ares is surprisingly well-built, with sturdy metal shells, mesh filters, aluminum cable cinch and y-split, and good strain relief all-around. The rubberized cable is a bit stiff for my liking but the attention to detail is very good on the whole
Isolation (4/5) – Quite good with the right tips
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The Ares fits much like the Monster Turbine earphones but its rounded shells are smaller and slightly more ergonomic on the whole. While the tip selection is not as impressive as with the Monster models, finding a comfortable fit was not a problem at all
Sound (6.8/10) – The general signature of the Ares is balanced with a bit of roll-off on either end. Overall bass quantity falls north of the Brainwavz M1 but south of the Brainwavz M2, into the range of what I would call ‘slightly enhanced’. The character of the bass is tight-and-punchy more than it is full-and-boomy – quite well-measured for an earphone in its price category but far from analytical. The Ares does lack a bit of bass depth – extension drops off quickly below 40 Hz or so - and sub-bass rumble is oftentimes all but imperceptible but on the whole its bass should satisfy most listeners.
The midrange of the Ares is a bit on the dry side but offers up surprising clarity and resolution. It is a touch forward in the overall soundscape but clearly not sufficiently so to call the Ares a mid-forward earphone. Bass bleed is nearly nonexistent although the midrange derives a touch of warmth from the bass. Next to the Xears TD-III, the Ares doesn’t appear warm at all. Detail and texture levels are quite good as well and the Ares generally sounds smooth and level. Interestingly, while the midrange clarity of the Ares can easily keep up with established segment leaders from the likes of Xears and Brainwavz on sparsely populated tracks, it tends to break down on busier passages. As a result, the earphones are not particularly well-suited for rock and metal but sound great with acoustic pieces, r&b, soft rock, etc.
The treble of the earphones is smooth and forgiving. There are no notable treble peaks and about as much sparkle as with a Brainwavz M1, which is to say not a whole lot. Treble quantity is not lacking by my standards but there is a bit of roll-off up top. All in all, the signature of the Ares may not be particularly interesting or unique but it is a good all-rounder. The presentation, similarly, is merely competent. The Xears TD-III is more spacious but the Ares is no slouch, providing pretty good width and average depth. Imaging is quite good on sparse tracks but the earphones get a touch congested as things get busy. An additional factor is timbre realism – the TD-III, among other dynamic-driver earphones, simply sounds more natural than the Ares does.
Value (7.5/10) – Over the past couple of years we’ve seen many great earphones come out of the China’s thriving audio scene. Most of the ones that have achieved prominence on Head-Fi have done so by offering great sound quality for the asking price but the Dunu Ares and Crius take a slightly different approach. These earphones offer nearly unprecedented attention to detail - when it comes to build quality, packaging, and accessories very few competing offerings compare to the Dunu models. It’s a refreshing take on providing value to the end consumer that, unfortunately, is limited by the derivative nature of the design. However, there are few earphones I am looking forward to more than Dunu’s upcoming releases – with slightly different tuning Dunu could easily provide a great value, not just a good one.
Pros: Well-built, well-accessorized, great attention to detail, competent sound
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down, not the best at handling complexity
Thanks to jant71 for the Dunu Ares & Crius loans!
(2C38) Dunu DN-13 Crius
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Mid-range earphone out of China clearly inspired by the design of the Monster Jamz
Current Price: $65 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: est. $82)
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: N/A | Sens: N/A | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes) and wide-channel (3 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, zippered carrying case, drawstring carrying bag, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (4.5/5) – Styled much like a squashed Monster Jamz, the Crius is surprisingly well-built, with sturdy metal shells, mesh filters, aluminum cable cinch and y-split, and good strain relief all-around. The rubberized cable is a bit stiff for my liking but the attention to detail is very good on the whole
Isolation (3.5/5) – Quite good with the right tips but the housings of the pricier Ares can be inserted a bit deeper and provide slightly better isolation
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (4/5) – The Crius fits like most other straight-barrel earphones but the shells are wider and shorter than those of the real Monster Jamz. Since the Crius weighs about the same, the weight distribution is more favorable to the Dunu earphones staying in the ear
Sound (6.8/10) – While its sound is extremely similar to that of the Ares on the whole, the Crius is a touch lighter on the low end than the higher-end model. The mid-bass quantity is a bit closer to neutral and the sub-bass roll-off is slightly more noticeable. As with the Ares, the bass is more tight-and-punchy than full-and-boomy – well-measured but not quite analytical and lacking some depth. The diminished bass quantity means the midrange is less warm and more prominent in the overall balance. Detail and texture levels are good and the midrange is smooth and pleasant. Similarly derived from the Ares are the issues the Crius has with busier tracks – despite being cleaner and more balanced overall, the Crius gets overwhelmed a bit too easily
The treble of the earphones is smooth and forgiving, just like that of the Ares. There are no notable treble peaks and similarly low levels of treble sparkle. A bit of top-end roll-off is still noticeable but the slightly more balanced sound of the Crius focuses more on the midrange and treble and less on the bottom end. The presentation is a little airier as a result and the sense of space is increased very slightly. Congestion is still an issue as the separation tends to collapse as things get busy. One thing is certain, however - the Crius sounds way better than real Monster Jamz.
Value (8/10) – Priced just below the Ares, the Dunu Crius offers a slightly different sonic flavor on the same overall competency level. Personally, I prefer the more balanced sound of the cheaper Crius but the earphones share far more similarities than differences. As with the Ares, much of the value of the Crius lies in the care taken with the design, construction, packaging, and accessories and of course those looking to compare it to a ‘real’ Monster Jamz may just be very pleasantly surprised.
Pros: Well-built, well-accessorized, great attention to detail, competent sound
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down, not the best at handling complexity
Thanks to jant71 for the Dunu Ares & Crius loans!
(2C39) Spider Realvoice
Reviewed June 2011
Details: Dynamic-driver earphone from Spider Cable promising realistic audio reproduction for acoustic and vocal tracks
Current Price: $78 from buy.com (MSRP: $89.99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 5-20k Hz | Cable: 3.9’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange (3 sizes) and bi-flange silicone tips, shirt clip, demo CD, hard clamshell carrying case, and carabiner
Build Quality (3.5/5) – The large housings of the realvoice are made of plastic, though molding quality is quite good. The cable is plasticky and average in thickness. It has a bit of memory and is outfitted with a metal-shelled 3.5mm I-plug, cable cinch, and y-split
Isolation (3/5) – The realvoice is a shallow-insertion, vented earphone. Isolation is average
Microphonics (4/5) – Slightly bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The earphones are similar in design to the Sony XB40EX and work best with a shallow fitment. The plastic housings make the realvoice lighter than the Sonys and the longer nozzle allows them to stay comfortable longer. Worn cable-down they can still come loose on occasion but cable-up with the cord kept in place by the sliding cinch works for me. The large spine of the earphones also makes them easy to insert and remove in a hurry but may make over-the-ear wear tricky for those with smaller ears
Sound (7.8/10) – As the name implies, the realvoice was tuned to correctly reproduce vocal elements in music. In the pursuit of realistic vocal reproduction, Spider Cable created a well-balanced and lively-sounding earphone that works across a variety of genres. The low end of the realvoice is punchy and reasonably controlled. The bass is boosted but the earphones are hardly bass-heavy – overall quantity falls below the Xears TD-III but above the Xcape IE. The Shure SE215 has similar bass quantity overall but its low end sounds slightly more dominant due to the laid-back treble and flatter midrange. Bass depth is good and the presentation strikes a respectable balance between speed and presence. Any more speed and the realvoice would begin to sound lean; any less and it would approach the more lingering note presentation of bass monsters such as the Xears TD-III and Beyerdynamic DTX 101. Is it as clean or resolving as some of the more analytical earphones once things get busy? Not quite, but it doesn’t get washed out, either.
Meant to be the focal point of the sound signature, the midrange of the realvoice is clear and surprisingly neutral in tone. It is strong but does not dominate the sound signature, taking a step back compared to mid-forward sets such as the TD-III and Brainwavz M2. There is a bit of warmth but it is far from overbearing - the Shure SE215 and Xcape IE both sound warmer than the realvoice. Midrange clarity is quite good – the realvoice is not the most detailed earphone in its price range but it manages to maintain good resolution throughout without sounding dry or grainy. The mids have a slight downward tilt, losing a bit of emphasis towards the top. The mild lower midrange emphasis gives the vocal presentation some fullness – the earphone had to have been tuned this way by design and makes few passes at absolute accuracy. For the types of acoustic and vocal-based music in which the realvoice is said to excel, however, the balance works well enough. The smoothness in the midrange and at the bottom end doesn’t hurt, either.
The treble carries some sparkle and has good extension at the top, putting it on par with the similarly-priced Shure and Sunrise sets. Compared to the more laid-back SE215, the realvoice sounds crisp and lively at the top. At very high volumes it can get slightly fatiguing due to its mildly peaky nature but during regular listening the earphones remain reasonably smooth and inoffensive. Because the realvoice is not the most transparent earphone, it also tends to be fairly forgiving of mediocre rips and recordings and performs consistently across sources.
The presentation of the earphones matches up well with their sound signature. The soundstage is well-rounded but gives up some positioning precision to the Shure SE215. The SE215 also boasts a slightly wider space but yields a bit of depth and height to the realvoice. Tonally, the realvoice is a touch darker than the HiFiMan RE-ZERO and Sunrise Xcited but brighter than the SE215, Xcape IE, and Xears TD-III. Worth noting is that the well-rounded nature of the realvoice makes it very well-suited for movies and general use. I like to have a universal earphone in my laptop bag and the realvoice has been a great companion over the past few weeks.
Value (8/10) – Despite being Spider Cable’s very first attempt at tuning a portable audio device, the realvoice in-ear is an impressive all-around performer. Its balanced-yet-lively signature positions its sound quality fairly close to the best sets in the price bracket and the vertical-driver design yields surprisingly decent ergonomics and user-friendliness. The form factor is still far from ideal for active use and the passive noise isolation is average but on the whole there’s not much wrong with the realvoice as an alternative to the established segment leaders. It may not be the most impressive set from a technical standpoint but it provides a very enjoyable listen for not very much money.
Pros: Solid all-around performance, inline mic & 3-button remote standard
Cons: Large housings can be unwieldy
(2C40) Dunu DN-16 Hephaes
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Flagship dynamic-driver model from DUNU
Current Price: $95 from lendmeurears.com (MSRP: $99)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 16Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 10-20k Hz | Cable: 4’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: stock single-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (5/5) – Single-flange narrow-channel (3 sizes) and wide-channel (6 pairs in 3 sizes) silicone tips, bi-flange silicone tips, zippered carrying case, soft carrying pouch, cable guides, and integrated cable wrap
Build Quality (4.5/5) – As with all things Dunu, the construction quality is fantastic. The two-tone metal housings feature articulated flames and the finish is excellent all around. Like the Ares and Crius, the Hephaes features metal mesh filters, aluminum cable cinch and y-split, and a beefy right-angle plug. The cable again underwhelms just a bit, being a touch rubbery and stiff and featuring very short strain reliefs on housing entry
Isolation (4/5) – Very good for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Bothersome when worn cable-down; not an issue otherwise
Comfort (3.5/5) – The metal housings of the Hephaes are not small and a bit on the heavy side but still fit well, helped by the large eartip selection. One potential issue, interestingly, spans from the articulated flames, which have sharp edges and can irritate the outer ear after a while. Wearing them cord-up helps and is necessitated anyway by the microphonics
Sound (7.1/10) – The sound signature of the Hephaes is highly reminiscent of Dunu’s cheaper dynamic-driver model, the Trident. The bass is deep, punchy, and forward. The impact outpaces the rumble compared to the similarly bass-heavy Nuforce NE-700X and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE but there’s plenty of both. Like the Trident, the Hephaes will please bassheads without fully sacrificing fidelity in favor of its hefty low end. The bass could stand to be a touch quicker and, as with the Trident, does bleed up into the midrange a tiny bit but is still pleasant on the whole.
The midrange is warm and smooth but not as rich and liquid as that of the Trident. Instead it is drier and more crisp, which does help the clarity a little. Still, the clarity doesn’t quite do it for the price of the earphone and lags behind both the Fischer Audio Eterna and the Beyer DTX 101 iE, never mind the RE-ZERO and MEElec CC51. Detail retrieval is good but the note presentation is again just a bit too thick for my liking, hindering resolution slightly. The top end is smooth on the whole but takes less of a step back in comparison to the midrange than that of the Trident. Upper-end extension is good – the Dunu dynamics have no trouble covering the audible frequency spectrum.
The soundstage is average in size but the Hephaes takes advantage of the available space a bit better than the more intimate Trident does. It is still by no means wide-sounding or airy but the layering is good and elements are well-positioned. Unfortunately, the competition is also much stiffer in the DN-16’s price bracket. The Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE, for example, sounds more open, more airy, and more effortless than the Hephaes and the Sennheiser IE6 has a much larger soundstage. The slightly constrained dynamics of the Hephaes don’t do it any favors on the presentation front, either. The presentation should be satisfactory for most listeners but soundstage junkies will want to look elsewhere for their fix.
Value (7.5/10) – Offering mostly minor sound quality improvements over the cheaper DN-12 model, Dunu’s mid-range dynamic just doesn’t maintain the same bang/buck ratio with its barely-sub-$100 price tag. While I appreciate the unique styling and superb fit and finish of the earphones, the performance doesn’t really impress next to some of the competition from Spider, Xears, Brainwavz, Sunrise, and even Shure. The inoffensive sound signature of the DN-16 seems forced and sculpted and technical performance suffers as a result. As an overall package, the Hephaes is still good value for money but the price segment is a crowded one and Dunu’s much-cheaper Trident model is already good enough to compete. As it stands, the DN-16 simply isn’t as hot a deal as its appearance may indicate.
Pros: Very well-built; great attention to detail; well-accessorized; good isolation
Cons: Cable can be noisy when worn straight down; clarity lags behind segment leaders; not a huge upgrade from cheaper Trident model; may be uncomfortable for some
(2C41) Shure SE215
Reviewed Aug 2011
Details: Shure’s mid-range dynamic-driver earphone, featuring the same detachable cable system as the rest of the new lineup
Current Price: $100 from bhphotovideo.com (MSRP: $99.99); $40 more for Shure CBL-M+-K mic/remote accessory
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 20Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 22-17.5k Hz | Cable: 5.3’ L-plug
Nozzle Size: 2mm | Preferred tips: Shure gray flex, Shure Olives
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (4/5) – Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes), Olive foam tips (3 sizes), cleaning tool, and soft clamshell carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The design and build of the SE215 mimic Shure’s newly-redesigned flagship SE535. The plastic housings are complimented by a beefy detachable cable with a locking and swiveling connector. Sadly the defect rate on the cable connectors seems to be unusually high
Isolation (4.5/5) – As with most ergo-fit monitors, the SE215 isolates a lot with the included Olive and flex sleeves and even more with aftermarket triple-flanges
Microphonics (4.5/5) – The SE215 can only be worn cable-up and microphonics are nearly nonexistent
Comfort (3.5/5) – While the SE215 is ergonomically-designed, fairly small, and quite lightweight, it suffers from the same issue as the SE535 to an even larger degree - the cable connectors are big, bulky, and angled too far forward for my liking and the memory helps make the earphones more difficult to position comfortably. I’m sure they will be comfortable for many but I find the fit awkward compared to the similarly-shaped Westone monitors
Sound (7.7/10) – Up until a recent month-long trial of the SE530 and SE535, my experience with Shure’s earphones was limited to the old SE115, E3, and E4C models, every single of one of which failed to impress when the time came to gauge sound quality against asking price. Shure’s aging mid-range models simply weren’t keeping up with products from many of the smaller Hi-Fi brands so well-liked around Head-Fi. With the dynamic microdriver used in the SE215, however, things are different – Shure has seemingly decided to attack the competition head-on. Of course, the engineers realized that the $100 SE215 is likely also going to be the model most popular in consumer-oriented retail environments and gave it an impressively consumer-friendly sound signature to boot.
Clearly emphasized over ‘flat’, the bass of the SE215 is powerful and carries good depth and detail. From memory, the older mid-range Shure models I’ve tried all yield to the SE215 in bass quantity and impact. Impact is plentiful on the whole, though the SE215 is not quite a bass monster. Compared to the Spider Realvoice, for example, the low end of the SE215 is a touch punchier and more detailed but less lush-sounding and liquid. The bass is quite well-controlled compared to bass-heavy competitors such as the Xears TD-III but sounds flabby and slow next to more hi-fi sets such as the VSonic GR07 and Sunrise Xcape v1.
The midrange of the SE215 is slightly warm and a little dry. It is balanced well enough with the bass, avoiding the mid-forward presentation of Shure’s flagships. Compared to the Xears TD-III and N3i, too, the midrange of the SE215 lacks a bit of authority and forwardness. On the whole, it sounds smooth, textured, and detailed – definitely a strong suit of the earphone. The SE215 surpasses the Spider Realvoice in detail and can be compared favorably to the MEElec CC51, with the Shures coming across slightly thicker and less fluid and the CC51s sounding cleaner and crisper, but not as warm or fleshed-out. The upper midrange of the Shures reveals a bit of grain but nothing distracting or even unpleasant. Really, aside from the balance, the biggest concession of the SE215 to the top-tier SE535 is a complete lack of the open feel of the latter.
The lower treble of the SE215 is plentiful but the earphone rolls off slightly at the very top and runs out of steam even earlier than that – lack of upper-end resolution and refinement is slightly more noticeable than with the old SE530. Like the SE530, the SE215 lacks a bit of energy and sparkle and can sound dull with some material. What’s there, however, is clean and inoffensive, though the SE215 does lose more resolution still as things get busy. Sibilance and harshness are usually left out of the equation but the signature of the SE215 does seem to encourage higher-volume listening in order to extract all of the detail the earphones have to offer - a problem I don’t have with the similarly-priced HiFiMan and Sunrise in-ears.
The presentation of the SE215 is pleasant – reasonably wide and with a good overall sense of distance, space, and position. There less depth and height to the stage than with the Spider Realvoice or Xears N3i but the presentation is generally sufficient. The Xears and Spiders tend to be more enveloping and 3D-sounding but the SE215 is by no means flat. The only real limiting factor is a perceived lack of air resulting from the laid-back treble and the subsequently underwhelming imaging. Still, instrument separation is decent and it is doubtful many will be disappointed with the presentation considering the price of the earphones.
Value (8.5/10) – Perhaps Shure’s most competent mid-range model to date, the SE215 is a thoroughly modern earphone in every sense. Highly isolating for a dynamic-driver set and boasting a smooth and detailed sound signature with an emphasis on bass and mids, the SE215 is poised to be a high-value in the consumer market. However, there are a few issues aside from the dullness of the signature that may make potential buyers wary. One is the unusually high defect rate with early-batch units - Shure doesn’t seem to have all of the bugs of the cable connectors worked out quite yet although complaints about the higher-end SE535, which uses the same connectors, seem far less common. The other caveat has to do with the ergonomics – the stiff memory wire and bulky connectors can get in the way of achieving the perfect fit. Anyone willing to look past these potential issues will be rewarded by a surprisingly competent brand-name earphone at a price that’s almost too reasonable.
Pros: High isolation, solid sound quality with consumer-friendly signature
Cons: Detachable cable can be unwieldy, may be uncomfortable for some users, high initial defect rate in early batches
(2C42) HiSoundAudio Crystal
Reviewed Oct 2011
Details: First mid-range IEM from Hi-Fi DAP manufacturer HiSound
Current Price: est. $100 from frogbeats.com
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: N/A | Freq: 13-23k Hz | Cable: 3.8’ I-plug
Nozzle Size: 4.5mm | Preferred tips: Stock single-flanges; trimmed MEElec triple-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (2.5/5) – Assorted single-flange (3 sizes), Hybrid-style single-flange (3 sizes), and triple-flange (3 sizes) silicone eartips; shirt clip (note: hard clamshell carrying case is included by frogbeats)
Build Quality (4.5/5) – The Crystal may look like a miniature Nuforce NE-6 but it is quite well-constructed, with a 2-piece aluminum shell, rear-mounted strain reliefs, and a sturdy, internally-braided cable a-la ViSang. There is no cable cinch and the cable is terminated with an I-plug but on the whole these really feel like they will go the distance
Isolation (4.5/5) – Very good, especially with some longer aftermarket tips such as trimmed MEElec triple-flanges
Microphonics (3.5/5) – Not bad when worn cable-down; very low otherwise
Comfort (4.5/5) – The Crystal is one of the smallest straight-barrel dynamic-driver IEMs I’ve come across, rivaling the MEElec M11+, and is extremely easy to fit. The eartip selection is much more modest than with the MEEs and there’s no cable cinch but it is still easy to wear both cable-up and cable-down and remains comfortable for hours on end
Sound (8.2/10) – In some ways the sound of the Crystal reminds me of my first experience with the brand well over a year ago in the form of the PAA-1 earbuds. I liked the smooth and warm sound provided by the PAA-1, and I like the Crystal even better. The low end of the Crystal is emphasized but well-controlled, falling a bit above the Sunrise Xcape IE on the bass spectrum. There is no lack of presence but the Crystal is no bass cannon - competitors such as the Sennheiser IE6 and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE easily offer up more slam at the expense of sounding bloated and boomy next to the Crystal. While very punchy, the Crystal manages to strike a good balance between impact and control. The 7mm dynamic drivers used by the Crystal are quick and there is no bass bleed, yet most listeners should be pleased with the bass punch and weight the tiny earphone can deliver.
The midrange of the Crystal is recessed slightly next to the low end but not so much as to throw off the overall balance. It is warm and textured in moderation, with the overall refinement near but not quite at the top among earphones in its price range. The Crystal is no RE-ZERO when it comes to clarity and microdetail, either, but it performs better than most. Similarly, though smooth and pleasant, the sound is not quite as liquid as with the Xcape IE or Fischer Audio Tandem. Clearly it is not for those in search of an extremely crisp and analytical listening experience, nor will it please listeners in search of the most lush and seductive sound available. As a middle ground between the two, however, it works rather well.
The treble is reasonably crisp and prominent but usually remains smooth and ends up being a bit laid-back at the very top. There is a touch of grain but it is not particularly harsh or unpleasant. That said, it will reveal sibilance present in tracks, unlike the far more forgiving Xcape IE and Fischer Tandem. The presentation is not huge but it is nicely laid out with good separation and decent but not quite pinpoint-accurate positioning. In terms of size, the soundstage is not as large as with the VSonic GR07 or Sony EX600, nor is the sonic space as well-rounded as it is with the Xcape IE, but it competes well with the likes of the Shure SE215 and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE. The presentation is certainly more than good enough for the asking price but I wouldn’t recommend them on its strength alone. Rather, it is as an overall package that the sound of the Crystal makes sense – friendly towards both the mainstream listener and the audiophile with ample warmth and good overall balance but no overblown bass or analytical edge.
Value (9/10) – The HiSoundAudio Crystal is an impressive mid-level in-ear from a company that clearly focuses on more than just sound quality. Simply put, the earphones boast one of the best form factors among all dynamic-driver IEMs, offering excellent ergonomics, high levels of noise isolation, and a well thought-out construction. The performance, too, is nothing to be ashamed of, competing very well with consumer favorites such as the Shure SE215. It is possible to find something that sounds slightly better than the Crystal, especially with a particular sound signature in mind, but as an all-rounder this tiny in-ear is one of the better ones I’ve come across.
Pros: Small, lightweight, and comfortable; good isolation; very well-built; good overall sound quality
Cons: N/A
(2C43) Fischer Audio Consonance
Reviewed Oct 2011
Details: Bass-heavy mid-range earphone from Fischer Audio
Current Price: $64 from gd-audiobase.com (MSRP: $64)
Specs: Driver: Dynamic | Imp: 18Ω | Sens: 105 dB | Freq: 20-20k Hz | Cable: 4.1’ 45º-plug
Nozzle Size: 5mm | Preferred tips: Stock bi-flanges; stock single-flanges; generic bi-flanges
Wear Style: Straight down or over-the-ear
Accessories (3.5/5) – Single-flange (5 sizes), bi-flange, and tri-flange silicone tips; hard plastic carrying case
Build Quality (4/5) – The lightweight shells of the Consonance are plastic but seem like they will hold together well. The nozzle filters are metal and the strain reliefs are sturdy and yet flexible all around. As with the pricier Tandem model, the nylon-sheathed cables are somewhat tangle-prone
Isolation (3.5/5) – The Consonance is vented at the rear and can’t be inserted too deeply due to the large housings but still manages good isolation for a dynamic-driver earphone
Microphonics (3/5) – Bothersome when worn cord-down; good when worn cable-up. The lack of a shirt clip does not help
Comfort (4/5) – The straight-barrel housings are on the large side but the Consonance is lightweight and sounds fine with a shallow fit
Sound (7.6/10) – At the heart of the Consonance is bass, and plenty of it. In terms of low-end power the Consonance is similar to the famed Eterna. It is deep and powerful, elevated most in the mid-bass region and providing tons of impact on demand. Like that of the Eterna, the bass of the Consonance is neither the quickest nor most resolving but it is immensely enjoyable. There is slightly more mid-range bleed compared to the Eterna and a warmer overall sound. The Consonance also sounds a tad thicker and yet the midrange still remains fairly detailed and clean-sounding. The Eterna, as well as the thinner-sounding HiSound Crystal and Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE, all have the clarity of the Consonance beat by a hair but the latter two haven’t got as much bass to contend with. The Eterna, meanwhile, sounds a bit less lush and liquid than the Consonance.
The overall sound profile of the Consonance is slightly v-shaped, with a lot of bass lift and some treble emphasis. The Eterna is flatter through the mids and treble but lacks the sparkle of the newer model. Sparkle is a two-edged sword, however, and the Consonance is slightly more prone to harshness than the Eterna. In terms of presentation, the Consonance manages good width and very decent depth. Despite a tendency to be the warmer and more intimate counterpart to the more open-sounding and refined Eterna, the Consonance can almost match the soundstage size of the older model. It easily beats the Beyerdynamic DTX 101 iE in soundstaging proficiency and offers better front-to-rear and top-to-bottom space than the HiSound Crystal. Imaging is decent and instruments are well separated and properly layered. The high efficiency of the Consonance doesn’t hurt, either, and it’s not a picky earphone when it comes to sources. This is fun, carefree sound at its very best.
Value (8.5/10) – The Fischer Audio Consonance combines booming bass, warm mids, and a touch of top-end sparkle for a powerful, lively sound capable of competing with the renowned Eterna. The more conventional form factor of the Consonance, complete with a lightweight but durable shell and a soft, albeit microphonic, nylon cable makes them friendlier towards a larger portion of IEM users and the inclusion of a hard carrying case – a first for any Fischer model to fall into my hands – is very welcome (though the cable management system can be a bit time-consuming). All in all, the Consonance runs in the same vein as the Eterna and Panasonic HJE900 – fun first, accuracy second. The amazing thing is that by today’s standards, it is merely a very good earphone. Several years ago, this would have been a world beater at the asking price.
Pros: fun, bassy sound signature with few shortfalls
Cons: tangle-prone cable; microphonic when worn cord-down
(2C44) Audéo Phonak Perfect Bass 012
Reviewed Dec 2011
Details: Audéo's follow-up to the PFE model, promising a more consumer-friendly sound at a lower price point
Current Price: $99 from amazon.com (MSRP: $99); $119 for 022 with microphone
Specs: Driver: BA | Imp: 32Ω | Sens: 107 dB | Freq: 5-17k Hz | Cable: 3.8' I-plug
Nozzle Size: 3.5mm | Preferred tips: Jays single-flanges
Wear Style: Over-the-ear
Accessories (1/5) - Single-flange silicone tips (3 sizes)
Build Quality (4/5) - The plastic housings are just as lightweight as with the old model but the cable has reportedly been improved to prevent the cracking issues common in the first-gen PFE. The build is well thought-out and the cord is smooth and tangle-free
Isolation (3/5) - Isolation is a bit above average with the silicone tips
Microphonics (4.5/5) - Very low, partly because they must be worn over-the-ear
Comfort (4.5/5) - The housings are ergonomically-designed and light as a feather. Though neither foam tips nor cable guides are included with the PB, the earphones still simply disappear when worn. As with the old model, the design may prevent the single-flange tips from forming a deep enough seal for some users
Sound (8/10) - The only physical difference between the Perfect Bass and the older PFE model is in the nozzle-mounted acoustic filter - the 012 uses a new green-colored filter while the old PFE shipped with gray filters, which provided a more trebly sound, and black filters, which fleshed out the midrange a bit at the expense of some top-end sparkle and detail. The green filters offer a significantly different take on the Phonak sound signature - the bass, as promised, is markedly accentuated and the entire sound signature undergoes a subtle but noticeable shift. At the low end, the green filters offer sizeable impact - stereotypically light on rumble but well-extended and slightly soft of note for a single-BA setup. Out of the similarly-priced armature-based sets I've heard, only the Dunu Ares and Crius come to mind as bassier options.
The midrange is smooth and quite a bit warmer than that of the gray-filter PFEs. It tends to sound a bit veiled in comparison and the slight analytical edge that made the smoothness of the old PFEs so special is gone. Similarly, while the green-filtered Phonaks are still quite detailed, they are not at all aggressive in presenting the detail. The difference between them and the Etymotic HF5 is striking, with the Etys sounding much sharper, crisper, and more forward. The Phonaks, on the other hand, are very smooth and extremely non-fatiguing. Towards the top of the spectrum, the sparkle of the gray-filtered Phonaks is gone and so is some of the detail. The overall sound is a touch dark for me despite reasonably good treble extension. Similarly, while the new Phonaks are quite accurate, they just don't sound lively or energetic enough on the whole.
The presentation afforded by the green filter is similarly refined but not particularly impressive. The soundstage size is average or maybe even a bit below average - the gray filters sound more spacious to me. Separation is still good and imaging is sufficient, suffering slightly from the poorer resolution of the green filters. The biggest issue, however, is the sensitivity of the earphones which appears to be even lower with the green filters than it is with the gray ones. It just doesn't pick up detail as easily as some of the better earphones in the price range and isn't well-suited for those who prefer low listening volumes. With proper amplification it sounds a bit quicker and cleaner but, seeing as it clearly was meant to be used without an amp, I still feel that the low sensitivity will be an issue for some.
Value (8/10) - Phonak's first attempt at a sub-$100 earphone, the Perfect Bass, presents itself as a stripped-down, consumer-friendly version of the PFE at an attractive price point. The new green filters are surprisingly potent in changing the sound but much of the magic of the original PFEs is lost in the pursuit of bass and smoothness. With the improved cable, excellent long-term comfort, and low microphonics, the Perfect Bass is still worth the asking price but they don't quite preserve enough of the armature resolution and clarity of the PFEs to pull clear of dynamic-driver competitors such as the Sunrise Xcape IE. That said, they are pretty much unbeatable value as far as tunable IEMs go when purchased together with a set of the gray filters from the old PFE.
Pros: Comfortable; low microphonics; 2-year warranty
Cons: No accessories; gives up much of the wow factor of the PFE; lacks sensitivity
Thanks to monoglycer for the Phonak 012 loan!
Edited by ljokerl - 2/12/12 at 11:19pm
